Apple insider is now reporting it as a System on a chip delivery, and that last guy just posted a link to a sudden shift for Apple having a Palm type device. Everybody knows SJ says no handhelds.
This looks like a bad dream about to happen. People are going to start believing these rumors, and then start their rabid infested complaints once they figure out these products don't exist.
I think these rumors are started by the competition to make Apple lose customers.
And is that wasn't enough Alias is going to be bought away from SGI now by an independent investment company. Which will mean I will be buying my first PC soon, and leaving the Mac. That 3% market share is getting smaller by the second. Apple looks so good at times, but then BLAM! it's in a state of ruin.
wait, what?
there are rumors about Apple that people believe therefore you are buying a PC?
Well, the Electronic News article seems to have been pulled. Not sure what that means.
I dunno what it means either but you're quite right... Even using the search engine turned up nothing. Hmmm could this be something (more than just the 90nm 970 going into the xServe) after all?
If you read the article, which can't be quoted anymore, it leaves me with the impression that the item they are talking about is not the 970. I think it would be a stretch for IBM to consider the 970 a SOC or even an ASIC. So this leaves us with few alternative explanations other than an actual reference to an SOC.
If it was a reference to the 90nm 970, I'm not sure why the article would have been pulled. The chip has been announced and Apple is expected to ship roduct very soon based on this platform. So I suspect that this SOC is for something else. Obviously I don't know what that is, but I can see such hardware making an excellent laptop!
Thanks
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveGee
I dunno what it means either but you're quite right... Even using the search engine turned up nothing. Hmmm could this be something (more than just the 90nm 970 going into the xServe) after all?
... So I suspect that this SOC is for something else. Obviously I don't know what that is,...
I seem to remember reading something about the next generation of X-Box consoles using a PPC 970. Could these be for them? Microsoft could have conceivably wanted that article pulled if that was the case.
There sure is a lot of furor over that little statement by the IBMer... if you ask me has is simply saying that they are now delivering to Apple their latest intergrated system controller, built on the 90 nm process. We already know that they built the G5's original system controller on IBM's 130 nm process, and there is a fair amount of evidence that the machine was speed limited by heat issues in the system controller. By moving to the 90 nm process Apple can likely build a controller which keeps up with the 970FX. They may have also integrated more components into one part, but so far there is no evidence of that.
There sure is a lot of furor over that little statement by the IBMer... if you ask me has is simply saying that they are now delivering to Apple their latest intergrated system controller, built on the 90 nm process. We already know that they built the G5's original system controller on IBM's 130 nm process, and there is a fair amount of evidence that the machine was speed limited by heat issues in the system controller. By moving to the 90 nm process Apple can likely build a controller which keeps up with the 970FX. They may have also integrated more components into one part, but so far there is no evidence of that.
Seeing as the quote was made by the ASCI Division Manager, seems like you're right along with other people in this thread saying the same thing.
Question though, a couple of people have posted that they, their company at least, have already received G5 xServes, presumably with the 970FX, wouldn't this mean the initial run of xServers were using a 0.13µm controller, or were they made with initial non-production run parts. After all Mr. Manner did say they were just now starting to ship production run 0.09µm SOC parts.
Sorry for the run on sentence, but I wasn't an English major.
About a few weeks ago, there was a lot of buzz about Microsoft having G5's in house for XBox NEXT testing. It will be interesting to see if that ever plays out.
I've heard dates anywhere from late this year to 2006...although every passing day brings new information to the table, i'm pointing for mid-2005 announces, with a christmas roll-out.
Should that happen, G5's will get more funding than they've ever seen.
Should that happen, G5's will get more funding than they've ever seen.
IBM doesn't really "fund" G5's at all. IBM funds designs for new processors for systems which have a pre-existing product plan and product roadmap.
IBM had no use for the G5. The G5 was made for Apple. Apple paid for - "funded" the G5 development. Now that IBM sees that it's actually a pretty darn cool processor, they're going to stick a few in a blade configuration to see if anyone bites. But this is happening after the fact. If IBM's blades sell, IBM may think about funding more G5-type designs. If not, they won't.
Same thing with Microsoft. Microsoft is doing the funding of their own chip. BTW, I wouldn't go to Vegas and bet the farm on the XBox2 using a G5. G5-like, yes. G5, no.
So the G5/G6/G7/etc., will only get as much funding as the customer (Apple, Microsoft, Sony, etc.) wants to give.
They WILL benefit by the fact that future PowerPC processors look to be derivatives of IBM's Power processors. And they'll benefit from IBM's overall design experience from creating the new Power processors.
