"So, if Apple has dibs on most- if not all- 970's then it stands to reason that IBM is unable to announce availability of the chip to other OEMs until Apple's appetite is satiated. I'm also betting that Apple's demand will lesson just as IBM says it will- by midyear '03. Which is about the time that all the orders for the new Macs will have been satisfied. This means that Apple will announce a 970 machine in January with low-end shipping systems by March and the high-end by April."
In IBM's roadmap, the next generation Power PC chip shows;
1+GHz
Multicore Superscalar
SMP Capable
Integrated SIMID Engine
RapidI/O
n-way Crossbar Core Connect
low-k Dielectric 0.13 - 0.10 µm process
Isn't IBM currently using 0.13µ for the G3? What is the likelyhood that this processor based on "parts of" or "all of" the projections will come to market before the MPC7457 and how much before?
Since the roadmap is for PowerPC's not just the G3's. So any chip based on these profections wouldn't necessarily be a 75X series chip, right. Does any one think that it is remotely possible this chip will appear Jan. 2003??
"So, if Apple has dibs on most- if not all- 970's then it stands to reason that IBM is unable to announce availability of the chip to other OEMs until Apple's appetite is satiated. I'm also betting that Apple's demand will lesson just as IBM says it will- by midyear '03. Which is about the time that all the orders for the new Macs will have been satisfied. This means that Apple will announce a 970 machine in January with low-end shipping systems by March and the high-end by April."</strong><hr></blockquote>
TidBits: Forums update, IBM & Moto agreement, more...
Architosh Forums Update
Previously we mentioned the Thanksgiving timeframe (which just ended yesterday) for the update to our forums. They will be integrated into the MacNN forums. However the tech team at MacNN may have gotten carried away with too much turkey and wine! We'll miss that target but not by much. We'll keep you updated.
IBM and Motorola PowerPC Agreement Ends?
A MacNN forum poster is stating that IBM and Motorola's PowerPC agreement ends on January 14, 2003. Whether this is true or not is not so interesting to us here at Architosh, as we have previously been told that IBM and Motorola were taking the PowerPC platform in different directions: the former very interested in the powerful but power-lite G3 architecture for embedded markets, and still interested in powerful and specialized PowerPC processors for the desktop and game machine market (GameCube and Playstation 3) , while the latter more interested in the embedded market period.
What is very interesting about this post is the statement that terms of the current agreement (the one that ends Jan 14) is the source of holdup on the now mythical Motorola G5 chip! The source of that disagreement appears to be HyperTransport vs RapidIO. Apple is a member of the HyperTransport Consortium. The assumption is that both companies are refusing to license each other's design technologies as originally agreed upon in the AIM alliance agreements. Moto is behind RapidIO while IBM may be behind HyperTransport.
Our take is that this rumor -- while very believable and in compliance with other information we have obtained -- is not totally correct. We believe that the real reason behind the Moto's G5 failure to come to market is the demand Apple placed on the use of the proprietary Apple Processor Interconnect (ApplePI-BIU) technology, something Moto had no use for with other G5 customers. Furthermore, we believe it may be that Apple's proprietary bus interface unit technology may have found better performance fit with HyperTransport rather than with RapidIO technology.
And contrary to other posts on the Net, Apple actually architected and created the ApplePI-BIU (Apple Processor Bus-Interface Unit) technology, not IBM. The "ApplePI" (trademarked perhaps?) moniker actually appears on Motorola G5 (code named Eleven) chip floor plan documents we have obtained going as far back as 2000. What we actually know is that back in 2000 some critical issues for Motorola's progress on the G5 chip included resolving the ApplePI technology from Apple both at the legal and specification level. We suspect that the legal issue back in 2000 involved the major PowerPC Alliance agreements between IBM and Motorola. The specification issue likely revolved around convincing Apple that RapidIO was the preferred technology for the ApplePI-BIU.
If the MacNN forum poster is correct about the PowerPC agreement terminations this January 14th, then one may imagine a future wherein IBM and Moto actually implement substantially different technologies with their PowerPC offerings, while still collaborating and sharing core technologies -- something that has been of much value to PowerPC customers. Apple would ultimately be better served if both Moto and IBM had products suitable for Apple's gear.
Comments
<strong>That at makes a lot of sense. Thanks. But if we DO get a surprise before the 970, I want credit for calling it!</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Nice try,<a href="Http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002556&p=9"; target="_blank">unfortunately...</a>
Here's a sample:
"So, if Apple has dibs on most- if not all- 970's then it stands to reason that IBM is unable to announce availability of the chip to other OEMs until Apple's appetite is satiated. I'm also betting that Apple's demand will lesson just as IBM says it will- by midyear '03. Which is about the time that all the orders for the new Macs will have been satisfied. This means that Apple will announce a 970 machine in January with low-end shipping systems by March and the high-end by April."
