Motorola 7457 Upgrades

[MacRumors]

Geek.com (http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002Dec/bch20021230017949.htm) posts rumors from a source "in the know" on Apple's 2003 chip plans:

According to the source, the next revision of the Motorola G4+ PowerPC, the 7457, will top out at 1.33 or 1.4GHz (1.0GHz, 1.17GHz, 1.33GHz, 1.40GHz?) in February 2003, and will stick there until July 2003, when another 7457 revision should arrive, promising to push the chip up to a more respectable 1.83GHz (1.50GHz, 1.67GHz, 1.83GHz).

This information echoes some of the information from this anonymous source (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/11/20021124221123.shtml) -- which also pegs the 970's successor to be due in Q3 2004.

The only contradictory information we have is that Dual 1.5GHz PowerMacs have existed within Apple for some time now... but this does not give any indication to Motorola's ability to produce these in volume.

[MacCoaster]

Wow. Surge of speed in a short time. This is a first for Motorola in a looong time! :eek:

[edesignuk]

Sounds like good news, this should keep us going until the 970's are ready ;)

[bluecell]

So, what about all of those bottleneck issues?

[giovanni]

sadly pathetic

(apologies for my profound analysis!)

[mymemory]

Do you know what would be really bad?

To have the money and not able to get a real 2Ghz Mac yet.

I mean, I do not have the money to even afford a airport card, so, at this time I do not care much about the speed. What I hope is when I have the money Apple have the speed that I want. That would be good.

[clubsport]

So in July, we will have 1.8Ghz Macs. The only problem is that top-end PCs will be running at speeds of around 5Ghz by then.

Geez Apple, can't you address the problem by dumping Motorola? IBM have stuff way better than this...

[vniow]

Originally posted by clubsport
The only problem is that top-end PCs will be running at speeds of around 5Ghz by then.

http://www.rx7club.com/forum/images/smilies/bsmeter.gif

[funkywhat2]

Originally posted by edvniow

http://www.rx7club.com/forum/images/smilies/bsmeter.gif

Oh yeah!

Ever notice how every time that there is a planned update, the time for Intel to have faster processors gets smaller. For example, when the 970 was announced to be coming in at 1.8 GHz around August, there would be 4GHz Intel chips. Now, in July, there will be 5GHz chips. At this rate, we will have faster chips before we have them. (I hope that makes sense)

[vniow]

Originally posted by crazy_will
(I hope that makes sense)

Perfectly.http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/smiley.gif

[Tiauguinho]

Only now is Motorola woried about delivering the goods? WOW! The PPC 970 really did scared them! Way to go IBM! Big Blue will be kicking everybody in the ass with this chip!

[edesignuk]

Originally posted by clubsport
The only problem is that top-end PCs will be running at speeds of around 5Ghz by then.

Intel are gonna increase by 2Ghz in the next 6 months????? I don't think so!

(I believe intels 'fastest' CPU currently is the 3.06Ghz P4)

[funkywhat2]

It nice to see Motorola has finally figured out that not everyone on Earth needs a cell phone (cancer-brick).

[theranch]

The rumors of these speed bumps and even the facts of the IBM chips don't help most professionals out right now. I'm going to be in the market for a new machine in about 3 months and with the prices and speed of what the pc market is putting out these days it looks like my pro machine will be a Dell or something similar. I love the OS and ease of use of Macs but at a pro level there isn't much to learn in switching to a pc.
I need to get work done and not have to wait while a beachball spins.
Apple should address the pro market seriously soon...(and I've read this same sentiment on this site over and over). I'm hoping that they surprise us BIG TIME this year...please.

[Phechs]

I know I am not alone on this, but its frustrating that the most conducive OS for me to use is OSX, yet, I have to take the music as well as all the video and 3D work I do to a friends house to render on his WinDOZE box to render because its, yes, 4 times faster. Please apple I need some serious power, and with network rendering for video and 3D, and VST system link for the audio, I am not finding many reasons to buy anything but a PC for my next computer. Damn, it just hurts that Motorola is harming apple to such degree. I am a Mac zealot, but its getting really hard to defend a company that is so complacent........

APPLE IF YOU ARE LISTENING, SCARE MOTORLOA!!!!! frighten them into getting off their @$$es please......pleeeeaaassseee.

[Catfish_Man]

...afaict, they're just posting info off the moto roadmap that was leaked a little while ago, and guessing as to a few clock speeds (the roadmap wasn't quite so precise). The 7457 also has 512k L2 cache and a 200MHz bus.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by clubsport
So in July, we will have 1.8Ghz Macs. The only problem is that top-end PCs will be running at speeds of around 5Ghz by then.

It will not be that bad. Intel has said that they plan to take the current Pentium 4 incarnation to 3.6Ghz early next year. They will not go above 3.6Ghz until they switch to the Prescott core which uses the 90 nm process. That part will arrive around 3.6Ghz and be able to scale to over 5Ghz. But I doubt we will see 4Ghz or above until late 2003 or early 2004. The economy is just not strong enough for Intel to move faster.

[Foucault]

What is the deal with these tiny upgrades for the G4 processor. The G4 is almost three years old, where the hell is the G5. Apple and Motorola needs to get their act together!!

[ktlx]

Originally posted by theranch
The rumors of these speed bumps and even the facts of the IBM chips don't help most professionals out right now. I'm going to be in the market for a new machine in about 3 months and with the prices and speed of what the pc market is putting out these days it looks like my pro machine will be a Dell or something similar. I love the OS and ease of use of Macs but at a pro level there isn't much to learn in switching to a pc.

I hear you. I bought a dual 1Ghz PowerMac with the mirror drive doors. I love Mac OS X compared to Windows XP but the machine was just so loud and so underpowered it was terrible. I finally sold it and built a 2.5Ghz Pentium 4. I am very experienced so switching is not that big of a deal and I saved a ton of money.

The only heavy duty work I do is with Photoshop and I don't know how Apple runs its "benchmarks". I have a 2.5Ghz Pentium 4 with PC2700 DDR and there wasn't anything the dual 1Ghz PowerMac G4 could do faster. Plus my PC is much quieter than the PowerMac MDD model.

Apple right now is pretty sad. They have, in my opinion, the best desktop software available running on way overpriced hardware. I hope they fix that situation sometime this year.

[clubsport]

Originally posted by edvniow

http://www.rx7club.com/forum/images/smilies/bsmeter.gif
Shut up! I was trying to add to affect with my 5Ghz comment... :D

:)

[mania]

arn don't you mean Q3 2003 for the 970 and Q3 2004 for the 980 according to the link you posted?

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by edesignuk

Intel are gonna increase by 2Ghz in the next 6 months????? I don't think so!

(I believe intels 'fastest' CPU currently is the 3.06Ghz P4)
Intel's LAB's have 3.6 one running all the time... :rolleyes:
(Not to mention Tom's Hardware's 'Uber-Óverclock 2003' 4.1 GHZ!!!' )

But that 5GHZ is total BS.

If this rumor is true it is definatly good news. I mean getting a good deal of clock speed fast is what we need intill the 'next-gen' chips arive.
Maybe we can survive this after all. :D

[bousozoku]

If Moto get their new manufacturing process working correctly, this could all be a reality. As it stands, I want to believe, but I have little faith in them, especially with the budget cuts.

[mchendricks]

I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but I think Motorola needs to finally give us the chips that do it all. I'm tired of "new" G4 chips that aren't any better then the previous chips. Why can't we have:

1) a chip with lots of clock speed - I know it isn't the most important factor, but most consumers think it is #1.

2) a chip with maxed out cache on all levels - the newest 1GHz DDR is hampered by only having 1/2 the cache (L3) of the previous model. I know that power (read heat) is a concern, but that can't be the limiting factor.

It seems like everytime an improvement is made, the last improvement is crippled - faster chip ->less cache->little real world improvement over last model. The only things that really help are the updates to the OS.
I know that all of the problems aren't totally the fault of any one company, but each is to blame for the lackluster performance of the pro line (Moto - SPEED, Apple - faster bus speeds, blue-tooth, USB2, etc)

I've been loyal for years and I don't mind paying a premium for the COMPLETE mac experience, but if we are going to have the best OS, why can't the powers that be realize that we also want the best hardware. Apple had been on the forefront of the personal computer evolution, why can't they be again?

[TMJ1974]

OK, I have stayed out of the processor debates on this board, BUT, what is the problem ?

AMD has struggled to push the Athlon XP (a wonderful processor) to compete with the Pentium 4. While AMD might not reach the clock speed of Pentium, they have always stayed "just" within benchmark reach. They actually led for the longest time.

The cell phone radiation must be having an impact on Motorola's thinking. You're not making money....ok, fair enough. But, you won't make any by allowing the processor's you make to become obsolete. You have to invest money to make money....have they ever heard of that?

If this is true, 150Mhz increase will hardly enough to encourage someone to spend $3000 The rule of thumb in the PC world is that any speed bump under 200Mhz is not noticeable.

Where is 266Mhz + FSB ?

I can only hope Apple is going to leave Motorola to deal with iMac/eMac, and let IBM handel iBook/PowerBook/PowerMac/XServe.

