PDA

View Full Version : More Apple/970 Confirmation




MacRumors
Mar 12, 2003, 09:03 PM
One reader reports:

I work in IT for a large corporation and IBM gave us a presentation about the future of their pSeries and other systems today. Part of the presentation was about the Power processors. They talked about the Power 4, 4+, 5 and 5+. They also briefly discussed the blade servers running what they had listed as the Power 970. They mentioned the Vector unit but said it would not be used in their blade servers, it was for something else. I later asked the rep if the 970 was going to be sold to Apple and he said yes. He was sure of this, and seemed surprised that I knew anything about it. He said they (Apple) have them in their labs now, and that they plan to release them. He said the Vector unit (altivec) was for Apple and that IBM has been told to caution their customers that they have no plans to implement it in their Linux servers, or AIX versions of the blade servers. I told him I heard that Linux may support it in the future, but he wasn't sure about that. He said the Blades would be available Q3 but didn't know when Apple would release them. I later asked if the Blades would out before Macs and he didn't know. So it\'s possible we could see a 970 Mac at least as soon as the Blades come out, which would fit in with the timelines we've been hearing elsewhere.

Another interesting thing he talked about was the work they were doing on the Playstation 3. He said it was going to be a dual core chip, but one core would be graphics. He also said they were implementing something with a company called (or a technology called) Blossom that was a grid computing system for the PS3. It had something to do with multiplayer gaming, but allowed the processing power to be shared, at least part of it, on the grid. Then I remembered Apple\s XGrid trademark. I would say it's a safe bet that Apple intends to incorporate that sort of technology into future XServes.

Q3 Target date for the Blade's mean that IBM is on target with their 970 timetable.



MrMacMan
Mar 12, 2003, 09:35 PM
YES FINALLY VERBAL CONFORMATION!

WOOOOOOO!

IT IS COMING.

PRAISE THE MESSIAH!

pyrotoaster
Mar 12, 2003, 09:53 PM
There's nothing as reassuring as confirmation of the obvious!

970s later this year! WOOHOO! :D

Fender2112
Mar 12, 2003, 09:56 PM
It seems odd that this rep would confirm that the 970 was for Apple and then say he was surprised that anyone knew. If no one was supposed to know, why would he confirm it?

Any how, it gives us something to gnaw on for a while.

mac15
Mar 12, 2003, 10:22 PM
Cool, will this be called the g5?

Sun Baked
Mar 12, 2003, 10:31 PM
Strange to put in a vector unit and then not make use of it in their machines, even if it's just an available library and compile time option -- it would speed up those apps that can make use of the code.

If Linux is going to be extended to include Altivec and IBM is shipping Linux boxes, there seems to be a disconnect in the information here.

Might not quite fit in with their compile once and run on a bunch of boxes strategy, but some people do end up tweaking code to cut run time at the expense of portability.

MacQuest
Mar 12, 2003, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by mac15
Cool, will this be called the g5?

It better not!!:(

It will obviously be referred to as the G5, but I would imagine that they would change the naming convention to reflect the NEW Apple Computer, Inc.

ebow
Mar 12, 2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Strange to put in a vector unit and then not make use of it in their machines, even if it's just an available library and compile time option -- it would speed up those apps that can make use of the code.

A good strategy for someone faced with a similar opportunity as the informant quoted above might be to ask something like "so will IBM be releasing software that takes advantage of the vector unit or will Apple be doing that first?" It might get them to reveal something... who knows. Of course, I imagine many Bothans will have died... I mean many NDAs will have to be violated... to bring us such information. :p

arn
Mar 12, 2003, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by Fender2112
It seems odd that this rep would confirm that the 970 was for Apple and then say he was surprised that anyone knew. If no one was supposed to know, why would he confirm it?


I imagine people don't realize that this sort of community exists... following apple's every move.

He may have been surprised simply because there hasn't been an announcement... how would a random joe know about this small part of his job?

arn

avus
Mar 12, 2003, 11:16 PM
I know this is a little off the topic (but not entirely) but I want to report this tidbit for the relationship between IBM and Apple: IBM Japan now sells the iPod for Windows, and (get this) first 50 customers will receive an Apple Mug (!) until March 25.

Will Apple give away IBM mugs when they release first 970 PowerMac? I think they should...

http://commerce-26.www.ibm.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce/CategoryDisplay?cntrfnbr=1&cgmenbr=1&cntry=392&lang=Ja_JP&cgrfnbr=2184514

Nepenthe
Mar 12, 2003, 11:28 PM
I'm not one to stop Apple from abandoning the G-series nomenclature...
...for good
IMHO it does "put everything into perspective", though. A G4 performs better than a G3. A G5 performs better than a G4, and so on.
But that system is just OMINOUSLY too simple....
*twitch*
-eyes glance about the room nervously-

it's all a conspiracy.

Maybe it's that I'm an audio pro. I am accustomed to products having about three letters, four numbers, and a couple more letters after the numbers. "The new 'Sony XYZ3450MKII 96'"
What would the world be like if digital mixers were called the "Yamaha B2"

The conspiracy of the technology world is obvious. They're out to brainwash us...to program us...
We MUST stand against this evil machine!
For the sake of humanity and all our bodily fluids!
;)
Ok, so sorry, it's late and I just finished yet ANOTHER Dr.Strangelove marathon.

