The 64-Bit Battle

[MacRumors]

RealWorldTechnologies (http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?AID=RWT012603224711) posts an in-depth review of upcoming 64-bit processors. In it, they discuss IBM's Power4 (http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?AID=RWT012603224711&p=7) and, of course, IBM's PowerPC 970 which is coming later this year:


Even more intriguing for Apple is that the 970?s typical power consumption drops to 19 W at 1.2 GHz which makes it a natural competitor to Intel?s Banias processor for high end mobile applications and very small form factor and/or silent desktop PCs. Given the reduced design margin and greater market emphasis for clock frequency of desktop processors, it is also conceivable that IBM could turn out limited numbers of 970 MPUs that clocked at 2 GHz or higher for high end desktop Macs, an important psychological milestone for Apple?s struggle for survival in an increasingly x86 dominated PC world.

While the MHz boost is purely speculation, Apple is aware of their lagging processor speeds (as compared to Intel/AMD), and IBM's PowerPC 970 is widely expected to be incorporated into PowerMacs as early as later this year.

[howard]

yay woo hoo!!! bring on the 970s!

first post...actually my first "first post"

[Abstract]

What's the power consumption of the G4's and G3's, and the Intel P3 mobile cpu's? I would very much like to see a 970 in an ultra-portable 12" Powerbook or iBook form factor: >1.8GHz for any PB or PM, and >1.4GHz for an iBook or iMac. :) If power consumption is even lower than it is now for the G3 and G4's, I hope a 6Hr battery life is possible. That would make my year. :)

*gets down on knees and prays for the very first time*

[pimentoLoaf]

By the time they are released, a dual-1.42ghz system with max-RAM will have been on my desk for six to eight months (or more).

Alotta work can get done in half-a-year before advanced toys are released, but until dual-4ghz systems are out -- by... hmmmm... 2005-6? -- they won't really impact the computing world much.

[locovaca]

Well, I'd much rather see 1.8 ghzs in volume than 2.0 ghzs "paper launched-" what good is announcing a 2.0 GHz if you can't ship very many of them? However, I would be intrigued to see how a 1.2 GHz 970 performs against a 1.25 GHz G4 in all aspects: the standard CPU speed tests, but also battery life tests, since I would see it being a good drop in for a PB.

[Macette]

<understatement> i am really, really looking forward to these machines </understatement>

[Freg3000]

I am still praying that the "3rd Quarter" means July 1st. :)

The IBM 970 will kick butt. I can't wait.

[Shrek]

The day that the 970 makes its debut in new Macintoshes, will be the "flight of the arrow" for Apple and for consumers all around the world! :D

[scem0]

Originally posted by Shrek
The day that the 970 makes its debut in new Macintoshes, will be the "flight of the arrow" for Apple and for consumers all around the world! :D

I wouldn't say that quite yet. Technology is VERY unpredictable. ;)

[dethl]

Originally posted by Freg3000
I am still praying that the "3rd Quarter" means July 1st. :)

The IBM 970 will kick butt. I can't wait.
Interesting you say July 1st....if you guys look at apples Education main page, they talk about selling imacs and emacs with os9 bootable option on them until june 30th....now this brings up two items: 1) new imac/emac coming soon that will only be os x boot, and 2) new machines possibly? if they end the program right at the end of the 2nd quarter, they've got something up their sleeves. Don't flame me if this is too speculative...this is a rumor site ya know.

I do agree, the 970 will kick alot of butt. I'm going to buy a simple machine at the beginning of college and upgrade to a 970 probably around the beginning of next year (assuming the 970 is the chip of choice and it comes out as planned)

[Abstract]

I seriously hope that all Macs come with the 970 cpu. They could just differentiate their pro and consumer lines through processor speeds like in the PC world. If I get an iBook in 1 year, I don't want to be stuck with a G3 1.5Ghz or G4 1.42Ghz processor. I'd like an iBook with a 970, even if its only at 1.2 Ghz.

<understatement> Motorolla sucks </understatement> :D

EDIT TO ADD: Isn't it true that when Apple says "3rd Quarter", they usually mean the end of the quarter (ie: close to the 4th quarter)? I hope not. :(

[ibjoshua]

Originally posted by Macette
<understatement> i am really, really looking forward to these machines </understatement> hee hee - quiet chuckle.

Me too.

i_b_joshua

[eyeluvmyimac]

Originally posted by Abstract
EDIT TO ADD: Isn't it true that when Apple says "3rd Quarter", they usually mean the end of the quarter (ie: close to the 4th quarter)? I hope not. :(

maybe, but this isn't apple, this is IBM. problem is, once IBM has them coming, how soon will Apple let us have them....

[wdlove]

All this makes for such a dilema. A Power Mac 450 Mhz with 1.25 MB RAM, that's 2 1/2 years old. Would like one now to take advantage of decrease prices and the use of the cinema display to view DVD's. But have been anxious to have the 970 for the past year, patience.

[yzedf]

Originally posted by locovaca
Well, I'd much rather see 1.8 ghzs in volume than 2.0 ghzs "paper launched-" what good is announcing a 2.0 GHz if you can't ship very many of them? However, I would be intrigued to see how a 1.2 GHz 970 performs against a 1.25 GHz G4 in all aspects: the standard CPU speed tests, but also battery life tests, since I would see it being a good drop in for a PB.

Much like the 1.0+ GHz G3's that have been around for ages...

[cubist]

Originally posted by eyeluvmyimac
maybe, but this isn't apple, this is IBM.

Drat! You would mention that. This being IBM, a trickle of slow, buggy chips will be released the last day of Q2 (9/30/03?), and they will cost a fortune. Six months later the errata list and price will go down and the volume up.
:(

[Shrek]

Originally posted by cubist


Drat! You would mention that. This being IBM, a trickle of slow, buggy chips will be released the last day of Q2 (9/30/03?), and they will cost a fortune. Six months later the errata list and price will go down and the volume up.
:(

Don't be so sure of yourself. Only IBM knows what they will cost, and they're not telling, darnit! :o

[Dave K]

Originally posted by dethl

if you guys look at apples Education main page, they talk about selling imacs and emacs with os9 bootable option on them until june 30th....
The June 30th has more to do with the fact that Apple needs to make sure schools can get replacements to the end of the school year. It's also a statement to school boards along the lines of: "Better be prepared to budget for OS X next year".

Not to say that new iMacs, eMacs and other machines aren't coming, because newer, faster, better machines are always in the pipe in this industry...

[pyrex]

hmphhhhh, so much going on in apple..... so little money....

[DakotaGuy]

Originally posted by Dave K

The June 30th has more to do with the fact that Apple needs to make sure schools can get replacements to the end of the school year. It's also a statement to school boards along the lines of: "Better be prepared to budget for OS X next year".

Not to say that new iMacs, eMacs and other machines aren't coming, because newer, faster, better machines are always in the pipe in this industry...

That is a nice thought...schools switching to OSX. It is true schools are switching...but they are switching to PC's. At one time Apple owned the education market. Today almost all the schools in my state have went with PC's and it is the same every other place. It is real sad, but it is the truth. Apple needs to try and get back into this market that they have pretty much completely lost.

[Centris 650]

Here's my question/thought: When the 970 is released where will it appear in Apple's family line up?

Personally I can see 2 things happening:

The SLOW TRICKLE
1) only the "Ultimate" Powermac will get the 970 first. Outrageously priced and sweet looking. Within a year Powerbooks will get the 970 boost followed by (maybe a few months?) iMacs then iBooks.

The SLAM-IT-HOME
2) Redesigning the WHOLE powermac line (casing and all) while only the "Faster", "Fastest" and "Ultimate" machines have the 970 while the "Fast" machine has a beefed up G4. 6 months or so (maybe even less?) a powerbook 970 machine with a 970 iMac then finally a 970 iBook.

This is 100% PURE speculation. So why did I post it? Well, for those of us who want to buy a new mac but want a 970 machine might want to go ahead and buy a new machine. It could be a while before it's available and affordable for many of us on a shoestring budget.

[Sedulous]

Why do some of you believe that the 970 would go into consumer level products so quickly? Unless the 970 is cheaper than the G4 it would seem more likely that the consumer lines will get the G4 (or a super G3) all around while the professional products will get the newest chip.

[scem0]

Yeah, I think it will definitely start inthe powermacs, and slowly
trickle down to the powerbooks, then the consumer lines, and
then the iBooks. :(

;)

[Steradian]

is it possible that because it Is "the year of the labtop" that the 1.2 ghz versions will be in the revison of the 15.2 inch model PB? who knows? i don't

[Sun Baked]

Hopefully Apple doesn't decide to go with a 48-bit address version of the 32-bit G4 (though Apple did have the 16-bit/24-bit address chip in the early Macs)...

