Macworld Mag article- PowerPC 970

[Catfish_Man]

Lol...

Originally posted by e-coli


IBM is the larget research institution in the world. They've had the G3 at 2GHz for quite some time. Apple just won't use it because it would be a PR disaster for them. IBM is fine. Moto is a disgrace.

...IBM's G3 goes to 1GHz. A few lab prototypes probably go higher. Not 2GHz though. The reason why the G3 is "stuck" at 1GHz is because IBM WANTS it "stuck" at 1GHz. It uses 6 watts, is tiny, and has a 200MHz bus. That's exactly what IBM wants (it's a beautiful little chip, btw, quite a bit more advanced than the 7455. Not as fast, though).

As for IBM never giving Apple the Sahara, what exactly do you think is in the new iBooks? Guess what, it's a 750fx (Sahara). As for why the iBook doesn't have a 1GHz G3 in it, when it was released, the Sahara couldn't reach 1GHz. Since then, Apple's wanted to keep it below the TiBook (afaik, one 750fx is just like another, and they go to 1GHz, so the iBook could too).

 

[bluecell]

Re: Re: Re: Re: LOOK HARDER...

Originally posted by bobindashadows

For bluecell who said that IBM is too unreliable to work with. Do you know why IBM never gave Apple the Sahara? Because Apple didn't ask for it. Why would IBM continue to develop the processor beyond 1 Ghz (or wherever they're at) if Apple didn't ask for 1 Ghz yet? Do you consider it IBM's job to make processors they aren't going to be selling to Apple? Think about it.

That's the most ridiculous argument yet. The fact is, no one has seen anything new from IBM since the G3. The G3 does go up to 1GHz, but Apple hasn't introduced it into their products. They probably want to keep it below the PowerBook, or match it. That sort of undermines the "MHz myth." It's psychological.

 

[bluecell]

I'm not against the 970 itself, it looks good. If IBM maintains development of the processor, that's fine. I'm all for it. IBM says that it's the beginning of a new family of PowerPC. Great, as long as it gives Apple options.

Now, the reason why it makes sense to me that Apple would want to keep everything 64-bit is that it'll take some developers a long time to move their applications over. Unless apps are 64-bit as well, it's pointless having a 64-bit processor.

 

[snoopy]

Originally posted by bluecell


Now, the reason why it makes sense to me that Apple would want to keep everything 64-bit is that it'll take some developers a long time to move their applications over. Unless apps are 64-bit as well, it's pointless having a 64-bit processor.

Not so. Likely only a few applications will be converted, since 64 bits is seldom an advantage. It is nice to have the 64 bit capability for those times it helps, however, and it does give access to a whole lot of RAM. The 64 bits is more like a side benefit for the typical desktop computer, but it does make good marketing hype too. Where it is needed most is servers and data base applications, and is used in really high end graphic workstations for special effects in Hollywood.

There are other, more important differences in the IBM 970 than the 64 bits. You might say that IBM will be providing the 64 bits at low cost and no penalty in 32 bit operation. So, it just makes the chip more versatile.

 

[LimeiBook86]

Re: Re: Re: Re: LOOK HARDER...

Originally posted by bobindashadows


Just to be a picky little bastard, I believe the quote was "I wish, just once, somebody would call me 'Sir' without saying 'You're making a scene'".

But to avoid spammage I'll contribute to this thread.

For bluecell who said that IBM is too unreliable to work with. Do you know why IBM never gave Apple the Sahara? Because Apple didn't ask for it. Why would IBM continue to develop the processor beyond 1 Ghz (or wherever they're at) if Apple didn't ask for 1 Ghz yet? Do you consider it IBM's job to make processors they aren't going to be selling to Apple? Think about it.

Thanks for correcting me Mayeb I'll do the same to you heh (no sarcasim intended)

 

[zimv20]

ignore... i posted a reply to this forum by accident... sorry...

 

[snoopy]

Those who favor an x86 processor for the Mac have some good arguments, but they usually lack one quality, vision. An AMD or Intel processor may seem like the best choice, looking at how things were in the past, and how they are in the present. But it can be a big mistake thinking things always stay the same. Leaders do not remain leaders forever, and the most popular of anything will usually change at some point. Many of us believe, and for good reason, that the processor scene is changing, and the IBM 970 is the best possible way for Apple to go today.

PPC desktop processors suffered in the last two years, and Macs suffered because of it. Motorola has been interested in the embedded market and has not done much to improve desktop processors for Apple. IBM was busy with things like the Power 4 for their big servers, and did not see the benefits of an SIMD engine either. But things show strong indications of change. Those glued to the past and present may miss it.

