Motorola

[MacRumors]

Motorola announced (http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,2322_1901_23,00.html) the MPC7457 and MPC7447 today:



The newest and fastest members of the Motorola, Inc. (NYSE:MOT) G4 family of PowerPC® processors, the MPC7457 and MPC7447, are now available. The devices run at speeds up to 1.3 GHz, making them the highest performing G4 host processors available for embedded applications.

The MPC7457 and MPC7447 can perform at 1 GHz while consuming less than 10 Watts, making them ideal for high-performance, power dissipation-sensitive applications such as network control plane processing.

[howard]

apple...if your gonna do it, only do it to bridge the gap between now and the 970 otherwise SCREW MOTO!

wait...nevermind there not gonna be available until 4th quarter...and only in 1ghz??? what the!!...thats so sad

look: production expected to commence in Q4 2003. Suggested retail pricing for the MPC7457 at 1 GHz is expected to be $189 (USD) in quantities of 10,000.

yay first post!!

[eric_n_dfw]

Weren't these supposed to be the first ones to support DDR on the FSB?

(I guess not)


(BTW: The "1st post" comments were cute the 1st 100000000 times :rolleyes: )

[rice_web]

Hmmm... no 4MB L3 cache? That had been expected for some time. Can anyone think of any reasons for the lack of even the support of a 4MB L3 cache?

[dabirdwell]

whoa

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by rice_web
Hmmm... no 4MB L3 cache? That had been expected for some time. Can anyone think of any reasons for the lack of even the support of a 4MB L3 cache?
I would guess that Moto doesn't see a demand for that in the embedded application market. (I also have absolutely no knowledge about that market ;) )

... It sure seems like they could care less about the desktop market.

[dabirdwell]

how much power do the 7455s use?

[Dont Hurt Me]

I notice this press release said these were the newest and fastest G4's yet they only go 1.3 ghz. dont we have a powermac at 1.42ghz so how could these be the fastest?the article also stated that they scaled up to 1.3. If this is so then i dont seeing this as the chip to move the powermacs into the future. Anyone say 970!

[pilotgi]

I didn't see any mention about the bus speeds.

They probably wanted to downplay that little tidbit of information.

At least Moto's using 130 nm and SOI.

[lordsinforge]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I notice this press release said these were the newest and fastest G4's yet they only go 1.3 ghz. dont we have a powermac at 1.42ghz so how could these be the fastest?the article also stated that they scaled up to 1.3. If this is so then i dont seeing this as the chip to move the powermacs into the future. Anyone say 970!


I would hazard a guess that these particular chips will only be for imbeded applications, not for computers.

[wheezl]

I am so whelmed I could just plode.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by lordsinforge



I would hazard a guess that these particular chips will only be for imbeded applications, not for computers.
Guessing that the new XServe is using these, I guess it's an imbeded application. :)
It makes sense to use them due to the lower heat.

[biscuit]

Hmmm, this is strange.

Maybe the Xserves are using these things, or maybe they're just 7455s clocked to 1.33 for heat dissipation reasons. Either way, they certainly aren't the fastest G4s, unless Apple really does overclock the chips in the PowerMac...

biscuit

[Dont Hurt Me]

I dont know for sure but i would even doubt these are in the xserve,hate to bring this up again but maybe apple is running the you know what out of 1 giger g4s so they can sell em as 1.42. didnt i read that some people had them as high as 1.5 but then started to have issues. This really makes me think that moto isnt going anywhere when it comes to the mac and that perhaps the 970 is coming our way. The article didnt say squat about desktops.And if these will go up to 1.3 then the 1.33 in xserve may be the 7455 still?

[chubakka]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/delldude1.html

maybe people will lay off Ellen Feiss now...

[GPTurismo]

BTW this is for embedded applications (application is my word for the day :( ) not pc's

[NanoDoc]

I believe these are the 7455's in the Xserve. They clearly state that the L2 cache is at 256KB and not the 512KB cache that these new chips have. Darn.

[yzedf]

could this be the next gen iBook chip?

or maybe for a tablet style device?

sounds similar to the Transmeta Crusoe series chips to me...

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by yzedf
could this be the next gen iBook chip?

or maybe for a tablet style device?

sounds similar to the Transmeta Crusoe series chips to me... Maybe so but also notice mass production is not supposed to start untill 4th qtr?Is apple going to leave everything like it is for a year? I hope not and doubt it.

[ddtlm]

eric_n_dfw:

Weren't these supposed to be the first ones to support DDR on the FSB?

(I guess not)
How did you continue to believe this for so long? Many people such as myself have shot down this silly idea time and time again on these very forums.

Dont Hurt Me:

To quote the press release:
AUSTIN, Texas - February 10, 2003 - The newest and fastest members of the Motorola, Inc. (NYSE:MOT) G4 family of PowerPC® processors, the MPC7457 and MPC7447, are now available. The devices run at speeds up to 1.3 GHz, making them the highest performing G4 host processors available for embedded applications.
So where did you get 4th quarter from?

[MacCoaster]

If you guys didn't notice...

1 GHz at 10 W is simply amazing.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by ddtlm
So where did you get 4th quarter from?
Requoting the article. :D

Read much further and you'll get:
Pricing and Availability
Alpha samples of the MPC7457 and MPC7447 PowerPC processors are available today to selected customers. General market sampling is planned for March, with production expected to commence in Q4 2003. Suggested retail pricing for the MPC7457 at 1 GHz is expected to be $189 (USD) in quantities of 10,000.

[FlamDrag]

how much power do the current PowerBook 1Ghz processors use?

[rugby]

Originally posted by MacCoaster
If you guys didn't notice...

1 GHz at 10 W is simply amazing.

Great, now throw about 8 of them into a tower and then call me.:D

[ddtlm]

MacCoaster:

Requoting the article.
Dang, I even searched for "quarter". Guess I should have looked for "Q4" too.

Anyway I don't think 10W at 1.0ghz is surprising, seems like exactly what a simple chip like a G4 should be doing. What is suprising is how much power the 7455 eats while getting to 1.42ghz. I've never seen a real number published, but people who are knowledable about these things are saying 50W-60W.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Thanks Mac coaster and 10 watts at a gig is amazing. ideal for portable stuff! unless they announce another version of this chip i just dont see it in the imacs or powermacs. I guess you could have duallies of this in a imac? going to be an interesting year for cpu's in the mac.

[ddtlm]

Dont Hurt Me:

and 10 watts at a gig is amazing
Oh, common a 750fx eats 5.7W at 900mhz according to IBM (well, one pdf said that, another listed a lower number for 800mhz, and somewhere out there I bet they made an estimate for 1000mhz). The power usage of a 7457 is completely unsurprising when viewed in that light.

[ffakr]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Dont Hurt Me:


Oh, common a 750fx eats 5.7W at 900mhz according to IBM (well, one pdf said that, another listed a lower number for 800mhz, and somewhere out there I bet they made an estimate for 1000mhz). The power usage of a 7457 is completely unsurprising when viewed in that light.
the 750 is quite a bit smaller than the G4. 10watts at 1GHz is very low... the real question is whether this is max or average heat.

Motorola lists the typical heat on a 7455 at up to 35.5 watts.. I'm guessing this is at 1GHz. Their chart is total unorganized crap.
7455 product summary (http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC7455&nodeId=03M943030450467M98653)

According to that link.. I'd speculate that the 7457 uses 1/2 to 1/3 the power of a 7455. Not bad.
Too bad they don't give a crap about the Mac. the product and the press release are clearly marketed as embedded processors... not desktop processors.
If they gave 2 ****s about the Mac, they'd be pulling more power and pushing another 500MHz.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by ddtlm
eric_n_dfw:


How did you continue to believe this for so long? Many people such as myself have shot down this silly idea time and time again on these very forums.

To be clear, I'm not saying I expected DDR FSB in these - I'm just asking if it was the 7457 that Moto said would be the first to have DDR a while back (when it was still just on the drawing board).

To be more generic - do any of you elec' engineers out there know why it is so hard for Moto to get DDR on the G4's FSB? If they have if for the Back side cache, then can't they use the same technology for the main bus?

