CONFIRMED IBM Power PC 970

1121315171825

Comments

  • Reply 281 of 489
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,395member
    [quote]Originally posted by DaveGee:

    <strong>



    I wish I could but I can't... but here's a hint. Someone who posted on this very (edit) err last page seems to be on to something... He didn't write a ton of words but what he did say could indeed come true.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    C'mon, stop with this Moki style tease answer. Just tell us...
  • Reply 282 of 489
    My guess would be that DaveGee is referring to the fact that the PPC 970 is the first in a line of PPCs from IBM. Either that or Stoo speculated that a dual core GPUL is still in the works.



    Personally I believe this will be the uber chip for wich we have been waiting. Yes, we've waited a long time, and yes we thought others would be the saviour new processor. But this time, I believe the hype.



    My thoughts are that Apple realized they were in a heap of trouble with MOT's imbedded direction long before us users did. It worked out great for the mobile market, but has not been as high performance and professional users require. Therefore, Apple entered an agreement with IBM to produce the 970 (and other) prosessor. But remember, Apple sells several lines of computers, desktop and protable, to the professional and consumer marketplace. I believe they have a roadmap for moving the entire product line forward.



    Also people like to think that costs do matter to the professional market. I can attest that it does. Profit margins are thin everywhere and saving money is just as important to film/animation/audio and other producers. That's why ILM has moved to cheaper Linux boxes, and why movie makers are filming more and more in Canada, etc. I think Apple will put the PPC 970 in the PowerMac and charge basically the same prices. I have used Macs since they came out in 1984 and the PowerMac line has always cost approximatly the same.



    I also think that Steve Jobs would love to see Pixar using racks of XServe machines as render farms. Great advertising for Apple. This is probably a central reason the XServe was developed. Once dual 970s are dropped in there, the cost/performance ratio should make it a viable machine for animation firms.



    And to Lemon Bon Bon. You mention Lightwave often and cite very long render times. I suggest you look at Electric Image <a href="http://www.electricimage.com/."; target="_blank">http://www.electricimage.com/.</a>; While less often used, it has the fastest renderer on the planet. Also they way they reworked network rendering each processor is seen as a render machine, not just each machine. Render times on Dual CPU machines are almost doubled with this ability.



    Sorry for rambling. I'm pretty excited about all this. This year will be tough on Apple (they just reported thier first loss in 2 years). But next year should turn things around.



    Terry
  • Reply 283 of 489
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    TBoxman, I'm glad someone took the time to follow my very simple clue. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
  • Reply 284 of 489
    It looked to me like the major reason for their loss this quarter was an investment write down. Who hasn't had their investments drop over the last couple of years?



    There should really be only one thread on this topic, but I'll copy-and-paste my other post in here too:



    "Consider that the POWER4 was ~172 million transistors on a 0.18 micron process. Expensive, yes, but IBM did it. Now consider that the new GPUL is only 52 million. That means there is room for 3.3 GPUL's on one chip at 0.18 microns. IBM will have 0.09 available in the not-too-distant future so putting 2 or 4 GPUL cores on a single chip won't merely be possible, it'll be economical.



    Now consider the IBM research paper published a while back that proposes "The Cellular Approach" where one chip of up to a billion transistors is a network of processor cores. In a billion transistors they could fit at least 16 GPUL cores.



    IBM says that GPUL is good for up to 16-way SMP. Hmmm... perhaps we have something approximating a roadmap here?"
  • Reply 285 of 489
    [quote]Originally posted by Programmer:

    <strong>It looked to me like the major reason for their loss this quarter was an investment write down. Who hasn't had their investments drop over the last couple of years?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    No, Apple believes that the decline is temporary. The losses come mostly from reduced sales in Europe, Japan and the educational market. Those are all down 15-20%.



    [ 10-17-2002: Message edited by: wfzelle ]</p>
  • Reply 286 of 489
    I don't hold my breath on the new 970.



    The 970 should available at the end of 2003, right?

    At speeds up to 1.8GHz, right?

    900MHz FSB, right?

    2.9MIPS/ MHz, right?



    The G4 should reach 1.8GHz at the end of 2003, right?

    133MHz FSB today, at the end of the year maybe 800MHz (RIO), right?

    2.3MIPS/ MHz, right?



    Thats an advantage of 2.9/ 2.3 = 1.26 points , right?



    It doesn't impress me.



    I hope i am wrong!

