IBM's Power5 is Coming

[MacRumors]

News.com reports (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-984808.html?tag=fd_top) that IBM has successfully tested one of the upcoming Power5 processors, and the results appear promising:


On business computing tasks, the Power5 will be able to perform four times the work of the existing Power4 processor, Zeitler said. IBM introduced the first Power4 systems in late 2001.



The PowerPC 970 -- a Power4-derivative chip -- is expected later this year. Previous rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/01/20030123163014.shtml) suggest that a similar derivative Power5 chip is in the works.

[adamcoop]

Wouldn't be so sweet if in, say, 2 years, a Power5 derivative runs our PowerMacs and PowerBooks, while the 970 becomes chip inside the consumer machines..

And the Wintel world would be wondering what went wrong, 6 months after x86 reaches the end of its life.

[MacQuest]

This, next year, and '05 are going to be awesome for Apple and Mac users!!

Viva La Revolucion!!!:D

[alset]

Oh, happy day! Give me ten of them!

Dan

[scem0]

There better be a powered down version for macs... ;)

[adamcoop]

That was said about last year though.
Oh well...

[esome]

great. we're drooling over the power 5 now and the toned-down version of the power 4 that we _hope_ will be in Macs sometime in early 2004 (maybe) is still a pipe dream. :rolleyes:

[bentmywookie]

Power5 also has better error detection and correction than its predecessor. It will be able to run more operating systems simultaneously in separate "partitions." And unlike Power4, Power5 will be designed not only for high-end servers but also for lower-end systems.


Sounds good to me!

[adamcoop]

Mark my words, 3 quarter 2009 will be a fantastic one for Apple.

[MacQuest]

Originally posted by adamcoop
That was said about last year though.
Oh well...

If you were referring to my post:

Last year did prove to be exciting due to the the flat panel iMac, Xserve, and the continued success of the iPod, OS X, PowerBooks, iBooks, and the Apple Stores.

I am currently referring to the future of Apple's desktops along with any other little hardware and software surprises they may have in store for us.:)

This year is going to be a ramp up to an even better '04.

Officially, the 20th Anniversary of the Mac!!

[macphoria]

As long as they end in Macs. I'm just glad I hear Apple and IBM in same sentence more often than Apple and Motorola.

[yosoyjay]

I don't care until there is an actual 970 based Mac that I can touch, cherish, and buy.

[iwantanewmac]

When did I hear all of this before mmmmmmmm lemme think.........

[macphoria]

-----I don't care until there is an actual 970 based Mac that I can touch, cherish, and buy.

Shouldn't you buy first then cherish? ;-) Just teasing. I agree. As I mentioned, I want this 970 to end up in a Mac, instead of some Slorola G4 variation. G5 rumors have gone long enough. It is time for G5, 970, to materialize.

[Swift]

I have it on good authority that not only will this happen before the end of the year, but it will blow your socks off, and there's a several-year development plan already in operation. Starting very soon, it'll be back to the days when the G3 COULD toast the Pentium II. And that's just the beginning.

[Eric_Z]

Will it be featured in the succesor to 970?

I know that it's a bit early to start dreaming about it now but having a CPU with the abilety to act as a twin core CPU with only one physical core just makes me drool.


For further info see here. (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-892836.html) (Not exactly the latest info, but what the hey...)

[jettredmont]

The Power5 is expected in its first computer (Armada, a 64-CPU SMP system) in the first half of 2004. As such quarter/half targets go, that generally means we'll see it around June, 2004. With the Power4, we are seeing about a 2-year delay between the high-end server variant and the desktop derivative. That would put the "980" (or whatever) in June, 2006. That's the "upper limit", as unlike the Power4, the Power5 is reportedly being designed with high-end, low-end, and desktop variants (not derivatives) in mind. Still, I'd be surprised to see it affordable and in a desktop Mac less than a year after its Armada debut (June 2005).

Also, performance details are sketchy. "4 times as fast" can mean a lot of things. First, the Power5 reportedly supports simultaneous multithreading, which is related to Intel's "hyperthreading", but non-marketing-infested and IBM claims its implementation is an order of magnitude more efficient. IBM claims one processor truly acts as two (a 100% speedup) instead of as 1.2 as in Intel's implementation. If running "deep machine code" at four times the current Power4, I suspect that the Power5 is getting half of this gain (2x faster) just via simultaneous multithreading on highly-tuned code. I for one don't fully believe the claims of 100% performance improvement with a good SMT implementation, and expect that that component of the "speedup" will be closer to 1.5-1.75x instead of 2x.

Second, in pure performance/core terms, the 970 is getting SPEC numbers on a single core that the Power4 requires two cores to get as is. A dual-core 970 would theoretically then be about 1.5-1.75x as fast as an existing Power4. But, that having been said, we won't be seeing (as far as I can tell) a dual-core 980 either; the 980 will be closer to equal to 1/1.5 (2/3 or 67%) of the performance of the Power5 with dual cores, aside from any other compromises that might be introduced along the way for cost and production quantity reasons.

Thus, in "real world" terms, I don't expect 970->980 performance increase to be more than around 2x to 3x on the high end (1.5x-2x on the low end), and that over the space of two (or possibly three) years. Roughly consistent with Moore's Law.

So, guys, don't get your panties in a tizzy. The Wintel world occasionally gets ahead of itself like this as well, drooling over Itanium-3 numbers that likely will not end up nearly as impressive when the processor is out. But they're more used to it than us. It's good to finally have a server processor line related to our Macs, and certainly will be providing more of a push for performance than Moto was ever able to pull together. But don't expect true 4x improvement over the 970 a year from now!

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Swift
I have it on good authority that not only will this happen before the end of the year, but it will blow your socks off, and there's a several-year development plan already in operation. Starting very soon, it'll be back to the days when the G3 COULD toast the Pentium II. And that's just the beginning.

Well, IBM generally is more open with its development plans than, say, Apple. When IBM says its Power5 will debut first-half of 2004, that generally means it will debut first-half of 2004 (which more often than not means June, 2004).

Recheck your sources. It is not likely that IBM will be surprising the world with a Power5 in December, 2003 (or before).

