<strong>I could spend an entire day in here going over any number of flaws in your posts, which are for the most part full of opinionated nonsense. You show little actual grounding in the subjects at hand or underlying knowledge of the market. In fact if I had to hazard a guess I'd say you are a student fresh out of some form of business course. You like to throw a lot of theory about but you really don't seem to have a true grasp or understanding on what it exactly means.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Rather than attack my ideas, you attack my credibility. So how credible does that make you?
When you're ready to take me to school and point out my flaws, I'm ready. But until then, please leave my mother out of this.
[quote]<strong>
IBM's name is such {snip}
In case you aren't familiar with this market, and judging by what you say you quite clearly aren't, reliability is key. Around half the price of your payment go in support costs. People don't pick IBM in that market because they sell low quality products, they buy IBM because it is IBM and IBM has built up a name for quality and reliability in the industry. At some point you would have likely heard the old saying, "You won't get fired for suggesting IBM." and it still remains very true.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's some great PR.
When you use the word market, which market are you talking about? Are you talking about the server market? "High-end solutions?"
IBM has an estimated 13.9% of the worldwide server market, and an estimated 11.7% US. Obviously IBMs "name for quality and reliability in the industry" doesn't really help it to take control of DELL & HP, who are the industry leaders.
[quote]<strong>
As for IBM not being at the cutting edge of R&D that's nonsense. Every single year IBM makes more patent applications than any other company (NEC is second from memory). </strong><hr></blockquote>
This has already been disputed. Read above for clarifcation thanks.
[quote]<strong>
As a business proposition I couldn't think of a more appealing company than IBM and the markets generally would agree with that. They're a stalwart icon of the technology and computing industry and a good option for Apple if IBM chooses.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Considering you've questioned my credibility based upon my opinions you now expect others to accept yours instead. How should I go about finding new ways to insult your intelligence as well?
<strong>Nitpick: MOTU is Mark of the Unicorn, a developer of music production hardware and software that has been a Mac stalwart for years. Motorola is Mot, or Moto.
As for x86 being a standard platform, you apparently haven't yet understood that I don't consider it a standard platform in any meaningful sense. I called it a common platform, which is altogether different. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's terrific. You can call an apple an orange if you like, still doesn't change the way it tastes. If you still don't consier x86 to be the standard platorm with any amount of evidence presented before you, then there's no use continuing this conversation.
No, but you have tellingly made no effort to find all the work they've done that is.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
BTW--It's not my job to support another person's argument. I work with what is provided to me like most people do. If people want to make their cases stronger by supporting it with evidence then by all means do so. But don't expect me to do your homework for you.
<strong> As I've said repeatedly, this is the future of high-performance computing according to the organizations that do high-performance computing. IBM is going that way. Intel isn't. So if you want high performance, why go Intel?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
We're talking about personal computers. That's why.
That's terrific. You can call an apple an orange if you like, still doesn't change the way it tastes. If you still don't consier x86 to be the standard platorm with any amount of evidence presented before you, then there's no use continuing this conversation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And if you can't entertain the possibility that x86 is not a standard in any useful or meaningful way despite any amount of evidence, there's no point continuing the conversation.
(Not to mention that if you don't even know that IBM research is legendary, there's no point starting the conversation. But it's a bit late for that...).
everyone is saying that apple will use the alleged
7557 chip in new POWERMACS.
first of all we dont know that update or all new POWERMACS wont be appearing at mwsf2003.
secondly,if apple does decide to go with the 7557 it will debut at more than 1.3 ghz,which is not what most talking heads are saying.
third,motorola WILL be rolling out their embedded processors based on the book E specification.
the 8540 and 8560 both have rapid i/o and support for 333 mhz ddr ram built into the cpu!
these chips are quasi-G5's.
the only thing they lack is altivec.
how hard would it be for motorola to put altivec in these chips?
not difficult at all me thinks.
then apple could be in business.
these chips arent true g5's but would suffice for the i-book and i-mac.
AND even though im not aware of pricing on these items,motorola's own website is touting them as a price performance winner.
if you look at the literature on the 8540 which is readily available on motorolas website,these chips can adress 4Gigabytes of ram EACH,and they also have what is described as a "point to point interconnect",OCEAN.
isnt apple PI a point to point interconnect architecture?
from what ive gleaned its based on RAPID I/O and not HYPERTRANSPORT.
im not aware of the architectural particulars in terms of the differences between these 2 competing I/O archetectures,i would appreciate a little feedback.oh yeah...they consume 6.5W of power at 1GHZ!!
also multiprocessor designs will be much easier to implement using these chips.
but look out!
motorola WILL make its presence felt,and very soon! <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" />
I wouldn't take the current state of the G3 as any indication of IBM being lacking in anything. What motivation have really had to improve on it in a significant fashion? It works great in Apple Portables and embeded applications such as the Game Cube, because it's a damn efficiant chip for those situations. The idea that that immediately makes the 970 a turkey with no future is rediculous.
