I don't think IBM will supply their Power4 chips for the Mac. The key issue here is the cost. Power requirements and heat dissipation will also lead to design problems. Even if they license Altivec from Motorola, I don't think Apple can afford to use it. The best bet is still on Motorola. It seems to me clockspeed are the not major factor of concern but rather, that turtle system bus draws the most concern. No matter what Altivec can do, if the bus is slow, the processor will just have to sit there for those endless cycle before it can do anything. Process speed to bus ratio has lengthed to 7.5 to 1 for Apollo. So lets say we continue to get speed bump, the processor will have to wait longer to get the data in. What a waste? Those L2 and L3 are great but they are data that are frequently used and they still have to be fed by the system bus at the beginning. Now graphics hardware demands more, and HD and other connecting buses such as Firwire and USB are getting speed boost, if system bus doesn't get a boost, the performance boost to the overall system will be severely limited to the system bus itself. If thats the case, forget AGP 8X and Gigawire and USB2 because that turtle bus can't keep up, so even if Moto continues to keep the same pipeline depth, and rev it up to 2 GHZ, your Mac will still be a turtle. What the promac needs is a faster bus, and slight increase in pipeline depth. I think Motorola can do that, they already rolled out G5 embedded solution. G5 main architecture change according to the roadmap is a die shrink and new bus, couple with new pipelines. I believe that is what Steve is going to roll out in a week time.
My guess is that they will still be low-power, or relatively low-power. Entry-level servers == blade servers, where heat dissapation and power consumption are a concern. Not as much of a concern as embedded, but you won't be cooking eggs on the thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, if they can make an 8 way processor that "breaks through compute intensive barriers" low-power as well, more power to them, I say. But I don't think so.
The first thing IBM, or any other embedded processor company really, does to make low-power chips is to cut down the number of execution units. I've yet to hear of an embedded processor with two FPUs. It looks like they're going all-out for performance on this one. 'Bout time!!
[quote]I don't think IBM will supply their Power4 chips for the Mac. The key issue here is the cost. Power requirements and heat dissipation will also lead to design problems. Even if they license Altivec from Motorola, I don't think Apple can afford to use it. <hr></blockquote>
Uhh... The processor being discussed here is not the Power4, it's a PPC based on the Power4, geared towards "desktops and entry level servers". Certainly sounds like Apple might be interested in that, don't you think?
Actually, there have been several machines between the 8600 and these next-next-next generation ones, that will run OSX. You could have purchased one of those. And if those aren't good enough, buy one of the new ones coming out in the next month or so.
There will ALWAYS be bleeding-edge, early design stage stuff we'll hear about, that's faster than anything we can actually buy. It doesn't mean the stuff we can buy isn't worth buying, just because the bleeding-edge stuff is coming eventually.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm in a better position than sc, since in addition to my 8600, I have an iBook 466. However, my 8600 is still my main machine, mainly due to screen size, so I feel for sc. My 8600 is going to be five years old, and I would love to have OS X on the desktop. And while there are many capable machines out there one could purchase, why not look instead at the logic of the situation?
As another poster opined, anyone who bought a G4 early on or at the half way point in its progression, they made a good purchase. The reason is the G4 didn't progress all that far - an increase of 500MHz with a loss of IPC efficiency. Now when I bought my 8600 to replace my Quadra 650, my 8600 had a more efficient processor with nearly ten times the clock speed. If Apple had made the same strides with the G4 that it made between my 650 and my 8600, we would have multi-GHz G4s right now.
Yet, as the MHz gap turned into a GHz gap, Mac users woke to the unfortunate truth that the G4 is woefully inadequate. Now IBM has just announced a chip that promises to blow the G4 away, a leap that should even dwarf the comparative difference between my 650 and 8600. Realize we're not simply talking about moving from a G4 @1000MHz to a G4 @1200MHz (which is probably all we'll get in the short term). We're talking instead about a huge leap in technology. The G4 has been holding Apple back; it will be dwarfed by this modern IBM chip. With this in mind, who could contemplate buying one of Apple's current desktop offerings? If Apple is going to use this new IBM line (and that's probably the only plausible inference to draw), then I'm waiting for the new POWER Macs, even if they're another year off or beyond.
[quote]Originally posted by tiramisubomb:
<strong>I don't think IBM will supply their Power4 chips for the Mac. The key issue here is the cost. Power requirements and heat dissipation will also lead to design problems.
