I had noticed on the last slide of the IBM presentation that there was an asterisk by the dates on the "Target Schedule", with the footnote "Estimation only, subject to change without notice". It seemed like grasping at straws to consider that it may come out before the targeted dates, so I didn't comment on it previously. Perhaps we'll get a surprise announcement of, "Gee, this really scaled up to production MUCH faster than we thought! (wink wink, nudge nudge)" sometime in the not-too-distant future (i.e. early next year)?</strong><hr></blockquote>
From what Moki has been saying all along I don't think that is what he is refering to... Don't get me wrong I'd love to see these boxes out and about for a Q1 release Jan/Feb/Mar or even a Q2 release Apr/May/Jun but I've set myself up far too many times and this go-around I'm gonna listen to what 'cooler heads' are saying. This doesn't mean Dec 03-Jan 04 like some are saying but Jul/Aug/Sep/Oct would sure be nice.
From what Moki has been saying all along I don't think that is what he is refering to... Don't get me wrong I'd love to see these boxes out and about for a Q1 release Jan/Feb/Mar or even a Q2 release Apr/May/Jun but I've set myself up far too many times and this go-around I'm gonna listen to what 'cooler heads' are saying. This doesn't mean Dec 03-Jan 04 like some are saying but Jul/Aug/Sep/Oct would sure be nice.
Dave</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree completely. I'm not letting myself get set up for disappointment yet again. What I've got is OK for at least another year, so I'm not desperate personally. For Apple's sake, I hope PPC970-based machines come out sooner than 2H 2003, though. I do think there's a lot more going on behind the scenes than the "big boys" are letting on. Moki and others have been hinting that something big is afoot; I'm looking forward to seeing the other shoe drop WRT the rest of the 970 family - while tempering my hopes with a stiff dose of reality.
Honestly, I haven't been paying much attention to MOT, I wrote them off a while ago... if a "G5" comes out from MOT for Apple's desktop machines, I'll have a very hard time believing it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Given that you usually phrase your posts very carefully, would it by reasonable to think that Motorola might release a new chip for Apple's PORTABLE machines? I'm not saying a completely new "G5", just a die-shrunk or otherwise significantly improved G4-such as this 7457... which might allow a significant bump to the PowerBook without turning it into a broiler, while we wait for the hypothetical trickle-down of the IBM processor that Apple will hypothetically adopt in the hypothetically not-too-distant future.
Not sure where they got the numbers, but I've seen more than one <a href="http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-961862.html"; target="_blank">article</a> claiming the 970 will top out at 3 GHz, so maybe they are speculating.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That article says "PC chips will run at 3 GHz by the end of the year." That's a reference to the Pentium 4, not the PPC 970. There's no mention of 3 GHz anywhere else in the article, and certainly not with regard to the PPC 970.
Not sure where they got the numbers, but I've seen more than one <a href="http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-961862.html"; target="_blank">article</a> claiming the 970 will top out at 3 GHz, so maybe they are speculating.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That article DOES NOT speculate on future speeds for the 970.
<strong>I don't think the sandbagging reference was to the production schedule, but rather that IBM is holding back on disclosing all of the chip's features and potential.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is correct. A lot can be learned from Apple's internal hardware roadmap. You used to see a lot of 4-way G4 multiprocessor prototypes with 1 main processor responsible for processing, 1 dedicated to sheets, 1 for the genie effect, and the remaining processor doing gaussian blur on text. This changed a bit with the advent of Quartz Extreme when it was realized that current state of the art 3D hardware was sufficient for text blurring. Add to that the prospect of "scale" effect replacing genie and it's feasible to ship a consumer class machine with just the 2 G4 processors which is exactly what they did.
I can't say much being under NDA but shortly after talks got serious with IBM early in the 970's development, recent hardware designs have changed drastically.
I'm told that a substantial percentage of the transistors on the new 970 are dedicated to what is being called the WRU (Window Resizing Unit). I saw a technology demonstration behind closed doors where a TextEdit document with over 8 (!) lines of text was sized all the way to the minimum and back again without dropping a frame.