I'm beginning to think that it's just that they don't care about it as imbeded app's rarely would need it.

[ddtlm]

eric_n_dfw:

To be more generic - do any of you elec' engineers out there know why it is so hard for Moto to get DDR on the G4's FSB? If they have if for the Back side cache, then can't they use the same technology for the main bus?

I'm beginning to think that it's just that they don't care about it as imbeded app's rarely would need it.
I'm sure Moto could do a DDR FSB if they wanted, but their mainstream customers seem perfectly happy with the current SDR FSB. By sticking with their current FSB and only 2mb L3, the 7457 is pin-compatible with the 7455, which makes it very very easy for their customers to use. Drop-in replacement. Even Apple probably prefers the SDR FSB at this "late hour", since presumably the 970 will arrive and take over the high end, and then Apple can use it's DDR chipset unmodified for a long time in low-end stuff (where Moto belongs).

ffakr:

Too bad they don't give a crap about the Mac. the product and the press release are clearly marketed as embedded processors... not desktop processors.
This was arguably the case with the 7455 as well.

[Sun Baked]

Alpha samples of the MPC7457 and MPC7447 PowerPC processors are available today to selected customers. General market sampling is planned for March, with production expected to commence in Q4 2003.Looks like the Cubes won't be getting any 7457 upgrade cards until around Christmas.

However the strangeness continues for Apple and Motorola...

[Dave Marsh]

I believe I've read elsewhere that the 7457RM will be the first G4 to support DDR on the FSB, and that's not due until 2004 sometime.

[springscansing]

Originally posted by chubakka
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/delldude1.html

maybe people will lay off Ellen Feiss now...

I know kids who know him. He goes to NYU. Apparently he also has a cocaine problem. No joke.

[Hemingray]

Stick one of these babies in a 12" PowerBook, add FW 800 as a future investment, and I'm sold. :cool: It's GOT to help with the heat issues...

[DeusOmnis]

Moto is way behind, i guess they're just going to let IBM handle things as far as Mac from now on and concentrate on smaller applications for thier chips.

[danman]

So is that fiscal or calendar fourth quarter I wonder??

Anway, that 7447 is heading straight for the iMac and 12" powerbook a.s.a.p
It's just what these machines need.. lacking a L3 cache, that size of the L2 makes a _huge_ difference, and of course the power consumption...

Getting 512Kb L2 cache in the iMac will make it a really good machine, not to mention getting that in the powermac will make a big difference too.

1.2Ghz iMac with a 7447 in it will make me buy (still fussing along on my PowerMac 450 :-) - and Ill have got the money together by then.. ahhhh

[ddtlm]

Sun Baked:

Looks like the Cubes won't be getting any 7457 upgrade cards until around Christmas.
Dang, now that you mention it, I guess it's not worth my time waiting to upgrade the ol' Quicksilver either. Stinking Moto.

[Dont Hurt Me]

When i read what moto has posted, it almost is as if they are saying we are anouncing the 970 will be going into the mac! Maybe this is just good news for us mac users because if they announced wider bus,ddr etc etc then we would say Oh this will be whats coming to the mac. Even if this was just a forerunner for a Mac G4 7457 that still means at least a year from now! Maybe this is GREAT NEWS!

[JtheLemur]

I think I speak for 90% of us when I say whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo CARES!?!?

Wake up Moto. Sheesh, Apple is essentially using an embedded processor for it's "pro" stuff. I mean, if they can deliver 1-1.3 GHz at LOW temp, then yeah its good for the PowerBooks and iBooks. But man, when is the rest of the line gonna be up to snuff?

[Catfish_Man]

It's just a G4 revision (specifically, a die shrink). The target market is the same, most of the specs are the same, it's not that big a deal. Also, since the 7455 is listed as going to 1GHz, I would guess that the 7457 unofficially goes at LEAST as high as the 7455. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see it hit the 1.6GHz range, although I think the targetted 1.83GHz is a ways off still.

[springscansing]

Originally posted by MacCoaster
If you guys didn't notice...

1 GHz at 10 W is simply amazing.

No it isn't. IBM has chips that do better than that.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
It's just a G4 revision (specifically, a die shrink). The target market is the same, most of the specs are the same, it's not that big a deal. Also, since the 7455 is listed as going to 1GHz, I would guess that the 7457 unofficially goes at LEAST as high as the 7455. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see it hit the 1.6GHz range, although I think the targetted 1.83GHz is a ways off still. I still find it very interesting why all the mystery of how fast the new g4 and 7455 go. Why all the confusion when you look at current powermacs at 1.42 & 1.25 and then motorola says hey we got the fastest g4 it will be mass produced 4th qtr and will run at 1.3ghz HUH? Why the Mystery?

[animefan_1]

IBM may be doing better w/ lower wattage, but they aren't G4's. For the person who asked if it was fiscal or calendar, it's calendar. Whenever a company says that a product will be available in Quarter X, they are referring to the calendar quarter, as many companies use different schedules for their fiscal year (Ex: Apple: Oct-Sept; Microsoft: July-June).

[ffakr]

Originally posted by Dave Marsh
I believe I've read elsewhere that the 7457RM will be the first G4 to support DDR on the FSB, and that's not due until 2004 sometime.

An old, and pulled Motorola roadmap pdf said the 7457RM would have an on-die DDR memory controller. It actually didn't say anything about the 7457 bus. Everyone (correctly) guessed that this was proof that the 7457 would not support DDR... I held out that this only proved the 7457 would not have an integrated memory controller.

I was wrong :-(

[iStream]

The only thing Apple is missing is speed. I love my powerbook, but I've had pc's 2 years ago that were much faster. Stop overdoing all the optimization BS (Motorola) and move on with something faster already.

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by springscansing


I know kids who know him. He goes to NYU. Apparently he also has a cocaine problem. No joke.

... being a fellow Manhattan resident I can say a coke habit wouldn't been far from par for the course. Not my dish but it's shocking how many people are doing X, Coke, etc. Let's not even mention the myriad of over the counter medicines that can be ground and sniffed. People with money can, at times, forget what the hell is important in life ...

But with all that said, I ain't gonna give that guy too much crap for doin' weed ...

[type_r503]

FYI, MOT is on their last leg. I work for a company that uses a lot of MOT stuff. They are currently quoting 20-week lead times, if at all. They have moved their manufacturing to Mexico and China and are having a lot of trouble with the manufacturing quality.

Based on this knowledge, I would have to believe there ain't a chance in hell Apple will be using anything made by MOT after conversion to the PPC970.

MOT is focusing all chips for the embedded market, which is much larger than Apple. MOT can no longer afford to support development for the 4% market share apple has. If you don't believe this look at MOT's stock price ($8.02).

Just MY $.02

Type R

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
Looks like the Cubes won't be getting any 7457 upgrade cards until around Christmas.

However the strangeness continues for Apple and Motorola...

Not really, they can go ahead and make the chips, heck they could release them before Moto because Moto sucks. Really if a much smaller company can make chips better and faster than yours for upgrading purposes that is just sad.

Moto you failed, last ditch effort will fail. You need to blow up.

side note: these will probably be used in all the computers not upgraded to the 970.

Really...

[Mad Baggins]

They're probably saying it's the fastest ever due to whatever benchmarks that they use which benefit from a larger L2 cache.

Still, lower power consumption is a good thing. It seems like the 12" PowerBooks don't last that long, with their more powerful CPU (compared to the iBook) and smaller battery (compared to the other PowerBooks).

[ddtlm]

MrMacman:

Not really, they can go ahead and make the chips, heck they could release them before Moto because Moto sucks. Really if a much smaller company can make chips better and faster than yours for upgrading purposes that is just sad.
Huh? I'm pretty confused about what you are saying, but in case you think otherwise, the upgrade makers use Moto chips (for G4's) and they are going to have to wait till Moto sells them 7457's before they can sell upgrade cards with 7457's on them.

[GetSome681]

Originally posted by MrMacman


Not really, they can go ahead and make the chips, heck they could release them before Moto because Moto sucks. Really if a much smaller company can make chips better and faster than yours for upgrading purposes that is just sad.