Otherwise the transition to a 64-bit processor is going to be requested by more and more people as the find out how close they really are to the limits of the current 32-bit address and the 32-bit file system.

[Vector]

Originally posted by Centris 650

The SLAM-IT-HOME
2) Redesigning the WHOLE powermac line (casing and all) while only the "Faster", "Fastest" and "Ultimate" machines have the 970 while the "Fast" machine has a beefed up G4. 6 months or so (maybe even less?) a powerbook 970 machine with a 970 iMac then finally a 970 iBook.


I doubt that they would go this way. If they are redesigning everything for the powermacs, they are not going to run to different processor types. This would require them to have two very different motherboards and would increase costs.

I think that they will switch all powermacs to the 970, and then switch the powerbooks. The iMacs will switch 6-12 months later, and the ibooks will be switched last. The reason for the late switches in the consumer lines is that they will try to squeeze out as much power as possible from the g4 and possibly g3 (in the ibooks. By keeping the consumer lines with g4s and g3s, apple can keep down costs until the production ramps up enough for prices to come down. The ibooks are still using g3s and the speed of the g3 has the ability to increase more. I do not see apple changing from the g3 in the ibook until the 970 comes out and even then it will not be for a while.

[bentmywookie]

My guess is that once IBM is ready to bang these chips out, Apple will be quick to announce new PMs based around them.

They had the slot-loading Superdrive in the 15" powerbook pretty darn quickly, plus, I think most people wouldn't mind a shipping time of a few weeks for the new PMs anyway. Apple clearly isn't afraid to release products with 1 1/2 - 2 month shipping times (17" powerbook), so I think once IBM is ready to start producing, Apple will announce the brand-new, ever-so-lovely PowerMac! And the Cube 2.0! (just kidding, well . . . maybe).

If there is a MWNY, maybe that's when they'll do it. That seems to be around the right time.

[awulf]

If Apple would use the PPC 970, wouldn't they get a prototype from IBM to develop the new PowerMac's, it's just later on in the year when IBM can mass produce the 970.

One thing that is weird is that G4 is really only a G3 and 1/2. look at the CPU numbers: 680** (G1), 60* (G2), 750[*x] (G3), 74** (G4).

Then comes the 970, so where is the 8** CPU? Could there be a Motorola G5, for the Consumer line and the 970 the G6, for the Pro line? If you know what I mean.

[dguisinger]

Originally posted by awulf
If Apple would use the PPC 970, wouldn't they get a prototype from IBM to develop the new PowerMac's, it's just later on in the year when IBM can mass produce the 970.

One thing that is weird is that G4 is really only a G3 and 1/2. look at the CPU numbers: 680** (G1), 60* (G2), 750[*x] (G3), 74** (G4).

Then comes the 970, so where is the 8** CPU? Could there be a Motorola G5, for the Consumer line and the 970 the G6, for the Pro line? If you know what I mean.

You cannot assume anything by the CPU numbers. You are comparing between two CPU manufacturers. That would be like trying to claim a large gap between the V20 and the 8086, when if my memory recalls, they were identical, just NEC and Intel did not use similar naming conventions. 9xx vs 74xx or 750x doesn't matter. Infact, Motorola has been pretty inconsistant on their own with numbering if you check their CPU list. The only numbering which really ever made sense was the 680x0 series (Pre PPC days).

[Sublime]

Originally posted by Freg3000
I am still praying that the "3rd Quarter" means July 1st. :)

The IBM 970 will kick butt. I can't wait.

Doesn't April start the 3rd quarter?

[Clockwork]

Yeah, I think it will definitely start in the powermacs

I think the PPC 970 will debut in the XServe.
The Power Mac's will probably follow close behind. The XServe was announced in May 2002 and started shipping in July. We might get XServe's with PPC 970's this May that start shipping in July and then Power Mac's with 970's at MWNY. This would probably kill off the Power Mac sales for a couple of months, but I think this is doable, because by that time people will be screaming about how slow the new Power Mac's are and the sales probably won't be that good anyway.

[dstorey]

Originally posted by Clockwork
Yeah, I think it will definitely start in the powermacs

I think the PPC 970 will debut in the XServe.
The Power Mac's will probably follow close behind.

I've seen a lot of posts saying they think the ppc 970 will start in the XServe. Isn't the chip its pased on the power 4 not a high end server chip. Doesn't it make sense to use this chip instead, it's gonna be far more powerful and suited to server operations and differenciates the xserve and powermac lines. Ok it's expensive but so is the xserve and it has no Altivec but then how many peoplerun photoshop etc on their file/web/whatever server? A top of the range xserve with power4 would be taken very seriously i'd think.

I'd like to see the 970 be introduced in all lines also, if anything it will save the confusion of apple prducing 32 and 64 bit machines at the same time and the customers having to choose the right version of the software for their machine. The average consumer isn't computer savy and things like that just adds problems, its bad enough having os 9 and x on the go at the same time. Just a thought....

[Clockwork]

Ok it's expensive but so is the xserve

Putting a Power4 in the XServe would put it in a completely different class. A class I don't think Apple is ready to take on.
The XServe is actually priced very agressively, so although it might seem very expensive it's a fairly good price compared to it's opposition.
I think Apple are getting a good deal on the G4 these days and so they can lower prices such as they have, but there is no way they could keep the prices at this level if something like the Power4 was to make it's entry on the Mac server front.
Remember that Apple was credited for it's humble entry to the server market. They started small, but maybe some day larger servers will make their way into server rooms and render farms.

[Clockwork]

it's gonna be far more powerful and suited to server operations and differenciates the xserve and powermac lines.

This is not always the case. I read somewhere that the 970 can actually outperform the Power4 in some cases.
Also I think the XServe's and the Power Mac's are differenciated enough already.

I'm also having a hard time trying to get my head around how they would get a Power4 into a 1U form factor.

[zac4mac]

I'm crackin' up reading that some folks think a 970 will find its way to iMacs and iBooks.
They'll be out soon; first in XServe, later in PMs, still later in PBs. I'm gonna guess April, July and December of this year. Barring unforeseen errata problems like the ones that killed Moto last year.
Expect eMacs, iMacs and iBooks to stay with G4/G3s for a few more years.
iMacs have traditionally been a processor generation behind the Power line.

Z

[Raiden]

I like the argument that going all 970 would eliminate the confusion of 32bit vs 64bit. Also, with apple switching to IBM, isnt that a slap in the face to motorola? (not like they dont deserve it..) If I were motorola, I would tell steve to shove it and I would stop giving then G3s and G4s. So would apple have no choice but to go all 970?

If that would never happen sorry and disreguard this post.

[Clockwork]

If I were motorola, I would tell steve to shove it and I would stop giving then G3s and G4s.

I suppose Apple took this precaution and made their suppliers sign a "contract" that would force them to supply Apple with parts until that "contract" expires.

[cubist]

Also the case change and cpu change likely won't occur at the same time... the only time I recall this happening was with the powerbook G4. Other times the new chip came in the same old case.

[JtheLemur]

The day that the 970 makes its debut in new Macintoshes, will be the "flight of the arrow" for Apple and for consumers all around the world!

Whoa bucko, don't get those hopes up. Change tacks for a second: NVidia recently released their NV30 chip in the form of their FX line of chipsets for graphics cards. Everyone was waiting a LONG time for this chipset that was supposed to destroy every other graphics card out there.

Well, they released it. Thing is, as of today, the ATI Radeon 9700 is better. Now, some may say that the drivers are perhaps immature... but this is supposed to be a new chip, new architecture, etc. What about those incredible graphic-demos they released a few months ago? Well, maybe they just had really good artists. =)

I'm sure al lthe sites will pit the FX against the 9700 again in a few months - giving NVidia a chance to tweak the drivers the same amount that ATI has.

But it just goes to show you that a "crazy new supercomputer-grade awfully powerful" chip from IBM, by the time it is released, may only be COMPARABLE to kit from AMD and Intel, not necessarily BETTER.

But here's hoping to the contrary! AND I want a new enclosure!! SO sick of the stuff based on El Capitan. At least, keep the hinged side, and redo the plastics or something! =D

[ryan]

Originally posted by Sublime


Doesn't April start the 3rd quarter?

Not last I checked:
Q1: January, February, March
Q2: April, May, June
Q3: July, August, September
Q4: October, November, December

[lem0nayde]

On one hand, the "i" line of computers should be differentiated from the "Power" line in terms of speed and performance. I think the line between the two has gotten blurred - and Apples lineup was much more appealing when the difference between Pro and Consumer was sharp and defined.

On the other hand - can it really keep the G4 and G3 around in the iMac/iBook for too much longer? I think peoples' frustrations with the MHZ limitations of those chips extend into the consumer arena too. I think those two chips just sound old, Apple has been touting them for years now. Psychologically, they seem like something retro and stale.