1+GHz
Multicore Superscalar
SMP Capable
Integrated SIMID Engine
RapidI/O
n-way Crossbar Core Connect
low-k Dielectric 0.13 - 0.10 µm process
Isn't IBM currently using 0.13µ for the G3? What is the likelyhood that this processor based on "parts of" or "all of" the projections will come to market before the MPC7457 and how much before?
Since the roadmap is for PowerPC's not just the G3's. So any chip based on these profections wouldn't necessarily be a 75X series chip, right. Does any one think that it is remotely possible this chip will appear Jan. 2003??
Just curious what people think.
<strong>
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Nice try,<a href="Http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002556&p=9"; target="_blank">unfortunately...</a>
Here's a sample:
"So, if Apple has dibs on most- if not all- 970's then it stands to reason that IBM is unable to announce availability of the chip to other OEMs until Apple's appetite is satiated. I'm also betting that Apple's demand will lesson just as IBM says it will- by midyear '03. Which is about the time that all the orders for the new Macs will have been satisfied. This means that Apple will announce a 970 machine in January with low-end shipping systems by March and the high-end by April."</strong><hr></blockquote>
:eek:
My sincere apologies.
[ 11-06-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
<strong>
As long as it's not a new design on a new process.
yes you're absolutely right...
i think next year will be THE year for new hardware.
i have said in the past that i was "troubled" by the announcement of the IBM 970 and the resulting
scutlebutt.
perhaps i was a very deceptive cover for apple.
like ive said in the past,apple is much smarter than most of you give them credit for.
i believe their is some merit to the g3 core+altivec+rapid i/o/ddr ram rumour.
will they also be able to deliever a 970 at MWNY?
Architosh Forums Update
Previously we mentioned the Thanksgiving timeframe (which just ended yesterday) for the update to our forums. They will be integrated into the MacNN forums. However the tech team at MacNN may have gotten carried away with too much turkey and wine! We'll miss that target but not by much. We'll keep you updated.
IBM and Motorola PowerPC Agreement Ends?
A MacNN forum poster is stating that IBM and Motorola's PowerPC agreement ends on January 14, 2003. Whether this is true or not is not so interesting to us here at Architosh, as we have previously been told that IBM and Motorola were taking the PowerPC platform in different directions: the former very interested in the powerful but power-lite G3 architecture for embedded markets, and still interested in powerful and specialized PowerPC processors for the desktop and game machine market (GameCube and Playstation 3) , while the latter more interested in the embedded market period.
What is very interesting about this post is the statement that terms of the current agreement (the one that ends Jan 14) is the source of holdup on the now mythical Motorola G5 chip! The source of that disagreement appears to be HyperTransport vs RapidIO. Apple is a member of the HyperTransport Consortium. The assumption is that both companies are refusing to license each other's design technologies as originally agreed upon in the AIM alliance agreements. Moto is behind RapidIO while IBM may be behind HyperTransport.
Our take is that this rumor -- while very believable and in compliance with other information we have obtained -- is not totally correct. We believe that the real reason behind the Moto's G5 failure to come to market is the demand Apple placed on the use of the proprietary Apple Processor Interconnect (ApplePI-BIU) technology, something Moto had no use for with other G5 customers. Furthermore, we believe it may be that Apple's proprietary bus interface unit technology may have found better performance fit with HyperTransport rather than with RapidIO technology.
And contrary to other posts on the Net, Apple actually architected and created the ApplePI-BIU (Apple Processor Bus-Interface Unit) technology, not IBM. The "ApplePI" (trademarked perhaps?) moniker actually appears on Motorola G5 (code named Eleven) chip floor plan documents we have obtained going as far back as 2000. What we actually know is that back in 2000 some critical issues for Motorola's progress on the G5 chip included resolving the ApplePI technology from Apple both at the legal and specification level. We suspect that the legal issue back in 2000 involved the major PowerPC Alliance agreements between IBM and Motorola. The specification issue likely revolved around convincing Apple that RapidIO was the preferred technology for the ApplePI-BIU.
If the MacNN forum poster is correct about the PowerPC agreement terminations this January 14th, then one may imagine a future wherein IBM and Moto actually implement substantially different technologies with their PowerPC offerings, while still collaborating and sharing core technologies -- something that has been of much value to PowerPC customers. Apple would ultimately be better served if both Moto and IBM had products suitable for Apple's gear.