<strong>Does this news vindicate Dorsal M? I think it does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How does this vindicate him? First he said that there was no G5 and then when all the rumor sites started reporting G5 he said all of a sudden he got a POwer Mac with a G5 in it and the part number was MOT 8500.
Faithful? I never had faith in Dorsal. And he frequently described processors that resemble tha MPC85xx series.
Anybody who believed Dorsal in the past, present or future is naive. I loved how he always got a conservatively configured, middle-of-the-road and super-duper prototype to cover all the bases.
At 1.8GHz, the PowerPC 970 will consume 1.3-volts and dissipate 42-Watts. At 1.2 GHz, the PowerPC 970 will consume 1.1-volts and dissipate only 19-Watts. For comparison, a 1GHz G4 consumes 1.6-volts and dissipates 21.3-Watts.
-----
Doesn't this indicate that the PPC 970 is ready to be dropped into PowerBooks as well as PowerMacs? I would easily opt for a 1.2 GHz GPUL PowerBook over a 1 Ghz G4 PowerBook.
Also, which thread should we be using to discuss this chip. Seems we have several. It would be easier to follow one thread (even the long one since there is no need to re-read it). That is, unless these threads are each discussing different aspects of the chip. To me, they all seem the same.
Here's hoping for a GPUL PowerBook in a year. I would imagine it's a definate when the process is reduced .09 micron.
At 1.8GHz, the PowerPC 970 will consume 1.3-volts and dissipate 42-Watts. At 1.2 GHz, the PowerPC 970 will consume 1.1-volts and dissipate only 19-Watts. For comparison, a 1GHz G4 consumes 1.6-volts and dissipates 21.3-Watts.
-----
Doesn't this indicate that the PPC 970 is ready to be dropped into PowerBooks as well as PowerMacs? I would easily opt for a 1.2 GHz GPUL PowerBook over a 1 Ghz G4 PowerBook.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. Of course the 0.9 version will be much better particulaly for a book.
Assuming you are talking about a "G5" from MOT -- don't hold your breath. I'm told Steve Jobs, after a particularly unproductive meeting with MOT representatives, told them to "Get the **** out of my office"
Apparently his Steveness wasn't pleased with their progress in terms of silicon and speed. "
I can see that.
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. The G4 wasn't an 'uberworkstation'. I doubt in pricing terms the GPUL will be either. It's probably going into next gen' PowerMacs worthy of the name. That much seems pretty obvious. The recent incarnations seem to have to gotten increasingly desperate.
I also noted the need for a new custom system controller that would have to be designed from the beginning for X number of processors. Here's the quote:
"System Chip Support
One of the more troublesome hurdle for Apple to overcome in the adoption of the PowerPC 970 processor may be the system engineering aspect of the processor. As described previously, the 4 byte wide unidirectional serial links may provide upwards of 6 to 7 GB of raw bandwidth per second. However, the specification of the ~900 MHz operation on the system board would require considerable investment into the system support chip. Moreover, the nature of the point to point interconnect means that to support a dual CPU system, the companion chip must be designed with the dual CPU SMP in mind, with dedicated channels devoted to each CPU. Furthermore, to support the high bandwidth available on the system interconnect, a dual channel PC2700 DDR SDRAM memory system would appear to be a minimum requirement to support a single CPU. Unless Apple can also obtain a low cost support chip from IBM, the PowerPC 970 processor would likely force the Apple Macintosh product lines to become even more upscale, and Apple would likely retain the use of the PowerPC G4 processors for the lower end iMac and eMac product lines."
My question, not being a chip tech person, is how long would we expect it to take Apple to design/build/manufacture this chip? Considering that IBM says it won't have samples ready for Apple until April - June 2003, and Apple will need this controller chip to test with the new 970, it would seem EXTREMELY OPTIMISTIC to expect anything but just a pre-announcement at MWNY in July, with availability in the Sep 2003 timeframe, if all goes well. MacOS X also has to be modified to be 64-bit compliant, but I expect that's already been done. That just leaves getting the hardward working reliably.
Comments from anyone who actually understands how all this works?
<strong>My question, not being a chip tech person, is how long would we expect it to take Apple to design/build/manufacture this chip? Considering that IBM says it won't have samples ready for Apple until April - June 2003, and Apple will need this controller chip to test with the new 970, it would seem EXTREMELY OPTIMISTIC to expect anything but just a pre-announcement at MWNY in July, with availability in the Sep 2003 timeframe, if all goes well. MacOS X also has to be modified to be 64-bit compliant, but I expect that's already been done. That just leaves getting the hardward working reliably.