970, now that should happen 2H 2003... Maybe that's what you're thinking of.

[sergeantmudd]

I don't know how to quote, but a comment a few ones up says that the 970 gets almost the same score as a Power4 chip with two cores. Unforunately, SpecInt and SpecFp do not take multiple cores into consideration. So every spec mark only relates to one core, which is why the Power4 really does outclass every other chip. To be fair though, each core on the Power4 would get lower Spec score if both were used because the chip would have an effective .75 mb cache instead of an effect 1.5 mb cache.

[Frobozz]

New.com report states: The processor will be used in a nuclear weapons simulation supercomputer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. That machine, called ASCI Purple, is slated to use 12,544 Power5 chips

Holy cr*p. I can't even speculate how much power that is. Does anyone know how many Petaflops this thing can do with 12,544 Power 4's? Cause if you do, multiply that number by 4.

I reiterate, HOLY CR*P.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

I still have some contacts inside IBM and they've indicated to me that a desktop derivative will be available to Apple by the Fall of 2004, one year after the PPC 970 is available. A chip for a laptop could be out by early '05.

The reason the 970 took two years from the intro of the Power4 was because there wasn't a need. Two years ago Apple was still happy with Motorola and expected the G5. Last year is when Apple approached IBM and they increased work on what would become the PPC970. Now that IBM knows someone will buy the chips (and they will use them themselves in lower-end servers), they will invest more $$$ and time in preparing the scaled down Power5.

Knowing IBM and their amazing R&D, I'd say that Apple is in for quite a ride over the next few years and should consistently pound Intel chips in performance by this time next year. OS X will likely also increase in efficiency, especially when the Power5 derivative is introduced.

[trebblekicked]

Originally posted by Frobozz
Holy cr*p. I can't even speculate how much power that is. Does anyone know how many Petaflops this thing can do with 12,544 Power 4's? Cause if you do, multiply that number by 4.

I reiterate, HOLY CR*P.

dude, that's nothing. i've got a gateway destination p2 350 with 96 megs of RAM. i'll take on any nuclear weapons wargames simulator any day of the week (except monday and tuesday. it defrags those days).

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by jettredmont
With the Power4, we are seeing about a 2-year delay between the high-end server variant and the desktop derivative. That would put the "980" (or whatever) in June, 2006. That's the "upper limit"...

However, since they've already done the Power4 -> 970 conversion, perhaps a Power5 -> 980 conversion would be shorter. They may learn a lot about the process. However, just because a chip is available, doesn't mean Apple will use it. If they are getting yields of the 970's running at 3.6+ GHz in 2 years (double intro speed?), I would assume they'd milk it until it's dry. After all, once they eek out enough performance from the 970, they can migrate it to lower end systems, cost permitting, and slap in a 980 in the high end. Given how long the G4 has lived in the mac (too long), I think mid 2006 would be the best targets for Apple adopting it in some fashion.

Good insight, BTW. It's nice to read a comment that's more than "cool, gimme now."

[DavPeanut]

Originally posted by Frobozz
Holy cr*p. I can't even speculate how much power that is. Does anyone know how many Petaflops this thing can do with 12,544 Power 4's? Cause if you do, multiply that number by 4.

I reiterate, HOLY CR*P. Thats at least 3 Petaflops. Thats 15 million DP 1.42 Ghz G4s! Thats crazy! I want one! I could render full length Pixar-style movies at like 3 every 2 minutes or so!

[DavPeanut]

Originally posted by trebblekicked
dude, that's nothing. i've got a gateway destination p2 350 with 96 megs of RAM. i'll take on any nuclear weapons wargames simulator any day of the week (except monday and tuesday. it defrags those days).
What, thats all? I have a TI-83+ graphing calculator. Oh, and get this. My school has a bunch of TI-81 graphing calculators. They'll bet you any day at graphing y=x.

Or maybe only the days your computer is Defraging.

[nuckinfutz]

The Power5 is aimed at covering the Midrange to High End market. They consume little wattage making them suitable for the lucrative Blade Server market. I like this.

I doubt we see a Derivative of the Power5 until the 970 has moved on to 90 nanometers and have a revision or two. At any rate Apple will have some great options should IBM graft Altivec on a Power5 derivative and make it available.

I like the idea of a consumer lineup of PPC 970 systems and pro systems usiing a PPC 980(Power5 based) are tantalizing.

We'll need it too to remain competitive with Clawhammer and future Pentium 4 systems.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by sergeantmudd
I don't know how to quote, but a comment a few ones up says that the 970 gets almost the same score as a Power4 chip with two cores. Unforunately, SpecInt and SpecFp do not take multiple cores into consideration. So every spec mark only relates to one core, which is why the Power4 really does outclass every other chip.

Damnit, you're right :) Sorry for the misinformation ...

[RIP]

Originally posted by bentmywookie
Sounds good to me!

Lower-end systems probably mean AS/400, not Apple Macintosh.:(

[macphoria]

Can't wait till 970/G5 AluBook comes out! Burn PC's, burn!

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by DavPeanut
Thats at least 3 Petaflops. Thats 15 million DP 1.42 Ghz G4s! Thats crazy! I want one! I could render full length Pixar-style movies at like 3 every 2 minutes or so!

I want a coupon for 60 seconds of timeshare time on that thing with every 970 Mac I buy, useable in 0.01 sec increments.

Rocketman

[JtheLemur]

Know what words I keep seeing in sentences together?

Apple, IBM, and "next year" or "the next few years."

Franky, all this development and speculation and proposed chip talk doesn't mean a thing if they can't get it to market. So far, Apple has NOT said that they'd use a 970, IBM has NOT said Apple is purchasing X thousands of them, and so forth.

The one thing that IBM HAS said is that the 970 tops at about 1.8GHz. HOPEfully, that 1.8GHz is as powerful as a Pentium 4 @ more than 4 GHz, because IF and WHEN Apple uses a 970, Intel will be way over 4GHz. Right now, Avid on a loaded P4 is a heck of a lot smoother than FCP on a loaded G4.

