970 Ready for Production? [Archive]

maradong

Apr 9, 2003, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by jrv3034
You took the words right out of my mouth:D
This Fall I'm getting a new PowerMac, 970 or not. I'll need it to edit a digital video project I'm shooting this summer with a Panasonic DVX100. It seems like all the pieces are coming together for a SUPREME DIGITAL VIDEO WORKSTATION from Apple this September or so!!!:eek: :D :cool:

Cool, I ll get a powermac. But i wil definitly wait till the 970 s are shipping. I think if they are now ready to be produced in masses, perhaps, they will see the light in august or september. There will certainly be some testing of it.
But what, by the way, will they call that? g5? to let the people in the mind of continuation, or 970 because it is the reallity, or something else. What do you think ( different :) )?

I forgot. I hope strongly the 970 s will not make something like a x86 pc out of the mac computers. I mean with loud fans and everything to allow the cpu to be cooled coorectly.

Ensoniq

Apr 9, 2003, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by dricci
Glad the processors are ready to go, but how about Apple's new logic boards? I'd assume they'll have to put any final logic board plans through a few months of testing to make sure everything works well together.
MacWhispers reported last week that two new motherboards for the PPC 970 machines (one single, one dual) went into production. Full production indicates that testing is over...the motherboards are finalized. The rumors that the PPC 970 is in full production now means testing of those chips is over too.

Since we're only dealing in rumors, it doesn't mean any of this is true. But just to clarify, full production of both the chips and the motherboards means testing (except for normal quality assurance) is over. These machines will be ready to ship as soon as Apple can put them in a box and make an announcement. To assume months more of testing is probably inaccurate.

Full production is defined as "debug mode complete." Yes, they may have to rework things if they find any serious issues in the first full scale run. But we're not talking about designing the chip or motherboard anymore. We're beyond that now. :)

rog

Apr 9, 2003, 08:18 AM

While I hope this is all true, when was the last time a rumor site got something this big right many months ahead of time. I remember when the G4 came out in 8-99 that it took many people by surprise because everyone thought it was months away and were only expecting a speedbump for the B&W towers. Also, there were even more reports like this about the impending G5 back in late 2001, that were supposedly coming any day and we all know what happened with that hope.

phlevin

Apr 9, 2003, 08:35 AM

The big difference with the 970 vs G4/G5 is that IBM is using the chip in their own machines. So more motivation for them (than Motorola) and more sources of information for the rumors.

MacManiac1224

Apr 9, 2003, 08:41 AM

If they are in production now, when can we expect to see them appear in new machine? is it possible they can appear in June at WWDC?

mangoman

Apr 9, 2003, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by MisterMe
No, in September you'll be bitching about Apple's not releasing a 3.5 GHz PowerMac for $750.00 US.

Man, ain't THAT the truth. And I'll still be bitching about the lack of an Apple PDA...

*sigh*

Kamu-San

Apr 9, 2003, 08:47 AM

By the way, don't forget that IBM will use the PPC970 itself, so the fact that production of the PPC970 starts doesn't mean that Apple *will* release a 970-based machine in September, just that they *can*.

Kamu-San

Apr 9, 2003, 08:51 AM

By the way, who is going to do the translation from French?:D

maradong

Apr 9, 2003, 08:57 AM

If you want i can do it....
takes some time huh!

maradong

Apr 9, 2003, 09:04 AM

Jusqu'à maintenant, les processeurs PPC 970 qui étaient fabriqués étaient des prototypes servant à des tests. Hier, Peter Sandon, père du PPC 970 a donné son feu vert. Le PPC 970 est maintenant considéré comme exempt de tout bug et bon pour la production.

Dès le 15 avril, il sera fabriqué en série dans les usines d'IBM. Les puces seront intégrées dès la fin Juin dans les serveurs Blade d'IBM et bien entendu dans les machines Apple. On peut noter la similitude de dates entre la sortie des machines IBM et la WWDC. Connaissant Apple, ils ont probablement négocié l'exclusivité de l'annonce de l'arrivée du PPC 970 à quelques jours près.

In english it should be something like this, without any garantee, as there are words not existing in that context in english:

Till now, the 970 's CPUs were protoypes, only serving for tests. Yesterday, Peter Sadon, the father of the 970 has given his ok. The 970 is now considered bug-less and ready for the mass production.
As soon as the 15 th april, the 970 will be producted in series at IBM's. The micro-processors will be integrated as soon as late June in IBM's Blade Servers, and of course in the Apple machines. Note the similarty between the release of the 970 and the WWDC. Knowing Apple, they probably already have negociated l ' exclusivity ( does that word exist ? :/ ) to announce the arrival of the PPC 970.

punter

Apr 9, 2003, 09:04 AM

just imagine that Apple has decided not to go with the 970, and despite the fact the chip is ready for production, we won't be getting it. That would really make me cry if we had to stick with g4s for another half year or more.

To tell the truth I would prefer if Apple went intel or whatever. Then there would be no more mhz race, we'd always have the market standard at mass produced prices. Perhaps the 970 might be faster, but it takes some great engineering to consistantly produce a faster chip when it sells to only a fraction of the market.

Obviously there are huge technical flaws in what I've said. But it was just a thought...

Kamu-San

Apr 9, 2003, 09:05 AM

Yes, please. I tried to read the French article, but although I understand it mostly, I'm not able to make an accurate translation.

'scuse me, I seem to have some lag. This was supposed to be a response to maradong 8-)

richie

Apr 9, 2003, 09:07 AM

Translation:

Until now, the PPC 970 processors that have been made have been prototypes for testing purposes. Yesterday, Peter Sandon, the 'father' of the PPC 970 gave his green light. The PPC 970 is now considered bug-free and ready for production.

Starting the 15th of April, it will be made in series in IBM's factories. The procs will be integrated into IBM's Blade servers by the end of June, and of course, also into Apple's machines. One should note the similarity in dates between the release of IBM's machines, and WWDC. Knowing Apple, they've probably negotiated an exclusive announcement about the arrival of the PPC 970 several days in advance of this.

EDIT: Err.. the other translation hadn't gone up when I started this. Sorry :) I'll leave it up anyways..

Kamu-San

Apr 9, 2003, 09:09 AM

Punter, I think it has been discussed several times before ;) , but since the 970 runs the current PPC-code without modification, and an Intel chip won't, you probably see why moving to Intel would be problematic.

maradong

Apr 9, 2003, 09:14 AM

Please Lord :) Dont make apple use intel cpus. They need masses of cooling, they are slow compared to g4 s (relatively in4 mhz ).
If Apple starts using intel cpus. I think Apple can just as well stop immediatly producing pcs. If they are gonna use x86 cpus marklar will be released. Many people will think. hey thats the os i wanted all the time. And will buy a dell pc as it is the cheapest out there, and put Mac OS X on it. :( That s the end of Apple as a HardWare vendor.

tgrundke

Apr 9, 2003, 09:45 AM

Now, let's assume a best-case scenario and Apple *does* in fact release a 970 based PowerMacintosh. Hell, let's assume that Apple at this time revamps the entire product line so that the iBook is bumped to a G4 and the iMac gets a massive boost up to a 1.25 and 1.4ghz setup.

This having been said (and is potential, though the timeframe is most likely off), the problem will be PRICING.

Will Apple try to gouge the initial 970 based PowerMac buyers through price increases? Or, will Apple keep prices "as is"?

My belief is that Apple will have to keep prices "as is". Sales are stagnant right now and I feel strongly that it has nothing to do with "perceived value" (this is a phrase that has been thrown around Cupertino for years now and has led to the belief that if Apple crams more features into the computer such as DVD-Rs and higher quality LCDs and matierials, that people will buy more Macs). Unfortunately, the increasing commoditization of the industry combined with a fierce and bitter price war between some of the major players is forcing Apple into an increasingly uncomfortable corner.

The 970 has the potential to make Apple competitive in the price/performance ratio once more. The question is: will Apple use this as an opportunity to grab market share, or to boost profit margins?

mk_in_mke

Apr 9, 2003, 09:45 AM

Guys,

This is some good news and I am all excited about it... I have a ACD 22" + 2x 1Ghz PMac + 1.5 G RAM + 2 x 80 Go + FCP 3 + DVD SP 1.5 + PShop... All the bells and whistles... This works just fine and I am very happy... But gee, just to get the extra power, i would buy the dual Pmac + PPC 970!!!

This is getting outrageous: the more we have, the more we need... :D

Now, the wait is going to be a nightmare... This explains why Apple has delayed their WWDC...

Time to save some money (I will cut on the Sapphire and drink Gilbey's, I will cut on the caviar and have some salmon eggs, I will cut on my mistresses, nor more jewels, diamonds...)... Here I come Apple!!!

:D

Take care guys!!!

Michel

Macpoops

Apr 9, 2003, 09:46 AM

Didn't IBM say the Blade servers would ship Q3 this year? If the chips are going into production that would seem to be right.

Does anyone remember the bitching that Intel would be at 4.5-5 ghz by the time the 970 was released? Last time i checked the P4 was still at 3.06 with hyperthreading. Also their are rumors that they are stuck at that clockspeed or very close to it until they shrink their Fab to .09 um. Which isn't happening this year. So i guess all that bitching was for nothing.

QuiteSure

Apr 9, 2003, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by tgrundke
Now, let's assume a best-case scenario and Apple *does* in fact release a 970 based PowerMacintosh. Hell, let's assume that Apple at this time revamps the entire product line so that the iBook is bumped to a G4 and the iMac gets a massive boost up to a 1.25 and 1.4ghz setup.

***

The 970 has the potential to make Apple competitive in the price/performance ratio once more. The question is: will Apple use this as an opportunity to grab market share, or to boost profit margins?

1. Market share. If Apple sells these at a higher premium price, there will be much gnashing of teeth ...
2. No G4 in iBooks ever, please. I heard that G3 Saharas can go to 2mhz. Far preferable to the power sucking heat generating G4s in the iBooks.

springscansing

Apr 9, 2003, 10:14 AM

2COOL4SCHOOL

Apr 9, 2003, 10:20 AM

roy_g_biv

Apr 9, 2003, 10:28 AM

2. No G4 in iBooks ever, please. I heard that G3 Saharas can go to 2mhz. Far preferable to the power sucking heat generating G4s in the iBooks.

if this is true -- plus the common belief that sahara G3's are faster than the G4 at non-altivec tasks -- what's to stop IBM from slapping an altivec compatible vector unit on it, like they're doing with the 970, and calling it a G3+?

would motorola have issues with that? IBM obviously has the go ahead to use altivec on the 970's, and moto obviously isnt getting it done anymore. they've been scaling back their microprocessor developement and focusing on the embedded market... so whats to stop apple from dropping them completely?

has this already been asked?

QuiteSure

Apr 9, 2003, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by springscansing
Holy crap, 2mhz! That's twice my IIe man! Sweet!

LOL!

That's really fast!

Maybe even up to 2 GHZ

Continuing to LOL

idkew

Apr 9, 2003, 10:28 AM

time to start saving my cash. the 17" al must be less than 6 months away!!!!!

GPTurismo

Apr 9, 2003, 10:31 AM

Time to start saving my pennies!

BTW Intel = LOL :D

2COOL4SCHOOL

Apr 9, 2003, 10:31 AM

Kamu-San

Apr 9, 2003, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by tgrundke
The 970 has the potential to make Apple competitive in the price/performance ratio once more. The question is: will Apple use this as an opportunity to grab market share, or to boost profit margins?

Didn't one of Apple's execs says that Apple wants to increase it's market share to 5%?

Billy_ca

Apr 9, 2003, 10:43 AM

Cellllllll-A-Brate good times come on!

Da-na-na-na na na na-na!

copperpipe

Apr 9, 2003, 10:45 AM

Why is everyone saying september? Doesn't this all make sense that it will be one big June release with 10.3? That would be awesome, to release it all ready to rock and roll in one big swoosh. Sounds like steve's style to me!

Abstract

Apr 9, 2003, 10:49 AM

Altivec or not, I'm one of those people who thinks that Apple should drop Motorola regardless.

I don't know if they can add Altivec to a G3, but I don't really care either. If you stick a 1.5GHz G3 into an iBook, I'd buy one. Its only meant as Apple's cheap, lightweight machine anyway, so if I can't take advantage of Altivec, then no biggie. Plus, 1.5-1.8GHz would be blazing fast.

PretendPCuser

Apr 9, 2003, 10:53 AM

a new enclosure!! Aluminum would look sweet even if it were the same basic shape...

If there's going to be a 970 in the next PM, (all rumors seem to indicate it, so let's hop on the bandwagon)... I would think Apple could come up with a new marketing ploy....G5 doesn't really fit in terms of a new processor and new chip Manufacturer... If Apple is going to really put distance between themselves and Motorola I think a new name is in order. When I think of the powermac line "G" series, i think Motorola processor. I think many other people probably think this way as well, though i don't want to put words in anyone's mouth.

