Apple, PPC 980, and Upcoming G5s

[Analog Kid]

Originally posted by ddtlm
This rumor claims that IBM will go from a 130nm 970 to a 90nm 970 to a 90nm 980 in about a year, which is absolutely, undeniably, a crock full of ****. They just can't make money throwing away processor designs every 6-8 months. Intel has been on their 130 nm P4 for just about 2 years, and they have a far far larger number and value of processor sales than IBM. It is very reasonable to assume that the winter G5 refresh will be using exactly the same 130nm PPC970's as are used now, just clocked higher. Even the summer revision might use them, although 3ghz seems pretty fast. When IBM finally does get a 90nm replacement out the door, there's no reason that it has to be related to the Power5. It could be, but it sure would be a lot more cost effective for IBM to slap more L2 on a 970 and call it good for another year, or more.

I hate to break it to everyone, but in the real world, processors do not undergo radical changes very quickly. It just costs to darn much.

A little wary of interfering with your tirade here, but I think this is a plausible move...

You're right that they can't do this ever year, but they can do it once, and now seems like the right time.

The 970 shipped long after the Power4. It was an afterthought-- probably for the blade market. Apple was an after-afterthought, which is why the Altivec is hacked in the way it is.

Now suddenly these stripped versions of the Power series look like a really lucrative idea. By designing them concurrently, you can optimize for both designs and it saves you some cash through efficiency.

My guess is we'll see the Altivec more integral this time as well. Wanting to get the power savings of the Power5 into the lineup (both IBMs and Apples) as quickly as possible is also a marketing requirement too, I'm sure.

In the end, they save half a design cycle on the 980, but it's a one time gain. After that the chips come out at a normal rate again. Maybe they haven't maximized their profit on the 970, but it's a one time loss with the hope of growing revenue by advancing on the technology curve.

 

[Analog Kid]

Re: Dual processor 17" Pbook

Originally posted by racolvin
Ok, one of you hardware (power and cooling) geniuses tell me this: if G5's in PowerBooks is too hot, is it outside the realm of possibility that a 17" Powerbook could go Dual G4? Like Dual 1.25's or 1.4's? Even if that isn't a G5, a dual processor notebook would be sweet and dual G4's wouldn't be all _that_ bad would it?

Just curious

Yeah it's possible if that dual core G4 ever shows up out of Mot. This would be significantly lower power than two independent chips.

It would actually be pretty kickin' all the way around. I think I'd actually chose a 2G4 over a G5 in a powerbook...

Whenever I start to get excited though, I remember that Mot would have to actually produce something...

It looks like some folks are still clinging to the "clock down a G5" idea, but I think it's pretty clear by now that it isn't enough. I wouldn't expect PBG5s before late summer early fall.

 

[ffakr]

Originally posted by ddtlm
This rumor claims that IBM will go from a 130nm 970 to a 90nm 970 to a 90nm 980 in about a year, which is absolutely, undeniably, a crock full of ****. They just can't make money throwing away processor designs every 6-8 months. Intel has been on their 130 nm P4 for just about 2 years,

Actually, the northwood P4s (.13 micron) were apparently released around January of 2002. That's nearly 2 years now, but the .18 micron P4 was introduced a year and a half before that. Intel was ready to release .09 at least a quarter ago, but they've been pushing back due to 'issues'.

It is very reasonable to assume that the winter G5 refresh will be using exactly the same 130nm PPC970's as are used now, just clocked higher.

IBM will release .09 micron processors when the process is ready. A move from .13 to .09 microns takes more than just shrinking everything... the entire layout of the chip needs to be tweeked, but it is an easier task than a ground up design. .09 micron will add R&D cost to the chip, but it will also increase the number of processor per 300mm wafer and increased performance will drive demand up. There are market forces and yield efficiencies that make up for the quick introduction of more R&D to the chip so soon.

I hate to break it to everyone, but in the real world, processors do not undergo radical changes very quickly. It just costs to darn much.

Again, this depends on other forces. If IBM is moving production lines to .09 micron (because the process is mature), they will make .09 micron PPCs. They won't keep one line held back on purpose. Also, if they have .09 production lines up, and .13 production lines up, why would they not make processors on both if demand required it? .13 micron chips would fill different speed niches and different product lines while .09 micron would be more efficient to produce, perform better, and command better prices.