    The only advantage of the 970 is 64bit and the SPEC benchmark!
  • Reply 287 of 489
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    [quote]Originally posted by Fat Freddy:

    <strong>I don't hold my breath on the new 970.



    The 970 should available at the end of 2003, right?

    At speeds up to 1.8GHz, right?

    900MHz FSB, right?

    2.9MIPS/ MHz, right?



    The G4 should reach 1.8GHz at the end of 2003, right?

    133MHz FSB today, at the end of the year maybe 800MHz (RIO), right?

    2.3MIPS/ MHz, right?



    Thats an advantage of 2.9/ 2.3 = 1.26 points , right?



    It doesn't impress me.



    I hope i am wrong!

    The only advantage of the 970 is 64bit and the SPEC benchmark!</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I have yet to see confermation that the G4 will move to rapid Io or get a fsb that will support DDR ram. From what I have read the G4 will move to a consumer level chip that continues to lag Intel in performance. The only saving grace to it right now is its price and MP capabilities.
  • Reply 288 of 489
    stevessteves Posts: 108member
    [quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:

    <strong>"I think 2004 Mac Janworld is worst case scenario.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Perhaps. But it's also the most likely scenario. Unless of course, IBM has been asked to hint that 2003 would be optimistic for new machines with their product.



    [quote]<strong>

    It sounds to me like Apple told Moto to take their G5 and shove it.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    What G5? Aside from the wild rumors, we have no actual evidence that such a program ever really existed. Oh, we do have some extremely vague roadmaps, etc. I think it's more like Apple would be the only customer for a Mot G5. Considering Mot's financial troubles, I doubt they could justify the R&D just for an Apple only product. IBM's situation is different. They don't have to create a complex chip, all they have to do is pair down an already complex chip. Generally speaking, this is a much easier task. IBM will be able to use the new chip in it's own servers as well.



    [quote]<strong>

    Meanwhile, Apple uses the same G4s for now...does dual...minor architecture improvements.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yup, MOT will milk the G4 for all it's worth over the next couple years before they fade into oblivion. You have to figure that the G4 will be in low end (but high volume) machines for a few years to come.



    [quote]<strong>

    If the GPUL doesn't arrive until 2004 Jan'...we may get .13 G4s in Jan' and .9 G4s in New York next year. Or .13 G4 Apollo 2's in Jan' and dual version strategy in New York next year.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    That's not exactly how it works. Moving a chip to a new process is not a simple task. It often involves remapping the layout of the chip due to hot spots and interference that wasn't an issue on the bigger chip. Moving to .9u for the G4 is probably a year or two away at best.



    [quote]<strong>

    Either way...I've got a sneaky feeling Apple will drop the 'all dual' strat' for Jan' for tactical reasons if the GPUL can't ship or announce at New York 2003.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think Apple's going to have to stick with the dual G4 strategy as long as the G4 is in the PRO line. When the G5 (ppc970) comes out, it will be marketed (and rightly so) as being twice as fast as a G4, so duals won't be necessary. I'm sure Apple will always have at least 1 dual setup in it's lineup at all times though, including when the PPC970s come out.



    Steve
  • Reply 289 of 489
    SteveS wrote:



    I think Apple's going to have to stick with the dual G4 strategy as long as the G4 is in the PRO line. When the G5 (ppc970) comes out, it will be marketed (and rightly so) as being twice as fast as a G4, so duals won't be necessary. I'm sure Apple will always have at least 1 dual setup in it's lineup at all times though, including when the PPC970s come out.

    -----



    I have to disagree here. If the PPC970 is twice as fast (which it should be) putting only one in a machine that used to be a dual processor machine would mean the machine would end up being no faster. At least in Apples "duals make up for the Mhz laps" marketing campagain. I tend to think that unless the GPUL is much more than twice as fast they will still need to put duals in.



    We aren't trying to simply speed up the Macs in increments. We need to climb out of the speed hole we have fallen in. Electric Image (originally written on the Mac) is now cross platform and is rendering 2-3 times as fast on a PC as it is on the Mac. And this is from a VERY Mac friendly company.



    Then again, if the PPC970 is constained, I could see Apple shipping single processor machines until the line could be revved to duals again.



