PDA

View Full Version : Macworld Mag article- PowerPC 970


Raiden
Dec 6, 2002, 09:13 AM
Hey guys, didnt know if you knew, but there is a good article on IBM's new PowerPC 970 chip in the January 03 issue of Macworld. It was a good read for who dont know alot about the 970.

My question is, now big name Mac magazines are speculating about the 970, so do you think apple will adopt it?

strider42
Dec 6, 2002, 10:37 AM
I think they will adopt it, but the fact that macworld is speculating about it does not make it in any way more likely. They don't know anything more than we do really.

LimeiBook86
Dec 6, 2002, 10:42 AM
I think Apple will use which ever comes first and which ever is fastest. I am looking at teh magazine right now, :) I was reading it yesterday when I was in my house, away from the 8 inches of snow outside. :D I was nice and warm... :)

bluecell
Dec 6, 2002, 10:52 AM
I hope they don't adopt it. IBM and Motorola are totally unreliable. It's not that exciting. It's only one processor that will most likely go through the same development as the G3.

DakotaGuy
Dec 6, 2002, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by bluecell
I hope they don't adopt it. IBM and Motorola are totally unreliable. It's not that exciting. It's only one processor that will most likely go through the same development as the G3.

Oh look another x86 fan. Go and buy a PC if you want x86.

bluecell
Dec 6, 2002, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
Oh look another x86 fan. Go and buy a PC if you want x86.You're way off base. Apple's not benefitting from IBM or Motorola. I don't care what architecture they use, PPC or x86-64, just as long as somebody keeps up with development. Another thing is that Apple needs to have more options than the PPC 970. I don't think IBM or Motorola are capable of providing Apple with the options that they need to survive.

Step out of the box and come into reality. It's fun.

bluecell
Dec 6, 2002, 11:46 AM
I didn't see anything in the latest Macworld.

LimeiBook86
Dec 6, 2002, 11:54 AM
It is the January 2003 Thats the issue, its the one with teh TiBook on the cover and a Apple logo and a Windows XP logo on the top. Check again, it's on page 18.

bluecell
Dec 6, 2002, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by LimeiBook86
It is the January 2003 Thats the issue, its the one with teh TiBook on the cover and a Apple logo and a Windows XP logo on the top. Check again, it's on page 18. Thank-you, Sir. I'll look at it when I get home.

hobie
Dec 6, 2002, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by bluecell
You're way off base. Apple's not benefitting from IBM or Motorola. I don't care what architecture they use, PPC or x86-64, just as long as somebody keeps up with development. Another thing is that Apple needs to have more options than the PPC 970. I don't think IBM or Motorola are capable of providing Apple with the options that they need to survive.

Step out of the box and come into reality. It's fun.


Then please tell me what options the windows world has!
A crappy P4 (fast now at 3+ghz, but a baaaad architecture:p ), an aging P3, or rather the Athlon with its wrecking VIA chips?!? Oh, I forgot, there's still the Crusoe and Cyrix alternatives for slooow mootiiiooonnn work :D But despite al those options, there's still a way too old x86 architecture under the hood, so it's no real alternative.

The whole thing is like comparing rumbling straight eights to turbo charged 4 cylinders. I'd rather prefer the 7.5 litre 8 w/200 hp then a 2litre turbo4 w/300 hp.

The PPC simply is superior, and the 970 will make its way. Believe me, once it'll be out, nobody looks back the x86!

bluecell
Dec 6, 2002, 12:48 PM
WTF? Has everyone totally missed the point? IT'S ONLY ONE PROCESSOR. If Apple goes 64-bit (which I believe they will), they'll have to make every processor 64-bit. Not just on the high-end. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. Besides, IBM and Motorola have a terrible track record of maintaining the development of PowerPC. It's crippling Apple. I care about processor speed because of my work. But consumers, particularly those who are into gaming, care about speed as well and not all of them will buy high-end systems (ask Peter Cohen from Macworld). It's really sad when Apple has to make all of their desktops dual processor to compensate for the lack speed. Crippled DDR RAM makes it even worse. There's no good reason why (full) DDR isn't in all of Apple's notebooks and desktops.

I'm sure I speak for a lot of Mac users when I say I have zero faith in IBM and Motorola. Where's IBM been since the G3? The roadmap of the PPC might as well be static. I've always been for a switch to AMD. An AMD PPC would be great. Hector Ruiz, AMD's CEO, was the president of Motorola's semiconductor unit before going to AMD and he took some of his former employees with him. Now, x86-64 looks pretty good from what I've seen. It sort of re-writes the laws of the 32-bit x86 version. AMD is driven by development and innovation. IBM, on the other hand, has their own agenda and that's to push Linux. Apple doesn't benefit from either IBM or Motorola.

Look, I respect all of you. I'm the most hardcore Mac user I know. It's just really frustrating to see Apple suffering because of IBM and Motorola. That's all.

hobie
Dec 6, 2002, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by bluecell
If Apple goes 64-bit (which I believe they will), they'll have to make every processor 64-bit. Not just on the high-end. It wouldn't make sense otherwise.

Why is that :confused: To me it sounds quite reasonable since it means a Powerline distinction from the consumer/i-line again and justifies the huge price difference between both. It'll put things into perspective again! BTW, the 970 is backwards compatible to current PPCs.