[SNIP]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you may have overlooked the basis of this particular thread. From what we know now, I believe the IBM G5 is practically guaranteed.
I know that somehow Apple itself states that Altivec has 160 instructions; on the other hand, EETimes claimed <a href="http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/apple/TWB19980513S0018"; target="_blank">"here" </a> that it added 162 instructions. Interesting to note that Apple *did* have *quite* a hand in designing Altivec and made a strong commitment to it, at least according to this article (I'm thinking of the Apple+x86 rumors here). I also love the quote that Altivec wasn't just "some tacky little add-on to the chip" by Keith Diefendorff; I wonder what he means by that? <Irony> Maybe </Irony> "Intel's much-publicized" *cough* MMX *cough* ?
Wow, I'm so excited, almost diregarding whether those new chips will show up very soon or later; seems like the PowerPC division at IBM has finally wrung free from the suffocating hands of the declining PC division and goes on to let the PowerPC shine in public, i.e. on its desks as opposed to dark gloomy server dungeons - please interrupt if I should start to wax lyrical here
Well, if G5 is a version based on Power 4/5, it will be very interesting, but I still think G5 is probably going to come from Motorola. I believe both IBM and Motorola can offer a build to order option for Apple so that SJ can choose what features to add on.
<strong>Well, if G5 is a version based on Power 4/5, it will be very interesting, but I still think G5 is probably going to come from Motorola. I believe both IBM and Motorola can offer a build to order option for Apple so that SJ can choose what features to add on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We just had a breakthrough announcement about new 64 bit IBM PPCs aimed at the desktop and entry server markets, based on the Power4 with a vector processor that sounds remarkably like Altivec. On the other hand, the only thing Motorola has announced concerning the G5 is its embedded line. There's nothing currently announced from Motorola even hinting at a desktop G5. To the contrary, we've heard rumblings that Apple axed any G5 plans it had with Motorola. I'm certainly sympathetic to the skeptic view, but I think it's time to go with the preponderance of the evidence.
"Speaking of which, Buh Bye Moto-scro-la. Rat bastards."
Why...Moogs...you sound...almost...bitter?
So it seems IBM will give us the true 'G5' next generation PPC. That much looks obvious now. The question is 'when'. It looks like it could be this time next year, folks.
I think we'll just get a '1.8 G4' on Rio in the meantime...for Macworld San Francisco.
This chip will be 7470 stretched even further or the 7500? Probably the latter my guess.
Which won't be a bad performer...it will just have the crap beaten out of it by IBM's 'G5'.
Now? 7470 1.4 G4s on DDR/BUS/Mobo...
Moto's G4s will filter into the consumer line over the next year or so.
Where does it say "velocity engine?" It does say "vector unit," and Altivec/Velocity Engine IS a vector unit. Altivec/Velocity Engine is a vector unit, but not all vector units are Altivec/Velocity Engine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Take a wild guess as to what this means. It's as simple as adding 1+1.
BTW, "Velocity Engine" is Apple's term for the instruction set. Altivec is Motorola's term for their implementation of the instruction set. When IBM implements the same thing, Apple can still use Velocity Engine.
<strong>I don't think IBM will supply their Power4 chips for the Mac. The key issue here is the cost. Power requirements and heat dissipation will also lead to design problems. Even if they license Altivec from Motorola, I don't think Apple can afford to use it. <snip>.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Others have pointed out: this is not a power4, but a powerpc based on a power4.
Also, I believe Apple has full (free) rights to the velocity engine instuction set. They would be stupid not to. Motorola probably has rights to their implementation of that instruction set (Altivec), but there's nothing preventing Apple from having IBM implement the same thing.
CAN it even be used on a NON x86 architecture?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. nVidia would have to do a special version for Apple. But $$$ is a big motivator.
However, if you take the Macintosh reference from the nforce2 description and combine it with the statement from nVidia's CEO about the nVidia graphics on Macs, it adds up to a good probability that there's a partnership here. Using the nforce2 (one implementation anyway) would put a gforce4mx on every mac. I know most others discard this nforce rumor stuff, but I'll stake my reputation as a newbie to this forum that it's accurate.
<strong>I believe both IBM and Motorola can offer a build to order option for Apple so that SJ can choose what features to add on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Never happen. Neither IBM nor Motorola would ever develop a new processor in the hopes that Apple would use it. Speed bumps, yes. A new processor which would mean a significant amount of reworking at Apple? No. This isn't like the peecee market where Intel and AMD can come out with a new processor and be guaranteed that enough companies will buy it to cover the development cost.
