PDA

View Full Version : PPC 970 (G5..?) due in September?


MacsRgr8
Jan 19, 2003, 11:06 AM
Well, according to MacOSRumors:
quote: *In its quarterly financial results conference call, Apple executives noted that big things were going to happen for the PowerMac this year. Can anybody say G5? We knew you could.... PowerPC 970 processors in up to four-way configurations, 900MHz front side busses, HyperTransport motherboard architecture with up to 6.4GB/s chip-to-chip bandwidth, USB2, Firewire 800, Airport Extreme, 8X AGP, PCI-X, 10GB Ethernet, and even more. When, you might ask? September, if Apple's plans hold firm, we'll see the first incarnation with most of these features.

http://www.macosrumors.com/

What do you think, just a conclusion of other rumors? Or are they really on to something? :cool:

josepht
Jan 19, 2003, 11:40 AM
It would be nice if they would come in September. My birthday is in September. ;)

shadowfax
Jan 19, 2003, 12:01 PM
that site is such a joke... dual G4s on powerbooks at "no less than 1.2 GHz..." the powermac march update predictions are really hopeful too. they will have the radeon 9700 pro, of course, but the GeForce FX hasn't even come out for PCs, much less macs. you'll be waiting longer than that. they're also not going to do quad processors in sept. hell, go buy a freaking IBM server. nobody seriously needs quad processors, and that would make the powermac cost at least $6000-$7000. as for the architecture and the DDR, they are probably right--considering that they are, i believe, already running ppc970s with 900 MHz FSBs. certainly it's pretty generally accepted that they will be using that by the advent of the 970 on the consumer market. september sounds like the earliest for the PPC 970, but that doesn't discount it. who knows? but i wouldn't believe it if it was just macosrumors saying it, lol.

MacsRgr8
Jan 19, 2003, 12:02 PM
to josepht:

Too bad I will have spent all my money on holiday going to your part of the US :p

cubist
Jan 19, 2003, 12:06 PM
One thing I don't like about MacOSRumors is how they mix real information, rumors and pure speculation all together so that the reader can't tell what's what. On MacRumors, at least in Arn's stories, he is very careful to separate rumor from speculation, and IMHO that is a very important distinction to make.

The "september" date seems logical, but only because it's a popular speculation. The rest sounds like common speculation, too, except for the four-way part. They've predicted it before and been wrong, and will continue to be. I doubt we'll see more than 2 central processors in any Apple before 2005 - and that one will be an Xserve. Mr. Four-way ought to give up.

I notice that later in their article they try to keep the tablet story alive (they had predicted it for MWSF); this is probably just face-saving. A shame, too, because I'm really getting to like my Newton.

If I sound crabby, look at MacOSRumor's predictions in the past and consider their track record.

MacsRgr8
Jan 19, 2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Shadowfax
but i wouldn't believe it if it was just macosrumors saying it, lol.

Ofcousre not, or any other rumor site for that matter....
But there is no problem Apple using a quad 970 in a (ultra) high end Mac, and duals for Pros. Wouldn't it be nice if you could say "go buy a freaking Apple Server" ? Tell Pixar and they'd buy one....

scem0
Jan 19, 2003, 12:56 PM
Will apple support usb 2.0 like mac os rumors says? It seems like
if apple were to put usb 2 in their machines they would have done
so by now.

beatle888
Jan 19, 2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Shadowfax
nobody seriously needs quad processors

i know your aware of your over generalization.
i just finished a truck graphic on a single
processor g4, i was practically insane at the
end of the day...due to too much caffiene and
way too much progress bar. the vendor decided
to supply us with NEW specifications so we had
to rebuild the file......well, it wa obvious that
the system i was using couldnt handle the load
so we handed it off to the studio manager who runs a duel gig.....she even had to wait
for rotations scaling copying and pasting etc.

so dont tell ME no one needs a quad. :D
there will always be someone out there pushing
the latest systems.....just be glad your not
one of them :D

but there ARE people doing it.


oh and about the post topic.

it seems to soon for something so new....
i would say next january at the earliest....
just a morons guess. but i try to be realistic
about these things now days. september
does seem better though:D


.