Besides, IBM and Motorola have a terrible track record of maintaining the development of PowerPC. It's crippling Apple.

IBM had the 1ghz G3 over a year ago, so don't blame IBM for Moto's creep speed.

Crippled DDR RAM makes it even worse. There's no good reason why (full) DDR isn't in all of Apple's notebooks and desktops.

This again should be Apple's fault since G3's support full DDR (as far as i know).

AMD is driven by development and innovation. IBM, on the other hand, has their own agenda and that's to push Linux. Apple doesn't benefit from either IBM or Motorola.

Right, and Linux will be pushed with the 970. Perfect for Apple :D

agreenster
Dec 6, 2002, 01:15 PM
Im also a fan of Apple computer, but it amazes me how blind some Apple enthusiasts are.

For example, everyone dogs the mHz of current Intel processors. But the question is, have any of you actually used these machines??? They're FAST. Sure, I understand that the speed of these chips are coming to a plateau, but their plataeu is still faster than the top of the line G4!!!

You are arguing that the "up and coming' PPC 970 is going to kill the current Intel chips----well of course it will! Any chip that is 'in the future' is going to destroy whats out today. You cant even compare the two! Besides, its counter-productive. The real fact is: right NOW, the fastest and cheapest processor you can buy does not come from Motorola or IBM, but Intel.

Whats to come in the future? Who knows. Hopefully Apple and (insert processor manufacturer here) can tema up and supply a nice fast chip in a branded Apple box. But, in the meantime, you have to face facts that Macs are slower, even at the interface level. I get so sick and tired of waiting for windows to pop open and my damn 'system preferences' to take 4 seconds to open.

One more thing--speed DOES matter. A lot of Apple user today say 'speed doesnt really metter anymore.' Hogwash! The faster and more efficient the processor, the more you can do with your computer. The sky's the limit as to what your computer can do with a fast engine. People dont just read email and surf the web anymore. People are using their computers to do their digital photos and make home movies. I use iPhoto, and its too slow for me a lot of the time. I have to wait a lot, and scaling the images is jerky.

Anyway, my point is, dont judge the Intel chip so harshly. Their chips ARE faster, and it gives you no right to say that they are crap. Sure, the x86 is reaching the end of its life, but so is the G4. If you compare the life of the G4 to the life of the P4 or Xeon, I can tell you which has been better and faster in the overall run. Here's a hint, it aint the G4.

Postal
Dec 6, 2002, 01:35 PM
I more or less agree with you, agreenster... while the G4 may indeed be much more efficient than a Pentium 4, there's only so much of a gap before you start to lag behind anyways.

In the consumer lines Apple uses, no, they don't need especially faster chips; for the foreseeable future, a G4 800 will do nicely. It's when you get to the pro lineup that Motorola's heel-dragging really starts to be felt. If you're on the bleeding edge of an architecture, you want to feel like you can do a lot more than others can, and that impression just doesn't come to you when you hear of a dual 1.25 GHz PowerMac. Powerbooks are considerably more forgiving , but nonetheless...

One thing I don't see happening anytime soon is the switch to x86 architecture. Right now that would be a major leap, making the 68K-to-PPC switch seem relatively trivial. If Apple didn't want the bottom to drop out of their sales, they'd also have to be extremely careful about making sure that OS X didn't boot up on just any x86 system.

For them, it's probably more worthwhile to just get the PPC 970 into their lineup as soon as possible - and while they'd certainly introduce it for the "power" series and the Xserve first, I wouldn't be shocked at all if they put a slower version of the PPC 970 into the iMac shortly afterwards.

hobie
Dec 6, 2002, 01:43 PM
Well, I never said the P4s are slower than G4s. I just said the P4 architecture is crap.

And to give a present comparison:
A own a 500mhz iBook and an 1.4ghz Athlon XP tower. One runs OS X, the other one does XP. One has a 4200rpm drive, the other a 7200rpm drive, 384MB vs. 512MB and 100mhz Bus vs. 133mhz Bus. Ati Rage 8MB vs. Geforce 4 64MB.

Now if you ask me which one FEELS faster, I'd say my iBook! Despite some slugginess of the userinterface, it feels faster. But what's more important is, on my MAC I needed 1 reinstall during the past 6 months, for Jaguar! On the Athlon, I needed 11. For system crashes! Same thing for my 2ghz P4 VAIO. Well, that on just needed 2 reinstalls...

Yes, x86 CLOCKS faster, but does it let you WORK faster :rolleyes:

bluecell
Dec 6, 2002, 01:46 PM
Hobie:

I'm totally aware of the backwards capabilities of the PPC 970. The problem is that no one will get full use out of it unless apps are moved from 32-bit to 64-bit. Otherwise, it's pointless making the jump. The transition isn't difficult. Besides, the G4 isn't going to cut it for most gamers, which is the reason why I brought it up. Not all gamers will buy high-end systems. Speed does matter.

The 1GHz G3 didn't make it into any of Apple's products. IBM really hasn't done anything since the G3. So yes, both IBM and Motorola have a terrible track record of PPC development.

The crippled DDR is an affliction of G4. None of the G3 models utilize DDR, but the processor is also very outdated.

IBM doesn't really care about Apple's initiatives. They have there own agenda that Apple will have to adhere to.

