http://www.macbidouille.com/ reports that IBM has updated a PDF file of the ppc 970 cpu.
download it here
The post can be found right
here.
download it here
The post can be found right
here.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
IBM PDF about PPC 970
- Thread starter maradong
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The wording of the bit about apple using the ppc970 in the powermac reminds me of that lawyer in the simpsons.
"Mr. Simpson, the state bar forbids me from promising you a big cash settlement. But just between you and me, I promise you a big cash settlement" - Lionel Hutz
"Mr. Simpson, the state bar forbids me from promising you a big cash settlement. But just between you and me, I promise you a big cash settlement" - Lionel Hutz
i see this as the major presentation of the chip in itself. Officially, if i understand it all well, only the apple managers have to say: << YES, we 're gonna use that chip ! >> and i think everybody would be happy.
strange.. did anyone else feel like this was a pitch to apple to use the 970's? Almost felt like a powerpoint..err.. keynote presentation from a past meeting between IBM and Apple put into pdf form.
Hmm...
that said, I'm inserting the obligatory statement - I can't wait for a 970 based powerbook.
_f
Hmm...
that said, I'm inserting the obligatory statement - I can't wait for a 970 based powerbook.
_f
date
this .pdf is dated 1/28/02.......pretty old don't you think?
edit: sorry, i meant 10/28/02.
-dornball
this .pdf is dated 1/28/02.......pretty old don't you think?
edit: sorry, i meant 10/28/02.
-dornball
that is an old PDF... i din't even know, or hear about any rumors of the 970 back then
although it is dated from way back last year, could IBM have updated some info in it?
anyway, i've never seen this before and it looks like good reading.
although it is dated from way back last year, could IBM have updated some info in it?
anyway, i've never seen this before and it looks like good reading.
Re: Re: date
Hang on a minute. This is not an IBM presentation to Apple. It is an article written for the Microprocessor Report magazine, presumably as a followup to the IBM presentation of the PPC970 at the Microprocessor Forum last year.
Apple would have been on board with this much earlier than late last year.
Originally posted by freundt
AH-HA So, it *was* a presentation to Apple by IBM. I was right...I'm soo good it hurts...
Hang on a minute. This is not an IBM presentation to Apple. It is an article written for the Microprocessor Report magazine, presumably as a followup to the IBM presentation of the PPC970 at the Microprocessor Forum last year.
Apple would have been on board with this much earlier than late last year.
Re: Powernac sale!??!
you could be on to something, though as a side note, its hardly a bargain. you save ~$60 on a DP1.42 pmac, and ~$40 on a DP1.25.
though it does say clearance on everything.
interesting......
-dornball
you could be on to something, though as a side note, its hardly a bargain. you save ~$60 on a DP1.42 pmac, and ~$40 on a DP1.25.
though it does say clearance on everything.
interesting......
-dornball
come all ye doubters, IBM will guide you...
This really reads like an open letter to the Mac comminity - all the digs at the G4, with the promise of a 970 salvation. Telling everyone who is down on Mac hardware to just wait til 2003. They all but announce Apple's adoption of the chip, and the performance boost Macs will see with it.
Or maybe I'm just reading into it too much...
This really reads like an open letter to the Mac comminity - all the digs at the G4, with the promise of a 970 salvation. Telling everyone who is down on Mac hardware to just wait til 2003. They all but announce Apple's adoption of the chip, and the performance boost Macs will see with it.
Or maybe I'm just reading into it too much...
clearance date
the macwarehouse clearance date ends on 5/18/03. i wonder if this holds any significance? probably not.
-dornball
the macwarehouse clearance date ends on 5/18/03. i wonder if this holds any significance? probably not.
-dornball
Altivec
IBM and Moto worked on the AltiVec architecture together, but Moto got the product. I seem to remember something about IBM licensing it from Moto in some news about the 970 around Christmas time. OS X will roar on any one of 970 procs!!!! Can't wait!
IBM and Moto worked on the AltiVec architecture together, but Moto got the product. I seem to remember something about IBM licensing it from Moto in some news about the 970 around Christmas time. OS X will roar on any one of 970 procs!!!! Can't wait!
Why wouldn't Motorola let them use it?