But there will only be a G6/G7 if there's first a customer for the chip. Note that the customer could be another division of IBM, but that's only likely to happen if IBM's G5 blades take off in a big way.
Seeing as the quote was made by the ASCI Division Manager, seems like you're right along with other people in this thread saying the same thing.
Question though, a couple of people have posted that they, their company at least, have already received G5 xServes, presumably with the 970FX, wouldn't this mean the initial run of xServers were using a 0.13µm controller, or were they made with initial non-production run parts. After all Mr. Manner did say they were just now starting to ship production run 0.09µm SOC parts.
Often publication lead times make it tricky to assign dates and chronological ordering to these events.
My take on this whole development is that if an IBM'er working for it's ASIC division was talking about a north bridge ASIC he would have used the term ASIC some place. Instead the term SOC was used. The S in SOC implies System which in my mind implies a CPU of some sort.
Now some have argued that the convention at IBM is to use the abreviation SOC to imply something else, possibly Special Order Chip. If that is indeed true then I would be more likely to agree with your point of view.
Maybe all this speculation is pure garbage generated by a misunderstanding. On the other hand I believe we are on the verge of another generation of electronics due to the rather large process shrinks that have occured over the last couple of years. If this is not a SOC in the normal sense of the abbreviation then I'd have to think that Apple and IBM are working on somthing for the near future. It (SOC) is Apple only opportunity to compete in the low cost arena and still maintain its profitability.
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
There sure is a lot of furor over that little statement by the IBMer... if you ask me has is simply saying that they are now delivering to Apple their latest intergrated system controller, built on the 90 nm process. We already know that they built the G5's original system controller on IBM's 130 nm process, and there is a fair amount of evidence that the machine was speed limited by heat issues in the system controller. By moving to the 90 nm process Apple can likely build a controller which keeps up with the 970FX. They may have also integrated more components into one part, but so far there is no evidence of that.
G5-a-like for the XBox 2 sounds feasible, given that the Gamecube's CPU is G3-a-like: IBM aren't averse to adapting desktop designs if the order is big enough.
Wasn't some prelimenary Gamecube development done on PowerMacs?
IBM doesn't really "fund" G5's at all. IBM funds designs for new processors for systems which have a pre-existing product plan and product roadmap.
Whast? $3B for the Fishkill plant isn't "funding?"
Quote:
IBM had no use for the G5. The G5 was made for Apple. Apple paid for - "funded" the G5 development. Now that IBM sees that it's actually a pretty darn cool processor, they're going to stick a few in a blade configuration to see if anyone bites. But this is happening after the fact. If IBM's blades sell, IBM may think about funding more G5-type designs. If not, they won't.
Nonsense. If IBM didn't think the G5 had sales potential beyond the handsfuls of processors Apple would order, they never would have undertaken it. IBM & Apple partnered on the chip, true, but Apple's contribution is minimal compared to IBM's investment. IBM is looking to the embedded market, to it's own server lines and to Apple (and others) to make the 970 family a success. They aren't marketing the 970 as a desktop and entry level server product on a whim.
Quote:
But there will only be a G6/G7 if there's first a customer for the chip. Note that the customer could be another division of IBM, but that's only likely to happen if IBM's G5 blades take off in a big way.
More stuff and nonsense. IBM is looking to huge markets with specific needs. Not only will there be next generation 970's but they will be tailored to compete head to head with Intel and AMD's offerings. IBM doesn't even get in the game unless they think they can make large amounts of cash, and they are definitely in for a pound with their Linux strategy and the PPC970 family of processors.
Maybe all this speculation is pure garbage generated by a misunderstanding. On the other hand I believe we are on the verge of another generation of electronics due to the rather large process shrinks that have occured over the last couple of years. If this is not a SOC in the normal sense of the abbreviation then I'd have to think that Apple and IBM are working on somthing for the near future. It (SOC) is Apple only opportunity to compete in the low cost arena and still maintain its profitability.
I agree -- Apple finally has a CPU partner who is happy (and capable) of customizing processors for them, and they are using the partner to fab their system controller, and the processor is relatively small compared to what the process technology allows. An obvious step would be to move the custom Apple system controller on-die with the processor and use this for the non-PowerMac lines. This may eventually happen to the PowerMac too, but it is a harder thing to do with a multi-processor machine since then you end up with multiple system controllers. If they go multi-core then they might include the system controller on-chip as well.
Delivering this now is a bit questionable, however. I would expect to see more-or-less the current design moved to 90 nm first, before an increase in the integration level. Cheaper to hammer out the bugs that way. Given the comment from Apple exec a few months back about late-2004 for a PBG5, I would expect to see such a SoC machine in that timeframe.
