CeBit: PPC 970's up to 1.8GHz [Archive]

MacManiac1224

Mar 12, 2003, 09:00 AM

I translated it through google:
-------
Surprisingly we had to state that the conception of the PPC 970 already announced in the apron was unfortunately called off. On demand we experienced that the expected processor (2.3 to 2.5 GHz) represents the view on the processor generation after the next and not on an imminent appearance to be counted is. PPC 970 processors (still in 0,13 Micron manufactured, applies also to for the coming 2.3/2.5 GHz processor) with an achievement of up to 1,8 GHz, which could be blocked according to IBM also by Apple in the future, is current. But one always does not know more details like.
--------

the translation is a little wierd, but that last line about Apple blocking the 1.8Ghz processor, that bothers me, I had a feeling they might do something like that, holding the processor back so they can make thier modest jumps and pump the market for a constant flow of money. I could be wrong,

[Admin Edit: Please see full translation below]

What do you guys think?

arn

Mar 12, 2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by MacManiac1224
What do you guys think?

I think we need a real translation. You're making a lot of assumptions based on an automated translation.

jamilecrire

Mar 12, 2003, 09:15 AM

Has anyone tried to price comparable 64bit platforms? A dual 1.05GHz Sun Blade 2000 is $19,995. My guess is this is going to hurt Sun (sunw) bigtime.

Oracle is in RC 2 stage (forever) but I would be willing to bet the cost analysis of an XServe with dual 1.8Ghz versus a comparable Sun machine will scare the hell out of them (sun).

Most business I've been in run Solaris (64bit) for database applications. If Apple can enter this market aggressively and quit the guessing games so business can plan, there could be a very bright future for enterprise apple computers afterall. Granted this is just my dream. Apple will have to stick with it for 5+ years before most businesses will even let them in the door. If they can create a sales team (like IBM, Sun, MS, etc have) that demonstrates their systems that are: faster, cheaper, higher quality, and stable, they will turn some heads.

Oh well, guess we'll all have to wait and see. BTW anyone heard anything about the 15" Aluminum Powerbooks? I'm getting tired of waiting (maybe they are waiting on the 17" to actually ship).

cuby

Mar 12, 2003, 09:22 AM

This is a quick translation of the part of the macguardians article re the PPC970:

"Surprisingly we had to realise that the presentation of the PPC970, as announced before, unfortunately was cancelled. Upon request, we found out that the expected processor (2.3 to 2.5 GHz) is just a preview on the next but one processor generation and that one should not expect it anytime soon. Currently, PPC970 CPUs (still manufactured in 0.13 µm, like the upcoming 2.3/2.5 GHz CPU) are available in speeds up to 1.8 GHz that - according to IBM - might be used by Apple in the future. Exact information on this is still not available."

Hope that helps,
Michael

Masker

Mar 12, 2003, 09:27 AM

Pretty much all I can say is: bring it on! :D I don't care if it's a 1.8 GHz processor, especially if it's a dual architecture. I want a new processor so that the FUTURE of Macs will be as bright as possible. Yes, of course it would be better if Apple came out with 2.5 GHz PowerMacs, but really, it doesn't matter as long as they lose the G4 and LONG TERM, the 970 can be a viable processor, scaling to higher clock rates with smaller processes. I frankly don't understand the people who say that 1.8 is unacceptable. If it's this processor, I really don't care. Of course, dual would be better, too.

My only concern at this point is cost. But hopefulyl Apple will realize that they need to price slightly lower than current PowerMacs (as they do with most every rev.) to sell these & that they can't charge a huge premium just because it's a swanky new processor.

Escher

Mar 12, 2003, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by arn
As always, full human German translation would be appreciated.

Well, here's the original German passage relevant to IBM's PPC 970 and Apple:

Erstaunlicherweise mussten wir feststellen, dass die schon im Vorfeld angekündigte Vorstellung des PPC 970 leider abgesagt wurde. Auf Nachfrage erfuhren wir, dass der erwartete Prozessor (2,3 bis 2,5 GHz) den Ausblick auf die übernächste Prozessor-Generation darstellt und nicht mit einem baldigen Erscheinen zu rechnen ist. Aktuell sind PPC 970 Prozessoren (nach wie vor in 0,13 Mikron gefertigt, das gilt auch für den kommenden 2,3/2,5 GHz Prozessor) mit einer Leistung von bis zu 1,8 GHz, die laut IBM auch von Apple in Zukunft verbaut werden könnten. Aber Genaueres weiß man wie immer nicht.

And here's my human translation:

Surprisingly, we found out that the PPC presentation announced in advance [of CeBIT] was cancelled. [Could this have been at Apple's request?] When we asked, we learned that the expected processor (2.3 to 2.5 Ghz) was actually the generation after the next , and that we should thus not expect an introduction [of the 2+ Ghz iron] anytime soon. According to IBM, "current" PPC 970 processors (still produced with a .13 micronc process, which applies to the upcoming 2.3/2.5 Ghz processor as well), clocking up to 1.8 Ghz, [i]could be used by Apple in the future. As always, however, it has been impossible to optain more detailed information.

As convention demands, text in square brackets represents my own additions.

HTH,
Escher

Escher

Mar 12, 2003, 09:34 AM

PS: The two MacGuardians state that they have scheduled an interview with a Microsoft representative for tomorrow. They also state at the bottom of the page that they'll post a full first-day report by this evening.

nuckinfutz

Mar 12, 2003, 09:37 AM

Well that proves it. The 970 "will" hit 2.3-2.5 on .13um. That bodes well for the .09um parts that will most likely be coming late next year.

I would like to see Apple at least have one Dual 970 based system if not all. That level of speed increase in Macs would generate a frenzy ...even in this weak economy.

leo

Mar 12, 2003, 09:42 AM

which could be blocked according to IBM also by Apple

The google-translation ist wrong here...
It's not "blocked" it's "deployed" or "utilized". The original word "verbaut" is a bit slangy...

edit: Oh, somebody made a complete and accurate translation. I apologize.

Kid Red

Mar 12, 2003, 09:53 AM

So it sounds like we are getting more and more (possible) credible info about the 970 coming this year. I can't wait.

Mr. Anderson

Mar 12, 2003, 09:56 AM

That's all well and good - but will a single 1.8 ghz be fast enough or will they have to go to the dual 1.8 to be at or above a Wintel platform?

I really would like to see how well the 1.8 does in speed compared to a 3 GHz Intel....but I'll just have to wait like everyone else.

D

stonysleep

Mar 12, 2003, 09:58 AM

I'm not bothered about the speed. I dont replace my mac too often but when i do i try to do so when a new processor comes out. My current G4 probably has another year in it, and the more i read about the 970, the more i think this is going to be my next mac's processor.

I thought the ZDnet article was lazy journalism and certainly falling victim to what jobs & co call the Megahertz Myth. I dont think u can really compare speeds of a 64bit RISC processor (PPC970) to a 32bit CISC processor (Pentium 4).

At the moment a 64bit 1.8GHz IBM processor would def hit the spot nicely. I kinda feel more towards IBM than Motorola these days - dont ask me why - maybe cos motorola strikes me as that company that makes mobile phones and all sorts of stuff, whereas IBM i think computer chips.

Since the G4 came out we've seen longer pipelines, more heat -> bigger heatsinks and fans. On the plus side, the gigaflops have gone up from 2 to 21 and the speed from 0.5 GHz to nearly 1.5 GHz.

I'm still thinking that this IBM processor is gonna be good for a few years - i really was worried 3 months ago that i would find myself buying a windows box when i replaced my G4 - so IBM bring it on!!

waterbouy

Mar 12, 2003, 10:02 AM

Arn is right.

The automatice translation does not manage contextual references. Look in a thesaurus under blocked...

nuckinfutz

Mar 12, 2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by Kid Red
So it sounds like we are getting more and more (possible) credible info about the 970 coming this year. I can't wait.

Duke:

A Pentium4 3Ghz will score roughly

SpecFP- 1077
SpecInt- 1099

A PPC 970 is estimated at:
SpecFP- 1050
SpecInt-937

So we're "riiiiiiiight" there. But Intel has Prescott coming which should bump their scores by 10-15%

At any rate if Apple could/would ship a Dual 1.8Ghz Machine for a decent (say $3499) price loaded. It would FLY!!!

Nemesis

Mar 12, 2003, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Duke:

A Pentium4 3Ghz will score roughly

SpecFP- 1077
SpecInt- 1099

A PPC 970 is estimated at:
SpecFP- 1050
SpecInt-937

So we're "riiiiiiiight" there. But Intel has Prescott coming which should bump their scores by 10-15%

SpecFP and SpecInt are designed for single core CPUs. 970 can be multicore, 2 way, 4 way, etc., so all comparisons are in vain.

Stop comparing apples and oranges. :) Those tests mean absolutely nothing.

But one thing is certain: 970 will rock!!!
:D

arn

Mar 12, 2003, 10:28 AM

scem0

Mar 12, 2003, 10:37 AM

This just confirms what I thought would happen. I can't wait for
these to come up, and the speed bump to 2.5 GHz (if that
happens) will be..... fun. ;).

Vroem

Mar 12, 2003, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
[B]Duke:

A Pentium4 3Ghz will score roughly

SpecFP- 1077
SpecInt- 1099

A PPC 970 is estimated at:
SpecFP- 1050
SpecInt-937

Correct me if I'm wrong but these results do not include altivec. So will there be any improvements in the 970 (besides the 64-bit registers) that will affect altivec performance. Because from what I read, the altivec registers will stay at 128-bit.

Hattig

Mar 12, 2003, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Nemesis
SpecFP and SpecInt are designed for single core CPUs. 970 can be multicore, 2 way, 4 way, etc., so all comparisons are in vain.

Stop comparing apples and oranges. :) Those tests mean absolutely nothing.

But one thing is certain: 970 will rock!!!
:D

PPC970 is single core.

P4 3.06GHz can have SMT however ... which gives a great advantage when the OS is optimised for it, as shown by the latest beta Linux 2.5 kernels.

So the P4 is the one being underrepresented by SPECInt and SPECFP, all things considered.

At least the 970 will bring the PowerPC back into the same league as the P4 and Athlon though. If they could get it to 2GHz on the initial run instead of 1.8GHz, the extra performance should keep it competitive with the 3.2GHz P4 that will be out at the same time.

Alternatively, the price could be a lot lower, and Apple could just dump two of the processors into each top-end system.

nuckinfutz

Mar 12, 2003, 10:43 AM

Duly Noted.

As Arn says IBM has never stated anything about the PPC 970 being anything other than Single Core.

Spec marks are not conclusive and they don't take into effect Altivec but nonetheless it's an important distinction regardless. Note I did say "Estimated" so the actual Spec numbers could be higher or lower.

My personal belief is that the 970 remains single core and perhaps is amended with SMT late 2004.