A lot of pro users like myself keep waiting for towers - why spend $10k+ for what is supposedly going to be replaced in X number of months? Catch is, no one knows how many months that will be. I've been ready to plop down around $15k for a new setup, but I'm trying to hold out for something really worth it. I'm getting a bit sick of these 200MHz increases, same Motorola chip for years, essentially the same mobo for years - Apple may be cutting-edge in the consumer space, but if you look at their professional stuff, it hasn't changed in years. The only thing that has really changed has been the speed of the same tired G4 processors, but even those have long since been eclipsed by AMD and Intel.

So why doesn't Apple just let their customers know what's up? Surely, judging by the slow sales of pro equipment, they can see that they need a shot in the arm - why not just announce that "Yes, in the next x months, expect to see some Pro equipment using new technologies." Or at least "Yes, we will be using a new processor within x months". It may be a pipe dream, but at least those on the fences can make a decision whether it's worth it to buy now or wait for the next generation...

[jamilecrire]

Originally posted by JtheLemur
Know what words I keep seeing in sentences together?

Apple, IBM, and "next year" or "the next few years."

Franky, all this development and speculation and proposed chip talk doesn't mean a thing if they can't get it to market. So far, Apple has NOT said that they'd use a 970, IBM has NOT said Apple is purchasing X thousands of them, and so forth.

The one thing that IBM HAS said is that the 970 tops at about 1.8GHz. HOPEfully, that 1.8GHz is as powerful as a Pentium 4 @ more than 4 GHz, because IF and WHEN Apple uses a 970, Intel will be way over 4GHz. Right now, Avid on a loaded P4 is a heck of a lot smoother than FCP on a loaded G4.

A lot of pro users like myself keep waiting for towers - why spend $10k+ for what is supposedly going to be replaced in X number of months? Catch is, no one knows how many months that will be. I've been ready to plop down around $15k for a new setup, but I'm trying to hold out for something really worth it. I'm getting a bit sick of these 200MHz increases, same Motorola chip for years, essentially the same mobo for years - Apple may be cutting-edge in the consumer space, but if you look at their professional stuff, it hasn't changed in years. The only thing that has really changed has been the speed of the same tired G4 processors, but even those have long since been eclipsed by AMD and Intel.

So why doesn't Apple just let their customers know what's up? Surely, judging by the slow sales of pro equipment, they can see that they need a shot in the arm - why not just announce that "Yes, in the next x months, expect to see some Pro equipment using new technologies." Or at least "Yes, we will be using a new processor within x months". It may be a pipe dream, but at least those on the fences can make a decision whether it's worth it to buy now or wait for the next generation...

Since when does apple say anything? What makes you think you're any better at guessing than anyone else. All signs (if you can read) point to 970 based apple computers. Sorry Steve forgot to email you.

[nuckinfutz]

Apple and the PPC 970 systems are not very well kept secrets. Apple is not going to announce they are using these processors because they like the element of suprise. However all signs point to Moto stepping back and letting IBM assume the lead.

1. Apple needs a processor to match the 64bit offerings coming from Intel and AMD

2. Apple needs a processor that supports the PPC ISA and Altivec

3. Apple needs a new architecture that has legs and is aimed at Desktops but not so much the embedded markets

4. Apple needs good yields decent power consumption.

The PPC 970 meets all of these needs. There is no reason NOT to support the processor. Even Omnigroups Chief has stated publicly that Apple will "change chips".

IBM will be pushing Linux and this PPC 970 chip hard. Apple simply allows them to sell a few million more chips to help pay for that shiny new Foundry they built in Fishkill.

With the estimated Spec ratings the PPC 970 at 1.8Ghz should perform equal to a 2.8Ghz P4. This won't be enough at the top in in a Single Proc config so Apple can make headway by either offering a Dual 1.6 or 1.8Ghz system which would do the trick.

There's a light at the end of the tunnel and that light is Mac users finally getting the speed they need.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
With the estimated Spec ratings the PPC 970 at 1.8Ghz should perform equal to a 2.8Ghz P4.

Yes, but today Dell is already offering dual 3.06 GHz Pentium systems (http://www.dell.com/us/en/biz/products/model_precn_2_precn_450.htm).

By the time a 970 ships, Apple may be able to claim "We've almost caught up with the Pentium".

Big Whoop.

[iwantanewmac]

YES!

And a fast chip doesn't make a good computer.

When do people understand that?

[zer0army]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Yes, but today Dell is already offering dual 3.06 GHz Pentium systems (http://www.dell.com/us/en/biz/products/model_precn_2_precn_450.htm).


Yes, but they will never be offering OSX and FCP;)

[Zaid]

The one thing that IBM HAS said is that the 970 tops at about 1.8GHz.

Actually I believe that IBM said that the chip should début at 1.8Ghz and scale up from there.

[dongmin]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Yes, but today Dell is already offering dual 3.06 GHz Pentium systems (http://www.dell.com/us/en/biz/products/model_precn_2_precn_450.htm).

By the time a 970 ships, Apple may be able to claim "We've almost caught up with the Pentium".

Big Whoop.

Actually, that would make a lot of people happy. And why not?:

1. OS X
2. Mac-only i-Apps and pro software
3. Apple's industrial design
4. Hardware performance parity with PCs

For the last few years, Apple has held on on the basis of the first three factors. If they were to make #4 possible, I'd say it would put Apple on top.

I don't expect the 970 to deliver performance comparable to the latest x486s at its introduction. But if we can get close, it'd be a good start. And then, in the following years, PPC will again pass the x486 world.

call me an optimist...

[rickag]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Yes, but today Dell is already offering dual 3.06 GHz Pentium systems (http://www.dell.com/us/en/biz/products/model_precn_2_precn_450.htm).

By the time a 970 ships, Apple may be able to claim "We've almost caught up with the Pentium".

Big Whoop.

One small point, the 970 is a 64 bit cpu:)

While that may not mean much to you, it will give the 970 something the X86 chips don't have. Since its' very beginnings, the PPC architecture has required 64/32 bit compatibility.:)

And Spec #'s may not indicate everyday performance, give the 970 a chance, it hasn't even shipped. Who knows what its' day to day performance will be.:)

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by rickag
One small point, the 970 is a 64 bit cpu :)

Yes, and OS X is a 32-bit operating system. All your apps are 32-bit apps.

