PDA

View Full Version : IBM Delivering 90nm Chips?


MacRumors
Feb 11, 2004, 09:22 AM
According to this Electronics Weekly article (http://www.reed-electronics.com/electronicnews/article/CA380682?spacedesc=ne), IBM is about to begin delivering 90nm chips to Apple:

IBM is about to deliver its very first volume production of an SOC on 90nm, said Reeves. This will be a design for Apple.

Unclear is the significance of the "SOC" -- whether this represents any new information, or somehow simply refers to the 970 chip is not completely clear.

The Xserve G5s utilize the 90nm PowerPC 970 and is scheduled to begin shipment in February.

yoman
Feb 11, 2004, 09:25 AM
so are new powermacs around the corner?

jbrown
Feb 11, 2004, 09:26 AM
are these different to the ones in the xserves??

suitable for Powerbooks??

dho
Feb 11, 2004, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by yoman
so are new powermacs around the corner?

I sure hope so, because we arent #1 anymore

gwuMACaddict
Feb 11, 2004, 09:27 AM
sweeeeeeeeeeet!
:D

virividox
Feb 11, 2004, 09:30 AM
new powermacs = price drops woo hoooo dual 2 gigs wont be expensive hahahah

spencecb
Feb 11, 2004, 09:31 AM
Hopefully PowerMacs are coming....this means we will be able to reclaim our position as the fastest desktop computer in the world again, as the Wintel world hasnt done much lately either!!!

machan
Feb 11, 2004, 09:31 AM
i wish they'd hurry up and put out the dual 2.0-2.4 ghz lineup....so i can buy a dual 3 ghz at the end of the year!

arn
Feb 11, 2004, 09:35 AM
well, it could just mean Xserve G5s... which are shipping this month.

(didn't I say that already?)

arn

yoman
Feb 11, 2004, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by arn
well, it could just mean Xserve G5s... which are shipping this month.

(didn't I say that already?)

arn

Sorry arn,
it's just that we are desperately searching for any hope, whatsoever, of any upgraded Macs or Books.

nicely
Feb 11, 2004, 09:43 AM
Assuming this first volume shipment is for the Xserve and Power Macs, how long do you think it will take Apple to get them onto logic boards and in stores? Two weeks, three?

RichardCarletta
Feb 11, 2004, 09:44 AM
Mac OS 10.3.3 is causing delays for the next revision of the G5 Powermacs . Mac OS 10.3.3 is expected to be released in 2 weeks or less . Once it comes out , the PowerMacs will be updated .

Chaszmyr
Feb 11, 2004, 09:44 AM
If Apple doesn't even have them yet, couldn't it be next month before they made them into machines?

lem0nayde
Feb 11, 2004, 09:55 AM
I tried to do research on "SoC" technology - but the results were mind numbing. It seems to have something to do with having a flexible architecture on the chip that allows for one chip to be used to function for many different applications by swapping out the pieces specific to those applications. Most of IBM's examples seemed to be aimed at markets that require many many different designs based on the same chip. Like embedded applications. I couldn't find a mention of the G5 and SoC together.

Note - I have no idea what I am talking about - the stuff was very hard to sift through.

Maybe it is a G5 iTablet with optional G5 iPhone and a G5 iPDA.

or....a dodecahedron shaped G5 iMac.

or...a Dual 4Ghz G6 PowerMac.

or...nothing at all.

0 and A ai
Feb 11, 2004, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by machan
i wish they'd hurry up and put out the dual 2.0-2.4 ghz lineup....so i can buy a dual 3 ghz at the end of the year!

u mean this summer?

machan
Feb 11, 2004, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by 0 and A ai
u mean this summer?


no, i really do mean end of the year. i don't care when they come out (end of summer or whatever), but i want to buy one for myself for xmas.

0 and A ai
Feb 11, 2004, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by RichardCarletta
Mac OS 10.3.3 is causing delays for the next revision of the G5 Powermacs . Mac OS 10.3.3 is expected to be released in 2 weeks or less . Once it comes out , the PowerMacs will be updated .

Really? Are you sure? Seems just like two weeks ago you said something else.

Originally posted by RichardCarletta
The annoucement of the new revision B. G5 Powermacs has been delayed by the following factor : apparently not enough customers have yet bought up their existing inventories of their current revision A. G5 Powermacs . Too many customers thought the new revision B. G5 Powermacs would be announced at Macworld Expo 2004 and chose to wait to buy them after that. As a result too many of the revision A. G5 Powermacs hsve remained unsold so far. That is one reason why price reductions have recently started on some models . I suspect that soon demand for revision B . Powermacs will be too high and supply of revision B . Powermacs will be too low. That is one reason why they should also introduce a G5 iMac this month too. Not everyone needs to buy a Powermac G5 . Some people can get by with a G5 iMac instead.

0 and A ai
Feb 11, 2004, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by machan
no, i really do mean end of the year. i don't care when they come out (end of summer or whatever), but i want to buy one for myself for xmas.

oh lol

marco114
Feb 11, 2004, 10:14 AM
Has anyone received their Xserve G5's yet? We ordered 3 and they are saying mid-march.

XSERVE/2GHZ DP/2GB/750/CD/RAID PCI/RA/LL Z08Y03H4X
On or before 03/22/2004
3 Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5 065-4573
2GB DDR400 ECC SDRAM 065-4829
750GB ADM (3X250GB SERIAL ATA)065-4840
CD-ROM 065-4577
HARDWARE RAID PCI CARD 065-4790
PCI VIDEO CARD065-4845
Mac OS X Svr,Unlmtd Lic 065-4581
Country Kit065-4580

Got the 3.5TB XServe raid in a couple of days ago... schweet! But, it's taking forever to format. :(

neilw
Feb 11, 2004, 10:17 AM
Though it doesn't really qualify as an SOC, I'd nonetheless assume that (if true) this refers to Apple's system controller chip. This would be a prerequisite to shipping Xserves, and introducing all the other potential product updates based on the 90nm G5's.

So the clock is ticking. I'd expect new Macs in about 4-5 weeks. Dunno if Apple will pre-announce or not; I'd guess not for the PowerMacs.

V.A.Toss
Feb 11, 2004, 10:27 AM
SOC wasnt designed for desktops, it was designed for more compact and portable machines.

Whats the point in having a system-on-a-chip in something as large and static as a powermac? none.

I would be very surprised if it did end up in a powermac, and if it was a 970 based SOC. There was news about a PPC750-based SOC a while back that they were developing, but to go back to the 750 is also pretty unlikely.

