Where will the 970's competition be?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
According to <a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7269"; target="_blank">the Inquirer</a> which cites <a href="http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/1094/index.html"; target="_blank">this article</a>, the 4th quarter of 2003 will see the P4 hitting 3.40 ghz.



Excluding altivec, I consider the 1.8 ghz 970 to be ROUGHLY equal to a 2.8 p4. So in 10 months, I think its fair and conservative to say that the top of the line p4 will be ROUGHLY 20 percent faster than a 1.8 ghz 970.



Given Altivec, plus the size, cost and wattage of the 970, I'd hazard that the 970 will NOT be to little to late.



[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: Bacon ]



[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: Bacon ]</p>
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 51
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    i read an article that said that intel is working on a 64bit dual core chip that will be ready in two years or so.



    So, considering that the 970 will be at 1.8 coming out of Macs being at 1Ghz, then the competition will get its start at about 4Ghz . . . effectively trouncing Macs . . . as usual.
  • Reply 2 of 51
    IBM's estimates put the 970 1.8 GHz at about equivalent to a 2.8 GHz P4 when measured by SPECmarks. This isn't necessarily indicative of real world performance, and I'd put my money on the 970 showing better in non-SPEC situations... especially if SIMD code is used.



    Going forward IBM will migrate the design to 0.09 microns and will follow it with the 980 and 990. Somewhere in there they'll go dual core. Intel's 2 year roadmap for the IA-64 (not x86) says they'll go dual core, and the IA-64 runs at a much lower clock rate than their P4 (of course it doesn't need the high clock rates as much). Its going to be longer than that before the IA-64 reaches the desktop, especially in dual core form. The 9x0 family will start on the desktop. So far as I'm aware, Intel has not x86-64 plans announced.
  • Reply 3 of 51
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    I read somewhere that AMD was planning on trickling out Hammers in March, though I have no idea where they will be as far as clockspeed is concerned. I'm assuming they'll be launching the desktop variety in an effort to try closing a bit of the performance gap between the current Athlon XPs and the whatever GHz P4. Intel will probably be pushing 3.4 GHz or more at that point with its Sringdale stuff. The Athlon 64s will probably start off at around the same clockspeeds as the current Athlon XPs accordng to rumor.
  • Reply 4 of 51
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <strong>I read somewhere that AMD was planning on trickling out Hammers in March, though I have no idea where they will be as far as clockspeed is concerned.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Supposedly AMD is targeting a clockrate of 2.0GHz with their Athlong64 (which should compare favourably with the Pentium 4).



    On another note - WOW! From 3.0 to 3.4 GHz in one year! Wow! That's, like, 400 MHz! I've seen Intel scale faster than that ...
  • Reply 5 of 51
    "According to the Inquirer which cites this article, the 4th quarter of 2003 will see the P4 hitting 3.40 ghz."



    That maybe so. IBM say the 970 at 1 gig will out pace the G4 by 2. Twice as fast. At 1 gig, that's that's G4 2 gig. At 1.8 gig, the 970 gives a G4 rating of 3.6 gig. Compare a 3.6 gig G4 to a 3.4 gig P4. Happy? I am.



    "Excluding altivec, I consider the 1.8 ghz 970 to be ROUGHLY equal to a 2.8 p4. So in 10 months, I think its fair and conservative to say that the top of the line p4 will be ROUGHLY 20 percent faster than a 1.8 ghz 970."



    You're guessing here. But IBM aren't guessing when they say the 970 will out perform the G4. They can't mislead the markets in this way. I don't see how a a Pentium 4 at 3.4 gig is going to be '20 percent faster' than a 'G4 at 3.6 gig' (equivalent 970 speed...)



    Nobody knows for sure. But the way I'm viewing this, Apple's got the best chance in ages to stick it to Intel. IBM get's to have a shot at Intel to...that must also be noted.



    "Given Altivec, plus the size, cost and wattage of the 970, I'd hazard that the 970 will NOT be to little to late."



    At 1.8 gig. It's a 3.6 gig G4. It's on a fantastic bus. It has an extra fpu. Altivec running at THAT speed. Five execution units. Better memory support. A 1.2 .9 gig 970 in a Powerbook laptop would give you the performance of a G4 at 2.4 gig. I like. The 970 has every indication of OUTPERFORMING the Pentium 4. And it's 64 bit. I can't wait to see what this does for the 'power'Mac plaform in terms of suporting 3D apps like Lightwave...and having the option of 4 gig plus Ram 'power'Mac workstation monsters.



    This kinda leads me onto Programmers shrewd post...



    "IBM's estimates put the 970 1.8 GHz at about equivalent to a 2.8 GHz P4 when measured by SPECmarks."



    EXACTLY! The G4 is crap in spec. The fact that the 970 does 'about a 2.8 Gig P4' when measured by SPECmarks is very misleading in a good way.



    No way is the P4 faster than the G4 by the amount SPEC benches indicate.