Using the 970 across the board might not be a bad idea. Kick out the old, bring in the new. Apple would get a brand new marketing angle (64bit, brand new processor, faster than god, the macs are on top again). And it could also still differentiate between consumer and pro by keeping the pro line all multi-processor (quad anyone?) and the consumer line single processor. Also, aren't all 64bit chips in the lower range of MHZ right now? That too would give Apple a chance to catch up, by heavily marketing the 64bit aspect (although it will mean nothing to most - it sounds great) even though their MHZ would be about the same.

I'm not an expert about these things - but it seems like a reasonable approach to me. I think Apple would benefit from shedding its current skin and starting with a fresh one. The time of the G3/G4 is up, they need to move on.

[ryan]

Originally posted by zac4mac
I'm crackin' up reading that some folks think a 970 will find its way to iMacs and iBooks.
They'll be out soon; first in XServe, later in PMs, still later in PBs. I'm gonna guess April, July and December of this year. Barring unforeseen errata problems like the ones that killed Moto last year.
Expect eMacs, iMacs and iBooks to stay with G4/G3s for a few more years.
iMacs have traditionally been a processor generation behind the Power line.

Z
"A few more years"? You're kidding right? Apple is not going to continue to build machines based two different 32-bit and one 64-bit processor. I don't see Apple switching their pro and consumer lines all over to the 970 in one fell swoop but I would suspect it will happen over the course of 9-12 months. Presumably Apple will differentiate their lines by the number and speed of the processor.

[gaomay]

As far as I know Moto are still developing the G4 - they have the G4+ waiting in the wings and then another, more advanced version a little further down the road. Could it not be that these are intended to go in the Imacs/eMacs/iBooks while the power machines get the 970 (and eventually 980 and 990).

just thought that Moto are unlikely to be devloping this stuff if Apple won't use it.

[PretendPCuser]

Originally posted by Raiden
If I were motorola, I would tell steve to shove it and I would stop giving then G3s and G4s. So would apple have no choice but to go all 970?

If that would never happen sorry and disreguard this post.

It was my understanding that Motorola slapped Apple in the face by saying that they were only going to develop the G5 for embedded processors. Apple wouldn't be able to use the embedded processor and Motorola was not interested in making a G5 available for Apple cause it is too small a market. Motorola makes more from embedded processors than it does selling microprocessors to Apple, so they blew off Apple. What was Apple supposed to do? Wait til Motorola realized that "HEy, maybe we can do a G5 for Apple if we get more money". No, Apple looked for alternate processors to implement. This is called contingency planning. It's what most people in these forums were crying for. "Dump Motorola". I don't think Motorola is in any position to say that they were wronged if Apple went all 970.

Plus, as was stated, i'm absolutely SURE that there is a contract in there somewhere, and precisely what is in that contract may determine what lines are released with the 970. Don't forget, IBM also manufacturer's G3's, though i don't know if they are the same processor as what Motorola produces.

It will be interesting to see who sues who over what when all is said and done. Cause you gotta know the way things are going, there's a lawsuit in there somewhere!!

[FatTony]

Originally posted by ryan


Not last I checked:
Q1: January, February, March
Q2: April, May, June
Q3: July, August, September
Q4: October, November, December

I think there is also the option of financial quarters. Doesn't Apple's first financial quarter include the holiday retail season? This would shift their subsequent quarters ahead.

Also, with regards to case design and new processors and multiple processors/motherboards in the pro line. Apple did this with the yikes and sawtooth G4s. New case (atleast the color) with the new processore and the low end G4 was just the G3 motherboard with a G4 in it while the higher end models had all new motherboards.

I don't think it is out of the question for the low end PowerMac to have a G4 while the higher ends have IBM's GPUL. That way Apple can purge some inventory and at the same time release the next big thing.

[trebblekicked]

Originally posted by cubist
Also the case change and cpu change likely won't occur at the same time... the only time I recall this happening was with the powerbook G4. Other times the new chip came in the same old case.

a .5 disagrement...
the G4 Yikes/Sawtooth came in a graphite and slightly more opaque version of the G3 B/W Yosemite case. Did the original flat panel imac have a G3? I can't remember.

i think the QS/MDD look is on it's last legs. it's been a couple years now, and the basic tower enclosure is the same as the yosemite was...i think we will see radical redesign of the powermac. i agree. leave the hinged door in some fashion, go nuts with the rest.

[DharvaBinky]

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy


That is a nice thought...schools switching to OSX. It is true schools are switching...but they are switching to PC's. At one time Apple owned the education market. Today almost all the schools in my state have went with PC's and it is the same every other place. It is real sad, but it is the truth. Apple needs to try and get back into this market that they have pretty much completely lost.

I work at the college of education here and yes, all of our local schools in the Parish (what we call Counties in Louisiana) switched by administrative mandate from MacOS to Windows. This happened a few years ago with disasterous results. They bought a whole *slew* of new PCs and hooked them up and onto the internet and etc etc... and then, like, 2 months into the school year the entire computing budget was completely drained because of support costs. Most teachers had wisely squirreled away their old macs (they weren't forced to ditch them, they were just all given new PCs and told no macs would ever be reparied again). Teachers had some *old* gear... LC475s, Performa 6115s, Some of those all in one 603e machines (5700s were they? the proto-imacs?). They pulled this ancient gear out of the closet. And it worked again, and so... now, half the classrooms in the area have a broken new PC in the back, and an LC475 chugging away with "accellerated reader" in the front.

;)

Here's what I've learned about teachers. You could make every teacher in the world a switcher by giving away free gear. Teachers eat that crap up. Tote bags, mouse pads, Copies of OS X, copies of appleworks, pens, books, anything. Teachers are the greediest prize grabbing group I've ever seen. I went to a NECC (National Educational Computing Conference) event once, and they were giving away some freebies (I think it was copies of appleworks and a dummies book or something) and a MOB (literally) of teachers raided the stand at the back of the room before the keynote and *stole* all of the freebies (tote bags, appleworks, books, etc). running off with 3, 4, and 5 copies each. They ran out quickly, and security had to be called to break up the mini-riot.

So... Freebies are the way to a teacher's heart. Apple should try it more often.

Ryan

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by awulf
If Apple would use the PPC 970, wouldn't they get a prototype from IBM to develop the new PowerMac's, it's just later on in the year when IBM can mass produce the 970.

One thing that is weird is that G4 is really only a G3 and 1/2. look at the CPU numbers: 680** (G1), 60* (G2), 750[*x] (G3), 74** (G4).

Then comes the 970, so where is the 8** CPU? Could there be a Motorola G5, for the Consumer line and the 970 the G6, for the Pro line? If you know what I mean.

Actually, you're wrong.
G1 = 601-603
G2 = 604
G3 = 750
G4 = 7400-7410
G4+ = 745x
Mythical G5 = either 75xx or 85xx (85xx exists, but it's pretty much embedded only)

The 68xxx series weren't PowerPC, and the 'G' stands for the PowerPC generation.

[springscansing]

Originally posted by Steradian
is it possible that because it Is "the year of the labtop" that the 1.2 ghz versions will be in the revison of the 15.2 inch model PB? who knows? i don't

What's a labtop?

[kwajo.com]

to whoever said it will be the "flight of the arrow" for apple, I would shut up - that is if you are referring to the Avro Arrow, and we all know what that did for the company. . .

[IJ Reilly]

For a model of how Apple might move to the PPC 970, look at the transition from 68k to the PPC ten years ago. If memory serves (and it doesn't always), within a year of the introduction of the PPC 601, Apple wasn't selling any 68k-based Macs.

Anyway, more importantly, does anyone have a grasp on real-world performance gains which might come from moving to 64-bit processors? I'm not just asking about theoretical microprocessor throughput, I'm asking about the performance of OSX vs. Windows. I have heard, but can't verify, that Windows is not 64-bit compliant and will not be for some time, but that OSX can be made so relatively easily.

Confirm, Deny, Reboot?

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by locovaca
However, I would be intrigued to see how a 1.2 GHz 970 performs against a 1.25 GHz G4 in all aspects: the standard CPU speed tests, but also battery life tests, since I would see it being a good drop in for a PB. I'd like to seem them with motherboards and components that support the processors to its fullest. Then compare them. The 970 should be the clear winner, but by how much? Does anyone know if Apple has samples of these chips in their labs? Has anyone heard about testing? Maybe it's too early, but I would hope they'd have some samples.