Comments
Originally posted by onlooker
Apple insider is now reporting it as a System on a chip delivery, and that last guy just posted a link to a sudden shift for Apple having a Palm type device. Everybody knows SJ says no handhelds.
This looks like a bad dream about to happen. People are going to start believing these rumors, and then start their rabid infested complaints once they figure out these products don't exist.
I think these rumors are started by the competition to make Apple lose customers.
And is that wasn't enough Alias is going to be bought away from SGI now by an independent investment company. Which will mean I will be buying my first PC soon, and leaving the Mac. That 3% market share is getting smaller by the second. Apple looks so good at times, but then BLAM! it's in a state of ruin.
wait, what?
there are rumors about Apple that people believe therefore you are buying a PC?
...
Originally posted by NMR Guy
Well, the Electronic News article seems to have been pulled. Not sure what that means.
I dunno what it means either but you're quite right... Even using the search engine turned up nothing. Hmmm could this be something (more than just the 90nm 970 going into the xServe) after all?
Dave
If it was a reference to the 90nm 970, I'm not sure why the article would have been pulled. The chip has been announced and Apple is expected to ship roduct very soon based on this platform. So I suspect that this SOC is for something else. Obviously I don't know what that is, but I can see such hardware making an excellent laptop!
Thanks
Dave
Originally posted by DaveGee
I dunno what it means either but you're quite right... Even using the search engine turned up nothing. Hmmm could this be something (more than just the 90nm 970 going into the xServe) after all?
Dave
Originally posted by PB
Finally this older G5 Powerbook thread by Nr9 maybe has some truth
I'll believe that when I see it, and not a moment before.
Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
I'll believe that when I see it, and not a moment before.
I was not clear enough: I mean the SOC idea, not the multiprocessor configuration.
Originally posted by wizard69
... So I suspect that this SOC is for something else. Obviously I don't know what that is,...
I seem to remember reading something about the next generation of X-Box consoles using a PPC 970. Could these be for them? Microsoft could have conceivably wanted that article pulled if that was the case.
Originally posted by Guartho
I seem to remember reading something about the next generation of X-Box consoles using a PPC 970.
See this thread.
Could these be for them? Microsoft could have conceivably wanted that article pulled if that was the case.
The article explicitly stated this is something for Apple. See also oldmacfan's second post in this thread.
Originally posted by oldmacfan
Then these two things go together...
And I shall call them... NEWTs
Originally posted by Aphelion
And I shall call them... NEWTs
No,No It must not use the "newton" name in any way. I was thinking more along the lines of iStein. lol
Originally posted by Programmer
There sure is a lot of furor over that little statement by the IBMer... if you ask me has is simply saying that they are now delivering to Apple their latest intergrated system controller, built on the 90 nm process. We already know that they built the G5's original system controller on IBM's 130 nm process, and there is a fair amount of evidence that the machine was speed limited by heat issues in the system controller. By moving to the 90 nm process Apple can likely build a controller which keeps up with the 970FX. They may have also integrated more components into one part, but so far there is no evidence of that.
Seeing as the quote was made by the ASCI Division Manager, seems like you're right along with other people in this thread saying the same thing.
Question though, a couple of people have posted that they, their company at least, have already received G5 xServes, presumably with the 970FX, wouldn't this mean the initial run of xServers were using a 0.13µm controller, or were they made with initial non-production run parts. After all Mr. Manner did say they were just now starting to ship production run 0.09µm SOC parts.
Sorry for the run on sentence, but I wasn't an English major.
Originally posted by PB
I was not clear enough: I mean the SOC idea, not the multiprocessor configuration.
Heh, I think Tomb knew full well what you meant......take a look at the 'NR9' thread and his less than impressed stance!!!
I've heard dates anywhere from late this year to 2006...although every passing day brings new information to the table, i'm pointing for mid-2005 announces, with a christmas roll-out.
Should that happen, G5's will get more funding than they've ever seen.
shame less plug for more info.
-walloo.
Originally posted by willywalloo
Should that happen, G5's will get more funding than they've ever seen.
IBM doesn't really "fund" G5's at all. IBM funds designs for new processors for systems which have a pre-existing product plan and product roadmap.
IBM had no use for the G5. The G5 was made for Apple. Apple paid for - "funded" the G5 development. Now that IBM sees that it's actually a pretty darn cool processor, they're going to stick a few in a blade configuration to see if anyone bites. But this is happening after the fact. If IBM's blades sell, IBM may think about funding more G5-type designs. If not, they won't.