PC's and Macs use the same memory technology, if this thing they talk of is a real effect (I think its an error, but who knows) then its gona effect Macs too.
...
If only IBM had implemented chip-to-chip interconnects and on-die memory controllers in the G5!

yea, if only the 970 had on die memory controllers, the Dual G5 could require one memory bank per processor like dual opterons. I think this might be what the poster was talking about in reference to Opteron memory issues.
The on die memory controllers are nice, especially in single processor machines. They lower the latency of memory access which helps the Opteron perform so wel... but there are advantages to having a central memory controller and one big bank of RAM.

 

[ffakr]

Re: I need to build a dual Opteron system

Originally posted by TMay
In my case, I found that the Tyan dual opteron board can be found for around $500, and (2 ea) 244 Opteron (1.8 Ghz) for about $460 each. Then you need power supply, graphics card, case, drives, memory, etc. Pretty pricey for a build your own system, and I would be surprised if it can be built for much less than a 2Ghz Dual G5. Kind of an eye opener!

you can always build stuff yourself cheaper (aside from when Dell gives away base configs hoping you load on extras).

In your case, if you used quality parts you still look at (to match a base dual G5 config)
[estimates, some high, some low]
$150 case/power
$150 radeon 9600 Pro
$150 SATA 160 GB drive
$200 4x DVD-R
$500 motherboard
$460 cpu
$460 cpu
$ 20 internal modem
$120 two 256MB DDR 400 [crucial]
$ 45 mouse/keyboard
total:
$2255

Now figure,..
does it have on board GigE
does it have on board Firewire?
does it have digital audio built in with spdif optical out?
Do you need to purchase additional case fans?

I don't know which Tyan board you found, it may or may not have these included.

What OS do you use? Do you pay for M$? Do you get a licensed DVD player? iApps (or something as good)?

How much is your time worth? How long does it take to find the parts, order them all, assemble the box, install the OS and all the software? How do you handle warranty repairs for OEM parts? Who do you deal with, manufacturers or vendors?

And finally.. the intangibles. You don't get to run OS X or the very nice iApps. You don't get the 'integrated experience' of a well built mac. Is all the hardware as nice as what Apple is selling? [love or hate the case design, it's a nice freaking case from a technical design point]

even the home built dual opte isn't all that cheaper, especially if you used licensed software.

then again...
I just ordered a dual G5 through the developer site. $2216 after I removed the modem and downgraded to a combo drive.
(and Microsoft and the BSA will never kick my door down looking for a bootleg copy of iCal)

 

[rog]

I'll get a G5 when I can get a DP 3 GHz for the price of my DP 867 which is now even faster than when I bought it a year ago. Hopefully Apple won't intentionally cripple the lineup like they usually do, as with the no L3 Powerbooks, 256kb L2 iBooks, and the lame, slow, overpriced, SP G5s they currently sell. A 256Kb L2 is great, for 1995! Actually, I had a 1MB L2 in my 7500 back in 1997. The current lineup just doesn't cut it, aside from the DP 2 GHz. If we have DP 2.8 G5s by March or so, that will be great news!

 

[wizard]

Re: Apple, PPC 980, and Upcoming G5s

This si good news in one sense but really not that surprising. It has long been rumored that IBM can hit even higher frequencies with the current process. So an up rated 970 on 90nm process should not be surprising at all. Also note that they did not say that the 980's where Power 5 based, I suspect they are just a die shrink with minor improvements to cashe and maybe Alt-vec/Velocity Engine/whatever. Well doubling the cache would not be minor but niether is it really state of the art, a 4x cache increase would relly be something to talk about.

I'm in the unfortunate position of not being able to afford a G5 at the moment, it is nice to know that when I can afford one they will most likel be running much closer to 3GHz than they are today.

