Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Arstechnica: PowerPC 970
- Thread starter MacCoaster
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Re: Props to nickgold (read it!!!)
are you responsible for final production? If so
how big are your photoshop files? 600mb of
disk space even if you had your ram to the
max is NOT enough. I would pull my hair out
if i had to work on your system doing trade
show graphics or photoshop composition for
full color ads. I don't even know if I would
except a job in a studio if they wanted to
set me down infront of a G3 with 600mb of
hard drive space.
Unless your doing comps only then it would
be ok. but not final mechanicals. No Way.
are you responsible for final production? If so
how big are your photoshop files? 600mb of
disk space even if you had your ram to the
max is NOT enough. I would pull my hair out
if i had to work on your system doing trade
show graphics or photoshop composition for
full color ads. I don't even know if I would
except a job in a studio if they wanted to
set me down infront of a G3 with 600mb of
hard drive space.
Unless your doing comps only then it would
be ok. but not final mechanicals. No Way.
I forsee...
PPC 970 being first released in X-Serves in September - November, PowerMacs using the chip in January, then powerbooks, then imacs, then ibooks.
Welcome to 64 bit.
Also it is going to use AltiVec, and only one company uses altivec for an OS O
And if you are BITCHING about how long it is going to take, or how slow it is in megahertz compared to p4s....
go buy a wintel box and go solitaire.
The fact is, the PPC 970 uses a new bus archetecture, not only is it going to run at 900 - 1000 megahertz, but higher speed ram and it's not going to have any legacy issues. So you can't just compare the 32 bit p4's running on old x86 arch and with older bus systems etc. ALl the x86 arch has been doing for the past 10 years is adding on and on top of old crap.
With specs like that, if apple released the machines by mid year we could expect them to cost 8 grand easy. Even SGI couldn't sell boxes for that much.
Hopefully they will have the boxes down in cost by January. O
GPT
PS. You're all a bunch of whiney ass bitches
PPC 970 being first released in X-Serves in September - November, PowerMacs using the chip in January, then powerbooks, then imacs, then ibooks.
Welcome to 64 bit.
Also it is going to use AltiVec, and only one company uses altivec for an OS O
And if you are BITCHING about how long it is going to take, or how slow it is in megahertz compared to p4s....
go buy a wintel box and go solitaire.
The fact is, the PPC 970 uses a new bus archetecture, not only is it going to run at 900 - 1000 megahertz, but higher speed ram and it's not going to have any legacy issues. So you can't just compare the 32 bit p4's running on old x86 arch and with older bus systems etc. ALl the x86 arch has been doing for the past 10 years is adding on and on top of old crap.
With specs like that, if apple released the machines by mid year we could expect them to cost 8 grand easy. Even SGI couldn't sell boxes for that much.
Hopefully they will have the boxes down in cost by January. O
GPT
PS. You're all a bunch of whiney ass bitches
I keep seeing people relate this chip to the Power4 in a negative way. I have not read anywhere (besides these forums) that this chip is a stripped down version of the Power4. Its design is based on that chip, but it seems as though it is an entirely new design in itself. Does anyone have and documentation saying that it is a stripped down Power4 chip, and that its performance is going to reflect that? This chip seems to be a successor to the Power4 not a low price alternative. Please correct me if I am wrong and point me to the documents you are getting this information from. Maybe I am just too optimistic
One reason people are saying the 970 must be a crippled
Power4 is because of the Power4's very high pricetag.
However, one reason for the high pricetag, is the HUGE
amounts of L3 cache (like 32mb) and 1.5mb L2 cache,
which increases the die size, and therefore the price.
(It's also architecturally very complex in comparison,
and need 500watts of power, compared to about
40watts for the 970). I don't think it's crippled, just
different, and still way more booty-kickin power than
80% of us will ever need.
and this quote Re: the Power4 and PPC, from:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,46356,00.asp
"Power4 cracks its instructions into an intermediate internal
format that is more easily digested by the pipeline. [...]
Both "native" Power instructions, as well as PowerPC instructions,
are decoded into this internal representation early in the pipeline. "
Making the possibility of a Power4 Mac an "option"
that SteveJ likes???
IF Apple made a Power4 (or 5) XServe, it will be
quite a bit further down the road. Apple would need
to have, in place, the hardcore workstation hardware the
movie studios need first, before Apple could go trying to
sell $50K-500K servers. (The movie studios being the only
major market who could afford a Power4 chip's pricetag.)
Even then, studios have been moving toward cheaper
linux renderfarms, so this is still a big If.