    Ergo: 970 running neck and neck in x86 favoured benches equals a processor that will blow it out the water in real world Mac apps. Big time.



    "This isn't necessarily indicative of real world performance,"



    Yes. What he said.



    "...and I'd put my money on the 970 showing better in non-SPEC situations..."



    Yep.



    "...especially if SIMD code is used."



    Altivec on a 970? With THAT bandwidth? The altivec will really get to FLY!



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 6 of 51
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by xype:

    <strong>



    Supposedly AMD is targeting a clockrate of 2.0GHz with their Athlong64 (which should compare favourably with the Pentium 4).



    On another note - WOW! From 3.0 to 3.4 GHz in one year! Wow! That's, like, 400 MHz! I've seen Intel scale faster than that ... </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Springdale should hit by Spring. I think 3.4 by Q4 is ridiculously conservative. Intel doesn't seem to show any sign of slowing down when it comes to the P4. Intel will definitely be at 3.2 in March, so 3.4 would be only a few months after that. AMD's barely got any supply of Athlon XP 2800+, so they HAVE to launch the Athlon 64 out of necessity. Intel's still sitting pretty. In fact, Intel's probably sitting on faster chips because AMD's so far behind.
  • Reply 7 of 51
    "so they HAVE to launch the Athlon 64 out of necessity."



    I was reading they'll launch early with constrained supply. March/April/May? mhz? 1.8-2 gig with a 3.4 XP rating?



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 8 of 51
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    It could also be that Intel have rethought their IA64 strategy, while yes, no matter how hot it gets, they seem to be able to scale P4 at will and will sit on it untill someone gives them a reason not to. But back to IA64, Intel might just produce an X86-64 part if they feel that IA64's inferior backwards compatibility will hamper their 64 bit plans; IA64 moves to exclusively high-end server/workstation applications.



    Whatever else happens, PPC seems to be the only 64b it chip with a halfway decent chance of ending up in a laptop somewhere over the course of the next 24 months.
  • Reply 9 of 51
    frykefryke Posts: 217member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>PPC seems to be the only 64b it chip with a halfway decent chance of ending up in a laptop somewhere over the course of the next 24 months.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Have you looked at its power consumption? The PowerPC 970 is nowhere near a PowerBook. I'd say we might see an even more stripped down version at some point in 2004.
  • Reply 10 of 51
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>It could also be that Intel have rethought their IA64 strategy, while yes, no matter how hot it gets, they seem to be able to scale P4 at will and will sit on it untill someone gives them a reason not to. But back to IA64, Intel might just produce an X86-64 part if they feel that IA64's inferior backwards compatibility will hamper their 64 bit plans; IA64 moves to exclusively high-end server/workstation applications.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Unless the Athlon 64 is a smash hit that grabs 50% marketshare, I don't see Intel bending to AMD's will and coming out with an x86-64 solution of their own. Is the average consumer really going to care about the 64-bit advantage? I'm really getting tired of AMD's Performance Rating shenanigans too. Are they really going to call a 2 GHz chip and Athlon 64 3400+? That's totally disingenuous. If the company really wants us to believe in the MHz Myth, why are they still using Intel's clockspeeds as a basis of comparison?



    The average computer buyer has no clue about the difference between 32-bits and 64-bits. They're going to see a 4 GHz P4 in one corner and a 2.x GHz Athlon 64 in the other...



    [quote]Whatever else happens, PPC seems to be the only 64b it chip with a halfway decent chance of ending up in a laptop somewhere over the course of the next 24 months.<hr></blockquote>



    Companies like Alienware, Dell, Toshiba, and others are wedging desktop P4s into laptops. I think they'll find a way to wedge those 64-bit chips in too.
  • Reply 11 of 51
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <strong>



    Springdale should hit by Spring. I think 3.4 by Q4 is ridiculously conservative. Intel doesn't seem to show any sign of slowing down when it comes to the P4. Intel will definitely be at 3.2 in March, so 3.4 would be only a few months after that. AMD's barely got any supply of Athlon XP 2800+, so they HAVE to launch the Athlon 64 out of necessity. Intel's still sitting pretty. In fact, Intel's probably sitting on faster chips because AMD's so far behind.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Intel is scaling more slowly because they are waiting for a die shrink to push the PIV faster. The heat and power consumption of the current PIV is just getting too high. Add to that the fact that they've found sales really aren't that great as they increase clockspeed. Hyperthreading at 3GHz and with more models this year really has very little to do with the old chips being able to actually handle it and almost everything to do with Intel attempting to increase sales.



    As for the Athlon64 the high end version is already pushed back to Q2 and there are some significant questions regarding quantities and timeframes. AMD has really become the master of paper launches without a product lately.