.

shadowfax
Jan 19, 2003, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by beatle888


i know your aware of your over generalization.
i just finished a truck graphic on a single
processor g4, i was practically insane at the
end of the day...due to too much caffiene and
way too much progress bar. the vendor decided
to supply us with NEW specifications so we had
to rebuild the file......well, it wa obvious that
the system i was using couldnt handle the load
so we handed it off to the studio manager who runs a duel gig.....she even had to wait
for rotations scaling copying and pasting etc.

so dont tell ME no one needs a quad. :D
there will always be someone out there pushing
the latest systems.....just be glad your not
one of them :D

but there ARE people doing it.
.


.

oh, don't fret, i DO push the latest and greatest. i am just saying, imagine how EXPENSIVE that would be. Powermacs are pseudo-pro, intended to basically be low to midrange workstations, right? i mean, like i said, get an IBM 64 bit mission critical server if you want those 24-hour renders to go by in 2 hours or less. that's what you get for spending 50,000$ on a computer. of course. my point is that, this is not that kind of line. i think dual 1.8/2 GHz ppc970 boxes would be unprecedentedly fast, particularly with the buses they run. quad processing is a nice idea, but it's just outrageously expensive, or you'd have quad G4s now. seriously, the way motorola has screwed apple, the best workaround would have been quads. but then Powermacs would probably nearly double in price. doubling your processor count IS NOT A DROP IN THE CAN. it's a HUGE change. this is not about whether a few people need it. of course they do. when i said nobody, i meant apple's market. shoot, powermacs aren't even rack optimized. if you need a supercomputer, get a rack of Xserves and do network rendering or what have you. now ask me if they should put quads on a high end XServe. did you ask? YES. that should be a super machine. as it is, you're better off getting a powermac, for god's sake. i don't know what they are doing there.

no hostility intended, i'm just saying, you shouldn't push that kind of power in their powermac line, because everyone and their dog already thinks they are outrageously expensive. quads would only aggravate that.

praetorian_x
Jan 19, 2003, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Shadowfax

... double in price. doubling your processor count IS NOT A DROP IN THE CAN. it's a HUGE change. this is not about whether a few people need it. of course they do. when i said nobody, i...


Well, if they go with hyper-transport as is widely rumored, it's a lot easier to scale than other architectures. This doesn't eliminate the cost issue however, as you rightly point out.

Originally posted by Shadowfax

no hostility intended, i'm just saying, you shouldn't push that kind of power in their powermac line, because everyone and their dog already thinks they are outrageously expensive. quads would only aggravate that.

I'm not so sure Apple wouldn't want an ultra-high end machine selling for $5000-$6000 to sell to video pros/3d renderers/etc. That market is willing to pay that much for workstations (that's even kinda cheap, depending on what the additional specs are), and it would be a great feather in Apples cap to beat up on x86 PCs.

Of course, it might be another step in the SGI-ification of apple as well.

Who knows?

Cheers,
prat

UnixMac
Jan 19, 2003, 03:12 PM
The Mac line up should look something like this.... whether it's in September, I don't care, but this year for sure: Otherwise the forthcomming P4 at 4Ghz will keep top rains for Wintel....

ibook - G4 based - 133mhz bus, PC 133 RAM ATI 7500 w/32 mb DDR

PowerBooks - PPC970 1.8-2.2Ghz. 1 CPU, 900mhz FSB, DDR (512MB Min, 2GB Max), 12,15.2, 17" screens) Radeon 9000 pro w/64MB DDR

iMac - Single PPC970 1.8 - 2.2 Ghz, 900mhz FSB, 80, 120 Gig 7200RPM ATA 133 Drives, 256MB - 512MB RAM to 1.0GB RAM max, Radeon 9500 w/64 MB DDR

PowerMac:

Low:
dual 970, 1.8Ghz - 512MB - 2GB RAM, ATA 133 120GB 7200RPM HD, ATI 9500 with 64MB DDR

Mid:
dual 970 2.2Ghz, 768MB - 2GB RAM, ATA 133 200MB 7200RPM, ATI 9700 Pro w/128MB DDR or best available at the time

Top end:
quad970 2.2Ghz, 1.0GB - 4GB RAM, 2X133 ATA 200GB 10,000RPM HD in RAID, Radeon 9700PRO 128MB or best availble at time..