How about helping Apple out with some market research?

Arn: Could you do a poll to see how many people would like to see a new naming distinction for the 970?

2COOL4SCHOOL

Apr 9, 2003, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Kamu-San
Didn't one of Apple's execs says that Apple wants to increase it's market share to 5%?

Yea, I think so.

It seems like we pay a premium right now in price / performance and don't see it getting any worse than it has been the last few years (I am not an expert). Actualy in our present economy the price / performance will probably only get better.

mk_in_mke

Apr 9, 2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Kamu-San
Didn't one of Apple's execs says that Apple wants to increase it's market share to 5%?

Both I presume since the announcement would come in conjunction with the software announcements... If you rmember Apple is also having the new Products FCP, DVD, Shake coming around that time... In addition, and these are the rumors from this site, a new office suite would be on its way...

I would guess that Apple is enlarging their base of PRO consumers (Shake is no more on NT and Apple platform could do as well as IRIX platforms)

And increasing their profit (more customers --> more $$$)...

I guess the 970 is targeted first at PRO consumers for their most demanding apps...

MK

AllenPSU

Apr 9, 2003, 11:06 AM

It is impressive at how fast IBM has taken the Power 4 and made the PPC 970. With IBM's better production capability, I wonder what Motorola will have to compete with IBM. Their new low power G4 may hold a little ground but with the power consumption predictions on the 970, it may not last for long. Imagine what will happen if IBM can turn the Power 5 around as fast.

Sun Baked

Apr 9, 2003, 11:06 AM

Now I wonder how long it'll take IBM to begin delivery of the thousands of processors that Apple will need to begin full production of their new machines. Since Apple isn't the only one fighting for these things anymore. But that's a good thing. ;)

Still would like to see Motorola get their 7457-RM out the door quick, that would still make for a very competitive chip to the 970 in portables. Especially since the G4 is limited by bus constipation more than anything else.

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?postid=170612http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?postid=170612http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?postid=170612http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?postid=170612

cubist

Apr 9, 2003, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by QuiteSure
1. Market share. If Apple sells these at a higher premium price, there will be much gnashing of teeth ...
2. No G4 in iBooks ever, please. I heard that G3 Saharas can go to 2mhz. Far preferable to the power sucking heat generating G4s in the iBooks.

I'm glad you're sure. Me, I think - er - differently. I expect Apple to bring these machines out at a premium price, partly because they have huge R&D costs to cover. I don't think they'll price 'em at an eyeball-popping $5K, but $3K plus wouldn't surprise me. And I wouldn't hold my breath on delivery either.

The iBooks could go to the 7457 when it appears (if ever)... altho I'd prefer an all-970, all-the-same speed lineup with pro machines differentiated by dual CPUs.

dongmin

Apr 9, 2003, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by QuiteSure
2. No G4 in iBooks ever, please. I heard that G3 Saharas can go to 2mhz. Far preferable to the power sucking heat generating G4s in the iBooks.

If you're gonna make outrageous claims like that, please provide links. IBM has announced the 750fx at up to 1 ghz (with 200 mhz bus) but they haven't made public anything higher.

My guess is that Apple will keep the iBook on the G3 until they move the entire PowerBook line to the 970, which may not be until they move the 970 to a .09 process. The 970 dissipates 19 w at 1.2 ghz, which is great, but that number goes up to 43 w at 1.8 ghz, which is not great. I'm guessing that the 970 at its current design will be too hot for the PowerBooks beyond around 1.5 ghz. A possible time table: 1.2 ghz 970 PBs in late June; 1.5 ghz in Dec/Jan 2004; and 2.0 ghz 970 using a .09 process in summer 2004.

Even if this mythical 2 ghz G3 exists, don't get your hopes up about Apple maxing it out right away. The iBook's clockspeed will ALWAYS be lower than the PowerBooks, no matter what chip is in the PB. Simple marketing rule Apple has obeyed over the years

Mr. Anderson

Apr 9, 2003, 11:26 AM

Even though I'm really excited about this, I'm going to wait and see what Apple delivers. I'm pretty much desperate for a new machine at home, but I don't want to settle for a new 970 and only get marginal improvement over the dual G4s. And if they don't offer dual 970s at first I'm definitely waiting.

D :D

3G4N

Apr 9, 2003, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Billy_ca
Cellllllll-A-Brate good times come on!

Da-na-na-na na na na-na!

is that porn music?

'cause the 970 is sexeay!

Rincewind42

Apr 9, 2003, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by dongmin
My guess is that Apple will keep the iBook on the G3 until they move the entire PowerBook line to the 970, which may not be until they move the 970 to a .09 process. The 970 dissipates 19 w at 1.2 ghz, which is great, but that number goes up to 43 w at 1.8 ghz, which is not great. I'm guessing that the 970 at its current design will be too hot for the PowerBooks beyond around 1.5 ghz. A possible time table: 1.2 ghz 970 PBs in late June; 1.5 ghz in Dec/Jan 2004; and 2.0 ghz 970 using a .09 process in summer 2004.

There is a significant difference between the 1.2 Ghz part and the 1.8 Ghz part that many people have either glossed over, or don't know: Core Voltage. The 1.2 part runs at 1.1v, while the 1.8 runs at 1.3v. Why does this matter? First, higher core voltages allow for higher clockspeeds and core voltage is a squared term in the power equation. What this means is that if IBM could come up with a 1.1v version of the 1.8 Ghz part, it would run at a much cooler 30ish watts rather than 42. Unfortunately, this may require a process shrink (as I'm sure IBM would have already tried to see how high they can crank up the 1.1v product). But hey, a process shrink is in everyones best interest anyway, so we know that's gonna happen :).

j33pd0g

Apr 9, 2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by dukestreet
Even though I'm really excited about this, I'm going to wait and see what Apple delivers. I'm pretty much desperate for a new machine at home, but I don't want to settle for a new 970 and only get marginal improvement over the dual G4s. And if they don't offer dual 970s at first I'm definitely waiting.

D :D

I agree. And I am really excited too! Plus I got burned with rushing out to get the first g4s when they came out (I got the "350 Yikes") and then they discontinued that like 3 months later and started with the AGP motherboards. If these rumors are true I think I'll wait to buy a 970 mac until they have been well tested by the mac community. For now I'll settle for a dual 1.25 and I will like it.

On a side note: My "Yikes" has lasted 4 years and is still running like a top. My friend has gone through 3 peecees in that time frame.:D

bigdog

Apr 9, 2003, 11:54 AM

Well, if you ask anyone who pre-ordered G4/500 from Apple at the time, it really was months away.

Apple said they could deliver, because Motorola jumped the timeline and said the G4 was ready. It ended up not being ready in stable quantities and Apple was left with these pre-orders for 400-500MHz machines and had to knock them down to 350-450MHz machines. Not good.

Originally posted by rog
While I hope this is all true, when was the last time a rumor site got something this big right many months ahead of time. I remember when the G4 came out in 8-99 that it took many people by surprise because everyone thought it was months away and were only expecting a speedbump for the B&W towers. Also, there were even more reports like this about the impending G5 back in late 2001, that were supposedly coming any day and we all know what happened with that hope.

pgwalsh

Apr 9, 2003, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Abstract
Altivec or not, I'm one of those people who thinks that Apple should drop Motorola regardless.

I don't know if they can add Altivec to a G3, but I don't really care either. If you stick a 1.5GHz G3 into an iBook, I'd buy one. Its only meant as Apple's cheap, lightweight machine anyway, so if I can't take advantage of Altivec, then no biggie. Plus, 1.5-1.8GHz would be blazing fast. I'm with you on this one....

I don't think Apple will ever lower it's prices to compete with the PC Market. I don't think they consider themselves as part of that market. They're nose is up in the air. I believe Steve prides himself on being able to sell machines for higher margins than any of his competitors. My understand is Apple makes 40% to 50% margins on the PowerMacs. I believe the rest of the industry is making 10% to 15%.

If they lowered the prices they'd gain a larger market share, but I think it would drive Steve mad. So they sell fewer machines to make higher margins as apposed to many machines with lower margins. But no one can gurantee an increase in market share, so lowering the prices could be a problem.

IMO Apple will release 970 machines asap. PM sales have been slow in the past couple of years. I don't think the machines are selling well right now, but I don't know.

ultrafiel

Apr 9, 2003, 11:55 AM

Ok, I've been thinking about the 970 lately, and have noticed some observations of non-mac people. First off when ever I hear someone talk about a Mac or ask me what I have (not power users), they always say G4. Just G4! They don't say oh, you have a dual a 1 Ghz Quicksilver, or a 400 Mhz AGP, it is just G4. They percieve it to be fast, and don't know the fine details. Whereas for a Pentium 4 they always have to add the clock speed. Therefore Apple has done ok with marking the G4 to the general public. If fact I've asked people specifics on their macs and they don't have a clue, then I ask the color Blue/silver/mirror door, and they still seem clueless. Anyway, about the 970 naming it G5 would be ok, but I think they should figure something else to name it. They should also market it it like crazy, because this could easily be the best selling mac ever. I plan on buying one, maybe not right away, but this year, or early next. If Apple doesn't go 970, they will kill themselves. If they go Intel they will still sell machines higher, and people won't see a difference in getting the same chip from Dell except for price. If they stay with the G4 they will continue to stagnate. It has to be the 970 or bust. I expect xServes and Towers to get them first obviously.

Awimoway

Apr 9, 2003, 12:13 PM

phampton81

Apr 9, 2003, 12:18 PM

Can someone confirm these 40-50% margin statements? I am curious as to the validity of this.

BenRoethig

Apr 9, 2003, 12:19 PM

macphoria

Apr 9, 2003, 12:25 PM

It is true, if G3 can get its processor speed into Ghz range, I think it will go toe to toe with earlier G4's. This could be the way to go unless IBM implements their own SIMD into future G3.

But of course, advanced G3 will not be in people's mind once G5/IBM 970 comes out later this year. I can't wait to see the performance on IBM 970 equipped Power Mac and how Panther will run. I expect some good things happening with Macs this year.

Unless, of course, IBM 970 equipped Mac gets pushed till next year. Then I imagine this board will be showered with angry and disappointed posts.

pgwalsh

Apr 9, 2003, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Awimoway
My initial reaction is that as Apple becomes, increasingly, a software company, lowering hardware prices and expanding the customer base would be a good move. But 40-50%! That's hard to make up with current software offerings. Not everyone does pro-level video editing after all. Well, Apple certainly is a software company... Most of the hardware (not sure about the chipset) is produced by third parties and then Apple makes it look good. However, if you're making those kinds of margins on Hardware, that would be hard to let go of. However, I think the OS stands on it's own. Same with the iLife software.

Apple can get the pro market, but not the game enthusiast market. The 970 will appeal in the low end server market and pro market. Gamers will never go Apple because they can't tweak the systems. However, if third parties could produce Apple compatible systems then people could tweak their systems and that could change the market.

I know a few developers that would switch, but they don't like the price/performance ratio. A lot of these developers want a cheap, but fairly fast machine. I think many people want this. It's something Apple doesn't offer.

mcs37

Apr 9, 2003, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by bikertwin
So does this mean that, come September, we'll all be in heaven?

--970 Hardware
--Panther OS X 10.3
--Final Cut Pro 4
--DVD Studio Pro 2

I can't wait! :D I am still hoping for a dual 970 17" PowerBook. I refuse to believe Apple will not release a dual 970 17" PB this January. They have plenty of area to spare inside that massive laptop. Just imagine the insane power of a 17" PB, dual 970 @ 1.5 GHz, 1 GB RAM, USB 2.0, SuperDrive, Airport Extreme.... mmmmm I'm drooling already.

I still hope for a built-in HDTV tuner. :) But I know that's a long shot, as is the booze-powered fuel cell to power it for 10+ hours.

Mr. Anderson

Apr 9, 2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by j33pd0g
I agree. And I am really excited too! Plus I got burned with rushing out to get the first g4s when they came out (I got the "350 Yikes") and then they discontinued that like 3 months later and started with the AGP motherboards. If these rumors are true I think I'll wait to buy a 970 mac until they have been well tested by the mac community. For now I'll settle for a dual 1.25 and I will like it.

On a side note: My "Yikes" has lasted 4 years and is still running like a top. My friend has gone through 3 peecees in that time frame.:D

Ha, I got the 450 Sawtooth, first day they came out! Wasn't too disappointed, but a dual processor would have been better. And there was that whole fiasco of Apple's not delivering the first orders, cancelling all outstanding orders, asking for more money and then capitulating.....what a nightmare that was. I hope it doens't happen again.