I don't doubt this rumor one bit, though the details may be off a bit, as frankly Apple has no choice but to take big steps. The G5 will be trailing big time, in the area of raw CPU performance, by the time January hits. What we are likely to see in January is an 970+ running at 2.5 to 3GHz. This 970+ would likely have the expanded cahce as the article hints at, plus other minor improvements. My suspicion is that Steve want to hit 3GHz in January as by that time Intel will be close to 4GHz. The actual Power 5 derived chip will appear in mid 2004.

thanks
Dave

Originally posted by Macrumors
An unconfirmed report spelling out some interesting future possibilities about Apple and their PowerPC progress and development:

"Following the microprocessor forum, IBM presented Apple with a handful of PPC 980 alpha samples to begin work on the next generation Powermac due out in 9-12 months. Initial compiler tests showed specfp base 2000 of 1400 and specint of 1200 at 3Ghz. The PPC 980 will have double the L2 cache of the 970, and will still not have an L3 cache option, owing to the fact that the 980 will have a 1x, 2x, 3x, and 4x bus multiplier, which will allow an FSB to run at the chip clock speed if need be, but the plans are to stick to a 2x multiplier, which would mean a 1.5Ghz FSB. The reason why the 980 is appearing only 12 -16 months after the 970 is that Apple chose to engage in parallel development with the Power 5, rather than wait 12-18 months after the fact. The 980 samples that were given to Apple were 90nm chips, as opposed to 130nm chips for the PPC 970 and the Power 5.

For the G5, the next revision is well under way. The bugs on IBM's 90nm process have been squashed, and ramp up will begin within 6 weeks, with intention of having enough chips ready for the next revision G5's due in February. 2.5 - 2.8 Ghz is probably going to be the ceiling of the new revision Powermac G5's based on test yields obtained recently. If everything goes well, 2Ghz may drop out of the equation entirely, and 2.2 Ghz may become the low end, a jump of 500-600 Mhz this revision is realistic, and should be expected. As for the Powerbook G5, only a general timeline is given with a range from April 2004-September 2004 is given, the only obstacle being finding an appropriate cooling technology."

 

[ffakr]

Originally posted by rog
and the lame, slow, overpriced, SP G5s they currently sell. A 256Kb L2 is great, for 1995! Actually, I had a 1MB L2 in my 7500 back in 1997. The current lineup just doesn't cut it, aside from the DP 2 GHz. If we have DP 2.8 G5s by March or so, that will be great news!

The lame single processor G5s beat the dual processor G4s in some benchmarks... and the optimization for the G5 is still in its infancy. Look at the performance of single processor Opteron/Athlon64s. They do have the on board memory controller, but the 970 has other architectural advantages over the Opterons. The performance will come.

Also, the 7500 had a PPC 601 processor. The L2 cache (if I recall) was on a separate dimm, it was relatively far from the CPU and dog slow. It also cost a bundle when the 7500s were in production. 7500s didn't even ship with L2, it was an aftermarket option.
Powermac Cache Specs

Today, L2 cache is on-die. The amount of cache has a lot to do with die size, which is related to process size and transistor count. 256K is ok for the last G4. The 7447s are on a smaller process so they maintain a 'good' overall chips size by upping the L2 cache.
Also, cache requirements are affected by other factors. If Motorola was making 2.5 GHz G4s with the same slow bus, then a huge L2 cache would increase performance more than it would on a 1.3 GHz part at the same bus speed.

 

[wizard]

A couple of things to note here. First the processors will be built in the same plant. Seocnd IBM has had the 90nm process up and running. Third the smaller process could potentially save them and Apple money. Fourth IBM likes to be precieved as leading the world in semiconductor technology. Beating Intel to the punch or at least stay neck and neck with them is very important.

Apple knows that it needs to keep ahead of the curve or atleast stay neck in neck with the Intel cometition or risk back sliding in the minds of the consumers. They will do everything possible to get as close to 3GHz in January as possible. Further; there is a very good possibility that this rev of the 970 may be headed for the Powerbooks first. There is no way anyone could deny the demand for portables, a power effiecent 64 bit portable would give Apple bragging rights for some time to come.

While the specifics of the original post may be mixed up a bit I have no doubt that Apple will be using 90nm chips real soon know. Maybe not in the G5 Tower, but somewhere else like the PowerBooks. In the end economies orf scale would probally drive the 90nm chip into all 970 based Apple products as soon as production permits.

Thanks
Dave

Originally posted by ddtlm
This rumor claims that IBM will go from a 130nm 970 to a 90nm 970 to a 90nm 980 in about a year, which is absolutely, undeniably, a crock full of ****. They just can't make money throwing away processor designs every 6-8 months. Intel has been on their 130 nm P4 for just about 2 years, and they have a far far larger number and value of processor sales than IBM. It is very reasonable to assume that the winter G5 refresh will be using exactly the same 130nm PPC970's as are used now, just clocked higher. Even the summer revision might use them, although 3ghz seems pretty fast. When IBM finally does get a 90nm replacement out the door, there's no reason that it has to be related to the Power5. It could be, but it sure would be a lot more cost effective for IBM to slap more L2 on a 970 and call it good for another year, or more.