SOC was being developed for compact machines.
So, Laptop? possibly, though i still think apple would rather wait for a regular 970 based powerbook.
iMac? more likely, needs to be compact, and the range needs updating badly.

Im feeling ambitious though, so i would put my money on an anniversary mac of some sort. Its hard to imagine, but still more likely than putting an SOC in a powermac.

Mac-Xpert
Feb 11, 2004, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by RichardCarletta
Mac OS 10.3.3 is causing delays for the next revision of the G5 Powermacs . Mac OS 10.3.3 is expected to be released in 2 weeks or less . Once it comes out , the PowerMacs will be updated . What makes you think that? What special hardware besides speedbumped 970's would the next G5 have that would require the 10.3.3 update?

I remember people saying something similar before the first G5's where introduced. They said it would require Panther or that it would require a 64-bit OS. Well we know now that both weren't the case. I think a slightly patched 10.3.2 for any new drivers would do just fine.

hopkinssm
Feb 11, 2004, 10:34 AM
Couldn't this be a typo? It makes more sense as 90nm SoI (Silicon on Insulator) chips.....

Photorun
Feb 11, 2004, 10:39 AM
It's all nice but when the hell are new displays coming?!?

TRiPod
Feb 11, 2004, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by V.A.Toss
SOC wasnt designed for desktops, it was designed for more compact and portable machines.

Whats the point in having a system-on-a-chip in something as large and static as a powermac? none.


remember the xserve g5? that would complete the equation.

Mac-Xpert
Feb 11, 2004, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by hopkinssm
Couldn't this be a typo? It makes more sense as 90nm SoI (Silicon on Insulator) chips..... That would make more sense, but looking at the original quote:

"IBM is about to deliver its very first volume production of an SOC on 90nm, said Reeves. This will be a design for Apple."

It seems strange that the talk of an SOC and that they say it is specially designed for Apple. The 970 is of course not a special design for Apple.

Tulse
Feb 11, 2004, 10:57 AM
I agree that a 90nm 970 system-on-chip is highly unlikely -- as far as I can determine, the system-on-chip work that IBM is doing is all for the embedded market. (Here's an overview of IBM chip families (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/productfamilies/PowerPC_Microprocessors_and_Embedded_Processors), with the SoI chips indicated -- they are the 4xx series.)

What this all means is that either the source really meant SOI, or (and much more interestingly) the chip isn't a 970, but something else entirely, for a non-Mac device (notice that the source doesn't specify that the chip is a 970).

My guess is that it's just a typo, and it's really the 90nm Silicon-on-Insulator 970. Then again...

MarkCollette
Feb 11, 2004, 10:57 AM
Personally, I assume that new PowerMacs will only come out after the release of the G5 Xserves, AND after the initial surge of shipments of the Xserves. As in, all initial new G5s go into Xserves, and once supply for the chips catches up with demand, then we'll have PowerMacs. They might be announced soon afterward, but only become available a month afterwards.

- Mark Collette

TheAnswer
Feb 11, 2004, 11:01 AM
Since Silicon on Insolator is SoL (small "o").

shouldn't System on a Chip be SoC?

I think maybe this is just short for System Onboard Controller or something like that.

or, since we have all been waiting for these machines, maybe it is a Shipment Obstruction Chip using technology that IBM got from Motorola.

jsnuff1
Feb 11, 2004, 11:03 AM
Personally, I assume that new PowerMacs will only come out after the release of the G5 Xserves, AND after the initial surge of shipments of the Xserves. As in, all initial new G5s go into Xserves, and once supply for the chips catches up with demand, then we'll have PowerMacs. They might be announced soon afterward, but only become available a month afterwards.

- Mark Collette

yea but remeber the only G5 chips that are goin to the XServe are at 2 Ghz...IBM should be crankin those babies out with no prob...the updated PM G5's will use chips with speeds greater than 2 Ghz(excpet for the base model maybe) so there should be no connection between XServe and PM demand.

Geronimo
Feb 11, 2004, 11:08 AM
Could SOC mean silicon-on-copper? I think I've seen that phrase used somewhere or other in connection with IBM chips...

Fukui
Feb 11, 2004, 11:18 AM
Silicon on Cra....never mind....

StudioGuy
Feb 11, 2004, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Fukui
Silicon on Cra....never mind....

har har :D LOL

Now, that wouldn't be a nice thing for an Apple chip... We left that back in MOT days :)

Diatribe
Feb 11, 2004, 11:31 AM
Just a crazy thought, but didn't they have problems with the 20" iMac and the 10.3.3? Maybe they need to fix this problem before they can release G5 iMacs. As I said just a crazy thought.

sw1tcher
Feb 11, 2004, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by 0 and A ai
Really? Are you sure? Seems just like two weeks ago you said something else.

I think s/he's referring to a post on Mac OS Rumors (http://www.macosrumors.com/) which states: "Still waiting on a new 10.3.3 seed... The absence of an updated seed to take the place of 7F24, pulled early last week due to a nasty glitch when installed on 20-inch iMacs, has raised more than a few eyebrows. Several key developers who work closely with Apple on its system update seeds were led to believe there would be 2-3 more seeds before a release and that a new build would be released by now -- reports now indicate that there could be only one or possibly two."

"A final release is expected within two weeks, as the new PowerMac G5s (@ up to Dual 2.6GHz) are expected to be dependent on new machine support code in 10.3.3."

NusuniAdmin
Feb 11, 2004, 11:54 AM
Yes if new pmacs come out then I hope the current line does get a lot cheaper. But then again, if they get cheaper then the powermac g4's on apple.com either need to get removed or get a lot cheaper as well. Personaly I think it would be great if they produced a low end single 2.0 ghz pmac (with 90 NM and all that good stuff) and a single 2.2 ghz one, and dual 2.4 and 2.6 ones.

2.0 ghz G5 -- $1,500
2.2 ghz G5 -- $1,700
dual 2.4 ghz G5 -- $2,200-$2,400
dual 2.6 ghz G5 -- $2,600-$2,900

Now those are some great prices for 64 bit computers. Oh wait, another one that would also be great...

quad 2.6 ghz G5 -- $4,000-$4,500

macshark
Feb 11, 2004, 11:57 AM
First, note that the article is talking about IBM's ASIC and Foundry business, which is different from IBM's PowerPC business.