Comments from anyone who actually understands how all this works?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I don't claim to be someone who actually understands this <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> , but I believe that when a chip is being "sampled", that samples are provided from trial runs for the mass-production runs of the chip. Before that point, I'd imagine prototypes from small custom batches are available, and that a customer as potentially important as Apple would be able to get a few of these prototypes with which to begin their design and testing.
At 1.8GHz, the PowerPC 970 will consume 1.3-volts and dissipate 42-Watts. At 1.2 GHz, the PowerPC 970 will consume 1.1-volts and dissipate only 19-Watts. For comparison, a 1GHz G4 consumes 1.6-volts and dissipates 21.3-Watts.
-----
Doesn't this indicate that the PPC 970 is ready to be dropped into PowerBooks as well as PowerMacs? I would easily opt for a 1.2 GHz GPUL PowerBook over a 1 Ghz G4 PowerBook.
Terry</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, following this i don't think we'll see duals acrosse the board then. A single 1.2ghjz GPUL is almos the same as a dual gig. LOL, I wonder what a dual 1.8ghz GPUL would do, 60-80 watts?
You're all assuming that Apple's made a decision here, and is in the process of developing a system (hardware and software) based on this chip. Are you sure all of you aren't overestimating Apple's ability to get things right, or underestimating their ability to screw things up? Or underestimating the ability of Job's egomania to somehow disrupt this entire script? (Scenario: Jobs gets so POd at the negative impact IBM's disclosure (and all of the press' attendant theorizing) has on PowerMac sales that he tells IBM to take a hike).
Remember, this is Apple, a company that often manages to do more damage to itself than the competition could ever hope to do. Sorry for the dose of pessimism, but it just seems like such a familair script on these boards: we hear good news, albeit usually in rumor form, but reality is almost always a big letdown.
<strong>Does this news vindicate Dorsal M? I think it does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
to the contrary, i believe dorsal consistently stated that the "g5" machines he was working on had motorola processors in them. i remember specifically because i said a couple of times after his posts that the g5 would not be coming from motorola, but rather ibm. so i don't think it vindicates him in any way.
<strong>You're all assuming that Apple's made a decision here, and is in the process of developing a system (hardware and software) based on this chip. Are you sure all of you aren't overestimating Apple's ability to get things right, or underestimating their ability to screw things up? Or underestimating the ability of Job's egomania to somehow disrupt this entire script? (Scenario: Jobs gets so POd at the negative impact IBM's disclosure (and all of the press' attendant theorizing) has on PowerMac sales that he tells IBM to take a hike).
Remember, this is Apple, a company that often manages to do more damage to itself than the competition could ever hope to do. Sorry for the dose of pessimism, but it just seems like such a familair script on these boards: we hear good news, albeit usually in rumor form, but reality is almost always a big letdown.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You exaggerate how badly and how often Apple stumbles. They aren't stupid, if they were the company would have gone out of business 20 years ago. "Letdowns" from rumours is almost always because the rumour mill wound itself up too tight and got out of hand. Rest assured that Apple will adopt this chip because it has no alternative in the PowerPC market -- the main question is when.
<strong>You're all assuming that Apple's made a decision here, and is in the process of developing a system (hardware and software) based on this chip. Are you sure all of you aren't overestimating Apple's ability to get things right, or underestimating their ability to screw things up? Or underestimating the ability of Job's egomania to somehow disrupt this entire script? (Scenario: Jobs gets so POd at the negative impact IBM's disclosure (and all of the press' attendant theorizing) has on PowerMac sales that he tells IBM to take a hike).
Remember, this is Apple, a company that often manages to do more damage to itself than the competition could ever hope to do. Sorry for the dose of pessimism, but it just seems like such a familair script on these boards: we hear good news, albeit usually in rumor form, but reality is almost always a big letdown.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My question, not being a chip tech person, is how long would we expect it to take Apple to design/build/manufacture this chip?</strong>
Probably 1 year to design, then another year to debug. So, if Apple didn't start designing the system ASIC for a prospective PPC 970 in late 2001, they probably won't be shipping in late 2003. And this is probably optimistic. I'll hazard a guess that if Apple made the decision to use it 2H 2001, they probably started the design in 2H 2001.