And Agreenster is right on. :)

hobie
Dec 6, 2002, 01:51 PM
Yes, the 1ghz G3 hasn't seen daylight yet. But don't you think it's a strategy thing not to pull out a 1ghz G3 iBook besides a 667mhz G4 TiBook?!?

Moto wasn't able to deliver faster chips, and hence Apple couldn't utilise IBMs faster chips.

bluecell
Dec 6, 2002, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by hobie
Yes, the 1ghz G3 hasn't seen daylight yet. But don't you think it's a strategy thing not to pull out a 1ghz G3 iBook besides a 667mhz G4 TiBook?!?

Moto wasn't able to deliver faster chips, and hence Apple couldn't utilise IBMs faster chips. I think all of Apple's original strategies fell through due to the lack of PPC development. Which makes me ask the question, why would Apple seed the rumor of an x86 port of the Mac OS (and I'm certain that they did)? The G3, like the G4, should be dead and buried.

Macpoops
Dec 6, 2002, 01:57 PM
How long did it take x86 architecture to reach 1ghz? 10+ years? It was created in the late 70s or early 80s if i am not mistaken. How old is the PPC now around 10 give or take a few? I would imagine this is the peak of x86 and it's been around 20 years. PPC is still up and coming. it's still young and relatively immature. So have faith and give it time. Apple wouldn't have switched to PPC if they didn't see it as the next big thing. Apple is a leader in the industry. People follow their lead sooner or later. Take a look what does the PC have hardwarewise other then QDR ram and Mhz?

hobie
Dec 6, 2002, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Macpoops
Take a look what does the PC have hardwarewise other then QDR ram and Mhz?

...USB2 ?...:D

But I'm with you, PPCs time will come yet!

ktlx
Dec 6, 2002, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by agreenster
Sure, the x86 is reaching the end of its life, but so is the G4. If you compare the life of the G4 to the life of the P4 or Xeon, I can tell you which has been better and faster in the overall run.

The statements about the x86 architecture being old from Apple supporters don't make much sense (although agreenster's comments seemed the most clued-in).

There is no such thing as an x86 architecture. The x86 is an Instruction Set Architecture (ISA), not an implementation. Besides the instruction set, the Pentium 4, Pentium III, Pentium, Pentium Pro, 486, Athlon and Athlon XP have very little in common. For more information about this, pop over to ArsTechnica (http://www.arstechnica.com) and read some of their processor black papers.

The x86 ISA has a lot of life left in it given the hefty investment by AMD and Intel. AMD is even planning on taking it farther with the x86-64 extensions. Intel has said over and over again that the Pentium 4 and Pentium 4 Xeon processors will be the desktop and low end workstation and server processors for the foreseeable future.

Yes, the processors implementing the x86 ISA are starting to reach a plateau. But that has almost nothing to do with technical limitations. It is due to the PC market and the lack of an application requiring something faster. Intel has said they can easily take the Pentium 4 past 4Ghz and I am sure they will once the economic drivers to make it profitable exist.

On the other hand, look at the G4. It really has hit a plateau. Why that is, I don't know but I imagine it is more techincal than economic. During the time the G4 has went from 933Mhz to 1.25Ghz, the Pentium 4 has gone from 2Ghz to 3Ghz and added hyperthreading.

agreenster
Dec 6, 2002, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by hobie
Despite some slugginess of the userinterface, it feels faster. But what's more important is, on my MAC I needed 1 reinstall during the past 6 months, for Jaguar! On the Athlon, I needed 11. For system crashes! Same thing for my 2ghz P4 VAIO. Well, that on just needed 2 reinstalls...

Yes, x86 CLOCKS faster, but does it let you WORK faster :rolleyes:

So, if the user interface is slower, then what exactly makes it feel faster? Photoshop? I have a really really hard time believing this.

I have a 550 Powerbook and it doesnt even come close to the speed of my PC desktop.

11 software reinstalls? Good god man. What did you do? Drop your computer into the tub? I've used Windows for over a year and have never need a system reinstall.

I really dont think what you are saying is true. My PC clocks faster and works faster.

Macpoops
Dec 6, 2002, 02:08 PM
I think USB2 is overrated. I don't think it offers much more then Firewire. Of course i do realize that firewire is not nearly as standard on PC as it is on Macs. I also do not know that much about USB2 so i guess i am not one to judge. The only thing i really see is the fact you can now connect harddrives via USB. Which i can do perfectly with firewire who cares about the extra 80bits per second you get with USB2 frankly know one is going to notice the difference

agreenster
Dec 6, 2002, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by hobie
Yes, the 1ghz G3 hasn't seen daylight yet. But don't you think it's a strategy thing not to pull out a 1ghz G3 iBook besides a 667mhz G4 TiBook?!?


Boy, talk about caring for the consumer. If I were Apple, I'd be ashamed to admit this. Not releasing a good computer because of how it would look to the consumer? C'mon.

hobie
Dec 6, 2002, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by agreenster


Boy, talk about caring for the consumer. If I were Apple, I'd be ashamed to admit this. Not releasing a good computer because of how it would look to the consumer? C'mon.

You're none of those marketing guys, huh?! Customers would never buy a 667 TiBook @ $3500 when a 1ghz iBook sells at the same time for $1500. Simple as that.