Perhaps even more interesting is a small but ingenious text processing unit which purportedly provides sufficient horsepower to enable RTT (Real Time Typing) in common productivity software running on MacOS X without requiring a single line of code to be rewritten in legacy applications. Support for this unit is slated for 10.3. Apple and IBM have seeded a proof of concept kernel extension (code named Thunderfist) which enables the RTT unit under OS X and early results are positive - I've heard reports that up to 30 Words Per Minute have been reached in IBM's labs.
The real kicker though, the thing that Moki has been teasing about, is this: Since the advent of MacOS X, Apple engineers have been trying to solve what is commonly known in Computer Science circles as the Take Action Within 8 Seconds of The Mouse Click problem. Accepted theory states this problem is solvable in linear time but in practice, algorithms which address this problem in MacOS X have executed in exponential time. This will soon change with the 970's new Immediate Mode Mouse Event interrupt mechanism. Essentially, a mouse click flips a bit in the processor (wihout going through the OS). The processor in turn, immediately sends a IMME interrupt signal to the Mach kernel, informing it to preempt the window manager thread (which apparently has real-time priority) and process the mouse click. Again, early reports are positive. A friend at IBM claims that mouse to processor communication latencies have been decreased to under 3 seconds in some cases.
Now, obviously much of the above is subject to change. Just because noone has recently heard mention of prototypes such as the one which had a separate G4 processor embedded into every key on the keyboard for real time typing support, doesn't mean that the G4 is finished. Nor does it mean that parallelism is out of the picture. iCal, iChat, iPhoto, and iSync are extremely bandwidth intensive, power-hungry, and compute bound apps that will continue to require workstation class hardware to keep mouse<->processor latencies under the 8 second mark. From what I've seen, if anything can meet these requirements, it is the IBM PPC 970. Expect to be pleasantly surprised by WRU, RTT, and 3 second mouse-processor latencies sometime in 2003.
I'd kinda expect a Steve Jobs Apple to become much more involved with what happens next to the CPU tech' they choose.
If they've had a hand in the 970 chip IBM developed 'for Apple' then I'd expect to see innovations rather than pure mhz.
Apple often state the performance mantra rather than mhz (circumstances dictate.)
But keeping powerful software and user mouse execution ratios close...speeding up those things which, despite increasing mhz, never seem to get faster...are surely the hallmarks of the Apple that designed 'cool' but practical computers since Job's return.
Apple is heavily innovating re: software, integration re: digital hub strat'. It makes sense to co-0rdinate your actual hardware re: cpu in this development.
I find the last post very enticing. Why? Because it actually seems (if it turns out that way when launched...) that cpu...rather than using blunt and raw mhz to crack the software problem...sub solutions which bypass traditional design flaws are being dreamt up by Apple's classic 'make things easier' team.
I like the notion that Apple is using the advantages of the 970's superior architecture to tackle the speed problems in a sideways fashion. I'm not sure this will mean great spec scores. But hey, who cares? IF the real world speed is blistering. This approach to the software problem seems to be in line with IBM's approach to chip design. And no doubt hyper threading will come down the line with future processors.
Certain Photoshop filters, text docs, interface elements...extending and embracing the Quartz philosphies of delegation to say the Graphics cards. I applaud.
Nice post. There's more than one way to cook an Egg. Intel. Take note.
Sure it is. Just like the NASA Apollo program was designed to put a man on the moon, the Motorola program wasn't designed to complete every goal in one step. The first NASA Apollo missions merely tested the command module in orbit around Earth. They later tested docking with the lunar module...then they made passes around the moon, then Apollo 11 finally put a man on the moon. Later Apollo missions introduced further achievements like the lunar rover...
The Motorola Apollo project is no different in this respect. The g4 doesn't need to be .13µ to be called Apollo, especially when the 745x/744x series are obviously known as Apollo chips internally.</strong><hr></blockquote>
good thoughts, eugene - i really like this stuff...