D

minux

Apr 9, 2003, 12:42 PM

Ok, these are my predictions based on the information, and speculation I have received or concluded upon:

Apple has never put in a new CPU into a portable for at least six months, let alone ship it in less then six months.

Also, the 970 in its current state, is not for portables, in no shape or form.

The G4 has MUCH life in it, specifically when personal computing is concerned. It is more expensive then the G3, but when iApps are concerned it really shows why Altivec is important, and why the increased memory performance matters. Apple's new cooling process for the G4 shows much promise in terms of portable computing. It shows enough promise for Apple to beginning designing and testing dual processor motherboards in the Portables. If any such design were to be implemented it would start with Apple's brainchild laptop the PB 15", then make its way to the other portables. If dual CPUs are released they will not be available until the Spring of next year.

Do not be surprised to see the G5 go only into a high level PM in its initial run. Additionally, do not be surprised to see the low end PM sporting a G4 for some time to come. The IBM's production can not match the demand for the G5, nor can the price tag of the G5 find its way into many consumers pockets.

The G3 has MUCH life in it, specifically, with Education. It is cheap, verbose, and rather quick. The iBook is Apple's best selling portable EVER, and for good reason. Apple will be using the G3 in the iBook for at least another one and a half years. Do not expect the iBook to switch processors until the Winter of next year. Though the Summer of next year is when Apple will have working prototypes of either a new form of the G3, using another embedded processor, or using the new G4 low heat consumption CPUs. The iBook will see moderate performance upgrades before it goes to a new CPU, a better video card, AP Ex, blue tooth, ect. The last G3 based versions of the iBook will be running at about 1.5ghz.

Do not even begin to believe you will see the G5 in a portable for a while to come.

The 970 will not begin shipping until the fall of this year at earliest. With the announcement there will be many other annoucenments to follow, AGP 8X, a faster PCI bus, faster ram, ect. Though AGP 8X is not to be expected until the next revision of the PM after it switches CPUs, due to the added price, the higher demand on the bus of the system, and some glitches with older AGP cards (not too much of a concern for Apple though).

OSXver.64bit is not ready for any release, currently it is much worse then 10.0.1 was. It is able to run, but then again, so was 10.0.1. Apple engineers are working around the clock, but the beta must become a Gold version before any release of a new OS is available to the public. Specifically, since Pro users do not want to dick around with a new 3k and up machine just to get it to boot.

Mike

pgwalsh

Apr 9, 2003, 12:47 PM

Nice post Mike...

I'm thinking the 970 comes with a new look. Can't imagine it taking on the look of the Xserve. There's already PC boxes with that look. Any ideas?

Rufus

Apr 9, 2003, 12:54 PM

Typical margins for Apple are more like 28% on towers. The iMac was tighter than that for a long time, but I'm sure thats relaxed somewhat.

Margins for typical PC companies aren't really that far from that number. By typical, I mean HP, Dell or IBM. Gateway runs tighter than that, but they're also in pretty bad trouble. eMachines and the like have very small margins, but they also have very little research and development costs.

Where Apple can not compete whatsoever is against home built PCs. I built a very high end (at the time, one year ago) PC for $1200. I still consider my Mac to be a far better experience per dollar spent. I don't think any of us want Apple to be competing in that market.

The computer industry in general is not a fun place to be. Margins are far, far tighter than almost any other retail business (except gasoline). I worked in a grocery as a teenager and couldn't believe that their typical markup over the wholesale cost (including delivery) was 100%.

porovaara

Apr 9, 2003, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by phampton81
Can someone confirm these 40-50% margin statements? I am curious as to the validity of this.

Apple had a 28% margin accross the board last year. iPods had by far the highest margin of any apple product, so i would expect powermac margins to be in the 21-23% range.

Macpoops

Apr 9, 2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by minux
Ok, these are my predictions based on the information, and speculation I have received or concluded upon:

Apple has never put in a new CPU into a portable for at least six months, let alone ship it in less then six months.

Also, the 970 in its current state, is not for portables, in no shape or form.

The G4 has MUCH life in it, specifically when personal computing is concerned. It is more expensive then the G3, but when iApps are concerned it really shows why Altivec is important, and why the increased memory performance matters. Apple's new cooling process for the G4 shows much promise in terms of portable computing. It shows enough promise for Apple to beginning designing and testing dual processor motherboards in the Portables. If any such design were to be implemented it would start with Apple's brainchild laptop the PB 15", then make its way to the other portables. If dual CPUs are released they will not be available until the Spring of next year.

Do not be surprised to see the G5 go only into a high level PM in its initial run. Additionally, do not be surprised to see the low end PM sporting a G4 for some time to come. The IBM's production can not match the demand for the G5, nor can the price tag of the G5 find its way into many consumers pockets.

The G3 has MUCH life in it, specifically, with Education. It is cheap, verbose, and rather quick. The iBook is Apple's best selling portable EVER, and for good reason. Apple will be using the G3 in the iBook for at least another one and a half years. Do not expect the iBook to switch processors until the Winter of next year. Though the Summer of next year is when Apple will have working prototypes of either a new form of the G3, using another embedded processor, or using the new G4 low heat consumption CPUs. The iBook will see moderate performance upgrades before it goes to a new CPU, a better video card, AP Ex, blue tooth, ect. The last G3 based versions of the iBook will be running at about 1.5ghz.

Do not even begin to believe you will see the G5 in a portable for a while to come.

The 970 will not begin shipping until the fall of this year at earliest. With the announcement there will be many other annoucenments to follow, AGP 8X, a faster PCI bus, faster ram, ect. Though AGP 8X is not to be expected until the next revision of the PM after it switches CPUs, due to the added price, the higher demand on the bus of the system, and some glitches with older AGP cards (not too much of a concern for Apple though).

OSXver.64bit is not ready for any release, currently it is much worse then 10.0.1 was. It is able to run, but then again, so was 10.0.1. Apple engineers are working around the clock, but the beta must become a Gold version before any release of a new OS is available to the public. Specifically, since Pro users do not want to dick around with a new 3k and up machine just to get it to boot.

Mike

You have a few flaws in your arguement. Number 1. Apple HAS released a new processor in both desktop and Laptop. A few Processors that were released for a laptop were simultaniously released in a Desktop. Check your facts. Just for re-enforcement

August 1996- 603e Introduced in PM 5300 LC and PB5300 series
November 1997- Both Powermac g3 and Powerbook g3 introduced.

Number 2. How is the 970 in its current state, is not for portables, in no shape or form?
At the same speed as the current laptop g4s it consumes half as much power and gives off dramatically less heat. But i guess that means it is not ready for mobile release. Considering it is already more suited to the mobile platform then the G4 is.

Number 3. OS X was written as 64 bit clean. Which means all that would be required to make use of the 64 bit processor would be a simple recompile. NOT a complete rewrite of the OS.

This is not the windows/intel world. The same rules do not apply. It does not take another 6 months to ready a RISC processor for mobile use. And it does not take an entire rewrite of an OS to take advantage of 64 bit. Why? Cause Apple programmers used forthought when the designed OS X, because it was seen as the OS for the next 10 years. Programers saw their faults in the original design and adjusted the new design to prevent those faults and allow for easy Transition to new technology. This was unheard of in the early years of computing. no one knew how the industry would develop and how fast it would evolve. The industry has learned that taking sort cuts and not planning for the possible introduction can be disaterous. Look at the Y2K bug. That was all based on a programmer taking a shortcut and it could have literally been the end of the world.

iSmell

Apr 9, 2003, 01:07 PM

The rumor of G3s running at 2GHz at IBM is false. It started in another discussion board, I think on this website, in what seems to be a simple typo or misreading by a poster. People read the post, got excited, then didn't read follow ups where the original poster pointed out his own mistake and somebody linked to a page at IBM with specs for the Sahara.

The G3 may have life, but it's not running at 2GHz right now.

my two cents

pgwalsh

Apr 9, 2003, 01:09 PM

I got my 40% to 50% figures from a director at Apple. Could be wrong, but that's what was said for the PowerMacs.

Also your 23% could be the average for all products. I heard the margins on the iBook were very small.

Datazoid

Apr 9, 2003, 01:09 PM

I just have one question about this article.....who the f*@! would vote negative on this??? Just clicking to be contrary? Negative on everything? Is your life that terrible??????? Enlighten me....what about this news is NEGATIVE?????

7 Negatives currently....outrageous....

OK....calming down now...

nagromme

Apr 9, 2003, 01:09 PM

IF these rumors are true, I'd expect low clock speeds yo be the ones that come early--and then hitting 1.8 MHz in the fall as always expected. Which is fine, especially with dual and quad CPUs. AND it might make 970 portables hit this year! I hate to dream, but...

Can anyone confirm whether I'm crazy about something? I swear that when the G4 came out, all rumors and reports were talking about major delays and the G4 being bumped to the following YEAR. Doom and gloom on all fronts. Than Apple shipped a new G4 tower in quantity against all predictions, containing a chip that, by the rumors, wasn't even CLOSE to being manufactured yet. Am I wrong? Is that what happened?

(Here's a thought--hypothetical IBM G3+AltiVec chip branded as G5 for Apple's low-end this fall... 970 branded as G7 or G70 for the high-end.)

blueflame

Apr 9, 2003, 01:23 PM

I know that if Apple released 970 processors in their powerboks anytime soom, there is going to be alot of pissed off 17 inch owners who are barely getting theirs now. I am one of them, if they make everyhting new, right when i get mine, im not going to be happy, true, it would be good for apple, but stil...
Andreas

GeneR

Apr 9, 2003, 01:30 PM

I'm going to reserve judgment until I see it and what it can actually do (i.e. what's its speed relative to the G4, what its MHz/GHz will be, etc.) I'm so tired of waiting I'm a little beyond hopeful at this stage of the game. :mad:

But I hope it's true nonetheless... :D

zigi

Apr 9, 2003, 01:45 PM

With IBM driving the development of the 970 for themselves ? and their Blades as much for anyone else (Apple), we should see a much faster development cycle. The dev cycle of the G4 was poor, and Moto didn't seem interested in accelerating or even trying to help Apple at all. At least with IBM using the processors in their own products we should see Apple reap the benefits of using a new non-exclusive chip from one of the big two/three manufacturers. This can only be a good thing. Here's hopin'!!

pgwalsh

Apr 9, 2003, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by zigi
With IBM driving the development of the 970 for themselves ? and their Blades as much for anyone else (Apple), we should see a much faster development cycle. The dev cycle of the G4 was poor, and Moto didn't seem interested in accelerating or even trying to help Apple at all. At least with IBM using the processors in their own products we should see Apple reap the benefits of using a new non-exclusive chip from one of the big two/three manufacturers. This can only be a good thing. Here's hopin'!! There a lot of competition for the low end server market between Dell, IBM, and Sun. This is good for Apple because they will benefit from this competition. Right now I believe Dell is the performance/cost price leader, then IBM and last Sun (Apple wasn't represented in the Forbes article). IBM has incentive because there's stiff competition and it's a growing market. However, I believe the servers that are competitive are running x86, but I'm not sure. If the PPC 970/Linux solution is good then this will reflect well for Apples' future. I wonder if Apple would ever let IBM sell OS X Server through IBM. That would make things interesting.

DGFan

Apr 9, 2003, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by minux

Also, the 970 in its current state, is not for portables, in no shape or form.

The G4 has MUCH life in it, specifically when personal computing is concerned.

I disagree. At 1.2Ghz and cooler (not to mention faster) than a 1GHz G4 it would be a dream in a laptop.

Not to mention that I refuse to buy a PB until they get the heat problem solved. A cooler CPU would go a long way toward helping that. From reading reviews and customer opinions it seems that I am not the only one who feels this way.

ffakr

Apr 9, 2003, 02:12 PM

Apple should mimic the current setups... single/dual/dual, and cut prices... even if ever so slightly.

Even if profits were razor thin, they sell boat loads of the things. They could come out and say... 'not only are we shipping the fastest desktops in the world, but we are doing it for less than ever before'. It would be a PR coup of amazing proportions. Smack down the 'cost' critics and the 'performance' critics at the same time.

This would also cause a big jump in back end profits...
New towers would lead to increased market share... increased market share would lead to increased sales of Other apple products and services. Even if they lost $10 on every G4 tower, they'd sell more peripherals, more software (especially the pricy 'Pro' apps), and they sell more OS upgrades down the road. Hell, a few of the tower owners might even buy into .Mac. :p

zigi

Apr 9, 2003, 02:18 PM

DharvaBinky

Apr 9, 2003, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by roy_g_biv
if this is true -- plus the common belief that sahara G3's are faster than the G4 at non-altivec tasks -- what's to stop IBM from slapping an altivec compatible vector unit on it, like they're doing with the 970, and calling it a G3+?

would motorola have issues with that? IBM obviously has the go ahead to use altivec on the 970's, and moto obviously isnt getting it done anymore. they've been scaling back their microprocessor developement and focusing on the embedded market... so whats to stop apple from dropping them completely?

has this already been asked?