This bus seems suspiciously like a 450 MHz 32 bit Hypertransport bus, albiet modified, and Apple joined the HT consortium in early 2H 01, so maybe the design work started then.
<strong>Considering that IBM says it won't have samples ready for Apple until April - June 2003, and Apple will need this controller chip to test with the new 970, it would seem EXTREMELY OPTIMISTIC to expect anything but just a pre-announcement at MWNY in July, with availability in the Sep 2003 timeframe, if all goes well.</strong>
Well, it all depends on what sampling means to IBM. If sampling means first silicon in Q2 03, Apple won't have machines until Q1 04. If sampling means pilot production, then a Q3 03 ship is possible.
The other interesting question is if this chip isn't for Apple, then what system ASIC will IBM use?
<strong>MacOS X also has to be modified to be 64-bit compliant, but I expect that's already been done. That just leaves getting the hardward working reliably.</strong>
The PPC 970 can be run in 32 bit mode, so only a minimum of changes needs to made to get OS 10 to run it. Apple can then take their sweet time transitioning to 64 bit Mac OS.
Wow, following this i don't think we'll see duals acrosse the board then. A single 1.2ghjz GPUL is almos the same as a dual gig. LOL, I wonder what a dual 1.8ghz GPUL would do, 60-80 watts?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you've confused something here.
A single 1.2 GHz IBM PPC 970 uses 19 watts typical.
A single 1 GHz Motorola MPC7455 uses 21.3 watts typical...30 watts maximum. My computer has a pair, so that's 42.6-60 watts.
<strong>Does this news vindicate Dorsal M? I think it does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
NO! I enjoyed his posts and thought there might be some truth in them but he was obviously making the whole thing up.
I believe Apple probably has some chips to test and design around. I doubt very much they are ready to start sending them out for testing by third parties yet. I would give them at least a few more months before that happens. Hopefully we might hear some actual performance info then.
where did you people get those fun Intel quotes about "there must be a bottleneck somewhere", and somethign like if the chip is as good as its made out to be we are worried or something, sorry i've been skimming over because 2 days ago it was only 2 pages, haha lot of reading to catch up on
...havn'tbeen a member long, but this is probably the fastest growing thread i've seen
Comments
can't wait for this to happen!
it seems like we've been waiting forever!
<strong>Does this news vindicate Dorsal M? I think it does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How does this vindicate him? First he said that there was no G5 and then when all the rumor sites started reporting G5 he said all of a sudden he got a POwer Mac with a G5 in it and the part number was MOT 8500.
Vindicated? Nope. Fraud? Probably.
Anybody who believed Dorsal in the past, present or future is naive. I loved how he always got a conservatively configured, middle-of-the-road and super-duper prototype to cover all the bases.
[ 10-16-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
At 1.8GHz, the PowerPC 970 will consume 1.3-volts and dissipate 42-Watts. At 1.2 GHz, the PowerPC 970 will consume 1.1-volts and dissipate only 19-Watts. For comparison, a 1GHz G4 consumes 1.6-volts and dissipates 21.3-Watts.
-----
Doesn't this indicate that the PPC 970 is ready to be dropped into PowerBooks as well as PowerMacs? I would easily opt for a 1.2 GHz GPUL PowerBook over a 1 Ghz G4 PowerBook.
Also, which thread should we be using to discuss this chip. Seems we have several. It would be easier to follow one thread (even the long one since there is no need to re-read it). That is, unless these threads are each discussing different aspects of the chip. To me, they all seem the same.
Here's hoping for a GPUL PowerBook in a year. I would imagine it's a definate when the process is reduced .09 micron.
Terry
<strong>From the MacCentral Website <a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0210/16.ibm.php"; target="_blank">http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0210/16.ibm.php</a>;
At 1.8GHz, the PowerPC 970 will consume 1.3-volts and dissipate 42-Watts. At 1.2 GHz, the PowerPC 970 will consume 1.1-volts and dissipate only 19-Watts. For comparison, a 1GHz G4 consumes 1.6-volts and dissipates 21.3-Watts.
-----
Doesn't this indicate that the PPC 970 is ready to be dropped into PowerBooks as well as PowerMacs? I would easily opt for a 1.2 GHz GPUL PowerBook over a 1 Ghz G4 PowerBook.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. Of course the 0.9 version will be much better particulaly for a book.
