If this was not true, would not IBM refute it or even simply not post rumor on their 'news' page? I know, this is reaching, but... can't help but feel optimistic.
[IBM news]We can't officially annouce that Apple will use this CPU but we can drop some heavy hints[/IBM news]
An official (or not ) annoucement from IBM of PowerMac GPuL would slay PowerMac G4 sales, so Apple probably want to hold it off as long as possible. Nice find
The purpose of using a high performance but low pincount bus like RapidIO and HT is to reduce the cost of manufacturing the motherboards. Sure Apple needs to spend the money developing the bridges and controllers but it does that anyway even with MPX. For example the sawtooth chipset-->Gb chipset-->133mhz bus chipset-->Xserve chipset all took major reworking of the basic chipset. To think that a motherboard 16/32 bit bus would be super expensive is being cynical. It will be as much or slightly more expensive than a modern board. Technology stumbles along but sometimes if lurched foward in huge bounds.
Supply and demand. If IBM can make millions of these chips in the first couple of months, then Apple might sell one for $1600. I tend to think it's going to take a while for supply to catch up with demand, and in order to stem the tide, Apple will have to sell an expensive machine, even if it costs less to produce than the dual 867 costs them right now.
Yes there will be plenty of R&D to recoup as the next Mobo architecture will be significantly different than todays UMA.
I don't doubt that GPUL might eventually be in the standard Powermacs but again eWeek mentions a G5 from Motorola and that is the dark horse here if true.
It'll probably take a 90nm GPUL before it comes down below $2000. At any rate a higher top end still allowes Apple to beef up the lower end without treading on the high ends coat tails.
I would have gone along with the crowd here had eWeek not mentioned the G5 at the end of the article. That's the monkeywrench. No one knows anything about this "mythical" G5 so we're all in the dark here.
<strong>Yes there will be plenty of R&D to recoup as the next Mobo architecture will be significantly different than todays UMA.
I don't doubt that GPUL might eventually be in the standard Powermacs but again eWeek mentions a G5 from Motorola and that is the dark horse here if true.
It'll probably take a 90nm GPUL before it comes down below $2000. At any rate a higher top end still allowes Apple to beef up the lower end without treading on the high ends coat tails.
I would have gone along with the crowd here had eWeek not mentioned the G5 at the end of the article. That's the monkeywrench. No one knows anything about this "mythical" G5 so we're all in the dark here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think the process the processor is made on will have any impact on whether it will be in a sub-$2000 machine or not. Ultimately we can figue out the price on Oct 15 when we find out how big in square mm this processor will be. Or you can think of it this way: IBM's 130nm process is mature to the point where they will have good experience and yeilds on it with out building the cost of a brand new process. If a new process is implimented then the cost will include bad yeilds (less chips mean supply<demand) and that means higher cost. I don't know also if IBM would charge extra to help in the cost of the new machinery to start out on the new process. This is unlikely though.
If this was not true, would not IBM refute it or even simply not post rumor on their 'news' page? I know, this is reaching, but... can't help but feel optimistic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Outsider, do you regularly visit the IBM news website? If so, have you ever known them to link to articles concerning inside information or rumors?? Just curious if certain net news sites are allowed to submit articles to IBM without much review??
If this was reviewed by an IBM employee before approval, you would think it wouldn't have made to their website, right???
I did reference the IBM URL over at ArsTechnica and credited you, hope you don't mind.
If this was not true, would not IBM refute it or even simply not post rumor on their 'news' page? I know, this is reaching, but... can't help but feel optimistic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
WOW, why would they have this article on their site if they weren't working with Apple. OK OK, don't get excited Dave..
Not to rain on anyone's parade but this is linked to the Linux section of IBM's website. As we all know, IBM is a huge organization, with many other smaller organizations inside it. It may be that IBM department know as much as we do about IBM microprocessor plans or it might be that they are fully disclosed on their plans since it same somewhat to do with the plans for that machine. My assumption is that they are somewhere in between.