Motorola didn't have the resources or the kahones to invest in a cpu designed specifically for desktops. Fool's bet, maybe, but look @ what Apple has, OS X on UNIX(unreal when you think about it really) digital hub strategy(brilliant), LCD monitors pretty much across the line, built in firewire, fast ethernet built in, airport, etc.
I think Motorola lost the bet against Apple and in the long run may regret it. Aren't they considering selling off the semiconductor part of their business.
IBM now is very much interested in the desktoop market or why the 970. Is IBM betting on Apple and putting their money where it counts. We'll see.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here's the bit that worries me about IBM: How long will they stay interested? This is a company that is content to sell you 604e based machines, still, today, in 2002, and do so at insane premiums.
OKay, you can say they have Power3 and Power4 based machines too, but the costs of those machines are so far beyond anything Apple could ever get away with charging that they are completely irrelevant for our purposes. IBM has been content (for a years) to let the PPC languish. The G4 too was king when it debuted, but that didn't last long. IBM has been very happy to use a design for a long long long time without significant improvment.
Who says they won't get tired of Steve bitching for faster CPU's in 3-4 years? If they decide what they have is good enough for low-end uL applications and they'll push their high-end customers to Power5/6/whatever's-out-by-then solutions, will they care to continue developing the 970 or will it become another 604e ?
IBM might be interested because they are again entertaining the notion of energizing a platform (that competes with wintelon). But unlike Apple, IBM can afford to get bored with the idea and start packing commodity wintelon parts into it's workstations -- they already have a line-up of X86 machines. If they're going with linux, they can fix up an equally good flavor for either PPC or wintelon. History informs us to be weary of IBM's commitment to an alternative uL (ultra light) platform. Big iron? sure, but not Apple class stuff...
Anyone see Thinksecret's story on the Apple layoffs:
[quote] "They said that based on current demand and customer interest, they see a continuing slump in sales until at least the middle of next year." <hr></blockquote>
Maybe this converges with the new chip release?
If Apple doesn't think sales will pick up until next summer, then they either know something about the PC market which others may not, or they have their own answer to flagging sales...
But keeping powerful software and user mouse execution ratios close...speeding up those things which, despite increasing mhz, never seem to get faster...are surely the hallmarks of the Apple that designed 'cool' but practical computers since Job's return.
Apple is heavily innovating re: software, integration re: digital hub strat'. It makes sense to co-0rdinate your actual hardware re: cpu in this development.
I find the last post very enticing. Why? Because it actually seems (if it turns out that way when launched...) that cpu...rather than using blunt and raw mhz to crack the software problem...sub solutions which bypass traditional design flaws are being dreamt up by Apple's classic 'make things easier' team.
.....
Nice post. There's more than one way to cook an Egg. Intel. Take note.
<strong>Yes...We don't know for sure when they are coming out, but believe me, there is no reason to assume it was possibly coming out in January</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, as others have noted, there is that slim hope that the date for "general availability" is post dated from the date they are first made available to Apple.
[quote]<strong>So out of your points I would also assume you get no points.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I had only one point -- that geekmeat was talkiing through his hat. I think I made that point.
[quote]<strong>And try to be considerate next time to posters, I'm sure you've been wrong before.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I try to be considerate. But when someone with a demonstrably shallow cognitive process (and an obvious lack of experience in the field) berates one and sundry for a lack of profundity, I refuse to withold the scorn they rightly deserve.
[ 10-23-2002: Message edited by: Tomb of the Unknown ]</p>
In the 7xxx-FAQ page the current G4s (7445/7455) is called "Apollo 6". this might reflect the manufacturing processes, HIP6. The 7447/7547 might be called "Apollo 7" to reflect the new process, HIP7.
<strong>Basically, in a more coherent/shorter version, if IBM's long term self-interest disappears, what is there to keep them interested in Apple's needs?
.....
</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM isn't in this for the short haul. They have been working towards the PPC970 for awhile.