Sol
Mar 12, 2003, 11:45 PM
I would rather see blades, Linux workstations, etc making use of an AltiVec component in their CPUs so that more Linux software can be ported to OS X and vice-versa. After all, if Apple contributes to the Linux platform then it would be a combined force that would better stand up to The OS Monopoly.

As for the IBM guy who was surprised that someone knew about Apple and the 970, let me point out that most people would not bother chasing up computer rumors on a daily basis as many of us do.

Personally I do not believe we will see a 970 based Mac this year. I read something on this very web-site that Apple is planning a Super-Bowl advertisement for next year and I would guess that would be the day that The Next Big Thing is unveiled. Remember that marketing is a big part of the Apple success story and if Ridley Scot's classic 1984 advertisement is to be bettered, something really special will have to be pulled out of the bag.

ebow
Mar 12, 2003, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by Nepenthe
We MUST stand against this evil machine!
For the sake of humanity and all our bodily fluids!
;)
Ok, so sorry, it's late and I just finished yet ANOTHER Dr.Strangelove marathon.


"Well I've been to one World's Fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard come over a set of earphones." ;)

Maybe it's that I'm an audio pro. I am accustomed to products having about three letters, four numbers, and a couple more letters after the numbers. "The new 'Sony XYZ3450MKII 96'"
What would the world be like if digital mixers were called the "Yamaha B2"

So how have you coped with the fact that Apple has now had at least nine (quick count from memory) sets of underlying hardware all labeled simply as "iMac"? :eek:

Anyway, I'm all for the "G5" moniker.

Frobozz
Mar 12, 2003, 11:54 PM
It's been confirmed by the CEO of Sony that Sony and Apple are indeed working together in some capacity. It seems likely that the PS3, since it will be a DVR and DVD burner, etc., will have similar functionality as the TiVO/Apple relationship. I'm really looking forward to this year.... anyone think the PS3 will be out for this X-Mas?

Sol
Mar 13, 2003, 12:01 AM
If you look at iSync's compatibility with the Sony-Erricson phone then you could say that Sony and Apple are already working together. I would guess that Sony will create digital lifestyle devices such as cameras, phones, media players, etc that are compatible with OS X.

mccoma
Mar 13, 2003, 12:57 AM
IMDB.com had an article a couple of days ago stating Sony's president was not happy with working with Jobs. They were supposed to be working on a PC / TV combo. The article was in their Studio Breif section. It was right next to an article describing how reporters were using PowerBooks and Final Cut Pro to send footage home from the Middle East.

dricci
Mar 13, 2003, 01:02 AM
Look at it this way: If IBM doesn't use the altivec core in their 970 Linux blades, that means that they'll be relying on the raw, non-altivec power of the chip. This can benefit us greatly by giving IBM incentive to improve the actual chip speed instead of relying on the AltiVec unit for a turbo boost like Apple pretty much has to do now with the G4. All applications will run fast, even non-altivec enabled apps.

Awimoway
Mar 13, 2003, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by Sol
Personally I do not believe we will see a 970 based Mac this year. I read something on this very web-site that Apple is planning a Super-Bowl advertisement for next year and I would guess that would be the day that The Next Big Thing is unveiled. Remember that marketing is a big part of the Apple success story and if Ridley Scot's classic 1984 advertisement is to be bettered, something really special will have to be pulled out of the bag.

I don't think so. The 970 is coming sooner, and its initial speeds won't seem that impressive compared to x86.

As for the Super Bowl ad, it means one of two things: They're just planning ahead for a new ad campaign, but no earth-shattering new product.

Or they'll blow our socks off with something far more interesting than we often give them credit for when theorizing in forums like this. A really impressive DLD or--and I favor this--a revamp of the Orwellian ad, this time with Gates getting his image shattered, and the release of a new suite of office software that is fully compatible with MS Office formats.

Sol
Mar 13, 2003, 01:12 AM
If that is the case then what would be the point of utilising the AltiVec core? Surelly the 970 would not see the massive performance benefits that the G4 had over similar G3 chips without AltiVec.

Sol
Mar 13, 2003, 01:16 AM
I remember when Bill Gates appeared on a large screen to address the crowd at one MacWorld and that seemed like a good re-creation of the 1984 images... Except no Mac-User ran up to the stage to destroy the screen with a large hammer. I guess 2 + 2 = 5 after all.

phrantic
Mar 13, 2003, 02:14 AM
He also said they were implementing something with a company called (or a technology called) Blossom that was a grid computing system for the PS3. It had something to do with multiplayer gaming, but allowed the processing power to be shared, at least part of it, on the grid. Then I remembered Apple\s XGrid trademark. I would say it's a safe bet that Apple intends to incorporate that sort of technology into future XServes.