[ddtlm]

Everyone who expects a complete change to PPC-970, even for iBooks, iMacs and eMacs, is just out of touch with the reality of the situation. Not only is the 970 more expensive than a G4, but it is going to require a more expensive system controller, probably including dual channel DDR RAM to feed the fast FSB and processor. 970's may not use much power at 1.2ghz, but a 130nm G4 will use less at that speed (whenever Moto gets those on the market, anyway). :rolleyes:

I very much expect G4 iMacs, iBooks and so on for well over a year after the PPC-970 shows up. I very much expect G4's much like those available today to easily exceed 2.0ghz before Moto retires the design.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Everyone who expects a complete change to PPC-970, even for iBooks, iMacs and eMacs, is just out of touch with the reality of the situation.

I think we have good reason to expect it -- eventually, though clearly Apple will put these processors in their high-end products first, which after all, is where the power demand is great. That being said, Apple can't afford to allow the rest of the product line to lag too far behind. One of the reasons Apple is still shipping a G3 Mac, at retarded clock speeds no less, is so they don't bump into the higher-end products. Once the high end goes up, everything else can be expected to move with it.

[littlerich]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Everyone who expects a complete change to PPC-970, even for iBooks, iMacs and eMacs, is just out of touch with the reality of the situation. Not only is the 970 more expensive...

Apparently the 970 is cheaper than a G4, apple are going to move to ibm very shortly... Why would they purchase a pallette of ibm G3's without using them and remember the ibm g3 are supposedly clocked at 1Ghz and out perform the moto g3's so I assume these are in testing and I suspect they have 970's in their hands right now.

[ddtlm]

littlerich:

Apparently the 970 is cheaper than a G4
Based on what? The 970 is larger, more complex, and sports a more complex FSB which means more expensive system controller and more complex mothboard to deal with the higher clock speed of the FSB. There is nothing cheap about it, except compared to the Power4.

Why would they purchase a pallette of ibm G3's without using them
What are you talking about? Apple has been using IBM G3's for some time, perhaps years.

IJ Reilly:

Once the high end goes up, everything else can be expected to move with it.
Yes, to G4's, in the near future. If iMacs are running 1.5ghz G4's a year from now that seems pretty good to me. Presuming of course that Apple uses the 970 at all :) once it is available, the iMac and such will be free to move into faster FSB's and DDR-333 or so (though its hard to say how fast Apple would choose to upgrade them).

I imagine that all Apple productes will some day use chips even better than the 970, but that wasn't my point. My comment was aimed at people predicting a year-or-less total switch the 970's, which is just not realistic.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Anyway, more importantly, does anyone have a grasp on real-world performance gains which might come from moving to 64-bit processors? I'm not just asking about theoretical microprocessor throughput, I'm asking about the performance of OSX vs. Windows. I have heard, but can't verify, that Windows is not 64-bit compliant and will not be for some time, but that OSX can be made so relatively easily.

Windows will be 64-bit compliant and running on the AMD Opterons before Mac OS X is 64-bit compliant and running on the IBM PowerPC 970 processors.

Contrary to what some are saying, you don't magically get more performance by going 64-bit. It completely depends upon your application and the underlying processor. The PowerPC 970 is a large step up from the Motorola 75xx series not just because it is a 64-bit processor. It has better memory bandwidth, more L2 cache (for the time being) and higher Ghz potential (2+Ghz is easily within reach). Those are the things that will affect the speed for most of the Mac community. People doing image editing, desktop publishing and so forth will see a speed up due to these benefits. However the processor will still only make the gap smaller as the Pentium 4 still has the best SPECint 2000 rating of any processor available (see http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?AID=RWT012603224711 ). As Adobe and others tune their products for the SSE2 SIMD instructions, the AltiVec engine won't be enough. My guess is that Adobe has already done this to a significant extent with Photoshop 7 because the Pentium 4 has been able to trounce the dual G4s in every published benchmark I have seen.

Where you see a speed increase going from 32-bits to 64-bits is when your application needs to address more than 4GB of memory. For example, large Oracle database applications will greatly benefit from 64-bits. I would assume that high end rendering, audio and video applications (not iTunes and iMovie) will benefit greatly because more work can be done in memory as opposed to disk. That is why 64-bit processors kick ass in the enterprise space even though they are slower than the Pentium 4 in SPECint (and sometimes SPECfp) benchmarks. These systems often have RAM the size of our disk drives.:)

[jamilecrire]

Originally posted by springscansing


What's a labtop?
__________________
I still say Pollock is the most kickassiest painter ever. Eh?


Something like kickassiest, wrong.

[jamilecrire]

Originally posted by ktlx


Windows will be 64-bit compliant and running on the AMD Opterons before Mac OS X is 64-bit compliant and running on the IBM PowerPC 970 processors.

Contrary to what some are saying, you don't magically get more performance by going 64-bit. It completely depends upon your application and the underlying processor. The PowerPC 970 is a large step up from the Motorola 75xx series not just because it is a 64-bit processor. It has better memory bandwidth, more L2 cache (for the time being) and higher Ghz potential (2+Ghz is easily within reach). Those are the things that will affect the speed for most of the Mac community. People doing image editing, desktop publishing and so forth will see a speed up due to these benefits. However the processor will still only make the gap smaller as the Pentium 4 still has the best SPECint 2000 rating of any processor available (see http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?AID=RWT012603224711 ). As Adobe and others tune their products for the SSE2 SIMD instructions, the AltiVec engine won't be enough. My guess is that Adobe has already done this to a significant extent with Photoshop 7 because the Pentium 4 has been able to trounce the dual G4s in every published benchmark I have seen.

Where you see a speed increase going from 32-bits to 64-bits is when your application needs to address more than 4GB of memory. For example, large Oracle database applications will greatly benefit from 64-bits. I would assume that high end rendering, audio and video applications (not iTunes and iMovie) will benefit greatly because more work can be done in memory as opposed to disk. That is why 64-bit processors kick ass in the enterprise space even though they are slower than the Pentium 4 in SPECint (and sometimes SPECfp) benchmarks. These systems often have RAM the size of our disk drives.:)

True. However, when you're comparing a 32bit 1.42GHz against a 64bit 2.0GHz there really isn't any comparison.

I'm not concerned with the bit as much as the speed. Apple via IBM or whoever needs to get competitive again. A 1GHz G4 Tower for $1499 is a ******* joke. Hell I can get a 2.8GHz P4 for that much, and if you believe a 1GHz G4 can outperform a 2.8GHz anything your high as a kite.

I will seriously evaluate moving my servers to OS X Server when it is a stable 64bit platform (yes I'm on a stable 64bit platform now/ Solaris 8 on Ultra SPARC IIi SMP). I am really impressed with the admin tools and software offerings available. Speed is an issue. Apple can make their mark when Oracle 9i gets out of Release Candidate stage and goes Gold.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by ktlx


Windows will be 64-bit compliant and running on the AMD Opterons before Mac OS X is 64-bit compliant and running on the IBM PowerPC 970 processors.

What is the basis for this statement? It contradicts what I'd heard previously.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly

Originally posted by ktlx
Windows will be 64-bit compliant and running on the AMD Opterons before Mac OS X is 64-bit compliant and running on the IBM PowerPC 970 processors.

What is the basis for this statement? It contradicts what I'd heard previously.

AMD is delivering their 64-bit processors before IBM does and Microsoft has already said they will support the processor. Microsoft already supports the 64-bit Itanium processor http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/default.mspx with is Advanced Server, Limited Edition version.

Apple has not even said they are going to use the PowerPC 970 let alone get a 64-bit version of all of Mac OS X (not just the part inherited from FreeBSD) in the hands of testers.

The real question though is when will there be any usefull 64-bit applications under either Windows or Mac OS X. Who cares which OS is first if the applications aren't there.

My guess is the first one there for Windows will be SQL Server and the first one there for Mac OS X will be Oracle. Which one ships first is beyond me. Oracle seems to me to have less total work to do so if Apple can deliver a 64-bit version of Mac OS X shortly after they may win the application race.

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, I realize that AMD is already shipping a 64-bit processor, and that Microsoft has a 64-bit version of Windows -- but these are high-end workstation products strictly and I can't find any suggestion a 64-bit consumer-level version of Windows even on the horizon. It still seems to me that Apple has the opportunity to be the first to ship a 64-bit platform for non-workstation level tasks.

Right, Apple hasn't publicly announced a commitment to the 970 -- but what others options do they have? I also think we should know by now not to look for hints of future Apple products in what Apple has said, or has leaked out. The best stuff never does.

I'm with you on the question of whether it really matters if Apple is first to this particular market, which is why I asked if real-world performance will show any major gains with 64-bit processors.

[ddtlm]

IJ Reilly:

Yes, I realize that AMD is already shipping a 64-bit processor, and that Microsoft has a 64-bit version of Windows -- but these are high-end workstation products strictly and I can't find any suggestion a 64-bit consumer-level version of Windows even on the horizon. It still seems to me that Apple has the opportunity to be the first to ship a 64-bit platform for non-workstation level tasks.
My how funny Apple Rumorvision is. AMD is not actually shipping their 64-bit processor yet and I don't see where anyone said they were. AMD will, however, ship their 64-bit Opteron before Apple ships a PPC-970.