The Motorola Apollo project is no different in this respect. The g4 doesn't need to be .13µ to be called Apollo, especially when the 745x/744x series are obviously known as Apollo chips internally.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your absolutely right, look at my post again. It quotes the Motorola document quite clearly in stating "The Apollo program".
I guess I wasn't very clear, but I was commenting on the lack of progress for the Apollo program and that they haven't yet migrated to the 0.13µ process. Actually, I could really care less what they call the chips.
I just get the feeling that somewhere in 2000 or 2001 Motorola had the option of pursuing a cpu designed specifically for Apple and decided the gamble was too high. They haven't listed desktops processors since I don't know when, if ever, on their product sheets.
First mention of IBM considering a processor including Altivec go back to 1999. Albeit, in reference to networking applications, but was this the begining of the 970? My bet is yes, and IBM and Apple started discussing the future of such a chip or series of chips.
If there is any consolation, the 512KB L2 cache and up to 4MB L3 should improve performance despite the pretty weak 167MHz system bus.
If you look at the die for the 7457 you can see how they reworked the internals. the rearranges stuff on die to fit the bigger L2, improved L3 circuitry... possibly they modified the bus?
Also i think we can safely put away the rumors of any 7460, 7470, or maybe 7500 series coming out of Motorola. They named the successor to the 7457 the 7457-RM. And after considering carefully looks like the 7 part stands for the process name (HIP7). But it would be the first to use than nomenclature.
Comments
<strong>
I had noticed on the last slide of the IBM presentation that there was an asterisk by the dates on the "Target Schedule", with the footnote "Estimation only, subject to change without notice". It seemed like grasping at straws to consider that it may come out before the targeted dates, so I didn't comment on it previously. Perhaps we'll get a surprise announcement of, "Gee, this really scaled up to production MUCH faster than we thought! (wink wink, nudge nudge)" sometime in the not-too-distant future (i.e. early next year)?</strong><hr></blockquote>
From what Moki has been saying all along I don't think that is what he is refering to... Don't get me wrong I'd love to see these boxes out and about for a Q1 release Jan/Feb/Mar or even a Q2 release Apr/May/Jun but I've set myself up far too many times and this go-around I'm gonna listen to what 'cooler heads' are saying. This doesn't mean Dec 03-Jan 04 like some are saying but Jul/Aug/Sep/Oct would sure be nice.
Dave
<strong>
From what Moki has been saying all along I don't think that is what he is refering to... Don't get me wrong I'd love to see these boxes out and about for a Q1 release Jan/Feb/Mar or even a Q2 release Apr/May/Jun but I've set myself up far too many times and this go-around I'm gonna listen to what 'cooler heads' are saying. This doesn't mean Dec 03-Jan 04 like some are saying but Jul/Aug/Sep/Oct would sure be nice.
Dave</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree completely. I'm not letting myself get set up for disappointment yet again. What I've got is OK for at least another year, so I'm not desperate personally. For Apple's sake, I hope PPC970-based machines come out sooner than 2H 2003, though. I do think there's a lot more going on behind the scenes than the "big boys" are letting on. Moki and others have been hinting that something big is afoot; I'm looking forward to seeing the other shoe drop WRT the rest of the 970 family - while tempering my hopes with a stiff dose of reality.
<strong>
Honestly, I haven't been paying much attention to MOT, I wrote them off a while ago... if a "G5" comes out from MOT for Apple's desktop machines, I'll have a very hard time believing it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Given that you usually phrase your posts very carefully, would it by reasonable to think that Motorola might release a new chip for Apple's PORTABLE machines? I'm not saying a completely new "G5", just a die-shrunk or otherwise significantly improved G4-such as this 7457... which might allow a significant bump to the PowerBook without turning it into a broiler, while we wait for the hypothetical trickle-down of the IBM processor that Apple will hypothetically adopt in the hypothetically not-too-distant future.