Unless there was a typo, SoC refers to system on a chip. There has been many reports of Apple having 90nm PPC970 chips since late last year, so I don't think the article is referring to first shipment of 90nm G5s to Apple.

Despite what has been posted on this thread, Apple does not need a 90nm system controller to ship XServe G5, the same set of 2 system controller chips that are used in G5 PowerMacs would work just fine in the XServe. These 130nm chips are designed for expandability (3 PCI-X busses, etc.) but they do occuply a lot of space (very large pin count --> large package) and burn quite a bit of power. Apple probably designed a more integrated system controller (most likely single chip) targeted at future G5 iMac and G5 PowerBook designs. The last sentence in the article is most likely referring to this chip.

If IBM can deliver new system controller ASICs to Apple over the next few weeks and if the first silicon is fully functional (IBM guy claims this is the case 95% of the time), then we can expect to see 90nm G5 based iMacs and/or PowerBooks in early summer timeframe.

dongmin
Feb 11, 2004, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Tulse
I agree that a 90nm 970 system-on-chip is highly unlikely -- as far as I can determine, the system-on-chip work that IBM is doing is all for the embedded market. (Here's an overview of IBM chip families (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/productfamilies/PowerPC_Microprocessors_and_Embedded_Processors), with the SoI chips indicated -- they are the 4xx series.)

What this all means is that either the source really meant SOI, or (and much more interestingly) the chip isn't a 970, but something else entirely, for a non-Mac device (notice that the source doesn't specify that the chip is a 970).

My guess is that it's just a typo, and it's really the 90nm Silicon-on-Insulator 970. Then again... i'm just shooting from the hip here but could this new chip be for the Power Books? System-on-chip as a way of reducing heat?

More likely it's just sloppiness on the part of the rumormongers...

Voiteur
Feb 11, 2004, 12:02 PM
Why would you want all those new machines when Final Cut runs just fine on your beige 500 mhz?
Okay, I'm just giving you a hard time.

ghost1911
Feb 11, 2004, 12:06 PM
OK, the whole purpose of a system on a chip is to embed it in a device. You don't need memory, drives, or peripheral controllers as these things are all built in to the chip.

SOCs, also known as SOSs (systems on silicon), also tend to have a much higher reliability than their processor cousins. The cost for having a SOS/SOC is that their clock speed is usually dramaticaly lower due to the heat issues of having several peripheral parts integrated into the processors core.

SO what does this all mean you may ask? It means first that this will probably not end up in a desktop device. This also means that this will not be the next generation of Apple laptop. This only means that IBM has developed a better embedded controller based on the PPC architecture. So expect to see PPC in more phones, pdas, and other personal devices.

Since the article indicates that the design was done for Apple, this could be substantial evidence that Apple intends to create embedded personal devices (iRefrigerator anybody) and is probably beginning to prototype them with IBMs 90mm SOCs.

NusuniAdmin
Feb 11, 2004, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Voiteur
Why would you want all those new machines when Final Cut runs just fine on your beige 500 mhz?
Okay, I'm just giving you a hard time.

I did not say I wanted them did I, all I said was it would be cool. And dont make fun of my beigey haha. I think the only reason FCP runs not completely crappy on my beige is cause I have 700 megs ram, if it was not for that it would run really crappy.

MongoTheGeek
Feb 11, 2004, 12:13 PM
I went to Sherlock and it pointed to acronymfinder which among other wonderful things as "Straight Outta Compton" was "Silicon on ceramic" at #1. I would guess its a variant of the SOI technology o perhaps just Big Blue's name for SOI.

pjkelnhofer
Feb 11, 2004, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by ghost1911
OK, the whole purpose of a system on a chip is to embed it in a device. You don't need memory, drives, or peripheral controllers as these things are all built in to the chip.

SOCs, also known as SOSs (systems on silicon), also tend to have a much higher reliability than their processor cousins. The cost for having a SOS/SOC is that their clock speed is usually dramaticaly lower due to the heat issues of having several peripheral parts integrated into the processors core.

SO what does this all mean you may ask? It means first that this will probably not end up in a desktop device. This also means that this will not be the next generation of Apple laptop. This only means that IBM has developed a better embedded controller based on the PPC architecture. So expect to see PPC in more phones, pdas, and other personal devices.

Since the article indicates that the design was done for Apple, this could be substantial evidence that Apple intends to create embedded personal devices (iRefrigerator anybody) and is probably beginning to prototype them with IBMs 90mm SOCs.

Thanks, you be me to it. I was just doing some research on the IBM website. So this means either one of two things:
1)It is a typo (or misquote) and should be SOI in which case these are most likely just chips for the XServes.
2)It is for some as yet unannounced device that Apple has up it's sleeve.
Either we shouldn't get our hopes up for new G5 anythings anytime soon.

If it turns out to be the second it will increase my opinions that Apple's future is moving away from the Mac and more into other digital lifestyle devices.

RichardCarletta
Feb 11, 2004, 12:17 PM
the fact that many retailers were still selling inventories of remaining inventories of some machines while inventories of the others were gone. Recently discounts on remaining models are common now. Apple could be desparately trying to use this time to drastically reduce all inventory of the revision A . Powermacs to as close to zero as possibble until OS 10.3.3 gets released. Also many people on this forum stated interest in waiting to buy revision B. Powermacs instead of buying the Revision A . If this forum is typical of the general mac buying public, then that would explain the reason for the remaining number of PowerMac G5 revision A. inventories.

As for OS 10.3.3 , wouldn't it make sense to release the Revision B. G5 PowerMacs with 10.3.3 ? Why release the machines with the previous OS ? The revision B. might be able to operate with 10.3.2 , but if the 20 inch iMac shows problems with 10.3.3 , why should Apple release the revision B. with it ? Apple should fix and release the 10.3.3 , then release the Revision B. G5 with it and maybe the G5 iMac this season .

pb1212580
Feb 11, 2004, 12:23 PM
ooh... ooh... ooh...

I see new PowerBooks!!!

ionas
Feb 11, 2004, 12:36 PM
1. for xServes
2. for PowerMacs

maybe they are only for xServers - question is how many they need for xServes...

I don't see PowerBooks.
I see Powerbooks around 1.6-2ghz when they release 3ghz powermacs.

mischief
Feb 11, 2004, 12:40 PM
SoC is an IBM-specific term. System on Chip.

The 970 was slated as an "embedded" chip before Apple released it as the G5.

Going to 90nm would dramatically reduce heat consumption.