Actually, I speculated on the possibility of a pumped up G3 processor by IBM which could be numbered as the IBM PPC 8xx Series here:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22170

To sum up, if you look at IBM roadmaps, they clearly show dropping a vector processor and rapidIO into the G3 line in the near future. Interestingly, also, is that the G3 is the 750fx, and the 970 is coming soon... shall we have an 860 to carry our imacs and ibooks?

:)

Dharvabinky

Silencio

Apr 9, 2003, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by pgwalsh
There a lot of competition for the low end server market between Dell, IBM, and Sun. This is good for Apple because they will benefit from this competition. Right now I believe Dell is the performance/cost price leader, then IBM and last Sun (Apple wasn't represented in the Forbes article). IBM has incentive because there's stiff competition and it's a growing market. However, I believe the servers that are competitive are running x86, but I'm not sure. If the PPC 970/Linux solution is good then this will reflect well for Apples' future. I wonder if Apple would ever let IBM sell OS X Server through IBM. That would make things interesting.

Following the news of IBM's CPU development from the Power4 onwards and their push into Linux, I was always intrigued by the thought of them licensing OS X for heavy duty workstations or servers whose applications fall outside of Apple's market focus. Could be a really intriguing synergy, so long as Apple learns from its mistakes with Motorola. Don't want to bite the hand that feeds you (CPUs) a second time!

Also, bear in mind that IBM is planning on licensing the PPC970 to other companies. I'm not sure what kinds of systems/devices they might be used in, but that points to IBM wanting to manufacture and sell a lot of them, driving economies of scale that will help lead to lower prices for Apple (and us, please?).

I'm very optimistic about IBM's efforts with the Power family. For one, their fab facilities and expertise blow Moto out of the water. Moto could design a great chip, but they got horrible yields. IBM has a state of the art plant in Fishkill and they want to keep it busy. Second, their team has got a serious attitude about the 64-bit market: their comments about wanting to "bury Intel" put a smile on my face. I think they're big enough and good enough to pull it off.

And even if the 970 bows later this year at "only" 1.8GHz, I will be satisfied because it will put Apple back in the performance race and give them a chip with much more upside.

os4

Apr 9, 2003, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by phampton81
Can someone confirm these 40-50% margin statements? I am curious as to the validity of this.

Apple's 10k for 2001 states a gross margin of 30% across the line. The pro machines probably command a higher margin, but 40-50% is probably a little ambitious. Also, remember that gross margin usually only includes costs that DIRECTLY contribute to the manufacture and sale of the machine itself. It does not necessarily include SGA and software development (including the OS).

Apple does enjoy a far higher margin than Intel-based PC manufacturers. Much of that is b/c of their vertical integration of OS, hardware, sales, software, which adds certain costs that those companies do not shoulder and don't show up on a gross margin total line.

mstecker

Apr 9, 2003, 02:40 PM

Now I'll have something really useful to spend those unemployment checks on!

suzerain

Apr 9, 2003, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Datazoid
I just have one question about this article.....who the f*@! would vote negative on this??? Just clicking to be contrary? Negative on everything? Is your life that terrible??????? Enlighten me....what about this news is NEGATIVE?????

LOL...well, they *could* release 970s TOMORROW.

I think we can all agree that would be a better rumor...

gwangung

Apr 9, 2003, 02:46 PM

Remember, those margins also include SOFTWARE margins, which (if they're anything like other software companies) are in the 40-50% range.

Talking about slashing margins is a non-starter; you're thinking that a Mac is a commodity product, when it really isn't.

Margins of 30-50% are about right, they're not overly high (not when MOST manufacturing is at 20-30%), and they're being brought up a tad by the software offerings from Apple.

macrumors12345

Apr 9, 2003, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Macpoops

Number 2. How is the 970 in its current state, is not for portables, in no shape or form?
At the same speed as the current laptop g4s it consumes half as much power and gives off dramatically less heat.

WHAT are you talking about? Do you even bother to attempt to check your facts before you make such statements? I'm sorry, but in this day and age, with information so easily accessible on the Internet, there is really no excuse for making such blatantly misinformed statements and trying to pass them off as "facts".

130 nm PPC 970 at 1.2 Ghz: 19 watts
180 nm MPC 7455 at 1067 Mhz: 15 watts
130 nm MPC 7457 at 1067 Mhz: 7.5 watts

The "current laptop G4" runs at 1 Ghz, so it should dissipate 14 watts or less. So, according to your special math, 19/14 < 0.5!

You can check the facts yourself:

http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/A1387A29AC1C2AE087256C5200611780/$file/PPC970_MPF2002.pdf

http://e-www.motorola.com/brdata/PDFDB/docs/PPCSALESFACT.pdf

Frobozz

Apr 9, 2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by punter
To tell the truth I would prefer if Apple went intel or whatever. Then there would be no more mhz race, we'd always have the market standard at mass produced prices.

Well, if you see that as an advantage, then I guess so. But for me, I see that as a major disadvantage. Let's take a look at what the PPC gives Apple that an x86 architecture won't:

-- 970 ready today, 980 coming, 990 on paper
-- 9x0 PPC is made by IBM, who CAN keep their production promises
-- 970 roadmaps to 3.5 GHz, 980 debuts at 3.0 and scales in early 2005.
-- 970 is 2x-3x faster per clock than a G4
-- 980 is 2x faster than a 970 per clock, which is 4x to 6x faster than a G4 per clock.
-- Lower heat dissipation and lower power requirements mean they can be used in portables without having to chop performance
-- In June, when announced, the 970 Mac will no longer be behind the intel world in speed, and IBM will be able to keep pace. Eventually, they will be far beyond Intel.

This is going to be the best year since 1984 for the Mac. I have no doubt. Apple is making (almost) all the right moves. The only piece of the equation they are missing is raw speed to compensate for sub-par programming... they're getting that soon.

Frobozz

Apr 9, 2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by macrumors12345
WHAT are you talking about? Do you even bother to attempt to check your facts before you make such statements? I'm sorry, but in this day and age, with information so easily accessible on the Internet, there is really no excuse for making such blatantly misinformed statements and trying to pass them off as "facts".

From what I've read, the 1 GHz G4 currently used sucks down 30 watts. The 970 will only use about 10 watts at 1.0 to 1.2 GHz.

macrumors12345

Apr 9, 2003, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by pgwalsh
I'm with you on this one....

I don't think Apple will ever lower it's prices to compete with the PC Market. I don't think they consider themselves as part of that market. They're nose is up in the air. I believe Steve prides himself on being able to sell machines for higher margins than any of his competitors. My understand is Apple makes 40% to 50% margins on the PowerMacs. I believe the rest of the industry is making 10% to 15%.

I doubt that the margins are as high as 40-50%, but as high as 30% for the Pro machines is conceivable. But that is not really the point. Apple doesn't keep the margins high because they "don't like to sell too many machines," as you are implying. They keep them high because they have to defray the costs of developing their own OS! That is why they are NOT making a profit at the moment, despite these margins (if they are overcharging you so badly, then why aren't they making any money??). Now, if they expand marketshare, then they could allocate the cost of developing OS X over more units, and thus sustain themselves on lower margins. But they it's not as if they can just slash prices and magically gain a ton of marketshare overnight and everything will work out fine. If they do that, they will likely go out of business. So they need to be smart about it, and they need to be careful about it, and they need to look for the right opportunities.

I, for one, hope and think that the PPC 970 machines will be a bit more expensive than the current crop of G4s, but not much more (maybe only 10-15% more at each "grade"). And of course Apple will sell a ton more of them because they'll be so much faster, so Apple's bottom line will definitely benefit. The machines will probably still be somewhat more expensive than the "equivalent" HP or Dell or Gateway towers, but I think they'll still be much better values because now both the software AND the hardware will be superior. So I will happily buy one, if and when they are released (as long as they have dual-channel DDR!).

MrMacMan

Apr 9, 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by suzerain
LOL...well, they *could* release 970s TOMORROW.

I think we can all agree that would be a better rumor...

Some people are like "PowerMacs Updated 600 MHZ faster and $1000 cheaper" and they will still vote negative, I don't get it.

Go mass production! We need these chips, Hell yeah bring them on!

pgwalsh

Apr 9, 2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by macrumors12345
Apple doesn't keep the margins high because they "don't like to sell too many machines," as you are implying. They keep them high because they have to defray the costs of developing their own OS! That is why they are NOT making a profit at the moment, despite these margins (if they are overcharging you so badly, then why aren't they making any money??). That's not what I was implying, but that's how you read it. I'm referring to the fact that if you don't sell many units you nead to raise your prices to stay profitable. As you said, if they can sell more units they can spread the cost. So, tell me how they can sell more units amd lower the margins? If they could they would, but they can't and haven't. Whatever gave you the idea that I thought Apple kept margins hight so they couldn't expand market share? That's not at all what I was saying or thinking. :cool:

If they could sell more units they would in a heartbeat, but there's no way to gurantee they can, so they have to be conservative and keep prices higher to make up the costs as you suggested.

But if you can tell me how Apple can increase market share and sell more units then please do.... :rolleyes:

minux

Apr 9, 2003, 03:32 PM

August 1996- 603e Introduced in PM 5300 LC and PB5300 series
November 1997- Both Powermac g3 and Powerbook g3 introduced.

>Both CPUs you speak of were the "Lite" versions of their father desktop CPU. No "Lite" version of the G5 is available. Though, IBM is working on one. But, it will not be ready until the Winter of next year.

Number 2. How is the 970 in its current state, is not for portables, in no shape or form?
At the same speed as the current laptop g4s it consumes half as much power and gives off dramatically less heat. But i guess that means it is not ready for mobile release. Considering it is already more suited to the mobile platform then the G4 is.

>The G5 sucks a lot more power then the G4, not to mention the problems with the heat displacement of the G5. If Apple was going to release a G5 notebook tomorrow you would be rubbing ointment on your lap for a month.

Number 3. OS X was written as 64 bit clean. Which means all that would be required to make use of the 64 bit processor would be a simple recompile. NOT a complete rewrite of the OS.

>OSXver.64bit was recompiled for the G5. In no way shape or form is Apple able to release the 64 bit version of their OS (hint hint, that's the way the developers cry).

>Mike

Kid Red

Apr 9, 2003, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by dongmin
If you're gonna make outrageous claims like that, please provide links. IBM has announced the 750fx at up to 1 ghz (with 200 mhz bus) but they haven't made public anything higher.

My guess is that Apple will keep the iBook on the G3 until they move the entire PowerBook line to the 970, which may not be until they move the 970 to a .09 process. The 970 dissipates 19 w at 1.2 ghz, which is great, but that number goes up to 43 w at 1.8 ghz, which is not great. I'm guessing that the 970 at its current design will be too hot for the PowerBooks beyond around 1.5 ghz. A possible time table: 1.2 ghz 970 PBs in late June; 1.5 ghz in Dec/Jan 2004; and 2.0 ghz 970 using a .09 process in summer 2004.

Even if this mythical 2 ghz G3 exists, don't get your hopes up about Apple maxing it out right away. The iBook's clockspeed will ALWAYS be lower than the PowerBooks, no matter what chip is in the PB. Simple marketing rule Apple has obeyed over the years

After Apple puts these new chips to use, next up in the PowerPC 750fx line is a chip code-named "GOBI," which will boast even higher speeds. While the chip line has been publicly announced as high as speeds of 1 GHz, the GOBI chips will clearly exceed that.

and..
Mojave, which will start at 1.6 GHz, will be based on a 0.10-nanometer process and feature dynamic voltage and frequency scaling. As a result, this bantamweight will be able to run at its base speed at 1.2 V and eat up only a Callista Flockhart-size 10 W.

But what of the eagerly awaited PowerPC 970, a k a GPUL? After a year or so of production (at speeds of up to 1.8 GHz), IBM plans to pop out a 970+, which should include a few niceties that will bring it to 2.5 GHz. While much remains obscured beneath the burning sands, there is an undefined ?Next Generation? chip - and it?s not based on the GPUL but the Power5 successor to IBM?s current server silicon. Haha te whenua, haha te tangata!

Rincewind42

Apr 9, 2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Macpoops
Number 3. OS X was written as 64 bit clean. Which means all that would be required to make use of the 64 bit processor would be a simple recompile. NOT a complete rewrite of the OS.