Tim

[bretm]

Originally posted by Foucault
What is the deal with these tiny upgrades for the G4 processor. The G4 is almost three years old, where the hell is the G5. Apple and Motorola needs to get their act together!!

That would actually be about 3 years and 3 months old already. And my trusty old G4 350 is still better than my roommate's Pentium 4 1.something GHZ. What a piece of blue screen death trash.

They need to be faster. But even in the latest DV mag, they compared workstations on mac and pc. Actually they were doing a timeline of the last 10 years. They weren't trying to compare speeds. But when they got down to comparing the latest computers, they did a variety of tests comparing the dual 1.25 gig to dual 2+ ghz PC machines. The difference was pretty small. PCs that clocked at nearly twice the speed were only about 20% faster. Sometimes not that fast.

I'll take my OS over a little extra speed.

[AmbitiousLemon]

this is directed at all of those who seem to be down on mac and have not yet mastered the ability (though many of them calim to be 'experts') to click links. (theranch, Phechs, Foucault, ktlx, clubsport, bousozoku)

read the link! i find this all VERY good news. simply because it coroborates a previous rumor (the link). that rumor claims that moto dropped the ball on the g5 by numerous last minute delays and eventaully dropping the g5 alltogether. apple approached ibm to create the 970. plans are in the works for a q3 release of the 970, and the work for the 980 (2004) 990 (2006) is being done.

moto dropped the ball. right now we are simply waiting for that 970. if you recall, apple has always been the leader in desktop computing speed. the current slump is only because of the g5/moto screwup. just 3-4 years ago apple was number one. so stop complaining. this rumor puts a lot of strange occurances in place and gives us a clear roadmap for the next few years that promises to bring apple to that number one place again.

i dont care if you buy a pc. for many it is probably a good idea. buy one and sell it when apple releases the new machine. if you can handle the switching why not. but at least understand what is going on, and do not make rash decisions.

read the link.

[nanosound]

This is pretty pathetic. Another meager speed increase. Motorola is on the long slide downard and taking Apple with it. I have been a diehard Apple fan. But that may be changing. It's all about having the right tools to get the job done. I would rather not have to wait 4 times as long to render out a file. So if it means more bandwidth for a fraction of the cost, that will be the business decision I have to make in the next few months. Sorry to see Apple get to this sad state of affars. And they wanted to take the high-end post market. LOL.

[AmbitiousLemon]

:rolleyes:

[Sun Baked]

It would be nice if everyone hops on this stupid MHz mania with the switch to 64-bit processors and once again look at the true processing power of the CPUs - or several of the other factors that are becoming just as important.

They can squeeze a heck of a lot of power and battery life out of a chunk of silicon if they stop focusing on making it vibrate really fast and look at making it more powerful, consume fewer watts, reduce the heat signature, etc.

Sort of sad that the big iron is once again sucking up more power and moving back towards needing hi power air condition systems.

Heck even the standard PC is making some of the older offices hard to live in when they suck all the power out of the walls (or service panels) and heat up rooms.

But hey at least the POS on the desk is cheap, even if it requires gutting the office to install all the electric lines and new ac units.

[Dandee]

What if everybody who's capable of speeding up our Macs start doing it instead of just posting numbers on the Internet. Blablabla 1.4, 1,8, 970. Geez, it almost looks like politics. Just a bunch of sheep making a lot of noise and doing just NOTHING. When someone says to me: Let me buy you a beer which you never taste before, so nice, so refreshing. We'll he better buy me one for real, or I'll poke him in the eye. Promises, promises... now we want results.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Macrumors
Geek.com (http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002Dec/bch20021230017949.htm) posts rumors from a source "in the know" on Apple's 2003 chip plans:

According to the source, the next revision of the Motorola G4+ PowerPC, the 7457, will top out at 1.33 or 1.4GHz (1.0GHz, 1.17GHz, 1.33GHz, 1.40GHz?) in February 2003, and will stick there until July 2003, when another 7457 revision should arrive, promising to push the chip up to a more respectable 1.83GHz (1.50GHz, 1.67GHz, 1.83GHz).

This information echoes some of the information from this anonymous source (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/11/20021124221123.shtml) -- which also pegs the 970's successor to be due in Q3 2004.

The only contradictory information we have is that Dual 1.5GHz PowerMacs have existed within Apple for some time now... but this does not give any indication to Motorola's ability to produce these in volume.

Moore's Law Check (Moore's Law ~= double performance in 18 months; roughly 12.2% increase in 3 months ... P=n^t where n=1.5874 when t is in years ...):

1.25GHz August 2002

November 2002 (+3mo): 1.4GHz
Feb 2003 (+6mo): 1.57GHz
May 2003 (+9mo): 1.76GHz
Aug 2003 (+12mo): 2.0GHz
Nov 2003 (+15mo): 2.22GHz
Feb 2004 (+18mo): 2.5GHz

Reality? We're rumoring 1.4GHz in Feb 2003, 1.8GHz in July 2003.

This is not good news. This is sub-Moore's Law performance!

Intel is keeping up with Moore on the GHz front (and then some). Motorola's not keeping up.

Yes, yes, yes, Moore's law talks about transtor count, not truly raw performance, and GHz don't directly equal system or even CPU performance either. But, when Intel is doubling CPU performance every 18 months, and Motorola is more like 1.73x in 18 months (extrapolating from 1.44x in ~12 months), especially after the long sub-Moore's trend we've been stuck in for years (Sept 1999-Aug 2002 3.125x improvement instead of 2.51x under Moore's ... although granted July 2001-Aug 2002 was above Moore's), we're SOL!

Sorry, folks, I just can't see this as a positive outlook on the state of the Mac.

Bring on IBM!

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by jettredmont


This information echoes some of the information from this anonymous source (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/11/20021124221123.shtml) -- which also pegs the 970's successor to be due in Q3 2004.

The only contradictory information we have is that Dual 1.5GHz PowerMacs have existed within Apple for some time now... but this does not give any indication to Motorola's ability to produce these in volume.

Moore's Law Check (Moore's Law ~= double performance in 18 months; roughly 12.2% increase in 3 months ... P=n^t where n=1.5874 when t is in years ...):

1.25GHz August 2002

November 2002 (+3mo): 1.4GHz
Feb 2003 (+6mo): 1.57GHz
May 2003 (+9mo): 1.76GHz
Aug 2003 (+12mo): 2.0GHz
Nov 2003 (+15mo): 2.22GHz
Feb 2004 (+18mo): 2.5GHz

Reality? We're rumoring 1.4GHz in Feb 2003, 1.8GHz in July 2003.

This is not good news. This is sub-Moore's Law performance!

Intel is keeping up with Moore on the GHz front (and then some). Motorola's not keeping up.

Yes, yes, yes, Moore's law talks about transtor count, not truly raw performance, and GHz don't directly equal system or even CPU performance either. But, when Intel is doubling CPU performance every 18 months, and Motorola is more like 1.73x in 18 months (extrapolating from 1.44x in ~12 months), especially after the long sub-Moore's trend we've been stuck in for years (Sept 1999-Aug 2002 3.125x improvement instead of 2.51x under Moore's ... although granted July 2001-Aug 2002 was above Moore's), we're SOL!

Sorry, folks, I just can't see this as a positive outlook on the state of the Mac.

Bring on IBM! [/B][/QUOTE]

:rolleyes: do any of you read?

o and btw, intel has publically stated they will be hitting a wall with performance. they stated they will not be able to keep up with 'moores law' anymore.

[j763]

um... clock speed is pretty much irrelevant to overall performance now.

For instance, the 970 is expected to start at 1.6GHz and celing 1.8GHz (according to IBM (http://www.ibm.com/powerpc)), yet it will slaughter any moto G4 running at a faster speed. Just like a G4 700 will beat a G3 700... except the difference will be much greater.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon

:rolleyes: do any of you read?

o and btw, intel has publically stated they will be hitting a wall with performance. they stated they will not be able to keep up with 'moores law' anymore.

Link, please? I haven't heard any such thing.

I found this:

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-203750.html?legacy=cnet

(note the date: 1997 ...)

and this (April 2002):

http://www.gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/18212-1.html

and this (Aug 2002, talking about 64-bit procs though):

http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20020816S0025

and this (Aug 2002):

http://www.technologyreview.com/offthewire/3001_682002_4.asp

and this (Sept 2002):

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020919tech.htm


And, yes, I read the article. How is anything it said supposed to make me feel better about Motorola's paltry contribution to the state of the Mac?

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by j763
um... clock speed is pretty much irrelevant to overall performance now.

For instance, the 970 is expected to start at 1.6GHz and celing 1.8GHz (according to IBM (http://www.ibm.com/powerpc)), yet it will slaughter any moto G4 running at a faster speed. Just like a G4 700 will beat a G3 700... except the difference will be much greater.

Clock speed across architectures (meaning chip architectures, not system architectures) is never directly relatable. However, the one thing you can always say about clock speed is that if the clock speed of a chip (without anything else changing) doubles, that processor will be able to do twice as much processor-constrained work in the same amount of time.

Going from the 7450 to 7457 is a design change, and so perhaps it is unfair to compare clock speeds. But aside from redesign benefits, a 2.5GHz G4 would go exactly twice as fast as a 1.25GHz G4. I'm bordering on the resounding "duh" factor here, I hope.