I hate to break it to everyone, but in the real world, processors do not undergo radical changes very quickly. It just costs to darn much.

TMay:


PC's and Macs use the same memory technology, if this thing they talk of is a real effect (I think its an error, but who knows) then its gona effect Macs too.


Expensive but absolutely kickin. Opterons are awesome processors, and that mobo you selected (the K8W) is the best of the best. I am endlessly impressed by AMD's design. If only IBM had implemented chip-to-chip interconnects and on-die memory controllers in the G5!

 

[ddtlm]

Analog Kid:

A little wary of interfering with your tirade here, but I think this is a plausible move...

Yeah people always think everything is a reasonable move. In the more than two years I've been posting here, its pretty much been one endless train of "plausible" moves that have no grounding in reality.

You're right that they can't do this ever year, but they can do it once, and now seems like the right time.

These things cost a ton, but what's more, people need to do the work, and its just not realistic to expect IBM to all the sudden have the people to roll out three different PPC9xx chips in 12-16 months, along with everything else. I could see a Power5 derivative this summer and no changes this winter, that might fly, but I think its more likely that we'll only get a 90nm PPC970 this summer.

Now suddenly these stripped versions of the Power series look like a really lucrative idea. By designing them concurrently, you can optimize for both designs and it saves you some cash through efficiency.

Some money can be saved, but they are still very different processors. The Power chips are dual core, have no AltiVec, have shared L2's, support for L3's, and as far as I know totally different chip interconnects. This isn't like a Celeron or Duron, where the chips are identical to the expensive version except for some L2.

wizard:

So an up rated 970 on 90nm process should not be surprising at all.

Actually a shrink to 90nm and increase to 1 MB L2 would be the most normal thing for IBM to do. The question is when.

I don't doubt this rumor one bit, though the details may be off a bit, as frankly Apple has no choice but to take big steps.

Apple's "needs" will not effect the scaling of IBM chips any more than they did Moto chips. The real world lies between "we need this to compete" and "this is achievable for a price we can afford".

First the processors will be built in the same plant. Seocnd IBM has had the 90nm process up and running.

IBM's next 750 is 130nm, and not yet released. Their Power5 is 130nm, and probably a year away still.

Third the smaller process could potentially save them and Apple money.

Only if the volumes offset the cost of migration. Its just not clear that a 6-8 month run of chips primarily for Apple can do that. Not even Intel has such short runs and their volumes are way higher.

Fourth IBM likes to be precieved as leading the world in semiconductor technology. Beating Intel to the punch or at least stay neck and neck with them is very important.

Thats a heck of an expensive PR victory, if its possible at all. Why not just spend the few hundred million on conventional ads which will be understood by more than internet geeks?

Apple knows that it needs to keep ahead of the curve or atleast stay neck in neck with the Intel cometition or risk back sliding in the minds of the consumers. They will do everything possible to get as close to 3GHz in January as possible.

This has litte or no bearing on what IBM can or cannot do.

 

[mvc]

Cheer up, y'never know, hope springs eternal…

Originally posted by ddtlm
Yeah people always think everything is a reasonable move. In the more than two years I've been posting here, its pretty much been one endless train of "plausible" moves that have no grounding in reality.

Aaahh, the tragedy, soOo jaded after only two years of suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous optimists.

You SOUND like you know what you are talking about, but I really really hope you are dead wrong, on principle!!

 

[Analog Kid]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Analog Kid:


Yeah people always think everything is a reasonable move. In the more than two years I've been posting here, its pretty much been one endless train of "plausible" moves that have no grounding in reality.


These things cost a ton, but what's more, people need to do the work, and its just not realistic to expect IBM to all the sudden have the people to roll out three different PPC9xx chips in 12-16 months, along with everything else. I could see a Power5 derivative this summer and no changes this winter, that might fly, but I think its more likely that we'll only get a 90nm PPC970 this summer.


Some money can be saved, but they are still very different processors. The Power chips are dual core, have no AltiVec, have shared L2's, support for L3's, and as far as I know totally different chip interconnects. This isn't like a Celeron or Duron, where the chips are identical to the expensive version except for some L2.