    I've also heard a few other nasty rumours about the Athlon64 that won't be pleasing AMD.
  • Reply 12 of 51
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    [quote]Originally posted by fryke:

    <strong>



    Have you looked at its power consumption? The PowerPC 970 is nowhere near a PowerBook. I'd say we might see an even more stripped down version at some point in 2004.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    It's 19W @ 1.2 GHz from memory. Can't recall the voltage but &lt;1.3V. That's below current G4 offerings. It's a great PowerBook option.
  • Reply 13 of 51
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <strong>Companies like Alienware, Dell, Toshiba, and others are wedging desktop P4s into laptops. I think they'll find a way to wedge those 64-bit chips in too.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yah, but those are often really desknote solutions, either too big and heavy to be considered for someone really moving around or they have an external power unit/battery.



    As for Intel - I don't know. I've seen many people saying that Intel will not go much faster than 3.6GHz in 2003 altogether. Heat issues, crazy power consumption (based on the insane clock rates) and last but not least a market that's slowly realising that there is no need for a 3.0GHz machine when something above 2.0GHz will do. Even if 3.6 CPUs are released they will likely be priced quite high and AMD looks like having a potential winned in the form of their Athlon 64.



    And although we know 64bit is not twice as fast, Joe User doesn't. A 2.2GHz Athlon 64 at a reasonable price will look like a lot of a better deal than a 3.6GHz Pentium 4. Unless AMD screws up completely with the chipset QA they just might a CPU that will put them out of the hole they're in atm.
  • Reply 14 of 51
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    [quote]Originally posted by Telomar:

    <strong>As for the Athlon64 the high end version is already pushed back to Q2 and there are some significant questions regarding quantities and timeframes. AMD has really become the master of paper launches without a product lately.



    I've also heard a few other nasty rumours about the Athlon64 that won't be pleasing AMD.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Oh, what rumors? I had the impression the latest AnanadTech article was quite positive about AMD...
  • Reply 15 of 51
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <strong>

    Are they really going to call a 2 GHz chip and Athlon 64 3400+? That's totally disingenuous. If the company really wants us to believe in the MHz Myth, why are they still using Intel's clockspeeds as a basis of comparison?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Actually, their 3400 number is based off of an earlier Athlon chip, not an Intel one. I can't remember which one it is though.
  • Reply 16 of 51
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    ...i dont think we should be playing those number games of multiplying the g4 equivilent of a 970 to get its comparison between it and a pentium, processor speeds don't work like that, a 400MHz G4 vs a 800MHz G4, the computer with the 800MHz G4 isn't running 2x as fast.



    though the PPC 970 looks good if it will live up to all the hype its getting.



    AMD and its hammer also look like an extremely good chip, and it will i'm sure help gain market share back if AMD commercializes it right.



    Intel has been working their ass off over the last couple years to get clock rates as high as possible, and now they probably are soon going to pay the price of hitting a performance wall in which they need to reduce heat and electricity usage...they are several months ahead of other processors in terms of speed, so they have time to figure out what to do while other play catch up.



    It seems to me though that RISC is the way to go, i mean AMD uses a CISC that has qualities of RISC in it...lower MHz but better speeds/MHz.



    Get me a computer with an Itanium, another with a hammer, and a mac with a 970 and i'll be happy





    ...nah screw it i'll just take 3 970's
  • Reply 17 of 51
    cubistcubist Posts: 954member
    It is the Pentium 4 which will be at 3.4GHz. The Itanium will be at 1.something, as will the Hammer. The P4 gets this fast with a monstrously long pipeline. The MHz ratings on pentium 4s are illusory. It is very fast, no question -- yet a 3.06GHz Pentium 4 is NOT five times as fast as a Pentium 3 600MHz in doing ANYTHING.



    I'm sure that the 970, IF Apple uses it (and there is no guarantee that they will), and if they provide Apple with Power4-class software development tools, will be comparably fast to any Intel-or AMD-based machine on the market in terms of application performance.



    The way it looks right now, the AMD Hammer will come out and most of the peecee drones will run 32-bit Windows on it, just as they ran 16-bit Windows on the 386 for years. PC performance will plateau for some time until Microsoft releases 64-bit Windows and the applications start to show up for it, which will be at least a year, probably even more.



    As for the Itanium, Scott McNealy is right in calling it the Itanic. It's a sinking ship, pulling huge resources down with it. Scott doesn't realize that his own SPARC is sputtering out, though.



    If Apple goes with the 970, they could lead the industry into the 64-bit world. But will they? Can they? Do they want to? I'm not sure...



    <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
  • Reply 18 of 51
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    [quote]...If Apple goes with the 970...[/QB]<hr></blockquote>



    i thought it was a pretty sure thing since its a watered down power4 and it has altivec
  • Reply 19 of 51
    The AMD timeframe has 4000+ by end of '03

    Intel is set to release prescot "p5" on 90nm by mid year

    and don't forget they are moving to an 800mhz bus

    Oh yeah, don't forget hyperthreading!
  • Reply 20 of 51
    fotnsfotns Posts: 301member
    AMD's roadmap:

Sign In or Register to comment.