I would expect to see a 64-bit production version of OS X about a year after it's announced at WWDC - not only does Apple need to rewrite large parts of OS X (e.g. Carbon64 and Cocoa64, for starters), but it needs to have some 64-bit applications written as well.

IMO Apple will first announce 970 systems (if they use them) running completely in 32-bit mode. Perhaps they'll support more than 2GB of RAM, but not likely 64-bit virtual addressing for users.

However, the G4 can support 64GB today, but Apple's never supported more than 2GB on them. (P4 can also support 64GB, but you can already buy Pentium systems with up to 64GB of RAM installed.)

Another small point - 64-bit Windows systems are available today, about $4000 for an HP Itanium 2 workstation. It also runs Linux and HP-UX.

There just isn't much need for 64-bits on the desktop...yet.

Don't fall for the "Bit-width Myth" -- the 970 will be good for Apple because it should be faster than the G4.

Its 64-bit abilities will be handy in a few years, but unless you've got 2GB in your PowerMac and it's out of space more than likely 64-bits won't do anything for you.

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Yes, but today Dell is already offering dual 3.06 GHz Pentium systems (http://www.dell.com/us/en/biz/products/model_precn_2_precn_450.htm).

By the time a 970 ships, Apple may be able to claim "We've almost caught up with the Pentium".

Big Whoop.

Yes, that IS a "big whoop." Apple is running at almost 25% behind in real world performance on it's top of the line machines today. When the 970's come out, they will ramp up in clock speed fast, according to almost every rumor about them. This means that Apple will go from a 25% shortcoming to maybe 5 or 10% in one revision. The next revisions, which could be in the low to mid 2 GHz range, could get them neck and neck. P4's are getting tapped out. The 970 is just (almost) beginning.

To the guys who still doubt the 970, you HAVE to be crazy. Apple is NEVER going to admit using a new processor because it would make their existing sales essentially stop. They never have, and never will... yet even Jobs has hinted at a big change coming soon without officially letting the cat out of the bag. Even IBM has said that Apple would be a likely candidate for the chip. All the signs are there! The 970 will happen. It ain't gonna change the world overnight, but we'll play a good game of catch-up... then eventually overtake the Wintel world again.

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by rickag
One small point, the 970 is a 64 bit cpu:)

While that may not mean much to you, it will give the 970 something the X86 chips don't have. Since its' very beginnings, the PPC architecture has required 64/32 bit compatibility.:)

And Spec #'s may not indicate everyday performance, give the 970 a chance, it hasn't even shipped. Who knows what its' day to day performance will be.:)

AGREED! Bottom-line, cutting the BS and all the tech talk: Can you run the apps you have today and run them so fast you never have to wait. Answer: With the 970, this is very likely. You'll be able to run quality software at speeds that will make you no longer worry about OS X's speed, etc.

[sergeantmudd]

Whoever commented on the Pentium and G4 being able to address more than 4 gigs of RAM is wrong. The Pentium4 can have 64 gigs of RAM in a machine, but can only address 4 gigs at once. What the chip does is use it's PAE (Pentium Architecture Extensions?) to use the other 60 gigs as a swap disk. Individual apps can never use more than 4 gigs, and the chip itself can only work on 4 gigs at once. This is important because every swap operation requires CPU involvement and the PAE extensions require considerable CPU resources.

Also, the G4 has nothing like that. It is 32 bits all the way, do you think if Motorla really wanted their router chip to be able to address more than 4 gigs, they would go through the trouble of creating hacks on their existing architecture, or do you think they would just upgrade to 64bits, which they had already done with 620 (so they know exactly how)

[ktlx]

Originally posted by Frobozz
Yes, that IS a "big whoop." Apple is running at almost 25% behind in real world performance on it's top of the line machines today. When the 970's come out, they will ramp up in clock speed fast, according to almost every rumor about them. This means that Apple will go from a 25% shortcoming to maybe 5 or 10% in one revision. The next revisions, which could be in the low to mid 2 GHz range, could get them neck and neck. P4's are getting tapped out. The 970 is just (almost) beginning.

That misses a point that no processor development ever stands still. Intel has said the Pentium 4 design is able to scale to 10Ghz. Intel will take the current Pentium 4 to 3.6Ghz. Then they will switch to the 90nm process and take it to 5+Ghz. Then they will switch to the 65nm process and take it to wGhz.

IBM will do the same thing with the PPC 970. They will start with a 130nm process and take it to xGhz. Then they will switch to a 90nm process and take it to yGhz. Then they will switch to a 65nm process and take it to zGhz.

The question is who ramps up their process changes the fastest and pumps up the Ghz quicker than the other one. No one knows that answer yet. The PPC 970 is great because is closes the widening performance gap in the pro lines. We have no idea whether it will catch up and overtake it because we don't know how quickly IBM can ramp up.

So far no one has been able to demonstrate the ability to switch processes and ramp up quicker than Intel. IBM is a business and it may turn out there is no economic advantage to trying to keep pace. It may turn out the market wants x86-64 processors from AMD instead of PPC 970s for the blade servers. It may turn out that Intel's low power Itanium processor becomes a reality. That would leave the PPC 970 in the same boat as the G4--a processor for Apple and embedded customers.

Of course I hope that does not happen but know one knows at this point.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by sergeantmudd
Whoever commented on the Pentium and G4 being able to address more than 4 gigs of RAM is wrong. The Pentium4 can have 64 gigs of RAM in a machine, but can only address 4 gigs at once.

A process on the P4 can address 4GibiBytes. The system can support multiple 4GB processes at once, and can therefore use all 64GB for processes. This is done without explicit PAE code in the processes - any number of legacy processes can be running and consuming more than 4GB of memory.

http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.asp

A PAE-enabled operating system should be capable of utilizing all physical memory provided by the system to load multiple applications; for example, App#1, App#2, App #N, each consisting of 4 GB (maximum) of virtual address. In a non-PAE enabled system, the result can be a great deal of paging, since maximum physical memory in the system is limited to 4 GB.