Intel did exactly the same thing with the P3 and P4. The P3 never clocked faster than the P4, though it could be easily done. And why? Because the P3 was faster than the P4 at the same clock rates (Checked by downclocking the P4 and/or overclocking the P3), and would kill the P4 at higher rates. But unfortunately the P4 has been chosen as the way to go, so there was no way back!
Customers would just be confused by all those figures, like they where back in the 90's with Apple's "interesting" product politics.

My MAC UI is sluggy SOMETIMES, and then it's only cheeesy. But when the Windows UI is stuck, then it's really stuck for a couple of minutes.
That's what I mean when I say the iBook feels faster.

Yes, I was really unlucky with my PC's so far, especially the Athlon one. The VAIO is bearable though.

Computer_Phreak
Dec 6, 2002, 03:36 PM
i have heard some definate info that apple will use the PPC 970 processor

although Intel or AMD chips would be a better option in my opinion

alex_ant
Dec 6, 2002, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by bluecell
WTF? Has everyone totally missed the point? IT'S ONLY ONE PROCESSOR. If Apple goes 64-bit (which I believe they will), they'll have to make every processor 64-bit. Not just on the high-end. It wouldn't make sense otherwise.
No reason there couldn't be a 64-bit 970 in the Power Macs and 32-bit G3s/G4s in everything else. High-end software that could take advantage of 64-bit could be recompiled for 64-bit and distributed along with the 32-bit version in an .app. That aside, it's also very likely there will be a lower-clocked 970 in the iMac and PowerBook sooner than you'd think.
Besides, IBM and Motorola have a terrible track record of maintaining the development of PowerPC. It's crippling Apple. I care about processor speed because of my work. But consumers, particularly those who are into gaming, care about speed as well and not all of them will buy high-end systems (ask Peter Cohen from Macworld). It's really sad when Apple has to make all of their desktops dual processor to compensate for the lack speed. Crippled DDR RAM makes it even worse. There's no good reason why (full) DDR isn't in all of Apple's notebooks and desktops.
After your first sentence, you go off track and talk about the now. The 970 is not the now, it's the future. Unlike the case with the G3, IBM has very strong incentive to ratchet the performance of this new chip up as fast as it can - not only because they've invested in it as the new high-performance PowerPC platform, but because they themselves will be selling computers running Linux that IBM wants to kill Sun with. IBM wouldn't have even bothered spending all this money on designing a new chip if they knew they were going to just let it stagnate and fail in the marketplace. To sum up: The PPC 970 is going places and all indications point to its development being very much unlike the G3's.
I've always been for a switch to AMD. An AMD PPC would be great. Hector Ruiz, AMD's CEO, was the president of Motorola's semiconductor unit before going to AMD and he took some of his former employees with him. Now, x86-64 looks pretty good from what I've seen. It sort of re-writes the laws of the 32-bit x86 version. AMD is driven by development and innovation.
Whatever AMD is driven by, they're having a hard time competing with Intel as it is, bleeding money even with an architecturally superior product. I don't know what makes you think they would do any better against Intel if Apple used their chips. An AMD PPC would be a notion straight out of fantasy land, as everybody knows Apple does nowhere near enough volume to be able to convince AMD to sacrifice their already stressed manufacturing resources to make chips solely for them. Yeah I'd like a 200GHz AMD Alpha in my Mac too, but let's be realistic.
IBM, on the other hand, has their own agenda and that's to push Linux. Apple doesn't benefit from either IBM or Motorola.
But you have to understand that by pushing Linux, IBM is also helping Apple. Faster 970 Linux workstations ---> faster Macs. Faster 970 Linux workstations & Macs ---> greater sales of the 970 ---> still faster 970s ---> faster Linux workstations and Macs. Sounds like a win-win-win (for IBM, Apple, and Linux) to me. Certainly if you base your opinions only on what IBM has done with the PPC in the past, they don't look too appealing. But you've got to train your eye on what looks set to happen in the near future.

DakotaGuy
Dec 6, 2002, 04:48 PM
If you don't like Apple, you don't have to buy a Mac, simple as that. Get a PC if you don't like what Apple is doing. I happen to enjoy my Macs and for whatever disadvantages they hold to the PC I think they have a lot of strengths.

bluecell
Dec 6, 2002, 05:11 PM
Computer_Phreak:

Where did you get your "definite" info?
-
alex_ant & Abercrombieboy:

Both of you contiunue to miss the point. You're still not thinking realistically. I do like what Apple's doing in terms of software, but they have some serious issues when it comes to hardware. I am looking at the future and one processor that will most likely be poorly maintained isn't enough to keep Apple alive. Sorry, but that's the sad reality. You're not going to be happy until Apple loses more ground and slips away into extinction. All because you have a problem with anything that's not IBM or Motorola.

Sun Baked
Dec 6, 2002, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by bluecell
I've always been for a switch to AMD. An AMD PPC would be great. Hector Ruiz, AMD's CEO, was the president of Motorola's semiconductor unit before going to AMD and he took some of his former employees with him. Now, x86-64 looks pretty good from what I've seen. It sort of re-writes the laws of the 32-bit x86 version. AMD is driven by development and innovation. IBM, on the other hand, has their own agenda and that's to push Linux. Apple doesn't benefit from either IBM or Motorola.
There is a reason for Motorola employees at AMD.

In the technology department for future chip technology development there is IBM on the top of the heap.

Then there is the team formed by AMD and Motorola - they're working TOGETHER right now.