Yeah buddy, don't know what you're smokin...but the upgrade companies don't MAKE the chips THEMSELVES. They make the boards, but the chip that goes in them they purchase from Motorola.

[wumpus]

We knew that the 1.25ghz+ G4s Apple currently offers were odd, they certainly are not 7457s and are not in the Moto product summaries...I will try not to provoke people by using the 'o' word, but does anyone have any idea what they are? The best I can think of is that they are low-volume, process improved (somehow) 7455s that can just about handle speeds in excess of 1ghz, or the few chips at the fab which can handle a higher speed with heavy cooling...This is dire, Moto before had talked about a 200mhz FSB and 4mb of L3..these are irrelevant to the Mac, as in all honesty - the G4 has been. All the G4 (like the 3210 DSP in the AV Quadras) has provided is a bit of extra speed in demo-friendly areas to temporarily mask a serious price/performance gap with WinTel...

This is not a desktop chip and Moto has no incentive to compete on that level..At least the 970 will be used in servers and Linux machines and while x86 will STILL outperform it IBM cannot just ignore x86...I do not see how Apple can offer these in anything higher end than the iBook in Q4 - they would be laughed off the shop floor.

I just wish as soon as the original G4 debacle happened (450mhz max then the 18 month 500mhz stall) Apple had done something to assure a better future for the processor - taking some design in house (even a few mods), outsourcing fabbing for even slightly customised PPCs, gotten some SMP ability added to the fast, cheap G3 - SOMETHING - as at this rate, the 970 must be a very special chip indeed or 64-bit must offer something more spectacular than the massive memory addressing (and slower memory access) that it offers in order to make up for the ghz gap...better hope Prescott stalls at 3.6ghz for a while...

..Not sure x86 is an option, sadly, as economics are on its side...It will always take multiple CPUs from now on to come close to x86 performance....Why would developers develop for OS X on x86? Other than Linux, which is a special case as it is a free enthusiast OS, who can challenge Winbloz on the desktop?

[praetorian_x]

Originally posted by JtheLemur
I think I speak for 90% of us when I say whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo CARES!?!?


Well, to some extent, I care. This means one of two things:

1) The 970 is *it* on the PPC side. If apple isn't going with it for high to midrange stuff, and soon, game over. If they do, then wahoo, IBM to the rescue.

2) Apple really, truly, after all this, is fscked. Moto isn't (can't, won't) producing desktop CPUs. Laptops will hold out for a bit, but expect desktop presence to shrink to nothing and, soon enough, laptops will follow. (Centrino is looking like it will give Sony the platform they need to field powerbook competitors.)

Personally, I'm an optimist, as much as I rag on apple at times. 970's in the powermac by July!

Rah,
prat

[MyLeftNut]

Uh..Centrino?

I agree Apple is in big trouble if they dont move quickly on the processors...Im sure there are thousands of people just waiting with cash in pocket for this area of their products to pick up (no evidence of course) including myself.

Id hate to have to go to Intel but I love Apple too much for them to just wither and die....IBM help....!!!!

Over and out.

[praetorian_x]

Originally posted by MyLeftNut
Uh..Centrino?

I agree Apple is in big trouble if they dont move quickly on the processors...Im sure there are thousands of people just waiting with cash in pocket for this area of their products to pick up (no evidence of course) including myself.

Id hate to have to go to Intel but I love Apple too much for them to just wither and die....IBM help....!!!!

Over and out.

Yea, centrino. Google is your friend:

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20030108corp.htm

Basically, it is intels new mobile solution/strategy. 802.11b built into the motherboard, plus a new energy efficient motherboard and the Banias processor (Relabled Pentium-M as of late):

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=3883

The platform is more a response to Transmeta than to Apple. Intel realized that there was a market for small, heat efficient, ultra mobile computers, and that Transmeta was going after it. So, in about 2 years, they created a whole platform dedicated to it. And transmeta is screwed. Gotta hand it to Intel, they are impressive when they put their minds to something.

As far as Apple is concerned, I would be worried that Sony might take this new platform and run with it. Dell will continue to make crappy looking laptops, but Sony has good designers and a home market that rewards clever and ultra-compact design.

Not rosy for Apple, but then, what else is new?

Cheers,
prat

[fourthtunz]

Originally posted by wumpus

..Not sure x86 is an option, sadly, as economics are on its side...It will always take multiple CPUs from now on to come close to x86 performance....Why would developers develop for OS X on x86? Other than Linux, which is a special case as it is a free enthusiast OS, who can challenge Winbloz on the desktop?

We're lucky Winbloz still sucks! If you use the Mac to make your living, having stability is more important than having the latest processor. I do find it hard to believe apples pricing though.
Macs are the best deal that they have ever been but are still too much at the top end. I think apple charging $2500 for a machine that will run os9 and X is cutting their own throat.
I love Macs and will not use winbloz but I can live with a used Mac until apple gets their schiznit together;)
daniel

[Rocketman]

So given how amazing the power dissipation is, and that it is suited for fan free designs in small devices (like routers, PDA's and iVid's).

I wonder what Apple might use them for?

We KNOW they are not for high end desktops. Too low Ghz rating for marketing no matter what tech issues might offset that.

Not alot of L3 access or FSB speed or memory addressing which is a mistake IMHO, given those are serious overall system bottlenecks right now and are all critical to embedded media processors (iTivo).

So, what then? A super iPod? An iVid? An Apple PDA despite the negative rumors? A kiosk or pizza box?

The Apple stores have POS toys so perhaps there are some vertical market accessories heading down the pike.

We know this. Motorola has let speed slide in favor of very low power targets. Something that Intel and AMD and even IBM only wish they had. Motorola does not make end user products so somebody demanded this for something. What?

[mania]

http://www.katomic.com/mania/homer_boring.gif

[Steradian]

why is this so boring to you people?, I find this very informative and useful for when i need to sell what would be my *old* PB 1ghz
If this article is really that boring then read 1 of the other interesting articles on MR.

[ddtlm]

Rocketman:

So given how amazing the power dissipation is
No, really, this is very much not amazing. It is more than half the usage of a PPC-970 at that clock speed and probably 25% more than a 750fx at that speed. Oooo, so it landed between two other 130nm PPC chips. :rolleyes: And not only that, the smallest chip uses the least power. And not only that, but the biggest uses the most. And holy cow, the middle chip uses a middlling amount of power.

Motorola has let speed slide in favor of very low power targets. Something that Intel and AMD and even IBM only wish they had.
So you ignored the posts above that mentioned how much lower the power dissipation of a 750fx is?

[Abstract]

Originally posted by praetorian_x


Well, to some extent, I care. This means one of two things:

1) The 970 is *it* on the PPC side. If apple isn't going with it for high to midrange stuff, and soon, game over. If they do, then wahoo, IBM to the rescue.

2) Apple really, truly, after all this, is fscked. Moto isn't (can't, won't) producing desktop CPUs. Laptops will hold out for a bit, but expect desktop presence to shrink to nothing and, soon enough, laptops will follow. (Centrino is looking like it will give Sony the platform they need to field powerbook competitors.)

Personally, I'm an optimist, as much as I rag on apple at times. 970's in the powermac by July!

Rah,
prat


I agree with you about Moto and their involvement with Desktops. They won't produce G4's for PC at all sooner or later. For everybody who says that when the 970 goes into the Powermac and Powerbook lines, and that the iMac and iBook would keep the G4, well, I disagree. Apple has probably been told by Motorola of their future plans of not making cpu's for PC's anymore, and have probably already planned around this notion. Apple will use the 970 and G3's, both by IBM. Moto is gone. Its inevitable.

And by the way, if a 1Ghz 7457 only use 10W, then aren't these chips primed for overclocking? They won't get too hot if they WERE to be overclocked, right? Sorry, I don't know much about overclocking. ;)

[liloconf]

Originally posted by chubakka
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/delldude1.html

maybe people will lay off Ellen Feiss now...