AMD's consumer 64-bit chip (Athlon 64) has been delayed till Septemper 2003, but still may still ship before the PPC-970. At this point we cannot declare a winner for the consumer race.

Microsoft is definately developing a 64-bit consumer Windows to go along with AMD's x86-64 chip. There is no question about this.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Yes, I realize that AMD is already shipping a 64-bit processor, and that Microsoft has a 64-bit version of Windows -- but these are high-end workstation products strictly and I can't find any suggestion a 64-bit consumer-level version of Windows even on the horizon. It still seems to me that Apple has the opportunity to be the first to ship a 64-bit platform for non-workstation level tasks.

You never made a distinction earlier about consumer versus non-consumer. Since Apple does not make the distinction that Microsoft does, I expect Apple to beat Microsoft easily in delivering a consumer version of a 64-bit OS. There really isn't a reason for a 64-bit Windows XP Home edition. It may be years before Microsoft brings a 64-bit OS to the consumer. They don't even support two processors or hyperthreading under Windows XP Home.

Right, Apple hasn't publicly announced a commitment to the 970 -- but what others options do they have? I also think we should know by now not to look for hints of future Apple products in what Apple has said, or has leaked out. The best stuff never does.

Currently a 64-bit Mac OS X running on a PowerPC 970 in the next few months is pure speculation. While is seems logical, there have been other rumors (i.e. the G5) that were just as logical at the time that have not come to pass. And look how long Apple has taken on things they are in sole control of such as Mac OS X and other software items.

I hope Apple has a 64-bit Mac OS X running on a PowerPC 970 before the end of the year. But the lack of information from anyone, IBMs delivery dates and Apple's past performance, make me skeptical.

It gets even worse when you figure that a lot of the application developers just burned through a lot of resources going to Mac OS X during a recession. They are not likely ready yet to go through another significant software and hardware upgrade.

[ddtlm]

ktlx:

There really isn't a reason for a 64-bit Windows XP Home edition. It may be years before Microsoft brings a 64-bit OS to the consumer.
AMD and MS have confirmed in press releases that a x86-64 (as in, 64-bit) version of Windows is being created, as far as I know for both "home" and "professional". What is not clear is when they will finish it, perhaps in 2003, perhaps not.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by ddtlm
AMD's consumer 64-bit chip (Athlon 64) has been delayed till Septemper 2003, but still may still ship before the PPC-970. At this point we cannot declare a winner for the consumer race.

Microsoft is definately developing a 64-bit consumer Windows to go along with AMD's x86-64 chip. There is no question about this.

I have not seen this. So far I have only heard of the server and workstation versions of Windows going 64-bit. The consumer versions already have other server and workstation features neutered out, so I just assumed it would be the same for 64-bit. You would have to go with Windows XP Professional or Windows 2003 Advanced Server in order to run 64-bits.

[dongmin]

For those of you who're wishing that Apple move all their macs to the 970 in no time flat, look at the current state of things. Apple is currently supporting two generation of processors. They've been doing that since October 1999. That's over three years, people.

Please get a bit of a reality check before making such outlandish claims. My bet is that they're not going to abandon the G4 until they've at least taken the 7457 to its limits which have been rumored to be 1.8 mhz. iMacs are currently at 800 mhz. The G4 still has a lot of life left in it...

[ddtlm]

ktlx:

I have not seen this.
Now is not a good time for me to try to dig up proof, but anyway this has been the understood situation for a long time at all the PC tech forums I read.

It is even the case that a lot of websites got the idea that AMD was blaming the late arrival of x86-64 Windows for the recent delay of the Athlon 64. For example:

http://www.overclockers.com/articles695/
(not loading right now for me)

http://www.inquirerinside.com/?article=7530

[eric_n_dfw]

http://microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.asp

[DeusOmnis]

ehhh.... we need to be releasing at 2.5 ghz for the 970s, not 2 ghz. 2 ghz would be 'alright' for now, but by the time they actually shove them into a computer it will be christmas, when Intel is at 4.2 ghz or something rediculas. we should have had the g5 a year ago, not a year from now. The only hope we have now is that we'll be seeing sledgehammers in powerpc's come april.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
http://microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.asp

Thanks for posting this.

This squares with what I have heard. If you want to do 64-bits, then your choices from Microsoft are a 64-bit edition of Windows XP Professional or a 64-bit edition of Windows Advanced Server. Just like there will not be a 64-bit version of Windows Server, there would not be a 64-bit version of Windows XP Home.

At least not for the time being. I would assume that if AMD really has significant market penetration in the consumer space with the x86-64, Microsoft would change their mind. But so far everything I read is that there is no 64-bit consumer version of Windows on the horizon.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by DeusOmnis
ehhh.... we need to be releasing at 2.5 ghz for the 970s, not 2 ghz. 2 ghz would be 'alright' for now, but by the time they actually shove them into a computer it will be christmas, when Intel is at 4.2 ghz or something rediculas. we should have had the g5 a year ago, not a year from now. The only hope we have now is that we'll be seeing sledgehammers in powerpc's come april.

Something that will help in the short term is that Intel will not take the Pentium 4 above 3.6Ghz until it switches to the 90nm process. I have read that this is harder than previous process changes. So with any luck, dual 1.8Ghz 64-bit PPC 970s will not look too shabby compared to a 3.6Ghz or 3.8Ghz Pentium 4.

Of course that only helps for a short time. Once Intel gets the kinks worked out of the 90nm process, then the race to 5Ghz begins. IBM might probably have to do a process change early next year to have any hopes of keeping up. :(

[DeusOmnis]

intel might have trouble keeping up the steam on thier processors. Dont they cost twice as much as anyone else's at the moment? If the price gap continues....

[colonelpanic]

Talking with a rep, this is what I believed I heard about the new IBM Chip:

It's already in the dual 1.42. This fellow says you will hear nothing from Apple about it, but if you do enough searching in IBM literature, you'll see the new IBM chip is already in.

He goes on to say this is why the new Dual 1.42s are priced so low. Apparently the new chip is much cheaper to produce. And we may be seeing 2.0 Gig by this fall.

[DeusOmnis]

Although cool, that seems to be a bit odd. Does anyone have one as to look? (i dont know if you could tell anyway.

[nighthawk]

A 64bit chip WILL be faster than a 32bit chip... however, it will not be a significant improvement.

Reason #1
Currently, with 32bit systems, a DOUBLE (64bit floating point) and a LONG LONG (64bit integer) requires several clock cycles to make simple calculations instead of one clock to handle 32bit FLOAT and INT. Any application that is using these larger numbers would benefit from the 64bit system. While 64bit integers are not used very often, DOUBLES are the default when it comes to floating point calculations because the 32bit version does not have the resolution that is needed for most calculations. When 64bit systems are the norm, you will see more applications take advantage of the LONG LONG datatype.

Reason #2
The already exists a 64bit version of the FreeBSD Unix OS which is what Darwin is based on. Having an underlying system that is 64bit capable will allow many system operations take advantage of the benefits of 64bits with existing applications.

[DharvaBinky]

Originally posted by ktlx


Thanks for posting this.

This squares with what I have heard. If you want to do 64-bits, then your choices from Microsoft are a 64-bit edition of Windows XP Professional or a 64-bit edition of Windows Advanced Server. Just like there will not be a 64-bit version of Windows Server, there would not be a 64-bit version of Windows XP Home.

At least not for the time being. I would assume that if AMD really has significant market penetration in the consumer space with the x86-64, Microsoft would change their mind. But so far everything I read is that there is no 64-bit consumer version of Windows on the horizon.

I *hate* to do this, and I just wasted an hour at work looking for the link to back me up on this, but I can't find it right now...

anyway... there's basically *no* difference between the various versions of windows. Codebase-wise. There are a few registry settings etc that tell each installation of windows "what" version it is (pro, server, etc.) but beyond that, there is very little difference (in most cases, none) in the software components installed. I've seen a utility (the one I was trying to find a link for) online that allowed you to "switch" versions of Windows 2000 from Pro to Server to Advanced Server. So, a 64-bit "home" version has "already" been written. In Windows XP, the main difference between WinXP Home and WinXP Pro is the ability to join Windows Domains! (why... only *pros* need to do that, right?).