How does choosing AMD over both IBM and Motorola lead to long-term chip development benefits.

Sure in the short term they may be able to do more than Motorola, but will it last?

If Motorola does not renew the tech sharing arrangement with AMD - will AMD be able to struggle along on their own over several product cycles?

R&D for chip development is a huge expense, what will AMD do if they part with Motorola, buy technologies from IBM or Intel?

bluecell
Dec 6, 2002, 05:32 PM
Ummm... yeah. :rolleyes:

alex_ant
Dec 6, 2002, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by bluecell
Both of you contiunue to miss the point. You're still not thinking realistically. I do like what Apple's doing in terms of software, but they have some serious issues when it comes to hardware. I am looking at the future and one processor that will most likely be poorly maintained isn't enough to keep Apple alive.
You must have missed what I said about all indications pointing to the likelihood that this processor will be very well-maintained. To recap that, I doubt IBM would have spent however many millions on this thing if they knew they were going to just let it sit at 1.8GHz unchanged forever. They've got big plans for this chip and a new, state-of-the-art fab in which they'll be manufacturing it. In one sentence, this chip will have a life very unlike that of the G3 - in a good way. How am I not thinking realistically? The 970 is real, it's happening, and it will be inside the Power Macs in less than 13 months. Yes that's a long time to wait, but it's not like Apple has any other options. You don't seriously think Steve Jobs could phone up AMD and have them rolling out 9 nanometer G5s by next Thursday, do you?
Sorry, but that's the sad reality. You're not going to be happy until Apple loses more ground and slips away into extinction. All because you have a problem with anything that's not IBM or Motorola.
Apple will lose ground until late next year when the 970 debuts. That's an unfortunate fact. IBM is reality, and the only thing I have a problem with is being unrealistic. An AMD/Apple relationship is unrealistic.

bluecell
Dec 6, 2002, 05:49 PM
Man, Agreenster is right. Some Apple enthusiasts are blind. The 970 is not going to be Apple's knight in shining armor. You do realize that 13 months is more than 4 quarters away, right? I guess we'll see what happens at Macworld SF.

alex_ant
Dec 6, 2002, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by bluecell
Man, Agreenster is right. Some Apple enthusiasts are blind. The 970 is not going to be Apple's knight in shining armor. You do realize that 13 months is more than 4 quarters away, right? I guess we'll see what happens at Macworld SF.
1) What makes you think I'm an Apple enthusiast? 2) 13 months is a maximum. If we're lucky, the 970 could be 7 months away. Most likely it will arrive some time between those figures. Even if it for some reason took two more years, though, AMD still couldn't have a PPC out in anywhere near that time. Let alone be able to manufacture it in volume profitably. In which case the only alternative for Apple would be x86-64. Which still will only arrive a few months before the 970 at best. So yes, we all wish the 970 would appear in a Power Mac tomorrow, but it won't. And neither will anything else.

Catfish_Man
Dec 6, 2002, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by bluecell
WTF? Has everyone totally missed the point? IT'S ONLY ONE PROCESSOR. If Apple goes 64-bit (which I believe they will), they'll have to make every processor 64-bit. Not just on the high-end. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. Besides, IBM and Motorola have a terrible track record of maintaining the development of PowerPC. It's crippling Apple. I care about processor speed because of my work. But consumers, particularly those who are into gaming, care about speed as well and not all of them will buy high-end systems (ask Peter Cohen from Macworld). It's really sad when Apple has to make all of their desktops dual processor to compensate for the lack speed. Crippled DDR RAM makes it even worse. There's no good reason why (full) DDR isn't in all of Apple's notebooks and desktops.

I'm sure I speak for a lot of Mac users when I say I have zero faith in IBM and Motorola. Where's IBM been since the G3? The roadmap of the PPC might as well be static. I've always been for a switch to AMD. An AMD PPC would be great. Hector Ruiz, AMD's CEO, was the president of Motorola's semiconductor unit before going to AMD and he took some of his former employees with him. Now, x86-64 looks pretty good from what I've seen. It sort of re-writes the laws of the 32-bit x86 version. AMD is driven by development and innovation. IBM, on the other hand, has their own agenda and that's to push Linux. Apple doesn't benefit from either IBM or Motorola.

Look, I respect all of you. I'm the most hardcore Mac user I know. It's just really frustrating to see Apple suffering because of IBM and Motorola. That's all.

...although you had some good points there, you were wrong on a few important ones.
1) It's not one proc, it's "the first of a line of processors" (according to IBM)
2) IBM pushing Linux is a GOOD thing for Apple. Moto doesn't push the G4+ because they use it for things that don't require massive performance. IBM's Linux boxes have similar requirements to Apple's.
3) The POWER4+ is the fastest chip in the world, and it's PowerPC.
4) The G3 hasn't been stagnating, it does exactly what it's supposed to. Be a super low power, tiny, efficient chip. It's actually more advanced than the G4+ is now.
5) There's a very good reason why Apple doesn't have a DDR frontside bus. The G4+ doesn't support it.
6) Going 64 bit on the high end and remaining 32 bit on the low end for a while makes perfect sense. It's a good way to differentiate the PowerMac/TiBook/XServe and iBook/eMac/iMac.

Catfish_Man
Dec 6, 2002, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Computer_Phreak
i have heard some definate info that apple will use the PPC 970 processor

although Intel or AMD chips would be a better option in my opinion ...why? (Sorry about the double post).