I believe that if there indeed is a 980 based on a "Lite" version of the Power5. It will have dual cores and hopefully support SMT per core. Now THAT would rock but we're probably talking mid 2005 here. Can't wait to run iMovie 5.5 on that ! ;)

kenohki

Mar 12, 2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by jamilecrire
Has anyone tried to price comparable 64bit platforms? A dual 1.05GHz Sun Blade 2000 is $19,995. My guess is this is going to hurt Sun (sunw) bigtime.

Oracle is in RC 2 stage (forever) but I would be willing to bet the cost analysis of an XServe with dual 1.8Ghz versus a comparable Sun machine will scare the hell out of them (sun).

It would probably compete well with Sun on the low end as UltraSPARC isn't very impressive with just a few nodes. But Apple couldn't compete on the high end TPC-H and TPC-R benchmarks like the big iron (StarFire and Starcat) can. And even Sun has been getting their butt kicked up there by IBM and HP.

Apple's arena is TPC-C and TPC-W (OLTP) and MS SQL Server has been kicking butt and taking names. SQL Server rules the roost in OLTP and combined with cheap Dell boxes, it rules in price/transaction as well. Unfortunately, we can't convince MS for a port so we'll have to hope that Apple comes up with something good.

But, I guess it's better than where we were yesteryear. At least there's Sybase and Oracle (soon) on the platform.

scem0

Mar 12, 2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Vroem
Correct me if I'm wrong but these results do not include altivec. So will there be any improvements in the 970 (besides the 64-bit registers) that will affect altivec performance. Because from what I read, the altivec registers will stay at 128-bit.

That is a good observation. Hopefully AltiVec will make a big
difference in applications able to take advantage of it. I would
love to see how quickly photoshop runs on one of these ;).

copperpipe

Mar 12, 2003, 10:52 AM

this processor has this advantage, and that processor has that advantage! Blahger flooth!

All I know is I have a duel 867 G4 and it kicks major butt. Design graphics that are 24 inches by 36 inches 300 dpi and I am cruising! Now I imagine a duel 1.42 has got to be unbelievable speed. Now let's say I change the architecture to the next gen, and bump it to 1.8 ghz? Oh my god.

My question to anyone here is this:

What type of work are you doing on a mac that requires more speed than that? There must be something, but I just can't figure out what it is...

Nemesis

Mar 12, 2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Duly Noted.

As Arn says IBM has never stated anything about the PPC 970 being anything other than Single Core.

Spec marks are not conclusive and they don't take into effect Altivec but nonetheless it's an important distinction regardless. Note I did say "Estimated" so the actual Spec numbers could be higher or lower.

My personal belief is that the 970 remains single core and perhaps is amended with SMT late 2004.

I believe that if there indeed is a 980 based on a "Lite" version of the Power5. It will have dual cores and hopefully support SMT per core. Now THAT would rock but we're probably talking mid 2005 here. Can't wait to run iMovie 5.5 on that ! ;)

970 could be multicore, as stated by Ars Technica, and also according to IBM, but it seems that now it is not. It is more likely it will appear firstly in n-way systems.

Still, Spec marks mean nothing. Real life is something completely different.

Spec marks can be compared on processors that utilise similar design and are running same software. Then you have the nice comparison.

Pentium III and Pentium II running Win98 can be compared in that way, but not 970 and Pentium IV, running OS X and XP, both compiled using completely different compilers.

It's like comparing apples to pears. Similar they are, but they taste different.

nuckinfutz

Mar 12, 2003, 10:57 AM

What type of work are you doing on a mac that requires more speed than that? There must be something, but I just can't figure out what it is...

I'll be doing Audio on my next Mac and Video. Both require Rendering(Video) and plugins for audio like Altiverb which require some serious horsepower to have them function correctly. Any boost in speed will be beneficial.

Still, Spec marks mean nothing. Real life is something completely different.

True but most benchmarks have serious deficiencies. Spec is no different. For years there were rumors that Intel optimized their Reference Compiler to produce great Spec scores but they didn't necessarily trasmit into better application performance.

However Spec is still a noteworthry benchmark to ascertain a BASE level of performance. And that makes it a valid comparison.

kenohki

Mar 12, 2003, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by nuckinfutz

My personal belief is that the 970 remains single core and perhaps is amended with SMT late 2004.

I believe that if there indeed is a 980 based on a "Lite" version of the Power5. It will have dual cores and hopefully support SMT per core. Now THAT would rock but we're probably talking mid 2005 here. Can't wait to run iMovie 5.5 on that ! ;)

I wouldn't ever look for a 970 with SMT. The POWER5 will have SMT as well as FastPath. Considering that it appears that IBM's strategy is for a trickle-down effect from the POWER series to the PowerPC, I'd expect to see SMT only with POWER5 or a PowerPC variant of it. With POWER5 actually booting code at this point, it doesn't make all that much sense to throw money at the POWER4 architecture when POWER5 is estimated to be multiple times faster than POWER4 and already includes SMT.

scem0

Mar 12, 2003, 11:00 AM

Forgive me for my lack of microprocessor knowledge, but what
exactly is multicore, and what are the advantages of it (and
disadvantages, if any)? I know there are already multicore
high end chips, but do we really want them in powermacs?
Would they make the price go up so much that it isn't worth
it? I understand that speed is very important when it comes
to computers, but to people like me, price is even more important
and if apple tries to put a very expensive processor, it won't
sell to people who can't afford it - despite having a fast, multi-
cored processor.

Edit: SMT? What exactly is that? Sorry, again, for asking so many
questions, but I just don't know about microprocessors, but I am
very interested to learn.

leo

Mar 12, 2003, 11:04 AM

SpecFP and SpecInt are designed for single core CPUs. 970 can be multicore, 2 way, 4 way, etc., so all comparisons are in vain.

Stop comparing apples and oranges. Those tests mean absolutely nothing.

nuckinfutz' comparison ist absolutely valid for computationally intensive tasks. Duals can be twice as fast AT MAX. Considering that the Intel Xeon-processors (Pentium 4's SMP-brother) reach up to 3.06 Ghz TODAY...

http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/2107221

...and can be purchased in 2,4,8,16-way configurations TODAY (expensive, though)...

http://www.itworld.com/Comp/1361/021218ibmxeon/

... Apple needs the 970 just to keep the pace in the desktop market, and to survive in the server market.

I have experienced that the SpecInt and SpecFP benchmarks have always been a very reliable measure, at least for my purposes (numerics).

scem0

Mar 12, 2003, 11:07 AM

And to bring something else up - will apple have the standard,
three configurations? If apple puts a single processor in the 3
models (fast, faster, and fastest) then maybe it would be smart
for them to put dual processors in the 'ultimate' model, which
would be pricey, but very fast.

nuckinfutz

Mar 12, 2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by scem0
Forgive me for my lack of microprocessor knowledge, but what
exactly is multicore, and what are the advantages of it (and
disadvantages, if any)? I know there are already multicore
high end chips, but do we really want them in powermacs?
Would they make the price go up so much that it isn't worth
it? I understand that speed is very important when it comes
to computers, but to people like me, price is even more important
and if apple tries to put a very expensive processor, it won't
sell to people who can't afford it - despite having a fast, multi-
cored processor.

Scem0-

Multiple Cores are the basically two CPU cores on the same die. They generally will share cache. Multiple Cores are beneficial and in many way preferrable to two seperate chips. Since the cores are on the same die the packaging is smaller. Cache Coherency is more efficient(not Motherboard traces needed).

Rather than trying to build a behemoth motherboard with Quad Processors a System Designer can duplicate the same thing using two Dual Core proces in a SMP configuration. Saves MB real estate and complexity.

Next you add in Multithreading to each core and you've damn near doubled again! Think about that. 4 total cores...multithreadin...you know have almost a 8 CPU(logical) system!!! yet you're only using Two physical chips.

This is the future. Intel, IBM, Sun and anyone else serious about CPU's will be attempting to go multicore and thread the cores like mad.

kenohki

Mar 12, 2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by scem0
Forgive me for my lack of microprocessor knowledge, but what
exactly is multicore, and what are the advantages of it (and
disadvantages, if any)? I know there are already multicore
high end chips, but do we really want them in powermacs?
Would they make the price go up so much that it isn't worth
it? I understand that speed is very important when it comes
to computers, but to people like me, price is even more important
and if apple tries to put a very expensive processor, it won't
sell to people who can't afford it - despite having a fast, multi-
cored processor.

Multicore just means that there are two processor cores on one "chip".

And in regard to the comments about the PowerPC 970 moving to multi-core...

I sincerely doubt that will happen. If you've actually seen the block diagram of the POWER4, there is a hell of a lot of interconnection fabric (die to die and chip to chip) as well as cache control logic. That logic, combined with the massive cache needed to feed a dual core chip, is what keeps the price so prohibitively expensive. And that stuff is the kind of stuff you would need for a dual-core PowerPC 970 that isn't crippled as hell. It would be a POWER4 with VMX/AltiVec and it would be out of our price range.

Snowy_River

Mar 12, 2003, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by copperpipe
What type of work are you doing on a mac that requires more speed than that? There must be something, but I just can't figure out what it is...

Well, I do 3D modeling design work (as in CAD, not animation), and molecular interaction simulations. These are slow on the fastest machines. So, I'm definitely looking forward to being able to buy a faster machine.

scem0

Mar 12, 2003, 11:50 AM

Another thing I would like to add-
I hope they change the name when they release it. It won't be
a g4 so don't be saying that there are 'new G4's'. While calling
it a G5 isn't exactly true, it would follow the current naming
scheme, and raise some eyebrown, and open some people's
wallets. ;)

copperpipe

Mar 12, 2003, 11:53 AM

we need the speed of the upcoming 970 to be faster than 1.8 ghz for programs like:

Really, REALLY crazy sound stuff (my roomate is really into sound with his G4 867 and reports no problems)

Making professional movies, or computer animation (which, if you're into that, you probably run on a server)

maybe intense 3D rendering? maybe?

I'm just curious about what the huge fuss is about...

arn

Mar 12, 2003, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by copperpipe

I'm just curious about what the huge fuss is about...

obviously for home users, benefits of much faster processors are less apparent.

But there are many proffesional users... where saving time is the same as saving money. Whether that be running photoshop filters, rendering 3d scenes... anything that takes longer than "instantaneously" presently can be speeded up with faster processors.

arn

pilotgi

Mar 12, 2003, 12:04 PM

SMT: simultaneous multithreading

webopedia.com for all your tech terms.

job

Mar 12, 2003, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by copperpipe
I'm just curious about what the huge fuss is about...

See that's my dilemma too.

I'm looking for a new tower, but won't be able to buy one until October.

All I currently do on my machine is basic text stuff, light Photoshop and Dreamweaver work, and games. A lot of games.