Doing a version of the 970 with SoC would mean it would be possible to ditch the ASIC sistem controller chip and run it all direct. This would only have advantages in single processor machines where space on the mobo is at a premium.

Analysis:

Either:

There's either a new rev of G5 comming for iMac or PowerBook that doesn't need the ASIC.

OR:

There's a new ASIC. This one makes less sense considering that the current ASIC runs the fastest bus in the industry. It's still a possibility, to reduce heat but.... less likely.


I have to point out the quote from SJ:

"Apple has NO PLANS to develop a PDA."

The only other possibility (less than 30% odds) is an Apple device designed to "kill" the now-defunct M$ Mira project and it's accompanying set-top box. Note: the company who was developping a cheap Apple-parts based Pizza-box is no longer calling it "iBox".;)

stingerman
Feb 11, 2004, 12:40 PM
SOC means only one thing, System on a Chip. It basically almost every non external connector part of the Motherboard reduced down to one chip. What is left is the physical interfaces for Ethernet, Firewire, that need to interface with the chip. IBM's current 90NM SOC design technology, CU-08, allows Apple to mix PowerPC cores such as the 400 series (used in the recent IBM cell supercomputer) and floating point units, such as FP2 (the 64-bit FPU used in the 970) with other features usually reserved for the chip set and other support chips on a motherboard.

With the 90NM technology, there is no reason why Apple couldn't put an entire Mac on one chip to be embedded in an ultra-thin notebook (the 12" could drop from 5lbs to 2+lbs). Apple could include an entire Mac into a device the size of an iPod, or cell phone. With the right docking technology, you could carry your Mac in your shirt pocket an just plug it in the office or home. How about a Mac built into a Cinema TV, and/or the rumored iBox. It would definitely blow away a Palm or PocketPC.

There are so many things Apple can do with a Mac on a Chip. It should allow Apple to continue to innovate in very exciting ways.

benpatient
Feb 11, 2004, 12:41 PM
i see a 4-6 month wait for 90nm process in PowerMacs....and any sort of price change...

Glad i didn't decide to wait for an announcement...

I think the sad truth is that apple hasn't changed their release schedule speed at all.

back last fall when the dual 1.8 came out and we all got excited about more frequent releases with G5, i think that was just a 1-time thing.

I hope you're all ready for the 3300 dollar dual 2.2ghz in may...

i'm sure the price on the year-old dual 2.0 will go down 200 dollars or something, and get a graphics card upgrade to the REAL version of the 9600 Pro (with the 128mb of RAM it's supposed to have anyway)

mitcho
Feb 11, 2004, 12:42 PM
Unclear is the significance of the "SOC" -- whether this represents any new information, or somehow simply refers to the 970 chip is not completely clear.


Why is this written like Yoda said it?

idea_hamster
Feb 11, 2004, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
Yes if new pmacs come out then I hope the current line does get a lot cheaper. But then again, if they get cheaper then the powermac g4's on apple.com either need to get removed or get a lot cheaper as well.
I agree that the G5 line would probably shift down along the price points (i.e., we pay the same $3k for the top-of-the-line G5, but it's now 2.6GHz rather than 2.0).

However, I think that the PowerMac G4's will likely not change much at all -- just about everyone who is in the market for a brand new G4 desktop today probably has a non-$ reason (software licenses, OS9, etc.). Or at least that's what I think that Apple thinks. Part of their strategy to migrate Mac users to OSX seems to be making it less cost effective to stay with OS9.

My guess is that the PM G4 will not drop in price. Will it be removed altogether? Someday -- but not before the G5 PowerBook comes out. Once Apple's pro line is all G5, they'll be much more interested in debuting the G6 and severing all Motorola connections -- and much less interested in supporting users who cling to what by then will look like an artifact OS.

JMHO.

ionas
Feb 11, 2004, 12:44 PM
hehe i see sj talking about 3ghz at wwdc:

"Next is - WHOHOHOHOHO - ...."

"and then at some point: "and we still offer the world fastest personal computer - now even faster - even compared to our competitors"

besides that i dont believe that the g5 is or was the fastest personal desktop computer. maybe it was in cubase and other apps but there are apps that will run defenatly faster on the pc - cause of what reasons ever :-)

though i consider the g5 dual 2ghz being a very fast system :)

lol

NusuniAdmin
Feb 11, 2004, 12:52 PM
Remember premature speculation....well that would be funny if we look on the g4 pmac section and it is all screwed up again talking about 2.6 ghz g4's and such. haha. Then next tues. have steve talk about it, "Well....you may have seen on the internet (laughter) this page. It is fake, and it is true...."

pjkelnhofer
Feb 11, 2004, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by RichardCarletta
the fact that many retailers were still selling inventories of remaining inventories of some machines while inventories of the others were gone. Recently discounts on remaining models are common now. Apple could be desparately trying to use this time to drastically reduce all inventory of the revision A . Powermacs to as close to zero as possibble until OS 10.3.3 gets released. Also many people on this forum stated interest in waiting to buy revision B. Powermacs instead of buying the Revision A . If this forum is typical of the general mac buying public, then that would explain the reason for the remaining number of PowerMac G5 revision A. inventories.

As for OS 10.3.3 , wouldn't it make sense to release the Revision B. G5 PowerMacs with 10.3.3 ? Why release the machines with the previous OS ? The revision B. might be able to operate with 10.3.2 , but if the 20 inch iMac shows problems with 10.3.3 , why should Apple release the revision B. with it ? Apple should fix and release the 10.3.3 , then release the Revision B. G5 with it and maybe the G5 iMac this season .

What difference would that make. Apple is not going to charge to upgrade from 10.3.2 to 10.3.3. It will just come through software update. In fact, even if they do wait until after 10.3.3 comes out, I wouldn't be suprised if machines still ship with 10.3.2 preloaded at first.

Where are these drastic discounts? The only thing really being sold at a discount is the single 1.8 GHz G5 which is an already discontinued model. Otherwise I would be very interested to hear what is discounted. As far a inventories, Apple is notorious for not being able to produce machines fast enough to keep every dealer stocked with inventory. Just ask people who originally ordered the G5's.

NusuniAdmin
Feb 11, 2004, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
What difference would that make. Apple is not going to charge to upgrade from 10.3.2 to 10.3.3. It will just come through software update. In fact, even if they do wait until after 10.3.3 comes out, I wouldn't be suprised if machines still ship with 10.3.2 preloaded at first.