<strong>
Not sure where they got the numbers, but I've seen more than one <a href="http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-961862.html"; target="_blank">article</a> claiming the 970 will top out at 3 GHz, so maybe they are speculating.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That article says "PC chips will run at 3 GHz by the end of the year." That's a reference to the Pentium 4, not the PPC 970. There's no mention of 3 GHz anywhere else in the article, and certainly not with regard to the PPC 970.
<strong>
Not sure where they got the numbers, but I've seen more than one <a href="http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-961862.html"; target="_blank">article</a> claiming the 970 will top out at 3 GHz, so maybe they are speculating.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That article DOES NOT speculate on future speeds for the 970.
The 3GHz estimate is for Intel chips THIS YEAR.
<strong>I don't think the sandbagging reference was to the production schedule, but rather that IBM is holding back on disclosing all of the chip's features and potential.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is correct. A lot can be learned from Apple's internal hardware roadmap. You used to see a lot of 4-way G4 multiprocessor prototypes with 1 main processor responsible for processing, 1 dedicated to sheets, 1 for the genie effect, and the remaining processor doing gaussian blur on text. This changed a bit with the advent of Quartz Extreme when it was realized that current state of the art 3D hardware was sufficient for text blurring. Add to that the prospect of "scale" effect replacing genie and it's feasible to ship a consumer class machine with just the 2 G4 processors which is exactly what they did.
I can't say much being under NDA but shortly after talks got serious with IBM early in the 970's development, recent hardware designs have changed drastically.
I'm told that a substantial percentage of the transistors on the new 970 are dedicated to what is being called the WRU (Window Resizing Unit). I saw a technology demonstration behind closed doors where a TextEdit document with over 8 (!) lines of text was sized all the way to the minimum and back again without dropping a frame.
Perhaps even more interesting is a small but ingenious text processing unit which purportedly provides sufficient horsepower to enable RTT (Real Time Typing) in common productivity software running on MacOS X without requiring a single line of code to be rewritten in legacy applications. Support for this unit is slated for 10.3. Apple and IBM have seeded a proof of concept kernel extension (code named Thunderfist) which enables the RTT unit under OS X and early results are positive - I've heard reports that up to 30 Words Per Minute have been reached in IBM's labs.
The real kicker though, the thing that Moki has been teasing about, is this: Since the advent of MacOS X, Apple engineers have been trying to solve what is commonly known in Computer Science circles as the Take Action Within 8 Seconds of The Mouse Click problem. Accepted theory states this problem is solvable in linear time but in practice, algorithms which address this problem in MacOS X have executed in exponential time. This will soon change with the 970's new Immediate Mode Mouse Event interrupt mechanism. Essentially, a mouse click flips a bit in the processor (wihout going through the OS). The processor in turn, immediately sends a IMME interrupt signal to the Mach kernel, informing it to preempt the window manager thread (which apparently has real-time priority) and process the mouse click. Again, early reports are positive. A friend at IBM claims that mouse to processor communication latencies have been decreased to under 3 seconds in some cases.
Now, obviously much of the above is subject to change. Just because noone has recently heard mention of prototypes such as the one which had a separate G4 processor embedded into every key on the keyboard for real time typing support, doesn't mean that the G4 is finished. Nor does it mean that parallelism is out of the picture. iCal, iChat, iPhoto, and iSync are extremely bandwidth intensive, power-hungry, and compute bound apps that will continue to require workstation class hardware to keep mouse<->processor latencies under the 8 second mark. From what I've seen, if anything can meet these requirements, it is the IBM PPC 970. Expect to be pleasantly surprised by WRU, RTT, and 3 second mouse-processor latencies sometime in 2003.
I'd kinda expect a Steve Jobs Apple to become much more involved with what happens next to the CPU tech' they choose.
If they've had a hand in the 970 chip IBM developed 'for Apple' then I'd expect to see innovations rather than pure mhz.
Apple often state the performance mantra rather than mhz (circumstances dictate.)