Do I really need a 970 for that? No, a dual G4 system with enough RAM and decent GPU would be more than enough.

For me it's a price issue. If they release 970s within my budget, I might go for one (pure bragging rights ;)) but as it stands right now, I'm not sure if a)Apple will actually use the chip, and b) if the pricing sceme will stay the same.

arn

Mar 12, 2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by hitman

For me it's a price issue. If they release 970s within my budget, I might go for one (pure bragging rights ;)) but as it stands right now, I'm not sure if a)Apple will actually use the chip, and b) if the pricing sceme will stay the same.

regardless of whether or not they drop prices... you will be able to get a faster computer for the same price when new machines come out...

this is always going to be true however, the longer you wait.

arn

nuckinfutz

Mar 12, 2003, 12:10 PM

I don't plan to be in a position to be able to afford a PPC 970 system if they become reality.

But I do know that I could still be the indirect beneficiary of them being announced and shipped.

Apple, by moving the Pro Macs to PPC 970s, would be able to increase the speed of their G4 based machines without the fear of treading and cannabilizing sales of Powermacs.

iMacs suddenly could use the fastest G4's available bumping the low end units nicely.

eMacs and iBooks all could benefit. I'd still accept a G4 based machine. I just want it as fast as possible for the money.

PyroTurtle

Mar 12, 2003, 12:11 PM

so, get the 970 over, pixar ports RenderMan over to OS X, and buys a ton of XServes and Ultimate PowerMacs and that covers R&D ;)
i just wish i had renderman period...i love that app, too much money for me though...and yes, pixar would need that much render speed...heck, you do for audio alone, and then add in video?!
just my thoughts...

MOM

Mar 12, 2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by copperpipe

My question to anyone here is this:

What type of work are you doing on a mac that requires more speed than that? There must be something, but I just can't figure out what it is...

I play around with Studio Artist. Once you start working with video, rotoscoping/re-drawing each frame, no computer is fast enough. Its a great program and the things it can do are amazing, but slow.

dongmin

Mar 12, 2003, 12:14 PM

Surprisingly, we found out that the PPC presentation announced in advance [of CeBIT] was cancelled. When we asked, we learned that the expected processor (2.3 to 2.5 Ghz) was actually the generation after the next , and that we should thus not expect an introduction [of the 2+ Ghz iron] anytime soon. According to IBM, "current" PPC 970 processors (still produced with a .13 micronc process, which applies to the upcoming 2.3/2.5 Ghz processor as well), clocking up to 1.8 Ghz, [i]could be used by Apple in the future. As always, however, it has been impossible to optain more detailed information.

What kind of track record does this MacGuardian have? I´m skeptical that IBM would be so forthcoming in detailing their current development to a rumor organization.

Assuming that all this is true, that Apple indeed is releasing a 1.8 ghz PPC970 system this summer/fall, the next big question becomes What´s the rest of the motherboard gonna look like? Will Apple go all out and put in a 900 mhz bus or cripple it in order to save costs? What kind of memory will Apple put in?

MOM

Mar 12, 2003, 12:16 PM

3G4N

Mar 12, 2003, 12:20 PM

many (myself included) need the 970 for
2D and 3D rendering, video compositing,
editing, and compression - all time-intensive.
...and a professional-strength 3D video card
(nVidia Quadro or better) for 3D modeling.

scem0

Mar 12, 2003, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by MOM
I hope Apple keeps the dual processors. The only way software is going to be optimized for dual processors is that Apple consistently provides dual processors. If they drop back to single chips (they did this before remember) then the software companies are not going to bother optimizing for duals.

yeah, I hope they keep dual processors, unless that gets too
expensive. THey should always have a cheat sub $1500 model,
for 15 year old computer lovers who are forced to buy their own
computers :rolleyes: ;). Dual processors are great, but if Apple
has to raise the price by a lot, then I say dump them. But if
the price just goes up by a little, keep them.

BenRoethig

Mar 12, 2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by dongmin
What kind of track record does this MacGuardian have? I´m skeptical that IBM would be so forthcoming in detailing their current development to a rumor organization.

Assuming that all this is true, that Apple indeed is releasing a 1.8 ghz PPC970 system this summer/fall, the next big question becomes What´s the rest of the motherboard gonna look like? Will Apple go all out and put in a 900 mhz bus or cripple it in order to save costs? What kind of memory will Apple put in?

Hopefully Apple will use PC3200 or PC3500 for RAM. As for motherboards, I would expect 1 8x AGP slot, 4 PCI slots, mini-PCI for Airport Extreme, 2 FW400, 2 FW 800, 4 USB 2.0, highend on board sound. I wouldn'y be surprised to also see 2 USB 2.0 and 1 FW400 port in front.

ryan

Mar 12, 2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by MOM
I hope Apple keeps the dual processors. The only way software is going to be optimized for dual processors is that Apple consistently provides dual processors. If they drop back to single chips (they did this before remember) then the software companies are not going to bother optimizing for duals. I'd like to see them adopt more of a Dell approach, where the machines come with single processors and then you can add an additional processor for a couple, to several hundred dollars more. I would suspect that some people would be willing to have two slower processors, while some would like to have a single faster processor.

For the kind of development work I do, Java/Web/database, I don't push any one program real hard but I always have several programs going. So, I've found that I get a greater amount of benefit from having multiple (relatively) slower processors than a single fast one.

job

Mar 12, 2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
I'd still accept a G4 based machine.

Same here.

If Apple keeps one or two low end tower configs running with dual G4s I'd go for that.

The G4 is a fine chip in it's own right, but like you said, I would "want it as fast as possible for the money."

-hh

Mar 12, 2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by copperpipe
we need the speed of the upcoming 970 to be faster than 1.8 ghz for programs like:

{...}

I'm just curious about what the huge fuss is about...

I do adjustment & retouching of scanned photo's in Photoshop, and any time that I need "serious levels" of resolution and size, it becomes very painful very quick.

For example, I was tossing around this AM a ~5"x7" original that I scanned at 1200dpi; it was roughly a 50MB RGB file.

If I wanted to bump its resolution up to 2400dpi, the file size would immediately quadruple, and the resulting file manipulations that I may want to do accordingly take 4x longer.

And if it had been an 8"x12" original, well, they're nearly 3x the size of a 5x7. More fun.

The serious pain doesn't start until its both big and high dpi. Its simply not that hard anymore to end up with a half Gigabyte file to try to push around.

My hardware's old, so I avoid doing this whenever possible - the times I have done it, my processing time was measured in hours, mostly because I'd do an operation ... go do something else for a half hour, come back and check on it ... do the next operation, etc.

Perhaps someone with the latest hardware can say how long it takes to run a really simple workflow process, say: (a) fetch a 0.5GB file from hard disk, (b) run auto-balance, (c) run auto-contrast, (d) save new copy to back to disk. Personally, I'd be very surprised if it was <45 seconds, even without the disk I/O.

FWIW, I have a coworker who's running some serious Modeling on a Pentium platform...on a DP 2GHz, it takes ~3.5 days per iteration to run. While this isn't Mac-centric, we are shopping for something a lot faster that's within our budgetary price range...there are needs out there. As it currently stands, we're looking at a 3GHz PC as a stopgap, if for no other reason than it should chop nearly a day off of each run.

-hh

liloconf

Mar 12, 2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Hattig
PPC970 is single core.

P4 3.06GHz can have SMT however ... which gives a great advantage when the OS is optimised for it, as shown by the latest beta Linux 2.5 kernels.

So the P4 is the one being underrepresented by SPECInt and SPECFP, all things considered.

At least the 970 will bring the PowerPC back into the same league as the P4 and Athlon though. If they could get it to 2GHz on the initial run instead of 1.8GHz, the extra performance should keep it competitive with the 3.2GHz P4 that will be out at the same time.

Alternatively, the price could be a lot lower, and Apple could just dump two of the processors into each top-end system.

of course you forget that apple would make a 64bit osx, which would be optimized like the 2.5 kernel. With dual proc even at 1.8 that 3.2 p4 ain't got nuttin. plus keep in mind that at least 80% of pc users use windows not linux..... not sure why but thats a fact...

reyesmac

Mar 12, 2003, 01:03 PM

If it has taken this long to get a new cpu, does anyone really think they wont just put it only in the $3k model? Given their track record even if they do put this chip in the $2k model, it wont be that much faster than the G4's it is replacing. I hope I am wrong.

ryan

Mar 12, 2003, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by liloconf
of course you forget that apple would make a 64bit osx, which would be optimized like the 2.5 kernel. With dual proc even at 1.8 that 3.2 p4 ain't got nuttin. plus keep in mind that at least 80% of pc users use windows not linux..... not sure why but thats a fact... And this is exactly the reason why I think Apple will want to move their entire product line to the 970 as soon as possible. They're not going to want to support two, or even three different types of processors, especially if one is 64-bit and the other(s) is 32-bit.

yzedf

Mar 12, 2003, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by copperpipe
My question to anyone here is this:

What type of work are you doing on a mac that requires more speed than that? There must be something, but I just can't figure out what it is...

3D rendering.

1 minute instead of 1:45 really adds up after a while. especially when we are talking 2 hr render jobs!

yzedf

Mar 12, 2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by liloconf
of course you forget that apple would make a 64bit osx, which would be optimized like the 2.5 kernel. With dual proc even at 1.8 that 3.2 p4 ain't got nuttin. plus keep in mind that at least 80% of pc users use windows not linux..... not sure why but thats a fact...

more like 93-95%, of all computer users, use the OS that shipped with their machine. not accounting for "security updates" of course ;)

nuckinfutz

Mar 12, 2003, 01:15 PM

64bit vs 32bit

Doesn't really matter. The PPC 970 would support both natively. No speed hit.

I think you'll find ALL the Powermacs using 970's. It would be easy for them to offer 1.4/1.6/1.8Ghz machines. Either Single or Dual. Even the base 1.4Ghz Powermac would stomp all over the 1.4Ghz G4.

Apple is going to attempt to get marketshare. They need to ship Macs like they haven't in years.

I hope they can hit 10Billion in revenue. That will take selling lot's of Powermacs and focusing on shipments rather than Gross Margins.

Developers won't be keen on Apple until their numbers improve. NEW Developers that is. VC is almost impossible to get for a Mac only product.

Kid Red

Mar 12, 2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by reyesmac
If it has taken this long to get a new cpu, does anyone really think they wont just put it only in the $3k model? Given their track record even if they do put this chip in the $2k model, it wont be that much faster than the G4's it is replacing. I hope I am wrong.

It won't be faster by tagged mhz, the bottom 970 should be a 1.4ghz. However, a 1.4ghz 970 would be 1.5-2x faster then a 1.4ghz G4. So the slowest 970 would kill anything Apple has ever put out. They could raise prices if they wanted to but I don't think they will. I look for current price points but would not be surprised at all to see a slight drop.