That having been said, in the two years (Jan 2001 to Aug 2002) that Motorola pulled itself from 733MHz to 1.25 GHz on the G4 (a 70% increase in speed), Intel went from a 1.4GHz P4 to 3.0 GHz P4 (a 114% increase). And that was a fast period of Motorola development!

Yes, there are other bottlenecks that the G4 has, and the 7457 might address these (FSB pudding along is a biggy), which would give a 1.8 GHz G4+ a better-than-clock-speed-increase performance jump ahead of the current crop. On the other hand, on the PC side these bandwidth issues are not there (533MHz FSB, to be 800MHz FSB next year?)

Back to the point: no, clock speed isn't "everything", but when all else remains roughly the same, it does directly affect performance.

[MacsRgr8]

Like I replied to MacDuffy's thread:
Form article: "According to the source, the next revision of the Motorola G4+ PowerPC, the 7457, will top out at 1.33 or 1.4GHz (1.0GHz, 1.17GHz, 1.33GHz, 1.40GHz?) in February 2003, and will stick there until July 2003, when another 7457 revision should arrive, promising to push the chip up to a more respectable 1.83GHz (1.50GHz, 1.67GHz, 1.83GHz)"

Oh oh... stuck to (hopefully) 1.4 Ghz until next summer. That's not good news: only a 125 Mhz leap (step) from last summer.....
COME ON POWER4

[Megaquad]

told ya motorola sticks with macs forever..
forget about IBM 970

[solvs]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I do want faster renders. And no more waiting for simple things (no spinning beachballs). But have you seen how close the benchmarks are? Most of these tests where the Intel and AMD PCs with double the clock speed "slaughter" the Macs, the G4 runs very competitively (even sometimes beating the Multi-GHz machines). That says a lot.

Regardless.

Blah, blah, blah. MHz myth whatever. We can complain all we want. We can benchmark all we want. We just want faster and, more importantly, cheaper machines.

Is that so much to ask?

[hibitdatman]

There is a school of thought (lost the links) that suggest that our current G4 (and some of the road-mapped ones) are such huge jumps over the original G4 that they could easily be termed G5 or whatever, in fact the report Im thinking of said that in terms of raw performance difference between the G4+ (apollo?) and orig G4 at the same clock speed, Intel would have bumped the number (eg. P2 to P3) so whilst Im not arguing that the Dual 1G MDD im running here is infact a G5, do bear in mind that these things are not simply clock-bumped versions of that good 'ol 450 G4 in the corner...

On the PC front, our new Dell workstation packing a HyperThreading P4 at 3.06G is really dissapointing - slower to burn DVDs than either the Dual 1.25MDD or even this Dual 1G, the HT technology is not really supported yet. On the plus side though it is MUCH quieter than any MDD G4 Ive heard!
Windowz XP still crashes daily when the thing is being used in anger!


--------------------------------
Life is not a rehearsal - lets make the most of it

[Falleron]

Well, if Motorola can increase the Mhz by about 600Mhz in the next 6 months (1.25Ghz --> 1.85Ghz or so) then I think you people are stupid to complain! We all know that the G4 has its limitations but this is a rate of increase of which we have not seen in a long time. That cant be bad!! These predictions have been what I was thinking could happen. However, who knows if this information is true.

Plus, on the note of PC's being quicker. On most tasks (barring a few such as video/3d) what does that bit of extra speed help you do when you are browsing the web? ABSOLUTLY NOTHING. You save more time by using the Mac OSX which saves time on less keystrokes. I admit that Apple needs to move up a level for 3D and Video. However, its out of Apple's hands. Dont blame them.

[skunk]

Goodbye, professional users. This is SUCH bad news. No amount of spin (or arbitrary re-naming of processors) will get around the fact that Apple are right up the creek without a paddle in sight! With such a long delay before they get competitive again, lots of businesses are going to HAVE to re-equip on other platforms, and once they've done that, they won't come back. The one good thing is that it makes my Cube suddenly look like a good long-term investment: with an upgraded CPU, the Cube will stay competitive with Apple's top end for years more!

[skunk]

Originally posted by j763
Just like a G4 700 will beat a G3 700... except the difference will be much greater.
Is this true? Not what I've heard. I think there's a lot of grasping at straws going on here today....

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by skunk

Is this true? Not what I've heard. I think there's a lot of grasping at straws going on here today....

I heard too that the Sahara G3 is faster than the G4 in non-Altivec instuctions...
Is it a fact that the 7457 supports a "true" DDR-bus? So we can hope for a dual 1.4 GHz G4 running on a 333 MHz bus... with AGP 8x ?

[nuksu]

I think we should be a bit more interested in what we might get before the 970, which is at least some 8 months away.

If the 7457 is 0.13 not 0.18 and has the ability to take advantage of DDR memory effectively unlike the current chip, it will be relatively more powerful and perhaps even create less heat -> less noise issues. (By the way, current dual 1GHz DDR equals to 1GHz SDRAM Quicksilver in some tests - the latter has more level3 cache though). Interesting enough, when pro users may be disappointed in top PowerMacs speed, they offered DUAL processors in the "semi-pro" entry model. Dual G4 with 1MB level3 cache each for 1699$ is not a bad deal, is it? (if they weren´t noisy).

But does the 7457 have 0.13 or 0.18?
The 7470 was supposed to have, and also better DDR support, but it doesn´t seem to make it in the market before the IBM 970.

Sorry about the tech talk I´m not sure what I´m talking about myself either.

[DaveGee]

If these rumors turn out to be true... here is what things look like for us...

Motorola + Apple
=================
Feb 2003 - MOT G4+ PPC 7457 at 1.0Ghz, 1.17Ghz, 1.33GHz, 1.40Ghz
Jul 2003 - MOT G4+ PPC 7457 at 1.50Ghz, 1.67Ghz, 1.83Ghz

NOTE: The 7457 will STILL NOT fully support DDR (thanks alot MOT)

The 7457 does have some bonuses:

- .13 micron SOI (Silicon-On-Insulator) process
- 512 KB of L2 cache (from 256 KB)
- Support for 4 MB of L3 cache (up from 2 MB)

Future Motorola 7457RM chips at 2Ghz and better will be aimed at Apple iMacs, not Power Macs. (RM = True DDR Support... I think)

IBM + Apple
============

- IBM is making a large volume of PowerPC 970 test chips available sooner than expected for Apple

- Apple has "... many prototype machines based on the 970 from engineering samples IBM is providing."

- The PowerPC 970 is expected to reach 1.8-2.0Ghz in Q3 2003, with the source noting a July 2003 date.

Future IBM PowerPC chips include:

- The Power4 - based PowerPC 970 to reach 1.8Ghz/2Ghz in July 2003
- The Power5 - based PowerPC 980 to reach 3Ghz in Q3 2004
- The Power6 - based PowerPC 990 in 2006.

Dave

[skunk]

Great. So any business wanting to buy is going to be stuck with 1.4GHz until late 2003. That's going to keep them happy. Tell you what, they'd better be cheap....

[richlen]

wow pentiums should be at 4-6ghz by then!

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by DaveGee

Future Motorola 7457RM chips at 2Ghz and better will be aimed at Apple iMacs, not Power Macs. (RM = True DDR Support... I think)

Dave

So, we could be seeing 1.5 - 1.8 GHz (G4)iMacs and 1.8 Ghz (PPC 970)PowerMacs by the end of 2003?
That'll be great!
Talk about a speed BUMP :)

[MikeUnicode]

Don't get all hot about a P4 running 4ghz.

The P4 is SLOWER then the P3, unless you double the Mhz.
For example: a P3 running at 800mhz is FASTER then a P4 running 1.6ghz. Intel took a V8 engine that ran at 5000rpm, cut it in half to create a turbo charged, fuel injected, 4 cylinder engine running at 10,000rpm. But, just like real engines, it's not faster but slower then the original.

Also, Intel's approach required that huge 20 stage pipeline, taking up more chip area, so that now, even if it wanted to do something smart and add more execution units, to increase the instructions executed per clock, it DOESN'T HAVE THE ROOM!

A performance increase to really be shocking to a human requires not a 10% performance increase but a 500% jump. Intel isn't going to be able to deliver that: 8Ghz

Intel isn't run by stupid people, so why spend so much money to bump mhz, because most computer buyers think that if they switch from an 800mhz machine to a 3.0ghz P4 they will be getting an 400% performance increase. They don't, so they are disappointed by their purchase. But, intel has suckered them into another purchase.

To compare the P4 to the G4, divide the P4 ghz by 2:
P4 3ghz == G4 1.5. So, we aren't so far away. And we have the better operating system and a better computer chip design.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
this is directed at all of those who seem to be down on mac and have not yet mastered the ability (though many of them calim to be 'experts') to click links. (theranch, Phechs, Foucault, ktlx, clubsport, bousozoku)

read the link! i find this all VERY good news. simply because it coroborates a previous rumor (the link). that rumor claims that moto dropped the ball on the g5 by numerous last minute delays and eventaully dropping the g5 alltogether. apple approached ibm to create the 970. plans are in the works for a q3 release of the 970, and the work for the 980 (2004) 990 (2006) is being done.