Um did anyone read the complaint filed on this website, I'm sorry but "Baggie" is not a word, I really don't think that a cop would use it on a legal document...unless that cop smoked the evidence :)~

[ddtlm]

Abstract:

They won't produce G4's for PC at all sooner or later.
There is no difference between a G4 for a Mac and one for a router (or any other device).

For everybody who says that when the 970 goes into the Powermac and Powerbook lines, and that the iMac and iBook would keep the G4, well, I disagree. Apple has probably been told by Motorola of their future plans of not making cpu's for PC's anymore, and have probably already planned around this notion. Apple will use the 970 and G3's, both by IBM. Moto is gone. Its inevitable.
Low-end Macs will be perfectly suited to G4's. I expect low-end Macs to use G4's for some time, at least until some version of the PPC-970 comes out at 90nm, and perhaps longer.

[mozez]

am i the only person who would rather apple go to amd than ibm, no offense, but ibm really doesn't update the processors that often, when they do it's big, but if we go to the 970, at the end of this year or next year, it will be still waaaaaaaaaay behind x86, and so really, what was the point? if we want to stay behind intel and amd, why not just keep moto, the 970s will be more expensive as well, gee, that's what i want, a more expensive mac, sounds great....

no, i would really like to build a custom mac, alot of techies would and alot of people are building their own machines today, so why not apple mac a profit off it. why would osx sell? cause it's the greatest os ever, and developers will make stuff as long as their is a market, and unfortunatly, mac's market is dieing out.

the 970 to me seems the wrong way to go, considering that spec scores show it got it's ass handed to it by several other processors, many of which were cheaper. i'll stop complaining once unreal 2k3 is officially out, mmmmmmmmm unreal.

[Dave Marsh]

While the Apple Marklar project will run MacOS X on an x86 processor, EVERY Mac commercial application would have to be rewritten to run in that environment. Remember, our current apps were written for the PPC instruction set.

Who would do that? Vendors would simply say, buy a PC. They don't care about Windows, but they do care about their bottom line. I doubt any vendor would rewrite their app to run on MacOS X on an X86 chip without a strong incentive. Less than 5% of the market doesn't seem to cut it, especially when they already have sunk this cost in the PPC app.

[reyesmac]

When does Apples contract with these bozos run out?

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by liloconf


Um did anyone read the complaint filed on this website, I'm sorry but "Baggie" is not a word, I really don't think that a cop would use it on a legal document...unless that cop smoked the evidence :)~

LOL. Just how many NYC cops have you met? Don't be shocked if the word "baggie" WAS in the legal document.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by mozez
am i the only person who would rather apple go to amd than ibm, no offense, but ibm really doesn't update the processors that often, when they do it's big, but if we go to the 970, at the end of this year or next year, it will be still waaaaaaaaaay behind x86, and so really, what was the point? if we want to stay behind intel and amd, why not just keep moto, the 970s will be more expensive as well, gee, that's what i want, a more expensive mac, sounds great....

no, i would really like to build a custom mac, alot of techies would and alot of people are building their own machines today, so why not apple mac a profit off it. why would osx sell? cause it's the greatest os ever, and developers will make stuff as long as their is a market, and unfortunatly, mac's market is dieing out.

the 970 to me seems the wrong way to go, considering that spec scores show it got it's ass handed to it by several other processors, many of which were cheaper. i'll stop complaining once unreal 2k3 is officially out, mmmmmmmmm unreal.

Unfortunately you're not the only person that thinks that. However, imo, Sun would be a better choice than AMD (and switching to Sun would be ***Dumb*** for Apple). AMD is tiny, they don't own their fabs, they have to bet the whole company on each new chip revision, they're losing money, they make x86 chips, they're behind Intel on performance, and their chips draw ~80 watts of power.

[ffakr]

Originally posted by mozez
am i the only person who would rather apple go to amd than ibm
yes, you are.
I, for one, know that the best thing Apple could do is change the preferred architecture that OS X runs on. I mean developers will LOVE to learn how to optimize their code for X86, 3dNow, 3dNowPro, MMX, MMX2, and SSE. They will throw LOTS of extra resouces into developing software for the 4% market of the Mac so they can have their code run fast on two different architectures. Apple won't short change PPC development for the new Architecture either. They will dump tons of R&D to support the Billions of dollars of legacy hardware and software that Mac users have invested in PPC machines.
And the users... they will flock to the new x86 OS with the pretty buttons and no applications. Grandmothers will jump on the bandwagon because they like recompiling open source code so that the unix-ported-to-PPC-OSX projects will run on their new x86 boxes. And the developers will see this huge influx of new app-less users and they will roll the applications out lickety split.
<--- I'm being sarcastic of course

at the end of this year or next year, it will be still waaaaaaaaaay behind x86, and so really, what was the point?Waaaaay behind? what are you smoking? IBM has announced pre-production SPECfp at over 1050 for a 1.8GHz part and they said that this was conservative and that it would go up.
That score is slightly behind the reported SPEC of the Athlon64 at 1.8 GHz... it's is slightly under the 3GHz P4 and it is way ahead of the AthlonXP 2800+. Even the mighty 1 GHz Itanium 2 which sells for what? $4000 per processor module?... only rates about 20%-40% greater performance than the 970's preliminary SPEC.
The Athlon appears to be stalled, Tom's Hardware is saying that AMD needs to move on.
The P4 STILL shares registers between FP and SSE2. Altivec is far superior to SSE2 (and AMD doesn't even do SSE2 yet).
Now consider that IBM will have a robust .09 micron production line up at Fishkill long before the 970 is released, and that IBM is already hinting that they may debut over 1.8 GHz. I think the 970 will do just fine against x86 offerings, especially since it will run nicely as a dual rig with those power consumption rates.
Also, consider that the Athlon64 appears to have been pushed back until the 3rd quarter, and Intel has a history of only releasing chips that are slightly faster than AMDs. Intel won't release a 3.6GHz P4 if AMD is only shipping 3200+ chips this summer... they have no reason to because their yeilds are higher when the clock range is lower. They are happy just being faster, and it appears they will remain faster until the Athlon64 begins to ramp up speed.
no, i would really like to build a custom mac, alot of techies would and alot of people are building their own machines today, so why not apple mac a profit off it. why would osx sell? gee, everyone I know steals MS Windows. M$ makes their money from OEM licensing on their 95% marketshare, not from home builders. BYO Powermacs would reduce OS X sales, not increase them.. as fewer Mac/OS bundles would be sold.

the 970 to me seems the wrong way to go, considering that spec scores show it got it's ass handed to it by several other processors, many of which were cheaper. Now I know you are smokin... The 970 hasn't gotten it's ass handed to it by any processor. The estimated specs are impressive and they dont take Altivec into account. Not only that, but they will go up before the Chip hits market.
What I'm really curious about is how you think the chips that apparently beat the 970 were cheaper? How much does a 970 cost? You don't know because NO ONE KNOWS. Duh. From what I've seen, it doesn't look all that big. If IBM gets good yields (and their process is generally very good) the chip won't be expensive.

Do a little research before you start posting crap.

[nickgold]

Originally posted by ffakr
Do a little research before you start posting crap.

Booya!

[cr2sh]

I don't remember ever seeing a thread on any forum that read something like: "The new Macs are too fast and my electric bill is too high... can Moto please do something about this?" WTF is the point? Seriously, who cares? What is moto doing, developing a chip at lower speeds with lower consumption.. and then handing it to Apple and saying "Here, find some use for this... we dunno either."

:p

I have to believe that there's a reason for this chip. Dual Powerbooks, Quad PowerMacs, iTablet.. love of god something, PLEASE!

[DakotaGuy]

Originally posted by Catfish_Man


Unfortunately you're not the only person that thinks that. However, imo, Sun would be a better choice than AMD (and switching to Sun would be ***Dumb*** for Apple). AMD is tiny, they don't own their fabs, they have to bet the whole company on each new chip revision, they're losing money, they make x86 chips, they're behind Intel on performance, and their chips draw ~80 watts of power.

And one more thing...

AMD is not in the best shape financially. Someone at IBM even made some type of statement that implied in 5 years or so IBM and Intel will be the only major players left. If Apple needs the backing of a corporation that has resources the best choice is IBM or Intel. I don't know about you, but I would personally hate to have that little "Intel Inside" sticker on my Mac and that "Intel Chime" at the end of every Apple commercial.