Or it could just be someone working in IBM's press office gathering any and all mentions of IBM from the media and regurgitating it willy-nilly... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>Or it could just be someone working in IBM's press office gathering any and all mentions of IBM from the media and regurgitating it willy-nilly... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
If this was not true, would not IBM refute it or even simply not post rumor on their 'news' page? I know, this is reaching, but... can't help but feel optimistic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think it's interesting they catalogue all press they get, but they also have articles on there from the Register, which is a great, funny site, but hardly known for its journalistic prowess.
Anyway, I'm a believer. GPUL in powermac pro workstations and motorola G5s in the powermacs.
Well I see the next generation from Motorola as inevitable. The built in bottlenecks that have hampered Apple systems using the G3 & G4 must be overcome to make Apple Pi functional in Motorola processors, so I see a new generation from them just to meet these needs.
With the also inevitable die shrink, Motorola will call these G5's even if they are 7470's on a 13 nm scale. Bring them on! Then drop them down to the TiBook, and ultimately into the consumer line when the GPUL is implemented.
"The postponed launch of the K8-core processors is indeed due to problems in the back-end verification of SOI technology and minor changes in processor design. The new 64-bit K8 processors would definitely be launched in the first quarter of 2003 and volume shipments would be available in the second quarter of next year. AMD is also planning to introduce the 64-bit K8 processors into the mainstream desktop market, where prices are set at US$999 on average, by the end of 2003. The Barton-core processors, which will also adopt the SOI manufacturing technology, will hit the market in the first quarter of 2003 as well. AMD has decided to outsource production its 0.13-process K7 products to UMC in 2003 not by the end of this year as the market previously expected."
From the vr-zone.
$999 systems. So, yeah. The 'GPUL' won't be in 'power'Macs? Think again.
All this crap about 64 bit for Apple uberworkstations only is misleading hyperbole from iceo wannaabeeees.
I don't see any 'G5' from Motorola. They've struggled with the G4 since its inception.
A Motorola Canadian rep' said that a G5 for desktop was 'nowhere on its radar'. And that appeared in some Macworld story a while, I think.
We may get one last .13 iteration on better architecture...before its packed off into retirement in the consumer line. Good riddance too. It's old already. A .13 increase buys the G4 the 'death throw' for its overdue stay in the 'power'Mac range.
It'll be time for the 'GPUL' next Summer. A processor (God willing) the 'power'Mac deserves.
Comments
<a href="http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/viewtypes_linkType~1:type~Type:typeId~2_ 4_1_2.shtml" target="_blank">http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/viewtypes_linkType~1:type~Type:typeId~2_ 4_1_2.shtml</a>
If this was not true, would not IBM refute it or even simply not post rumor on their 'news' page? I know, this is reaching, but... can't help but feel optimistic.
An official (or not
edit for spelling
[ 09-26-2002: Message edited by: Outsider ]</p>
I don't doubt that GPUL might eventually be in the standard Powermacs but again eWeek mentions a G5 from Motorola and that is the dark horse here if true.
It'll probably take a 90nm GPUL before it comes down below $2000. At any rate a higher top end still allowes Apple to beef up the lower end without treading on the high ends coat tails.
I would have gone along with the crowd here had eWeek not mentioned the G5 at the end of the article. That's the monkeywrench. No one knows anything about this "mythical" G5 so we're all in the dark here.
<strong>Yes there will be plenty of R&D to recoup as the next Mobo architecture will be significantly different than todays UMA.
I don't doubt that GPUL might eventually be in the standard Powermacs but again eWeek mentions a G5 from Motorola and that is the dark horse here if true.
It'll probably take a 90nm GPUL before it comes down below $2000. At any rate a higher top end still allowes Apple to beef up the lower end without treading on the high ends coat tails.