IBM is getting in the business of making custom chips. They made one for Nintendo to use in the Game Cube. They may be doing one for Sony, for the Playstation 3, and have stated they intend to pursue this market. Apple is not limited to tagging along with IBM's need for processors. If Apple wants a chip that IBM does not intend to build for themselves, IBM will build Apple a custom chip. But the future appears brighter yet now that IBM has their own need for that same processor that Apple wants. IBM now has that extra motivation to win with the best.

One of the biggest threats to IBM server business is Linux running on x86 processors. Within three years, this type of server will likely be making big inroads in markets that typically use big servers now. IBM could just market their own x86 Linux server and call it good. But if IBM followed this approach, they would be competing head to head with Dell and HP. There would be little to differentiate an IBM Linux server from any other, and IBM could not maintain their lead in the server market. They need to give customers a reason to run Linux on an IBM processor, rather than an Intel or AMD. They need the best processor in this class, and they are out to get it.

So, looking just at the past and present, the x86 looks favorable. With a vision of the future, it is a different story. If anything should be debated, it should be whether IBM is capable of beating Intel and AMD, when IBM is committed to this task. I feel sure of IBM's commitment, because servers are paramount to their business.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Originally posted by springscansing


I think you miss the point of nearly every post on these forums.

Fine, you don't like me posting, then I won't. I will be looking for other more friendly message boards where you can put a personal opinion. I am sick and tired of people bitching about wanting an x86 processor. All I was saying, is if that is what you want...they are available right now, why wait.

So according to springscansing I am a f**king retard, so I am done posting. I am tired of 18 year olds that think they know it all. Go to college, land a f**king career, get a commission in the Army Reserve then you can judge me as incompetent.

 

[Computer_Phreak]

Originally posted by bluecell
Computer_Phreak:

Where did you get your "definite" info?
-

a person in working for apple said he/she had a copy of a beta mac os for a 64 bit processor

 

[bluecell]

Originally posted by Computer_Phreak
a person in working for apple said he/she had a copy of a beta mac os for a 64 bit processor

Hmmm... If that's true (and I have no way of validating that), how do you know it's not a 64-bit AMD processor? Anyway, I don't really care. Steve Jobs and Phil Schiller are smart people. They know what they have to do to be successful. If IBM can actually provide for them, great. It's funny to see how many Mac enthusiasts think inside of this box. If it's not something that they're used to, it's no good.

 

[cubist]

This sure is a nutty thread...

...and to keep it up I'd like to point out that at Apple's current market share level, IBM probably doesn't care much whether Apple uses their chips. The total volume probably isn't even a million machines a year. Once Apple's hooked on the 970, IBM could manipulate the price to Apple's detriment. What have they got to lose?

I don't know if Checker is still in business, but they used to use Chevrolet engines. Did GM care much whether Checker used their engines? Did Chevrolet ads say "Wow, these Checkers are powered by Chevrolet"? No. They just sold them engines, knowing that Checker was no threat to their business and, if it ever became a threat, they could pull the plug whenever they wanted.

Apple's in a seriously tough situation. The next step is probably 7457's (130nm) at up to 1.4MHz. Long-term, there probably aren't sufficient resources at Apple to move to IA-64 (Itanium), or Athlon 64, UltraSPARC-III or any other incompatible architecture. The 970's the only hope to stay in the hardware business.

The alternative is to follow Intergraph and Silicon Graphics and Be (and NeXT!) into being a software company only... and thence into oblivion. Sun is facing the same dilemma, and facing it squarely with head squarely buried in sand.

Maybe IBM will buy what's left of Apple in a year and rename Aqua to Standard Application-Friendly Environment/1 (SAFE/1), and offer it on their graphics workstations.

 

[Macpoops]

For all of you who are saying the IBM isn't going to maintain development on the 970, let me ask you this. Why would a company who uses the processor it makes in it's own workstations let development stagnate? They would be shooting themselves in the foot. Motorolla doesn't use what they make as far as desktop processors. If they did then they wouldn't have let the desktop processors go to ****.

Last time i checked IBM wasn't into making ****ty computer products. They've got the best server chip and some of the best servers you can buy. All high end stuff. They have proven themselves in the high-end market now they want to prove themselves in the low to mid range market. And i think they are going to pull it off. A side effect of that is the fact that Apple can tag along and use the same processor their stuff is using. And we all benefit from it. It's similar to the old AIM agreement which created the POWERPC. Only this time it seems more like an unoffical AI agreement. With Both apple and IBM getting what they need and want to be the best.