Rincewind42

Mar 12, 2003, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by scem0
And to bring something else up - will apple have the standard,
three configurations? If apple puts a single processor in the 3
models (fast, faster, and fastest) then maybe it would be smart
for them to put dual processors in the 'ultimate' model, which
would be pricey, but very fast.

From what we know about the 970 right now, the Pro line will probably be revamped to look something like this

PowerMac G5/970-
Fast: Single 1.6 Ghz
Faster: Dual 1.6 Ghz
Fastest: Dual 1.8 Ghz

PowerBook G5/970-
12", 15" Low: 1.2 Ghz
15" High, 17": 1.6 Ghz

I would expect the PowerMacs to be running PC-3200, while the PowerBooks run PC-2700. If they can push the 1.1v PPC970 up past 1.2 Ghz, then we may see faster high 15" & 17" PowerBooks, but I wouldn't hold my breath. A PPC970 based powerbook with a 1.6 Ghz PPC970 would have similar powerusage to the 1Ghz G4 but be much faster. I think that Apple will want their High end powerbooks to be as fast as their lowend towers, and I think that they will price the mid range tower to be much more attractive than the lowend (hence the same core speed with processor count differing).

Of course, this is pure speculation, so who knows how this will come to pass =).

acj

Mar 12, 2003, 03:12 PM

Another area where faster computers are necessary is professional digital photography. We now use an older 2 GHz Intel machine at work. It used to take something like 30 seconds to process a 6 mega-pixel RAW file. Now with Adobe's Camera RAW, it takes just 5-10 seconds for a 12 megapixal file. That’s still too long. 5 seconds ad up when you have to process 100-1000 files from a shoot (often daily). We also scan slides at 55MB. This is somewhere where Apple has had problems for us. It was just not productive on a Mac. I don’t remember the specs on the machine, but it was a quicksilver. It took over 10 minutes to scan the 55MB file with the same scanner. The lowly 2GHz P4 does it in a minute. Raw processing was hidiously slow too. I hope the 970 fixes this, perhaps giving a boost for things that are hard to optimize for Altevec. Just to throw something else out there, the PC has never locked up. Go figure.

phampton81

Mar 12, 2003, 03:18 PM

Rincewind42, overall, I think you are being extremely optomistic, however one thing I would love to believe is that the 12" PB will be getting the 970 before too long, then we could all finally have our g4 ibooks for around 1k instead of 2k.

jettredmont

Mar 12, 2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by copperpipe
this processor has this advantage, and that processor has that advantage! Blahger flooth!

All I know is I have a duel 867 G4 and it kicks major butt. Design graphics that are 24 inches by 36 inches 300 dpi and I am cruising! Now I imagine a duel 1.42 has got to be unbelievable speed. Now let's say I change the architecture to the next gen, and bump it to 1.8 ghz? Oh my god.

My question to anyone here is this:

What type of work are you doing on a mac that requires more speed than that? There must be something, but I just can't figure out what it is...

Personally: development. 30-45 minutes to rebuild my code just plain sucks when Windows does the same job in 5-10 (granted with a different compiler).

Others: video editing, multi-track audio editing, and of course game playing all require as much processing power as you can throw at them still. Yes, static image editing (for press or print or web) probably doesn't use every last cycle of a modern CPU, but that doesn't mean nothing does!

jettredmont

Mar 12, 2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Nemesis
Still, Spec marks mean nothing. Real life is something completely different.

Spec marks can be compared on processors that utilise similar design and are running same software. Then you have the nice comparison.

Pentium III and Pentium II running Win98 can be compared in that way, but not 970 and Pentium IV, running OS X and XP, both compiled using completely different compilers.

It's like comparing apples to pears. Similar they are, but they taste different.

Well, Spec marks mean far more than "nothing". Granted, you shouldn't base your buying decision solely on SPECint scores, but it certainly gives you a relatively unbiased view of how something is going to be performing under load.

Note, however, that SPEC tests are geared towards server applications, not photoshop and safari. If you are doing an analysis of several different maker's server hardware, SPEC numbers will certainly be a vital part of your presentation.

SPEC numbers are fairly (though of course not wholly) reliable across architectures. Going across bitness you have a little more trouble, but they're at least in the same ballpark 32-bit vs 64-bit. It is certainly valid to compare a G4's SPECint scores against a P4's scores, as unfavorable as those number are. However, as I said, that doesn't mean that the G4 at 300 specs is 1/3 as fast in what you do as the P4 at 900 specs (much more goes into overall machine performance than the processor and architecture). Likewise, comparing an UltraSparq to a Power4 is exactly what SPEC was designed to handle, although if your particular application more neatly fits in the UltraSparq's advantages than in the Power4's, you'll end up picking the (lower-scoring) hardware from Sun instead.

bikertwin

Mar 12, 2003, 03:52 PM

In terms of why we need faster processors, I can't believe nobody's thought of iLife. Haven't you guys ever used iMovie and iDVD? It takes hours and hours to get your video ready to burn. Encoding DV to MPEG-2 takes forever.

-hh

Mar 12, 2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Rincewind42
From what we know about the 970 right now, the Pro line will probably be revamped to look something like this

PowerMac G5/970-
Fast: Single 1.6 Ghz
Faster: Dual 1.6 Ghz
Fastest: Dual 1.8 Ghz

PowerBook G5/970-
12", 15" Low: 1.2 Ghz
15" High, 17": 1.6 Ghz

...

Of course, this is pure speculation, so who knows how this will come to pass =).

I suspect you're on the right track. I am also quite inclined to speculate that for some of the PowerBook market, Apple is going to be willing to trade-off some MHz if it meant that they could simultaneously boost raw performance as well as battery life. To the extent that they might even debut the 970 at as low as 1GHz there.

Afterall, the big brick Pentium laptops are incredible power hogs, and it would be quite a kick in the pants if Apple's "Year of the Laptop" comes forth with a serious kick in both firepower as well as loooooong battery life. As such, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple annouced an 8-12 hour battery life capacity and made that a major selling point.

-hh

PS: my previously posted mind's-eye dream of Steve's "Oh, one more thing" presentation got a sound track in its latest fantasy installment ... it is the old 1980's vintage Williams Firepower (http://www.lysator.liu.se/pinball/IPD/machine.cgi?856) pinball machine. Dang it ... I can't find a nice .WAV file of it.

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 12, 2003, 04:22 PM

Gaming is a great way for bench marking. And though gaming has come a long way on the mac since OSX it is very clear that motorola was happy not moving ahead. Doom3 will make a lot of mac gamers cry and this is another reason for us to have the 970. I just downloaded the movie with scenes from the upcoming game and it is very clear that this thing will need muscle to run. A 1.6 or 1.8 970 i think will do the job very nicely where as a single 1 giger or so i think would be struggling to get those frame rates where you need them. Sure the i apps are going to be nicer, but nothing makes me madder then putting in a new game only to have to turn things off or down to run it. Nascar 2002 is a good example of this. Put more then 10 cars on the track with my 800 g4 and forget it. Lets hope Apple will choose sooner then later to introduce this new cpu.

beatle888

Mar 12, 2003, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by hitman
Same here.

If Apple keeps one or two low end tower configs running with dual G4s I'd go for that.

The G4 is a fine chip in it's own right, but like you said, I would "want it as fast as possible for the money."

i wish i had a link although im sure it was only speculative, but ive read many comments on how the 970 will be just as or less expensive as the G4.

dongmin

Mar 12, 2003, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by copperpipe
we need the speed of the upcoming 970 to be faster than 1.8 ghz for programs like:

Really, REALLY crazy sound stuff (my roomate is really into sound with his G4 867 and reports no problems)

Making professional movies, or computer animation (which, if you're into that, you probably run on a server)

maybe intense 3D rendering? maybe?

I'm just curious about what the huge fuss is about...

Even for the 'average user' (whoever he or she is), there is a host of apps that can benefit from a major speed bump:

iPhoto
iMovie
VirtualPC
FCP Express
etc.

not to mention that OS X can stand to be a bit snappier. I´m sure that dual G4 867 rocks for you but Apple still sells a lot of computers that are using sub-1.0 ghz G3 and G4 processors. Hopefully, with the 970s becoming plentiful for the pro machines and the G4 7457s replacing the more expensive 7455s, we can finally move all Macs to 1.0 ghz or higher.

job

Mar 12, 2003, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by beatle888
i wish i had a link although im sure it was only speculative, but ive read many comments on how the 970 will be just as or less expensive as the G4.

i sure hope it's true.

it would be nice to be able to buy a dual 970 machine for around 1899.

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 12, 2003, 04:48 PM

dogmin is right, all macs need to get over that 1 gig barrier imposed on us by motorola and apple holding things back.I think it would be extremely attractive with the 970s and 7457 imacs etc. I would really like to see all lines move to the 970 in one form or another but we know how apple does things so i dont expect a 970 imac anytime soon though i would run out and get one as soon as they were announced. I still think the 17" imac is the coolest neatest sexiest etc etc. with a 970 in it it would be a tuff choice going to bed at night, wife or imac? next to me? shes in the other room so i can get away with this one!

neutrino23

Mar 12, 2003, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by pilotgi
SMT: simultaneous multithreading

webopedia.com for all your tech terms.

Hmm. I just tried it and came up with a blank. I put in SMT as a keyword and it only found SMTP.

jettredmont

Mar 12, 2003, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by scem0
Forgive me for my lack of microprocessor knowledge, but what
exactly is multicore, and what are the advantages of it (and
disadvantages, if any)?

Multi-core means that on the CPU itself there are two (or more) identical "cores". Essentially, this is easier to understand from the viewpoint of starting with a dual-CPU machine, then making those two CPU's share more and more (share the same FSB, as G4s do already, and also share L3 and L2 cache and perhaps even som processor registers).

[Note: "FSB == "Front Side Bus", the communications line between the CPU itself and the "System Controller" (on a Mac) or "North Bridge" (on a PC, which is attached to the "South Bridge" to form the "Chipset"); the System Controller/Chipset also has communications lines to memory (the memory bus), add-in cards (the PCI bus), video (the AGP bus), and external peripherals (via ports, which usually flows through the PCI bus even if they're physically attached to the motherboard). On the G4 the main performance bottleneck in most cases is the speed of the FSB, which means that only so much information from memory or peripherals can get to the CPU to be processed and leads the processor to be "information starved".]

Compared to multi-processor machines, the multi-core idea has some advantages and of course disadvantages:

1) it is cheaper to make one CPU with two cores than two CPUs

2) the motherboard architecture is simpler for a dual-core CPU than two individual CPUs (especially if the CPUs don't share an FSB, which is why Xeon multi-proc motherboards are more expensive than G4 multi-proc motherboards)

3) it is faster to share data between two cores than it is to share data between two separate CPUs (between cores the data just has to be bumped out to L2 cache then read from there by the other CPU; between CPUs the data has to go out on the already-restricted FSB to main memory, then be read back from main memory over the FSB to the second CPU - this is a major performance hit as you can imagine!)