I would have gone along with the crowd here had eWeek not mentioned the G5 at the end of the article. That's the monkeywrench. No one knows anything about this "mythical" G5 so we're all in the dark here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think the process the processor is made on will have any impact on whether it will be in a sub-$2000 machine or not. Ultimately we can figue out the price on Oct 15 when we find out how big in square mm this processor will be. Or you can think of it this way: IBM's 130nm process is mature to the point where they will have good experience and yeilds on it with out building the cost of a brand new process. If a new process is implimented then the cost will include bad yeilds (less chips mean supply<demand) and that means higher cost. I don't know also if IBM would charge extra to help in the cost of the new machinery to start out on the new process. This is unlikely though.
<strong>
If this was not true, would not IBM refute it or even simply not post rumor on their 'news' page? I know, this is reaching, but... can't help but feel optimistic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Outsider, do you regularly visit the IBM news website? If so, have you ever known them to link to articles concerning inside information or rumors?? Just curious if certain net news sites are allowed to submit articles to IBM without much review??
If this was reviewed by an IBM employee before approval, you would think it wouldn't have made to their website, right???
I did reference the IBM URL over at ArsTechnica and credited you, hope you don't mind.
[ 09-26-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
<strong>From IBM's site:
<a href="http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/viewtypes_linkType~1:type~Type:typeId~2_ 4_1_2.shtml" target="_blank">http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/viewtypes_linkType~1:type~Type:typeId~2_ 4_1_2.shtml</a>
If this was not true, would not IBM refute it or even simply not post rumor on their 'news' page? I know, this is reaching, but... can't help but feel optimistic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
WOW, why would they have this article on their site if they weren't working with Apple. OK OK, don't get excited Dave..
Can't help it, WHOO HOO!
<strong>Or it could just be someone working in IBM's press office gathering any and all mentions of IBM from the media and regurgitating it willy-nilly... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's what I'm afraid of. But it is likely.
<strong>
That's what I'm afraid of. But it is likely.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, more than likely it's an RSS feed from several sites, run through a Perl script to fish for "IBM"
....Hmm. I wonder if I can make NewsWire Lite do something similar
<strong>From IBM's site:
<a href="http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/viewtypes_linkType~1:type~Type:typeId~2_ 4_1_2.shtml" target="_blank">http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/viewtypes_linkType~1:type~Type:typeId~2_ 4_1_2.shtml</a>
If this was not true, would not IBM refute it or even simply not post rumor on their 'news' page? I know, this is reaching, but... can't help but feel optimistic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think it's interesting they catalogue all press they get, but they also have articles on there from the Register, which is a great, funny site, but hardly known for its journalistic prowess.
Anyway, I'm a believer. GPUL in powermac pro workstations and motorola G5s in the powermacs.
Guess we'll see soon enough!
;D
<strong>
Anyway, I'm a believer. GPUL in powermac pro workstations and motorola G5s in the powermacs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Waiting for a G5 desktop processor from Motorola is an awful lot like waiting for Godot...
<strong>
Waiting for a G5 desktop processor from Motorola is an awful lot like waiting for Godot...
So Moki, in the Play, did Godot ever show up?
.
With the also inevitable die shrink, Motorola will call these G5's even if they are 7470's on a 13 nm scale. Bring them on! Then drop them down to the TiBook, and ultimately into the consumer line when the GPUL is implemented.
From the vr-zone.
$999 systems. So, yeah. The 'GPUL' won't be in 'power'Macs? Think again.
All this crap about 64 bit for Apple uberworkstations only is misleading hyperbole from iceo wannaabeeees.
I don't see any 'G5' from Motorola. They've struggled with the G4 since its inception.
A Motorola Canadian rep' said that a G5 for desktop was 'nowhere on its radar'. And that appeared in some Macworld story a while, I think.
We may get one last .13 iteration on better architecture...before its packed off into retirement in the consumer line. Good riddance too. It's old already. A .13 increase buys the G4 the 'death throw' for its overdue stay in the 'power'Mac range.
It'll be time for the 'GPUL' next Summer. A processor (God willing) the 'power'Mac deserves.
That's when I'm getting my cash out.
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 09-27-2002: Message edited by: Kecksy ]</p>