In fact they did:
http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/newsletter/dec2002/newproductfocus2.html
"AltiVec is a trademark of Motorola, Inc., used under license."
arn
hey everyone =P
i'm new posting here, but i've been reading the forums for a while, and, while i (UNFORTUNATELY) still own a pc, i'll be getting a sweet mac this summer for school.
the only thing that i am curious about regarding the 970 pdf was the mention of the "deep pipelines". i remember that apple made a big deal about the g4's short pipeline which would allow the user to "see results faster". would this make the longer pipeline of the 970 a disadvantage to speed? or are the chips faster enough in general to eliminate this disadvantage?
i'm new posting here, but i've been reading the forums for a while, and, while i (UNFORTUNATELY) still own a pc, i'll be getting a sweet mac this summer for school.
the only thing that i am curious about regarding the 970 pdf was the mention of the "deep pipelines". i remember that apple made a big deal about the g4's short pipeline which would allow the user to "see results faster". would this make the longer pipeline of the 970 a disadvantage to speed? or are the chips faster enough in general to eliminate this disadvantage?
Deeeeep & Wiiiide.... did I misspell?
They made the assumption that the G4 is better due to the fact that it's wide, and not deep; the 970 is DEEP & WIDE, but there's a trade-off for making it that way. Read this article for a better understanding: http://arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc970-1.html
They made the assumption that the G4 is better due to the fact that it's wide, and not deep; the 970 is DEEP & WIDE, but there's a trade-off for making it that way. Read this article for a better understanding: http://arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc970-1.html
Don't forget that this is an old report. At the time this was printed 1.8 gig was supposedly the highest, but since then IBM has released statements indicating higher sppeds of 2 gig+.
Am I correct in understanding that all of the references to the 970 going in a notebook are intended as jokes?
Because it seems the 970 sucks far too much juice to be a laptop processor.
Edit: I just read the Ars Technica article.
I guess I'm wrong again.
Ah, well. I'll stick to reading.
Because it seems the 970 sucks far too much juice to be a laptop processor.
Edit: I just read the Ars Technica article.
I guess I'm wrong again.
Ah, well. I'll stick to reading.
970 not as fast as everyone thinks?
970 not as fast as everyone thinks?
In the IBM PDF, it states that a single 1.8 970 can do 18M keys at 1.8Ghz in RC5
the dual QS 1.0ghz g4 mac does 21M keys in RC5
no, if you dream ad just double the Keys for a dual system you get 36M Keys at 1.8ghz
do the math and if you scale a G4 to do 36M Keys in rc5 you would need a dual 1.7143 GHZ ...
this means that even if you loose info to the dual system, the 970 will not be faster in Altivec programs.
however if you note that apple dual 1.42 can acheave 21Gf. the dual 1.8 will do near 30gf/s
and we know by the altivec fractle program that the second processor will double the Gf... we do our math again
a Dual 1.947Ghz G4 would be needed to do the same work as a dual 1.8ghz 970
according to apple one of my 1.0ghz g4s should do 1.5gf with NO altivec
so at 1.8 should do 2.7Gf with NO altivec
BUT a 1.8 970 does 7.2Gf
That is 2.6X faster with no altives used
So while the 970 will not do a ton more work using altivec, it will do a bunch more for normal non altivec enhanced code.
but i could be wrong about all of it
970 not as fast as everyone thinks?
In the IBM PDF, it states that a single 1.8 970 can do 18M keys at 1.8Ghz in RC5
the dual QS 1.0ghz g4 mac does 21M keys in RC5
no, if you dream ad just double the Keys for a dual system you get 36M Keys at 1.8ghz
do the math and if you scale a G4 to do 36M Keys in rc5 you would need a dual 1.7143 GHZ ...
this means that even if you loose info to the dual system, the 970 will not be faster in Altivec programs.
however if you note that apple dual 1.42 can acheave 21Gf. the dual 1.8 will do near 30gf/s
and we know by the altivec fractle program that the second processor will double the Gf... we do our math again
a Dual 1.947Ghz G4 would be needed to do the same work as a dual 1.8ghz 970
according to apple one of my 1.0ghz g4s should do 1.5gf with NO altivec
so at 1.8 should do 2.7Gf with NO altivec
BUT a 1.8 970 does 7.2Gf
That is 2.6X faster with no altives used
So while the 970 will not do a ton more work using altivec, it will do a bunch more for normal non altivec enhanced code.
but i could be wrong about all of it