My iMac and iBook both have IBM processors (750 Copper and 750cx) and as they are older and not that fast, they have been bullet-proof and perform well for their age.

Look how Moto had to increase pipeline stages in the G4 to increase Mhz. IBM is still building the G3 as a 4 pipeline stage processer and it is running at 800Mhz in the iBook and probably could be running at 1Ghz easily if Apple did not have to cap it. IBM can and will make quality processors in the future. I think they would be a wise choice and Apple would be best served for the future to stay with PowerPC. I think with some decent investment, PowerPC can rock again.

[law guy]

pcmag has the P5 (Prescot) released in Q3 with SSE3, a 667-MHz system bus and 1 MB of L2 cache. It's interesting that while they're updating their Itanium in Q3 as well, they're introducing a new budget 64-bit chip at the same time (DeerField). The 970 will still have the shorter pipeline and faster bus.

I'll be interested to see if Apple wraps up the new stds., e.g. USB 2, PCI-X and 8X AGP in its PowerMacs, with its next generation release. By that time the powermacs should be shipping with the ATI 9700 card which is an 8X design in the current PC version - but that card is sold as a desktop gaming card for PCs. With the introduction of the 970, I'll be even more interested to see if Apple tries to create more of a workstation model, offering the higher-end graphics cards like ATI's FIRE series, and 4 to 8 gigs of ram. How about internal FW 800 drives provide a better alternative to IDE for real-time video folks and leave the SCSI option back on the backside of my old IIsi 3/40 (which still runs fine today as a donated computer in a schooldistrict... )... far afield of topic -

Bringing it back around to the Pixar purchase (on that other thread) - I did see that the New Zeland shop that did the Two Towers purchased a farm of Xeons as well, used in conjunction with dual Xeon IBM workstations (which actually look very cool - something the Empire would have in the first Star Wars Film - matte black with red LEDs, but have a noise rating of 50 dbs from their substation size power supplies, yikes [although its not clear if IBM's number is right next to the supply or at user position of 1m]). There's a set of product films on the intel xeon page from that studio (Weta... not the public television station) and Los Alamos that are interesting for propoganda. http://www.intel.com/ebusiness/products/server/processor/xeon/ar024301.htm?iid=ipp_srvr_proc_xeon+rinfo_read&

[Telomar]

Originally posted by mozez
the 970 to me seems the wrong way to go, considering that spec scores show it got it's ass handed to it by several other processors, many of which were cheaper.The POWER4 has lower spec scores than the current Itanium 2 or PIV for that matter but I can tell you when you match a 2 way, 4 way system or an 8 way system of each or virtually any multiple you feel like the POWER4 considerably outperforms the others in most applications. SPECint and SPECTfp really aren't the greatest benchmarks to be perfectly blunt.

[ffakr]

Originally posted by law guy
pcmag has the P5 (Prescot) released in Q3 with SSE3, a 667-MHz system bus and 1 MB of L2 cache. It's interesting that while they're updating their Itanium in Q3 as well, they're introducing a new budget 64-bit chip at the same time (DeerField). The 970 will still have the shorter pipeline and faster bus.

I think you are mixing rumors up...
The Prescott rumors seem to lead back to a recent piece on Ace's Hardware. I didn't see the 667MHz bus bit on Ace's but that would be pretty dissapointing since the next revision of the P4 will sport an 800MHz bus (quad pumped 200mhz).
BTW,... Prescott is a P4, not a P5.

Prescott info is all rumor at this point. probably the only think known for sure is that it will be Intel's first desktop processor on a .09 micron process. IBM is ramping up .09 micron at FishKill right now... the same place that will produce the 970.

I think this sums up the Prescott:
I like to remind this comment of Doug Carmean, Intel's principal architect of the Intel Architecture group (which worked on the Pentium 4):

I had about a one or two-quarter stay on a project called Prescott, which was a follow-on to Willamette. It was basically doing some performance enhancements and taking it to the next generation process. Within the last year, I?ve been leading the architecture team that?s defining the next all new processor, a processor called Nehalem, and that?s been the focus for the last year.

Itanium is up for a revision late this year and there are two new products proposed. The second to be released will be Deerfield,... a smaller, less complex Itanium. It should be noted, however, that Deerfield is still anything but a desktop processor. It will be a smaller 'big honking chip' that still puts out a lot of power. Itanium is not going to be a desktop chip for a LONG time so it isn't really appropriate to discuss in relation to processors like Athlon, P4, 970, or even Athlon 64 (though I make comparisons myself).
It seems like ship dates are slipping a bit on the Itanium again though. I think Intel will be very lucky to get Deerfield out this year.

This isn't to say that Itanium (as of Itanium 2) isn't an impressive processor. The SPEC speak for themselves. Unfortunately, when your processors cost $3-4000 dollars, you might want them to perform more than 30% faster than your $600 desktop processor. ;-)

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by cr2sh
I don't remember ever seeing a thread on any forum that read something like: "The new Macs are too fast and my electric bill is too high... can Moto please do something about this?" WTF is the point? Seriously, who cares? What is moto doing, developing a chip at lower speeds with lower consumption.. and then handing it to Apple and saying "Here, find some use for this... we dunno either."

:p

I have to believe that there's a reason for this chip. Dual Powerbooks, Quad PowerMacs, iTablet.. love of god something, PLEASE!
That's the whole point - Motorola builds these chips for routers, Tivo's, DSL modems, etc... Apple is small potatoes to them.

[fred_lj]

What is Apple Marketing (or Steve) doing with the whole "Year of the Notebook" slogan? Seeing all this news about possible future CPUs for PowerMacs wouldn't lend to its validity at all - unless Motorola's little announcement tells true, and we don't have ANY new procs til next year at this time -- which could spell a slow death for Apple. More positively, it means we'll have the PowerMac 970 in July - PowerMac updates have come in pretty consistently -- biannually. Don't get me wrong. I would be ecstatic at the announcement of the new PowerPC from IBM, but this whole "year of the noteook" thing doesn't ring true. Perhaps it's just a sales thing, though, with Apple wanting to meet that special percentage of notebook sales. Suggestions?

[Hemingray]

Originally posted by fred_lj
What is Apple Marketing (or Steve) doing with the whole "Year of the Notebook" slogan? Seeing all this news about possible future CPUs for PowerMacs wouldn't lend to its validity at all - unless Motorola's little announcement tells true, and we don't have ANY new procs til next year at this time -- which could spell a slow death for Apple. More positively, it means we'll have the PowerMac 970 in July - PowerMac updates have come in pretty consistently -- biannually. Don't get me wrong. I would be ecstatic at the announcement of the new PowerPC from IBM, but this whole "year of the noteook" thing doesn't ring true. Perhaps it's just a sales thing, though, with Apple wanting to meet that special percentage of notebook sales. Suggestions?

From the sounds of it, and judging from Apple's past, I personally won't be expecting PPC 970's in PowerMacs any earlier than Jan. 2004. Steve did say YEAR of the laptop, not "6 months". If the PowerMacs came out with a 970 in July, I think it would certainly take away the spotlight. These new moto G4's could be the ticket for the PowerBooks this year, maybe even finally shift the iBooks to a sub-GHz G4? Maybe that's a bit too optimistic for this year...

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Hemingray


From the sounds of it, and judging from Apple's past, I personally won't be expecting PPC 970's in PowerMacs any earlier than Jan. 2004. Steve did say YEAR of the laptop, not "6 months". If the PowerMacs came out with a 970 in July, I think it would certainly take away the spotlight. These new moto G4's could be the ticket for the PowerBooks this year, maybe even finally shift the iBooks to a sub-GHz G4? Maybe that's a bit too optimistic for this year...

Well if you were to look at it as a fiscal year (that is how Apple looks at it). The 15" TiBook was revised midway through the 1st quarter and the AlBooks came out at the beggining of the second quarter. The end of the fiscal year is some time around July. If I'm mistaken I know someone will correct me.