With the additional physical memory supported under PAE mode, an operating system can keep more of these applications in memory without paging. This is valuable in supporting server consolidation configurations, where support of multiple applications in a single server is typically required. Note that no application changes are required to support this capability.

The system can easily manage more than 4GB because it deals with the physical memory pages. Since pages are 4KB (on x86), 32-bits of page numbers can easily handle 64GB of RAM.

A specially written program can use the PSE operations to remap its 4GB to different regions at different times, thereby effectively having access to more than 4GB (but never more than 4GB at any instant. This is not what I'm talking about, though.


Originally posted by sergeantmudd
Also, the G4 has nothing like that. It is 32 bits all the way

Motorola does not agree with you.

http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC7455&nodeId=018rH3bTdG8653

o 36-bit physical address space for direct addressability of 64 Gigabytes of memory

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by ktlx
That misses a point that no processor development ever stands still. Intel has said the Pentium 4 design is able to scale to 10Ghz. Intel will take the current Pentium 4 to 3.6Ghz. Then they will switch to the 90nm process and take it to 5+Ghz. Then they will switch to the 65nm process and take it to wGhz.


Intel has said this? The only estimates I've heard from Intel is that the P4 is set to go up to 3.6 by the end of this year, and that the 90nm P5 will debut at 3.2GHz in the fall (but it's supposed to be more efficient than the P4 so a 3.2GHz P5 *should* meet or beat a 3.6GHz P4). Unless you've seen something that no one else has, Intel is quite tight-lipped about what will happen to the Pentium line after this year.

In any case, 3.6GHz P4-class is the end-of-year projection from Intel. Not 5GHz. Not "wGHz" whatever 'w' stands for.


The question is who ramps up their process changes the fastest and pumps up the Ghz quicker than the other one.

There's more to it than process changes and raw GHz. Processor design and architecture also make a big difference in overall system performance. You are correct that Intel is the only company out there with experience in produce its volume level of production of CPUs, and experience counts for a lot. However, boiling that down to how fast they can shrink their manufacturing process is overly simplifying the matter. IBM has a world-class design team, and a world-class implementation team. If anyone has the goods to challenge Intel, it is IBM.

[AidenShaw]

Lots of news from Intel this week. Schedules for 800MHz bus support, 1MB cache for dual processor P4s (XeonDP), new Itaniums, ...

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-985077.html

[rickag]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
[B...- not only does Apple need to rewrite large parts of OS X (e.g. Carbon64 and Cocoa64, for starters), but it needs to have some 64-bit applications written as well.

Another small point - 64-bit Windows systems are available today, about $4000 for an HP Itanium 2 workstation. It also runs Linux and HP-UX.

There just isn't much need for 64-bits on the desktop...yet.
[/B]

Yes some Mac OS X code will need to be rewritten/updated to utilize a 64 bit cpu, but many people disagree with you on how long it will take. Many people believe a 64 bit Mac OS X version will ship along side the 970 and probably is currently running @ Apple right now.

Yes applications will be need to be rewritten to utilize a 64 bit cpu and this will take more time than updating Mac OS X. But most all current 64 bit Unix should work fine with little or no effort.

Yes there are 64 bit Itamiums out there and they are very expensive, hot and use >100watts each AND they only have a very very limited # of apps that will EVEN RUN on them.(re:according to Intel about 100 apps).

Yes I agree that a 64 bit cpu will not, in and of itself, increase speed, but there are and will be benefits, especially since current 32 bit apps will run @ native speeds(ie: no emulation) requiring no rewrites @ all.

What WILL knock peoples socks off is the fact that they will be able to seemlessly be running their current 32 bit apps with 64 bit apps at the SAME TIME on the SAME COMPUTER with a very user friendly interface. With dual 970 cpu's running multiple apps simultaneously will be fast and efficient.

The 970's competition is not the Itanium it is the PIV. And clock for clock the 970 will slaughter it.

Whether the 970 will be faster(in the real world & not Spec #'s) than the PIV @ whatever GHz it is at, at the time of the 970's release, we will have to wait. In anything optimized for SIMID the 970 will absolutely destroy the PIV. Integer and Floating point should be close and depending on the software it may be a toss up, we will have to wait and see. But to all those out there saying the 970 will be too little too late and still be behind the PIV, I say right now ONLY IBM KNOWS.

If I remember correctly, the 970 will have 8 execution units and be able to retire 5 units each cycle. It can be working on over 200? units at any given time. And now there are rumblings that it may or will shortly have similar hyperthreading capabilites to what Intel is touting.

If I have made any errors feel free to correct me, but I'm really getting tired of people dissing the 970 before it even comes out and comparing it to Intel's future PIV cpu's.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by rickag
Many people believe a 64 bit Mac OS X version will ship along side the 970 and probably is currently running @ Apple right now.

Perhaps, but to get widespread developer support one can't keep the whole affair secret. That's why I would expect the first news about 64-bit APIs to surface at a WWDC.

On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with delivering a 32-bit system on the 970. One gets the immediate performance boost from the faster CPU, and one can announce the 64-bit roadmap after the system. Secrecy may be more important than a few months delay in 64-bit applications.

Apple might even do something in the middle - make enough changes to OS X so that it can support 8 or 16GB of RAM on the 970, but short of full 64-bit support. This would be similar to the >4GB support on x86 operating systems, you'd be able to run lots of 2GB processes at once.

Someday we'll know the real answer - 'til then we're all guessing. (I've did lots of 64-bit porting when I was working at Digital on the Alpha rollout - I agree that moving other 64-bit UNIX apps should be fairly easy, but porting the 32-bit Mac apps is likely to be hell!)

[Maxkraft]

you do know that the g4 has 36 bit memory adressing and can suport over 4 gb of memory.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by jettredmont
Intel has said this? The only estimates I've heard from Intel is that the P4 is set to go up to 3.6 by the end of this year, and that the 90nm P5 will debut at 3.2GHz in the fall (but it's supposed to be more efficient than the P4 so a 3.2GHz P5 *should* meet or beat a 3.6GHz P4). Unless you've seen something that no one else has, Intel is quite tight-lipped about what will happen to the Pentium line after this year.