DakotaGuy
Dec 6, 2002, 10:16 PM
Isn't it a little early to write off the Power PC 970? It hasn't even been produced in a machine yet that is being offered to the public. I think if and when this processor comes out, lets see how it works before we write it off as an inferior product.

macmax
Dec 6, 2002, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by agreenster
Im also a fan of Apple computer, but it amazes me how blind some Apple enthusiasts are.

For example, everyone dogs the mHz of current Intel processors. But the question is, have any of you actually used these machines??? They're FAST. Sure, I understand that the speed of these chips are coming to a plateau, but their plataeu is still faster than the top of the line G4!!!

You are arguing that the "up and coming' PPC 970 is going to kill the current Intel chips----well of course it will! Any chip that is 'in the future' is going to destroy whats out today. You cant even compare the two! Besides, its counter-productive. The real fact is: right NOW, the fastest and cheapest processor you can buy does not come from Motorola or IBM, but Intel.

Whats to come in the future? Who knows. Hopefully Apple and (insert processor manufacturer here) can tema up and supply a nice fast chip in a branded Apple box. But, in the meantime, you have to face facts that Macs are slower, even at the interface level. I get so sick and tired of waiting for windows to pop open and my damn 'system preferences' to take 4 seconds to open.

One more thing--speed DOES matter. A lot of Apple user today say 'speed doesnt really metter anymore.' Hogwash! The faster and more efficient the processor, the more you can do with your computer. The sky's the limit as to what your computer can do with a fast engine. People dont just read email and surf the web anymore. People are using their computers to do their digital photos and make home movies. I use iPhoto, and its too slow for me a lot of the time. I have to wait a lot, and scaling the images is jerky.

Anyway, my point is, dont judge the Intel chip so harshly. Their chips ARE faster, and it gives you no right to say that they are crap. Sure, the x86 is reaching the end of its life, but so is the G4. If you compare the life of the G4 to the life of the P4 or Xeon, I can tell you which has been better and faster in the overall run. Here's a hint, it aint the G4.

i have avery fast pos pc.
yes , it is fast , it is unreliable,it freezes from time to time and it does things no one can explain.
in a recent study they discovered that a pc user looses 2 to 3 hours a week rebooting, when compare to a mac user doing the same tasks
For once i understand pc users:

1-yes , they have more fun , they only need to buy a white crystal ball and they can become psychic, because no one really knows what the pc is up to.

2-they are ahead of us, same reason , they are psychic.

3-they can qualify themselves as techs and work as techs in the future, because you have to become one in order to maintain the pc running.
we the mac users, on the other hand,
will not learn anything , because our computers run fine all of the time.There is not a tech career in owning a mac, hehehhe.

4-your brain works really hard when you are trying to print on a pc, again, she does whatever she feels like doing.

5- pcs have a mind of their own, macs are only machines that do what you tell them
6- if using messenger, with a mac you can only sign in once per session and you will get bored after expending 2 or 3 hours talking to your friends while they have the "pleasure" of connecting at least 3 to 4 times in the same session, the only reason is for you not to get asleep in front of your computer.
and
7- the pcs do all of this so you can feel that you are needed and that you are doing something worthy in your lifetime, listen to me, "YOU ARE FIXING SOMETHING" so you are alive for a reason, macs are only here to please you and do their work.

a mac will spoil you,a pc will give you plenty of reasons for been alive and lots of career options, like joining a circus or something like that.

I AM TRULY SPOILED AND I JUST WANT TO DO MY WORK WITHOUT KNOWING ANYTHING AT ALL!!
LONG LIVE THE MAC!!!

scem0
Dec 7, 2002, 04:48 AM
a pc user looses 2 to 3 hours a week rebooting

I have rebooted 4 times (which takes 20 seconds :D) on my p4
2.4 GHz, which is blazing fast, running windows XP. And I only
rebooted because of installing things. I have never had to reboot
because of errors.

That study was a bad study, or it was comparing Mac OS 10.2 to
Windows 95 or something, because I know for a fact that no
windows users spend 2 -3 hours a week rebooting. That is complete
crap.

I am very happy with my PC. I would rather have a $3,000 mac
(which wouldn't be as fast as this computer which I got for $750),
because I know that speed isn't everything. But I wasn't going to
spend $700 on a peace of crap macintosh, when I could get new
technology for $700 with a PC.

macmax
Dec 7, 2002, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by scem0


I have rebooted 4 times (which takes 20 seconds :D) on my p4
2.4 GHz, which is blazing fast, running windows XP. And I only
rebooted because of installing things. I have never had to reboot
because of errors.

That study was a bad study, or it was comparing Mac OS 10.2 to
Windows 95 or something, because I know for a fact that no
windows users spend 2 -3 hours a week rebooting. That is complete
crap.

I am very happy with my PC. I would rather have a $3,000 mac
(which wouldn't be as fast as this computer which I got for $750),
because I know that speed isn't everything. But I wasn't going to
spend $700 on a peace of crap macintosh, when I could get new
technology for $700 with a PC.

rebooter:D
it was against xp and maybe you don't really push your pc.
mine has xp pro( the pos pc) , pos she is.
The other 2 are macs and the next one will be a mac.
rebooter

LimeiBook86
Dec 7, 2002, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by bluecell
Thank-you, Sir. I'll look at it when I get home.