Having attended an apple sponsored conference (http://www.apple.com/ca/isynergy2003/kan/) last week (see the events of March 7 to know that I'm legit) and having seen a demo of grid computing using Xserves (and other apple hardware), I can attest that apple is indeed interested in/investigating grid computing. Neither the company nor the technology was called Blossom. It is, however, completely cross platform, lightweight, and hopefully will start making an appearance in our computationally intensive applications within the next 6 to 9 months.

Unless apple's courting two grid computing companies, I'd bet this piece of info is off.

Ever wonder why Apple has been including GigEthernet in basically all their machines over the past couple years?

aethier
Mar 13, 2003, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by phrantic
Ever wonder why Apple has been including GigEthernet in basically all their machines over the past couple years?

isnt it just in the pro line up? the new imac doesnt have gigabit ethernet does it?

aethier

synp
Mar 13, 2003, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Strange to put in a vector unit and then not make use of it in their machines, even if it's just an available library and compile time option -- it would speed up those apps that can make use of the code.


It's been done before. Remember Intel's 386sx? Remember the 486sx? The latter was a full-fledged 486 with the math co-processor disabled.

It is also remotely possible that disabling the altivec unit makes it possible to speed up the processor, which is good for other programs.

edenwaith
Mar 13, 2003, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by Sol
I remember when Bill Gates appeared on a large screen to address the crowd at one MacWorld and that seemed like a good re-creation of the 1984 images... Except no Mac-User ran up to the stage to destroy the screen with a large hammer.

No, I think it was more like the 2 Minutes of Hate at that moment.

job
Mar 13, 2003, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by phrantic
Unless apple's courting two grid computing companies, I'd bet this piece of info is off.

He did say though that this "Blossom" is for the PS3, and that Apple might encorporate technology similar to that. So technically, there might still be some validity to his statement.

It's all in the details. ;)

drastik
Mar 13, 2003, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by Nepenthe
I'm not one to stop Apple from abandoning the G-series nomenclature...
...for good
IMHO it does "put everything into perspective", though. A G4 performs better than a G3. A G5 performs better than a G4, and so on.
But that system is just OMINOUSLY too simple....
*twitch*
-eyes glance about the room nervously-

it's all a conspiracy.

Maybe it's that I'm an audio pro. I am accustomed to products having about three letters, four numbers, and a couple more letters after the numbers. "The new 'Sony XYZ3450MKII 96'"
What would the world be like if digital mixers were called the "Yamaha B2"

The conspiracy of the technology world is obvious. They're out to brainwash us...to program us...
We MUST stand against this evil machine!
For the sake of humanity and all our bodily fluids!
;)
Ok, so sorry, it's late and I just finished yet ANOTHER Dr.Strangelove marathon.

The O2-R is pretty close

jethroted
Mar 13, 2003, 10:28 AM
This is great news for all of us!

StuPid QPid
Mar 13, 2003, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Nepenthe
I'm not one to stop Apple from abandoning the G-series nomenclature...
...for good
IMHO it does "put everything into perspective", though. A G4 performs better than a G3. A G5 performs better than a G4, and so on.
But that system is just OMINOUSLY too simple....
*twitch*
-eyes glance about the room nervously-


What about calling the new 970 chip the G64? That would nicely emphasize that it's 64bit, and it is (sort of) an advance on the name G4...

Although I don't really care what is called, as long as it's fast :)

edit: Added apostrophes to it's...darn, I always make that mistake :(

StuPid QPid
Mar 13, 2003, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by StuPid QPid
What about calling the new 970 chip the G64? That would nicely emphasize that its 64bit, and it is (sort of) an advance on the name G4...

Although I don't really care what is called, as long as its fast :)

Actually thinking about it, G64 is uncomfortably similar to the old Commodore C64 I remember from a looooong while back in the 80s...
Mind you, it was a pretty good home computer for its time...

JtheLemur
Mar 13, 2003, 11:16 AM
Call it the PowerSmack G5. Done and done.

That is, provided the performance is at least on par with Intel and AMD...

jettredmont
Mar 13, 2003, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Awimoway
I don't think so. The 970 is coming sooner, and its initial speeds won't seem that impressive compared to x86.

As for the Super Bowl ad, it means one of two things: They're just planning ahead for a new ad campaign, but no earth-shattering new product.

Or they'll blow our socks off with something far more interesting than we often give them credit for when theorizing in forums like this. A really impressive DLD or--and I favor this--a revamp of the Orwellian ad, this time with Gates getting his image shattered, and the release of a new suite of office software that is fully compatible with MS Office formats.

Images being shattered ... I could think of three or four Ballmer soundbites that would go well intermixed with a still photo of Gates sneering that would be downright fascist ...

"dancing monkey" and "Developers! Developers! Developers!" top the list ...

Vlade
Mar 13, 2003, 11:51 AM
Why dont we just skip G5 through G16 and call it the G17?

jettredmont
Mar 13, 2003, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by synp
It's been done before. Remember Intel's 386sx? Remember the 486sx? The latter was a full-fledged 486 with the math co-processor disabled.

It is also remotely possible that disabling the altivec unit makes it possible to speed up the processor, which is good for other programs.