Trying to decide what's plausible is kinda the point of rumor-mongoring, don't ya think?

As far as volume are concerned, I think that's only part of the question. It looks to me like IBM entered into the relationship because the Apple volumes help defray the cost of their own servers. If IBM can get Apple to foot some of the cost and they wind up with systems that better compete with HP/Itanic et al, it looks like a win to me.

That's the beauty of the relationship: IBM has it's own personal reasons for wanting to push performance, and Apple makes it much more affordable to do so.

Also, keep in mind how IBM designs their chips-- they don't hand route them like Intel and AMD do. They rely on the tools to do that. They've traded off the extra optimization at each generation for the ability to turn new devices much more quickly and cost effectively.

So, while the Power5 and 980 have their differences, any work done on the core of each benefits the other with much less labor than a P4 vs Celeron comparison would imply...

By the way, have you seen updated information that confirms the Power5 doesn't include Altivec? That was another rumor I've been waiting for confirmation on...

 

[mproud]

Perhaps the greater question is not how fast we'll see PPC 980s and the such...

...but exactly what the relationship is between Apple and IBM and how much they value each other in bitter reality.


[insert smiley with raising eyebrows]

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

its a new era, the 80's are long gone.

 

[wizard]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Analog Kid:


Yeah people always think everything is a reasonable move. In the more than two years I've been posting here, its pretty much been one endless train of "plausible" moves that have no grounding in reality.

Well this is a rumor site, if somebody did have access to restricted information and posted here there would be problems. On the other hand there is enough public information available to indicate that IBM has had success moving to 90nm.

These things cost a ton, but what's more, people need to do the work, and its just not realistic to expect IBM to all the sudden have the people to roll out three different PPC9xx chips in 12-16 months, along with everything else. I could see a Power5 derivative this summer and no changes this winter, that might fly, but I think its more likely that we'll only get a 90nm PPC970 this summer.

There is a fundamental differrence between the way Motorola lays out a chip and the way IBM does. IBM's heavy reliance upon design automation tools means that the 970's move to 90nm could be the result of a simple recompile of the processors source code. It may not be a question of having people available for the transition but a bit of computer time. I hear IBM has a lot of computer time available

Some money can be saved, but they are still very different processors. The Power chips are dual core, have no AltiVec, have shared L2's, support for L3's, and as far as I know totally different chip interconnects. This isn't like a Celeron or Duron, where the chips are identical to the expensive version except for some L2.

This depends upon what you expect in January. If you're expecting a Power 5 derivative then yes it is a profoundly differrent chip. If you expecting a 970+ chip then it isn't such a big deal. Even then we must understand that IBM's developement model offers them significant advantages, dropping or adding features just not that big of a deal.

wizard:


Actually a shrink to 90nm and increase to 1 MB L2 would be the most normal thing for IBM to do. The question is when.

This is what I suspect is coming in January. I could very weel be that the original poster confused an upgraded 970 with a Power 5 based chip. In Apples mind I dont believe it is a question of when, but is a question of as soon as possible. Apple has been hurting for a long time over the reality that the G4 never scaled well, they need to keep what ever little lead they have in performance.

Apple's "needs" will not effect the scaling of IBM chips any more than they did Moto chips. The real world lies between "we need this to compete" and "this is achievable for a price we can afford".

I disagree completely here. The whole design of the 970 was driven by Apples needs. Apple has a need for faster and lower power chips that is where they will drive their supplier. Apples problems with Motorola where vastly differrent, and had very little to do with what was achiveable.

IBM's next 750 is 130nm, and not yet released. Their Power5 is 130nm, and probably a year away still.


Only if the volumes offset the cost of migration. Its just not clear that a 6-8 month run of chips primarily for Apple can do that. Not even Intel has such short runs and their volumes are way higher.

First the plant is already built, not having the plant produce revenue will cost IBM money! Second IBM plants work as chip foundries, it isnot like the 970 is the only thing running on the production lines. The move to 90nm will be driven by Apples performance demands.

Thats a heck of an expensive PR victory, if its possible at all. Why not just spend the few hundred million on conventional ads which will be understood by more than internet geeks?

Well its better than trying to explain to your share holders why your shinny new plant isn't producing anything.

This has litte or no bearing on what IBM can or cannot do.