How do you know I did not read the link? Who cares what someone posted on some web site somewhere. I can write that humans will be cloned successfully in Q4 2003 if I want. And lots of people would back me up on it. But I doubt anyone would make a lot of decisions right now based upon that claim. I am not going to make any decisions now based upon some claim on a web site.

I sold my PowerMac G4 MDD because it was too loud and I knew that I could sell it and recoup 85% of my investment. That 15% was far less than the difference between what I sold the PowerMac for and how much the PC cost me. So I came out ahead.

I do not necessarily need the fastest machine available. What I need is the fastest machine that meets my price/performance needs. For me the PowerMac G4 MDD line isnot worth the money because they are loud and the performance is not all that spectacular.

But I rarely keep my primary PC one year so if the predictions come true and Apple deals with the loudness, I will be back in a heartbeat.

[trilogic]

Originally posted by MikeUnicode
To compare the P4 to the G4, divide the P4 ghz by 2:
P4 3ghz == G4 1.5. So, we aren't so far away. And we have the better operating system and a better computer chip design.

well might be .. BUT we pay much more for a G4 than a highend Windows Machine and get slower busspeed.

I remember when Apple was advertising the G4 as a Supercomputer that burns Pentiums. Now they have to talk about MHz-Myth :(

G4 400
TiBook 667

[skunk]

Originally posted by trilogic
I remember when Apple was advertising the G4 as a Supercomputer that burns Pentiums. Now they have to talk about MHz-Myth :(
Goalposts are made to be moved ;)

[MikeUnicode]

Yes, we do pay more, but we get more.

For example your TiBook: have you looked at it's heat sink?
I've got a 550 and it's got a very large finned, piped, and fanned heat sink. I also have an HP Athlon 1ghz. It's got a cheap metal heat sink 1/5th the size. The fan runs loud and long. Battery life is short. I got the 550 after the Athlon. I run on the 550.

You are right about bus speeds, but don't forget the L3 cache.

The HP contained WinME. Home networking sees my other network machines 33% of the time.

OS X sees my network machines 100% of the time.

I'm not under constant attack on the Mac,
PC virii do not execute....

I just looked at a Dell desktop.
It doesn't include a very interesting software stack.
Unless you pay for more MS/other software.
If you configure a Dell with quality software your price will rise to that of a Power Mac.

I've found that MS doesn't test, document or debug most of the code it ships.
If it compiles, that's good enough.

Apple seems to actually have someone in control of software design and quality.

My time / frustration level is worth the extra money.

[matznentosh]

Originally posted by MikeUnicode
Don't get all hot about a P4 running 4ghz.

The P4 is SLOWER then the P3, unless you double the Mhz. ...

To compare the P4 to the G4, divide the P4 ghz by 2:
P4 3ghz == G4 1.5. So, we aren't so far away. And we have the better operating system and a better computer chip design.

Please say it again. All the benchmark tests routinely show the G4 to be 1.5 to 2.0 x faster than same mhz Pentium. The short pipeline risc design really is better than the Intel design.

And OS X really does handle multitasking better than other operating systems, better than XP although XP is a definite improvement over 98 or 2000. Most of us have all our programs on and running in the background now (Remember OS 9? routine crashing or running out of memory because you forgot to turn off the program in the background?).

Current macs lag in one area only: vertical applications that either are only written for the PC, or that utilize the faster megahertz gap, such as rendering programs. Again tho, most of the animators I know use Macs - and for heavy duty rendering, they use Sun or Silicon Graphics machines, not PCs.

For most programs we use every day, there is little difference in actual speed between any modern PC and one of the modern Macs. The PCs I use at work all have less than 1 gz processors, and they are much slower than my 700 mhz iBook. Nobody at work is going to buy a new computer just so I can have a 2.5 ghz box. The old one works perfectly well, they figure, even if it is as slow as a dog. You gamers can spend the money on a home PC system that runs Quake at 300 fps, but I guarantee you'll never see that at work. But I can convince the powers that be to get me a $1200 iBook which does everything I want at the speed I want.

FINALLY, (I know this is starting to ramble), don't forget that Apple is developing specific applications that add value to the Mac, both for the home user (digital lifestyle, iChat, iSync, Rendevous, etc.) and for professionals (Final Cut Pro, etc.) which is getting more and more appreciation in the marketplace. Mhz speed is therefore only part of the total picture of what makes a computer platform useful.

[Spievy]

Guys, Guys,
Don't forget this point here. The speed of a computer doesn't totally rest on the processor alone, a major part of speed is the architecture of the computer. Bus Speed, amount of Cache and Cache speed. My work horse computer is a G4 400mhz AGP!!!, and I constantly compress movies, render animations, and do MAJOR Photoshop work. I am just now considering upgrading to a new PowerMac after using this G4 for 3 years. You can't find a PC that will last 3 years like macs can.

I do believe apple needs to find some how to get there processors up to PC GHz speeds ONLY for the switchers or the people who don't understand computer architecture.

[lmalave]

Originally posted by jettredmont


Link, please? I haven't heard any such thing.

I found this:

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-203750.html?legacy=cnet

(note the date: 1997 ...)

and this (April 2002):

http://www.gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/18212-1.html

and this (Aug 2002, talking about 64-bit procs though):

http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20020816S0025

and this (Aug 2002):

http://www.technologyreview.com/offthewire/3001_682002_4.asp

and this (Sept 2002):

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020919tech.htm


And, yes, I read the article. How is anything it said supposed to make me feel better about Motorola's paltry contribution to the state of the Mac?

Dude, your web searching skills could use some honing.

My first search on "intel end moore's law" yielded this (5th in the list of search results):

Dec 11 2002: "Intel's Grove Warns of the End of Moore's Law"
http://www.theinquirer.org/?article=6677

Here's the text:
**************************************************
ONE OF THE MAJOR TECHNICAL HEADACHES facing chipmaker Intel is the leaking of current from inactive processors, company chairman Andy Grove told an audience at the International Electron Devices Meeting in San Francisco yesterday.
"Current is becoming a major factor and a limiter on how complex we can build chips," said Grove. He said the company’ engineers "just can’t get rid of" power leakage.

The problem of leakage threatens the future validity of Moores Law. As chips become more powerful and draw more power, leakage tends to increase. The industry is used to power leakage rates of up to fifteen per cent, but chips constructed of increasing numbers of transistors can suffer power leakage of up to 40 per cent said Grove. In chips made up of a billion transistors may leak between 60 and 70 Watts of power, he warned. The power is largely dissipated as heat causing cooling problems for powerful chips.

While Intel is seeking ways to design chips with multiple cores with improved design and better insulators, Grove suggested that Moore Law regarding the doubling of transistor densities every couple of years will be redundant by the end of the decade. Chip makers will have to make more efficient use of the transistor in order to deliver ever increasing performance, he suggested.
**************************************************

Intel's been on quite a ride pushing its x86 processor to previously unimagined performance, but its inherently inefficient design WILL hit a wall. Over the years IBM and others in the Unix world (Digital, etc.) have always focused more on efficiency rather than brute force, which is why I still think they're better partners for Apple in the long run. High-end Unix machines still outperform any PC, and Intel is going to bring that power to the desktop workstation with its 970. Though Sun tried to come out with cheaper Unix workstations in the past, both Sun and IBM (and even HP, I think) have now seen the light and jumped on the Linux bandwagon. IBM's big plan for the 970, for example, is to make it the CPU of choice for lower-end Linux machines that are now overwhelmingly using x86 CPUs.

So I'm not worried. I think the Moto speed bumps for 2003 are a welcome surprise, given the moribund state of Moto's chip business, but really Apple is just stalling for time until they get the next-generation 970.

And it IS next generation. With all this talk about GHz, are people forgetting that Intel's pride and joy, the Itanium2, only runs at from 933MHz to 1 GHz.

Read that again:

***Intel's best and most expensive chip runs from 933MHz to 1GHz***

Don't compare the 64 bit 970 to an aging and creaky P4! Forget 4 or 5 GHz or whatever chips. The real news is that IBM's 970 will be keeping up with Intel's Itanium and AMD's Hammer in the 64 bit CPU arena. Sure, most apps will still be 32 bits, but for the pro users that are doing the most grumbling about GHz, I think you can expect pro apps to be optimized for 64 bit, the same way they are optimized for Altivec now for the G4 (and the 970 also has Altivec). And like Intel's Itanium, the 970 is optimized for multiple processors so if the 970 chips are reasonably priced, there's no reason why Apple can't market high-end multi-970 PowerMacs or high-end multi-970 XServes (for rendering farms).

[GigaWire]

I'm scared.

[skunk]

1. I hope you're right, Imalave.
2. Where did you get your 1.5GHz DP, GigaWire?:eek:

[sjonni]

:eek: Same here, where did you get it?

[scem0]

Originally posted by Megaquad
told ya motorola sticks with macs forever..
forget about IBM 970

why do you say this? I would be saying this if there was any
reason for apple not to use the IBM chip. Moto is going downhill
and I, and other mac fans, don't want apple to go with them. I
seriously doubt that apple is intent upon going down either,
which all point to apple using an IBM chip, not a moto chip.