For something like this, Apple is probably giving them a guarantee of purchasing a certain amount over a certain time. Either that or they?re picking up the tab for a big chunk of the development costs.
I don't understand why there should be a difference between IBM's chip being "a Power4", and it being "a PPC based on Power4" - after all, Power4's two kernels ARE PPC kernels, right?
<strong>I don't understand why there should be a difference between IBM's chip being "a Power4", and it being "a PPC based on Power4" - after all, Power4's two kernels ARE PPC kernels, right?
It's all a little too nicely wraped up, and pretty for me. I'm not going to bite.
I've seen Mac fanatics go ape, and even become hostile before when their predicted imaginary products don't show up. Then they have the balls to blame everybody accept themselvs. And they say stuff like "Where's my Power 4 derived PPC G5?"
<strong>I don't understand why there should be a difference between IBM's chip being "a Power4", and it being "a PPC based on Power4" - after all, Power4's two kernels ARE PPC kernels, right?
As IBM hasn't released the technical details of this new chip yet, one can only speculate about the specifics.
However, others have correctly pointed out that Apple is unlikely to use the Power4 because of its cost and heat. It has HUGE amounts of cache that would be nice, but the average consumer wouldn't be willing to pay for.
Another way to look at it might be Power4 lite + velocity engine.
<strong>It's all a little too nicely wraped up, and pretty for me. I'm not going to bite.
I've seen Mac fanatics go ape, and even become hostile before when their predicted imaginary products don't show up. Then they have the balls to blame everybody accept themselvs. And they say stuff like "Where's my Power 4 derived PPC G5?"
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know, I don't think Mac fanatics care one way or another whether it has a Power4 or any other specific piece of hardware. What they're looking for is SPEED. Lots and lots and lots of SPEED. They don't care if that speed comes from a Power4, a G4+++, a G3+++++++, nVidia, AMD, or whatever. (With the possible exception of anything Intel.) Give them SPEED and they'll be happy.
Seeing these little trickles of technical info simply give them hope that SPEED is just around the corner.
Well, IBM has NOT been any great contributor to the PPC. They ***NEVER*** had any G3 running faster than equivalent G4's over the past 2 and a half years.
They talked up a nice game, but they didn't produce anything. If you go back they originally talked about Sahara **with a VPU** starting at 1Ghz and it was to already have reached 2Ghz. Then the actual chip arrived and it had no VPU and it started at 600Mhz and only reaches 800Mhz, with 1Ghz coming? VPU and 2GHz??? The story/projections then changed to say we can expect those things in LATE 2003!!!
SO, given IBM's track record, even if they start talking about a 64bit VPU equipped PPC, it might be as much as 2 years before you see it.
Don't get too excited too fast. As far as PPC goes IBM has sucked siphilitic monkey balls even harder than Moto has.
Comments
<strong>
Easy for you to say, you probably have a G4. I've had this 8600 for 5 years. I can't relax. And, I can't run OS X.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, you can....well kinda slowly, but I'm running it on my 9600/350, and it's actually quicker than it was on my Wallstreet.
<strong>
My guess is that they will still be low-power, or relatively low-power. Entry-level servers == blade servers, where heat dissapation and power consumption are a concern. Not as much of a concern as embedded, but you won't be cooking eggs on the thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, if they can make an 8 way processor that "breaks through compute intensive barriers" low-power as well, more power to them, I say. But I don't think so.
The first thing IBM, or any other embedded processor company really, does to make low-power chips is to cut down the number of execution units. I've yet to hear of an embedded processor with two FPUs. It looks like they're going all-out for performance on this one. 'Bout time!!
Uhh... The processor being discussed here is not the Power4, it's a PPC based on the Power4, geared towards "desktops and entry level servers". Certainly sounds like Apple might be interested in that, don't you think?
<strong>
Actually, there have been several machines between the 8600 and these next-next-next generation ones, that will run OSX. You could have purchased one of those. And if those aren't good enough, buy one of the new ones coming out in the next month or so.
There will ALWAYS be bleeding-edge, early design stage stuff we'll hear about, that's faster than anything we can actually buy. It doesn't mean the stuff we can buy isn't worth buying, just because the bleeding-edge stuff is coming eventually.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm in a better position than sc, since in addition to my 8600, I have an iBook 466. However, my 8600 is still my main machine, mainly due to screen size, so I feel for sc. My 8600 is going to be five years old, and I would love to have OS X on the desktop. And while there are many capable machines out there one could purchase, why not look instead at the logic of the situation?