Moki, are you sure the future high-end is the 970 and not the G5?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming you are talking about a "G5" from MOT -- don't hold your breath. I'm told Steve Jobs, after a particularly unproductive meeting with MOT representatives, told them to "Get the **** out of my office"
Apparently his Steveness wasn't pleased with their progress in terms of silicon and speed. "
I can see that.
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. The G4 wasn't an 'uberworkstation'. I doubt in pricing terms the GPUL will be either. It's probably going into next gen' PowerMacs worthy of the name. That much seems pretty obvious. The recent incarnations seem to have to gotten increasingly desperate.
"System Chip Support
One of the more troublesome hurdle for Apple to overcome in the adoption of the PowerPC 970 processor may be the system engineering aspect of the processor. As described previously, the 4 byte wide unidirectional serial links may provide upwards of 6 to 7 GB of raw bandwidth per second. However, the specification of the ~900 MHz operation on the system board would require considerable investment into the system support chip. Moreover, the nature of the point to point interconnect means that to support a dual CPU system, the companion chip must be designed with the dual CPU SMP in mind, with dedicated channels devoted to each CPU. Furthermore, to support the high bandwidth available on the system interconnect, a dual channel PC2700 DDR SDRAM memory system would appear to be a minimum requirement to support a single CPU. Unless Apple can also obtain a low cost support chip from IBM, the PowerPC 970 processor would likely force the Apple Macintosh product lines to become even more upscale, and Apple would likely retain the use of the PowerPC G4 processors for the lower end iMac and eMac product lines."
My question, not being a chip tech person, is how long would we expect it to take Apple to design/build/manufacture this chip? Considering that IBM says it won't have samples ready for Apple until April - June 2003, and Apple will need this controller chip to test with the new 970, it would seem EXTREMELY OPTIMISTIC to expect anything but just a pre-announcement at MWNY in July, with availability in the Sep 2003 timeframe, if all goes well. MacOS X also has to be modified to be 64-bit compliant, but I expect that's already been done. That just leaves getting the hardward working reliably.
Comments from anyone who actually understands how all this works?
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>My question, not being a chip tech person, is how long would we expect it to take Apple to design/build/manufacture this chip? Considering that IBM says it won't have samples ready for Apple until April - June 2003, and Apple will need this controller chip to test with the new 970, it would seem EXTREMELY OPTIMISTIC to expect anything but just a pre-announcement at MWNY in July, with availability in the Sep 2003 timeframe, if all goes well. MacOS X also has to be modified to be 64-bit compliant, but I expect that's already been done. That just leaves getting the hardward working reliably.
Comments from anyone who actually understands how all this works?
Well, I don't claim to be someone who actually understands this <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> , but I believe that when a chip is being "sampled", that samples are provided from trial runs for the mass-production runs of the chip. Before that point, I'd imagine prototypes from small custom batches are available, and that a customer as potentially important as Apple would be able to get a few of these prototypes with which to begin their design and testing.
<strong>From the MacCentral Website <a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0210/16.ibm.php"; target="_blank">http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0210/16.ibm.php</a>;
At 1.8GHz, the PowerPC 970 will consume 1.3-volts and dissipate 42-Watts. At 1.2 GHz, the PowerPC 970 will consume 1.1-volts and dissipate only 19-Watts. For comparison, a 1GHz G4 consumes 1.6-volts and dissipates 21.3-Watts.
-----
Doesn't this indicate that the PPC 970 is ready to be dropped into PowerBooks as well as PowerMacs? I would easily opt for a 1.2 GHz GPUL PowerBook over a 1 Ghz G4 PowerBook.
Terry</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, following this i don't think we'll see duals acrosse the board then. A single 1.2ghjz GPUL is almos the same as a dual gig. LOL, I wonder what a dual 1.8ghz GPUL would do, 60-80 watts?
Remember, this is Apple, a company that often manages to do more damage to itself than the competition could ever hope to do. Sorry for the dose of pessimism, but it just seems like such a familair script on these boards: we hear good news, albeit usually in rumor form, but reality is almost always a big letdown.
<strong>Does this news vindicate Dorsal M? I think it does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
to the contrary, i believe dorsal consistently stated that the "g5" machines he was working on had motorola processors in them. i remember specifically because i said a couple of times after his posts that the g5 would not be coming from motorola, but rather ibm. so i don't think it vindicates him in any way.