Intel has published their Pentium 4 roadmap in the past and I have seen it reproduced on places like Ace's Hardware, Tom's Hardware and ArsTechnica so it is hardly like no one else has seen it. They do not give dates beyond this year, but they did give ranges for the 130nm and 90nm processes.


In any case, 3.6GHz P4-class is the end-of-year projection from Intel. Not 5GHz. Not "wGHz" whatever 'w' stands for.


Please bother to at least invest the time in reading my post. I never attached any dates to those changes. Intel has said that their 90nm process version of the Pentium can scale to over 5Ghz but they did not say when that would be. In fact, I said just the opposite that we do not know how quickly each team can ramp up.

And by the way, w is a variable. I thought that would be obvious.

There's more to it than process changes and raw GHz. Processor design and architecture also make a big difference in overall system performance. You are correct that Intel is the only company out there with experience in produce its volume level of production of CPUs, and experience counts for a lot. However, boiling that down to how fast they can shrink their manufacturing process is overly simplifying the matter. IBM has a world-class design team, and a world-class implementation team. If anyone has the goods to challenge Intel, it is IBM.

Quite true but once you leave process changes and raw Ghz, you are just speculating on how some processors sometime in the future will compare with each other. IBM does have a world class design team and I have no doubt in my mind that if the issue was strictly a technical one, IBM would do as well or better than Intel.

The problem is that the issue is really primarily an economic one. We do not know how the market for the PPC 970 will turn out. IBM will not invest the money if they cannot make a profit at it. And it is not clear they can. If Intel executes perfectly on all of their plans and IBM makes any mistake, the market may turn out no better than the G4.

Even if IBM executes on the PPC 970 flawlessly, IBM still has to convince people that AIX/PPC or Linux/PPC is as good or better as Linux/x86-64 for blade servers and workstations. If they are not successful, then the PPC 970 turns into a processor for Apple and the telecom market. Just like the G4.

[ffakr]

Originally posted by JtheLemur

The one thing that IBM HAS said is that the 970 tops at about 1.8GHz. HOPEfully, that 1.8GHz is as powerful as a Pentium 4 @ more than 4 GHz, because IF and WHEN Apple uses a 970, Intel will be way over 4GHz. Right now, Avid on a loaded P4 is a heck of a lot smoother than FCP on a loaded G4.

Well, there is NO guarantee that P4 will ship at 4 GHz by the time the 970 is available (to possibly ship in macs). Most industry analysts seem to predict a move to 3.3 GHz this spring and probably around 3.6 by fall.

The fact is, Intel doesn't release faster chips until they need to. They only need to beat AMD, they don't need to release P4s as fast as possible. Making the P4 too fast is bad for margins (they can't sell slower, higher yield chips for more) and it's bad for their enterprise goals (P4 can't be more powerful than Itanic).

Consider these *facts*.
*K7 has little future. AMD has had a LOT of trouble pushing the MHz up any further, even with the latest revision. This relieves pressure on Intel to release faster processors...
*Athlon64 has been pushed back till August or September depending on who you trust....
*Intel has demo'ed 'sample' chips for years that clock way above what they can produce in mass numbers. The fact that they've demo'ed chips running significantly faster than 3GHz doesn't mean they are anywhere near releasing chips at that speed...
*The ultra high speed approach will become self defeating... a 4GHz chip is only 33 percent faster than 3GHz, but it will have much more trouble fetching instructions fast enough. Expect diminishing returns...

And, of course, the other side of the coin is that Apple is likely to put dual 970s into a pro machine if they feel that they need to crush x86. They have plenty of expertise in shipping dual proc boxes.

Personally, I don't see Apple having too much trouble competing with Intel in the 2nd half of this year.

....ffakr.

[Telomar]

Originally posted by JtheLemur
The one thing that IBM HAS said is that the 970 tops at about 1.8GHz. That isn't quite accurate. At release it will top out at 1.8 GHz. IBM hasn't made a public statement regarding scaling after that.

Originally posted by ffakr
*Athlon64 has been pushed back till August or September depending on who you trust....It's September currently unless AMD moves it again.

[Dave Marsh]

Well, I hopped over to that link and ran the numbers. Yes, a dual 3.06GHz Xeon system with XP Pro, Superdrive, 1GB RAM, 80GB HD, and no monitor can be yours for ~$4400. Don't wait, order one today!

[macphoria]

It doesn't matter whether Pentium 4 goes over 4Ghz. Intel just released news that they were coming out with a new mobile chip that actually has lower Ghz rating but better performance, suggesting speed doesn't mean everything. Sounds familiar? I do not have all the information on new 64 bit chips that AMD and Intel are workign on, but I doubt they will start out at 4Ghz. It might be higher than IBM's 970, but still I think if 970 can hit the market first, it will have good chance of catching up and competing.

[Death2PCs]

IF, and a big IF... apple uses this processor itll be atleast untill MWSF 04. theres no mid this year or anything.

its too big of an announcement not to do at apples biggest show.

[ffakr]

Originally posted by Dave Marsh
Well, I hopped over to that link and ran the numbers. Yes, a dual 3.06GHz Xeon system with XP Pro, Superdrive, 1GB RAM, 80GB HD, and no monitor can be yours for ~$4400. Don't wait, order one today!
Actually I poped over there and configured it more like a base config for a top end dual G4. Obviously the main difference would be the dual P4s - 3.06GHz, but I put in a 120GB HD, and I selected the DVD authoring software bundle... and other options to make the Dell mimic what you get from Apple (low end speakers...)

My price was $4680.

The prices of the dual 2.0 GHz P4 Dell, and the dual 2.4 GHz P4 Dell come in just over and under the cost of a dual 1.42 GHz Macintosh.

now, consider that The P4 is designed for high clock at any cost... and that an AthlonXP 2000+ only needs to run at 1600MHz to be performance competitive.