[jamilecrire]

I develop for windows, os X, solaris and linux. I have a 1GHz P-III running windows 2000, a 2GHz P-4 running linux, a 1.33GHz (1500+) AthlonXP running windows xp/linux, a Dell Inspiron 8100 1.13GHz running WinXP, an Ultra SPARC 360MHz (IIi) running Solaris 8 and a G4 Tower (733 QS) running OS9.2 and 10.2.

Half my development runs JSPs on Tomcat/Linux the other half is stand-alone applications that are java (JFC) based with the exception of the UI on OS X we use Interface Builder to make OS X look and feel apps.

My prefered environment for developing the JSPs is on my G4 (10.2 kicks the shiet out of 10.1 that came on my system). I also have to build and test my Apple front ends on my G4 so I love it. I also like my Athlon and my Dell laptop as well.

The whole speed issue is mute for me since PCs and Macs went over 700MHz I've very rarely had to wait on the computer for anything. Now mind you I don't do any heavy processing on the client side. I guess I might prefer the PC over the mac for processor intensive applications but video games are the only things that make my systems work and that is the main reason I have the AthlonXP running XP, it plays every game I want and the graphics card upgrades are plentiful and cheap. PCs kick Macs ass in games and video cards.

That being said I am holding off until the next Powerbook speed bump and I'll get one (hopefully 1.4GHz). I'll then get a 970 when they come out as well.

[lmalave]

Originally posted by scem0


why do you say this? I would be saying this if there was any
reason for apple not to use the IBM chip. Moto is going downhill
and I, and other mac fans, don't want apple to go with them. I
seriously doubt that apple is intent upon going down either,
which all point to apple using an IBM chip, not a moto chip.

Exactly. Moto is retreating from the CPU business, whereas IBM is entering the low-end (for them) CPU market with renewed vigor. I really like the fact that IBM is putting the 970 in their own Linux machines and has big plans for them, unlike Moto which has no market for its G4 other than Apple.

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by GigaWire
I'm scared.
__________________
DP 1.5 GHz G4
GeForce 4
Superdrive II
23" Cinema Display
Yeah Your the one with the future chip. :eek: + :confused: + ;) = :rolleyes:

Anyways, Intel does think the Itantium is it's best chip cause it means to be run on servers and high end market.

[firestarter]

Originally posted by matznentosh


Please say it again. All the benchmark tests routinely show the G4 to be 1.5 to 2.0 x faster than same mhz Pentium. The short pipeline risc design really is better than the Intel design.

And OS X really does handle multitasking better than other operating systems, better than XP although XP is a definite improvement over 98 or 2000.


Unfortunately, Intel hasn't been sitting still on the Pentium 4 design front.

Not only are the 3GHz P4s extremely fast, but the 'hyperthreading' architecture runs 2 instruction pipelines in the P4 core. Yes - the longer pipeline suffers more from stalls, but now the processor can switch over to the other pipeline and keep executing. This is giving these new chips a 20-30% speed boost, and has fixed the main architectural inefficiency of this design.

In short, the MHz myth is over, and this 'G4 = 2xP4 MHz' is no longer true. Motorola/IBM/Apple are going to have to play some serious catchup to a competitor who's lead is increasing.

[theranch]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
this is directed at all of those who seem to be down on mac and have not yet mastered the ability (though many of them calim to be 'experts') to click links. (theranch, Phechs, Foucault, ktlx, clubsport, bousozoku)

read the link! i find this all VERY good news. simply because it coroborates a previous rumor (the link). that rumor claims that moto dropped the ball on the g5 by numerous last minute delays and eventaully dropping the g5 alltogether. apple approached ibm to create the 970. plans are in the works for a q3 release of the 970, and the work for the 980 (2004) 990 (2006) is being done.

moto dropped the ball. right now we are simply waiting for that 970. if you recall, apple has always been the leader in desktop computing speed. the current slump is only because of the g5/moto screwup. just 3-4 years ago apple was number one. so stop complaining. this rumor puts a lot of strange occurances in place and gives us a clear roadmap for the next few years that promises to bring apple to that number one place again.

i dont care if you buy a pc. for many it is probably a good idea. buy one and sell it when apple releases the new machine. if you can handle the switching why not. but at least understand what is going on, and do not make rash decisions.

read the link.

All I am saying is that it has and is taking way too long to really give us the next power(ful) mac often refered to as "G5". Going to dual processors is obviously a way to make things look good but if you don't use apps that take advantage of dual processors than what good are they? Sure the extra power helps but I've also read several stories on this site regarding the lack of real performance boost from the DDR ram added to the current powermac line. I've also read stories regarding video editing performance on a pc being better than the current powermac lineup. What's up with that? Isn't that industry part of Apple's strength?
My post stated that I'll be in the market for a new machine in 3 months and hoped that Apple produces something big for us soon....meaning 64bit IBM chip equiped machines. I just want some real innovation to occur again in the powermac line.
With all of that said... I am very happy with Apple's products and their iApps. The PeeCee world is always playing catch-up to what Apple is doing. In the end I don't think that I could bring myself to buying a peecee after yesterday.
Santa Claus came late this year...a new ibook (800mhz, 640mb ram, 14") w/airport card and airport. I love the airport more than the ibook...setting up our network of a G4, imac, old ass pc (for web site testing) and the new ibook was sooooo easy.
That's all for now....Happy New Year!

[lmalave]

Originally posted by firestarter


Unfortunately, Intel hasn't been sitting still on the Pentium 4 design front.

Not only are the 3GHz P4s extremely fast, but the 'hyperthreading' architecture runs 2 instruction pipelines in the P4 core. Yes - the longer pipeline suffers more from stalls, but now the processor can switch over to the other pipeline and keep executing. This is giving these new chips a 20-30% speed boost, and has fixed the main architectural inefficiency of this design.

In short, the MHz myth is over, and this 'G4 = 2xP4 MHz' is no longer true. Motorola/IBM/Apple are going to have to play some serious catchup to a competitor who's lead is increasing.

From what I've seen IBM is ready, willing, and able to compete again in the CPU market, correcting the colossal mistake it made 20 years ago when it let Intel an Microsoft capture most of the profits in the PC market (leaving itself with the commodity PC building business). Keep in mind IBM is thinking long term. Whenever you hear about some radical new transistor, storage, or display technology it always seems to come from IBM's labs.

I think the 970 is just the first volley in this new CPU war. The reason why IBM can move forward now is, quite simply, Linux. IBM knows that it would lose money trying to be like AMD or VIA and make x86 compatible CPUs - Intel sets the standard there and would always remain ahead. And the port of Windows NT to the DEC Alpha showed that trying to market a non x86 version of windows would probably fail. But now, with Linux, all IBM has to do is work with the leading vendors (Red Hat, SuSe, etc.) to make the most smokin' port of Linux on any platform. If IBM can deliver with the 970 a clear price/performance leading chip for Linux, I think the market will accept it enthusiastically.

[cubist]

And those hyperthreaded P4s will be available in 2H03, I think? Or was it 1H04? Please use correct tense.

[bretm]

Originally posted by Spievy
Guys, Guys,
Don't forget this point here. The speed of a computer doesn't totally rest on the processor alone, a major part of speed is the architecture of the computer. Bus Speed, amount of Cache and Cache speed. My work horse computer is a G4 400mhz AGP!!!, and I constantly compress movies, render animations, and do MAJOR Photoshop work. I am just now considering upgrading to a new PowerMac after using this G4 for 3 years. You can't find a PC that will last 3 years like macs can.

I do believe apple needs to find some how to get there processors up to PC GHz speeds ONLY for the switchers or the people who don't understand computer architecture.

I recently upgraded from the G4 350 to the G4 Dual gig MDD. I do a lot of rendering and web compression. You're going to really see it there. But the 350 AGP still holds it's own. Other than a little slower scrolling due to a slower video card, it doesn't really feel any different than the MDD. Jaguar has made my 350 much snappier and it utilizes my meager 512megs much better than OS9 or 10.1 did.

I was doing compressions that would take 20min or so on the 350. Now, on the MDD, they take 2-3 minutes. Hardly worth worrying about.

Enjoy!

[lmalave]

Originally posted by cubist
And those hyperthreaded P4s will be available in 2H03, I think? Or was it 1H04? Please use correct tense.

Hyperthreading is included in the existing 3.06GHz P4, if I'm not mistaken.

[vniow]

Originally posted by cubist
And those hyperthreaded P4s will be available in 2H03, I think? Or was it 1H04? Please use correct tense.


They're already avalible.

Both by itself and in pre-built (Dell, Gateway) computers.

[Brandon Sharitt]

Over 20 years ago, Apple was the top dog is the personal computer industry. IBM allied itself with Microsoft and Intel to fight Apple. While the war took its toll on Apple. IBM was hurt more by its own allies than was Apple. After IBM lost its leadership position, the Wintel alliance began to take even more territory from Apple. In effort to combat the Wintel alliance, the former foes Apple and IBM have formed an alliance to make a last stand.

[bousozoku]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
this is directed at all of those who seem to be down on mac and have not yet mastered the ability (though many of them calim to be 'experts') to click links. (theranch, Phechs, Foucault, ktlx, clubsport, bousozoku)


I will never claim to be an expert in anything I don't invent.