All with 900mhz bus, DDR, Gigabit Ethernet, v92 modem, 4 X USB2, 3 X Firewire 2, AGP 6X and Nvidia options etc...

MacsRgr8
Jan 19, 2003, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by UnixMac
The Mac line up should look something like this.... whether it's in September, I don't care,

Wow..... i think we all wish for that....
Only a G4 in an iBook.
No interest in an eMac running a G4? It would be nice to have a really cheap > 1.25 Ghz G4 in a Mac.
Or some kind of consumer tower? A (not-so-powerful) PowerMac running a single PPC 970, or dual G4 or maybe even a single 1.5 GHz G4, but with the ability to be upgraded (i.e. Radeon 9700, or GeForce FX, Serial ATA)

josepht
Jan 19, 2003, 03:42 PM
Top end: Quad 970 2.2Ghz, 1.0GB - 4GB RAM, 2X133 ATA 200GB 10,000RPM HD in RAID, Radeon 9700PRO 128MB or best availble at time...

For the most part, I think you're right. I think quad processors is pretty far-fetched, though.

Chaszmyr
Jan 19, 2003, 04:04 PM
IF (huge huge if) all of, or even most of that was true, Apple will be slaughtering PCs by the end of the year.

Jimong5
Jan 19, 2003, 04:07 PM
For whoever wants a G4 iBook:
http://www.apple.com/powerbook/index12.html
Its the metal iBook with a G4!

law guy
Jan 19, 2003, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by UnixMac
The Mac line up should look something like this.... whether it's in September, I don't care, but this year for sure: Otherwise the forthcomming P4 at 4Ghz will keep top rains for Wintel....
***

Low:
dual 970, 1.8Ghz - 512MB - 2GB RAM, ATA 133 120GB 7200RPM HD, ATI 9500 with 64MB DDR

Mid:
dual 970 2.2Ghz, 768MB - 2GB RAM, ATA 133 200MB 7200RPM, ATI 9700 Pro w/128MB DDR or best available at the time

Top end:
quad970 2.2Ghz, 1.0GB - 4GB RAM, 2X133 ATA 200GB 10,000RPM HD in RAID, Radeon 9700PRO 128MB or best availble at time..

All with 900mhz bus, DDR, Gigabit Ethernet, v92 modem, 4 X USB2, 3 X Firewire 2, AGP 6X and Nvidia options etc...

The chip speeds seem a bit high - see:


http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,809064,00.asp

"Motorola's road map includes a G5 built on 0.13-micron technology, using the relatively new RapidIO bus architecture for connecting CPUs or other I/O components on the motherboard. Both 32-bit and 64-bit versions will operate at 1.2 to 2 GHz. The estimated release date is June or July.

Interestingly, it is rumored that Apple may use the recently disclosed IBM PowerPC 970 architecture, a scaled-down version of IBM's 64-bit Power4 architecture. The 970 will be built on a 0.13-micron process, use SOI technology, run both 32-bit and 64-bit code, and start at around 1.4 GHz with a 512K L2 cache. The chip will ship in quantity in the second half of 2003. Apple is not saying whether it will use IBM's or Motorola's technologies."

janey
Jan 19, 2003, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Jimong5
For whoever wants a G4 iBook:
http://www.apple.com/powerbook/index12.html
Its the metal iBook with a G4!

What you don't understand is that the 12" PowerBook is *not* an iBook. The reason why some people get the iBook is the WHITENESS of the laptop. btw, the 12" pb gets *MUCH HOTTER* than the 12" iBook. Maybe one reason why people wouldn't get the PB. Oh, and it's a tad more expensive.

UnixMac
Jan 19, 2003, 04:42 PM
I based chip speeds on IBM's 970, which is now at 1.8 if I'm not wrong? So I figure in 6-8 months 2.2 should be achieved... maybe not, eitherway a Quad top end machine is a must for the serious workstation DV/Graphics customers... the people debating between a $240,000 discreet editing system using a SGI MIPS12000 based Unix, or a Mac? The Mac should be achievable for under $5000 for a basic system, with sky's the limit pricing for large storage versions and additional monitors etc....