So M$'s idea of different versions is one huge codebase and turn off features for cheapskates. Those features are there, though, just waiting to be turned back on via the registry. With that in mind, I think that we'll see 64-bit Windows as soon as Clawhammer is available in the form of Hobbled versions of the 64-bit codebase. :rolleyes:

Dharvabinky

[ddtlm]

ktlx:

This squares with what I have heard. If you want to do 64-bits, then your choices from Microsoft are a 64-bit edition of Windows XP Professional or a 64-bit edition of Windows Advanced Server. Just like there will not be a 64-bit version of Windows Server, there would not be a 64-bit version of Windows XP Home.
Why do I get the feeling that it was a waste of my time posting those meager links you? That link that you accepted as proof of what you already are convinced speaks of nothing but the Itanium. That is a totally separate issue from x86-64 Windows, which is very well understood to be on the way. If you are blinded by your apparent need for Apple to be the first to have a 64-bit consumer OS then it's a waste of my time to continue the conversation.

[colonelpanic]

Originally posted by DeusOmnis
Although cool, that seems to be a bit odd. Does anyone have one as to look? (i dont know if you could tell anyway.

Yes, it seemed odd. And I don't follow the nitty-gritty of processor tech that much anyway.

But the price statement grabbed me, under $3k for a T-O-L Mac IS pretty cheap.

As for checking, the processors are marked, but would they conceal that?

Just an odd bit.

Whatever the truth is, the fellow did convince me to delay a purchase with him for about 6 months.

So I figure something is up. And that's why I posted, to see if any of this might be collaborated by some of the more knowledgeable.

[wdlove]

Originally posted by colonelpanic
Talking with a rep, this is what I believed I heard about the new IBM Chip:

It's already in the dual 1.42. This fellow says you will hear nothing from Apple about it, but if you do enough searching in IBM literature, you'll see the new IBM chip is already in.

He goes on to say this is why the new Dual 1.42s are priced so low. Apparently the new chip is much cheaper to produce. And we may be seeing 2.0 Gig by this fall.

How soon will it be before we know this for sure. This is exciting if true. This could possibly be the beginning of a price advantage with Windows machines!

[Jimong5]

I once read that OSX is "64 Bits clean", does this have any relevance to anything?

[Abstract]

Originally posted by colonelpanic
Talking with a rep, this is what I believed I heard about the new IBM Chip:

It's already in the dual 1.42. This fellow says you will hear nothing from Apple about it, but if you do enough searching in IBM literature, you'll see the new IBM chip is already in.

He goes on to say this is why the new Dual 1.42s are priced so low. Apparently the new chip is much cheaper to produce. And we may be seeing 2.0 Gig by this fall.

That smells as bad as it sounds. With all the Mac buffs in existence in these forums and others, how can this NOT be widely known by now?!?

So M$'s idea of different versions is one huge codebase and turn off features for cheapskates. Those features are there, though, just waiting to be turned back on via the registry. With that in mind, I think that we'll see 64-bit Windows as soon as Clawhammer is available in the form of Hobbled versions of the 64-bit codebase.

That sounds right to me. :)

[ddtlm]

I don't know what IBM chip people are suggesting is in the dual 1.42's, but it sure as heck is not a PPC-970, and it sure seems to have specs matching a Moto 7455.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by ddtlm
IJ Reilly:


My how funny Apple Rumorvision is. AMD is not actually shipping their 64-bit processor yet and I don't see where anyone said they were.

Not AMD, Intel. From an August, 2001 article:

"The company announced that its Windows Advanced Server, Limited Edition, is now available for computers based on Intel's 64-bit Itanium chip."

[colonelpanic]

Originally posted by ddtlm
I don't know what IBM chip people are suggesting is in the dual 1.42's, but it sure as heck is not a PPC-970, and it sure seems to have specs matching a Moto 7455.

Thank-you, ddtim!

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by ktlx


You never made a distinction earlier about consumer versus non-consumer.

Okay, let me make that distinction now. I figured it was a given -- because without that distinction, this would be a rather pointless discussion, since 64-bit processors have been in use in high-end servers and workstations for years.

What I am attempting to determine is if (1) Apple will be able to make the (possibly inconsequential) claim of being the first to market with a desktop OS running 64-bit, and (2) whether it will be of any real importance if they do.

For the record, I don't put much stock in rumors. I prefer to look at what Apple needs to do for survival, and moving quickly to a new microprocessor is one of them. Of the two possibilities (IBM 970 or x86), I happen to prefer the IBM scenario. One thing is for certain: they can't afford to do nothing, and I haven't known them to do nothing. Something is going to happen, it's just a matter of what.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by DharvaBinky
anyway... there's basically *no* difference between the various versions of windows. Codebase-wise. There are a few registry settings etc that tell each installation of windows "what" version it is (pro, server, etc.) but beyond that, there is very little difference (in most cases, none) in the software components installed. I've seen a utility (the one I was trying to find a link for) online that allowed you to "switch" versions of Windows 2000 from Pro to Server to Advanced Server. So, a 64-bit "home" version has "already" been written. In Windows XP, the main difference between WinXP Home and WinXP Pro is the ability to join Windows Domains! (why... only *pros* need to do that, right?).

This is not true.

There are three primary differences between Windows XP Home and Windows XP Professional. The first, as you have mentioned is the ability to join a domain. The other two are that Windows XP Home cannot support two processors or have an encrypted file system. To the best of my knowledge, those are not register settings that can be changed by the user.

There are similar differences between Windows XP Professional and Windows 2003 Advanced Server. Advanced Server does not have the number of processor limitation that Windows XP Professional has. If you have more than two or four processors, only Advanced Server will recognize the additional processors.

Having the same codebase does not mean they are the same thing. I work on a project where we use the same codebase to run six different embedded applications on four different hardware platforms. The only difference between them is a handful of small assembler files and some #ifdef's.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Why do I get the feeling that it was a waste of my time posting those meager links you? That link that you accepted as proof of what you already are convinced speaks of nothing but the Itanium. That is a totally separate issue from x86-64 Windows, which is very well understood to be on the way. If you are blinded by your apparent need for Apple to be the first to have a 64-bit consumer OS then it's a waste of my time to continue the conversation.

Geez, don't have a hissy fit. There is no where in my posts where I insist on the need for Apple to be first for a 64-bit consumer OS. Frankly I think the concept of a 64-bit consumer OS in the next year is plain stupid whether from Apple or Microsoft. Just because I don't believe one broken link and another link to the equivalent of a rumor site, doesn't mean I cannot be convinced.

Show me links to some place credible like ArsTechnica, Tom's Hardware, Ace's Hardware, AMD, Microsoft, etc. Hell, I think I might even believe something in /. if it was written by someone credible.

I have no doubt that Microsoft will make sure that Windows XP Home runs on AMD's x86-64 platform when Hammer arrives. But that does not automatically mean that it is a consumer 64-bit OS. AMD has taken enormous pains to make Opteron backwards compatible with the IA32 instruction set. Microsoft may do nothing more than issue a patch to fix places where the backwards compatibility doesn't work.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Okay, let me make that distinction now. I figured it was a given -- because without that distinction, this would be a rather pointless discussion, since 64-bit processors have been in use in high-end servers and workstations for years.

Yes, that is true, but there have not been 64-bit versions of Windows for years. Not everyone is aware they exist and I did not know the workstation version was even available yet.

For the record, I don't put much stock in rumors. I prefer to look at what Apple needs to do for survival, and moving quickly to a new microprocessor is one of them. Of the two possibilities (IBM 970 or x86), I happen to prefer the IBM scenario. One thing is for certain: they can't afford to do nothing, and I haven't known them to do nothing. Something is going to happen, it's just a matter of what.

I agree. I think the x86-64 path is better long term, but Apple has to solve their problems now. Given the urgency for their XServe and PowerMac platforms, the PowerPC 970 seems their only hope.

[Tim Flynn]

It appears to me that Windows code bas maybe fragmenting. This is due to AMD and Intel not being code compatible in the 64 bit realm. What I mean by this, is that it doesn't seem to me that a 64 bit application written for AMD will work on a Intel IA64 machine and visa versa.
So ... does one now have to compile for AMD and Intel separately? If so I see this as an advantage for Apple & IBM.

Also someone previously mentioned about the complexity of the "Northbridge" (Intel like term) with the IBM 970. I think it will be simpler that a G4. My understanding is that the memory controller is on the 970. Kind of like having 1 gig of L3 DDR-SDRAM cache. Faster !
Also, I believe that the 970 uses "hypertransport" off the chip to "Northbridge". This is a fast bus. since the main memory is direct to the 970, the hyper transport buss only has to deal with transactions to video and other IO (PCI, disks, USB , Firewire etc.) and other 970s.
This thing should be fast!
Just my $0.02

[ddtlm]

Tim Flynn:

Also someone previously mentioned about the complexity of the "Northbridge" (Intel like term) with the IBM 970. I think it will be simpler that a G4. My understanding is that the memory controller is on the 970. Kind of like having 1 gig of L3 DDR-SDRAM cache. Faster !
Nope, a PPC-970 system is set up in a rather conventional layout, with a FSB between each CPU and the system controller, and the main memory hanging off of that. The system controller will in fact be significantly more complex than that for a G4 becaue each CPU needs a dedicated FSB and because more than one channel of DDR RAM are going to be needed to feed the FSBs and their processors.