Good point on the engines Cubist. That is exactly what we have here

 

[Chryx]

Re: This sure is a nutty thread...

Originally posted by cubist
The total volume probably isn't even a million machines a year.

It's over that actually, more like 4-5 million machines a year.

3.6% marketshare worldwide might not sound like a lot, but that's more machines with Apple logos sold in the last year than machines that say Acer on them...

 

[Sun Baked]

IBM is replacing a bunch of the aging 604 workstations with this new PPC chip.

Apple is also on line for this chip.

The makers of Linux machines are most likely looking at this chip (paired with the Amiga re-entry into the market - same machine) - and they'll be taking G3 and G4s also, if the new Linux/Amiga effort works.

---

Instead of Apple basically having the production for a line of chips all to themselves, they may actually end up fighting for their chunk of the PPC output.

 

[snoopy]

Re: This sure is a nutty thread...

Originally posted by cubist


. . . Once Apple's hooked on the 970, IBM could manipulate the price to Apple's detriment. What have they got to lose? . . .

. . . They just sold them engines, knowing that Checker was no threat to their business and, if it ever became a threat, they could pull the plug whenever they wanted. . . .

IBM is getting into the business of custom chips for others. If they pulled stunts like that, it would kill that business. Customers want to be able to trust their suppliers, otherwise they take their business elsewhere. On top of that there are contracts. Doing something like this is just dumb, since it is in IBM's interest to see Apple do well, and develop a long term customer relationship. Apple and IBM have a different enough customer bases too, making it less of an issue.

 

[boobers]

whats rebooting?

Originally posted by scem0


I have rebooted 4 times (which takes 20 seconds ) on my p4

from the terminal

Welcome to Darwin!
[hxx-xx-xxx-xx:~] penny% uptime
12:20AM up 27 days, 9:04, 5 users, load averages: 1.81, 1.76, 1.76

My mac works hard and i install stuff all the time..fortunately i don't need to reboot.

 

[basquino]

Originally posted by Macpoops
Take a look what does the PC have hardwarewise other then QDR ram and Mhz?

Let's see...a 533MHz system bus? Versus 133? No point in having a 64-bit datapath and Velocity Engine to boot if your data between HDD, DDR and CPU has to slog through a slow queue like so many zealots enroute to Xanadu.

Where's the news about LB architecture improvements? Personally I've held off on a new G4 Dually in hopes that Macworld SF or even later 2003 will provide me with the impetus to peel the plastic off that shiny new platinum card.

As it is, I think
this site summed up the speed difference in an empiric manner none of you can deny. I doubt we'll see Jolly Phil pulling out the Photoshop rendering scripts any time soon.

Paix

 

[danman]

When people contemplate the adoption of the PPC 970 from IBM, and it's performance comparative to the P4 and others, they seem to be disregarding the probable roadmap for it.

The 970 does not present much of a per-clock performance efficiency improvement over the G4. a 1.4 Ghz G4 would prob perform similarly. The 970 has obviously been designed to scale in clock-speed very rapidly (as the P4 was). Tradeoffs in the design are apparent that allude to this.. so whereas the 970 will intro at 1.4Ghz (or whatever) I think it will scale as quickly, or even faster than the P4 will be at the time. So we get the equivalent of a 3Ghz P4 late next year, but there will be a very quick game of catchup after that, until, I believe the 970 will be able to outperform the P4 at a lower cost, and power consumption.

From that base of performance advantage, IBM will intro the 980.. a chip that possibly Intel doesn't have an answer to at this time (though it undoubtedly will by then)

I'm not too bothered about which has the performance edge, as long as the gap ain't large, but I do believe the 970 has the scope to outstrip the P4 in the next 18 months.

 

[agreenster]

Originally posted by Durandal7

So what exactly do you do with your PC? Web surfing and playing games isn't too likely to crash much any OS nowadays. When using XP Pro workstations they crash a lot more then my Mac when doing CAD work, graphics design and working with large files.

I dont know about HIM, but I use Maya 4 12 hours a day, 5-6 days a week, and it never crashes my PC running XP. Ever.

EVER.

 

[agreenster]

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy


Fine, you don't like me posting, then I won't. I will be looking for other more friendly message boards where you can put a personal opinion. I am sick and tired of people bitching about wanting an x86 processor. All I was saying, is if that is what you want...they are available right now, why wait.