Where are these drastic discounts? The only thing really being sold at a discount is the single 1.8 GHz G5 which is an already discontinued model. Otherwise I would be very interested to hear what is discounted. As far a inventories, Apple is notorious for not being able to produce machines fast enough to keep every dealer stocked with inventory. Just ask people who originally ordered the G5's.

They would not even ship with 10.3.2, they would ship with plain ol' 10.3 When my dad got his emac 10.2.6 was out, it came with 10.2, when i got my dual 10.2.3 was out (i dont remember was one was out actualy, i got it in christmas 2002, it came with 10.2, so it does not matter if thye wait or not

aquafina
Feb 11, 2004, 01:30 PM
SoC is a typo, it is SoI (Silicon on Insulator) and it represents a technology that IBM employs to produce the chips. These are the chips that are due in the Xserves, and potentially in new PBs and PMs, but those have not been announced yet.

leftbanke7
Feb 11, 2004, 01:41 PM
Sometimes I wonder if people purposly give out tidbits of information to watch us Mac users begin to salivate and lose our collective minds.

My philosophy: Whatever they release, they release. Whenever they do it, they'll do it.

Regardless of whatever Apple decides to do with these chips (xServe, PB, iMac, dip them in guacamole and eat them) it'll make some people very happy and disappoint just as many so relax. In due time, we will all have our upgraded G5s, our G5 Powerbooks, and our G5 iMacs (or something that resembles it). Why don't we all go outside and enjoy the day.

army_guy
Feb 11, 2004, 01:50 PM
SOC has nothing to do with the G5, it just a controller chip at 90nm. They run at very low speed anyway and small size so IBM can get good yields and sell them cheaply at 90nm. 90nm is still having problems regardless of what IBM, AMD, or INTEL says.

lewdvig
Feb 11, 2004, 01:51 PM
SOC - System on a Chip? IBM does a lot of SOC stuff for embedded systems. But I am puzzled to the significance of this.

I think the above poster is right. This must be refering to part of the system logic (Northbridge) like the Athlon64. But if it is, wasn't this already reported?

I think I read a site refering to low K with copper interconnects as SOC but I can't find the article.

Rocketman
Feb 11, 2004, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by stingerman

With the 90NM technology, there is no reason why Apple couldn't put an entire Mac on one chip to be embedded in an ultra-thin notebook (the 12" could drop from 5lbs to 2+lbs). Apple could include an entire Mac into a device the size of an iPod, or cell phone. With the right docking technology, you could carry your Mac in your shirt pocket an just plug it in the office or home. How about a Mac built into a Cinema TV, and/or the rumored iBox. It would definitely blow away a Palm or PocketPC.

There are so many things Apple can do with a Mac on a Chip. It should allow Apple to continue to innovate in very exciting ways.

Back in the stone age (System 6 IIRC) you could put your entire environment on a floppy disc and go to a foreign mac and install your disc and click on your preferences file and all the settings would be yours.

Rocketman

army_guy
Feb 11, 2004, 01:55 PM
Apple doesnt design or manufacture ASICS, they dont have the experience or resources to do such a thing, any companies volunteering to design an entire embedded MAC?

NusuniAdmin
Feb 11, 2004, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by army_guy
Apple doesnt design or manufacture ASICS, they dont have the experience or resources to do such a thing, any companies volunteering to design an entire embedded MAC?

umm....MAC is the ethernet address of a compututer......lol

steveh
Feb 11, 2004, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by army_guy
Apple doesnt design or manufacture ASICS, they dont have the experience or resources to do such a thing

Apple has been designing ASICs for *years*, well over a decade, close to two.

Manufacture is done by various rent-a-foundry firms; fab facilities are expensive, and Apple buys nothing by setting up one of their own.

jettredmont
Feb 11, 2004, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by hopkinssm
Couldn't this be a typo? It makes more sense as 90nm SoI (Silicon on Insulator) chips.....

Exactly what I was thinking. Wouldn't be the first time "SOC" ("Silicon on Conductor" aka "Silicon on Silicon" aka "Standard CMOS") and "SOI" ("Silicon on Insulator") were confused. And, in the context, SOI seems to fit better.

Are the 90nm G5s supposed to use SOI technology, or the older SOS?

army_guy
Feb 11, 2004, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by steveh
Apple has been designing ASICs for *years*, well over a decade, close to two.

Manufacture is done by various rent-a-foundry firms; fab facilities are expensive, and Apple buys nothing by setting up one of their own.

Contracts dude. You know when you hire someone give them the spec and they deliver the product (in this case the someone is an ASIC designer. Apple designs computer systems etc.. not ASICS.

wizard
Feb 11, 2004, 02:55 PM
I have to believe that this is an alternative to the 970 destined to low cost and laptop platforms. If you read carefully the whole article revolves around IBM's issues with custom chips, the 970 is never mentioned. My suspicions are that this is a high integration 32 bit processor. There is little advanatge to trying to go SOC with the 970 as that device runs to ht as it is.

Embedded is just a frame of mind, in many cases the hardware does not vary from the run of the mill processors. Besides with 90nm technology available to them there is no reason why IBM can't go the SOC route with any of their processors.

I don't think that this is a 970 based device but I'm not willing to say that it is for a non-Mac device. Apple and IBM have been indicating that they are working together on a laptop chip. This could be the baby.

Thanks
Dave


Originally posted by Tulse
I agree that a 90nm 970 system-on-chip is highly unlikely -- as far as I can determine, the system-on-chip work that IBM is doing is all for the embedded market. (Here's an overview of IBM chip families (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/productfamilies/PowerPC_Microprocessors_and_Embedded_Processors), with the SoI chips indicated -- they are the 4xx series.)

What this all means is that either the source really meant SOI, or (and much more interestingly) the chip isn't a 970, but something else entirely, for a non-Mac device (notice that the source doesn't specify that the chip is a 970).

My guess is that it's just a typo, and it's really the 90nm Silicon-on-Insulator 970. Then again...

wizard
Feb 11, 2004, 03:07 PM
Via has chip sets that serve as SOC for a IBM PC as does AMD. Some of these are not high performance but that should not imply that it is a characteristic of the concept. It is a charactristic of the process the SOC is built on.

With IBM's 90 nm technology, i see nothing to keep Apple from implementing a SOC suitable for a laptop or low cost machine. This would be a high performance chip too.