IBM has been pretty focused on servers and ecommerce recently and it took a while to develop the 970. The time is just about right for a mature Linux desktop enviroment to emerge whcih is something that IBM could make some good money on. I'm sure they feel that 2003 is the right time to focus on desktop machines and Apple using the chip as well is just another source of revenue.
I thought the eMac used a G4. What does that have to do with IBM?
everyone is saying that apple will use the alleged
7557 chip in new POWERMACS.
first of all we dont know that update or all new POWERMACS wont be appearing at mwsf2003.
secondly,if apple does decide to go with the 7557 it will debut at more than 1.3 ghz,which is not what most talking heads are saying.
third,motorola WILL be rolling out their embedded processors based on the book E specification.
the 8540 and 8560 both have rapid i/o and support for 333 mhz ddr ram built into the cpu!
these chips are quasi-G5's.
the only thing they lack is altivec.
how hard would it be for motorola to put altivec in these chips?
not difficult at all me thinks.
then apple could be in business.
these chips arent true g5's but would suffice for the i-book and i-mac.
AND even though im not aware of pricing on these items,motorola's own website is touting them as a price performance winner.
if you look at the literature on the 8540 which is readily available on motorolas website,these chips can adress 4Gigabytes of ram EACH,and they also have what is described as a "point to point interconnect",OCEAN.
isnt apple PI a point to point interconnect architecture?
from what ive gleaned its based on RAPID I/O and not HYPERTRANSPORT.
im not aware of the architectural particulars in terms of the differences between these 2 competing I/O archetectures,i would appreciate a little feedback.oh yeah...they consume 6.5W of power at 1GHZ!!
also multiprocessor designs will be much easier to implement using these chips.
but look out!
motorola WILL make its presence felt,and very soon! <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
1) The 8540 and 8560 do not have floating point units. (The 8560 can do single precision FP in it's SIMD unit, but that's not the same at all.) Every PPC chip used by Apple has had a full double precision FPU, so a lot of programmes will have FP instructions in there without bothering to test for an FPU, and will crash on one of these processors.
2) Altivec is incompatible with BookE as it has its own set of 128 bit registers, and uses prefetch instructions which would require redesign of the load/store units of the BookE CPUs. It would be very hard to retrofit Altivec to the 8560, that's why it has it's own SIMD instruction set.
3) OCEAN is an on-chip interconnect (That's what the OC stands for). The external interface is RapidIO, which is point-to-point. RapidIO and Hypertransport are similar in concept, though RapidIO is currently a parallel bus raher than serial.
4) Noone has yet come up with any hard information on what ApplePI is. There is no certainty that it is point-to-point.
5) The 8540/8560 are barely if at all faster than an equally clocked G4 at integer processing, and are expected to not exceed 1GHz at release, hardly a G5.
6) The 8540/8560 have been promised for quite a while, with no indication that they are anywhere near being delivered.
7) As you say, there is a lot of literature at Motorola's site, try reading it.
We're talking about personal computers. That's why.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, that's right. I forgot. All personal computers will always use one big, hot processor. There's no way any PC maker will ever go SMP. That strategy only works when you want high performance, and nobody wants high performance in a personal computer.
[quote]PowerLogix has sent an update regarding their previously reported plans for a more robust DC/DC board replacement. Here's what Robert jagitsch, President of PowerLogix had to day:
"We have come up with an optimized method that allows the use of the standard Apple DC/DC card, so that card will not need replacing. We expect the duals for Cube to be available by the end of January. We intend to offer dual 800 and faster for Cube, including 1.2GHz." <hr></blockquote>
It sounds like Moto has moved the G4 to a smaller manufacturing process, and that they will have sufficient 1.2 Ghz chips sometime after January to supply Apple, and the upgrade manufacturers....Good news for me and my Cube.
A couple of these threads seem to prove what a strong hold marketing can have over the human mind. I'm sure many are persuaded that a processor's core performance is the most important factor, especially clock rate in GHz. It is no longer the MHz race. Well, it has produced a lot of good replies and information, and caused me to consider a couple things.