 

[Telomar]

Originally posted by ddtlm
If only IBM had implemented chip-to-chip interconnects and on-die memory controllers in the G5!

You'll be getting your wish soon enough.

Originally posted by ddtlm
Yeah, but getting super-linear scaling is still pretty unusual. (I think this rumor of full of poo.)

Actually even without adding any of the improvements from the POWER5 there are quite a few optimisations that can be accomplished simply by restructuring the layout of the cores and using current resources more effectively. In fact in the move to a 90nm process this becomes an area that needs addressing anyway to ensure current leakage is kept to a minimum. Don't be surprised to see a 90nm version of the current core performing even better clock for clock and that's stating nothing about including other potential developments.

Of course that doesn't mean this rumour is true in this time frame just that certain things are possible.

 

[-hh]

Originally posted by ddtlm
This rumor claims that IBM will go from a 130nm 970 to a 90nm 970 to a 90nm 980 in about a year, which is absolutely, undeniably, a crock full of ****. They just can't make money throwing away processor designs every 6-8 months...

I hate to break it to everyone, but in the real world, processors do not undergo radical changes very quickly. It just costs to darn much.

All very true, but this assumes "business as usual" economics, where the way that IBM makes their money is on their per-chip markup of a product in production.

To break that paradigm, all that has to happen is for Apple to guarentee to IBM that they're going to recoup their investment without having to make the full production run until payback.

This could be as simple as "Here's $25M if you shift to 90nm now (or early)".

If you think of production lines as used cars, this is like offering someone $25K over book value for their used car to motivate them to go buy a new car.

Keep in mind that to the best of our knowledge, Apple is currently the sole buyer of this specific chip design variation. As such, the way IBM makes money is by being willing to do whatever Apple is willing to pay for. And we've already seen proof of this in the parallel R&D effort...


-hh

 

[deputy_doofy]

I agree.

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Dual G4's are worse than single G5's.

And I'm sure the G5 was a transitional design that will not last long. G6 by summer? I'll believe it.

I'm inclined to agree. I don't think of G5s as the next generation. I think G5s are where the G4s SHOULD be right now. However, if Apple called them G4Advance, or some hokey name like that, nobody would give it a second look.

The G6 will be the true next generation chip. Again, this is not a knock on the G5 ('cause I'll be buying one of these babies next year ), as we all knew that the G4 was a great chip, limited by Motorola's limited imagination and limited front side bus issues.

My 2¢.

 

[lynnpye]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
If this is true, I'm going to kiss Steve Jobs, and then I'm going to kiss the people at IBM, and then I'm going to give the people at Motorola a roundhouse kick to the groin.

I think Motorola already received their shot to the jewels when Apple moved away from them to IBM for most (all?) of their CPU requirements.

 

[TMay]

I have to use x86...

Originally posted by ddtlm

Expensive but absolutely kickin. Opterons are awesome processors, and that mobo you selected (the K8W) is the best of the best. I am endlessly impressed by AMD's design. If only IBM had implemented chip-to-chip interconnects and on-die memory controllers in the G5!

While I believe that the Opteron is a fine processor (in the context of x86), the PPC 970 is certainly a more elegant design overall, excepting a few issues (on die memory controller, better Altivec integration, etc) which are known and will be addressed. I have to buy something to run PTC Pro/Engineer, and I'm looking at the dual opteron for number crunching, but I haven't ruled out a cheap Pentium system either.

AMD may live and die by the Athlon64, but I'm solidly behind PPC. PTC is onboard soon with its first package on OSX, Pro/Concept, that I will have in my hands shortly. Will the rest of their mechanical design suite follow? Stay tuned.

 

[NNO-Stephen]

Originally posted by lynnpye
I think Motorola already received their shot to the jewels when Apple moved away from them to IBM for most (all?) of their CPU requirements.

Motorola still does the G4s, but they will be out of the picture if IBM can come up with that rumored AltiVec enhanced G3 which Apple could market as a G4 if they wanted although it would be quite different... but still, Motorola is on it's way out the door and I think Apple made that pretty clear with how hard they had been working on the G5.

 

[macshark]

The first parapgraph of this rumor does not sound very plausable. It is nearly impossible for IBM to have 980 alpha units running at 3GHz right now. Normally, the first few spins of a new processor has many problems and parts do not run anywhere near the speed target.