Even if the PPC-970 did have the main RAM connected directly to the CPU, it would have far higher latency than the SRAM currently used in the G4's L3.

[nighthawk]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Tim Flynn:


Nope, a PPC-970 system is set up in a rather conventional layout, with a FSB between each CPU and the system controller, and the main memory hanging off of that. The system controller will in fact be significantly more complex than that for a G4 becaue each CPU needs a dedicated FSB and because more than one channel of DDR RAM are going to be needed to feed the FSBs and their processors.

Even if the PPC-970 did have the main RAM connected directly to the CPU, it would have far higher latency than the SRAM currently used in the G4's L3.


First of all, this assumes that Apple will be producing Dual-Processor machines. IBM has stated that there will be a 900mhz bus interconnect -- but they have not stated that it would be required for each processor to have an independant bus. More likely it will be a shared bus between the processors. If they are using the shared bus, then the memory controller would be relatively simple... just connecting it to the new 900mhz bus.

This is where it gets interesting... if Apple implements dual channel DDR memory like the nVidia nForce chipset for AMD processors, then memory access will be very fast! It literally doubles the throughput of the memory to about 6.4Gb/s (266 DDR memory) and would be even faster if Apple uses the 333 DDR or even the 400 DDR memory. It would not be quite as fast as the internal cache, but it would allow for a very fast system without requiring the L3 cache in the processor.

[ddtlm]

nighthawk:

IBM has stated that there will be a 900mhz bus interconnect -- but they have not stated that it would be required for each processor to have an independant bus.

Page 12 of this pdf from IBM clearly states that the PPC-970 FSB is point-to-point, which is to say that it cannot be shared. It goes directly between the CPU and the system controller.

www.simdtech.org/apps/group_public/download.php/23/IBM_PPC970_MPF2002.pdf

[Sublime]

Originally posted by FatTony


I think there is also the option of financial quarters. Doesn't Apple's first financial quarter include the holiday retail season? This would shift their subsequent quarters ahead.

Also, with regards to case design and new processors and multiple processors/motherboards in the pro line. Apple did this with the yikes and sawtooth G4s. New case (atleast the color) with the new processore and the low end G4 was just the G3 motherboard with a G4 in it while the higher end models had all new motherboards.

I don't think it is out of the question for the low end PowerMac to have a G4 while the higher ends have IBM's GPUL. That way Apple can purge some inventory and at the same time release the next big thing.

You are correct about financial quarters FatTony.
I dug this up:
Apple Reports Third Quarter Results


CUPERTINO, California?July 16, 2002?Apple® today announced financial results for its fiscal 2002 third quarter ended June 29, 2002.

So Apple's 3rd quarter ends the last day of June. Ryan said we might see the 970 in the 3rd quarter. But I think he means 3rd calendar quarter not fiscal.

[DharvaBinky]

Originally posted by nighthawk

First of all, this assumes that Apple will be producing Dual-Processor machines. IBM has stated that there will be a 900mhz bus interconnect -- but they have not stated that it would be required for each processor to have an independant bus. More likely it will be a shared bus between the processors. If they are using the shared bus, then the memory controller would be relatively simple... just connecting it to the new 900mhz bus.


Can't say where, but I'm pretty sure I've read that the 970 will feature a switch/hub topology to support the CPU. This Apple internconnect or whatever that's on the 970 is actuall 2 point to point connections. Each is 32-bits and 900MHz, yielding 3.6GBs troughput. This gives you 7.2GBs (nominal 6.4GBs according to IBM) with a dedicated bus for each rx and tx. This is different than conventional shared buses (MaxBus and P4) since they can only read *or* write on a clockpulse, not both. Also, it's not a shared bus, but rather a switch topology so that there's no interference between the CPUs.

Needless to say, the 970 will be a bandwidth *monster*, especially if paired Dual DDR Ram..

Has anyone speculated on the possibility that Apple might use DDR2 in their systems? since each processor will be needing about 6.4GBs of data (at maximum burst rate), that kind of need is met by Dual DDR400. But an SMP system here would benefit from even *more* RAM bandwidth since each processor has a point to point connection at the full 6.4GBs (this will make apps that work on Cached data *fly*, especially if there is a "unified" L3 cache in front of the RAM shared by multiple 970s). DDR2-500 will be making a debut soonish featuring 4GBs per channel...

Since the machine is apparantly a "Bandwidth" machine more than a clockcycles machine... do we see DDR2 in line?

:confused:

Dharvabinky

[pgwalsh]

With all the talk about super fast 970 processors and ultra high throughput, I wonder what video card Apple would use. HardOCP over-clocked a P3 to 4.44 ghz and found that the video card was the bottle neck. The system also had a serial ata drive and other goodies.

http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDIy

Have a nice day!

[Cheese]

Hey yo... isn't da 970 the same thing as a G-5? Doesn't da "G" stand for "generation"? How long is a 400mhz G3 expected to be a useable and viable processor for real world "household" applications anyways? My meek iMac is still running rings around most of the wintel peecee's that my acquaintances are trying to run. I have no crashes and no need for microsoft, aol, or any of the flavor of the month garbage that everyone in the non OSX world seems to be using as a crutch. I could stand to go a bit faster somedays 9encumbered by 56k modem blues), but I am a happy camper most of the time. How many people with a two year old peecee will you hear saying that?

[ddtlm]

DharvaBinky:

Needless to say, the 970 will be a bandwidth *monster*, especially if paired Dual DDR Ram.
Better make that only if paired to dual-channel DDR RAM. Single channel DDR is going to be nothing special for a PPC-970.

Has anyone speculated on the possibility that Apple might use DDR2 in their systems?
The PPC-970 will be available before DDR2 is mainstream, so they will have to start out on DDR1.

[bigizzy]

For all those interested in finding out more about the IBM PPC 970 here is a good link.

http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/newsletter/dec2002/newproductfocus2.html

Check it out.

[primalman]

Originally posted by Jimong5
I once read that OSX is "64 Bits clean", does this have any relevance to anything?

You are right on this, sort of.

I have read that the PowerPC was designed from the beginning to go to 64 bit. The way that the 32 bit instructions are written makes them able to run native on a 64 bit processor, allowing OSes that use the PPC to move from 32 bit chips to 64 bit chips without re-writing the entire thing. So, OSX, a 32 bit OS, can run on the 970 with no emulation loss, becasue it is not emulated. I seem to remember that the oppposite is true as well, that if OSX is adapted and is recoded to be 64 bit native, that it can run on a 32 bit PPC chip with no emulation perfromance loss, since the instruction set can work with the right extention.

I am not an engineer, so if anyone else has a better handle on this, please, chime in. I think that this is a very important point in this discussion.

[nighthawk]

I was reading through the IBM 970 initial presentation (the is a link for it somewhere in the posts previous). One thing that popped out at me was on this page... (i think page 13 of the presentation PDF).

It states that normal floating point operations (non-vectorized) can be as fast as 7.2 GFlops/sec while vectorized (SIMD) floating point operations will be able to be as fast as 14.4 GFlops/sec. If this is true, then applications will not be required to get significant improvements in speed by coding with the AltiVec only extensions. Possibly this will mean that a single DOUBLE floating point calculation would take the same time as two Altivec FLOAT floating point calcuations would take.

This would be a significant improvement in speed over the G4 processor.

[ddtlm]

nighthawk:

If the quick math-in-the-head is right, these figures correspond to 4 flops per cycle scalar, and 8 flops per cycle AltiVec, both on a 1.8ghz PPC-970.

If this is true, then applications will not be required to get significant improvements in speed by coding with the AltiVec only extensions.
Certainly the difference between AltiVec and scalar single-precision floating-point performance on a PPC-970 will be much smaller than that difference on a G4.

Possibly this will mean that a single DOUBLE floating point calculation would take the same time as two Altivec FLOAT floating point calcuations would take.
Well, I have to admit that I'm not sure how IBM gets 8 flops per cycle from AltiVec, but it is quite possible that they are counting the permute-ops as flops, when in my mind they are just memory operations. For whatever reason, it doesn't look like they are counting memory operations in the scalar units as flops, though, so I'm not sure what exactly they are thinking. Anyway, one way to interpret things is that both AltiVec and the scalar units are capable of 4 flops of math per cycle, but in different ways, since the 4 flops per cycle on the scalar units is two fused add-multiplies in either single or double precision, whereas the AltiVec is 4 identical adds or 4 identical mults, all in single-precision only, each cycle. These each will have their uses, and I image that some programmers will find ways to use all the units at once. :)

Also, the picture is complicated by questions about how fast the different units can do more complex float ops like division and square roots, but I don't know much about how they compare there.