I am not down on Mac (it's not mac). I only suggest that rumours remain rumours. Apple has little control over the processors. I'm actually quite thrilled that Apple is pushing ahead with their software.

If you want a cheerleader who blindly touts something, it's not going to be me.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by lmalave


Dude, your web searching skills could use some honing.

My first search on "intel end moore's law" yielded this (5th in the list of search results):

Dec 11 2002: "Intel's Grove Warns of the End of Moore's Law"
http://www.theinquirer.org/?article=6677

Here's the text:
**************************************************
(...snip...)
While Intel is seeking ways to design chips with multiple cores with improved design and better insulators, Grove suggested that Moore Law regarding the doubling of transistor densities every couple of years will be redundant by the end of the decade. Chip makers will have to make more efficient use of the transistor in order to deliver ever increasing performance, he suggested.
**************************************************


My point exactly. "by the end of the decade". 2010. Not 2003. The current lines, P4, P5, and Itanium 2 are all to be long retired by then.

You will note that the articles I chose in my post said the same thing (at least two of them). 2010, barring breakthroughs, is the current "end date" of Moore's Law. You will also note that I purposefully linked to Moore himself in 1997 saying that Moore's Law will have to be adjusted by 2000 as by them a doubling of transistors will have generated uncontrollable heat issues. The point being: breakthroughs do happen, and issues do get dealt with. People looked at 1 micron transistors as impossible just a few short years ago, and now we're approaching volume production of 0.09 ... breakthroughs happen.

Historically, predictions of Moore's Law coming to a crashing halt tend to hover about two years in the future. The fact that Intel believes Moore's Law will hold until the end of the decade (7 years in the future for those who need help with the math) is a glowingly positive assessment, historically.


So I'm not worried. I think the Moto speed bumps for 2003 are a welcome surprise, given the moribund state of Moto's chip business, but really Apple is just stalling for time until they get the next-generation 970.

And it IS next generation. With all this talk about GHz, are people forgetting that Intel's pride and joy, the Itanium2, only runs at from 933MHz to 1 GHz.


Quite true, and that chip also skunks the G4 in SPEC numbers (by a long shot). The point is, unless I'm missing something drastic, I don't see the 7457 being a drastically improved architecture that will make a 1.25GHz 7457 appreciably faster than a current 1.25GHz 7450. I'd love to be proven wrong.

But, yes, as I said before, IBM's chip will be quite welcome (although not quite blowing the doors off its competition in raw performance, it at the very least will get us closer to Intel than we've been in years).

Goodbye, Moto.

[copperpipe]

All I know is I'm running a dual 867 and HOLY ******** ***** is it fast. Ha!

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by cubist
And those hyperthreaded P4s will be available in 2H03, I think? Or was it 1H04? Please use correct tense.

Hyperthreaded P4s are available now at 3.06 GHz. Intel's entire line should be hyperthreaded by end of 2003, but if you want the performance now it is quite available. Dell even has them.

[lmalave]

Originally posted by TMJ1974

The cell phone radiation must be having an impact on Motorola's thinking. You're not making money....ok, fair enough. But, you won't make any by allowing the processor's you make to become obsolete. You have to invest money to make money....have they ever heard of that?


Ummm....have you ever heard of competitive advantage? No one has been able to compete with Intel. All those that have tried: AMD, VIA, etc., fail because Intel has the best research and best production in the PC CPU market, and can lower prices at will since they the industry's largest profit margins by far.

If there's one company that can take on Intel it's IBM, definitely not Moto. IBM has better R&D than even Intel, and certainly has the resources (of course they would have to be willing to spend billions fighting a bloody chip war). My hypothesis is that the 970 chip represents a full-out assault against Intel for the Linux market. If IBM could produce the CPU of choice for Linux, that would be a pretty decent chunk of market share. And then IBM cold start pushing Linux on the server side and working with Apple to push Mac OS X on the desktop. I envision a future with more Linux and more OS X. Linux is our ally - the more it becomes entrenched, the less Microsoft is a monopoly, and the more people are willing to look at alternative platforms like the Mac.l

[Chomolungma]

Originally posted by Falleron

Plus, on the note of PC's being quicker. On most tasks (barring a few such as video/3d) what does that bit of extra speed help you do when you are browsing the web? ABSOLUTLY NOTHING. You save more time by using the Mac OSX which saves time on less keystrokes. I admit that Apple needs to move up a level for 3D and Video. However, its out of Apple's hands. Dont blame them.

Ever browse the web using IE in Window XP? It is snappier and quicker to load pages. The texts in many cases look smoother and pleasing to the eye. Wake up and smell the coffee. Denial is blissful, isn't it Falleron?;)

[robguz]

Originally posted by jettredmont

Intel is doubling CPU performance every 18 months, and Motorola is more like 1.73x in 18 months (extrapolating from 1.44x in ~12 months), especially after the long sub-Moore's trend we've been stuck in for years (Sept 1999-Aug 2002 3.125x improvement instead of 2.51x under Moore's ... although granted July 2001-Aug 2002 was above Moore's), we're SOL!


I'm not sure how you arrive at that figure for motorola. The 500MHz G4 was initially released in 8/99 and had a faster design than later G4s because it had fewer pipeline stages, such that a 1GHz G4 is not double the speed of the original 500. You'd have to go to 1.25 at least to get double the performance. That didn't happen until 8/02. So fully half of what Moore's law would predict.

July 2001 - August 2002 was NOT above Moore's law. Going from 867 to 1250 is a 44% improvement, not the 66% improvement you'd expect after 66% of 18 months had passed.

I think the last time Motorola was ahead of Moore's law was in the year before August 97 when the 300MHz G3 was first introduced (though not released until many months later because Apple killed off the clones that were to ship with them).

We really ought to be at about 3GHz G4s by now if Motorola doubled performance every 18 months since the G4 500 debuted in 1999. If we get that sometime in 2004 we'll be lucky.

[Falleron]

Originally posted by Chomolungma


Ever browse the web using IE in Window XP? It is snappier and quicker to load pages. The texts in many cases look smoother and pleasing to the eye. Wake up and smell the coffee. Denial is blissful, isn't it Falleron?;)
I have used IE on windows. However, what you dont see is that the Mac version could be as good as the PC version if M$ put the money into developing a decent version (less bugs + was optimised). Its speed is very little governed by the cpu.

[Shadowplay]

Originally posted by Spievy
Guys, Guys,
Don't forget this point here. The speed of a computer doesn't totally rest on the processor alone, a major part of speed is the architecture of the computer. Bus Speed, amount of Cache and Cache speed. My work horse computer is a G4 400mhz AGP!!!, and I constantly compress movies, render animations, and do MAJOR Photoshop work. I am just now considering upgrading to a new PowerMac after using this G4 for 3 years. You can't find a PC that will last 3 years like macs can.


Come on, guys. I use a PC that I built, so I'm a bit well more informed about the PC than you folks who haven't touched one in a few years.

The PC isn't just kicking the Mac's ass in CPU, but the PC is also taking names in FSB, RAM speeds, etc.

I have an Nforce2 mobo, which can go to 400MHz FSB. All I'm waiting for is the Athlon XP Bartons, due out next quarter. Those will ramp up the Athlon XP from 333 to 400 MHz FSB, both of which is faster than whatever Apple has out today.

Intel is at 533MHz FSB for the P4.

RAM speeds... my Nforce2 supports 400MHz DDR right now. It can run asynchronously, so I can have my 333MHz FSB and 400MHz DDR RAM run together. I don't like Rambus, but the latest Rambus speeds that are available now still kick some serious ass. The RAM speeds on PC in both DDR and Rambus are faster than whatever Apple has out today.

AGPx8 is available now on the latest PC motherboards, and so are AGPx8 cards for the PC from Nvidia and ATI. Again, faster than whatever Apple has out today.

Nforce2 also has Hypertransport (800Mb/sec replacement for PCI) as well as Serial ATA support, which replaces UltraIDE.

Hyperthreading is the real deal, too. Go watch the videos on Toms Hardware, they run two 3.06GHz Pentium 4's side-by-side, one with HT turned on, the other with HT turned off. The HT P4 kicks ass on the non-HT P4, even in apps that aren't multithreaded. You can buy these machines right now from Dell and other manufacturers.

All these technologies aren't stuff the PC is getting later in 2003 or 2004. These are technologies that are available right now that you can buy.

And who is winning the speed race?
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm

The single Processor P4 slaughters the Dual G4 in every test. And we're not talking beating the Dual G4 by 5 or 10 percent. The P4 does it all in half the time the Dual G4 does. This in a machine that costs $630 less (and that's after Apple's discounts, else it would be $1,000 less) and runs "church-mouse quiet" compared to the windtunnel G4's.

[TMJ1974]

I agree with your points :-)

I am very excited about IBM's chances to give Intel a run for the money. As pointed out, time and again, it's not the clock speed, but what the chip can do. I would love the PPC 970 to outperform whatever Itanium or P4 out at the time. Further, I can only pray that Apple is going to use it.

Also agree with you on Linux being our ally. In fact, the next home build PC I make, I might put Linux on, just to play around.