There really is a limit to how fast a single core can go, and and how much performance can be squeezed out with techniques like SMT. It looks like Intel is determined to discover just where that limit is and get as close to it as possible. That's one approach. It appears that nothing else will satisfy those who are completely sold on the current marketing hype.
However, it looks like IBM has a different approach. Single core performance is just one factor in computer performance. Why push the core beyond the point of diminishing returns, where single core performance begins to cost more and more for less and less improvement? IBM appears to be saying it is better to get good performance from a core, while keeping cost and power at lower levels. In this approach, increased computer performance comes from having more cores.
If we wish to argue, let it be about which limit will be reached first? Will single core performance hit the wall before adding more cores becomes impractical, or will it be the other way around? Which approach will be most economical for getting high end computers? I do believe some of this has been addressed already, but it will never satisfy those who are completely sold on core specs.
Excuse the double posting. It looks like my post is more appropriate in this thread. Also to clear up one issue -- to have more than one core, I also include dual, quad and more single core processors. I am not just referring to multi-core chips.
amd is using a RISC-based chip which cracks the x86 instructions before processing.
IBM will build the worlds fastest computing-station ever with 120000 Power5 cpus (10 times faster than todays fastest).
the 970 is based on the Power4.
970s-follow-ups will be based on the Power5.
Mac OS X is smp-capable.....
the G4 isn't THAT much slower than a 3Ghz P4 or AMD 2.6+ (or is there a 2.8+ already?).
the G4 shows up in SPEC-marks up to 5 times slower than the 970.
SPEC is NOT a good benchmark to compare PPC and x86.
and please stop using cubase and start using Logic Audio - it's so much better!
AMD is having problems to stay in market and looks for finding new markets (so they're not basing all their future-plans on their x86 cpus).
apple bought some high-performance-killer-apps of the movie-and-music-market.
amd says: currently no chips for apple.
intel P4 is slower on the same clock than a P3 - the 970 is faster at the same clock than a G4 - the G4 is faster at the same clock than a P4 - who made progress?
ibms roadmap shows the G3-successor with RapidIO and SIMD and SMP-capable and other goodies...
me thinks an IBM-Apple-machine is the future! and a good future!
Comments
<strong>I could spend an entire day in here going over any number of flaws in your posts, which are for the most part full of opinionated nonsense. You show little actual grounding in the subjects at hand or underlying knowledge of the market. In fact if I had to hazard a guess I'd say you are a student fresh out of some form of business course. You like to throw a lot of theory about but you really don't seem to have a true grasp or understanding on what it exactly means.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Rather than attack my ideas, you attack my credibility. So how credible does that make you?
When you're ready to take me to school and point out my flaws, I'm ready. But until then, please leave my mother out of this.
[quote]<strong>
IBM's name is such {snip}
In case you aren't familiar with this market, and judging by what you say you quite clearly aren't, reliability is key. Around half the price of your payment go in support costs. People don't pick IBM in that market because they sell low quality products, they buy IBM because it is IBM and IBM has built up a name for quality and reliability in the industry. At some point you would have likely heard the old saying, "You won't get fired for suggesting IBM." and it still remains very true.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's some great PR.
When you use the word market, which market are you talking about? Are you talking about the server market? "High-end solutions?"
IBM has an estimated 13.9% of the worldwide server market, and an estimated 11.7% US. Obviously IBMs "name for quality and reliability in the industry" doesn't really help it to take control of DELL & HP, who are the industry leaders.
[quote]<strong>
As for IBM not being at the cutting edge of R&D that's nonsense. Every single year IBM makes more patent applications than any other company (NEC is second from memory). </strong><hr></blockquote>
This has already been disputed. Read above for clarifcation thanks.
[quote]<strong>
As a business proposition I couldn't think of a more appealing company than IBM and the markets generally would agree with that. They're a stalwart icon of the technology and computing industry and a good option for Apple if IBM chooses.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Considering you've questioned my credibility based upon my opinions you now expect others to accept yours instead. How should I go about finding new ways to insult your intelligence as well?
<strong>Nitpick: MOTU is Mark of the Unicorn, a developer of music production hardware and software that has been a Mac stalwart for years. Motorola is Mot, or Moto.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Totally. My bad.
I use Cubase.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>b.) There's a plan.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Seems like it. Too many disparate pieces pointing to something unknown. But with an interesting shape. Shrug.
<strong>
As for x86 being a standard platform, you apparently haven't yet understood that I don't consider it a standard platform in any meaningful sense. I called it a common platform, which is altogether different. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's terrific. You can call an apple an orange if you like, still doesn't change the way it tastes. If you still don't consier x86 to be the standard platorm with any amount of evidence presented before you, then there's no use continuing this conversation.