So according to springscansing I am a f**king retard, so I am done posting. I am tired of 18 year olds that think they know it all. Go to college, land a f**king career, get a commission in the Army Reserve then you can judge me as incompetent.

Good God. What a crybaby. Im sure thats why you are AbercrombieBoy, not Man. I would wger that most of us posting here ARE older then you, college educated (I am) and have great careers. Dont assume.

And you are STILL missing the point. We DONT want PC's. (I dont, even though I use one)

***[We want macs that run as effeciently as a PC*** (which is what I want)

 

[Pentium Killer]

Oh my god...

...not only the wrong thread I posted,but also wrong forum.This happens when you read two Rumorsites at once,sorry

 

[Sun Baked]

 

[Catfish_Man]

Quite the opposite, actually...

Originally posted by danman
When people contemplate the adoption of the PPC 970 from IBM, and it's performance comparative to the P4 and others, they seem to be disregarding the probable roadmap for it.

The 970 does not present much of a per-clock performance efficiency improvement over the G4. a 1.4 Ghz G4 would prob perform similarly. The 970 has obviously been designed to scale in clock-speed very rapidly (as the P4 was). Tradeoffs in the design are apparent that allude to this.. so whereas the 970 will intro at 1.4Ghz (or whatever) I think it will scale as quickly, or even faster than the P4 will be at the time. So we get the equivalent of a 3Ghz P4 late next year, but there will be a very quick game of catchup after that, until, I believe the 970 will be able to outperform the P4 at a lower cost, and power consumption.

From that base of performance advantage, IBM will intro the 980.. a chip that possibly Intel doesn't have an answer to at this time (though it undoubtedly will by then)

I'm not too bothered about which has the performance edge, as long as the gap ain't large, but I do believe the 970 has the scope to outstrip the P4 in the next 18 months.

...the 970 should get about double the per clock performance of a G4+. It may not scale all that quickly though, as the bus has to scale with it (scaling a bus is a lot harder than scaling a chip). However, it won't NEED to scale that quickly, since the bus will always keep up with it, and the per clock performance is so good. I'm not sure where you're getting your info.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Originally posted by agreenster


Good God. What a crybaby. Im sure thats why you are AbercrombieBoy, not Man. I would wger that most of us posting here ARE older then you, college educated (I am) and have great careers. Dont assume.

And you are STILL missing the point. We DONT want PC's. (I dont, even though I use one)

***[We want macs that run as effeciently as a PC*** (which is what I want)

First off it is EFFICIENTLY not effeciently, but anyhow tough guy what is your point? All you want is a Mac with an x86 and you will be a cry baby until it happens, well guess what, even though you somehow think this PPC 970 is going to be a ****ing dog of a processor. How do you know that it is not going to be, as you put it, an efficient machine? I don't know how you judge an efficient computer. I think my iBook is very efficient for a perfect blend of power consumption, performance, and heat. I think when this machine is introduced the disbelievers will swallow their own medicine. Of course, if the new PPC 970 is kicking butt the people who have argued x86 till they are blue in the face, would NEVER admit to being wrong.

 

[agreenster]

I thought you werent going to post anymore?!?!

Hrrm.

Anyway, I dont want to get into some dorky fight with you, but you are being a real jerk, and you ARE coming off as a crybaby.

I, on the other hand, just want a computer that runs better than my PC, but has an Apple logo on it. How does that make me an idiot? I am in the 3D animation business, in which no one uses Apple. Everyone uses PC's or SGI. I dont want to use PC's, I want to use Apple. And here's where you are missing the point- get ready, here it comes..........Apple computers are too slow when it comes to Graphic Acceleration, pure processor performance, and polygon display. (not to mention expensive! 3999 for a dual 1.25 ghz and 128MB VidCard?? gimme a break!) The floating points are simply not there. You try using Maya on the highest-end Apple, then use Maya on a mid-range PC. The difference is staggering. Staggering.

THATS my point. Plus, Im tired of APple users giving me the 'Apple computers are more stable' excuse. XP is just as stable in my experiences. I like Apple because of its sylish interface, open-ness of Unix, and design of casing. Plus, it is a 'bit' more user friendly w/ iApps and what-not.

Oh, and about the 970--I hope to God it does do well! Notice in my post, I NEVER said, Apple needs to switch to x86. I consider it an option, but if they can get someone else to supply the processor, then so be it.

So, quit being such a little snot and think before you post.

Oh, and PS - I know how to spell 'efficient.' Its called a typo, dip$hit. Good grief. If I had a nickel for every run-on sentence in your last post, Id be freakin' rich.