Well thanks :D

Somebody actualy called me Sir, without adding *Your making a scene*

-Homer Simpson :D ;) :rolleyes:

Chryx
Dec 7, 2002, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by bluecell
Besides, IBM and Motorola have a terrible track record of maintaining the development of PowerPC.

Motorola?, yeah, they went after the low power embedded market when Apple stumbled in the late '90s

IBM OTOH, have been pushing the envelope with PowerPC chips, problem is they cost too much to put into a desktop machine.. (and would be impossible to cool in anything resembling a sensible manner.)

the PowerPC 970 is a pared down variant of that big iron PowerPC hardware (the POWER4 basically), and it's looking from here that IBM are getting serious about the processor market again.

the alternative is for Apple to do something which would utterly kill them, which is going to X86-64 or IA-64.

We can only hope IBM can keep the heat on (or off, so to speak), if anyone has the resources to go toe to toe with Intel on fabrication, they do.

springscansing
Dec 7, 2002, 01:38 PM
I'm on a dual 867, and I must say that Jaguar 10.2.2 is not sluggish -AT ALL-. Back when I had my dual 450 and 10.2.1, it was an absolute dog though, terrible. My system prefs pop up in about 1.5 seconds on first launch, and I can even run Flurry (the screensaver) as my desktop pattern and still have things be responsive enough. I think the reason it is so responsive now is due to Quartz Extreme. My 450 had an ATi Rage 128, which did not support it, but my current GeForce4 does. So if you think OS X is sluggish, try running Jaguar with a Quartz Extreme supported card. The interface never, ever seems sluggish.

But just for the record, dual athies still slay a dual G4 system.

springscansing
Dec 7, 2002, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
If you don't like Apple, you don't have to buy a Mac, simple as that. Get a PC if you don't like what Apple is doing. I happen to enjoy my Macs and for whatever disadvantages they hold to the PC I think they have a lot of strengths.

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

springscansing
Dec 7, 2002, 01:47 PM
I personally don't know what's Apple's best choice. IA64 is shaky in general for a number of reasons, mostly because it won't be backwards-compatible with older software... unless I'm mistaken. x86-64 looks good, but AMD isn't exactly the world's most solid company, but they're not the shakiest either. The 970 looks okay, but ... well ... yeah, I guess 970 would be the way to go, heh. The x86-64 sounds like so much more fun though! hehe. It would need some kinda RISC --> SISC dealie for handling old software though... at least ... I think? I donno. I'm dumb, heh.

Durandal7
Dec 7, 2002, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by scem0


I have rebooted 4 times (which takes 20 seconds :D) on my p4
2.4 GHz, which is blazing fast, running windows XP. And I only
rebooted because of installing things. I have never had to reboot
because of errors.

That study was a bad study, or it was comparing Mac OS 10.2 to
Windows 95 or something, because I know for a fact that no
windows users spend 2 -3 hours a week rebooting. That is complete
crap.

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.

Chryx
Dec 7, 2002, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by springscansing
I personally don't know what's Apple's best choice. IA64 is shaky in general for a number of reasons, mostly because it won't be backwards-compatible with older software... unless I'm mistaken. x86-64 looks good,

x86-64 looks like a terrible processor platform for Apple to switch to for the exact same reason IA-64 is.... a complete and TOTAL lack of backwards compatability with the PowerPC architecture, NO current PPC software would run... sure, OSX could be recompiled.... apps for OSX could be recompiled...


But those aren't all the apps that get used, and a lot of OSX stuff might not get recompiled.

PowerPC 970 OTOH, is a nice big performance boost that _won't_ be 100% incompatible with the processors it's superceeding...

LimeiBook86
Dec 7, 2002, 05:47 PM
WHOA! I just noticed something. If Apple, and I say if, started to use Intel or AMD proccessors and chips little will differ between the Mac and a PC. The main diffs would be styel, the OS and Apple's goodness... I have just relized this... :( Just wanted to tell you all.... I hope Apple makes the right choice

bobindashadows
Dec 7, 2002, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by LimeiBook86


Well thanks :D

Somebody actualy called me Sir, without adding *Your making a scene*

-Homer Simpson :D ;) :rolleyes:

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.

e-coli
Dec 7, 2002, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by bluecell
I hope they don't adopt it. IBM and Motorola are totally unreliable. It's not that exciting. It's only one processor that will most likely go through the same development as the G3.

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.

Catfish_Man
Dec 7, 2002, 06:22 PM
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
Dec 7, 2002, 07:43 PM
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
Dec 7, 2002, 08:07 PM
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
Dec 7, 2002, 11:08 PM
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
Dec 7, 2002, 11:33 PM
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 :D Mayeb I'll do the same to you heh (no sarcasim intended)

zimv20
Dec 8, 2002, 12:52 AM
ignore... i posted a reply to this forum by accident... sorry...

snoopy
Dec 8, 2002, 02:42 PM
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
Dec 8, 2002, 06:20 PM
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 ********* retard, so I am done posting. I am tired of 18 year olds that think they know it all. Go to college, land a ********* career, get a commission in the Army Reserve then you can judge me as incompetent.