<strong>
No, but you have tellingly made no effort to find all the work they've done that is.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
BTW--It's not my job to support another person's argument. I work with what is provided to me like most people do. If people want to make their cases stronger by supporting it with evidence then by all means do so. But don't expect me to do your homework for you.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong> As I've said repeatedly, this is the future of high-performance computing according to the organizations that do high-performance computing. IBM is going that way. Intel isn't. So if you want high performance, why go Intel?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
We're talking about personal computers. That's why.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>
That's terrific. You can call an apple an orange if you like, still doesn't change the way it tastes. If you still don't consier x86 to be the standard platorm with any amount of evidence presented before you, then there's no use continuing this conversation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And if you can't entertain the possibility that x86 is not a standard in any useful or meaningful way despite any amount of evidence, there's no point continuing the conversation.
(Not to mention that if you don't even know that IBM research is legendary, there's no point starting the conversation. But it's a bit late for that...).
[ 12-05-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
everyone is saying that apple will use the alleged
7557 chip in new POWERMACS.
first of all we dont know that update or all new POWERMACS wont be appearing at mwsf2003.
secondly,if apple does decide to go with the 7557 it will debut at more than 1.3 ghz,which is not what most talking heads are saying.
third,motorola WILL be rolling out their embedded processors based on the book E specification.
the 8540 and 8560 both have rapid i/o and support for 333 mhz ddr ram built into the cpu!
these chips are quasi-G5's.
the only thing they lack is altivec.
how hard would it be for motorola to put altivec in these chips?
not difficult at all me thinks.
then apple could be in business.
these chips arent true g5's but would suffice for the i-book and i-mac.
AND even though im not aware of pricing on these items,motorola's own website is touting them as a price performance winner.
if you look at the literature on the 8540 which is readily available on motorolas website,these chips can adress 4Gigabytes of ram EACH,and they also have what is described as a "point to point interconnect",OCEAN.
isnt apple PI a point to point interconnect architecture?
from what ive gleaned its based on RAPID I/O and not HYPERTRANSPORT.
im not aware of the architectural particulars in terms of the differences between these 2 competing I/O archetectures,i would appreciate a little feedback.oh yeah...they consume 6.5W of power at 1GHZ!!
also multiprocessor designs will be much easier to implement using these chips.
but look out!
motorola WILL make its presence felt,and very soon! <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" />
IBM has been pretty focused on servers and ecommerce recently and it took a while to develop the 970. The time is just about right for a mature Linux desktop enviroment to emerge whcih is something that IBM could make some good money on. I'm sure they feel that 2003 is the right time to focus on desktop machines and Apple using the chip as well is just another source of revenue.
I thought the eMac used a G4. What does that have to do with IBM?
<strong>just wait until next month.
everyone is saying that apple will use the alleged
7557 chip in new POWERMACS.
first of all we dont know that update or all new POWERMACS wont be appearing at mwsf2003.
secondly,if apple does decide to go with the 7557 it will debut at more than 1.3 ghz,which is not what most talking heads are saying.
third,motorola WILL be rolling out their embedded processors based on the book E specification.
the 8540 and 8560 both have rapid i/o and support for 333 mhz ddr ram built into the cpu!
these chips are quasi-G5's.
the only thing they lack is altivec.
how hard would it be for motorola to put altivec in these chips?
not difficult at all me thinks.
then apple could be in business.
these chips arent true g5's but would suffice for the i-book and i-mac.
AND even though im not aware of pricing on these items,motorola's own website is touting them as a price performance winner.
if you look at the literature on the 8540 which is readily available on motorolas website,these chips can adress 4Gigabytes of ram EACH,and they also have what is described as a "point to point interconnect",OCEAN.
isnt apple PI a point to point interconnect architecture?
from what ive gleaned its based on RAPID I/O and not HYPERTRANSPORT.
im not aware of the architectural particulars in terms of the differences between these 2 competing I/O archetectures,i would appreciate a little feedback.oh yeah...they consume 6.5W of power at 1GHZ!!
also multiprocessor designs will be much easier to implement using these chips.
but look out!
motorola WILL make its presence felt,and very soon! <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
1) The 8540 and 8560 do not have floating point units. (The 8560 can do single precision FP in it's SIMD unit, but that's not the same at all.) Every PPC chip used by Apple has had a full double precision FPU, so a lot of programmes will have FP instructions in there without bothering to test for an FPU, and will crash on one of these processors.