[Dave Marsh]

I believe Apple's fiscal year runs October - September.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Dave Marsh
I believe Apple's fiscal year runs October - September.

See, I knew I made a mistake. Though I did mean to say sometime around August. I was thinking maybe the first of September and that is why I meant to say August.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

[ddtlm]

Catfish_Man:

AMD is tiny, they don't own their fabs
Yes they do own their own fabs (hopefully I don't have to tell you this too many more times). AMD is making some of the fastest chips in the world, certainly right up there for top dog on the desktop.

Abercrombieboy:

Look how Moto had to increase pipeline stages in the G4 to increase Mhz. IBM is still building the G3 as a 4 pipeline stage processer and it is running at 800Mhz in the iBook and probably could be running at 1Ghz easily if Apple did not have to cap it.
Yeah, but the Moto chip does 1.42ghz on 7 stages on 180nm tech, whereas the 750fx does probably a little over 1.0ghz on 4 stages, on 130nm tech. The 7447/7457 will pretty much clean up on on 750fx.

Telomar:

SPECint and SPECfp really aren't the greatest benchmarks to be perfectly blunt.
The usual cry of whoever is behind. SPEC is by far the best cross-platform benchmark I know of, and the performance of Apple's pride and joy does not change that.

[MacQuest]

FWIW:

This was originally announced and reported on here at MR on 1.8.03.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~65496,00.html

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw

That's the whole point - Motorola builds these chips for routers, Tivo's, DSL modems, etc... Apple is small potatoes to them.

I am not so sure about Apple being small potatoes to them. I believe Apple pays higher prices than the rest because to Apple those chips are important in higher clock ratings and also at the beginning of their life cycle (early production units will fetch higher prices). Apple can probably afford a slightly higher price for those chips because they will transmit the cost to consumers (high-end machines). Lower clock-rated chips will make their way to embedded appliances, where you don't need to push frequencies and need only to get reasonable price/performance/power consumption compromise.

So early processors (in more expensive production lines) can make their way to Apple computers even before Motorola start shipping 7457's and 7447's for the EMBEDDED market.

And even if (that's an enormous IF) the medium-term future of Apple computers lies with the 970 from IBM (when ??), Apple still needs to get upgraded chips from Motorola until then. So for me, if the 7457 and 7447 make their way into Macs soon enough, that will be good (no mobo redesign, etc...).

NicoMan

[dongmin]

Yes, Macs will still be behind the x486 world, even after Apple adopt the 970. But the point is that the gap will be a lot smaller. Tthe 970 and its successors have a lot of room to grow, and I think it's safe to say that the 970 will be on a much faster development path than the G4. So yes, we'll still be behind, but the prospects of catching up are good. If the 970 comes out in late summer or early fall and delivers the performance level of a 3 ghz P4, I'll be super happy.

Why am I putting such faith in IBM and the 970? My reasons:

1. IBM will be using the 970 for their low-end linux servers, and they seem serious about making inroads into that market. Apple and IBM's interests are much more aligned here than was the case with Moto.

2. The 970 and its succesors are based on the Power line, which is important for IBM. As long as IBM's Power business stays strong, the trickle-down effect should ensure that the 9xx line also stays strong.

[DharvaBinky]

Since IBM is a good system integrations team, and has the Power series chips to run with... wouldn't it be interesting to see IBM ditch their proprietary AIX OS in favor of MacOS X running on their humongous P Series servers... *evil grin*

That might bring Steve's pixar back into the fold... :)

Dharvabinky

[ffakr]

Originally posted by Dave Marsh
I believe Apple's fiscal year runs October - September.
I could be wrong, but I was pretty sure that we are currently in the 4th quarter of the Apple fiscal year. I seem to remember that their fiscal year ran one quarter later than the calendar year.

[ffakr]

Originally posted by MacQuest
FWIW:

This was originally announced and reported on here at MR on 1.8.03.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~65496,00.html

Motorola inked a similar agreement over a year ago with AMD. This is how the Athlon moved to a copper process. I'm not sure what the implication is here, but this in no way has anything to do with the shareing of x86 or PPC technology... only fab technology. :-)

[OSXconvert]

I think the IBM's 970 is Apple's greatest hope to jump to the next level of performance. Hopefully multicore versions of the multiprocessor will make apple's specs more competitive. Motorolla is not really competing with Intel in the megahertz wars. They make excellent RISC processors for the embedded market like cell phones and routers and cars which value power consumption and size over raw speed. These new 7457s should do fine in laptops, however. They might perform nicely in the powermacs in multiprocessor mode, say using 4 processors. I'm not sure if Photoshop 8 will be written in cocoa and if apple engineers will push adobe to tweak/develop altivec and multiprocessor-aware coding. These types of things make real-world use faster. Dumping OS9 compatibility and carbon should speed up system performance too. I'm sure there's a lot of flabbiness and nonoptimization in the video drivers too, affecting performance.

If Apple isn't going to deploy the 970 or it somehow is still foolishly counting on Motorolla, then they really are in trouble. If they want to compete in the megahertz wars, they should immediately adopt AMD microprocessors. If they don't, the only speed improvements we'll see will be from multicore and multiprocessor configurations of slower, cooler chips. With only a 4% market share at best, Apple doesn't have much leverage to get a cutting edge 4 ghz processor developed by any chip manufacturer. The profit incentive just isn't there.

On the otherhand, I don't know if processor speed is going to be as much of an issue in the future for regular or even moderate power users like photoshopers and DV editors. Sure we want 3 ghz 970s, but what we really need are bigger L2 and L3 caches, faster buses, and much more RAM (8 gigs would be nice in the towers). For the biggest power users, the 3d renderers and animators, I don't think Apple will be able to compete in their raw number crunching arena. Steve Jobs' Pixar, did just after all buy a Linux based Intel Xenon rendering farm, pretty much admitting that those were the best tools for that job where time and money are crucial.

[ryan]

Originally posted by Hemingray


From the sounds of it, and judging from Apple's past, I personally won't be expecting PPC 970's in PowerMacs any earlier than Jan. 2004. Steve did say YEAR of the laptop, not "6 months". If the PowerMacs came out with a 970 in July, I think it would certainly take away the spotlight. These new moto G4's could be the ticket for the PowerBooks this year, maybe even finally shift the iBooks to a sub-GHz G4? Maybe that's a bit too optimistic for this year...
Steve has also said that Apple has some exciting things planned for their desktop line this year ('03) as well... Could be that we'll see portions of both of Apple's pro lines sporting PPC 970's before the end of the year.

[ryan]

Originally posted by fred_lj
What is Apple Marketing (or Steve) doing with the whole "Year of the Notebook" slogan? Seeing all this news about possible future CPUs for PowerMacs wouldn't lend to its validity at all - unless Motorola's little announcement tells true, and we don't have ANY new procs til next year at this time -- which could spell a slow death for Apple. More positively, it means we'll have the PowerMac 970 in July - PowerMac updates have come in pretty consistently -- biannually. Don't get me wrong. I would be ecstatic at the announcement of the new PowerPC from IBM, but this whole "year of the noteook" thing doesn't ring true. Perhaps it's just a sales thing, though, with Apple wanting to meet that special percentage of notebook sales. Suggestions?
No offense, but Duh! of course its a marketing thing. Remember when Steve said that the CRT is dead and then turned around and announced the eMac? There's plenty of time over the course of an entire year to have major announcements with regards to both desktop and portable Macs.

My prediction is that we'll see PPC 970's introduced in certain desktops and PowerBooks at the same time, call them Pro-Extreme machines, then over the course of 12-18 months we'll see the 970 in the rest of Apple's machines.

[Dave Marsh]

Apple Computer Sees FY03 Capital Spending $160 Million Versus 174 Million
Thursday December 19, 6:27 pm ET

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Apple Computer Inc. (NasdaqNM:AAPL - News) said it expects capital expenditures of $160 million in the fiscal year ending Sept. 28, 2003 , compared with $174 million in the fiscal year ended Sept. 28, according to the company's annual report filed Thursday with the Securities and Exchange Commission...