I also find it very hard to believe that IBM has finished the 980 design already, given that this is a brand new microarchitecture. Even though it may be based on the Power5 core (for which IBM does seem to have internal Beta samples), many differences (AltiVec, external bus, etc.) in 980 will add to the development schedule. It is likely that a very accurate architectural model of the 980 exists at this time, and maybe even a test chip that implemented some portions of the design, e.g. the external bus unit which will be one of the most critical pieces for Apple HW designers. With these tools, Apple should be able to do sufficient development to be ready for the 980 chips when IBM can deliver them.

The second paragraph of the rumor is more credible. 2.2GHz-2.8Ghz sounds like a reasonable target for first 90nm 970 samples, though I think we are more likely to see 2.4 and 2.7GHz parts with 3:1 bus multiplier ratio at first.

Instead of the 980, we may see a modified version of the 970 with larger L2 cache, faster external bus and potentially marginally faster clock speeds (3GHz) before the end of 2004. One of the articles in this thread indicated that IBM has a very automated backend (place & route) flow. It is likely that the first version of the 90nm 970 we are going to see in January is a quick port of the 130nm 970 with minimal changes to the basic layout and logic. It will be much easier for IBM to turn a more "advanced" version of this chip in a short amount of time that is optimized for the 90nm process and includes a few minor architectural improvements.

 

[PeteyKohut]

Originally posted by 1macker1
Dual Processor Powerbooks!!!!! That's has to be next. The g5 chip isn't coming to the PB anytime soon.

That's what a lot of people said about the G4! They will find a way to cool it down. The .09 micron fab will be cooler than the .13 fab. Perhaps they will wait until they have a low powered .09 micron chip.

 

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by ddtlm
This rumor claims that IBM will go from a 130nm 970 to a 90nm 970 to a 90nm 980 in about a year, which is absolutely, undeniably, a crock full of ****. They just can't make money throwing away processor designs every 6-8 months. Intel has been on their 130 nm P4 for just about 2 years

I agree that your skepticism is warranted, but I don't agree with your logic. I've taken this particular rumor with a grain of salt, but here are some hard facts that I think this rumor may be based on (or fabricated from?):

1) The only way Apple is getting a 3 GHz chip from IBM, in June, is by moving to the 90nm process. This is clearly stated in IBM's documents that the 970 will not go faster than a top end of 2.5 to 2.8 GHz, and to do that it will need a 90nm process.

2) A 3 GHz processor, according to similar documents, is only slated as a 980.

3) Apple has stated the G5 will reach 3GHz in one year. We assume this to mean June, the annoucement date, and not Sept., the ship date.

4) We know Apple will not rebrand the 980 as a "G6" for various reasons. Notwithstanging is the 980 is commonly referred to as the big brother of the 970. Also, it wouldn't make sense to rebrand the processor jump since it will essentially scale linearly and only be released one year (980) after the first (970).

5) Many sources have stated, including IBM it's self, that the 980 is being produced in parallel with the Power5, and that both are in alpha stage now. Shipment expected in Q2 of next year (June is the last month of Q2).

I put all these indicators together and it reads one thing to me. Granted, I could be wrong, but here it is:


The 3GHz G5 in June of 2004 will be a 980 PPC on a 90nm process.


No, I won't lose sleep if this doesn't happen... but based on the above facts and a little conjecture from public statements by Jobs and IBM at conferences, it looks like it will be true.

The bottom line is that Apple is kicking ass and taking names... and I am happy either way.

 

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by macshark
The first parapgraph of this rumor does not sound very plausable. It is nearly impossible for IBM to have 980 alpha units running at 3GHz right now. Normally, the first few spins of a new processor has many problems and parts do not run anywhere near the speed target.

The speed ceiling of the 980 is stated at 4 to 4.5 GHz. Initial yields will be from 2.5 to 3.2 Ghz by most accounts. So, yes, given IBM's stellar capabilities thus far it's easy to believe 3 GHz chips are available now. Again, they're ALPHA's. This means they're the first off the line that work relatively reliable. Bugs exist.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Apple didnt invest in all this technology with ibm only to keep using g4's in so many models. you will see a migration of all products to the G5, this may take 2 years.every 6 months a new G5 970 product so when this cycle is complete the 980 will be about showing itself. i guess a 2.5gig 1st of the year 3 gig(970) out for next summer and the current crop of g5's we will see in other products.then the 980.