The other reality is that we don't know exactly what they mean by SOC. They could be talking about a processor with built in memory control and a couple of hypertransport ports or it could contain the better part of a laptop. Either is a possibility with todays technology.

Thanks
Dave



Originally posted by ghost1911
OK, the whole purpose of a system on a chip is to embed it in a device. You don't need memory, drives, or peripheral controllers as these things are all built in to the chip.

SOCs, also known as SOSs (systems on silicon), also tend to have a much higher reliability than their processor cousins. The cost for having a SOS/SOC is that their clock speed is usually dramaticaly lower due to the heat issues of having several peripheral parts integrated into the processors core.

SO what does this all mean you may ask? It means first that this will probably not end up in a desktop device. This also means that this will not be the next generation of Apple laptop. This only means that IBM has developed a better embedded controller based on the PPC architecture. So expect to see PPC in more phones, pdas, and other personal devices.

Since the article indicates that the design was done for Apple, this could be substantial evidence that Apple intends to create embedded personal devices (iRefrigerator anybody) and is probably beginning to prototype them with IBMs 90mm SOCs.

numediaman
Feb 11, 2004, 03:11 PM
Is it just me, or has EN pulled the story off their site?

EDIT: Did you see the front page on MacMall? They are selling refurbed G5s from Virginia Tech!! I thought these puppies wouldn't be available to the general public?

jared_kipe
Feb 11, 2004, 03:18 PM
It is interesting to think about this in the stand point of anouther post: these chips might not be meant for a computer. With the raised issue of heat due to several components built in it makes it more certain that this isn't going to be a desktop or laptop chip. If it were, it would have to be clocked low to deal with the heat issues.

So if we take this to mean that it will be clocked low, extreamly low, then it might be a good chip for the much adored ideas of an apple branded consumber device or pda. Think about it, the iPod has a great deal of chips to do only one basic function, that is, manage a hard drive of music. If they went to an embeded chip they could reduce size, and boost preformance at the same time. With a size reduction perhaps they could move those buttons under the wheel, ala mini, giving enought space for a relativly small color touchscreen. This product would sell like lemonade on a hot summer day.

dongmin
Feb 11, 2004, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by benpatient
i see a 4-6 month wait for 90nm process in PowerMacs....and any sort of price change...

Glad i didn't decide to wait for an announcement...

I think the sad truth is that apple hasn't changed their release schedule speed at all.

back last fall when the dual 1.8 came out and we all got excited about more frequent releases with G5, i think that was just a 1-time thing.

I hope you're all ready for the 3300 dollar dual 2.2ghz in may...

i'm sure the price on the year-old dual 2.0 will go down 200 dollars or something, and get a graphics card upgrade to the REAL version of the 9600 Pro (with the 128mb of RAM it's supposed to have anyway) You obviously haven't been keeping up with the PPC970 news. Steve Jobs has publicly stated that the G5 will hit 3 ghz before the summer is over. That's September at the latest. Secondly, the Xserves, which are slated to ship next month, will use 90nm 970s. So if you add those two bits of news together, it means that Apple will be doing at least one, probably two, update with 90nm 970s by this September.

wizard
Feb 11, 2004, 03:32 PM
YEP THE ARTICLE WAS PULLED!!!!!

This seems to indicate that one, the article was accurate as written and that the article was a slip up. Something good is coming our way we just don't know what it is.

How about it guys who is willing to vote indicating that this mystry device is a laptop chip. I'm thinking it has to be, but some of the argurments for an alternative device are sound.

Dave



Originally posted by numediaman
Is it just me, or has EN pulled the story off their site?

EDIT: Did you see the front page on MacMall? They are selling refurbed G5s from Virginia Tech!! I thought these puppies wouldn't be available to the general public?

MarkCollette
Feb 11, 2004, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by jsnuff1
yea but remeber the only G5 chips that are goin to the XServe are at 2 Ghz...IBM should be crankin those babies out with no prob...the updated PM G5's will use chips with speeds greater than 2 Ghz(excpet for the base model maybe) so there should be no connection between XServe and PM demand.

It still takes a while to accumulate sufficient yields of the higher spec'ed chips, when starting up a new process, leaving the lower spec'ed chips more available. That might be why they're releasing the xServe first, since it can use the slower of the newer chips.

- Mark Collette

dongmin
Feb 11, 2004, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by wizard
YEP THE ARTICLE WAS PULLED!!!!!

This seems to indicate that one, the article was accurate as written and that the article was a slip up. Something good is coming our way we just don't know what it is.

How about it guys who is willing to vote indicating that this mystry device is a laptop chip. I'm thinking it has to be, but some of the argurments for an alternative device are sound.

Dave or it could be that the article was pulled because everything in it was totally fabricated... i.e. it doesn't mean jack.

wizard
Feb 11, 2004, 03:46 PM
While I can't argue with the possibility of other devices I can say this much your arguments with respect to the laptop are not accurate.

First you have to consider that the laptop is by design a limited I/O device. So there is less I/O to support in the first place. Second the need to run high speed ports to system controllers is power hungery in and of itself.

It is the arrival of several rather new technologies that makes a SOC laptop possible and a smart move. First is the wide spread use of Serial Ports (SATA, FireWire, USB and maybe a Ethernet port), these save pincounts and more importantly power usage. The second is 90 nm technology which should allow IBM to supply a very low power 32 bit core. The addition of a memory interface and a port to a video processor round out the package. In the end you end up with a modest increase in pin count over a general purpose 32 bit processor. Mind you we are talking laptop here where you are limited to the I/O you can have in place.

I'm not trying to discount some of your speculated devices, I just want to point out that a SOC processor doesn't have to be low performance and can in fact be just the opposite of that. Properly done a SOC could make one hell of a laptop. It would afford the designers the ability to run at high clock rates yet keep the overall system power usage levels under control.

Dave




Originally posted by jared_kipe
It is interesting to think about this in the stand point of anouther post: these chips might not be meant for a computer. With the raised issue of heat due to several components built in it makes it more certain that this isn't going to be a desktop or laptop chip. If it were, it would have to be clocked low to deal with the heat issues.

So if we take this to mean that it will be clocked low, extreamly low, then it might be a good chip for the much adored ideas of an apple branded consumber device or pda. Think about it, the iPod has a great deal of chips to do only one basic function, that is, manage a hard drive of music. If they went to an embeded chip they could reduce size, and boost preformance at the same time. With a size reduction perhaps they could move those buttons under the wheel, ala mini, giving enought space for a relativly small color touchscreen. This product would sell like lemonade on a hot summer day.