Source: http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:xmIYSGFlkk0C:biz.yahoo.com/djus/021219/1827000966_2.html+Apple+Computer+fiscal+year&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Blackcat]

The Fiscal year for IBM ends December 31st, so if the 970 is due Q3'03 we can expect it between June 30th and September 30th.

[edit: dates]

[Blackcat]

Originally posted by fred_lj
What is Apple Marketing (or Steve) doing with the whole "Year of the Notebook" slogan?

Steve said "Year of the portable" so there is quite a bit of scope for lots of small products. I don't think it rules out a PowerMac with a 970 in it.

[-hh]

Originally posted by Telomar
The POWER4 has lower spec scores than the current Itanium 2 or PIV for that matter but I can tell you when you match a 2 way, 4 way system or an 8 way system of each or virtually any multiple you feel like the POWER4 considerably outperforms the others in most applications. SPECint and SPECTfp really aren't the greatest benchmarks to be perfectly blunt.


I also seem to recall a tech discussion on the IBM chip that I think I read at Arstechna that said that the 970 had a lot of performance design compromises built into it that allowed for making the chip a lot cheaper, etc.


What it all seems to be saying to me is the question of which is the better business decision:

Option 1) pay $500 for a fully-optimized chip that will give you 1.00 performance,

Option 2) pay $300 for two 80% optimized chips (ie, $150 each) that will give you 1.60 performance.


If you like #2 as much as I do, then you're willing to allow the 970 to not be a "Killer" chip, if the design trade-off's allow them to be made cheap enough to be down at at "2 for 1" prices. Afterall, Apple already has practicee in making DP systems...



-hh

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by OSXconvert
If Apple isn't going to deploy the 970 or it somehow is still foolishly counting on Motorolla, then they really are in trouble. If they want to compete in the megahertz wars, they should immediately adopt AMD microprocessors.
When you are refering to AMD, are you thinking AMD manufacturing x86 chips, Opteron, or an hypothetical PPC?
If you are thinking x86 AMD in Macs, there has been a lot of discussion on the subject already (Marklar...), and I think a lot of people agree that if they were to do it in the next couple of years, that would represent a GIGANTIC leap of faith from Apple that would probably alienate the Mac developpers (going from OS9 to OSX and then recompile and maintain 2 architectures for a very small user base, etc...). Possible I agree, but highly unlikely.
Most of those arguments apply to the choice of Opteron (or whatever AMD's 64bit desktop processor's name is). So then, same thing: feasible, but unlikely.
Now AMD with PPC? Hmm, on the one hand, AMD coming up with a PPC chip would take quite a while (you don't become overnight a specialist on a new architecture: look at how long it took AMD in the x86 world). On the other hand, AMD has signed agreements with Moto and IBM but to share manufacturing processes. Maybe there is something secret behind it that would bring AMD in the PPC alliance, but then one might ask what would be the point? Manufacturing processes are going to be shared between Moto, IBM and AMD, so no advantage here in choosing AMD. As for research and chip design, I think it is safe to say there is very little that IBM doesn't know. Now, motivation: the big problem with Moto is that they don't really care about desktops, they are mainly interested in embedded markets, and their needs are then very different from Apple's. But IBM, as it has already been said, will share some of Apple's goals, they need to make their UNIX/Linux server/workstations better with those new chips. Result: Apple better off with IBM than AMD.
Anyway you look at it, it makes little sense for Apple to ally with AMD now.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

NicoMan

[Dont Hurt Me]

Nicoman hit it in the bullseye!!Everything is pointing to IBM and the 970. If this dont happen not only will I be SHOCKED but a round of Beers for everyone on this thread from me! Of course you have to be of age so that leaves a few of you out. you know who you are

[Telomar]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Yes they do own their own fabs (hopefully I don't have to tell you this too many more times). AMD is making some of the fastest chips in the world, certainly right up there for top dog on the desktop.Again AMD currently is either in the process of closing or has closed all their Texas fab plants leaving them with a whole 1 fab in Dresden. Increasingly they rely on external contracts for their parts. A fact I find pretty ironic given their comments of a few years back that only real men own fabs.

As for current AthlonXP processes the new 3000 is a step down from the old one (2800). Their numbering scheme increases but performance doesn't move and they've been out of the race for top dog since Intel hit around 2 GHz and especially after Intel started increasing FSB speeds. AthlonXP's major advantage was price/performance and it doesn't even cut it on that anymore.

Originally posted by ddtlm
The usual cry of whoever is behind. SPEC is by far the best cross-platform benchmark I know of, and the performance of Apple's pride and joy does not change that. Err no. I don't work directly for any major semiconductor producer and even if I did I have no invested interests in selling a product. It's a fact SPECint and SPECfp is a lousy benchmark for SMP applications and any program that relies on more than a straight compiler test though.

I have no problem with quoting them but you'd be a fool to take them as the best cross-platform benchmark test and leave it there.

As I said until you've looked at performance of high end servers like Alphas or POWER4s compared to the competition you just aren't aware of how misleading looking at those numbers can be. I rather expect your knowledge comes from theory rather than any experience in these areas though.

[Tim Flynn]

Perhaps the 970 is a way off yet. If the 970 was soon to be released in the X Server, would Jobs have moved from Sun to Intel for Pixar?
I would think that if the 970 (or G5) was coming out soon and was a rocket, wouldn't Pixar move to Apple?:rolleyes:

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by Tim Flynn
Perhaps the 970 is a way off yet. If the 970 was soon to be released in the X Server, would Jobs have moved from Sun to Intel for Pixar?
I would think that if the 970 (or G5) was coming out soon and was a rocket, wouldn't Pixar move to Apple?:rolleyes: It doesnt help them now while they are working on or between movies.

[Blackcat]

Originally posted by Tim Flynn
Perhaps the 970 is a way off yet. If the 970 was soon to be released in the X Server, would Jobs have moved from Sun to Intel for Pixar?
I would think that if the 970 (or G5) was coming out soon and was a rocket, wouldn't Pixar move to Apple?:rolleyes:

I think quite simply Pixar needed some high powered boxes, Intel based ones fitted the bill.

If you're rendering a 2 hour movie, you can't afford to wait 9 months for an unknown cpu, time is money.

[ryan]

Originally posted by Tim Flynn
Perhaps the 970 is a way off yet. If the 970 was soon to be released in the X Server, would Jobs have moved from Sun to Intel for Pixar?
I would think that if the 970 (or G5) was coming out soon and was a rocket, wouldn't Pixar move to Apple?:rolleyes:
Depends on what you mean by "soon." When people talk about upgrading their computer, like what Pixar did recently only on a much larger scale, I always like to point out that tomorrow's fastest computer won't help you finish the work you need done today. Intel XEON processors provide the best bag-for-the-buck now and probably will for some time to come, although things may change somewhat in ~6 months when we'll probably see the 970 in a Mac.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by Tim Flynn
Perhaps the 970 is a way off yet. If the 970 was soon to be released in the X Server, would Jobs have moved from Sun to Intel for Pixar?
I would think that if the 970 (or G5) was coming out soon and was a rocket, wouldn't Pixar move to Apple?:rolleyes:
I don't think Pixar would ever use anything Apple for rendering. Apple boxes are for end users, not high-end rendering users.

Until then, show me an Apple blade server with 128 G4s or 970s in it. That's right. They don't have one. That's not Apple's concern.

I think that whoever thinks that Pixar should use Apple for rendering... is on crack and needs to realize the truth. Apple has nothing to offer for that type of stuff.

Steve Jobs is CEO of both for one primary reason--to increase revenue and profit for both companies. If a 1024 processor blade cluster of Linux render servers saves and earns Pixar money. Let them!

[sturm375]

Originally posted by Telomar

As for current AthlonXP processes the new 3000 is a step down from the old one (2800). Their numbering scheme increases but performance doesn't move and they've been out of the race for top dog since Intel hit around 2 GHz and especially after Intel started increasing FSB speeds. AthlonXP's major advantage was price/performance and it doesn't even cut it on that anymore.