I agreed with most of your post, but here you aren't entirely correct. You are correct in that OS X is 64-bit clean, and would probably only require a recompile (for the most part) to run cleanly on a 64-bit processor. However, this is not the only concern. You will want the OS to take advantage of 64-bits, but unless they have been really good, just recompiling will only get you as far as running, not necessarily bug free. Additionally, that still only gets the OS on a 64-bit processor. You still have to build APIs for developers to use to develop 64-bit apps and tools to create 64-bit apps. These concerns may have already been handled, but without actual 64-bit hardware to run on these capabilities are only a little better than being only on paper.

minux

Apr 9, 2003, 03:42 PM

Rince you bring up a good point. All “compile” means is the software is able to run, which is not even half of the battle. Apple needs to worry about optimization, something that took Apple over three years to do for the G4.. Now as any programmer would no just because you can get your software to run does not mean it is running in its entirety. There are laundry lists of bugs in the 64 bit version of X.

Mike

Rincewind42

Apr 9, 2003, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by macrumors12345
130 nm PPC 970 at 1.2 Ghz: 19 watts
180 nm MPC 7455 at 1067 Mhz: 15 watts
130 nm MPC 7457 at 1067 Mhz: 7.5 watts

I've seen you post these numbers before, and while I believe that you believe these numbers, I fear that the PDF you show doesn't tell the entire story. In fact, we know this because it doesn't mention 1.25 or 1.42 Ghz G4s at all, yet we know that they exist since Apple is using them.

I fear that the power estimates that you keep quoting are for 1.1 volt G4s. If this is true, then we need to know the voltage that Apple is supplying the G4s in their PowerBooks to really give a comparison. It seems logical that they would use the lowest power G4s, but motherboard architecture (which hasn't changed greatly since the original PowerBook G4) may not support the 1.1v part. If this is true, then the 1Ghz 7455 part will consume about 20 watts, not 15. And if it is worse than that and it only supports the 1.6v part, then your talking 30 watts. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't document the electrical requirements of their motherboards in that detail, so I cannot tell you what the truth is in relation to Apple's products.

What I can tell you is that the PPC 970 is estimated to be 19 watts at 1.2 Ghz. We won't really know how much power it consumes until it is released. But compared to the current G4 at 1Ghz the 1.1v 970 @1Ghz should use about 17 watts. True, this is over twice what the 7457 is estimated to use at 1.1v, but given that the 970 is also estimated to be about twice as fast as the 7455 (which the 7457 doesn't claim) I think that I would trade the power use for the speed, and I think that a lot of other people on the board and off would also.

We also trust IBM to be able to fabricate the 970 more reliably and sooner than Motorola can fabricate the 7457. But all of this is based on rumors, thus we really don't know if Apple will go with IBM's 970 or Motorola's 7457. But we do know that Apple has been burned over the last 3 years, many times, by promises that Motorola just couldn't deliver.

Haberdasher

Apr 9, 2003, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by copperpipe
Why is everyone saying september? Doesn't this all make sense that it will be one big June release with 10.3? That would be awesome, to release it all ready to rock and roll in one big swoosh. Sounds like steve's style to me!

Like FCP4, they may ANNOUNCE it in June, but the release would be september for flat-out production. Make more sense too, giving enough lead time, not too much to crush G4 sales, and coincide like you said with other releases.

Sounds good to me. :D

Rincewind42

Apr 9, 2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by minux
Both CPUs you speak of were the "Lite" versions of their father desktop CPU. No "Lite" version of the G5 is available. Though, IBM is working on one. But, it will not be ready until the Winter of next year.

The G5 sucks a lot more power then the G4, not to mention the problems with the heat displacement of the G5. If Apple was going to release a G5 notebook tomorrow you would be rubbing ointment on your lap for a month.

I don't recall there ever being a 603 or G3 'lite' of any kind. The variants of the G3 that existed in that day were the 740 and 750, with the difference between the two being that the 740 didn't have support for a backside L2 cache. However, Apple's developer note for the original PowerBook G3 specifically states that they used the 750 (oh for that kind of convience in today's developer notes :p ). As for the 603, the primary differences between the various incarnations were the available core speeds. So there wasn't a 'lite' version for the portable market. Granted, the hardware built around the CPU was definately different from those on the desktop.

As for power consumption in the G4 vs 970 there are a lot of variables that have been missing, the primary one being core voltage. There are two quotes for the 970, 1.2Ghz on a 1.1v core at 19 watts and 1.8 Ghz on a 1.3v core at 42 watts. For the G4 we have confirmed 15 watts at 1.067 Ghz (from Motorola's PDF) and a 'street' quote of 30 watts at 1Ghz. Both of these quotes are probably correct if you put them in core voltage context (15w@1.1v, 30w@1.6v). I think that we all have agreed that we won't see the 1.8 Ghz part in a laptop any time soon. But the 1.2 Ghz part doesn't end up using that much more power than the G4. I went over all this in my last post, so I won't repeate it here. So saying that the 970 won't be in a PowerBook soon (relative to the PowerMac), or that it will be a huge power drain compared to the G4 is probably extreme.

macrumors12345

Apr 9, 2003, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Frobozz
From what I've read, the 1 GHz G4 currently used sucks down 30 watts. The 970 will only use about 10 watts at 1.0 to 1.2 GHz.

Did you even LOOK at the IBM document?!? The link may not work, but it's quite easy to find if you just go to the PPC section of IBM's website because they only have ONE document about the PPC 970!

At any rate, it EXPLICITLY states that the 970 at 1.2 Ghz dissipates 19 watts. There is nothing to debate here: I have no idea where your made-up numbers are coming from (but they're certainly not from IBM), and they are just plain wrong.

Also, the current G4 in the Powerbooks DOES NOT dissipate 30 watts. If it did, the Powerbook would barely last over one hour! As the Motorola PDF that I posted states, the latest version of the MPC 7455 dissipates 15 watts at 1067 Mhz (the MPC 7457 will be only half that at 1067 Mhz - 7.5 watts). We don't know for certain if this is the version that Apple is using, but I'm sure their version definitely doesn't dissipate 30 watts!!!

minux

Apr 9, 2003, 04:23 PM

Funny thing, MOSR just copied and pasted my past post into their website. Amazing.

Mike

MacFan25

Apr 9, 2003, 04:26 PM

Come on 970s! Let's give intel some competition! :)

mathiasr

Apr 9, 2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by pgwalsh
I know a few developers that would switch, but they don't like the price/performance ratio. A lot of these developers want a cheap, but fairly fast machine.
Real developers would look at what Cocoa has to offer !

bb0ys

Apr 9, 2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by hvfsl
Apple would have had samples of PPC970 chips for a while now if this rumor is true. What the rumor is saying is that the PPC970 is now ready for mass production, so I have no doubt Apple will be ready for the chip. This is what I would like to see in the next PMac:

1.6Ghz-1.9Ghz PPC970 (maybe duals)
PCI extreme (much faster than PCI and AGP 8X and backwards compatible with PCI)
900Mhz system Bus
Serial ATA
Firewire 800
USB 2
Airport Extreme
BlueTooth
Water Cooling, so there is no fan noise

We won't see water cooling in this mass produced computer. period.

nighttraitor

Apr 9, 2003, 04:50 PM

Hey all,

Long time reader, first time poster. With all this talk about the wattage used and heat disipation on the 970, and Uncle Steve's comment about this year being the year of the laptop, I can't help but agree with those out there who think that the 970 will be in the PB before the years end.

Just my 2 pennies.

macrumors12345

Apr 9, 2003, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Rincewind42
For the G4 we have confirmed 15 watts at 1.067 Ghz (from Motorola's PDF) and a 'street' quote of 30 watts at 1Ghz.

Yes, I agree, we don't know for certain which version of the G4 is using. However, we can be sure that it is not dissipating 30 watts, because if it were the battery life of the PB G4 would be even worse than that of the Intel P4-M notebooks! In general it is safe to assume that Apple would use the lowest power version available at a given clock speed (for mobile applications), but as you said, if they screwed up when designing their mobos and didn't anticipate lower voltage chips being available, then you never know.

But the 1.2 Ghz part doesn't end up using that much more power than the G4.

Yes, I agree (though it still is more). Again, the 1.2 Ghz part is a lower voltage part than the 1.8 Ghz part. Apple could certainly use it in the PB, and the battery life would probably be somewhat worse than today's G4 but still better than a P4-M.

The thing is that the comparison is more likely to be between 7457 and 970, and the 7457 clearly dissipates significantly less heat than the 970. Nevertheless, the 970 is much more powerful, so there is a classic speed vs. power consumption tradeoff. The best world would be if Apple released a large 970 notebook for those who want speed and a smaller 7457 notebook for those who want a light, long battery life notebook (that is still reasonably fast). But it is unclear whether they can afford to support two totally different motherboards at the same time for the PowerBook lineup (plus the iBook). And if they went all-970 for the PBs, then they would have no answer for the low power consumption of Centrino, which, if Intel has its way, will soon become the primary mobile competition. So that is a very dangerous move strategically.

Again, the best of all worlds would be to offer both 7457 and 970, but I don't know if it is feasible from a cost perspective. And maybe the average consumer would find the speed gain of the 970 to be worth the tradeoff of higher power consumption (vis a vis the 7457, and even vis a vis the latest 7455). But the point is that THERE IS A TRADEOFF. So people really need to let go of this ridiculous Panglossian idea that somehow the 970 will swoop in with the performance of the fastest P4-M AND the power consumption of the most efficient PPC 750FX. That is NOT the way the world works. (I think you know that, but many other people on this site seem to be blissfully unaware of it)

mathiasr

Apr 9, 2003, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Rincewind42
I agreed with most of your post, but here you aren't entirely correct. You are correct in that OS X is 64-bit clean, and would probably only require a recompile (for the most part) to run cleanly on a 64-bit processor. However, this is not the only concern. You will want the OS to take advantage of 64-bits, but unless they have been really good, just recompiling will only get you as far as running, not necessarily bug free. Additionally, that still only gets the OS on a 64-bit processor. You still have to build APIs for developers to use to develop 64-bit apps and tools to create 64-bit apps. These concerns may have already been handled, but without actual 64-bit hardware to run on these capabilities are only a little better than being only on paper.

Don't forget that the kernel has to handle the supervisor part of the CPU, 64 bits supervisor-level registers are quite different compared to the 32 bits one. Look at virtual memory implementation: segment registers are used in the 32 bits PowerPCs whereas the address space register is used in 64 bits ones.

On the other hand Apple could have made a 64 bits version of Mac OS X and tested it against IBM POWER3 or POWER4 RS/6000 hardware for years, a 64 bits PowerPC CPU is nothing new*. Linux PowerPC64 runs on these boxes : http://linuxppc64.org/history.shtml

*Bringing it to the mainstream market and adding an AltiVec unit, definitely is.

pgwalsh

Apr 9, 2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by mathiasr
Real developers would look at what Cocoa has to offer ! One of them is a very young and talented CGI developer. He loves OS X too.

ffakr

Apr 9, 2003, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Macpoops
Last time i checked the P4 was still at 3.06 with hyperthreading. Also their are rumors that they are stuck at that clockspeed or very close to it until they shrink their Fab to .09 um.

Intel could probably release faster P4s right now but they don't need to because they are beating everyone else.

The processors have an overall yield.. so many good, so many crap... and of the good ones, certain processors will run reliably at different speeds.

Intel can make faster processors right now.. they might be able to release the P4 up to 3.6 GHz or so.. buy why should they?
lets say market forces allow them to fit a processor into these price points {$100, $125, $180, $300, $550} .. note I put a premium on the high end...
Now, assume that they are getting a sort like this.....
{2.5GHz, 2.8GHz, 3GHz, 3.2GHz, 3.4GHz, 3.6GHz}... but the 3.6GHz and 3.4GHz parts are constrained (not too many of them).

Intel can give you the latest greatest.. and only have a limited supply of the better processors... (remember they are pretty much locked into max price points by market forces)
Or...
they can release them all at lower speeds... the 2.5GHz can be sold as anything at 2.5 or less... everything shifts down... and all the processors that currently sort at 3-3.6 GHz can be sold for the same premium price ... but the supply is MUCH higher.
It makes good business sense for the leader in the chip race to only sell processors that are slightly faster than the competetors.

Now if the 970 debuts... hopefully Intel won't consider it a real competitor to the Pentium4.. and they won't immediatly raise the clock speeds. You probably won't see significantly faster P4s ship until AMD begins to threaten the P4 3.06 with HT.

Frobozz

Apr 9, 2003, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by macrumors12345
Did you even LOOK at the IBM document?!?

Yes. And it's information has been superceeded by recent developments. That same doc also mentions that they only go to 1.8 Ghz, which has since been trumped by a 2.5 Ghz chip. Simple enough.

Also, the current G4 in the Powerbooks DOES NOT dissipate 30 watts.