As another poster opined, anyone who bought a G4 early on or at the half way point in its progression, they made a good purchase. The reason is the G4 didn't progress all that far - an increase of 500MHz with a loss of IPC efficiency. Now when I bought my 8600 to replace my Quadra 650, my 8600 had a more efficient processor with nearly ten times the clock speed. If Apple had made the same strides with the G4 that it made between my 650 and my 8600, we would have multi-GHz G4s right now.
Yet, as the MHz gap turned into a GHz gap, Mac users woke to the unfortunate truth that the G4 is woefully inadequate. Now IBM has just announced a chip that promises to blow the G4 away, a leap that should even dwarf the comparative difference between my 650 and 8600. Realize we're not simply talking about moving from a G4 @1000MHz to a G4 @1200MHz (which is probably all we'll get in the short term). We're talking instead about a huge leap in technology. The G4 has been holding Apple back; it will be dwarfed by this modern IBM chip. With this in mind, who could contemplate buying one of Apple's current desktop offerings? If Apple is going to use this new IBM line (and that's probably the only plausible inference to draw), then I'm waiting for the new POWER Macs, even if they're another year off or beyond.
[quote]Originally posted by tiramisubomb:
<strong>I don't think IBM will supply their Power4 chips for the Mac. The key issue here is the cost. Power requirements and heat dissipation will also lead to design problems.
[SNIP]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you may have overlooked the basis of this particular thread.
[ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: Big Mac ]</p>
<strong>
I thought you said you had to get some sleep. ...
michael</strong><hr></blockquote>
... I passed out on the desk - no, not really
I was just too excited to go to sleep after I had read the anouncement...
Actually, We also seem to like staying up late night, over there in La Coruna, aren't We?
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>162 instructions in AltiVec? I thought it was 160...
<a href="http://developer.apple.com/hardware/ve/detail.html"; target="_blank">http://developer.apple.com/hardware/ve/detail.html</a>;
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know that somehow Apple itself states that Altivec has 160 instructions; on the other hand, EETimes claimed <a href="http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/apple/TWB19980513S0018"; target="_blank">"here" </a> that it added 162 instructions. Interesting to note that Apple *did* have *quite* a hand in designing Altivec and made a strong commitment to it, at least according to this article (I'm thinking of the Apple+x86 rumors here). I also love the quote that Altivec wasn't just "some tacky little add-on to the chip" by Keith Diefendorff; I wonder what he means by that?
Wow, I'm so excited, almost diregarding whether those new chips will show up very soon or later; seems like the PowerPC division at IBM has finally wrung free from the suffocating hands of the declining PC division and goes on to let the PowerPC shine in public, i.e. on its desks as opposed to dark gloomy server dungeons - please interrupt if I should start to wax lyrical here
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: heinzel ]</p>
<strong>Well, if G5 is a version based on Power 4/5, it will be very interesting, but I still think G5 is probably going to come from Motorola. I believe both IBM and Motorola can offer a build to order option for Apple so that SJ can choose what features to add on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We just had a breakthrough announcement about new 64 bit IBM PPCs aimed at the desktop and entry server markets, based on the Power4 with a vector processor that sounds remarkably like Altivec. On the other hand, the only thing Motorola has announced concerning the G5 is its embedded line. There's nothing currently announced from Motorola even hinting at a desktop G5. To the contrary, we've heard rumblings that Apple axed any G5 plans it had with Motorola. I'm certainly sympathetic to the skeptic view, but I think it's time to go with the preponderance of the evidence.
[ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: Big Mac ]</p>
Why...Moogs...you sound...almost...bitter?
So it seems IBM will give us the true 'G5' next generation PPC. That much looks obvious now. The question is 'when'. It looks like it could be this time next year, folks.
I think we'll just get a '1.8 G4' on Rio in the meantime...for Macworld San Francisco.
This chip will be 7470 stretched even further or the 7500? Probably the latter my guess.
Which won't be a bad performer...it will just have the crap beaten out of it by IBM's 'G5'.
Now? 7470 1.4 G4s on DDR/BUS/Mobo...
Moto's G4s will filter into the consumer line over the next year or so.
Not a bad future then. Good enough.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
Where does it say "velocity engine?" It does say "vector unit," and Altivec/Velocity Engine IS a vector unit. Altivec/Velocity Engine is a vector unit, but not all vector units are Altivec/Velocity Engine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Take a wild guess as to what this means. It's as simple as adding 1+1.