While it would be interesting if IBM shipped Altivec-disabled 970s (the 486SX was because there were many chips with defects only in the FPU ... the 386SX was just an odd beast designed to fit between the 286 and 386DX ...) I don't see that in the quote above. It sounds more like IBM doesn't want its initial Blade customers to be expecting AltiVec support in either the OS (Linux may well eventually support AltiVec, but that doesn't mean that the version of the kernel/packages that IBM ships with its blades will!) or in gcc (see above).

IBM is a conservative company. Directive #2 is that whenever a promise is made to a customer that promise must be kept regardless of cost. This typically leads to an extreme reticence to making promises of any kind unless their fullfillment is assured from the start. If IBM doesn't yet know what Linux seed they're going to ship their blades with (and I'm not even sure if AltiVec support is in the latest Linux builds ... anyone else know?), they're going to err on the side of lowered expectations and over-delivering rather than hype and under-delivery.

As I've said before, dealing with IBM is a bit different than dealing with most other tech industry companies.

But to the hardware issue ... doubtless there will be some 970s with defects only in the AltiVec regions ... the issue is if there will be enough of them to justify selling an Altivec-disabled chip, and if there is an easy way of reliably disabling the AltiVec code without making the chip unstable (Intel designs such switches into their processors, although I believe they "got lucky" with the 486 production ...) On the whole, though, I'd be surprised if either of these conditions were met. I don't expect 970"SX" chips to be marketable.

Nepenthe
Mar 13, 2003, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by pyrotoaster
There's nothing as reassuring as confirmation of the obvious!

well here's some more ;)
(If you call this "confirmation")
An article on Mac Daily news talking about apple's focus on narrowing the clock-speed-gap that it currently is victim to over Intel and AMD

"Sources inside Apple have told LoopRumors that increasing the clock speeds of its computers has become a major priority. The gap between the current G4 chips and its competitors such as Intel and AMD has strongly affected sales. Our sources have revealed that sales of Apple's pro line have been lagging for nearly two years as a result. The good news is that changes are 'well under way.' Our sources also hinted but wouldn't confirm that the current PowerMac form factor will be the last, as the new processor will reportedly bring a new design to the Pro line. When asked when we might see these changes, we were simply told: 'Before the Fall,'" reports LoopRumors.com."
http://www.macdailynews.com/comments.php?id=P765_0_1_0
:rolleyes:

So, yeah, there you go...

Nepenthe
Mar 13, 2003, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by drastik
The O2-R is pretty close

yes, true....
However, now we have the "02R 96".... after that it's the
"O2R-24 96/192HD"
The DA-7 was realatively simple, but now it's the DA-7 MKII
of course, the mother of all would be the O2R2D2.... a-heh...

*crickets chirping*

josepht
Mar 13, 2003, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Nepenthe
well here's some more ;)
(If you call this "confirmation")
An article on Mac Daily news talking about apple's focus on narrowing the clock-speed-gap that it currently is victim to over Intel and AMD

"Sources inside Apple have told LoopRumors that increasing the clock speeds of its computers has become a major priority. The gap between the current G4 chips and its competitors such as Intel and AMD has strongly affected sales. Our sources have revealed that sales of Apple's pro line have been lagging for nearly two years as a result. The good news is that changes are 'well under way.' Our sources also hinted but wouldn't confirm that the current PowerMac form factor will be the last, as the new processor will reportedly bring a new design to the Pro line. When asked when we might see these changes, we were simply told: 'Before the Fall,'" reports LoopRumors.com."
http://www.macdailynews.com/comments.php?id=P765_0_1_0
:rolleyes:

So, yeah, there you go...

Great! That means revision #2 should be around January or February of 2004. That's when I plan to get mine.

jethroted
Mar 13, 2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by mac15
Cool, will this be called the g5?

I doubt it since moto is not making the chip, and they own the G4's and G3's.

Macpoops
Mar 13, 2003, 06:08 PM
Motorola does not own the G3 G4 naming convention. That is simply an Apple think. To moto it is the MPC 74xx and to ibm is 75x. Apple has their own name for just about everything. 802.11b= Airport g=Airport Extreme. Altivec= Velocity engine. IEEE1394= Firewire. Etc....

ddtlm
Mar 13, 2003, 10:31 PM
I don't know about how accurate the rest of this RUMOR is, but that part about AltiVec support not being in Linux is stupid. It took like 30 seconds or so to find this using Google:

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0203/11.redhat.php

Coming from Maccentral of all places, how hard can it be for someone else to find?

Anyway, I think this rumor is a fabrication and I find it surprising that almost everyone else swallowed it whole and speaks like it is fact.

Sol
Mar 13, 2003, 10:49 PM
That article mentions Motorola chips, not IBM. I think the rumour is credible. Remember that the 970 is still not out there yet so anything goes.

ddtlm
Mar 13, 2003, 11:06 PM
Sol:

I demonstrated Linux AltiVec support. The reason they call the vector units on both the PPC-970 and the 7455 "AltiVec" is because they support the same instructions. To support one AltiVec is to support both.

jettredmont
Mar 14, 2003, 04:54 AM
Originally posted by ddtlm
Sol:

I demonstrated Linux AltiVec support. The reason they call the vector units on both the PPC-970 and the 7455 "AltiVec" is because they support the same instructions. To support one AltiVec is to support both.