Take a look at this review of the AthlonXP 3000.
Here. (http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1783&p=1)

It is a long review showing that indeed the P4 3.06 GHz is ahead, but not by much, and in fact many applications show the XP to be the clear winner. Also there is a very detailed explination as to why (or why not) an increase in Cashe memory helps the processor.

Also, since it was brought up in another post, AMD used to produce a straight x86 processor. As of the Athlon, they produce a RISC processor with x86 built in emulation. The Athlon64(that will be the consumer 64-bit processor) is even different. Absolutely not an x86 processor, just emulation built in. With the Opteron (Server/workstation processor) being released very soon (next month I think), AMD could release the less complex consumer processor, however M$ is draging their heels developing a 64-bit OS. I suspect they are budding up to Intel, slowing AMD down so Intel can catch up with their design for 64-bit processors.

I think it would be nice if Apple went with AMD processors, but find it very unlikely with all the x86 bashing in the last 3-4 years.

[avus]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

I don't think Pixar would ever use anything Apple for rendering. Apple boxes are for end users, not high-end rendering users.

Until then, show me an Apple blade server with 128 G4s or 970s in it. That's right. They don't have one. That's not Apple's concern.

I think that whoever thinks that Pixar should use Apple for rendering... is on crack and needs to realize the truth. Apple has nothing to offer for that type of stuff.

Steve Jobs is CEO of both for one primary reason--to increase revenue and profit for both companies. If a 1024 processor blade cluster of Linux render servers saves and earns Pixar money. Let them!

I hate any automotive analogy in computer talks but people here and other thread are so clueless, I would like to add this to your post:

Comparing the xServe and the blade server is like comparing the Ford F-150 and the Catapiller Off-Highway truck.

I mean, they are both called "truck" and very practical to carry heavy loads, but they are very different, aren't they? And just because Ford doesn't offer any vehicle that matches the maxium payload of the Catapillar, is Ford a failure as business? No, Ford is in a different market from Catapillar, and everyone can understand that, right?

When you have to move a mountain full of dirt, you buy the Catapiller. You don't buy 150 F-150s to do the job. This is what Pixar did. While there can be an argument about going from Sun to Intel, we should NEVER mix Apple (or the 970, a scale-down version of the Power4) into this. It is just foolish.

[ddtlm]

Telomar:

Again AMD currently is either in the process of closing or has closed all their Texas fab plants leaving them with a whole 1 fab in Dresden.
Dresden alone can supply 30% (or more) of the x86 market (it has made all of AMD's chips for a while and has lots of room to spare).

Increasingly they rely on external contracts for their parts.
Noone besides AMD makes AMD chips. They were talking to a Taiwanese company but it never happened.

As for current AthlonXP processes the new 3000 is a step down from the old one (2800).
Wrong. It is generally but not always faster, as Aceshardware, Anandtech, Tech-Report and presumably everyone else concluded.

I have no problem with quoting them but you'd be a fool to take them as the best cross-platform benchmark test and leave it there.
How about you find me a better one?

As I said until you've looked at performance of high end servers like Alphas or POWER4s compared to the competition you just aren't aware of how misleading looking at those numbers can be. I rather expect your knowledge comes from theory rather than any experience in these areas though.
My high-end experience is unforunately all with Sun and SGI machines, however I place far more wieght in SPEC than I do in anyone's perception of performance.

[pgwalsh]

AMD's new Barton core. These are the true clock speeds for the procs. The fist numbers are for comparison to the PV 3.06. Maybe IBM, Moto, and AMD are sharing good things. As these numbers show the Mhz is a myth, to some extent.

Barton 3000+ 13*166MHz = 2.167GHz

Barton 2800+ 12.5*166MHz = 2.083GHz

Barton 2500+ 11*166MHz = 1.833GHz

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by Tim Flynn
Perhaps the 970 is a way off yet. If the 970 was soon to be released in the X Server, would Jobs have moved from Sun to Intel for Pixar?
I would think that if the 970 (or G5) was coming out soon and was a rocket, wouldn't Pixar move to Apple?:rolleyes:

It doesn't mean anything long-term. Those render-farms are paid for after only a couple of movies. So if it's the fastest today, it makes sense for Pixar to use Intel. They can always change in a year or 2...

NicoMan

[DharvaBinky]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

I don't think Pixar would ever use anything Apple for rendering. Apple boxes are for end users, not high-end rendering users.

Until then, show me an Apple blade server with 128 G4s or 970s in it. That's right. They don't have one. That's not Apple's concern.


errmmm... except for the fact that Star Wars: Episode I was composited at ILM on custom built quad G4s in After affects running early OS X code...

ILM gave a presentation on their setup at Siggraph the year Ep 1 came out...

:)

Dharvabinky

[jethroted]

The G4 must die! It has been around too long. We have to move on fast. Bring on the Power 5! Let's get past this old g4 technlogy and move on towards a new chip that will move us lightyears ahead, not just a couple of Mhz here and there.

[Wash!!]

Originally posted by jethroted
The G4 must die! It has been around too long. We have to move on fast. Bring on the Power 5! Let's get past this old g4 technlogy and move on towards a new chip that will move us lightyears ahead, not just a couple of Mhz here and there.

R&D takes time and money and apple does not have pockets as deep as IBM or Intel to make their own chips. At this point is just a waiting game.

Apple needs to move to chip like the ones SGI boxes run on, but those chips don't run a GHZ speeds they still run under 800Mhz. so to show you that is not how fast is the chip is how well integrated the hardware and software is to get the most out of the CPU.

I don't care what intel/ADM do even if they make 1,000GHZ chip they still run winblows which ever flavor they have.
OSX is not completly optimeze to run on the PPC chips yet because of the legacy code of OS9, that's the reason they are pushing boot on X only machines now so they can finally optimized the code without the extra bagage. Once they do that you will see a huge different in the preformace of the apps to come.

PS. take a look at the specs SGI offers and see for your self that MHZ means in the real world
http://www.sgi.com/workstations/
my $.02
cheers

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by avus
Comparing the xServe and the blade server is like comparing the Ford F-150 and the Catapiller Off-Highway truck.

I mean, they are both called "truck" and very practical to carry heavy loads, but they are very different, aren't they? And just because Ford doesn't offer any vehicle that matches the maxium payload of the Catapillar, is Ford a failure as business? No, Ford is in a different market from Catapillar, and everyone can understand that, right?

When you have to move a mountain full of dirt, you buy the Catapiller. You don't buy 150 F-150s to do the job. This is what Pixar did. While there can be an argument about going from Sun to Intel, we should NEVER mix Apple (or the 970, a scale-down version of the Power4) into this. It is just foolish.
Duh. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Apple doesn't have anything to match the blade servers, so they shouldn't be used, IMO. Not worth the price and Quartz overhead. Two processors per server in several U1 rackmount towers, could you say loud, even more power consuming, etc. I'd rather have what Pixar is getting. ;)

Like I said, Apple is an end-user company. Apple cares more about the regular Joe consumer.
Originally posted by DharvaBinky
errmmm... except for the fact that Star Wars: Episode I was composited at ILM on custom built quad G4s in After affects running early OS X code...

ILM gave a presentation on their setup at Siggraph the year Ep 1 came out...
My point was, it was rendered on non-Mac hardware. Episode II was rendered on a cluster farm of AMD Athlon MPs.

Mac OS X can't match Linux's flexibility as a UNIX operating system as Linux can be customized and tweaked to the ultimate for any situation. For example, Pixar and ILM most likely tweaked Linux for rendering, multi-proc optimizations, better network load balancing, etc. Yes, there is Darwin, but who would want to run that on several Xserves? Not me. Too expensive and too slow. Darwin doesn't run that well on x86 yet. So I wouldn't count that in either.

Whole point is: Intel and AMD, when used with Linux, are eclipsing Sun Microsystem with more performance per dollar. Pixar is using Intel because it's better for them economically. Apple has no rendering workhorses to offer to Pixar.

BTW, wtf... quad G4... uh huh whatever, I've heard about it but it was never confirmed, to my knowledge.

[alset]

Enter CENTRINO.

Intel is about to make our chips easier to back up.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2003/tc20030211_8644_tc119.htm (http://)

Have fun.

Dan