I also, think an eMac with 1.25 G4 is doable, but a Tower (PowerMac) with anything less than dual 1.8 970's is just going to add fuel to the debate about AMD and Intel being a better value... for example a P4 3.06 is gonna be the bottom end by the time the release the new PowerMac's.... so imagine what Wintels top offerings will be...


I'm personally sick of being second best!

Jimong5
Jan 19, 2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by übergeek


What you don't understand is that the 12" PowerBook is *not* an iBook. The reason why some people get the iBook is the WHITENESS of the laptop. Lets take a look at the innards for a second. Both have 128MB sodered in. The Powerbook has the same port arrangement as the iBook in addition to some extras. The case is identical excepting some shrinkage from the thinner metal.


btw, the 12" pb gets *MUCH HOTTER* than the 12" iBook. Maybe one reason why people wouldn't get the PB. Oh, and it's a tad more expensive.

Um... maybe that because the PB sports a G4!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:
Why do you think apple has put it off the iBook?
thats right Battery, Heat, and price! and the case has no difference. My G3 Pismo still gets wicked hot.

UnixMac
Jan 19, 2003, 04:49 PM
I'll bet with in a year the only place you'll find a G3 being installed today is in embeded systems and avionics suites.

G4 will be the ibooks brains by 04. I'll bet in it!

cr2sh
Jan 19, 2003, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by UnixMac
All with 900mhz bus, DDR, Gigabit Ethernet, v92 modem, 4 X USB2, 3 X Firewire 2, AGP 6X and Nvidia options etc...

The 970 incarnation of the powermac will not have a modem.

UnixMac
Jan 19, 2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by cr2sh


The 970 incarnation on the powermac will not have modems.

yeah, I just had to throw that in...... :D

shadowfax
Jan 19, 2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by übergeek


What you don't understand is that the 12" PowerBook is *not* an iBook. The reason why some people get the iBook is the WHITENESS of the laptop. btw, the 12" pb gets *MUCH HOTTER* than the 12" iBook. Maybe one reason why people wouldn't get the PB. Oh, and it's a tad more expensive.

the heat isn't so bad on my GHz G4 15".... i think his point is that people who want performance out of a 12" form factor are getting it now.

anyone who wants a cool-running but fast G4-based iBook is being idealistic--heat and performance, with apple's chips at least, and moreso with intels, is DIRECTLY related to heat production. I think that was this guy's point: apple has given you a VERY well designed, smaller-than-the-little-iBook powerbook, made out of unpainted aluminum, that is everything you could ask for in a little high performance box. if you have color issues, i'm really sorry. apple miffed a lot of people by ending the colored iBooks and iMacs. we get over it, perhaps with professional help, and realize that while the 12 inch powerbook isn't white, we don't have to be white supremacists-aluminum is pretty and a good material in its own way. it is easily the equal of plastic. i pity da fool who disses powerbooks.

MacsRgr8
Jan 19, 2003, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by UnixMac


I'm personally sick of being second best!

Only hardware-wise, but always THE best OS-wise... :)

But good point about the consumer tower.
A single 970 should do the trick, along with a Radeon 9700

UnixMac
Jan 19, 2003, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by MacsRgr8


Only hardware-wise, but always THE best OS-wise... :)



I totally agree with that, OS X is why I'm not usning Windows XP today... MacOS for me was a non-starter for power users.

But the OS X that PPC970 will run HAS TO BE 64 bit and backwards compatible, or it's a total waste of time..

cr2sh
Jan 19, 2003, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by UnixMac
I totally agree with that, OS X is why I'm not usning Windows XP today...


I disagree, there's no way that osX is as good as Windows ME. It's rock solid and pretty... best os, EVER.

law guy
Jan 19, 2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by UnixMac
I based chip speeds on IBM's 970, which is now at 1.8 if I'm not wrong? So I figure in 6-8 months 2.2 should be achieved... maybe not, eitherway a Quad top end machine is a must for the serious workstation DV/Graphics customers...

***

I'm personally sick of being second best!

See the two benchmark links I posted under the "Processor Upgrade" thread.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17538

One shows that a dual 1.25 GHz P4 matched a Hyper-Threaded (pretends to be two processors) Intel P4 3.06 GHz machine on a photoshop blur effect and outpaced the P4 3.06 on all the other effects. If IBM keeps the short seven stage pipeline or similar in the 970, with a decent cache and the upgraded front side bus, a 1.4 GHz G5 should be very competitive - especially doubled up.