2) Altivec is incompatible with BookE as it has its own set of 128 bit registers, and uses prefetch instructions which would require redesign of the load/store units of the BookE CPUs. It would be very hard to retrofit Altivec to the 8560, that's why it has it's own SIMD instruction set.
3) OCEAN is an on-chip interconnect (That's what the OC stands for). The external interface is RapidIO, which is point-to-point. RapidIO and Hypertransport are similar in concept, though RapidIO is currently a parallel bus raher than serial.
4) Noone has yet come up with any hard information on what ApplePI is. There is no certainty that it is point-to-point.
5) The 8540/8560 are barely if at all faster than an equally clocked G4 at integer processing, and are expected to not exceed 1GHz at release, hardly a G5.
6) The 8540/8560 have been promised for quite a while, with no indication that they are anywhere near being delivered.
7) As you say, there is a lot of literature at Motorola's site, try reading it.
michael
<strong>
4) Noone has yet come up with any hard information on what ApplePI is. There is no certainty that it is point-to-point.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have evidence that ApplePi is intimately related to the 970's bus.
<strong>
We're talking about personal computers. That's why.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, that's right. I forgot. All personal computers will always use one big, hot processor. There's no way any PC maker will ever go SMP. That strategy only works when you want high performance, and nobody wants high performance in a personal computer.
Do you work for Intel?
[quote]PowerLogix has sent an update regarding their previously reported plans for a more robust DC/DC board replacement. Here's what Robert jagitsch, President of PowerLogix had to day:
"We have come up with an optimized method that allows the use of the standard Apple DC/DC card, so that card will not need replacing. We expect the duals for Cube to be available by the end of January. We intend to offer dual 800 and faster for Cube, including 1.2GHz." <hr></blockquote>
It sounds like Moto has moved the G4 to a smaller manufacturing process, and that they will have sufficient 1.2 Ghz chips sometime after January to supply Apple, and the upgrade manufacturers....Good news for me and my Cube.
There really is a limit to how fast a single core can go, and and how much performance can be squeezed out with techniques like SMT. It looks like Intel is determined to discover just where that limit is and get as close to it as possible. That's one approach. It appears that nothing else will satisfy those who are completely sold on the current marketing hype.
However, it looks like IBM has a different approach. Single core performance is just one factor in computer performance. Why push the core beyond the point of diminishing returns, where single core performance begins to cost more and more for less and less improvement? IBM appears to be saying it is better to get good performance from a core, while keeping cost and power at lower levels. In this approach, increased computer performance comes from having more cores.
If we wish to argue, let it be about which limit will be reached first? Will single core performance hit the wall before adding more cores becomes impractical, or will it be the other way around? Which approach will be most economical for getting high end computers? I do believe some of this has been addressed already, but it will never satisfy those who are completely sold on core specs.
Excuse the double posting. It looks like my post is more appropriate in this thread. Also to clear up one issue -- to have more than one core, I also include dual, quad and more single core processors. I am not just referring to multi-core chips.
<strong>
...and hopefully not Plan a)</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]" /> <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]" />
<strong>
I have evidence that ApplePi is intimately related to the 970's bus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
where from?
intel is moving from x86 to itanium 2.
amd is using a RISC-based chip which cracks the x86 instructions before processing.
IBM will build the worlds fastest computing-station ever with 120000 Power5 cpus (10 times faster than todays fastest).
the 970 is based on the Power4.
970s-follow-ups will be based on the Power5.
Mac OS X is smp-capable.....
the G4 isn't THAT much slower than a 3Ghz P4 or AMD 2.6+ (or is there a 2.8+ already?).
the G4 shows up in SPEC-marks up to 5 times slower than the 970.
SPEC is NOT a good benchmark to compare PPC and x86.
and please stop using cubase and start using Logic Audio - it's so much better!
AMD is having problems to stay in market and looks for finding new markets (so they're not basing all their future-plans on their x86 cpus).
apple bought some high-performance-killer-apps of the movie-and-music-market.
amd says: currently no chips for apple.
intel P4 is slower on the same clock than a P3 - the 970 is faster at the same clock than a G4 - the G4 is faster at the same clock than a P4 - who made progress?
ibms roadmap shows the G3-successor with RapidIO and SIMD and SMP-capable and other goodies...
me thinks an IBM-Apple-machine is the future! and a good future!
<strong>
where from?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I second that request.
<strong>
I have evidence that ApplePi is intimately related to the 970's bus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is that intimately in terms of being screwed together or just huggy-kissy.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />