is it by any chance possible that apple might be putting the g6 chip in there mac pro designs? It would be sweet
oh and the link is in appleinsider.com
oh and the link is in appleinsider.com
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.
PowerPC G6?
- Thread starter polishmacuser
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
is it by any chance possible that apple might be putting the g6 chip in there mac pro designs? It would be sweet
No, they won't be putting the new chip in Macs. Also, there is no "G6." Don't confuse POWER6 with PowerPC G6. POWER and PowerPC are not the same thing, and the G# names were just Apple's branding. The G5, for example, was the PowerPC 970, which was a derivative of the POWER4 chip.
Never....for the main reason Power6 cost a **it load of money.....and Apple is moving to Intel only, they could use it(OS X still supports PPC fully, minus BootCamp), and most software would work, but it be support for a short period of time, and newer software would slowly drop support for it
hmm thanks i thought the power6 was powerpc oh well but these chips would be sweet.
I cut my teeth with UNIX on an IBM PowerPC RS/6000 then moved very nicely into my Power Mac G5. I was talking about Intel Mac's to a friend the other day, and without thinking I said "I use a real Mac - a Power Mac". Then I had to think twice about my comment. What are the advantages of Apple using Intel processors? The fact that I can run Windows faster?! Bleh. I'm probably in the minority here, but now that IBM has announced the Power6, I (not so) secretly wish they were back in good standing with Apple.
At 4.7 GHz, the dual-core POWER6™ processor doubles the speed of the previous generation POWER5™ while using nearly the same amount of electricity to run and cool it.
At 4.7 GHz, the dual-core POWER6™ processor doubles the speed of the previous generation POWER5™ while using nearly the same amount of electricity to run and cool it.
having been on the G5 processor design team, and seeing my team totally disbanded when apple went to intel, let me end this discussion with a loud and final realization :
IBM AND APPLE NO LONGER HAVE A WORKING RELATIONSHIP. PERIOD!
IBM AND APPLE NO LONGER HAVE A WORKING RELATIONSHIP. PERIOD!
While I understand the differences between the POWER and PowerPC variants ...
I wouldn't discount the possibility of seeing Macs with PPC chips again in the future.
Part of the genius of the Intel shift is that now almost all Mac software is UB ... and processor independent. Apple can pick the best chip from either camp and (with the exception of BootCamp), everything will work seamlessly.
I wouldn't discount the possibility of seeing Macs with PPC chips again in the future.
Part of the genius of the Intel shift is that now almost all Mac software is UB ... and processor independent. Apple can pick the best chip from either camp and (with the exception of BootCamp), everything will work seamlessly.
Never say never unless...
Never say never unless you are Apple! I don't recall verbatim but how many of you remember His Steveness when he said Apple would never use PC (CISC) chips? I also seem to remember this was said more than once.
Lo and behold! His Steveness eventually revealed that Apple had been running EVERY version of Mac OS-X on Intel chips from the beginning of OS-X.
Never say never unless you are Apple! I don't recall verbatim but how many of you remember His Steveness when he said Apple would never use PC (CISC) chips? I also seem to remember this was said more than once.
Lo and behold! His Steveness eventually revealed that Apple had been running EVERY version of Mac OS-X on Intel chips from the beginning of OS-X.
Well, it takes two to tango, and the other party of that relationship will NEVER deal with the other again. Understand?
So I will say NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
I eventually see it happening, but I don't think it will be called that.
Apple will come realize that IBM's insane new technology blows Intel out of the water, and will then offer both Intel and PowerPC based Macs. Probably not for awhile, but it will happen.
Apple will come realize that IBM's insane new technology blows Intel out of the water, and will then offer both Intel and PowerPC based Macs. Probably not for awhile, but it will happen.
I don't see this happening ever. As long as Microsoft is still in existence, x86 will be the dominant personal computer platform.
Do you really think Apple would want to give up the selling point of dual booting? I know of countless people that have converted to Apple because they know that they can still run Windows if they want for those few applications and games that are Windows only. Also Apple seems to have a very nice deal going on with Intel while they p****d IBM off by the sounds of things. Didn't IBM find out on the day of the Intel announcement or something? Apple is small fry to IBM but is big fry to Intel.
Do you really think Apple would want to give up the selling point of dual booting? I know of countless people that have converted to Apple because they know that they can still run Windows if they want for those few applications and games that are Windows only. Also Apple seems to have a very nice deal going on with Intel while they p****d IBM off by the sounds of things. Didn't IBM find out on the day of the Intel announcement or something? Apple is small fry to IBM but is big fry to Intel.
Hey johnee what's U3 and GPUL stand for?
I think GPUL means Giga Processor Ultra Light and U3 is the U3 ASIC Controller. Although this is just some stuff I turned up after a quick Google search.
hmm thanks i thought the power6 was powerpc oh well but these chips would be sweet.
The POWER6 IS a powerpc chip. (Hence the name 'power').
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_POWER
That is the kind of chip IBM makes (including the new Cell processor). You can buy POWER5 (and soon POWER6) workstations directly from IBM that run SUSE or Redhat Linux:
http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/intellistation/power/
The G4 chip as it was called in Macs was made by Motorola. Whereas the many forms of the chip known to apple customers as 'G5' was actually many versions of a chip from IBM.
You're mistaken. PowerPC refers to a specific set of derivatives of the POWER architecture.
Did you even read the link:
"The POWER3 and subsequent microprocessors in the POWER series all implement the full 64-bit PowerPC architecture. The POWER3 and above don't implement any of the old POWER instructions that were removed from the ISA when the PowerPC ISA came out or any of the POWER2 extensions such as lfq or stfq."
So for all intents and purpose, there is no POWER architecture anymore as all of IBM's POWER processors since POWER3 in 1998 implement the 64-bit PowerPC architecture (although they kept compatibility). I know it can be a bit confusing.
In fact, I did read it. And had you read further, you also would have learned while POWER3 and later incorporated the 64 bit PowerPC instruction set, those were not the only instructions they had.
Yes, but the POWER arch retains the PowerPC instructions. It uses powerpc equivalent Linux distributions, for one thing. The same Linux software that executes and runs on a G3, G4, or G5 cpu works on the Cell processor, or other POWER workstations. That is what IBM sells, with off the shelf Redhat (Fedora) and SUSE PPC versions.
See this page, for instance:
http://whitesanjuro.googlepages.com/
The Cell processor uses PowerPC Linux.
the issue of price...
apple/ibm ever again? don't know.
anyone normal users afford the power6 chip in a workstation? NEVER.
the entry HP server running two of these will be above $60,000 when it starts shipping next month. and at this level, things like hard drives, memory, and video cards are 'extra'. good luck with that.
for less, buy a dozen PS3s, run linux and make a 12 node supercomputer cluster. 84 cores, plus a fast computer for the front end. of course then you need to rewire you home/office for more power, and add extra air conditioning, but you would have the fastest computer on your block!
apple/ibm ever again? don't know.
anyone normal users afford the power6 chip in a workstation? NEVER.
the entry HP server running two of these will be above $60,000 when it starts shipping next month. and at this level, things like hard drives, memory, and video cards are 'extra'. good luck with that.
for less, buy a dozen PS3s, run linux and make a 12 node supercomputer cluster. 84 cores, plus a fast computer for the front end. of course then you need to rewire you home/office for more power, and add extra air conditioning, but you would have the fastest computer on your block!
G5 and Beyond!!
I hear you brother! I have worked on both PPC and Intel based machines. The intel Macs are fast, to be sure. But lets put some sort of bastard creation using the latest iteration of Power6 chip out there and see what intel can do? I am currently using an old AGP G4 with a single core 7455 G4 @ 1.5Ghz and it rocks. Running Windows - it sucks. I have VPC 7 and GuestPC 1.9.7 (major crash problems, I mean to the point it takes down the whole system). So the cheap solution for me is a bottom line celeron processor based Wintel machine with XPPro and Timbucktu! Were rockin' again. Thanks for letting me rant!
I hear you brother! I have worked on both PPC and Intel based machines. The intel Macs are fast, to be sure. But lets put some sort of bastard creation using the latest iteration of Power6 chip out there and see what intel can do? I am currently using an old AGP G4 with a single core 7455 G4 @ 1.5Ghz and it rocks. Running Windows - it sucks. I have VPC 7 and GuestPC 1.9.7 (major crash problems, I mean to the point it takes down the whole system). So the cheap solution for me is a bottom line celeron processor based Wintel machine with XPPro and Timbucktu! Were rockin' again. Thanks for letting me rant!
Power6 isn't designed for low-power. so it wont fit in a laptop. apple won't (even if IBM were interested) sell machines with two types of CPUs. its two hard to explain to customers, and it means ALL programs have to be EXTREMELY portable - no Architechture specific code. not to mention