Actually, it does:

http://arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc970-1.html

BenRoethig

Apr 9, 2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by macrumors12345
Yes, I agree, we don't know for certain which version of the G4 is using. However, we can be sure that it is not dissipating 30 watts, because if it were the battery life of the PB G4 would be even worse than that of the Intel P4-M notebooks! In general it is safe to assume that Apple would use the lowest power version available at a given clock speed (for mobile applications), but as you said, if they screwed up when designing their mobos and didn't anticipate lower voltage chips being available, then you never know.

Yes, I agree (though it still is more). Again, the 1.2 Ghz part is a lower voltage part than the 1.8 Ghz part. Apple could certainly use it in the PB, and the battery life would probably be somewhat worse than today's G4 but still better than a P4-M.

The thing is that the comparison is more likely to be between 7457 and 970, and the 7457 clearly dissipates significantly less heat than the 970. Nevertheless, the 970 is much more powerful, so there is a classic speed vs. power consumption tradeoff. The best world would be if Apple released a large 970 notebook for those who want speed and a smaller 7457 notebook for those who want a light, long battery life notebook (that is still reasonably fast). But it is unclear whether they can afford to support two totally different motherboards at the same time for the PowerBook lineup (plus the iBook). And if they went all-970 for the PBs, then they would have no answer for the low power consumption of Centrino, which, if Intel has its way, will soon become the primary mobile competition. So that is a very dangerous move strategically.

Again, the best of all worlds would be to offer both 7457 and 970, but I don't know if it is feasible from a cost perspective. And maybe the average consumer would find the speed gain of the 970 to be worth the tradeoff of higher power consumption (vis a vis the 7457, and even vis a vis the latest 7455). But the point is that THERE IS A TRADEOFF. So people really need to let go of this ridiculous Panglossian idea that somehow the 970 will swoop in with the performance of the fastest P4-M AND the power consumption of the most efficient PPC 750FX. That is NOT the way the world works. (I think you know that, but many other people on this site seem to be blissfully unaware of it)

Of course this is all assuming that Motorola is developing a desktop version of the 7457. With the 970 on the horizion and Motorola offically out of the desktop processor after the G4, the PPC7455A could have been their last desktop processor.

type_r503

Apr 9, 2003, 06:21 PM

Reading all these posts I keep thinking, "haven't I read this before?" Every time there is a rumor the same arguments come up. All I am waiting for is the "Why do you people think 64 bits will make it faster?" or the always popular "I just hope apple uses the IBM chip instead of the Motorola G5."

Hurry up apple!

Mr. MacPhisto

Apr 9, 2003, 06:26 PM

This goes with what I've been told by IBMers who are friends. They insisted Apple could have machines shipping by June. I haven't talked about the 970 with them for a while, so I'll have to ask if they know about the current production schedule.

rjstanford

Apr 9, 2003, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by macrumors12345
At any rate, it EXPLICITLY states that the 970 at 1.2 Ghz dissipates 19 watts. There is nothing to debate here: I have no idea where your made-up numbers are coming from (but they're certainly not from IBM), and they are just plain wrong.Which gives us a couple of interesting possibilities, considering the performance difference (current estimates give the 970 about a 2X performance benefit per clock cycle over the G4).

Lets think about that for a second. We have the G4 (1ghz) at a conservative 14-15 watts, and the 1.2ghz 970 at 19 watts (1.3x the power but with approximately 2.5x the speed).

( can you see where I'm heading with this? )

Now, assume that the 970 power requirements decrease as its clock speed does, just like the current processors. Optimize for battery life and all that. How much faster do you think it would be at the G4's 15 watt level? Especially if it could still burst to full speed (maybe more conservatively) when needed? How much power would it take to run at the G4's normal "reduced" levels for battery longevity?

Hmm...

rjstanford

Apr 9, 2003, 06:44 PM

I was just browsing around and came across this little item:Reports I have seen (just the usual "I have a friend at IBM" kind of things) would indicate that this thing taped out about year ago, and sampled in March. So, no way would Apple have had hardware a year ago, but they may have had software emulation and samples the following quarter. So that would put the 1 year anniversary around 1Q '03. Why interesting? I dug it off one of the ArsTechnica discussion boards ( http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=8560987925&p=8 ) dated 9/23/02. Seems pretty timely...

macrumors12345

Apr 9, 2003, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Frobozz
Yes. And it's information has been superceeded by recent developments. That same doc also mentions that they only go to 1.8 Ghz, which has since been trumped by a 2.5 Ghz chip. Simple enough.

And, in fact, we have no reason to believe at this point that the initial clock speeds will be above 1.8 Ghz. The latest word from IBM in March at CeBit reiterated that they would be released initially at speeds up to 1.8 Ghz. See the earlier MacRumors story about this.

Furthermore, IBM has NEVER claimed that the PPC 970 would consume less power than their documents currently say. I have no idea where you got that idea. I would LOVE to see a credible source saying that the chip will only consume 10 watts. And no, some random guy posting on the MacRumors forum that his friend's cousin said it would be a low power chip does NOT count as confirmation of this rumor.

Actually, it does:

http://arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc970-1.html

Siracusa does some nice writing, but quite frankly he is simply wrong on this point. Do you honestly think that he has better information about the "G4e" (which isn't really a chip) than Motorola, the company that produces it? The article is a bit dated (it's from last fall), but even the earlier version of the 7455 didn't dissipate 30 watts at 1 Ghz. As you can see from the following Motorola document, the "G4e" that he was referring to, i.e. the 7455 with a core voltage of 1.6v, dissipates 21.3 watts at 1 Ghz. Maybe he was referring to maximum power dissipation for the G4 rather than typical power dissipation, but that would be an invalid comparison since the 42 watt figure quoted for the 1.8 Ghz 970 is typical, not maximum.

And even if Siracusa's facts were right, the processor he is referring to would not be "the current one that is shipping in the Powerbook G4", which is explicitly what we were talking about earlier.

However, I will congratulate you for at least having SOME quasi-credible source for this claim (even if it was wrong), which is more than I can say for many of the rumors about the 970 that are being thrown around so casually.

Motorola specifications document:
http://e-www.motorola.com/brdata/PDFDB/docs/MPC7455FACT.pdf

macrumors12345

Apr 9, 2003, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by BenRoethig
Of course this is all assuming that Motorola is developing a desktop version of the 7457. With the 970 on the horizion and Motorola offically out of the desktop processor after the G4, the PPC7455A could have been their last desktop processor.

Nobody is suggesting that they use the 7457 in the desktop. Except for with the iMac. I think a 1.5+ Ghz 7457 iMac with a 167-200 mhz bus (and some L3 cache for the higher models) would be great! It would certainly give the Celerons a run for their money. But I won't hold my breath for it appearing *too* soon...

No, the main discussion about the 7457 is wrt mobile processors (i.e. will Apple use the 7457 or the 970 in the next generation of Powerbooks?).

barkmonster

Apr 9, 2003, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Rincewind42
For the G4 we have confirmed 15 watts at 1.067 Ghz (from Motorola's PDF) and a 'street' quote of 30 watts at 1Ghz.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I agree, we don't know for certain which version of the G4 is using. However, we can be sure that it is not dissipating 30 watts, because if it were the battery life of the PB G4 would be even worse than that of the Intel P4-M notebooks! In general it is safe to assume that Apple would use the lowest power version available at a given clock speed (for mobile applications), but as you said, if they screwed up when designing their mobos and didn't anticipate lower voltage chips being available, then you never know.

This (http://ptech.wsj.com/ptech.html) review of the powerbook 17" mentions a realworld battery life of 2 hours, 38 minutes (In their stress test)

In my usual harsh battery test, where I turn off all power-saving features and play a continuous loop of music, the 17-inch PowerBook lasted two hours, 38 minutes. That suggests that with power-saving on, and a more normal usage pattern, you'd get between 3.5 and four hours, which is pretty good, though shy of the "up to 4.5 hours" that Apple claims.

However, there's a new crop of Windows laptops using the new power-saving Intel Pentium-M processor that typically do a lot better. In my tests of four Pentium-M laptops a few weeks back, three of the four showed significantly longer battery life than the new Apple.

I think we can safely say anything that improves on the battery life of a powerbook whether it's lower powered G4s from motorola or PPC970 chips from IBM are needed soon. The Centrino means PC laptops can have better battery life than the Pentium-M or G4, thin, lightweight design like the G4 and wireless networking that the mac's had for 4 years (they should have advertised that as the main feature of instead of neon toilet seats!!)

law guy

Apr 9, 2003, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Macpoops
Didn't IBM say the Blade servers would ship Q3 this year? If the chips are going into production that would seem to be right.

Well, the article says that IBM will deliver the chips for IBM Blades and Apple computers at the end of June. With the motherboard design complete - as rumored - and mass shipments of chips in July, it seems like Apple could start getting these machines out soon. Heck, Apple could even announce in June given their propensity to announce before ready for shipping.

tychay

Apr 9, 2003, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by j33pd0g
[B]I agree. And I am really excited too! Plus I got burned with rushing out to get the first g4s when they came out (I got the "350 Yikes") and then they discontinued that like 3 months later and started with the AGP motherboards. If these rumors are true I think I'll wait to buy a 970 mac until they have been well tested by the mac community. For now I'll settle for a dual 1.25 and I will like it. [b]

The 350 Yikes lasted from mid October to the beginning of December of 1999, so I believe it is more accurate to say you've been using it for 3.5 years instead of four. While the "Yikes" PCI motherboard lasted about 3 months (end of August to beginning of December), the 350 Yikes was half that life and the computer was simply introduced because Motorola was having yield problems with the G4/500--imagine waiting half a year for a computer you preordered!

I'm not too certain you should say you got "burned". At the time, the 400 Yikes had already shipped and Apple was raising prices and lowering clockspeeds contrary to whatever has ever happenned in the industry. People knew that it was inevitable that they would at least lower them back to announced price and configuration (which they did). Also, Sawtooth (AGP) boards were announced the same time the Yikes was. Apple made it clear, with the name based on "Yosemite" that these PCI configuration G4's were EOLed when they launched. This is similar to what happenned when LCD panel prices went up and iMac G4s jumped $100 in price.

Small historical note: PowerMac G4s seem to be refreshed twice a year. While the Yikes was very stunted (at around 3 months), the Sawtooth announced at the same time lasted almost a full year.

As one of the lucky enough to get a Yikes at 400Mhz, I can agree that they still run like a champ. :-)

It looks like Apple is trying to keep that sort of chip supply fiasco from happening with the 970 with a rumored release date well after IBM is rumored to have production ready.

Take care,

terry

macrumors12345

Apr 9, 2003, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by rjstanford

Lets think about that for a second. We have the G4 (1ghz) at a conservative 14-15 watts, and the 1.2ghz 970 at 19 watts (1.3x the power but with approximately 2.5x the speed).

( can you see where I'm heading with this? )

Yes, but I don't think it's going to work.

You have to realize that the reason the 1.2 Ghz 970 dissipates less than have the power of the 1.8 Ghz 970 is that its core voltage is 1.1v instead of 1.3v. A lot of the decrease in power consumption comes from dropping the core voltage. Now, as a result of dropping the voltage, the maximum clock speed also has to drop. So the drop in clock speed is correlated with the drop in power consumption, but it's not necessarily causal.

The point is that if you were to use a 800 mhz 970 with a core voltage of 1.1v, it would probably consume less power than the 1.2 Ghz, but not that much less. For example, maybe 13 or 14 watts (just a guess), but definitely not under 10 watts. Now, if you dropped the core voltage again, from 1.1v to 1.0v or 0.9v, then you might get the power consumption under 10 watts at low clock speeds. But I have no idea whether or not that's feasible (I'm not an electrical engineer, nor do I work for IBM!).

At any rate, even if you could get the power consumption down to, say, 10 watts by lowering the core voltage and throttling the clock down to 750 mhz, would you really want to buy a 750 mhz PB? I mean, I'm not saying I wouldn't (buy it), but would the general public? It would be an interesting psychology experiment. Because really, that just sounds pathetic, even if the processing power is comparable to a 1.5 Ghz G4 or 1.5 Ghz Centrino. I suspect Apple would have trouble selling 750 mhz 970 based Powerbooks if they were also selling 1.2 Ghz G3 based iBooks! I mean, far be it from me to defend the Megahertz Myth, but still, it would have to hurt sales....

I still like offering a 1.3+ Ghz 7457 Powerbook (say, 12"/15") and a 1.2 Ghz 970 Powerbook (15"/17"). That would be really nice. But I think it might be too expensive...unclear...

tazznb

Apr 9, 2003, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by minux
Do not be surprised to see the G5 go only into a high level PM in its initial run. Additionally, do not be surprised to see the low end PM sporting a G4 for some time to come. The IBM's production can not match the demand for the G5, nor can the price tag of the G5 find its way into many consumers pockets.

Mike

If Apple only puts the 970 in its highest end PM, no one will buy the other PMs without it, and at a realistic price point.