Computer_Phreak
Dec 8, 2002, 06:26 PM
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
Dec 8, 2002, 07:08 PM
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
Dec 8, 2002, 07:17 PM
...and to keep it up:D 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. :p

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
Dec 8, 2002, 07:24 PM
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
Dec 8, 2002, 07:31 PM
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
Dec 8, 2002, 07:57 PM
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
Dec 8, 2002, 08:00 PM
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
Dec 9, 2002, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by scem0


I have rebooted 4 times (which takes 20 seconds :D) 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
Dec 9, 2002, 03:33 AM
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 (http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm) 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
Dec 9, 2002, 07:51 AM
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
Dec 9, 2002, 09:20 AM
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
Dec 9, 2002, 09:25 AM
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 ********* retard, so I am done posting. I am tired of 18 year olds that think they know it all. Go to college, land a ********* 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
Dec 9, 2002, 09:45 AM
...not only the wrong thread I posted,but also wrong forum.This happens when you read two Rumorsites at once,sorry ;)

Sun Baked
Dec 9, 2002, 10:01 AM
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?postid=142524

Catfish_Man
Dec 9, 2002, 10:32 AM
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
Dec 9, 2002, 01:07 PM
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
Dec 9, 2002, 02:17 PM
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*****. Good grief. If I had a nickel for every run-on sentence in your last post, Id be freakin' rich.

DakotaGuy
Dec 9, 2002, 07:24 PM
Agreenster,

First off to clear the record, you started the name calling. You called me a cry-baby first. Anyhow, I think that anyone should be able to put their opinion down and not get hassled for it. If you don't like my opinion about Apple that is fine, but you don't know anything about me as a person. I would give my shirt for anyone, probably even you, even though you think I am a puke. Look, I get upset at people when they start slamming me and they don't even know me.

Whatever you do with a computer is completely different then what I do. All I want is an easy to use computer that helps me manage my life. I use a digital camera, like MP3's, surf the net, and do a lot of email. My opinion is going to be different then yours, but I am still an Apple customer. In my OPINION, the new Macs are great for how I use them. As I have said before, if the Apple has such poor performance for your type of work you might have to look at a PC. You even admit XP is good, so I don't understand the problem.

The Macs will continue to improve and as time goes on the performance gap will narrow. With a 1.25 Dual, Apple is already at the point where most computer users will never use all the muscle. For people like yourself, I am sure there are new things in the works. I am suprised that people actually think Apple has no ideas beyond the G4.

I am just waiting for a 1Ghz iMac and then I will be happy, but for others it is probably not enough. I would be very surprised if the PPC 970 is not at the top of the market when it is introduced. Apple has done it before when they introduced the first G3 and the first G4. At the time they were smoking PC's. I think they will do it again. Then give them some time to see how the processor scales over time.

Like I said before, it is too early to write off this machine since it has not yet been introduced. I have never owned a G4 machine, because of timing and the $$$ involved. I find my computers to work well for how I use them. If they don't work for you, then you have two options either wait until Apple introduces a decent computer or buy a PC right now.

Look I am sorry if I came off bad, but I was upset. I was wrong to go after you, but I just had to defend myself. That's all. Peace.

WannabeSQ
Dec 9, 2002, 09:20 PM
I have some input about the usefulness and implementation of 64 bit processing. Apple was one of the first companies (the first?) to put multiple processors in a desktop machine. The concenus then was that it is not an advantage to the average user, and only a few applications use it. This is not unlike the current state of 64 bit processing. Only Photoshop and the like will take advantage of it. The same goes for altivec. Even the OS is dual processor aware and altivec optimized. I think Apple can and will make 64 bit computing not only a reality, but successful and will increase performance of applications that use it. They will innovate their way out of their performance slump.

Also, if the 970 does come out, I think they should keep it in dual processor for all the pro lines, unless it is highly cost prohibitive. If they can keep the prices the same as now (or lower) I will be in line to buy a dual 1.4 or whatever. So many things are multiprocessor aware it would be a waste IMO. Also, it would be nice if they could put a Quad processor on the top end, or in the xserve.

snoopy
Dec 9, 2002, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by WannabeSQ


. . . Also, it would be nice if they could put a Quad processor on the top end, or in the xserve.



I think you are right on with your whole posting. It's just my opinion, but I believe the IBM 970 was designed with dual and quad configurations in mind. They are likely stressing economy as well as performance with this processor. The quad should be a good workstation class Mac. Single 970s may find there way into consumer Macs sooner than most would expect.

About 64 bits, I have been thinking the same thing. Once it is there, people will likely figure out ways to use it to advantage.

Steradian
Dec 9, 2002, 11:10 PM
Jeez what's with you guy's why can't you post w/ out pissing each other off it's not really that hard. I hope that we (mac users) will continue to use PPC, but there is always a possiblity of having an x86 processor. I have no problems go from my powerBook to my computer at school that has MS 98. I perfer OSX but windows is bearable. I truly believe that out mac OSX is easier to used though experiance, I taught a sudanese immagreint(sp?) how to use my mac and he pick it it up quite easily w/ no prior computer experiance. Er i went off topic but frankly i think both You(ambercromnieboy) and agreenster should put aside you differences, why can't we all just get along? I hope that you don't leave ambercrombieboy just cause someone was posting his opinion on how he wants an x89 mac.

ps
Sorry about any spelling errors and grammer mistakes i am quite tired

POwerBook G4 1ghz