Umm, no.

You demonstrated that one year ago, Red Hat was committed to getting Altivec support into its Linux distribution.

A quick search for "linux altivec" on Google didn't turn up anything more recent except for a note from a developer working on Linux-PPC64's Altivec support late last year which indicated Altivec support was being developed but not quite "there" yet.

As I said before, IBM is not likely to be shipping the cutting-edge developer build of Linux on their blades. If Altivec support isn't time-proven yet, it likely will not make it into the IBM Linux-PPC distribution when it ships.

Do you have any more recent link indicating that Altivec support is in place and working?

ddtlm
Mar 14, 2003, 10:14 AM
jettredmont:

OK, if you insist on beliveing this silly rumor, then perhaps this link, also the first link on my first google search, will please you:

http://www.simdtech.org/apps/group_public/email/altivec/msg04822.html

To quote:

Has anyone used vector operations in (YDL-2.1) Linux kernel modules? I have user-space code that I need to port to kernel modules to run in real time under RTLinux.

So as you can see, one of the guys has a user-space i.e. normal program in Linux using AltiVec and he wants to make it run in kenel space (which is not as easy as user space). Conclusion: AltiVec programs run in Linux.

macrumors12345
Mar 14, 2003, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by ddtlm

So as you can see, one of the guys has a user-space i.e. normal program in Linux using AltiVec and he wants to make it run in kenel space (which is not as easy as user space). Conclusion: AltiVec programs run in Linux.

Wow, that is a VERY selective quote of that link that you provided. Maybe you should have included this part (the reply to the message you quoted) as well:



There are a number of challenges in doing AltiVec vector operations in
the Linux kernel. Among them are:

1) Saving/restoring registers - the kernel reserves these registers for
the user. Unless you KNOW that user-mode applications aren't using
AltiVec functions, you will have to manually save & restore the AltiVec
registers around your code. This consumes significant memory bandwidth.

2) The GCC compiler normally used for building the kernel isn't AltiVec
aware - you'll have to create your own build process.

Using AltiVec in the kernel is possible, but will require work.

Steve


That reply does not exactly make it sound like Altivec support in Linux is ready for regular use at the moment. I am not saying that I am sure IBM will not support it in their Linux distro at the release of the PPC 970, but certainly there does not appear to be any evidence out there that they WILL support it (while this rumor provides some evidence, albeit unsubstantiated, that they won't).

dongmin
Mar 14, 2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Nepenthe
"Sources inside Apple have told LoopRumors that increasing the clock speeds of its computers has become a major priority. The gap between the current G4 chips and its competitors such as Intel and AMD has strongly affected sales. Our sources have revealed that sales of Apple's pro line have been lagging for nearly two years as a result. The good news is that changes are 'well under way.' Our sources also hinted but wouldn't confirm that the current PowerMac form factor will be the last, as the new processor will reportedly bring a new design to the Pro line. When asked when we might see these changes, we were simply told: 'Before the Fall,'" reports LoopRumors.com."
http://www.macdailynews.com/comments.php?id=P765_0_1_0

LoopRumors has a pretty shoddy record, if I recall. But it's still nice to hear of these rumors trickling in.

My fav part is the bit about a new case. Im sorely waiting for one. The current design has only seen superficial changes since the Smurf cases. Id like to see the two drive doors better integrated with the case. Also, Id like to see audio, usb, and firewire jacks out on the front or sides.

ddtlm
Mar 14, 2003, 01:38 PM
macrumors12345:

There is a big difference between kernel-space and user-space. What more is there to say?

Anyway, here's another link from Google: http://www.synergymicro.com/Software/Linux.html

Quote from that link:

As with uniprocessor Linux, Linux SMP supports the Synergy's Math Library (SSSL) for DSP and array processing, with AltiVec support.

And here's the whole Google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=linux+kernel+altivec&btnG=Google+Search

macrumors12345
Mar 14, 2003, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm

There is a big difference between kernel-space and user-space. What more is there to say?


According to the report the IBM rep said that "they have no plans to implement it in their Linux servers, or AIX versions of the blade servers." There are many ways to interpret that, ranging from they don't plan to implement it in the kernel to they won't let anyone program to it at all. Given that nobody here actually witnessed the conversation, none of us really know exactly what the rep meant when he said that they won't implement it. I agree that it would be unlikely that IBM would actively prevent anyone from ever using the Altivec unit, but that is a very strong interpretation of what he was saying, especially since we have no evidence to back it up.


Anyway, here's another link from Google: http://www.synergymicro.com/Software/Linux.html


Yes, I agree that it is possible to use Altivec within some Linux distributions. But that is hardly the same thing as saying it must be the case that IBM is going to implement it (at some unknown level) in the Linux (and AIX?) distributions that ship with the 970 blades!

ddtlm
Mar 14, 2003, 04:06 PM
macrumors12345:

It is inconcievable to me that IBM would in fact claim that they do not intend to support the AtiVec unit in Linux userspace (at least) when in fact they would have to go out of there way to not support it, for no apparent benefit. On certain tasks AltiVec is unmatched and I'm sure that IBM knows that, and I'm sure that many prospective customers know that.