And at this power and price, they ought to call them XXXServe!
As OSX matures and proliferates, Apple's
hardware architecture beefen up, and movie studio
strategies play out (FCP, Shake, EMagic, etc), we may
see this become more of a possibility.
Power4 is because of the Power4's very high pricetag.
However, one reason for the high pricetag, is the HUGE
amounts of L3 cache (like 32mb) and 1.5mb L2 cache,
which increases the die size, and therefore the price.
(It's also architecturally very complex in comparison,
and need 500watts of power, compared to about
40watts for the 970). I don't think it's crippled, just
different, and still way more booty-kickin power than
80% of us will ever need.
and this quote Re: the Power4 and PPC, from:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,46356,00.asp
"Power4 cracks its instructions into an intermediate internal
format that is more easily digested by the pipeline. [...]
Both "native" Power instructions, as well as PowerPC instructions,
are decoded into this internal representation early in the pipeline. "
Making the possibility of a Power4 Mac an "option"
that SteveJ likes???
IF Apple made a Power4 (or 5) XServe, it will be
quite a bit further down the road. Apple would need
to have, in place, the hardcore workstation hardware the
movie studios need first, before Apple could go trying to
sell $50K-500K servers. (The movie studios being the only
major market who could afford a Power4 chip's pricetag.)
Even then, studios have been moving toward cheaper
linux renderfarms, so this is still a big If.
And at this power and price, they ought to call them XXXServe!
As OSX matures and proliferates, Apple's
hardware architecture beefen up, and movie studio
strategies play out (FCP, Shake, EMagic, etc), we may
see this become more of a possibility.
The PPC970's core is that of the POWER4. They have used 1 core, changed the cache, added a vector unit and introduced a new memory system more appropriate for the desktop market.
People keep saying it's a stripped down version of the POWER4 because that is what it is but it is also an evolution of that to make it appropriate to the desktop market.
True...
re the person who said POWER4s have 1.5MB L2 cache: I was recently configuring a POWER4 based server (just for fun) on IBM's website. It had 512MB L2 cache.
re the person who said the XServe might get the POWER4: The XServe does NOT have the cooling or powersupply to deal with the POWER4. It is a 1U. It is not, and likely never will be again, as powerful as the PowerMac. This is because the PowerMac isn't as power/heat sensitive as the XServe. Anything that draws 125 watts is not going in a 1U.
..., also they switched it to a .13 micron manufacturing process and thinned the gate oxide some (makes it faster but less reliable).
re the person who said POWER4s have 1.5MB L2 cache: I was recently configuring a POWER4 based server (just for fun) on IBM's website. It had 512MB L2 cache.
re the person who said the XServe might get the POWER4: The XServe does NOT have the cooling or powersupply to deal with the POWER4. It is a 1U. It is not, and likely never will be again, as powerful as the PowerMac. This is because the PowerMac isn't as power/heat sensitive as the XServe. Anything that draws 125 watts is not going in a 1U.
Re: True...
Actually this has been done to the POWER4 as well it just hasn't been released quite yet. It should appear some time within the next month.
The POWER4 has 3 lots of L2 cache and it in fact has slightly less than 1.5 MB but 1.5 MB is easier to say. If it had 512 MB then that was likely a 32 way server and the L3 cache.
This from Geek.com;
"Apple is in long-term decline. Even if Apple adopts the IBM 970, no one at the MPF expressed any confidence in Apple's future. The near consensus was that Apple was in a long term, perhaps terminal, decline, and that the 970 would not be enough to save it. Every year more Macintosh users convert to Windows, and this trend will continue unless Apple comes out with another "insanely great" product. "
Now don't flame me on this, I don't know if I hold a lot of faith in "near consensus", but it appeared to be subject on everyones mind at MPF.
Here is the Geek.com link;
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002Oct/bch20021018016880.htm
BTW, anyone have a better link to what was said at MPF ? I would like to see it first hand :]
Thanks!
"Apple is in long-term decline. Even if Apple adopts the IBM 970, no one at the MPF expressed any confidence in Apple's future. The near consensus was that Apple was in a long term, perhaps terminal, decline, and that the 970 would not be enough to save it. Every year more Macintosh users convert to Windows, and this trend will continue unless Apple comes out with another "insanely great" product. "
Now don't flame me on this, I don't know if I hold a lot of faith in "near consensus", but it appeared to be subject on everyones mind at MPF.
Here is the Geek.com link;
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002Oct/bch20021018016880.htm
BTW, anyone have a better link to what was said at MPF ? I would like to see it first hand :]
Thanks!