BTW, "Velocity Engine" is Apple's term for the instruction set. Altivec is Motorola's term for their implementation of the instruction set. When IBM implements the same thing, Apple can still use Velocity Engine.
<strong>I don't think IBM will supply their Power4 chips for the Mac. The key issue here is the cost. Power requirements and heat dissipation will also lead to design problems. Even if they license Altivec from Motorola, I don't think Apple can afford to use it. <snip>.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Others have pointed out: this is not a power4, but a powerpc based on a power4.
Also, I believe Apple has full (free) rights to the velocity engine instuction set. They would be stupid not to. Motorola probably has rights to their implementation of that instruction set (Altivec), but there's nothing preventing Apple from having IBM implement the same thing.
<strong>"question about the nforce2 chipset.
CAN it even be used on a NON x86 architecture?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. nVidia would have to do a special version for Apple. But $$$ is a big motivator.
However, if you take the Macintosh reference from the nforce2 description and combine it with the statement from nVidia's CEO about the nVidia graphics on Macs, it adds up to a good probability that there's a partnership here. Using the nforce2 (one implementation anyway) would put a gforce4mx on every mac. I know most others discard this nforce rumor stuff, but I'll stake my reputation as a newbie to this forum that it's accurate.
<strong>I believe both IBM and Motorola can offer a build to order option for Apple so that SJ can choose what features to add on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Never happen. Neither IBM nor Motorola would ever develop a new processor in the hopes that Apple would use it. Speed bumps, yes. A new processor which would mean a significant amount of reworking at Apple? No. This isn't like the peecee market where Intel and AMD can come out with a new processor and be guaranteed that enough companies will buy it to cover the development cost.
For something like this, Apple is probably giving them a guarantee of purchasing a certain amount over a certain time. Either that or they?re picking up the tab for a big chunk of the development costs.
What are the technical differences?
engpjp
[ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: engpjp ]</p>
<strong>I don't understand why there should be a difference between IBM's chip being "a Power4", and it being "a PPC based on Power4" - after all, Power4's two kernels ARE PPC kernels, right?
What are the technical differences?
engpjp
[ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: engpjp ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
PowerPC is a subfamily of the POWER CPU and Current PPC G3-750FX and G4 are based on POWER 3, if I remember correctly.
Aw
I've seen Mac fanatics go ape, and even become hostile before when their predicted imaginary products don't show up. Then they have the balls to blame everybody accept themselvs. And they say stuff like "Where's my Power 4 derived PPC G5?"
As if?
<strong>I don't understand why there should be a difference between IBM's chip being "a Power4", and it being "a PPC based on Power4" - after all, Power4's two kernels ARE PPC kernels, right?
What are the technical differences?
engpjp
[ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: engpjp ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
As IBM hasn't released the technical details of this new chip yet, one can only speculate about the specifics.
However, others have correctly pointed out that Apple is unlikely to use the Power4 because of its cost and heat. It has HUGE amounts of cache that would be nice, but the average consumer wouldn't be willing to pay for.
Another way to look at it might be Power4 lite + velocity engine.
<strong>It's all a little too nicely wraped up, and pretty for me. I'm not going to bite.
I've seen Mac fanatics go ape, and even become hostile before when their predicted imaginary products don't show up. Then they have the balls to blame everybody accept themselvs. And they say stuff like "Where's my Power 4 derived PPC G5?"
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know, I don't think Mac fanatics care one way or another whether it has a Power4 or any other specific piece of hardware. What they're looking for is SPEED. Lots and lots and lots of SPEED. They don't care if that speed comes from a Power4, a G4+++, a G3+++++++, nVidia, AMD, or whatever. (With the possible exception of anything Intel.) Give them SPEED and they'll be happy.
Seeing these little trickles of technical info simply give them hope that SPEED is just around the corner.
They talked up a nice game, but they didn't produce anything. If you go back they originally talked about Sahara **with a VPU** starting at 1Ghz and it was to already have reached 2Ghz. Then the actual chip arrived and it had no VPU and it started at 600Mhz and only reaches 800Mhz, with 1Ghz coming? VPU and 2GHz??? The story/projections then changed to say we can expect those things in LATE 2003!!!
SO, given IBM's track record, even if they start talking about a 64bit VPU equipped PPC, it might be as much as 2 years before you see it.
Don't get too excited too fast. As far as PPC goes IBM has sucked siphilitic monkey balls even harder than Moto has.
[ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>