Same thing with Microsoft. Microsoft is doing the funding of their own chip. BTW, I wouldn't go to Vegas and bet the farm on the XBox2 using a G5. G5-like, yes. G5, no.
So the G5/G6/G7/etc., will only get as much funding as the customer (Apple, Microsoft, Sony, etc.) wants to give.
They WILL benefit by the fact that future PowerPC processors look to be derivatives of IBM's Power processors. And they'll benefit from IBM's overall design experience from creating the new Power processors.
But there will only be a G6/G7 if there's first a customer for the chip. Note that the customer could be another division of IBM, but that's only likely to happen if IBM's G5 blades take off in a big way.
Originally posted by rickag
Seeing as the quote was made by the ASCI Division Manager, seems like you're right along with other people in this thread saying the same thing.
Question though, a couple of people have posted that they, their company at least, have already received G5 xServes, presumably with the 970FX, wouldn't this mean the initial run of xServers were using a 0.13µm controller, or were they made with initial non-production run parts. After all Mr. Manner did say they were just now starting to ship production run 0.09µm SOC parts.
Often publication lead times make it tricky to assign dates and chronological ordering to these events.
Now some have argued that the convention at IBM is to use the abreviation SOC to imply something else, possibly Special Order Chip. If that is indeed true then I would be more likely to agree with your point of view.
Maybe all this speculation is pure garbage generated by a misunderstanding. On the other hand I believe we are on the verge of another generation of electronics due to the rather large process shrinks that have occured over the last couple of years. If this is not a SOC in the normal sense of the abbreviation then I'd have to think that Apple and IBM are working on somthing for the near future. It (SOC) is Apple only opportunity to compete in the low cost arena and still maintain its profitability.
Dave
Originally posted by Programmer
There sure is a lot of furor over that little statement by the IBMer... if you ask me has is simply saying that they are now delivering to Apple their latest intergrated system controller, built on the 90 nm process. We already know that they built the G5's original system controller on IBM's 130 nm process, and there is a fair amount of evidence that the machine was speed limited by heat issues in the system controller. By moving to the 90 nm process Apple can likely build a controller which keeps up with the 970FX. They may have also integrated more components into one part, but so far there is no evidence of that.
Wasn't some prelimenary Gamecube development done on PowerMacs?
Originally posted by Faeylyn
IBM doesn't really "fund" G5's at all. IBM funds designs for new processors for systems which have a pre-existing product plan and product roadmap.
Whast? $3B for the Fishkill plant isn't "funding?"
IBM had no use for the G5. The G5 was made for Apple. Apple paid for - "funded" the G5 development. Now that IBM sees that it's actually a pretty darn cool processor, they're going to stick a few in a blade configuration to see if anyone bites. But this is happening after the fact. If IBM's blades sell, IBM may think about funding more G5-type designs. If not, they won't.
Nonsense.
But there will only be a G6/G7 if there's first a customer for the chip. Note that the customer could be another division of IBM, but that's only likely to happen if IBM's G5 blades take off in a big way.
More stuff and nonsense. IBM is looking to huge markets with specific needs. Not only will there be next generation 970's but they will be tailored to compete head to head with Intel and AMD's offerings. IBM doesn't even get in the game unless they think they can make large amounts of cash, and they are definitely in for a pound with their Linux strategy and the PPC970 family of processors.
Originally posted by wizard69
Maybe all this speculation is pure garbage generated by a misunderstanding. On the other hand I believe we are on the verge of another generation of electronics due to the rather large process shrinks that have occured over the last couple of years. If this is not a SOC in the normal sense of the abbreviation then I'd have to think that Apple and IBM are working on somthing for the near future. It (SOC) is Apple only opportunity to compete in the low cost arena and still maintain its profitability.
I agree -- Apple finally has a CPU partner who is happy (and capable) of customizing processors for them, and they are using the partner to fab their system controller, and the processor is relatively small compared to what the process technology allows. An obvious step would be to move the custom Apple system controller on-die with the processor and use this for the non-PowerMac lines. This may eventually happen to the PowerMac too, but it is a harder thing to do with a multi-processor machine since then you end up with multiple system controllers. If they go multi-core then they might include the system controller on-chip as well.
Delivering this now is a bit questionable, however. I would expect to see more-or-less the current design moved to 90 nm first, before an increase in the integration level. Cheaper to hammer out the bugs that way. Given the comment from Apple exec a few months back about late-2004 for a PBG5, I would expect to see such a SoC machine in that timeframe.