4) Dual CPUs get more L2/L3 cache in total, but
since some data is duplicated between the two sets of cache, the cache is used less effectively overall.

5) HOWEVER, dual-core CPUs take up more die space than an equivalently designed single-core CPU (which increases their cost), and if you don't sell a single-core variant then if one core is "bad you have to toss the entire chip in the garbage.

6) ALSO, dual-core CPUs concentrate their heat generation far more than dual-CPUs would, making thermal management more difficult, more expensive, and more error-prone. On the other hand, dual-cores can also dissipate their heat generation across the area of the single CPU more efficiently than a single-core CPU can (sounds like I'm contradicting myself, but I'm not ... really! :) ) When one core "heats up" its, say, floating point unit, it can fairly easily swap tasks with the other CPU (which is hopefully not busy hammering the floating point unit as well) and let its fpu cool off for a cycle or two ... "core hopping" is transparent to the application and fairly consequence-free as both cores share the same cache; swapping tasks between two discrete CPUs would cost far more than it would be worth in general.

7) Finally, a dual-core chip means that both cores share a single pipeline to memory, which is good if you can make that pipeline twice as fat/fast as the single-core pipelines would be, but often such is not possible. With a true SMP (Symettric Multi-Processing) system, each processor has its own pipeline to the systerm controller and thence to memory; this makes information starvation on the core much less likely; multi-cored chips make information starvation for each core more likely.

Should we want dual cores in a consumer CPU? I think so. The advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. The advantages are far more significant on large-scle server farms (especially the more frugal use of the FSB and cache), but still play heavily on the desktop.

Will we get dual cores in the 970? I've only heard "no". The 980 is supposedly going to feature multiple cores, but Intel might beat us to the multi-core-on-the-desktop punch ...

Edit: SMT? What exactly is that? Sorry, again, for asking so many
questions, but I just don't know about microprocessors, but I am
very interested to learn.

SMT: Simultaneous Multi-Threading. Intel calls it "HyperThreading". It's one CPU acting like two (or, more precisely, like one and a half or one and a quarter). Basically, while one "thread" of an application is occupying a group of registers and, say 2 floating point processing units, a second thread of an application can come in and use the other registers, the integer processing units, and the other floating point units if it needs to, both at the same time. Thus, the CPU is effectively doing two things at the same time for two unrelated threads.

Here's a good primer on SMT and general threading from ars technica: http://www.arstechnica.com/paedia/h/hyperthreading/hyperthreading-1.html

astrocity20

Mar 12, 2003, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
dogmin is right, all macs need to get over that 1 gig barrier imposed on us by motorola and apple holding things back.I think it would be extremely attractive with the 970s and 7457 imacs etc. I would really like to see all lines move to the 970 in one form or another but we know how apple does things so i dont expect a 970 imac anytime soon though i would run out and get one as soon as they were announced. I still think the 17" imac is the coolest neatest sexiest etc etc. with a 970 in it it would be a tuff choice going to bed at night, wife or imac? next to me? shes in the other room so i can get away with this one!

iMacs need a better graphics card big time. I wish Apple would let you customize all their products and have a 970 imac and pay more if you so wish, and throw a better card and leave out the extra mhz. I think they could gain more money by actually letting people have more option rather than just one system that you can't afford and one you can but are unhappy with because you want something else.

Zaid

Mar 12, 2003, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by -hh
I suspect you're on the right track. I am also quite inclined to speculate that for some of the PowerBook market, Apple is going to be willing to trade-off some MHz if it meant that they could simultaneously boost raw performance as well as battery life. To the extent that they might even debut the 970 at as low as 1GHz there.

Afterall, the big brick Pentium laptops are incredible power hogs, and it would be quite a kick in the pants if Apple's "Year of the Laptop" comes forth with a serious kick in both firepower as well as loooooong battery life. As such, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple annouced an 8-12 hour battery life capacity and made that a major selling point.

I'd also agree with your assessment on the Powerbooks, especially given the competition from Intels new Centrino line. For instance the new Thinkpad that features the Centrino has a 7hr battery life with a 1.6GHz chip. (weighs 5lbs and is 1 inch thick).

Hopefully we'll see a 970 Powerbook very soon after a 970 Powermac (hopefully at the same time :) ). This is the year of the laptop after all, and a 970 Pro line (both desktops and laptops) would go a long way in helping to get to the 5% market share goal.

CNet has a mini review (http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0-1027-8-20926222-1.html) of the new Centrino laptops if anyone is interested

nuckinfutz

Mar 12, 2003, 05:33 PM

iMacs need a better graphics card big time. I wish Apple would let you customize all their products and have a 970 imac and pay more if you so wish, and throw a better card and leave out the extra mhz. I think they could gain more money by actually letting people have more option rather than just one system that you can't afford and one you can but are unhappy with because you want something else.

Sounds great in Theory but usually people would just gut the Mac and buy components elsewhere.

Apple didn't get into Direct Sales to "be like Dell" although that's what they told you. They did it to cut out the middleman and recoup as much margin as possible. Hence you cannot "strip" a machine down to a tiny hd and very little RAM.

noverflow

Mar 12, 2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by copperpipe
this processor has this advantage, and that processor has that advantage! Blahger flooth!

All I know is I have a duel 867 G4 and it kicks major butt. Design graphics that are 24 inches by 36 inches 300 dpi and I am cruising! Now I imagine a duel 1.42 has got to be unbelievable speed. Now let's say I change the architecture to the next gen, and bump it to 1.8 ghz? Oh my god.

My question to anyone here is this:

What type of work are you doing on a mac that requires more speed than that? There must be something, but I just can't figure out what it is...

That is a little odd
my computer dies when im working on my artworks. 20X30in at 266 dpi

i have a dual 1.0ghz
with 1.5 gigs of ram and im working off a raid

the photoshop file alone takes up 1.6gb of ram when working on it (not file size)

and the whole system ends up using the swap and my computer goes to a hult, but only 10% cpu power is being used

i dont see how you you can cruse with that machine on that big of a file, you only have a max of 2 gb ram.

Rincewind42

Mar 12, 2003, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by jettredmont

3) it is faster to share data between two cores than it is to share data between two separate CPUs (between cores the data just has to be bumped out to L2 cache then read from there by the other CPU; between CPUs the data has to go out on the already-restricted FSB to main memory, then be read back from main memory over the FSB to the second CPU - this is a major performance hit as you can imagine!)

Actually, iirc part of the SMP protocol defines data forwarding, where one CPU can forward information directly between CPUs without having to go through main memory. Of course, this takes more circuitry that wouldn't necessarily have to exist on a dual core CPU.

Originally posted by hitman
i sure hope it's true.

it would be nice to be able to buy a dual 970 machine for around 1899.

Well, right now you can buy a Dual 1.25 G4 for 1999... Hopefully the price structure will stay similar =).

job

Mar 12, 2003, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Rincewind42
Well, right now you can buy a Dual 1.25 G4 for 1999... Hopefully the price structure will stay similar =).

Bingo. :)

It would be extremely nice to see a dual 970 tower retail for that price. I'm sure Apple would be swamped by orders.

Although I am curious as to where Motos 7475 (is that the right number?) chips fit into this picture. Could Apple use this chip for the low-end tower, resulting in another Yikes/Yosemite situation?

barkmonster

Mar 12, 2003, 07:31 PM

I think they could gain more money by actually letting people have more option rather than just one system that you can't afford and one you can but are unhappy with because you want something else.

I agree.

If you configure an entry level G4 with an 80Gb HD and the dual 1.25Ghz model with a GeForce4 MX, making the only difference the CPU module, the price difference is about £320 in the UK. Without the HD increase to match things it's just over £355 more.

If it was possible to compromise and have the single 1Ghz cpu swapped for a single 1.4 GHz cpu with 2Mb L3 (not 1.42 due to the 133Mhz bus), I'm sure people would be buying the entry level system in droves if it was only another £200 or something.

A lot of people just want the fastest mac for the price, offering the fastest CPUs in a single configuration as a CTO option wouldn't exactly kill sales of the higher end hardware because they'll always be people who need that much power and can afford it.

p03

Mar 12, 2003, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by stonysleep
I thought the ZDnet article was lazy journalism and certainly falling victim to what jobs & co call the Megahertz Myth. I dont think u can really compare speeds of a 64bit RISC processor (PPC970) to a 32bit CISC processor (Pentium 4).

At the moment a 64bit 1.8GHz IBM processor would def hit the spot nicely.

Well, a 64-bit architecture sure sounds nice, but it actually doesn't do much for desktop users. It can address memory beyond 4 gigabytes, and it can work with huge integers. That's it.

Floating point operations and vector processing will be unaffected.

Apple doesn't need the 970 because it's 64-bit (though it surely sounds great in a press release), but because it's a damn processor that finally improves on the ancient G4 in some ways and is still compatible with PowerPC code. Apple would use the 970 even if it was a 2-bit processor if it worked better than the G4 which has been around for a staggering 4 years.

By the way, is there a way Apple can tweak the OS that would take advantage of its 64-bit architecture for everyday tasks?

DavPeanut

Mar 12, 2003, 08:07 PM

It's kind of off topic, but how big do SATA drives get? Also, do they go by the 18,36,72 GB structure, or the 20, 30, 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, 160, 180, 200 GB structure? I think they may be like SCSI drives, which kinda sucks. That would mean that I just SCSI but cheaper, instead of ATA but 10,000 RPM.

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 12, 2003, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by barkmonster
I agree.

If you configure an entry level G4 with an 80Gb HD and the dual 1.25Ghz model with a GeForce4 MX, making the only difference the CPU module, the price difference is about £320 in the UK. Without the HD increase to match things it's just over £355 more.

If it was possible to compromise and have the single 1Ghz cpu swapped for a single 1.4 GHz cpu with 2Mb L3 (not 1.42 due to the 133Mhz bus), I'm sure people would be buying the entry level system in droves if it was only another £200 or something.

A lot of people just want the fastest mac for the price, offering the fastest CPUs in a single configuration as a CTO option wouldn't exactly kill sales of the higher end hardware because they'll always be people who need that much power and can afford it. Man do i agree with this why not ave a single g4 at 1.42 but no apple competes with itself stupid! How about a single 1.25 and 142 and then a dual 1.42? I hope Apple figures this out, Oh well i will just keep waiting for a 970 i guess. Apple just keeps screwing themselves in my opinion. If they can make a dual 1.42 they sure can make a single 1.42 Just another example of them competing with themselves. Sort of like the cube.

bones

Mar 12, 2003, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Nemesis
SpecFP and SpecInt ....

Stop comparing apples and oranges. :) Those tests mean absolutely nothing.