"The IBM's production can not match the demand for the G5".

This is IBM taking up the chip process, now. Not Moto; If Moto were doing this I can agree the chips not being readily available to use for all users for another 2-5yrs :D

macrumors12345

Apr 9, 2003, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by barkmonster
This (http://ptech.wsj.com/ptech.html) review of the powerbook 17" mentions a realworld battery life of 2 hours, 38 minutes (In their stress test)

I believe it. But it would not even last that long with a 30 watt G4 under "stress testing". The other components (e.g. display, hard drive, etc.) consume at least 10-15 watts themselves. Assume for the moment that it was only 10. Then total power consumption would be 40 watts. So to last 2.6 hours, they PB would need an battery with a capacity of over 100 watt-hours. But the 17" PB has a 60 watt-hour battery. So we can reject the hypothesis that the G4 is dissipating 30 watts.

I think we can safely say anything that improves on the battery life of a powerbook whether it's lower powered G4s from motorola or PPC970 chips from IBM are needed soon

Certainly (I'm just saying the 130 nm 970 won't be that chip - see the 7457).

. The Centrino means PC laptops can have better battery life than the Pentium-M or G4,

Ummm...you realize that the Centrino IS the Pentium-M, right? (well, technically to use the Centrino brandname you have to use a Pentium-M *and* buy Intel's own chipset and wireless kit and so forth)

Rincewind42

Apr 9, 2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by macrumors12345
So to last 2.6 hours, they PB would need an battery with a capacity of over 100 watt-hours. But the 17" PB has a 60 watt-hour battery. So we can reject the hypothesis that the G4 is dissipating 30 watts.

Actually the 17" PowerBook uses a 55 watt hour battery. The 15" PowerBook uses a 61 watt hour battery. That leads me to believe that as part of the mother board redesign, the 17" PowerBook was made to take advantage of a 1.1v CPU, while the 15" might use a 1.3v chip, which would be estimated to disappate 20 watts.

macrumors12345

Apr 9, 2003, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Rincewind42
Actually the 17" PowerBook uses a 55 watt hour battery. The 15" PowerBook uses a 61 watt hour battery. That leads me to believe that as part of the mother board redesign, the 17" PowerBook was made to take advantage of a 1.1v CPU, while the 15" might use a 1.3v chip, which would be estimated to disappate 20 watts.

Thanks for the exact numbers. It's quite possible that your conjecture is true. Although the PB G4 17" also has a proportionally lower quoted runtime ("up to 4.5 hours" for 17" vs. "up to 5 hours" for 15"). Maybe the larger display uses more power, and that is why the 17" doesn't have comparable battery life to the 15" if it is using a more efficient processor? Unclear... (the other hypothesis of course being that they're both using the same processor...quite possibly the low voltage version, but who knows)

Rocketman

Apr 9, 2003, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by mcs37
I can't wait! :D I am still hoping for a dual 970 17" PowerBook. I refuse to believe Apple will not release a dual 970 17" PB this January. They have plenty of area to spare inside that massive laptop. Just imagine the insane power of a 17" PB, dual 970 @ 1.5 GHz, 1 GB RAM, USB 2.0, SuperDrive, Airport Extreme.... mmmmm I'm drooling already.

I still hope for a built-in HDTV tuner. :) But I know that's a long shot, as is the booze-powered fuel cell to power it for 10+ hours.

Our copmpany bought 2 AL 17's on speculation. We will probably buy more.

If they do release a dualie 970 Powerbook (and steviepoo DID say this is the year of the laptop), then I suspect we will have to redirect resources to make room for them. Can you say portable HD editing station?

For those that note they willl wait for a year or so for desktop issues to settle on a new 970, I agree. For those who note that their freinds have has three peecees during the timeframe of a single older G4 box, of course I agree. For those who note that Apple redated WWDC because of likely 970 news, I hope you are right because the news would be a predating event for a virtually guaranteed CONSUMER August release of new 970 hardware.

I still claim it willl be x-serve first and HOPE it will be PowerPowerBook first.

Rocketman

MacQuest

Apr 9, 2003, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by springscansing
Holy crap, 2mhz! That's twice my IIe man! Sweet!

:D :D ROTFL!! ROTFL!! ROTFL!! :D :D

MacQuest

Apr 9, 2003, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by GPTurismo
Time to start saving my pennies!

BTW Intel = LOL :D

Yeah, I'm gonna start saving my *****' too!!:D

woodsey

Apr 9, 2003, 09:31 PM

Anyone else think it is intersting that there is an official apple advertisement, linked to the french apple store, at the top of the macbidouille site?

I didn't know Apple supported rumor sites!!!

Whats up here???

wwworry

Apr 9, 2003, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by mk_in_mke
Guys,

This is some good news and I am all excited about it... I have a ACD 22" + 2x 1Ghz PMac + 1.5 G RAM + 2 x 80 Go + FCP 3 + DVD SP 1.5 + PShop... All the bells and whistles... This works just fine and I am very happy... But gee, just to get the extra power, i would buy the dual Pmac + PPC 970!!!

This is getting outrageous: the more we have, the more we need... :D

Now, the wait is going to be a nightmare... This explains why Apple has delayed their WWDC...

Time to save some money (I will cut on the Sapphire and drink Gilbey's, I will cut on the caviar and have some salmon eggs, I will cut on my mistresses, nor more jewels, diamonds...)... Here I come Apple!!!

:D

Take care guys!!!

Michel

If the 970 doesn't come out, can I be your mistress? ;)

paulie

Apr 9, 2003, 10:39 PM

Remember all the talk of the mainboards being longer and narrower than current G4 boards?

Also remember the patent on the mighty color morphing power case?

Why not a whole new look for the PowerMac?? It's been long enough, and frankly, this behemoth of a case under my desk is cramping my legroom.

Now I know we don't want to prohibit expansion, but for what most of us are adding (extra drives, an extra audio or video card), does it really need to be that big?

I think it's high time Apple took the lead and redesigned the professional desktop. Quiet, space-efficient, powerful computers that are works of art.

Send Mr. Ives the challenge.

Mr. MacPhisto

Apr 9, 2003, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by tazznb
If Apple only puts the 970 in its highest end PM, no one will buy the other PMs without it, and at a realistic price point.

"The IBM's production can not match the demand for the G5".

This is IBM taking up the chip process, now. Not Moto; If Moto were doing this I can agree the chips not being readily available to use for all users for another 2-5yrs :D

IBM's manufacturing will also cut the prices down, at least when compared to relative clockspeeds on the G4. Apple should save on palettes of chips. Beyond that, the supply line and reliability should improve. I think Moto's inability to deliver has been a major issue with shipping, etc for Apple. IBM should solve that problem - they are a company that tends to deliver ahead of schedule.

The exciting thing to watch for may be a .09 micron PPC970. They may be ready by December - and that may take them up to 2.5 GHZ while increasing power efficiency.

The Shadow

Apr 10, 2003, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by paulie
Remember all the talk of the mainboards being longer and narrower than current G4 boards?

Also remember the patent on the mighty color morphing power case?...

I think it's high time Apple took the lead and redesigned the professional desktop. Quiet, space-efficient, powerful computers that are works of art.

Send Mr. Ives the challenge.

Quite agree. I made this point in a recent Discussion board thread I started, but the only people who posted disagreed. What the...?:confused:

My point is that Steve's stated aim with the TiBook was to produce "the worlds sexiest computer". Few people would be biased enough to ascribe that title to the current PM.

I own a PM fan and wouldn't buy anything else. I too would like to see the gauntlet thrown down to out friend Jonathan Ives and his team.

When I buy a new 970 PM, I don't just want power for my money, I want sex too!:)

The Shadow

Apr 10, 2003, 12:39 AM

Yeah, this is all good news.

Personally I think my G4 533 PM, just gone 2 years old has still got some legs.

As a home user, I'd like to think I could hold out 18 months till the 980 hits, but the temptation to just run out and grab a 970 PM a few months after they hit is going to be HUGE!

But most of all, I just want to see the 970 out in the market place, to guarantee the future of the PM line, so that whenever I do upgrade, there'll still be such a thing as a PowerMac!

eric67

Apr 10, 2003, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by MacManiac1224
If they are in production now, when can we expect to see them appear in new machine? is it possible they can appear in June at WWDC?

I seems to me very clear that the new PowerMac will be announced in Jine at WWDC. Why?
- IBM PPC970's father is giving a speach on that processor and architecture
- it will probably be linked with the new serveur from IBM using the PPC970 (check IBM road map)
- MacOSX 64bit might be demoed
- Apple is also present at the WWDC
- and last but not least , there will be no Keynote in MacWorld NY in July.... Why??
because the last Apple products will have been presented and demoed 3 weeks before at the WWDC!!!!!!!!!!!
So be prepare for June, it is going to be hot.
In addition Macbidouille.com is usually a very reliable mac info site.
All their info concerning the PPC970 and the corresponding motherboard make a lot of sens. The mobo will have AGP8x and hypertransport technologies (imagine the effect on a dual PPC970, knowing that the hypertransport mimics 2 virtual processors from 1 physical unit....). They also reprt that PCI express will be present on the PPC970 inly next year since it is not even implemented yet in the PC world.
Why hypertransport?? because IBM also needs it for its server based on PPC970...so Apple had no reason for not implementing it on its mobo.

Rincewind42

Apr 10, 2003, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by eric67
- IBM PPC970's father is giving a speach on that processor and architecture
- it will probably be linked with the new serveur from IBM using the PPC970 (check IBM road map)

Of course the PPC970 speach by Peter Sandon will be linked to a new server from IBM - IBM publically stated that they were going to use the chip in a blade server!

- MacOSX 64bit might be demoed

Don't hold your breath.

- Apple is also present at the WWDC

Of course they are - it's their bloody show in the first place!

- and last but not least , there will be no Keynote in MacWorld NY in July.... Why??
because the last Apple products will have been presented and demoed 3 weeks before at the WWDC!!!!!!!!!!!

And what impact would this have on consumers at large? WWDC is a developer's conference! I know, I'm going, and I can tell you right now that whatever Apple announces will be buried in NDAs so that no one that goes will be able to say a damned thing, so don't expect to hear what gets announced from those of us that go.

The mobo will have AGP8x and hypertransport technologies (imagine the effect on a dual PPC970, knowing that the hypertransport mimics 2 virtual processors from 1 physical unit....).

Your confusing HyperTransport with HyperThreading. The former is a bus technology from a consortium of computer developers that, iirc, includes Apple & nVidia. The latter is a technology found in the latest Pentium 4 that allows a single processor to appear as more than one to the OS.

They also reprt that PCI express will be present on the PPC970 inly next year since it is not even implemented yet in the PC world.

I would think that HP (one of the creators of the technology) would have shipped some in their servers, but I could be wrong. None the less if this came to pass it would be the first consumer release of PCI Extreme that I know of.

Phil Of Mac

Apr 10, 2003, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by Frobozz
This is going to be the best year since 1984 for the Mac. I have no doubt.

1994 was pretty big. I think the introduction of the PowerPC in the first place was huge.

Now, another issue is the IBM vs. Moto issue. Moto was Apple's processor supplier ever since the Apple I, when Woz decided to get the Moto processor because it was cheaper than the Intel processor. (It wasn't Moto then, Moto later bought out that company.)

From 1984 to 1994, Apple used the 68k processors from Motorola. Consistently, the 68000, 68020, 68030, and 68040 were outperformed by the Intel 8086, 80286, 80386, and 80486, respectively.

In 1994, Apple decided to ally with Motorola and long-time rival IBM in the AIM alliance. This alliance would retain Motorola as a direct chip vendor to temper the alliance with the hated IBM. (IBM was the Microsoft of the time, remember.) The idea was to change IBM's POWER series of high-end workstation processors into a viable PC processor.

The first PowerPCs were the 601, 603, and 604. There may have been another, but Apple didn't use it. The 601 was the main chip, the 603 was the low-power chip, and the 604 was the big, powerful chip. The 601 was produced only by IBM. Motorola bought the 601s from IBM, stamped "Motorola" on them, and sold them again to Apple. No Mac user wanted to buy IBM, so this was necessary.

(Remember, we were more cultish back then.)

Anyway, the 603 and 604 were designed at the joint Motorola-IBM facility, Somerset. Somerset lasted well into the G3 period.

The G3 was based on the 603e (an enhanced 603, more powerful than the 601). In mid-1997, it was put into PowerBook and Power Mac form. By 1998, the entire line was G3. It wasn't too much later that Somerset broke up, as Motorola pursued an AltiVec-enabled G4 and IBM pursued copper processors (first copper processor was the copper G3, introduced in the blue-and-white G3.)

The point?

First, there is precedent supporting the notion that 970 will spread to the entire line quickly. The G3 was enough of a boost over the 604e to do so. Second, the IBM thing isn't new. It dates from 1994.