Tim

[MrMacMan]

Shadowplay, we all know apple is playing catch up to intel, amd, and their dominance.

We all understand that if apple doesn't start taking a stand rasing clock speed and new real preformance (see fake DDR) we will lose the battle.
There is no doubt that Intel has the uper-hand but soon enough we might level the playing feilds. (see 970 or higher-clock speed G4's)

Apple hasn't adopted new technology's recently sure they were the leader for hardware like USB and Firewire but now they have fallen back again.
They haven't started to use new hardware that is out there. Apple will need to use some real cash (see 4 Billion in the bank) to get back to where we feel good. (see 'we want real comparisons')
What makes apple customers stay is the nice OS, lack of crashing and overall the wellness of there computer, but, Intel is gaining from us silently.
Look at the topics were people are saying they are just gonna build there own computers, they are buying Intel/AMD hardware (AMD's not bad) and even if they don't get a M$ OS they have switched.
If apple doesn't fix these gaping wholes soon, we may not see many people here in the future.

[Huked on Fonick]

Originally posted by firestarter


Unfortunately, Intel hasn't been sitting still on the Pentium 4 design front.

Not only are the 3GHz P4s extremely fast, but the 'hyperthreading' architecture runs 2 instruction pipelines in the P4 core. Yes - the longer pipeline suffers more from stalls, but now the processor can switch over to the other pipeline and keep executing. This is giving these new chips a 20-30% speed boost, and has fixed the main architectural inefficiency of this design.

In short, the MHz myth is over, and this 'G4 = 2xP4 MHz' is no longer true. Motorola/IBM/Apple are going to have to play some serious catchup to a competitor who's lead is increasing.

where are you getting this information from everything i have read said that hyperthreading increase is relatitible minor for most programs and only the FEW programs out there that benafit from it benafit from it get about 10-15 percet speed increase and someprograms (virus scanns actually loose about 5 percent performace) CNET has a pretty good article on hyperthreading

Cnet Article on Hyperthreading (http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0-8079207-8-20688858-1.html?tag=st.re.9870989.fs.8079207-8-20688858-1)

In fact Dell and Hp shipped the xeon servers with hyperthreading turned off because there was not enought programs out there that ook advantage of it.......... its not the savior of the extemely badly designed p4 line, like u made it sound....

[lmalave]

Originally posted by MrMacman

Look at the topics were people are saying they are just gonna build there own computers, they are buying Intel/AMD hardware (AMD's not bad) and even if they don't get a M$ OS they have switched.


Hey man, I just ordered a Mobo, AMD Athlon XP 1700+, and case from NewEgg.com, plan to install Win2K on it, but I am by no means "switching". My trusty iBook is still my everyday computer. The only things I will use my white-box PC for is for games and as a file server (since it supports up to 4 IDE drive and I can definitely get some cheap ones...).

It's been said a million times here before, but unless you're a gamer or a pro user, what do you need more MHz for? If Apple continues to focus on design and price, they won't have any problems. Price is really the key for most consumers - I wouldn't have purchased an iBook for $2300 instead of $1300, even if the freakin' thing had a 970 in it right now! The iBook does everything I need to do like a champ.

I don't even think Apple's digital hub strategy needs much more powerful CPUs. Keep in mind most of the consumers that are using iMovie just want to splice their video, add some titles, and maybe a couple effects. My G3 iBook can already handle multimedia tasks such as simple editing of movies in iMovie (I know 'cause I've done it on my friend's Beige G3), ripping and burning CDs, etc.

I suppose mainstream multimedia apps could become more demanding to the point where Apple benefits from a 970 CPU thats more than twice as fast as what I have now. But really, isn't there a limit to all of this? Before when folks predicted that the average person wouldn't need more than X amount of RAM or Y amount of disk space (like Bill Gates did 20+ years ago), they were thinking purely in terms of non-graphical, non-multimedia application data. Nowadays we KNOW exactly how many bytes have to be stored/processed, etc. to manipulate audio or video information. And we can envision ever-higher resolutions, bitrates etc.

But there IS a limit. IBM has already made prototypes of displays that have a higher resolution than the human eye. And audio technologies already exist that supposedly surpass the audio processing capabilities of the human ear (wasn't DAT basically there, like, 10 years ago). So from a multimedia hub perspective we are already almost at the point where we really don't need much more powerful computers. 3D gaming would be the one exception, since one could still envision photorealistic real-time rendering that would require many times the horsepower of even the highest-end consumer video card currently available. But even then the 3rd party video card is doing all the work, and all Apple has to do is provide the video card with whatever bus speed it requires.

[firestarter]

Originally posted by Huked on Fonick


where are you getting this information from everything i have read said that hyperthreading increase is relatitible minor for most programs and only the FEW programs out there that benafit from it benafit from it get about 10-15 percet speed increase and someprograms (virus scanns actually loose about 5 percent performace) CNET has a pretty good article on hyperthreading

Cnet Article on Hyperthreading (http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0-8079207-8-20688858-1.html?tag=st.re.9870989.fs.8079207-8-20688858-1)


From the article you link to:
"On our multitasking tests with Hyper-Threading, we saw performance improvements of anywhere between 4.5 and 28.6 percent overall. With a multithreaded application, we saw as much as a 25.3 percent increase."

In fact Dell and Hp shipped the xeon servers with hyperthreading turned off because there was not enought programs out there that ook advantage of it.......... its not the savior of the extemely badly designed p4 line, like u made it sound....

As you hint - the effect is dependant on the work you're doing. Multithreaded apps are better (Photoshop etc.) and multitasking is faster. Since the original 'G4 is twice as fast as P4 at the same MHz' MHz myth tests were done on favorable Photoshop filters which use Altivec & parellalise well (so can make use of dual Mac processors), it's not unreasonable to quote P4 speedups under these same conditions.

Tom's Hardware guide has an interesting downloadable video on http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021114/p4_306ht-22.html which shows the qualitative speedup of the 3.06GHz hyperthreading processor over the 3.6GHz regular processor. The 3.6GHz is up to the expected 20% faster in synthetic benchmarks - but the Hyperthreading seems to make disk access more asynchrolous, and delivers a better overall experience in multithreaded/multitasking apps.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by lmalave

It's been said a million times here before, but unless you're a gamer or a pro user, what do you need more MHz for?

[ ... ]

I don't even think Apple's digital hub strategy needs much more powerful CPUs. Keep in mind most of the consumers that are using iMovie just want to splice their video, add some titles, and maybe a couple effects. My G3 iBook can already handle multimedia tasks such as simple editing of movies in iMovie (I know 'cause I've done it on my friend's Beige G3), ripping and burning CDs, etc.

I suppose mainstream multimedia apps could become more demanding to the point where Apple benefits from a 970 CPU thats more than twice as fast as what I have now. But really, isn't there a limit to all of this? Before when folks predicted that the average person wouldn't need more than X amount of RAM or Y amount of disk space (like Bill Gates did 20+ years ago), they were thinking purely in terms of non-graphical, non-multimedia application data. Nowadays we KNOW exactly how many bytes have to be stored/processed, etc. to manipulate audio or video information. And we can envision ever-higher resolutions, bitrates etc.



Well, there's a vast realm of unknown in how much power one needs to "handle" a single pixel of data. A more powerful CPU (and/or GPU) can make the resulting pixels much more lifelike or fantastic simply because they can perform more precise modeling of the real world being simulated on the screen. I mean, yeah, a Mac from 1985 could handle dragging a sprite across the screen pretty darned well, but that just isn't the same as editing full-motion video in real time or in rendering a true digital world in real time.

It's not the number of pixels, but what you're doing with them. And, no, we have not gotten anywhere near realtime (or even non-realtime) accurate simulation of virtual worlds. I mean, the hair on Scully in Monster Inc was pretty cool and all, but that's rendered at far from realtime on a farm of Intel boxes and it still takes artistic "finesse" when all's said and done to make it seem "real". There's no ceiling approaching in the digital video realm.

As for live-motion video streams ... have you actually done rendering work recently? It's still butt-slow for anything that requires any calculation. With more horsepower you will see common tasks get done realtime instead of sub-realtime, and new effects that weren't possible with today's machines (like editing out characters in video and interpolating the background fill, etc) that can't be done today because they would require more horsepower than any but the professional studios have available to them.


But there IS a limit. IBM has already made prototypes of displays that have a higher resolution than the human eye. And audio technologies already exist that supposedly surpass the audio processing capabilities of the human ear (wasn't DAT basically there, like, 10 years ago). So from a multimedia hub perspective we are already almost at the point where we really don't need much more powerful computers. 3D gaming would be the one exception, since one could still envision photorealistic real-time rendering that would require many times the horsepower of even the highest-end consumer video card currently available. But even then the 3rd party video card is doing all the work, and all Apple has to do is provide the video card with whatever bus speed it requires.

Umm, no. That's great for rendering, but for a game to be truly immersive, the world needs to act real, obeying the laws of physics, etc. That's not done a lot today simply because there isn't enough horsepower (not even on the Intel side) to do it. And the video card isn't designed to calculate the effects of gravity on microparticles of dust; it's only designed to render those specks as realistically as possible once the main CPU tells them where they are.