Those AREN'T TESTS. Those scores were ESTIMATES from IBM.

Stop quoting them, they are not benchmarks at all!

Allow me to repeat myself: This processor will be much faster than everone thinks based on these spec scores.

Think how fast the G4 currently runs. Its deficiency in SPEC vs the P4 does not match the difference in performance in real-world apps.

job

Mar 12, 2003, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by bones
Think how fast the G4 currently runs. Its deficiency in SPEC vs the P4 does not match the difference in performance in real-world apps.

However we have to remember that the speed and effeciency of a program depends on the quality of the code.

You may have a poorly ported app on the Mac, an app which runs wonderfully on a P4. Something like that may hypothetically run worse on a 970, even if the chip itself outperforms a P4 in terms of raw data through-put, speed, etc. On the other hand, if the app is optimized for the OS and/or hardware, (i.e. Altivec) then the performance gap is less likely to be seen.

Kid Red

Mar 12, 2003, 09:11 PM

A possibole confirmation about the 970 was posted over at AI-

Hi,

I work in IT for a large corporation and IBM gave us a presentation about the future of their pSeries and other systems today. Part of the presentation was about the Power processors. They talked about the Power 4, 4+, 5 and 5+. They also briefly discussed the blade servers running what they had listed as the Power 970. They mentioned the Vector unit but said it would not be used in their blade servers, it was for something else. I later asked the rep if the 970 was going to be sold to Apple and he said yes. He was sure of this, and seemed surprised that I knew anything about it. He said they (Apple) have them in their labs now, and that they plan to release them. He said the Vector unit (altivec) was for Apple and that IBM has been told to caution their customers that they have no plans to implement it in their Linux or AIX versions of the blade servers. I told him I heard that Linux may support it in the future, but he wasn't sure about that. He said the Blades would be available Q3 but didn't know when Apple would release them. I later asked if the Blades would be out before Macs and he didn't know. So it's possible we could see a 970 Mac at least as soon as the Blades come out, which would fit in with the timelines we've been hearing elsewhere.

Another interesting thing he talked about was the work they were doing on the Playstation 3. He said it was going to be a dual core chip, but one core would be for graphics. He also said they were implementing something with a company called (or a technology called) Blossom that was a grid computing system for the PS3. It had something to do with multiplayer gaming, but allowed the processing power to be shared, at least part of it, on the grid. Then I remembered Apple's XGrid trademark. I would say it's a safe bet that Apple intends to incorporate that sort of technology into future XServes.

They also listed the speed on the Blades as 1.7Ghz+. I suspect that was for marketing though, as the fastest Power 4+ they had on the roadmap for this year was 1.7GHz. So they probably will have 1.8's as reported elsewhere but didn't want to make it in any way seem faster than the POWER based boxes. They also listed a Blade+ but he never showed that slide and like an idiot I forgot to ask him. Although I'm sure it would be just info about the 980 and other things we've already heard.

Anyhow, I hope that's helpful. I'd consider this to be absolute confirmation that the 970 is going to be in Macs soon. The question now is when.

Cheers,
John

anand

Mar 12, 2003, 09:13 PM

noverflow, I agree with you. I don't understand it either. Big file, no processor being used. I blame Adobe. Photoshop 7 never seems to use much processor time. I bet I could save big time if my dump processors were being used!

mariner77

Mar 12, 2003, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by BenRoethig
Hopefully Apple will use PC3200 or PC3500 for RAM. As for motherboards, I would expect 1 8x AGP slot, 4 PCI slots, mini-PCI for Airport Extreme, 2 FW400, 2 FW 800, 4 USB 2.0, highend on board sound. I wouldn'y be surprised to also see 2 USB 2.0 and 1 FW400 port in front.

Don't forget, one of the key advantage of a 64 bit CPU is that it can support a LOT more memory! I hope Apple's new mobo takes at least 8GB of RAM. Yes, I need it. Modern day CCD arrays can produce HUGE image files (in astronomical applicaitons) of over 400MB per image. If I have a couple of those open there goes several gigs. It only gets worse. To me, the fast speed of PPC970 is nice and all but equally important if not more is the super fast bus!!! Let the images (video, sound, or whatever) flow!

nickgold

Mar 12, 2003, 11:01 PM

To the guy working on large (several foot) graphic files at a high resolution, complaining that your processing tasks go slowly...

NO FREAKING DUH! :rolleyes:

I hate to break it to some of the folks on here, but realtime processing of anything you throw at a several thousand dollar dekstop PC IS NOT QUITE HERE YET, if you hadn't noticed!

I do audio and video on my "ancient" G4 450 Sawtooth, and you know what? Sometimes a render takes 8 hours to complete!!! So yeah, I feel the need for speed.

But let's not act like Apple is at fault or deficient because our machines can't do everything and anything we want them to, in realtime. People use machines that are a lot more expensive than Macs when they have those demands.

It's like me buying my ECHO, and instead of being happy to have got a reliable, perky little efficient car, totally whining about the fact that it doesn't drive like a Porsche.

Let's take the several foot high res graphic files as an example... Do you think they would really be THAT much faster to process on a high-end Pentium, vs. a top of the line Mac? Let's assume for argument's sake that the Pentium is twice as fast as the Mac...

Things are still going to be slow as a dog, and will not be anywhere close to realtime!

This is why I don't understand these speed arguments at all... To me, when I'm in the market to get a new machine, a 50%, 100%, or even 200% increase in efficiency is NOT enough to get me to buy a new machine. When I see a MAJOR leap in performance, so I can now do totally new things, then I upgrade. But I am just not all that excited about being able to do the same old things a bit faster.

And yes, blah blah blah, I know a lot of pros need all the speed they can get, yadda yadda. I feel for ya. Try running Logic Platinum on OS X and plenty of virtual synths, samplers, and fx in realtime on a G4 450! Yer preaching to the choir, believe me!

But you know what? Tons of "pros" are still using beige G3s in their workflow, and get the job done! Sometimes being a pro is about knowing how to get the most out of the tools you already have -- not wishing for the next thing that's always going to be right around the corner.

Trsut me, I am waiting for the next gen of Macs as much as anyone else -- but all of this bellyaching about the current state of Macdom is soooo overly mellodramatic. If you really need realtime processing of huge graphics files, get a freaking turnkey system already that can actually do that.

No offense intended, and I mean that. But come on. My first computer was a C64. And when you compare what we have today to what we had 15 years ago or so, well, frankly, the differences between a G4 1.4 dual and a P IV 3 GHz don't really seem all that significant. Sometimes, a little more perspective is in order.

I can just see things ten years from now...

"I can't believe this freaking underperforming POS G8 7 Terrahertz... I can only run a dozen self-aware fully-conscious AIs simultaneously, and the Pentium 15 can run 20 at the same time! Waaaaah!"

;)

speechgod

Mar 12, 2003, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by nickgold
It's like me buying my ECHO, and instead of being happy to have got a reliable, perky little efficient car, totally whining about the fact that it doesn't drive like a Porsche.

I love my ECHO. When people get mad about the cost of gas, I just tell them the 35-39 MPG I get. They shut up fast.

robguz

Mar 13, 2003, 12:45 AM

I'm done being excited about what's just around the corner. A year and a half ago, the real G5 was running at over 2GHz and would be here any day (back when the P4 was running at 2.2 GHz and was shipping). Never happened. I'm sure the 970 will. But like every chip before it, except maybe the G3, it will come later than expected and be slower than we need to keep up with the Wintel world. Let's all keep our panties non-bunched about this. The last time Apple surprised us with a new chip was in August 1999 when the G4 came out a few months before people thought it would. turned out to be only faster for the 1 or 2 apps at the time that could make use of it.

Scottgfx

Mar 13, 2003, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by noverflow
That is a little odd
my computer dies when im working on my artworks. 20X30in at 266 dpi

i have a dual 1.0ghz
with 1.5 gigs of ram and im working off a raid

the photoshop file alone takes up 1.6gb of ram when working on it (not file size)

I just finished a similar project, except that it was even larger but I only started out at 150dpi. I found that to be too slow and I went down to 72 dpi just to get the Photoshop document size below 1GB. It was possible to finish the project at the higher rez, but it would have taken a lot longer to finish. I only have 1GB of memory and the page swapping was getting quite painful.

After I was done I found out that the recommended resolution was 40dpi! I was working at almost double the resolution that I needed to! Anyway, my dual 1.25 worked pretty well and I'm learning all about the quirks of using Photoshop under OS-X. It can be quite frustrating. It doesn't crash as much, but the weird refresh problems are so annoying!

Scottgfx

Mar 13, 2003, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by DavPeanut
It's kind of off topic, but how big do SATA drives get? Also, do they go by the 18,36,72 GB structure, or the 20, 30, 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, 160, 180, 200 GB structure? I think they may be like SCSI drives, which kinda sucks. That would mean that I just SCSI but cheaper, instead of ATA but 10,000 RPM.

Being that the industry is targeting SATA (Serial ATA) to replace IDE/ATA, expect the drives to progress in a similar fashion at standard (parallel) ATA/IDE drives. There are some reviews out there on SATA drives now. You can even pre-order drives now. Try some of the big PC tech outlets like Anandtech, HardOCP, Ars Technica and others. While I prefer Macs, I still spend a lot of time reading up on the other camp. I find that I usually know more about PCs than my PC using co-workers.

Scottgfx

Mar 13, 2003, 02:15 AM

I work in design/marketing, so I will take a stab as to what I think Apple will call the new 970 in their marketing of their new systems.

Introducing the new "PowerMac GX"

:)

Lets think about it...

Unless Apple wants to get away from the whole "G" thing, This is the first new processor since the introduction of OS-X.

With the inability of Moto to keep to a timetable, the whole G+(processor generation) numbering has been thrown out the window. The number is meaningless now.

Apple has a vested interest in the letter "X" with much newer products like the X-Serve and the X-Raid.

With Microsoft, Macromedia also getting on the "X" bandwagon, Apple hasn't backed away from the use of the letter. (Microsoft==XP Macromedia==MX)

If it's not "X", than what's next? Well, let's see. The Gen-Xers are starting to get into their 30's and we're being followed by Generation "Y". Would Apple call the processor a "GY"? Nawww, that's just silly. Someone might try to add a vowel in there somewhere.

If it's not GX then I'll eat my hat, but Apple may have a aversion to "G anything" after what Moto has put them through these past few years. "GX" is a possible way to get above that stigma and not lose any value in the "G" name.

Keep in mind that I'm in Florida and not starting a rumor. Only offering an educated guess. If I am right, I would like someone at Apple to please contact me at my .mac address and offer me a job. Or at least give me a t-shirt or perhaps a cookie?

JavaCoder

Mar 13, 2003, 02:57 AM

It's ridiculous that Apple has yet to make public a CPU roadmap for the Mac. I won't buy another Mac until they do.