<strong>You're all assuming that Apple's made a decision here, and is in the process of developing a system (hardware and software) based on this chip. Are you sure all of you aren't overestimating Apple's ability to get things right, or underestimating their ability to screw things up? Or underestimating the ability of Job's egomania to somehow disrupt this entire script? (Scenario: Jobs gets so POd at the negative impact IBM's disclosure (and all of the press' attendant theorizing) has on PowerMac sales that he tells IBM to take a hike).
Remember, this is Apple, a company that often manages to do more damage to itself than the competition could ever hope to do. Sorry for the dose of pessimism, but it just seems like such a familair script on these boards: we hear good news, albeit usually in rumor form, but reality is almost always a big letdown.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You exaggerate how badly and how often Apple stumbles. They aren't stupid, if they were the company would have gone out of business 20 years ago. "Letdowns" from rumours is almost always because the rumour mill wound itself up too tight and got out of hand. Rest assured that Apple will adopt this chip because it has no alternative in the PowerPC market -- the main question is when.
<strong>You're all assuming that Apple's made a decision here, and is in the process of developing a system (hardware and software) based on this chip. Are you sure all of you aren't overestimating Apple's ability to get things right, or underestimating their ability to screw things up? Or underestimating the ability of Job's egomania to somehow disrupt this entire script? (Scenario: Jobs gets so POd at the negative impact IBM's disclosure (and all of the press' attendant theorizing) has on PowerMac sales that he tells IBM to take a hike).
Remember, this is Apple, a company that often manages to do more damage to itself than the competition could ever hope to do. Sorry for the dose of pessimism, but it just seems like such a familair script on these boards: we hear good news, albeit usually in rumor form, but reality is almost always a big letdown.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, <a href="http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1033849024847&p=1012571727 085" target="_blank">I don't know</a>, maybe Apple will have no other choice soon...
My question, not being a chip tech person, is how long would we expect it to take Apple to design/build/manufacture this chip?</strong>
Probably 1 year to design, then another year to debug. So, if Apple didn't start designing the system ASIC for a prospective PPC 970 in late 2001, they probably won't be shipping in late 2003. And this is probably optimistic. I'll hazard a guess that if Apple made the decision to use it 2H 2001, they probably started the design in 2H 2001.
This bus seems suspiciously like a 450 MHz 32 bit Hypertransport bus, albiet modified, and Apple joined the HT consortium in early 2H 01, so maybe the design work started then.
<strong>Considering that IBM says it won't have samples ready for Apple until April - June 2003, and Apple will need this controller chip to test with the new 970, it would seem EXTREMELY OPTIMISTIC to expect anything but just a pre-announcement at MWNY in July, with availability in the Sep 2003 timeframe, if all goes well.</strong>
Well, it all depends on what sampling means to IBM. If sampling means first silicon in Q2 03, Apple won't have machines until Q1 04. If sampling means pilot production, then a Q3 03 ship is possible.
The other interesting question is if this chip isn't for Apple, then what system ASIC will IBM use?
<strong>MacOS X also has to be modified to be 64-bit compliant, but I expect that's already been done. That just leaves getting the hardward working reliably.</strong>
The PPC 970 can be run in 32 bit mode, so only a minimum of changes needs to made to get OS 10 to run it. Apple can then take their sweet time transitioning to 64 bit Mac OS.
<strong>
Wow, following this i don't think we'll see duals acrosse the board then. A single 1.2ghjz GPUL is almos the same as a dual gig. LOL, I wonder what a dual 1.8ghz GPUL would do, 60-80 watts?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you've confused something here.
A single 1.2 GHz IBM PPC 970 uses 19 watts typical.
A single 1 GHz Motorola MPC7455 uses 21.3 watts typical...30 watts maximum. My computer has a pair, so that's 42.6-60 watts.
<strong>Does this news vindicate Dorsal M? I think it does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
NO! I enjoyed his posts and thought there might be some truth in them but he was obviously making the whole thing up.
I believe Apple probably has some chips to test and design around. I doubt very much they are ready to start sending them out for testing by third parties yet. I would give them at least a few more months before that happens. Hopefully we might hear some actual performance info then.
...havn'tbeen a member long, but this is probably the fastest growing thread i've seen