[sedarby]

Originally posted by Sublime


Doesn't April start the 3rd quarter?

No. A quarter of 12 months would be , anyone? anyone? 3 months so April would be the start of the 2nd quarter. The 3rd quarter would start on ... That's right, July but remember unless they qualified it as the beginning of the 3rd quarter, you're probably looking at September/October time frame at best. Realistically, I'm expecting 1st quarter next year more precisely MWSF '04.

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by sedarby


No. A quarter of 12 months would be , anyone? anyone? 3 months so April would be the start of the 2nd quarter. The 3rd quarter would start on ... That's right, July but remember unless they qualified it as the beginning of the 3rd quarter, you're probably looking at September/October time frame at best. Realistically, I'm expecting 1st quarter next year more precisely MWSF '04. But then you have to guess whether they are talking the beginning of the corporations fiscal year (which is not always January) or the actual calendar year.

[primalman]

Originally posted by sedarby


No. A quarter of 12 months would be , anyone? anyone? 3 months so April would be the start of the 2nd quarter. The 3rd quarter would start on ... That's right, July but remember unless they qualified it as the beginning of the 3rd quarter, you're probably looking at September/October time frame at best. Realistically, I'm expecting 1st quarter next year more precisely MWSF '04.

see: http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=AAPL&script=1800&layout=7#fin3

To quote:
Q: What is Apple's fiscal year and corresponding earnings release dates?
A: Apple's fiscal year 2003 runs from September 29, 2002 to September 27, 2003. See the calendar of events for a tentative schedule of earnings release dates for FY2003.

If you look for 1 minute, you can usually find out actual info rather than assuming.

PS, in IBM's projections, I remember them saying that the 970 would be avialable in quantity in the later half of 2003, meaning calendar.

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
With all the talk about super fast 970 processors and ultra high throughput, I wonder what video card Apple would use. HardOCP over-clocked a P3 to 4.44 ghz and found that the video card was the bottle neck. The system also had a serial ata drive and other goodies.

http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDIy

Have a nice day!

Ha! Look at tom's hardware for the even more insane overclock. (if memory serves 4.6 GHZ with super freezing )

The 970 should kick if they get everything in order soon. Apple you mind spending a couple million for a new chip, hire some over-time workers to work at IBM :D

[wdlove]

Originally posted by primalman


see: http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=AAPL&script=1800&layout=7#fin3

To quote:
Q: What is Apple's fiscal year and corresponding earnings release dates?
A: Apple's fiscal year 2003 runs from September 29, 2002 to September 27, 2003. See the calendar of events for a tentative schedule of earnings release dates for FY2003.

If you look for 1 minute, you can usually find out actual info rather than assuming.

PS, in IBM's projections, I remember them saying that the 970 would be avialable in quantity in the later half of 2003, meaning calendar.

I feel confident that we will get some advance notice here on the Mac Forum! :)

[Crunz]

Originally posted by Abstract
What's the power consumption of the G4's and G3's, and the Intel P3 mobile cpu's? I would very much like to see a 970 in an ultra-portable 12" Powerbook or iBook form factor: >1.8GHz for any PB or PM, and >1.4GHz for an iBook or iMac. :) If power consumption is even lower than it is now for the G3 and G4's, I hope a 6Hr battery life is possible. That would make my year. :)

*gets down on knees and prays for the very first time*

Excuse me by the way did you know that Macs are more than a competitor in the PC world, they have the edge at the moment, the only reason people buy PCs is because theyre dumb and theyre cheap..... oh and the machines.

Anyway the newest G4 shows a huge performance gap between intels 3.06hz pentium 4 chip.

CHECK OUT THIS WEBSITE : http://forgetcomputers.com/~jdroz/09.html

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by Crunz
Anyway the newest G4 shows a huge performance gap between intels 3.06hz pentium 4 chip.
Check this out: FPMathTest (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12506&perpage=25&highlight=FPMathTest&pagenumber=5).

PowerPC G4 gets slapped silly by AMD and Intel processors in that open source benchmarker. Don't even get me started on the multi-threaded version.

[sedarby]

Originally posted by primalman


see: http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=AAPL&script=1800&layout=7#fin3

To quote:
Q: What is Apple's fiscal year and corresponding earnings release dates?
A: Apple's fiscal year 2003 runs from September 29, 2002 to September 27, 2003. See the calendar of events for a tentative schedule of earnings release dates for FY2003.

If you look for 1 minute, you can usually find out actual info rather than assuming.

PS, in IBM's projections, I remember them saying that the 970 would be avialable in quantity in the later half of 2003, meaning calendar.

Fiscal:
1st Quarter: Oct, Nov, Dec
2nd Quarter: Jan, Feb, Mar
3rd Quarter: Apr, May, Jun
4th Quarter: Jul, Aug, Sep

Given the current situation, there probably won't be a 970 in any Mac at any time in the forseeable future so it really doesn't matter whether its fiscal or calendar year!

The reason? Too expensive for Apples price point.

[wdlove]

Originally posted by sedarby


Fiscal:
1st Quarter: Oct, Nov, Dec
2nd Quarter: Jan, Feb, Mar
3rd Quarter: Apr, May, Jun
4th Quarter: Jul, Aug, Sep

Given the current situation, there probably won't be a 970 in any Mac at any time in the forseeable future so it really doesn't matter whether its fiscal or calendar year!

The reason? Too expensive for Apples price point.

What do you mean by too expensive, amount? Are you predicting 2004, say MWSF?

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Check this out: FPMathTest (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12506&perpage=25&highlight=FPMathTest&pagenumber=5).

PowerPC G4 gets slapped silly by AMD and Intel processors in that open source benchmarker. Don't even get me started on the multi-threaded version.

Yeah because Java doesn't run well on macs. And that it isn't coded to run fast on macs since it is PC based app.

[macphoria]

-----What do you mean by too expensive, amount? Are you predicting 2004, say MWSF?

Wow, that would suck. If G5/970 doesn't come out this year, many loyal Apple fans will be seriously upset. I don't care how much speed they can juice out of G4, this chip is several years old, probably 95 years old in computer chip age. Not just that, it will give AMD and Intel to come out with 64 bit chip first. Apple will just end up getting behind and lose more market share. Even OS X and cool factor can't hold Apple that long.

[ddtlm]

macphoria:

AMD is almost certainly going to have a 64-bit desktop chip before Apple does. However as was pointed out in some other arguement, it is not entirely clear that AMD will have a 64-bit MS consumer OS to go with it berfore Apple has 64 bits.

[Inunyan]

... low power consumption ... silent desktop ...

can we finally hope to have powermacs without health hazard? or reincarnation of cube? now i have something to look foward in year 2004.

[thedude]

IBM just released their p series servers with up to 4 way Power4+ configs. Now that they have the chip in production with resonable numbers, (only 1.45ghz tho) I can imagine that a pwer 4+ will find it's way into other machines soon...(mac?)

At least all the development and ramp up is already done. Just time to crank up the clock speed and sample!

[hacurio1]

Originally posted by ktlx
What is the basis for this statement? It contradicts what I'd heard previously.

AMD is delivering their 64-bit processors before IBM does and Microsoft has already said they will support the processor. Microsoft already supports the 64-bit Itanium processor http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/default.mspx with is Advanced Server, Limited Edition version.

Apple has not even said they are going to use the PowerPC 970 let alone get a 64-bit version of all of Mac OS X (not just the part inherited from FreeBSD) in the hands of testers.[/B][/QUOTE]

You should know Apple by now....They never say anything. And yes a 64 bit version of windows is comming on April with the release of the Operton!!! Although I would really like to see what they came up with.......remember....sudently everything sucks (Microsoft)

[os10geek]

It seems logical that there will be a 64-bit version of Server before a 64-bit version of Jaguar, considering the likeliness of the 970 being used in the xSertve first.

[wdlove]

Originally posted by os10geek
It seems logical that there will be a 64-bit version of Server before a 64-bit version of Jaguar, considering the likeliness of the 970 being used in the xSertve first.

So what do you think the time frame will be? Will we still see it for the Power Mac by August! :confused:

[ddtlm]

os10geek:

It seems logical that there will be a 64-bit version of Server before a 64-bit version of Jaguar, considering the likeliness of the 970 being used in the xSertve first.
I see no reason for Apple to release a PPC-970 server before a PPC-970 desktop.

[scem0]

Originally posted by ddtlm
os10geek:


I see no reason for Apple to release a PPC-970 server before a PPC-970 desktop.

The 970, being derived from the power 4 series, is a good server
chip. I see no reason for Apple not to release the 970 in a
server before releasing it in a desktop. But I bet it will find its
way into a desktop first anyways.