I'm still paying for the loaded $$$ WallStreet PowerBook I bought late in 1998. One reason I went ahead and agreed to a lifetime of AppleLoan payments was because Apple had promised that the "next generation" mac OS (now OS X) would support G3 machines. Until my WallStreet finally died last month, I'd been able to make a happy transition to OS X.

If Apple can't get out of this Motorolla CPU rut they're in, their future as a PC and Laptop company is doomed. I can't justify paying a premium for Apple hardware without some confidence that Apple's going to be able to roll out a new CPU strategy as deftly as they (finally) rolled out a modern OS. I don't necessarily care what Apple does -- port OS X to x86 and shrink wrap it, go with the 970, go with the AMD -- I just want to know.

I'm buying a new laptop next month, and I'm 90% decided it's going to be a cheap Intel machine and not a new PowerBook. I won't enjoy it as much, but I'll be out a lot less cash when it becomes obsolete.

Scottgfx

Mar 13, 2003, 04:05 AM

Originally posted by JavaCoder
I'm still paying for the loaded $$$ WallStreet PowerBook I bought late in 1998.

I'm buying a new laptop next month, and I'm 90% decided it's going to be a cheap Intel machine and not a new PowerBook. I won't enjoy it as much, but I'll be out a lot less cash when it becomes obsolete.

Even when your Wallstreet came out, spreading out the payments all the way into 2003 should have been seen as a bad idea. Think about amortization and the value that your Wallstreet provided every day. Take it's cost (Base price not plus interest) and divide it by the number of days you used it. Now take your proposal of the Wintel book, it's price, and how long you think you will use it. My guess is that you will find that the Apple product gave you better value over a longer period of time than the Wintel can provide.

Also, when you finance, make a extra payments toward the principle. Don't just make the mimimum payments. I paid off my last Automobile 8 months early by doing that. And I've never bought a computer that I couldn't pay cash for... And I am not rich. Don't let a bad financial decision in the past cloud your vision of the true value that Apple's product provide. If you are not getting the Wallstreet fixed, I bet it's worth something to someone for parts... Probably a lot more than a similarly priced laptop from the same era... even if it's working!!!

Kai

Mar 13, 2003, 04:31 AM

Since there are some people that doubt the credibility of the provided information and/or our site:

We did talk directly with IBM, because the originally planned Booth #13 which existed on all plans was just not built up and the scheduled Power970-Blade-Presentation didn't (and won't) take place. After our inqueries one of the heads of PR at IBM called our reporter there and did tell him the mentioned details on the roadmap especially TO CLEAR UP THESE RUMOURS (litho-process, MHz at launch etc)

Apple itself ofcourse declined to comment.

On behalf of the team,
Kai / MacGuardians

Kai

Mar 13, 2003, 05:03 AM

To be honest it hardly matters at how many MHz the P970 launches (if it does!).. The one major disadvantage Macs have today over PCs is the bus, folks, not the CPU MHz!

And since it will have the 6.4GByte/s (now we have 1.3 GByte/s!) two-way Bus i could care less about CPU MHz! ;-)

Especially since it's definately designed for better MHz-scaling than the G4 anyway if you look at the pipeline!..

TMay

Mar 13, 2003, 07:42 AM

It is conceivable that Adobe will configure Photoshop to support 64 bit integer processing in PS8 while also simultaneously supporting Altivec. 64 bit would give you (4) 16 bit channels w/o having to touch Altivec, which would then be free for concurrent use of more complex filters.

Now if you throw in SMP and perhaps Hyperthreading in the follow up 980, one could argue that this would be quite the platform for Photoshop. The same can be said for many other multimedia applications, such as Maya and FCP.

I imagine, needless to say, that Apple is quite aware of this in pushing the 970.

Rincewind42

Mar 13, 2003, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by JavaCoder
It's ridiculous that Apple has yet to make public a CPU roadmap for the Mac. I won't buy another Mac until they do.

And if they make public a roadmap that doesn't show the computer that you want shipping for over a year, you won't buy another Mac until then. And if something slips such that they can't meet the schedule that they presented, then they will get raped in the press for not being able to meet their own roadmap. For Apple publishing a roadmap is a lose-lose situation, so they won't do it.

ktlx

Mar 13, 2003, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by Scottgfx
Being that the industry is targeting SATA (Serial ATA) to replace IDE/ATA, expect the drives to progress in a similar fashion at standard (parallel) ATA/IDE drives.

That depends upon the company and the market they are after. Seagate seems to be going after parallel ATA replacement and so their drives look to be parallel ATA drives with serial ATA interfaces. Western Digital seems to be going after SCSI replacement so their drives look like updated SCSI drives with serial ATA interfaces.

My guess is that we will continue to see both types of drives for the time being. Serial ATA is attractive for 1U servers and it will not suprise me if other companies put serial ATA interfaces on their SCSI drives (or new drives with similar specs) for that market.

GPTurismo

Mar 13, 2003, 08:33 AM

I don't expect to see scsi go anywhere for a while. It's to much of an industry standard and to trusted in high end business.

Maybe better scsi, which I am hoping for :S

nuckinfutz

Mar 13, 2003, 08:35 AM

It's ridiculous that Apple has yet to make public a CPU roadmap for the Mac. I won't buy another Mac until they do.

I don't think you'd see this. But rather I'd more prefer an updated Hardware Roadmap. But then again that would take all the fun out of computer advancement on the Mac. It's the thrilf of NOT knowing that's exciting sometimes. I don't think you'll be buying a Mac for a long time coder if you hold fast to that statement.

I'm buying a new laptop next month, and I'm 90% decided it's going to be a cheap Intel machine and not a new PowerBook. I won't enjoy it as much, but I'll be out a lot less cash when it becomes obsolete.

Dude...98 was a WAYS ago. If you're Wallstreet has lasted that long then you definitely got mileage out of it. Now go back and compare the Wintel Notebooks from that era and see how many are in uses today. The "CHEAP" Wintel Portable that will save your time and money is mythical.

Hattig

Mar 13, 2003, 09:49 AM

It is odd that someone wants to buy a WinTel laptop ahead of a new Apple laptop.

Apple laptops are the best part of Apples lineup, in my opinion - much more competitive in power and price against PC laptops, when weight and battery life are factored in. Coupled with Airport, nice looks, thin cases, etc, and you are on a winner. The iBooks are very affordable indeed, and the PowerBooks aren't too bad against similarly configured laptops from Dell or Compaq (although the AMD based ones do have a definite price advantage).

I have a 1998 era PII266 based HP Omnibook. It still works fine in Linux with a minimal window manager, and it is probably worth about £300. The next laptop I buy will certainly be an Apple of some kind - I'm waiting for the next generation though :)

Dave K

Mar 13, 2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by JavaCoder
It's ridiculous that Apple has yet to make public a CPU roadmap for the Mac. I won't buy another Mac until they do.

If you applied this logic to the rest of the industry, you'd never buy another computer.

Well, maybe a Sun...

Remember folks, Apple no more makes the processors they'll be using than Dell, HP/Compaq, Sony, or the vast majority of the rest. You want your CPU roadmaps, scream at the manufacturers of CPU's, not the end users.

It's not like these roadmaps are anything more than rough estimates anyways. I've got a MaximumPC at home with official roadmaps from 2 years back that says I should have been running AMD Hammers almost 12 months ago...

JavaCoder

Mar 13, 2003, 10:31 AM

Dude...98 was a WAYS ago. If you're Wallstreet has lasted that long then you definitely got mileage out of it. Now go back and compare the Wintel Notebooks from that era and see how many are in uses today. The "CHEAP" Wintel Portable that will save your time and money is mythical.

I know that buying a comodity wintel laptop is a totally different value proposition, but I could buy one today with what I still OWE on the WallStreet (which, after many years of faithful service, does no longer boot).

But my point really is that Apple has to be on the cusp of making an major, evolutionary change to a different CPU. Wheter it's a departure from the PPC family or the switch to 64 bit. This is a different, more fundamental, change than just roadmaping where, for example, commodity x86 chips are going to be a year down the road.

I liken this change to the switch to OS X. Once apple committed to the OS X strategy, the did a good job letting thier customers and developers know what's ahead -- remember "all life will be Carbon based"? Deciding to spend more money on an Apple than on a wintel machine, requires you have faith that that Mac is going to live up to what you expect. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns, as they say. I'd like to base my decision on, at least, Apple's promises than on rumors.

kenohki

Mar 13, 2003, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by JavaCoder
I know that buying a comodity wintel laptop is a totally different value proposition, but I could buy one today with what I still OWE on the WallStreet (which, after many years of faithful service, does no longer boot).

I know this sounds insensitive but you but you can't blame Apple for the decision you made on financing the thing.

But my point really is that Apple has to be on the cusp of making an major, evolutionary change to a different CPU. Wheter it's a departure from the PPC family or the switch to 64 bit. This is a different, more fundamental, change than just roadmaping where, for example, commodity x86 chips are going to be a year down the road.

Number one, I don't think Apple is going to move away from the PowerPC architecture. Number two, the "switch to 64 bit" isn't really that big of a deal. Sure, you can use more memory and do "big math" with large integers. However, the PowerPC specification has been 64 bit from the get go. It has just been the case that all implementations of PowerPC so far have been 32 bit. The move to a 64 bit implementation isn't inherently "better". Heck, you could have a 64 bit G4 if Mot would design one. It would work with large integers and large addresses but it would still perform the same as the trusty 32 bit G4 we have right now.

The magic that's going on right now is that IBM has taken an interest again in the PowerPC platform. Sure sure, they had been making revisions to the PPC750FX but their big R&D money was going into the POWER series where they make the big money. All of the sudden, blade computing is in vogue and they decide to let the POWER4 technology trickle down into the PowerPC line.

As long as IBM keeps letting this trickle-down effect happen, PowerPC should stay competitive. Heck, I've read interviews with members of the POWER design team where they've said their goal is not to let Itanium survive. That's a pretty hefty task but IBM hasn't been behind the curve thus far, so I'm fairly confident in their abilities to provide top notch performance from the POWER/PowerPC line.

Other than POWER/PowerPC, the only other viable long-term choices are x86(-64) and Itanium. If Apple moves to x86 or x86-64, there is little chance for them to differentiate themselves from commodity hardware on a value proposition. There is also no chance in hell that they'll ever get ahead of the commodity market in performance (take into account their past performance up against Power Computing). And, if they moved to Itanium, you'd be paying the price of a loaded G4 just for the damn microprocessor. With PowerPC though, they have a chance to be different, and they have a chance to regain some ground performance-wise. Plus, if IBM's claims about the POWER5 performance are true, PowerPC may even take back the speed crown in the desktop arena someday.

And this stuff is all taken out of the platform context. Just imagine the amount of flack from developers if Apple were to try and do a multi-platform strategy with OS X. It just doesn't make sense for them to move anywhere with their current business model.