Chryx
Feb 11, 2004, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by mischief
Doing a version of the 970 with SoC would mean it would be possible to ditch the ASIC sistem controller chip and run it all direct. This would only have advantages in single processor machines where space on the mobo is at a premium.


There's something else you're not accounting for...

I'll give you a reference point..

Opteron.

the 970FX's weakness is it's memory latency, putting the memory controller on the die, and THEN putting AGP/PCI controllers on the die as well would remove that weakness and then gives it a leg up on Opteron, leaving its only weakspot as it's relatively weak integer execution resources.

seriously, most SOC's are low power devices, but the tech has major potential in the performance segment, as AMD are demonstrating by putting the memory controller on the die.

45ns first word latency on a 2.2Ghz Athlon64 verses 135ns on a 2Ghz G5... O_O

Henriok
Feb 11, 2004, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by stingerman
With the 90NM technology, there is no reason why Apple couldn't put an entire Mac on one chip to be embedded in an ultra-thin notebook (the 12" could drop from 5lbs to 2+lbs). Apple could include an entire Mac into a device the size of an iPod, or cell phone. With the right docking technology, you could carry your Mac in your shirt pocket an just plug it in the office or home. How about a Mac built into a Cinema TV, and/or the rumored iBox. It would definitely blow away a Palm or PocketPC. This is the most initiated post in this thread to date. Thanks!

There's no end to the possibilities for Apple now that high end CPU cores are getting really small. A SOC based on 970 using 130 nm technology would've been a huge chip, but it won't anymore.

I don't think the "SOC" was a typo since the entire sentance would have to be rewritten for it to make any sense with "SOI".

I don't think that a SOC-processor for Apple would be 970 based, but it can be the fabled 750VX-processor destined for e/iMacs and iBooks. The design facilities at IBM seems to be quite extensive so Apple could, or should, try to make more SOC designs for their computers. I can't se any reason why really.

The component level design of all consumer products are largly the same. All share a couple of components that must be there. Memory controllers, Ethernet, AirPort, Bluetooth, Sound i/o, ATA/SATA, PCI-bridge, USB, FireWire. There's no reason why Apple doesnt move these components on die together with the CPU. Only memory, expansion slots and the physical ports would be left on the motherboard.

lewdvig
Feb 11, 2004, 05:04 PM
How much of the logic chipset could they put onto the CPU die. Opteron only has a memory controller right (Northbridge) the I/O is still handled by a southbridge. I have always read that in order to scale CPU speed you need to deepen execution pipelines (more stages). Do you think they would do a radical redesign of the 750 at this stage in it's life? It seems like a lot of work to put into a technology than is past it's prime as a PC CPU.

If this new part is a 970 core, what if RAM technology changes really fast? Do you think they would already have DDR2 memory controllers in the 970FX or would that be kept for later?

Does the intergration of componenets on to a single die offset the cost of developing such a part in such a way as to benefit the consumer? I am thinking primarily of lower prices here.

I think that Apple/IBM would only make this decision if they were really certain thay could count on current memory, and I/O standards to be stable for a while.

Who makes the call re:
PCI Express vs. AGP
DDR vs. DDRII
ATA vs. SATA

Are they going to do enough volume with this chip to recoup the development money for a really elaborate SOC part?

This must have been a typo. It must be low-K Copper interconnect tech. TSMC, a rival foundry to IBM, is claiming that it has the lead in low-K SOI fabrication. They do chips for ATI and Trident using 8 layer copper interconnects (6 used to be a big deal) and use Applied Materials low K stuff. It would be cool to know what the diaelectric constant of this IBM chip is than we would be know how it was made.

TSMC is only doing 130 and 110nm chips though. So if IBM can apply these new technique to the 970 at 90nm that alone will be a big deal (the other crazy SOC stuff won't matter).

Telomar
Feb 11, 2004, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by army_guy
Contracts dude. You know when you hire someone give them the spec and they deliver the product (in this case the someone is an ASIC designer. Apple designs computer systems etc.. not ASICS. You don't know what you're talking about. Apple maintains an ASIC design team and in fact the current system controller on the G5s is an ASIC designed by Apple.

Anonymous Freak
Feb 11, 2004, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by lewdvig
Who makes the call re:
PCI Express vs. AGP
DDR vs. DDRII
ATA vs. SATA


I'll make the predictions:
AGP 8x, PCI-X 133, as current G5. (PCI Express in the PPC980 next year.)
DDR at 400MHz, as current. (MAYBE an update to 433 or 450MHz, but I doubt DDR2.)
Serial ATA for hard drives, Parallel ATA for optical, just as current.

Why just keeping the status quo? Because this is just a speed bump. Yes, it's a die-shrink, but the only result of the die shrink is to get higher speeds at lower power. I even doubt that the memory speed will increase, simply because DDR400 is the current highest speed that is an official standard. Everything faster is 'unofficial', and not based on any officially defined standard.

lewdvig
Feb 11, 2004, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by ehurtley
I'll make the predictions:
AGP 8x, PCI-X 133, as current G5. (PCI Express in the PPC980 next year.)
DDR at 400MHz, as current. (MAYBE an update to 433 or 450MHz, but I doubt DDR2.)
Serial ATA for hard drives, Parallel ATA for optical, just as current.

Why just keeping the status quo? Because this is just a speed bump. Yes, it's a die-shrink, but the only result of the die shrink is to get higher speeds at lower power. I even doubt that the memory speed will increase, simply because DDR400 is the current highest speed that is an official standard. Everything faster is 'unofficial', and not based on any officially defined standard.


AND more dies per wafer don't forget.

If yields are good at 2.5 so fast, they will be able to get 3 w/o needing the 980. We should start keeping track of stepping codes on G5s.

MadMan
Feb 12, 2004, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by marco114
Has anyone received their Xserve G5's yet? We ordered 3 and they are saying mid-march.

XSERVE/2GHZ DP/2GB/750/CD/RAID PCI/RA/LL Z08Y03H4X
On or before 03/22/2004
3 Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5 065-4573
2GB DDR400 ECC SDRAM 065-4829
750GB ADM (3X250GB SERIAL ATA)065-4840
CD-ROM 065-4577
HARDWARE RAID PCI CARD 065-4790
PCI VIDEO CARD065-4845
Mac OS X Svr,Unlmtd Lic 065-4581
Country Kit065-4580

Got the 3.5TB XServe raid in a couple of days ago... schweet! But, it's taking forever to format. :(

I have one of these configs on order... My date is 3/11/2004... Maybe VT is getting all the new xServes first, just like they did with the G5's?