But keeping powerful software and user mouse execution ratios close...speeding up those things which, despite increasing mhz, never seem to get faster...are surely the hallmarks of the Apple that designed 'cool' but practical computers since Job's return.
Apple is heavily innovating re: software, integration re: digital hub strat'. It makes sense to co-0rdinate your actual hardware re: cpu in this development.
I find the last post very enticing. Why? Because it actually seems (if it turns out that way when launched...) that cpu...rather than using blunt and raw mhz to crack the software problem...sub solutions which bypass traditional design flaws are being dreamt up by Apple's classic 'make things easier' team.
I like the notion that Apple is using the advantages of the 970's superior architecture to tackle the speed problems in a sideways fashion. I'm not sure this will mean great spec scores. But hey, who cares? IF the real world speed is blistering. This approach to the software problem seems to be in line with IBM's approach to chip design. And no doubt hyper threading will come down the line with future processors.
Certain Photoshop filters, text docs, interface elements...extending and embracing the Quartz philosphies of delegation to say the Graphics cards. I applaud.
Nice post. There's more than one way to cook an Egg. Intel. Take note.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
Sure it is. Just like the NASA Apollo program was designed to put a man on the moon, the Motorola program wasn't designed to complete every goal in one step. The first NASA Apollo missions merely tested the command module in orbit around Earth. They later tested docking with the lunar module...then they made passes around the moon, then Apollo 11 finally put a man on the moon. Later Apollo missions introduced further achievements like the lunar rover...
The Motorola Apollo project is no different in this respect. The g4 doesn't need to be .13µ to be called Apollo, especially when the 745x/744x series are obviously known as Apollo chips internally.</strong><hr></blockquote>
good thoughts, eugene - i really like this stuff...
:cool:
<strong>
Motorola didn't have the resources or the kahones to invest in a cpu designed specifically for desktops. Fool's bet, maybe, but look @ what Apple has, OS X on UNIX(unreal when you think about it really) digital hub strategy(brilliant), LCD monitors pretty much across the line, built in firewire, fast ethernet built in, airport, etc.
I think Motorola lost the bet against Apple and in the long run may regret it. Aren't they considering selling off the semiconductor part of their business.
IBM now is very much interested in the desktoop market or why the 970. Is IBM betting on Apple and putting their money where it counts. We'll see.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here's the bit that worries me about IBM: How long will they stay interested? This is a company that is content to sell you 604e based machines, still, today, in 2002, and do so at insane premiums.
OKay, you can say they have Power3 and Power4 based machines too, but the costs of those machines are so far beyond anything Apple could ever get away with charging that they are completely irrelevant for our purposes. IBM has been content (for a years) to let the PPC languish. The G4 too was king when it debuted, but that didn't last long. IBM has been very happy to use a design for a long long long time without significant improvment.
Who says they won't get tired of Steve bitching for faster CPU's in 3-4 years? If they decide what they have is good enough for low-end uL applications and they'll push their high-end customers to Power5/6/whatever's-out-by-then solutions, will they care to continue developing the 970 or will it become another 604e ?
IBM might be interested because they are again entertaining the notion of energizing a platform (that competes with wintelon). But unlike Apple, IBM can afford to get bored with the idea and start packing commodity wintelon parts into it's workstations -- they already have a line-up of X86 machines. If they're going with linux, they can fix up an equally good flavor for either PPC or wintelon. History informs us to be weary of IBM's commitment to an alternative uL (ultra light) platform. Big iron? sure, but not Apple class stuff...
What was there to keep Moto interested? It's worth thinking about since IBM has a history of becoming periodically dis-interested.
<strong>
Expect to be pleasantly surprised by WRU, RTT, and 3 second mouse-processor latencies sometime in 2003.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ruthifren,
:-D :-D :-D you're killing me!
engpjp
[quote] "They said that based on current demand and customer interest, they see a continuing slump in sales until at least the middle of next year." <hr></blockquote>
Maybe this converges with the new chip release?
