jrg

About

Username
jrg
Joined
Visits
0
Last Active
-
Roles
member
Badges
0
Posts
58

Reactions

0Like0Dislike0Informative

Comments

  • Quote: Originally posted by FotNS Picture #89 is pretty cool. It is a good shot of the top of the CPU. http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/photolibr...A?OpenDocument Well to get back to idle speculation what are the tiny IC arranged around the core…
    in 970 die photo Comment by jrg May 2003
  • Quote: Originally posted by Bigc Was MOT's problem that they didn't want to "take a chance" with Apple or was it that they couldn't get their Fabs to work to guarantee delivery to Apple. Recent info seems to suggest the latter. Motorola have …
    in 7457 RM canceled by Motorola, 970 on track Comment by jrg May 2003
  • Quote: Originally posted by johnsonwax Actually, NeXT supported 4 platforms simultaneously: PPC, x86, Alpha, and Sparc. Um, I think you'll find it was 680x0, x86, HPPA and SPARC. The PPC harware they were developing was never released, an…
    in AMD and Apple have been talking... Comment by jrg April 2003
  • Quote: Originally posted by Stagflation Steve This is laughable, nforce is an EV-6 chipset. No it isn't. The EV6 interface is on-chip in the Opteron. The nForce3 talks to the Opteron via HyperTransport. The Opteron has an onboard memory con…
    in Nvidia Nforce 3 to be basis of lower end 970 Macs Comment by jrg April 2003
  • Quote: Originally posted by Amorph Clever. The pro board that was to accompany the G3-based Gossamer was codenamed Mach 5. The 64 bit motherboard will require a 64 bit version of the Mach kernel fused to Darwin. And, of course, Mach 64 is unbe…
    in PPC 970 date? Comment by jrg April 2003
  • Quote: Originally posted by snoopy They could be referring to Mac desktop computers, without saying so. They simply stated the target markets for a 970, and not IBM's intention to use the 970 in all such markets. However, I might not be remembe…
    in 7457 RM canceled by Motorola, 970 on track Comment by jrg April 2003
  • Here is why I think the chip will be 1) cheap and 2) plentiful. Cheap: The chip is small. IBM wants to sell lots. It did not cost alot to design as it was produced in parallel with the Power 4+ (I would put money on the ALU, FPU, memory contro…
    in new info from macbidouille : 2.3GHz ! Comment by jrg March 2003
  • Quote: Originally posted by RolandG Bidding deadline is late March according to the article. How long does it usually take Apple to dicide over the bidders and how long it takes from the production of the first mainboards to the production of act…
    in PPC 970 In Next Revision of PM Now Confirmed By MacWhispers Comment by jrg March 2003
  • [quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon: It's an irrestible show-stopper. Apple launches dual 970s upto 2.5 gig? While your now-found optimism about Apple is great, I'm afraid that IBM stuffed up in their press release (which is why i…
    in How you can know that 970 machines are in MWNY03? Comment by jrg March 2003
  • [quote]Originally posted by Matsu: There's still 4/5 other model lines to deal with. You won't get 64 bit OSX untill at least one more line moves on up to 64 bits. Adobe, and other's WILL get some lead time first. I'm sure it's there, but Apple …
    in Powerbook and 970 - 7457 Comment by jrg February 2003
  • [quote]Originally posted by Matsu: OSX will not be 64 bit for quite a while AFTER the PP970 arrives. It will load and run a completely 32bit version of OSX for many many months before 64 bit components are added. Relax, there shouldn't be any app…
    in Powerbook and 970 - 7457 Comment by jrg February 2003
  • [quote]Originally posted by atomicham: (since Apple is overclocking the desktop machines). Apple is NOT overclocking the G4. Apple would never run equipment out of spec, it would be technical suicide for them to do that. Apple just do…
    in Intel: We Will "Blow Away" the PowerPC 970 Comment by jrg February 2003
  • [quote]Originally posted by Outsider: One incentive I can think of for IBM to design and produce processors for Apple is the fact that they can use them too. This is what it is all about! IBM are (beleive it or not) MORE desperate for a new de…
    in News: IBM starts up new chip foundry Comment by jrg August 2002
  • [quote]Originally posted by johnsonwax: They don't run better on Windows - never did. Problem is that, well, Windows really does suck to a certain degree (this was NT, so XP really hasn't progressed matters that much) and running everything thr…
    in David's Stone Comment by jrg July 2002
  • [quote]Originally posted by Yet Another Registration: I don't disagree that a .13 processed G4 could one day reach 1.5 GHz, I just don't think it will do that right off the line. Hence, my skepticism. It's not like the P4 went straight to 2.53 GH…
    in MacWorld in New York - 2002 is Apple's year Comment by jrg July 2002
  • [quote]Originally posted by Yet Another Registration: If it's running at 1.5 GHz, it ain't a G4. Since there isn't a G5 (the chip theoretically capable of these speeds), I doubt seriously that Dorsal knows what he's talking about. Bollocks! Th…
    in MacWorld in New York - 2002 is Apple's year Comment by jrg July 2002
  • [quote]Originally posted by Eskimo: [code] P4: INT base/peak FP base/peak 882/896 861/873 POWER4: 804/839 1202/1266 Hang on! You are comparing the very latest Pentium IV fabbed in the state…
    in Apple Developed PowerPC Comment by jrg June 2002
  • [quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg: Nudge------>> Considering the new XServer, it would seem that G5 processors are not even close to being ready. Would Apple introduce a new rackmount server with a G4 lacking a DDR frontsi…
    in There is no G5 Comment by jrg May 2002