But this is not limitted to games. The main problem with 3D interfaces today is that they compromise far too much in the name of performance. You can have a terrific and intuitive 3D interface, or you can have one that is usable in real time. As CPUs advance, we will hit upon the threshold where new UI paradigms that are intuitive and utilitarian finally become usable in realtime. Again, the task here is not so much video-intensive, as it is in managing a true 3D world where well-known physical laws are obeyed.

Like Gates in the early 80s and his famous 64k quip, shorting the need for more computing power with the argument that what we have today runs okay is shortsighted. What we have today runs okay today because it was designed with today's machines in mind. That which is designed for tomorrow's machines will not succeed in today's marketplace. Hence, it is always a truism that what we have today works reasonably well with the hardware of today. History shows, however, that as computing power increases, in fits and starts it makes great new paradigms possible. I wouldn't want to live in today's world with the hardware of five years ago, and I expect I'll say the same five years from now.

[lmalave]

Originally posted by jettredmont


Well, there's a vast realm of unknown in how much power one needs to "handle" a single pixel of data. A more powerful CPU (and/or GPU) can make the resulting pixels much more lifelike or fantastic simply because they can perform more precise modeling of the real world being simulated on the screen. I mean, yeah, a Mac from 1985 could handle dragging a sprite across the screen pretty darned well, but that just isn't the same as editing full-motion video in real time or in rendering a true digital world in real time.

It's not the number of pixels, but what you're doing with them. And, no, we have not gotten anywhere near realtime (or even non-realtime) accurate simulation of virtual worlds. I mean, the hair on Scully in Monster Inc was pretty cool and all, but that's rendered at far from realtime on a farm of Intel boxes and it still takes artistic "finesse" when all's said and done to make it seem "real". There's no ceiling approaching in the digital video realm.

As for live-motion video streams ... have you actually done rendering work recently? It's still butt-slow for anything that requires any calculation. With more horsepower you will see common tasks get done realtime instead of sub-realtime, and new effects that weren't possible with today's machines (like editing out characters in video and interpolating the background fill, etc) that can't be done today because they would require more horsepower than any but the professional studios have available to them.



Umm, no. That's great for rendering, but for a game to be truly immersive, the world needs to act real, obeying the laws of physics, etc. That's not done a lot today simply because there isn't enough horsepower (not even on the Intel side) to do it. And the video card isn't designed to calculate the effects of gravity on microparticles of dust; it's only designed to render those specks as realistically as possible once the main CPU tells them where they are.

But this is not limitted to games. The main problem with 3D interfaces today is that they compromise far too much in the name of performance. You can have a terrific and intuitive 3D interface, or you can have one that is usable in real time. As CPUs advance, we will hit upon the threshold where new UI paradigms that are intuitive and utilitarian finally become usable in realtime. Again, the task here is not so much video-intensive, as it is in managing a true 3D world where well-known physical laws are obeyed.

Like Gates in the early 80s and his famous 64k quip, shorting the need for more computing power with the argument that what we have today runs okay is shortsighted. What we have today runs okay today because it was designed with today's machines in mind. That which is designed for tomorrow's machines will not succeed in today's marketplace. Hence, it is always a truism that what we have today works reasonably well with the hardware of today. History shows, however, that as computing power increases, in fits and starts it makes great new paradigms possible. I wouldn't want to live in today's world with the hardware of five years ago, and I expect I'll say the same five years from now.

All very good points. Alright, then bring on the 6GHz IBM 970 chip with at least 900 MHz FSB! That'll do for now, at least until the next generation of CPUs comes out...

[Abstract]

Originally posted by lmalave



But there IS a limit. IBM has already made prototypes of displays that have a higher resolution than the human eye. And audio technologies already exist that supposedly surpass the audio processing capabilities of the human ear (wasn't DAT basically there, like, 10 years ago).


Um....if IBM has made a display with a higher resolution than the human eye, then humans would never be able to see this "improved" resolution. Any image that appears on such a display will only appear as good as the human eye can perceive it. Basically, any image, whether the resolution is higher than that of the human eye, can only be seen as well as the human eye is capable of seeing it. Bad eye vision = poor display image, no matter what the resolution of the display happens to be.

Same with the audio capabilities.


Also, we will always need more processing power. We just don't know it yet.

[lmalave]

Originally posted by Abstract



Um....if IBM has made a display with a higher resolution than the human eye, then humans would never be able to see this "improved" resolution. Any image that appears on such a display will only appear as good as the human eye can perceive it. Basically, any image, whether the resolution is higher than that of the human eye, can only be seen as well as the human eye is capable of seeing it. Bad eye vision = poor display image, no matter what the resolution of the display happens to be.

Same with the audio capabilities.


Also, we will always need more processing power. We just don't know it yet.

Hahahahaha! See, that's exactly where you're wrong! You forgot about super-human vision. One of the technologies I'm most anticipating is are custom-made glasses (or contact lenses) that correct EVERY aberration in your eye. The problem with current optical technology is that there are about 50 different types of aberration in the human eye, but lenses and surgery only correct a couple of them. The technology to scan your eye and produce the lenses is already has already been developed and should be productized in a couple of years. I read and interview with someone who'd tried a prototype who said that these glasses made his supposedly "perfect" 20/20 vision look like an impressionistic painting. I don't wear glasses but I used to since I have astigmatism, until I realized that glasses weren't really correcting my vision and were just making my eyes lazier. I think these super-glasses would be the first glasses I wear that actually correct my vision...

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Abstract



Um....if IBM has made a display with a higher resolution than the human eye, then humans would never be able to see this "improved" resolution. Any image that appears on such a display will only appear as good as the human eye can perceive it. Basically, any image, whether the resolution is higher than that of the human eye, can only be seen as well as the human eye is capable of seeing it. Bad eye vision = poor display image, no matter what the resolution of the display happens to be.

Same with the audio capabilities.


Also, we will always need more processing power. We just don't know it yet.

Hmm, actually, not true. Assuming, for one instant, that all human eyes were exactly the same (your argument fails immediately if one takes into account the fact that the resolution capabilities of the human retina varies widely from one individual to another).

You see, the human eye does not use a square- or rectangular-pixel "grid" of photosensors to capture its view of the world around it. The rods and cones of the human eye will never align perfectly on the pixel boundaries of the display. As a result, what one rod/cone sees will either be entirely one generated pixel or a combination of two or more gewnerated pixels. In order for the eye to perceive "black,white,black" picket fence pattern at a frequency equivalent to the rod's linear density on the retina, going down just to the resolution of the rods (120 million in the retina, more highly concentrated in the center, which is the "max resolution" area of the eye) is insufficient, as going down only that far would yield "gray, gray, gray". One would in fact have to display the picket fence to much higher resolutions (meaning, either make the "black" portion significantly thinner or the "white" portion significantly thinner) to give the eyes enough data to see that this is really "black, white, black". In the real world, the eye is able to pick up clues of a thin black line because it can see that the rods in that line are slightly "grayer" than the surrounding all-white rods. This is a somewhat contrived example, but I think you can see what I'm getting at.

Another way of looking at it is in a more tangible analogy: a scanner versus a printer. Imagine you have a scanner set to scan at precisely 100 dpi (and the scanner engine scans only at this resolution, not at a higher resolution then applying logic to resolve a clearer 100 dpi image), and a printer that prints at exactly 100 dpi (true gray tones instead of dithering patterns). You print out a highly-detailed line drawing at 100 dpi. You scan that line drawing in. Is it still precisely black/white, or are there numerous "gray" areas? For the most part, you should have ended up with a slightly "blurred", grayed drawing, with few if any "true black" lines. Print out the scanned image, and scan it again: even more blurring. Every generation introduces more blurring, highlighting the fact that no generation was an exact depiction of the preceding generation.

Now, with the scanner, you have no way of combatting this blurring. The eye, however, sees in "grains" of varying sizes/shape, and can take multiple "pictures" of an object from slightly modified viewpoints, and so can distinguish between
gray" and "thinner than my resolution black", much as a scanner which scans at 1200 dpi and then downsamples and uses path-finding logic can come up with an almost identical black-white image of the original.

With the human eye, one can perceive exactly the displayed image if the display pixels are much larger than the resolution of the rods and cones at the center of the retina (ie, matching many rods/cnes per pixel). The eye can be fooled into not seeing pixel boundaries at all when the image is displayed at a resolution significantly greater than the resolution of the rods and cones at the center of the retina. The eye "wants" to be fooled, and the optical cortex tries to make what it sees (square pixels with a thin black line surrounding them) match what millions of years of evolution makes it believe it should be seeing (an image), and so even a fairly low-resolution image will be "resolved" to a photo-like image by the mind. But, that having been said, even better if one doesn't rely on one's own eyes "fooling" him, and instead can "see" the image without effort.

So, to the point: a higher-than-retinal "resolution" image can well be seen by the retina as being a synthesized image, and can cause the cortex to employ its extraordinary processing capabilities so that the brain sees "real" images. If one is to convey to the retina the highest possible density of information, the display array must have a resolution significantly greater than that of the target area of the retina. Defeating the post-processing by the cortex is another matter entirely, of course.

[skunk]

Couldn't have put it better myself! :)