Re: improvements from 1.8 GHz - It's my impression that the 1.8 GHz 970s are in the proving stages given that samples will ship in Q2 and quantity in Q3. Any higher speed chips will go through a similar process, so a (really) optomistic assessment would be that they'd be available at the end of the year.

There is also another link under that "Processor Upgrade" thread that describes upgrades for chips and notes that the next generation Intel chips for notebooks will have a lower clock speeds as the designs become more efficient.

UnixMac
Jan 19, 2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by cr2sh



I disagree, there's no way that osX is as good as Windows ME. It's rock solid and pretty... best os, EVER.

Are you serious? DOS 6.1 vs BSD 4.4??

Windows ME? XP Pro, I'll debate you... ME??? I won't even waste my time.:o

MacsRgr8
Jan 19, 2003, 05:18 PM
He's joking... take a look at his signature: if 6 were 9 (everything is the other way around)

jrv3034
Jan 19, 2003, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by UnixMac


Are you serious? DOS 6.1 vs BSD 4.4??

Windows ME? XP Pro, I'll debate you... ME??? I won't even waste my time.:o



I THINK he was joking.


I HOPE he was joking...:eek:

cr2sh
Jan 19, 2003, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by MacsRgr8
He's joking... take a look at his signature: if 6 were 9 (everything is the other way around)

The 970 announcement will come in September, orders will begin then as well. With 970's shipping in time for the holidays. 2004 will be the year of the desktop.

Of course I was joking, but I thought I would have gotten flamed a little.. jeez.

benixau
Jan 19, 2003, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by UnixMac
The Mac line up should look something like this....

you know, that wouldnt be too bad. BUT, i dont think that imac would have procs the same speed as the pmacs. think about now. the imacs have a top speed that is a few mhz below the lowest pmac.

i know that the pmacs are dualies, i have one, but in marketing people see numbers, they dont see things such dual processors or faster FSBs.

we do, but we are geeks. and as for the powerbooks, i think that their top proc would be one below the top pmac proc due to nothing other than heat.

anyways, thats what i think. still its wishful for the end of 03. and hopeffully by the end of 04.

UnixMac
Jan 19, 2003, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by cr2sh


The 970 announcement will come in September, orders will begin then as well. With 970's shipping in time for the holidays. 2004 will be the year of the desktop.

Of course I was joking, but I thought I would have gotten flamed a little.. jeez.


I fell for that flame bait hook line and sinker!

MacsRgr8
Jan 20, 2003, 04:54 AM
Back to the original question:
Is MacOSRumors just guessing (like we do) using all rumors (like ours) to come to this conclusion, or is it really possible they have some information regarding the September release date of the PPC 970?

engpjp
Jan 20, 2003, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by scem0
Will apple support usb 2.0 like mac os rumors says? It seems like
if apple were to put usb 2 in their machines they would have done
so by now.

The withholding of USB2 is purely political: Apple has been waiting impatiently for the FW2 specs to come out, keenly aware that USB2 has been getting an increasingly large mindshare and been rapidly adopted by accessories producers.

Apple could not be seen adopting USB2 at the same time as - not to mention before! - FW2 because that would be a de facto capitulation, quickly leading to a general abandonment of FW2 (and thus a steady income of licence money for Apple).

Thus, USB2 will probably be included in the Winter updates of PM and iMac; that is, unless Apple decides to nix it and just hold its collective breath until October/November...

One surprising decision, though, has been to use USB1.1 as AirPort Extreme's network printer port - it will be awkward in the future since it would be financially unsound for Apple to launch a minor upgrade of APX until late Autumn/early winter...

engpjp

zac4mac
Jan 20, 2003, 12:03 PM
I think this time, Ryan got his "wish list" mixed in with his "intelligence reports".
I've been wishing for Quads since the G4 got stuck at 500MHz; face it, it ain't gonna happen.
Why on Earth should Apple include USB2? What a joke.
Oh yeah, gratuitous flame -
cr2sh, you are a fool, unworthy of a Mac. Take youe E-Machine POS and go away ;)

Zack