In my opinion this whole AltiVec section of the rumor is a massive red flag. Like I said, I think this rumor is a fabrication, and I think the AlitVec chit-chat was thrown in to provide some meat and some excitement (purpose-built feature for Apple, etc).

scem0
Mar 14, 2003, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by arn
I imagine people don't realize that this sort of community exists... following apple's every move.

He may have been surprised simply because there hasn't been an announcement... how would a random joe know about this small part of his job?

arn

I can't imagine a life without MR :eek: ;) :D.

This is definitely good news. I hope they change the whole
naming scheme. No more G'x's. Maybe they will call it the pMac
or something.....

Sol
Mar 14, 2003, 10:59 PM
I respectfully disagree. The G is a good way to put generations of CPUs into perspective. Apple has so far resisted re-branding any of Motorola's chips a G5, even with new technologies like Silicon On Insulator, more AltiVec units, etc. G5 is an appropriate name for a 970 or even an x86 that will take over from Motorola's CPUs.

scem0
Mar 15, 2003, 02:14 AM
well, yeah. G5 is a good name. But it seems like this is more
than a meer fifth generation processor ;). This is going to change
apple tremendously. It is a revolutionary product and so it needs
a revolutionary name. G5 just isn't sounding revolutionary :D.

MacCoaster
Mar 15, 2003, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Sol
...Apple has so far resisted re-branding any of Motorola's chips a G5, even with new technologies like Silicon On Insulator, more AltiVec units, etc...
That's because even with SOI, new Altivec, a G4 is a G4.

nuckinfutz
Mar 15, 2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by MacCoaster
That's because even with SOI, new Altivec, a G4 is a G4.

Typically CPU's will be renamed after a Core Change. Hence when Moto revamped the G4's Core to support 7 Piplines they could have called it a G5 if they had wanted to.

ddtlm
Mar 15, 2003, 03:41 PM
nuckinfutz:

Yeah, but what an embarrasing "G5" that would have been.

nuckinfutz
Mar 15, 2003, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
nuckinfutz:

Yeah, but what an embarrasing "G5" that would have been.

;) No Doubt.

ddtlm. How small do you think we'll be fabbing processor at. Is the next level to be .06um. I thought I read that Intel would be there in the next 3 years. Whaddya think?

ddtlm
Mar 15, 2003, 04:37 PM
nuckinfutz:

I bet Moto will keep making a 7455-type core for quite a while, since their seems to be little incentive for them to dramatically increase performance. They may more to RapidIO or something, but I bet the core will see 65nm. Years after Intel and IBM get there, or course. :rolleyes:

macrumors12345
Mar 15, 2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
macrumors12345:

It is inconcievable to me that IBM would in fact claim that they do not intend to support the AtiVec unit in Linux userspace (at least) when in fact they would have to go out of there way to not support it, for no apparent benefit. On certain tasks AltiVec is unmatched and I'm sure that IBM knows that, and I'm sure that many prospective customers know that.

Once again, I agree that it is unlikely that IBM would actively prevent people from using Altivec. What I do not understand is why you interpret "no plans to implement it in their Linux servers, or AIX versions of the blade servers" as NECESSARILY meaning that they will (actively) not allow anyone to write to it in the userspace.

Like I said, I think this rumor is a fabrication, and I think the AlitVec chit-chat was thrown in to provide some meat and some excitement (purpose-built feature for Apple, etc).

Perhaps. I do generally come down on the side of skepticism, but the body of evidence out there is beginning to make it look like the 970 could be coming out pretty soon (say, within the next 6 months). And I would certainly be shocked if Apple chose not to use it. Well, we'll see soon enough (or not soon enough, depending on how patient you're feeling!).

scem0
Mar 15, 2003, 05:13 PM
Like I said, I think this rumor is a fabrication
hehe, fabrication..... I hope I'm not the only person that caught
that joke. :D

ddtlm
Mar 15, 2003, 05:16 PM
macrumors12345:

Perhaps. I do generally come down on the side of skepticism, but the body of evidence out there is beginning to make it look like the 970 could be coming out pretty soon (say, within the next 6 months). And I would certainly be shocked if Apple chose not to use it. Well, we'll see soon enough (or not soon enough, depending on how patient you're feeling!).
And I pretty much agree, just I think this particular rumor is bunk.

Sun Baked
Mar 15, 2003, 06:18 PM
Apple updated the technical document page http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/hardware/Updates/updates.html

The PowerBook 17 is listed as using the same basic architecture of the PowerBook 12... This is a big change from using the same chipset as the XServe/Powermac in the top portables.

So the overiding question is why-o-why does the iMac and the PowerBook 12 not have FW 800?

The strangeness continues.

Since there is an all new chipset for the ALL the Powerbooks, and most likely iBooks when they get redone, don't expect any new architecture in the portable machines for 18-24 months.