AidenShaw

Apr 10, 2003, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Macpoops
Number 3. OS X was written as 64 bit clean. Which means all that would be required to make use of the 64 bit processor would be a simple recompile. NOT a complete rewrite of the OS.

This is not really true - especially when you look at the whole OS.

The Mach kernel may be 64-bit clean, but even so it is likely that some adjustments need to be made (OS X only runs on systems with 2GB or less of memory, does a change need to be made for a 64-bit system with 4GB or more?).

The real work, though, is all the libraries and applications. While many apps can remain 32-bit (the clock, finder, etc), one would need to have 64-bit versions of Cocoa and Carbon. Even if the code were 64-bit clean (possible for Cocoa, highly unlikely for Carbon), all of the APIs are 32-bit. You therefore need to produce separate 32-bit and 64-bit APIs.

Think about the simple "malloc" call which allocates memory. A 32-bit program needs "malloc" to return a 32-bit pointer to the new memory. A 64-bit program needs to get a 64-bit pointer.

When you pass that memory to a another API, you'll need a version that expects the same size pointer that you got.

One also has to worry about code that was once 64-bit clean becoming unclean. Apple has hundreds of people working on the code - any one of them could have made a mistake and assumed that a pointer was 32-bits. Those mistakes have to found and fixed.

Kamu-San

Apr 10, 2003, 07:43 AM

I thought the PPC970 could run 32-bits code as is, so no rewrite is necessary to run the current codebase?

Ok, to take advantage of the 64-bit addressing space the OS would have to be rewritten, but at first I think you could run 10.2 without modification.

eric67

Apr 10, 2003, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Rincewind42
Your confusing HyperTransport with HyperThreading. The former is a bus technology from a consortium of computer developers that, iirc, includes Apple & nVidia. The latter is a technology found in the latest Pentium 4 that allows a single processor to appear as more than one to the OS.

Oups, big mistake, I am very sorry.
I am so excited to see the future development of the PPC970 in Apple machines that I was reading a bit too fast....
Hypertransport is something good of course, but I think the best , if true, will be the usage of PCI express by Apple in 2004 (ok it is a rumors), but what I can see positively is the integration by Apple in its machine of the latest technologies, and if regarding connectics (FireWire, USB,...) Apple has also been ahead, regarding mobo-related innovation, Apple has always been behind, far behind..... just look how long Apple desktop and notebook had a less than 100MHz mobo..... where is the AGP8x?? (OK I know the gain compare to AGP4x is small, but marketing wise....) graphics cards....I mean iMac are still delivered with Geforce2MX or 4MX, I mean get real those cards are 2 or 3 years old.....

ok my 2 pennies remarks...

by the way I love Mac, I just would like to see Apple machines more present around us, in our normal life, and not retricted to small business or special area...

mathiasr

Apr 10, 2003, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Think about the simple "malloc" call which allocates memory. A 32-bit program needs "malloc" to return a 32-bit pointer to the new memory. A 64-bit program needs to get a 64-bit pointer.
You are funny ;)

man malloc

void *
malloc(size_t size);

size_t is already 64 bits wide

Pointers are based on register size, developers should not rely on pointers being 32 bits (this is a very bad habit), it's not difficult at all to code without knowing the pointer size and to keep portability in mind.
When you declare a pointer you do not precise it's size anyway, thus you should not make an assumption about it.

Macpoops

Apr 10, 2003, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by eric67
....I mean iMac are still delivered with Geforce2MX or 4MX, I mean get real those cards are 2 or 3 years old.....

Umm How is the Geforce 4mx 2 to 3 years old. the 2mx is but the 4mx just came out last year. It was offered in the PM just before the Ti came

mathiasr

Apr 10, 2003, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by eric67
Oups, big mistake, I am very sorry.
I am so excited to see the future development of the PPC970 in Apple machines that I was reading a bit too fast...
Replace PPC970 by PPC980 and you'll be probably right. The POWER5 has this multithread on a single core feature, the PowerPC 980 (Q3 2004?) is expected to be based on the POWER5 core plus AltiVec.

mproud

Apr 10, 2003, 12:42 PM

I know MacWhisper's reputation has been tarnished, but it's worth a read:
April 10, 2003
Update: 970 PowerBook Production: Accelerated 970 Production

Further discussions with Apple OEM assembly partners have given us up to date information on motherboard production for both PowerBooks and PowerMacs, both using the IBM PPC 970 processor.

First, we have been told, and we have second-sourced the claim that 15.4-inch PowerBook motherboards are now in production and are shipping regularly to Apple's contract PowerBook assembler. Next, we have been told, and we have also second-sourced a claim that bid requests for a fully-designed 970-based board for the 17-inch PowerBook were received by two assembly plants this past Friday, with a submission deadline for replies of April 30th.

Finally, a reliable source in engineering management at the ODM supplier providing the upcoming PowerMac motherboards has informed us that those boards went into volume production this past Friday, and that first shipments to Apple's final assembly partner for the new PowerMacs is to take place "about April 15th."

We will add that our sources seem consistently taken aback by what they all characterize as the unexpected and very unusual hurry involved in all work on these new desktop and portable Apple products. Every step in each process is being scheduled far tighter than is normal for a new production run.

AidenShaw

Apr 10, 2003, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by mathiasr
size_t is already 64 bits wide

printf ("%d\n",sizeof(void *));

:confused:

Note that I said "returns".

One *shouldn't* count on the size of a pointer, I agree. Disciplined, skilled programmers usually don't.

"Should not" and "does not" are different.

law guy

Apr 10, 2003, 05:54 PM

One *shouldn't* count on the size of a pointer, I agree. Disciplined, skilled programmers usually don't.

"Should not" and "does not" are different. [/B]

or "do not"

DHagan4755

Apr 10, 2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by mproud
I know MacWhisper's reputation has been tarnished, but it's worth a read: Yeah, well Jack Campbell and his site, MacWhispers, has put its neck on the line with some pretty bold stuff. It has actually put a shelf life on that site. If that stuff doesn't come to fruition by WWDC...he might as well fold up his tent and go home.

Rincewind42

Apr 10, 2003, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Even if the code were 64-bit clean (possible for Cocoa, highly unlikely for Carbon), all of the APIs are 32-bit.

Carbon is a complete reimplementation of the traditional MacOS APIs, so the implementation in MacOS X is very likely to be 64-bit clean (or nearly so)

Originally posted by mathiasr
man malloc

void *
malloc(size_t size);

size_t is already 64 bits wide

size_t should not be 64-bits on a 32-bit platform. It should be the maximum size that a pointer can refer to, which on a 32-bit PowerPC platform is 32-bits worth.

Flynnstone

Apr 13, 2003, 04:39 PM

I just thought of an interesting thought.
Normally Apple makes their "Northbridges" I understand. But Apple could use nVidia !
nVidia as a Northbridge for the Athlon processors called nForce that uses dual DDR channels. The future Athlons will have a HyperTransport bus. nVidia would follow so there Northbridge chip would support 1) HyperTransport 2) AGP 8X 3) dual DDR SDRAM 4) PCI bus.
This is very,VERY close to what Apple needs for their new 970 systems!
Is there any other rumors about nVidia and Apple?
Maybe ATI?

PS Are the memory controllers on Macs refered to as Northbridges?

eric67

Apr 15, 2003, 08:59 AM

Macbidouille.com reports today 15th April 2003, that the new PowerMAc are entering production!!! well let say that the company which will assemble the future powermac has been chosen, and it is "Hon Hai Precision" also better known as"FOXCONN". They will receive the different pieces (RAM, HD and chips,...) from IBM, pointing out ,as already expected that the new PoerMac will have its processor on a ZIF-type socket!! So Apple should not have problem to demo the new PowerMac at the WWDC in June. It is alctually interesting to notice that this info come on timeas it was reported few weeks ago that Apple was looking for companies for assembling the future PowerMac.... at that time if I remember well the dead line was first week of April ....
let's wait and see

eric67

Apr 15, 2003, 08:59 AM

ffakr

Apr 15, 2003, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Flynnstone
I just thought of an interesting thought.
Normally Apple makes their "Northbridges" I understand. But Apple could use nVidia !
nVidia as a Northbridge for the Athlon processors called nForce that uses dual DDR channels. The future Athlons will have a HyperTransport bus. nVidia would follow so there Northbridge chip would support 1) HyperTransport 2) AGP 8X 3) dual DDR SDRAM 4) PCI bus.
This is very,VERY close to what Apple needs for their new 970 systems!
Is there any other rumors about nVidia and Apple?
Maybe ATI?

PS Are the memory controllers on Macs refered to as Northbridges?

The PowerPC is Big-Endian, the Athlon (and any x86 processor) is little-endian. The N-Force2 chipset is not compatible with the the PowerPC as it stands... they don't even read data in the same direction!
Also, As far as I remember, Nvidia doesn't use a classic northbridge/southbridge architecture anymore (Intel doesn't either).
And... Just because AMD ties the media controller to other chips via Hypertransport, that doesn't mean that their chipset has a processor bus that is in any way alike with what is required by the 970. The Athlon uses a DDR processor-to-chipset bus. It currently maxes out at 166MHz x 2. The 970, by all accounts, will run something like a 225MHz x 4 (quad-pumped) processor bus. The 970 bus is also comprised of 2 one-way 32bit buses. The buses used by the two PROCESSORS is totally different.

Macpoops

Apr 15, 2003, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by eric67
Macbidouille.com reports today 15th April 2003, that the new PowerMAc are entering production!!! well let say that the company which will assemble the future powermac has been chosen, and it is "Hon Hai Precision" also better known as"FOXCONN". They will receive the different pieces (RAM, HD and chips,...) from IBM, pointing out ,as already expected that the new PoerMac will have its processor on a ZIF-type socket!! So Apple should not have problem to demo the new PowerMac at the WWDC in June. It is alctually interesting to notice that this info come on timeas it was reported few weeks ago that Apple was looking for companies for assembling the future PowerMac.... at that time if I remember well the dead line was first week of April ....
let's wait and see
Wasn't the last mac to use a zif socket the B&W G3 or G4 yikes? Isn't the current daughter card socket called a different name? And why would apple go back to the ZIF if the daughter card format worked so well with the powermacs?

Flynnstone

Apr 15, 2003, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by ffakr
The PowerPC is Big-Endian, the Athlon (and any x86 processor) is little-endian. The N-Force2 chipset is not compatible with the the PowerPC as it stands... they don't even read data in the same direction!
Also, As far as I remember, Nvidia doesn't use a classic northbridge/southbridge architecture anymore (Intel doesn't either).
And... Just because AMD ties the media controller to other chips via Hypertransport, that doesn't mean that their chipset has a processor bus that is in any way alike with what is required by the 970. The Athlon uses a DDR processor-to-chipset bus. It currently maxes out at 166MHz x 2. The 970, by all accounts, will run something like a 225MHz x 4 (quad-pumped) processor bus. The 970 bus is also comprised of 2 one-way 32bit buses. The buses used by the two PROCESSORS is totally different.

Hypertransport is on the Athlon64 and Opteron and likely on the 970. Its like PCI bus in that it doesn't matter about processor. Big-Endian , little-endian just has to do with how you interpret the data. Some PPC processors have the ability to byte swap to partially deal with the endian issue.
If nVidia is working on Hypertransport, then they have the capability to do a chipset for Apple.

GeneR

Apr 15, 2003, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by Vlade
:) :D :)

Any ideas of the clockspeed? Will it be 1.4,1.6,1.8 or 1.6,1.8,2.3?

You mean they're going to run at 1.4MHz?

He he he... I think even the first Mac was faster than that! :D j/k.

I have to laugh. It's been so friggin' long that we've had to wait for the next chip. If I don't laugh, I'll -- I'll -- booo hoooo! Sob! Sniff! :D

eric67

Apr 16, 2003, 02:04 AM

I agree with you, but the advantage of having a ZIF socket, at least for consumers, is that you could upgrade your computer by simply exchanging your processor, in other worlds, my filing is that with the recent announcement or Power5 development going very well, I would not be surprised that actually the mother board developped fror the PPC970, will actually support also the futurePPC-derived Power5 processor??!! in addition, next year the PPC970 should be available with the 90nm process which will then boost its usage in portable, and the ZIF socket could allow you to upgrade your processor while keeping most of your hardware... this is I think why PC are so much popular for some people because they can upgrade their machine, more or less as they want, of course they have to face the tremendous amount of conflicts generated by the usage of different components together; but it is sometimes an advantage; for example with the graphic cards in the Apple machines...not so much choice...
maybe it will improve with the next mother board....maybe we will not have to wait for the MacEdition of a graphic card, but we will be able to buy a standard graphic card, and just get the Mac drier for it....
OK I was just dreaming awaked