I'm not saying that x86 offerings aren't faster. They are.
I'm just pointing out that these comparisons are usually more complex than they appear at first... and that Apple does dual-proc farily reasonably compared to dual-proc X86 boxes.
:)

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by ffakr

The prices of the dual 2.0 GHz P4 Dell, and the dual 2.4 GHz P4 Dell come in just over and under the cost of a dual 1.42 GHz Macintosh.

now, consider that The P4 is designed for high clock at any cost... and that an AthlonXP 2000+ only needs to run at 1600MHz to be performance competitive.

I'm not saying that x86 offerings aren't faster. They are.
I'm just pointing out that these comparisons are usually more complex than they appear at first... and that Apple does dual-proc farily reasonably compared to dual-proc X86 boxes.
:)

Yes, but the P4's you are looking at enjoy 566MHz front side buses (per chip I believe), which keeps them from being memory starved. The dual 1.4sGHz G4s share a single 166MHz FSB, which is just plain slow in comparison and leads to absolute memory starvation. The G4s would definitely blow the pants off the P4s in any benchmark that fits entirely in cache, and have unbelievable MTOPS scores comparatively, but the memory logjam kills those benefits in most if not all consumer-level programs.

[ffakr]

Originally posted by jettredmont
Yes, but the P4's you are looking at enjoy 566MHz front side buses (per chip I believe), which keeps them from being memory starved. The dual 1.4sGHz G4s share a single 166MHz FSB, which is just plain slow in comparison and leads to absolute memory starvation.

Actually, I know that Apple has an individual bus for each processor. They went out of their way to point this out recently. Athlons do the same, but I'm not sure if Intel does or not.

Apple recently made the argument that the lack of DDR support isn't as bad as it looks because the Processors don't share the same pipe.

Upon request.. I'll try and find some on-line references to the above claims. :-) I'll be out fix'in a stinky windows box for a while though.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by ffakr
Actually, I know that Apple has an individual bus for each processor. They went out of their way to point this out recently. Athlons do the same, but I'm not sure if Intel does or not.

Apple recently made the argument that the lack of DDR support isn't as bad as it looks because the Processors don't share the same pipe. Please include links to support your claim. I am very interested in reading about it.

As far as I can tell (from Apple.com, ArsTechnica.com and other sites) the dual G4's share a single MaxBus to the System Controler. The System Controler then handles separate busses to the PCI slots, DDR RAM, ATA100 drives and other things - but the 2 processors share the pipe to the system controller.

Please, prove me wong here. (I don't think I am though)

[wdlove]

Originally posted by Death2PCs
IF, and a big IF... apple uses this processor itll be atleast untill MWSF 04. theres no mid this year or anything.

its too big of an announcement not to do at apples biggest show.

Has Apple made a decison yet regarding MWNY in July?

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by wdlove
Has Apple made a decison yet regarding MWNY in July?
I thought that issue was for the 2004 Summer MacWorld, not this years. Right?

[MorganX]

Originally posted by macphoria
It doesn't matter whether Pentium 4 goes over 4Ghz. Intel just released news that they were coming out with a new mobile chip that actually has lower Ghz rating but better performance, suggesting speed doesn't mean everything. Sounds familiar? I do not have all the information on new 64 bit chips that AMD and Intel are workign on, but I doubt they will start out at 4Ghz. It might be higher than IBM's 970, but still I think if 970 can hit the market first, it will have good chance of catching up and competing.

Prescott will be for desktops and have 1MB on die cache and an 800MHz FSB. Oh, and hyperthreading too.

Too bad OS X doesn't run on PC hardware. I think even IBM will have a hard time catching Intel.

[ffakr]

Originally posted by MorganX
Prescott will be for desktops and have 1MB on die cache and an 800MHz FSB. Oh, and hyperthreading too.

Too bad OS X doesn't run on PC hardware. I think even IBM will have a hard time catching Intel.
but it will still be the P4 core.
Unfortunately, memory bus is tied to the processor bus... thats why the memory on current P4s is only DDR 266MHz... as in 133MHz x4 = 533MHz bus and 133MHz x2 = DDR266 memory.
The QDR 800 MHz bus on the upcomming P4s will ensure that the memory Bus will be DDR400. It doesn't matter if 333 CAS2 seems to perform as well or better for less, and it doesn't matter that faster memory may become available in the future.

...and the bus on the 970 is half the speed of the processor... so the 1.8GHz part will have a 900MHz processor bus, the 2 Gig part will have a 1Gig Bus... and it can use its choice of memory.

Prescott will be a smoking chip, but so will Opteron and the 970. :-)

[PyroTurtle]

i'm only concerned with laptops as of now...
desktops will be powerful enough and this is the first time in my life i can remember saying that most computers are fast enough in general for my needs...however, laptops need a nice cool proc that runs friggin fast...that's all i want these new IBM chips to do...along with run at 10THz of cource as well, and not burn my legs off after 15 minutes of use....

[ddtlm]

ffakr:

Unfortunately, memory bus is tied to the processor bus...
This is not the case at all. There are P4's with 533mhz FSBs and DDR-333.

...and the bus on the 970 is half the speed of the processor... so the 1.8GHz part will have a 900MHz processor bus, the 2 Gig part will have a 1Gig Bus... and it can use its choice of memory.
IBM's own PPC-970 pdf claims "up to" 900mhz, and also the FSB can apparently clock at integer fractions of the core speed other than 1/2 (read that in an Arstechnica article).

Actually, I know that Apple has an individual bus for each processor. They went out of their way to point this out recently. Athlons do the same, but I'm not sure if Intel does or not.
You should definately find evidence of this. Intel uses a shared bus, even on Itaniums (although they have multile shared busses for the big machines).

[wdlove]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
I thought that issue was for the 2004 Summer MacWorld, not this years. Right?

The last that I read on the subject, Boston Globe. IDG and Apple are having intense negotiations about MWNY 2003. Apple has only agreed to MWSF. Has anyone heard anything more recent?