Apple does like to get their money's worth out of chipsets.

ddtlm
Mar 15, 2003, 06:45 PM
Sun Baked:

Hmmm, I was under the impression that the system controller was pretty much the same one used in all DDR Macs, and if that is the case, then there is nothing to worry about cause its been spread around all over all ready.

Sun Baked
Mar 15, 2003, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
Sun Baked:

Hmmm, I was under the impression that the system controller was pretty much the same one used in all DDR Macs, and if that is the case, then there is nothing to worry about cause its been spread around all over all ready. Slight to major change, PowerBooks used to use a PowerMac chipset -- now bumped in favor of the iMac single chip version.

If the DDR single chip controller is taking over in the portables and the consumer line, don't expect a change until Apple gets good use out of the controller. Especially if the DDR Intrepid controller is still being phased-in and displacing the old Pangea controller.

The DDR chipset in the PowerMac and XServe has been floating around a lot longer in machines.

Still odd that the PowerBook 12 and the iMac are not sporting FW800 if the Intrepid IC is FW800 capable... which it sure looks like it is looking at the PowerBook 17.

ddtlm
Mar 15, 2003, 07:18 PM
Sun Baked:

Slight to major change, PowerBooks used to use a PowerMac chipset -- now bumped in favor of the iMac single chip version.

Yeah the PMac DDR chipset is single-chip too as far as I know. I'm under the impression that all of the Mac DDR system controllers are essentially the same chip.

Sun Baked
Mar 15, 2003, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
Sun Baked:

Yeah the PMac DDR chipset is single-chip too as far as I know. I'm under the impression that all of the Mac DDR system controllers are essentially the same chip. Since when?

.pdf comparison...

The DDR multichip version -- XServe (http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/hardware/Developer_Notes/Servers/Xserve/Xserve.pdf) and DDR PowerMac (http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G4/PowerMacG4/PowerMacG4.pdf) -- using UniNorth2.x & KeyLargo ICs for the controller/IO.

The DDR singlechip version -- PowerBook 12 (http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G4/PowerBook_G4_12inch/PowerBookG412inch.pdf) and PowerBook 17 (http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G4/PowerBookG4_17inch/PowerBookG417inch.pdf) which uses the Intrepid IC. iMac pdf not update yet.

Look at Architecture - Block Diagrams

Unless Apple is wrong there are two different DDR chipsets currently being used.

And 2 non-DDR chipsets the old non-DDR UniNorth and the old Pagea -- which are still in the eMac (UniNorth) and the iBook (Pangea).

For Apple four chipsets are a lot, and the transition isn't complete.

ddtlm
Mar 15, 2003, 08:01 PM
Sun Baked:

Unless Apple is wrong there are two different DDR chipsets currently being used.
Well I certainly wouldn't claim that they are wrong. :)

astrocity20
Mar 16, 2003, 01:15 PM
hmmm XGrid...... anything pertaining to Mac and it providing more game support is of interst to me.

Tim Flynn
Mar 17, 2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by MacCoaster
That's because even with SOI, new Altivec, a G4 is a G4.

I think ... that because the processors are PowerPC, They should change to P5 !

I'll duck now :D

areyouwishing
Mar 17, 2003, 04:34 PM
and the new Mac will be called.... H1

reasons...

1. H is after G in the Alphabet
2. H is on the periodic table as Hydrogen (happens to be the 1st)
3. 1 being the best, first, newest (all those monikers)

"Introducing the all new Macintosh H1, the worlds first 64-bit desktop."

I think marketing could really make that burn.

Remus
Mar 17, 2003, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by Tim Flynn
I think ... that because the processors are PowerPC, They should change to P5 !

I'll duck now :D

Quack Quack :D

ffakr
Mar 17, 2003, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Strange to put in a vector unit and then not make use of it in their machines, even if it's just an available library and compile time option -- it would speed up those apps that can make use of the code.

If Linux is going to be extended to include Altivec and IBM is shipping Linux boxes, there seems to be a disconnect in the information here.

Might not quite fit in with their compile once and run on a bunch of boxes strategy, but some people do end up tweaking code to cut run time at the expense of portability.

Linux has supported Altivec for ages. Yellow dog linux and LinuxPPC brought altivec enhancements to gcc. Apple has continued this.

yellow dog (http://www.yellowdoglinux.com/products/software/3rd_party/development/deep.shtml)

silvergunuk
Mar 17, 2003, 08:36 PM
come on lads enough of the specualtion we all know the 970s are coming..steve jobs is known to go through rumor sites and feeds off the mindless ranting we do..come on steve show us mac owners your cards so we can save up for a nice new computer. You know you wanna, our hearts will beat faster and maybe even cause some of us to climax you know you love it....ahem

ffakr
Mar 18, 2003, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by jettredmont
Umm, no.
A quick search for "linux altivec" on Google didn't turn up anything more recent except for a note from a developer working on Linux-PPC64's Altivec support late last year which indicated Altivec support was being developed but not quite "there" yet.

As I said before, IBM is not likely to be shipping the cutting-edge developer build of Linux on their blades. If Altivec support isn't time-proven yet, it likely will not make it into the IBM Linux-PPC distribution when it ships.