If Apple doesn't think sales will pick up until next summer, then they either know something about the PC market which others may not, or they have their own answer to flagging sales...
<strong>
But keeping powerful software and user mouse execution ratios close...speeding up those things which, despite increasing mhz, never seem to get faster...are surely the hallmarks of the Apple that designed 'cool' but practical computers since Job's return.
Apple is heavily innovating re: software, integration re: digital hub strat'. It makes sense to co-0rdinate your actual hardware re: cpu in this development.
I find the last post very enticing. Why? Because it actually seems (if it turns out that way when launched...) that cpu...rather than using blunt and raw mhz to crack the software problem...sub solutions which bypass traditional design flaws are being dreamt up by Apple's classic 'make things easier' team.
.....
Nice post. There's more than one way to cook an Egg. Intel. Take note.
Lemon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
you didn't really think what ruthifren writes? .... man sh't what happened?
btw: i heard that there is an on-chip function in the 970
which is for CPU to 5 1/4" disc communication and they (the IBMs etc) hope to get a transfer rate up to 10.000b/sec (wow)
<strong>Yes...We don't know for sure when they are coming out, but believe me, there is no reason to assume it was possibly coming out in January</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, as others have noted, there is that slim hope that the date for "general availability" is post dated from the date they are first made available to Apple.
[quote]<strong>So out of your points I would also assume you get no points.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I had only one point -- that geekmeat was talkiing through his hat. I think I made that point.
[quote]<strong>And try to be considerate next time to posters, I'm sure you've been wrong before.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I try to be considerate. But when someone with a demonstrably shallow cognitive process (and an obvious lack of experience in the field) berates one and sundry for a lack of profundity, I refuse to withold the scorn they rightly deserve.
[ 10-23-2002: Message edited by: Tomb of the Unknown ]</p>
<a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/cgi-bin/faq.cgi?kbase=powerpc"; target="_blank">7xxx FAQ</a>
<strong>
That article DOES NOT speculate on future speeds for the 970.
The 3GHz estimate is for Intel chips THIS YEAR.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My bad--but see <a href="http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2895186,00.html"; target="_blank">this article</a>.
"Here's the deal: The PowerPC 970 will run at 1.8GHz when it's released next year and will probably ramp up to 3GHz soon afterwards."
<strong>Basically, in a more coherent/shorter version, if IBM's long term self-interest disappears, what is there to keep them interested in Apple's needs?
.....
</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM isn't in this for the short haul. They have been working towards the PPC970 for awhile.
<a href="http://www.iseriesnetwork.com/resources/artarchive/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewarticle&CO_ContentID=1523 8&channel=art&PageView=Search" target="_blank">IBM iSeries Systems</a>
<strong>
Sure it is.....
The Motorola Apollo project is no different in this respect. The g4 doesn't need to be .13µ to be called Apollo, especially when the 745x/744x series are obviously known as Apollo chips internally.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your absolutely right, look at my post again. It quotes the Motorola document quite clearly in stating "The Apollo program".
I guess I wasn't very clear, but I was commenting on the lack of progress for the Apollo program and that they haven't yet migrated to the 0.13µ process. Actually, I could really care less what they call the chips.
I just get the feeling that somewhere in 2000 or 2001 Motorola had the option of pursuing a cpu designed specifically for Apple and decided the gamble was too high. They haven't listed desktops processors since I don't know when, if ever, on their product sheets.
First mention of IBM considering a processor including Altivec go back to 1999. Albeit, in reference to networking applications, but was this the begining of the 970? My bet is yes, and IBM and Apple started discussing the future of such a chip or series of chips.
If you look at the die for the 7457 you can see how they reworked the internals. the rearranges stuff on die to fit the bigger L2, improved L3 circuitry... possibly they modified the bus?
Also i think we can safely put away the rumors of any 7460, 7470, or maybe 7500 series coming out of Motorola. They named the successor to the 7457 the 7457-RM. And after considering carefully looks like the 7 part stands for the process name (HIP7). But it would be the first to use than nomenclature.