That size xServer RAID is going to take forever to format ;)

Good luck!

:cool:

MM

army_guy
Feb 12, 2004, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Telomar
You don't know what you're talking about. Apple maintains an ASIC design team and in fact the current system controller on the G5s is an ASIC designed by Apple.

I cant see Apple designing ASICS, how shall we say err its not thier style?

Rower_CPU
Feb 12, 2004, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by army_guy
I cant see Apple designing ASICS, how shall we say err its not thier style?

Come on, you'll have to try harder than that.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/jun/23joint.html

The G5 system controller was designed by Apple, and is among the fastest application specific integrated circuits (ASIC) in the industry.

Hattig
Feb 12, 2004, 09:14 PM
There are several possible explanations for the story.

1) They meant SoI - Unlikely, the sentence structure is all wrong

2) SOC means the Apple System Controller, i.e., they are delivering the new northbridges to Apple for the next PowerMac / PowerBook / iMac / iBook

3) SOC also includes a processor. Hence "System on Chip". This would meet the definition. For example, an updated IBM G3 + VMX core, with integrated northbridge and peripherals could be used in a new smaller form factor laptop (like the 8" to 10" Sony VAIOs). Or used in some iTablet device. Or simply in the iBook.

It could also mean a 970FX with integrated memory controller and (e.g.) HyperTransport link. This would reduce the latency to memory (useful!) and cut out one chip in the system. Common chipsets like the nVidia nForce3 250GB, AMD 8000, VIA K8800 or ALi could be used with the processor.

4) Something Completely Different. E.g., a 90nm very low power iPod controller with ARM core, Firewire, USB2, memory, display, audio all on one little chip that will allow even longer battery life, more powerful features, etc.

For all we know it could be an intelligent keyboard controller. But speculation is fun, eh?

V.A.Toss
Feb 13, 2004, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by TRiPod
remember the xserve g5? that would complete the equation.

No, if u wud read my post properly. I said doubted the this chip would be a 970. Or even based on a 970, it takes alot more than strapping on a 970 and extras to create an SOC.
Also i doubt IBM would put so much emphasis on just the 970 in their product range. Added to that the fact that IBM has been known to be making an SOC which is not 970 based.

So, no, it wont be the "970 using" Xserve G5.

The SOC IBM has reportedly been looking into was a 750 based chip with RAM and system controller (To put it bluntly). Though i doubt this particular chip is 750 based.

Not an xserve G5.
It would be perfect for an iMac update. But not completely necessary
Or even a notebook update, though i think a 970 would be used in a new powerbook.

V.A.Toss
Feb 13, 2004, 10:47 AM
As a betting man that has just won 40 on Middlesborough Vs Utd match. :D

I would go out of my way and opt for a special edition mac, possibly anniversary mac.

Its a long shot i know. But hey it fits the bill pretty nicely.

army_guy
Feb 13, 2004, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Come on, you'll have to try harder than that.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/jun/23joint.html

Thats what they say, I still cant see Apple designing ASICS. They probably designed the opteration/flow of the ASIC not the actual low level hardware.

Rower_CPU
Feb 13, 2004, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by army_guy
Thats what they say, I still cant see Apple designing ASICS. They probably designed the opteration/flow of the ASIC not the actual low level hardware.

They did design the ASIC, which is what you said you "couldn't see them doing".

I would guess that IBM manufactures the ASIC alongside the G5 chips, but I don't have any info on that.

Telomar
Feb 13, 2004, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
They did design the ASIC, which is what you said you "couldn't see them doing".

I would guess that IBM manufactures the ASIC alongside the G5 chips, but I don't have any info on that. You're quite correct Apple designed it and IBM manufactures it.

NusuniAdmin
Feb 13, 2004, 03:35 PM
I am lost, i know ASIC's have sumtin to do with the low level system controller and architecture junkies (stuff i dont need to know about) but can one of ya please give me a rundown on wut it stands for and means?

aceves
Feb 13, 2004, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by marco114
Has anyone received their Xserve G5's yet? We ordered 3 and they are saying mid-march.

XSERVE/2GHZ DP/2GB/750/CD/RAID PCI/RA/LL Z08Y03H4X
On or before 03/22/2004
3 Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5 065-4573
2GB DDR400 ECC SDRAM 065-4829
750GB ADM (3X250GB SERIAL ATA)065-4840
CD-ROM 065-4577
HARDWARE RAID PCI CARD 065-4790
PCI VIDEO CARD065-4845
Mac OS X Svr,Unlmtd Lic 065-4581
Country Kit065-4580

Got the 3.5TB XServe raid in a couple of days ago... schweet! But, it's taking forever to format. :(
I ordered my Powermac G5 02/02/04 and it gave me a ship date of 02/13/04 and today the ship date chaned to 03/15/04 :mad:
I got tired of waiting for speed bumped G5s so I ordered the current top of the line G5 so I could have it right away and now I have to wait over a month! This sucks.

army_guy
Feb 13, 2004, 03:38 PM
what a disgrace to all engineers we have a comapny like apple designing asics, as long as its not in my hardware ill be happy. They should stick to marketing, whose knows what trouble thier marketing lies could do in the ASIC market.

Rower_CPU
Feb 13, 2004, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by army_guy
what a disgrace to all engineers we have a comapny like apple designing asics, as long as its not in my hardware ill be happy. They should stick to marketing, whose knows what trouble thier marketing lies could do in the ASIC market.

DNFTT folks.

aswitcher
Feb 13, 2004, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by aceves
I ordered my Powermac G5 02/02/04 and it gave me a ship date of 02/13/04 and today the ship date chaned to 03/15/04 :mad:
I got tired of waiting for speed bumped G5s so I ordered the current top of the line G5 so I could have it right away and now I have to wait over a month! This sucks.

Yep...and is somewhat suspicious

NusuniAdmin
Feb 13, 2004, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by aswitcher
Yep...and is somewhat suspicious

My dad had something similar to this happen with his beige g3 (the one i own now) when he bought it. He bought it when rev 2's were just about to switch to rev 3. He bought his like 2 weeks before rev 3's and apple actualy gave him his rev 3 before the 2 week "ship date" was up, none of the stores had it up for display yet either. So maybe you might get the rev. 2 g5 before the month is up, who knows.