Do you have any more recent link indicating that Altivec support is in place and working?
That must have been a really quick search.. try yellow dog linux (http://www.yellowdoglinux.com)
Yellow Dog has been providing Altivec support for a LONG time and they sell third party altivec development tools for linux through their site.

I posted this on page one, but it seems to have been removed for some reason. ?????

DOH!! stupid ffakr!! I didnt' see the other post on the first tow pages and I thought it was removed. I could have swore I posted it on the first page!
My bad.

scem0
Mar 18, 2003, 06:18 PM
How about the G970 or is that too big of a leap? ;)

Sun Baked
Mar 18, 2003, 06:29 PM
In the middle of year 2000 an effort was started at IBM in Rochester MN to create a new Linux port for ppc64. This new port would be a high performance, scaleable version of the Linux kernel to run on 64-bit PowerPC processors.http://linuxppc64.org/

there is a link on the page back to the IBM Linux support page and the Linux PPC32 site.

Didn't really look, nor do I know, what type of support/structure IBM has for the Linux project. Obviously the Unix org does not like the amount of material IBM has ported.

aasmund
Mar 21, 2003, 06:43 AM
This whole thing smells worse than the fish salesman in Asterix. And I can't imagine it would be called G5. Perhaps G64 or simply 64 or something else entirely. Also they may have decided to use it, they may not. However, if I was apple I would be very sceptical to have to rely on a sole supplier.

Regards

aasmund
Mar 21, 2003, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by areyouwishing
and the new Mac will be called.... H1

reasons...

1. H is after G in the Alphabet
2. H is on the periodic table as Hydrogen (happens to be the 1st)
3. 1 being the best, first, newest (all those monikers)

"Introducing the all new Macintosh H1, the worlds first 64-bit desktop."

I think marketing could really make that burn.

G is for "generation" H is for Hydrogen? what is the sense in that?

Do you think the next mobile network after 3G will be called h1 as well?

Regards

GroundLoop
Mar 21, 2003, 08:53 AM
I posted this in another thread...but wanted to mention it here too...

Just saw a new confirmation on MacWhispers about the use of the 970 in the PowerMacs...single and DUAL processor boards...also with WWDC pushed back for Panther...I would expect a PowerMac announcement either then or very soon after...

Good days are ahead for Apple fans.

Hickman

Sun Baked
Mar 21, 2003, 07:08 PM
Interesting PowerMac design change...

developer.apple.com/techpubs/hardware/Updates/updates.html (http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/hardware/Updates/updates.html)

Besides the new FW800 PHY and the move of Airport to the PCI bus, Apple moved the USB (ADC , bluetooth & modem) off of KeyLargo onto a PCI USB controller chip -- looks like they said all PowerMac USB moved.

Hopefully this isn't a sign we will get the new USB spec everyone has been waiting for in the next speed bumped PowerMac.

aka, another way of saying there may be one or two more PowerMac G4 speed bumps, with one carrying upgraded USB.

scem0
Mar 22, 2003, 05:16 PM
Are you saying it would be bad if we got USB 2?

Sun Baked
Mar 22, 2003, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by scem0
Are you saying it would be bad if we got USB 2? If this is a USB2 capable design change, are you going to be happy that it could signal retaining the current G4 for another speed bump or two?

Could simple be that they ran out of USB ports on KeyLargo...

Could mean they're getting ready for USB2 on the current design...

If it is a signal for USB2 on this design, then that'll mean no PPC970 for a speed bump cycle or two.

Depends on whether you think USB2 is a better choice than the PPC970 or not.

But it's just another chip to check out and see whether or not it's USB capable, or has a plug in USB2 equivalent. ;)

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 22, 2003, 08:28 PM
or perhaps a usb2 g4 base model to be sold next to the single and dual 970 which also would have usb2?

cubist
Mar 23, 2003, 12:38 PM
<offtopic>
I really do hope Apple goes to USB2, both on the mobos and on the iPod. There is nothing a PC user dreads more than opening his box to put a card in, and most PCs don't have FireWire.

If the iPod had had USB, I would have bought one. But I can't put a card in my office's PC. I'm not allowed to open it.
</offtopic>

The latest Macwhispers post does show confirmation that a 970 is going to be on those new mobos, and they suggest that sufficient stock may be available for a WWDC product lauch. Will Apple exhibit at MWNY at all?

Macpoops
Mar 23, 2003, 04:35 PM
Offtopic.
If the iPod had USB2 it would require a seperate port for recharging. USB 2 cannot support the same power distribution as Firewire. This is why you don't see bus powered USB 2 hardrives. So you people who think USB is the end all be all of computer perpherials you need to listen up and relize that the Wintel world is a follower and the Apple is a leader.

x86 is old yes it is faster right now but it is over 20 years old. PPC is alittle over 10 it is just starting to mature. It took more then 10 years for the x86 world to really start ramping up processor speeds. Oh and you can thank apple for USB too. They were the ones who gave it the exposure it deserved. And now look at all the USB things we use today. You can also thank apple for that excellent Windows OS you use. x86 is dying, PPC is rising. I don't get why people don't seem to understand this.

Viva Los 970