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by wdlove
The last that I read on the subject, Boston Globe. IDG and Apple are having intense negotiations about MWNY 2003. Apple has only agreed to MWSF. Has anyone heard anything more recent?
Here we go: http://news.com.com/2100-1040-962417.html

Aparently, IDG wants to move the summer 2004 MacWorld to Boston, and Apple is against it. Because of that, Apple is "reevaluating" participation in MWNY this year.

[evoluzione]

Originally posted by DavPeanut
What, thats all? I have a TI-83+ graphing calculator. Oh, and get this. My school has a bunch of TI-81 graphing calculators. They'll bet you any day at graphing y=x.

Or maybe only the days your computer is Defraging.



damn, you just reminded me of one of my first 'puters. a TI-99-4A lol

[wdlove]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
Here we go: http://news.com.com/2100-1040-962417.html

Aparently, IDG wants to move the summer 2004 MacWorld to Boston, and Apple is against it. Because of that, Apple is "reevaluating" participation in MWNY this year.

I would think they will need to be making a decison soon. Plans for the exhibition hall, exhibitors, & Mac Fans!

[mathiasr]

Originally posted by Frobozz
However, since they've already done the Power4 -> 970 conversion, perhaps a Power5 -> 980 conversion would be shorter. They may learn a lot about the process. However, just because a chip is available, doesn't mean Apple will use it. If they are getting yields of the 970's running at 3.6+ GHz in 2 years (double intro speed?), I would assume they'd milk it until it's dry. After all, once they eek out enough performance from the 970, they can migrate it to lower end systems, cost permitting, and slap in a 980 in the high end.
The problem is that pushing the GHz of the 970 is not an efficient way to get more power out of the CPU, memory latencies will grow and grow...
That's why IBM will add SMT features to the POWER5, it will hide memory latencies. Since the PowerPC 970 is expected to run at even faster clock speeds than the POWER4 line, it would benefit from SMT sooner. I would not by surprised if IBM introduces the 980 only 4 or 6 months after the POWER5.

[Cubeboy]

How fast Intel decides to ramp up the clockspeeds of Prescott (Pentium 5) would depend on how much competition their getting from Athlon 64. Due to .09 micron process and strained silicon, the Prescott will be able to scale to 5.20 ghzs without any problems. However unless Athlon 64 completely blows the roof off performance-wise (which is dubious), I doubt you'll see a 5+ ghz Prescott anytime soon. Remember, the longer you keep a processor on the market, the more money you rake in, constantly upgrading processors cuts into profits, Intel will try to ramp up clockspeeds in such a way as to maximize profits while still offering products that compete very well with AMD's offerings.

[Cubeboy]

Regarding PPC970's competitiveness, I have no doubt that it will compete very well with Prescott and Hammer, remember, the current clock speeds are for a .13 PPC970, with .09 micron process, the 970 will be able to scale far higher, probably to at least 3 ghzs making it very competitive to the Prescott.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by esome
great. we're drooling over the power 5 now and the toned-down version of the power 4 that we _hope_ will be in Macs sometime in early 2004 (maybe) is still a pipe dream. :rolleyes:

Uh... early 2004? Perhaps you've not been paying attention, but it seems not too far fetched that we'd see the first 970s announced in about a month, as in mid-2003. In any event, from what information there is, it seems an easy piece of reasoning that Apple will use the 970, and that IBM is ahead of schedule with it (originally projected as having production shipments around Q3 or Q4 '03). So, I'm optomistic...


50...

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Swift
I have it on good authority that not only will this happen before the end of the year, but it will blow your socks off, and there's a several-year development plan already in operation. Starting very soon, it'll be back to the days when the G3 COULD toast the Pentium II. And that's just the beginning.

Oh boy, I hope that your 'good authority' is dead on...


Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
...Knowing IBM and their amazing R&D, I'd say that Apple is in for quite a ride over the next few years and should consistently pound Intel chips in performance by this time next year. OS X will likely also increase in efficiency, especially when the Power5 derivative is introduced.

And this is one ride that I'm looking forward to. (I hope that I'm not disappointed by it...) :D


49...

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by JtheLemur
... So far, Apple has NOT said that they'd use a 970, IBM has NOT said Apple is purchasing X thousands of them, and so forth.

The one thing that IBM HAS said is that the 970 tops at about 1.8GHz...

Please. Apple and IBM are not going to announce this until they're at least almost ready to ship it.

And, as for the 1.8GHz, there have already been some reports that the 130nm 970s can be clocked up to 2.5GHz. So, they clearly are not 'topping out' at 1.8GHz.


48...

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by ktlx
Even if IBM executes on the PPC 970 flawlessly, IBM still has to convince people that AIX/PPC or Linux/PPC is as good or better as Linux/x86-64 for blade servers and workstations. If they are not successful, then the PPC 970 turns into a processor for Apple and the telecom market. Just like the G4.

This will completely depend on the cost of implementation. Most Linux users that I've talk to have said that they frequently prefer to use PPC Linux because the hardware quality tends to be so much better. Beyond that, there is little difference. So, if dollar for dollar you can get an equivalent system under PPC Linux and x86-64 Linux, then there's no reason why IBM shouldn't ship exclusively PPC based servers, and every reason why they should (in house control of the main chip, etc.)


47...

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Death2PCs
IF, and a big IF... apple uses this processor itll be atleast untill MWSF 04. theres no mid this year or anything.

its too big of an announcement not to do at apples biggest show.

I really don't understand what the basis of your argument is. There is every reason for Apple to ship these new machines as soon as they can. If that meant having a special press event to announce them (a la, iTMS), then they would likely do that. Apple is painfully aware of the fact that their Pro- hardware is behind the times, and waiting for the 'biggest show' certainly isn't going to help them with that.


46...

[wdlove]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Uh... early 2004? Perhaps you've not been paying attention, but it seems not too far fetched that we'd see the first 970s announced in about a month, as in mid-2003. In any event, from what information there is, it seems an easy piece of reasoning that Apple will use the 970, and that IBM is ahead of schedule with it (originally projected as having production shipments around Q3 or Q4 '03). So, I'm optomistic...


50...

That is music to my ears, thanks! :cool:

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by wdlove
That is music to my ears, thanks! :cool:

Always a pleasure to be of service... :)


44...