    Terry
  • Reply 290 of 489
    krassykrassy Posts: 595member
    [quote]Originally posted by SteveS:

    <strong>

    That's not exactly how it works. Moving a chip to a new process is not a simple task. It often involves remapping the layout of the chip due to hot spots and interference that wasn't an issue on the bigger chip. Moving to .9u for the G4 is probably a year or two away at best.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    so what have they all done from 1999 till now???? nothing? ... why is the g4 still produced at .18µ ?



    i really don't get that...
  • Reply 291 of 489
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    [quote]Originally posted by Krassy:

    <strong>



    so what have they all done from 1999 till now???? nothing? ... why is the g4 still produced at .18µ ?



    i really don't get that...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    No matter how incompetent we all think Motorola is, they know as well as other cpu manufacturers, they cannot stand still, especially when it comes to keeping up with the latest process. A 130nm G4 should be out soon enough and I think perhaps before MWSF. As far as what will be included, I don't know that. My guess would be they keep MPX but add RapidIO and dump an L3 interface to reduce the amount of pins and allow for 512KB of L2 cache. A 16bit RapidIO port running at 500MHz should allow for 4GBps. This would make a good port to a dedicated generic memory controller. Apple can reuse most of their controller they have now that connects to MPX minus the memory part.



    [ 10-17-2002: Message edited by: Outsider ]</p>
  • Reply 292 of 489
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    [quote]Originally posted by Krassy:

    <strong>



    so what have they all done from 1999 till now???? nothing? ... why is the g4 still produced at .18µ ?



    i really don't get that...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well... if MOT knew of Apples move to IBM and they pretty much would have had to since it would been pretty strange for Apple not to 'sign up for' (or in some way officialy commit) MOTs next stage. Once MOT knew or suspected such a move happened how much effort do you think MOT would have given to the progress of the G4? I dunno if any of this is true to it sure is one way to explain why so very little has been done with the G4.



    Dave
  • Reply 293 of 489
    mokimoki Posts: 551member
    [quote]Originally posted by DaveGee:

    <strong>



    I wish I could but I can't... but here's a hint. Someone who posted on this very (edit) err last page seems to be on to something... He didn't write a ton of words but what he did say could indeed come true.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    That's something that is best left as a surprise for people, I think.
  • Reply 294 of 489
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [quote]Originally posted by moki:

    <strong>



    That's something that is best left as a surprise for people, I think. </strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, I agree.



    [pretending to be in on the big secret ]
  • Reply 295 of 489
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    Just floating a little fantasy here... Is it not likely that Apple will have been very aware of the effect of IBM's announcement on PM and PB sales? Apple tend to be very hot on this sort of thing. Is it not likely that Apple will have been working with IBM on this chip(s) for over two years now, may have already shoved money in IBM's direction, and will certainly be the largest buyer? Is it possible that IBM have been 'conservative' and less than fully open in their pronouncments? Is it possible that the disclosed timelines for sampling and full production of this chip or for the benefit of interested 3rd party customers and that Apple's first batch may arrive a little sooner? (the new fab comes on line in January after all). Is it possible that, considering all the little hints being dropped in this thread, that the 970 IS NOT APPLE'S CHIP?



    Just a thought.......
  • Reply 296 of 489
    algolalgol Posts: 833member
    NO
  • Reply 297 of 489
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    Oh...OK.
  • Reply 298 of 489
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    I wonder if this could be the basis for the bus on the 970 that Apple worked on: <a href="http://www.mdronline.com/watch/watch_abstract.asp?Volname=Issue #155&amp;SID=437&amp; on=1&SourceID=00000377000000000000" target="_blank">http://www.mdronline.com/watch/watch_abstract.asp?Volname=Issue #155&amp;SID=437&amp; on=1&SourceID=00000377000000000000</a>



    It says that the customer can adapt the bus to their own choosing...
  • Reply 299 of 489
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    And...

    <a href="http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/1/0,3363,sz=1&i=16908,00.jpg"; target="_blank">http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/1/0,3363,sz=1&i=16908,00.jpg</a>;



    <a href="http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/1/0,3363,sz=1&i=16900,00.jpg"; target="_blank">http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/1/0,3363,sz=1&i=16900,00.jpg</a>;





    Seems as though IBM already has a companion chip in the wings... hmmm.



    edit: took images off so this thread doesn't become a dog...



    [ 10-18-2002: Message edited by: Outsider ]</p>
  • Reply 300 of 489
    I may not understand all the complexities of point-to-point bus architectures, but I nevertheless appreciate all the informed opinions here. AI would be of very little value without that participation.
Sign In or Register to comment.