-hh

Mar 13, 2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by nickgold
To the guy working on large (several foot) graphic files at a high resolution, complaining that your processing tasks go slowly...

If this was aimed at my prior comment, the " symbol means inches, not feet. As in an 8 inch by 12 inch high quality photographic print done digitally instead of via analog chemistry.

The reason I do this is quasi-financial: assuming that my time and the PC are sunk costs, I can have more control over the printing process, at a lower (admittedly "perceived by wife") cost. My alternative is to continue to pay the big bucks for an Ilfachrome (formerly Ciebachrome) process print. This is an older and not-particulary-standard print enlargement that is made directly from a slide without the resolution losses resulting from the use of an internegative. Putting the technical nuances aside, the important take-away is to realize that they are quite expensive: $50 for an 8x12 inch print, and $100 for an 11x14" print are *good* prices.

A mere five 11x14 prints recoupe the cost of my medium format HQ inkjet printer. A dozen more replaces my exisiting Nikon LS-1000 scanner with a brand new Firewire Nikon LS-4000 film scanner. And a score more buys a new Mac.

Since the Mac & printer are "dual use" items, a good chunk of this hobby investment is pretty easily rationalized.

It's like me buying my ECHO, and instead of being happy to have got a reliable, perky little efficient car, totally whining about the fact that it doesn't drive like a Porsche.

vroooooooooooom! http://www.huntzinger.com/pic/cars/whale.jpg :D

No offense intended, and I mean that. But come on. My first computer was a C64. And when you compare what we have today to what we had 15 years ago or so, well, frankly, the differences between a G4 1.4 dual and a P IV 3 GHz don't really seem all that significant. Sometimes, a little more perspective is in order.

Sure. And what has changed for me is that money that I would have been previously tempted to dump into my local camera store - - or not done because I couldn't afford it - - is redirected into my PC system as physical assets that I can potentially use to get more bangs for the same net amount of bucks.

I know that the temptation is the "we do it this way because we can", and while this is true, its really more correct to say that the advancements in technology gives us additional options (solutions) from which we can then select that which is the lowest cost, best value, or some other metric that we place value upon.

As this all relates to the Mac, the real-or-perceived hardware performance lag versus PC's makes it an issue of frustration. The 970 is today's "promised land" on the horizon, but most of us have been disappointed enough times by Apple to not get too optimistic until that ship actually arrives.

-hh

BenRoethig

Mar 13, 2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by JavaCoder
I know that buying a comodity wintel laptop is a totally different value proposition, but I could buy one today with what I still OWE on the WallStreet (which, after many years of faithful service, does no longer boot).

But my point really is that Apple has to be on the cusp of making an major, evolutionary change to a different CPU. Wheter it's a departure from the PPC family or the switch to 64 bit. This is a different, more fundamental, change than just roadmaping where, for example, commodity x86 chips are going to be a year down the road.

I liken this change to the switch to OS X. Once apple committed to the OS X strategy, the did a good job letting thier customers and developers know what's ahead -- remember "all life will be Carbon based"? Deciding to spend more money on an Apple than on a wintel machine, requires you have faith that that Mac is going to live up to what you expect. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns, as they say. I'd like to base my decision on, at least, Apple's promises than on rumors.

Very true. You don't see Dell or Gateway mapping out their future. You don't know if they're going to use Intel, AMD, or VIA processor until they formally announce the product. All you can do is look at the roadmaps of the CPU manufacturers and guess. The Mac side is the same way. IBM and Motorola are the processor suppliers. They make the processors and Apple chooses which ones to use.

copperpipe

Mar 13, 2003, 07:21 PM

<B>That is a little odd
my computer dies when im working on my artworks. 20X30in at 266 dpi

i have a dual 1.0ghz
with 1.5 gigs of ram and im working off a raid

the photoshop file alone takes up 1.6gb of ram when working on it (not file size)

and the whole system ends up using the swap and my computer goes to a hult, but only 10% cpu power is being used

i dont see how you you can cruse with that machine on that big of a file, you only have a max of 2 gb ram.</B>

Weird. I was just working on my latest project, an image 24 x 36 inches at 300 dpi (in RGB of course), total file size 222.5 mb. I have a duel 867 with 768 Ram. And this image is really intense, no room for good compression. I was using my Wacom and it worked fine, and I applied some fairly intense filters to the entire image and they didn't take very long at all. Maybe it's a perspective thing. 30 - 40 seconds doesn't seem long to me. Especially when you design smart, you work out the process on a smaller image, and that way you only apply the filters to the large image once. I can wiat 30 seconds I suppose. I never had my machine go to a halt.

Anyway, everyone is jumping all over me for my comments. Sure speed is good and all, and I always want a faster machine too. Maybe I'm more patient than most people. Or maybe I get fed up by how noone is ever satisfied with what they got. I'm just happy as anything with my machine, - it's fast, the OS is unbeleiveably great, it never crashes (a wet dream of only two years ago), and I ENJOY it. Smell the roses.

And whats, funny, is that I just realized that while i was working on that huge graphic, I also had Safari, iTunes, and InDesign running at the same time. Whoops, those filters could've been shaved off by probably 10 seconds each. Oh well. So much for me designing smart, eh? ;)

Scottgfx

Mar 14, 2003, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by ktlx
My guess is that we will continue to see both types of drives for the time being. Serial ATA is attractive for 1U servers and it will not suprise me if other companies put serial ATA interfaces on their SCSI drives (or new drives with similar specs) for that market.

Sure, sure. But what I've heard so far makes SATA to really be an equal to ATA in performance and still only able to have two drives on a single chain. I don't see that as a SCSI replacement.

jettredmont

Mar 14, 2003, 03:48 AM

Originally posted by nickgold
Let's take the several foot high res graphic files as an example... Do you think they would really be THAT much faster to process on a high-end Pentium, vs. a top of the line Mac? Let's assume for argument's sake that the Pentium is twice as fast as the Mac...

In tasks I do every day, the difference between a 733 G4 and a 1.5 P4 can be as significant as 6x (30-minute compile on the G4 takes 5 on the PC), or as little as 1.5x.

This is why I don't understand these speed arguments at all... To me, when I'm in the market to get a new machine, a 50%, 100%, or even 200% increase in efficiency is NOT enough to get me to buy a new machine. When I see a MAJOR leap in performance, so I can now do totally new things, then I upgrade. But I am just not all that excited about being able to do the same old things a bit faster.

As a professional, if $4000 (say) spent every 2 years increases your average productivity by 100%, that is a damned good investment!

As a home consumer, I can see your argument; efficiency isn't that big of a deal. But IMHO Apple needs the pro market to survive, and having trailing-edge processors is killing that market.

Besides which, the 970 puts out easily double the SPEC scores per GHz as the G4, and so in a single revision your performance gap (ie, what you have now vs what is available) might double. To me, that signals that it is time to start seriously looking at upgrading (perhaps wait for the sevond rev of the hardware).

But you know what? Tons of "pros" are still using beige G3s in their workflow, and get the job done! Sometimes being a pro is about knowing how to get the most out of the tools you already have -- not wishing for the next thing that's always going to be right around the corner.

Absolutely. However, when new tools become available, a significant part of being a pro means doing a cost-benefit analysis to see if it fits. If beige G3s can keep up with you, then use them! No reason to upgrade! But if you're spending more time waiting on your G3 than you are creating, and haven't upgraded because new computers cost too much, you are engaging in short-sighted economics at best.

BenRoethig

Mar 14, 2003, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by mariner77
Don't forget, one of the key advantage of a 64 bit CPU is that it can support a LOT more memory! I hope Apple's new mobo takes at least 8GB of RAM. Yes, I need it. Modern day CCD arrays can produce HUGE image files (in astronomical applicaitons) of over 400MB per image. If I have a couple of those open there goes several gigs. It only gets worse. To me, the fast speed of PPC970 is nice and all but equally important if not more is the super fast bus!!! Let the images (video, sound, or whatever) flow!

For the desktops, you're going to have 4 DIMM slots. If Apple offers a workstation, you may see up to 8 DIMM slots.

php

Mar 14, 2003, 08:52 AM

Frobozz

Mar 14, 2003, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by copperpipe
What type of work are you doing on a mac that requires more speed than that? There must be something, but I just can't figure out what it is...

3D and Video. Until we're calculating things at the speed of light, you will never have enough speed for either of these.

php

Mar 14, 2003, 02:50 PM

I work with digital audio, video and multiple software synthesizers simultaneously, all of which require as much processing power as possible. If I run a DAW such as MOTU Digital Performer with several softsynths and samplers while scoring to a QuickTime video, my current dual processor G4 just can't handle the load.

astrocity20

Mar 14, 2003, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by barkmonster
I agree.

If you configure an entry level G4 with an 80Gb HD and the dual 1.25Ghz model with a GeForce4 MX, making the only difference the CPU module, the price difference is about £320 in the UK. Without the HD increase to match things it's just over £355 more.

If it was possible to compromise and have the single 1Ghz cpu swapped for a single 1.4 GHz cpu with 2Mb L3 (not 1.42 due to the 133Mhz bus), I'm sure people would be buying the entry level system in droves if it was only another £200 or something.

A lot of people just want the fastest mac for the price, offering the fastest CPUs in a single configuration as a CTO option wouldn't exactly kill sales of the higher end hardware because they'll always be people who need that much power and can afford it.

Agreed. Apple ought to sell Macs configurable, perhaps not barebones but configurable. Regardless More people would have Macs forcing developers to devlop for that market place. Perhaps Apple should strike up deals with a few big companies and start selling processor upgrades and mobos and the likes. This would extensively broaden their market and availablilty easily. A lot of people think Macs are great it's just they can't afford a top of the line G4, selling different lines that are expandable would solve this and the added ability to upgrade to a different mobo and processor exclusively from Apple would work easily. iMacs are pretty sure but I don't see why you can't slap a different color on a G series computer and market it as a cheaper model that has expandability instead of everything being fixed and unupgradable in some aspects which can scare away potential customers.

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 15, 2003, 11:55 AM

astrocity makes a good point, i love the imac, why not a upgradable daughter card in it? I see apple allways competing with itself. Iam sure there are people out there that have said i want a imac but i cant upgrade it. I want a powermac because you can upgrade it but cant afford it and a display. Therefore they run out and buy some wintel crap because they get the display and a computer that is upgradable and can afford it. And Apple looses another sale because it competes with itself.

Rincewind42

Mar 16, 2003, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
astrocity makes a good point, i love the imac, why not a upgradable daughter card in it? I see apple allways competing with itself. Iam sure there are people out there that have said i want a imac but i cant upgrade it. I want a powermac because you can upgrade it but cant afford it and a display. Therefore they run out and buy some wintel crap because they get the display and a computer that is upgradable and can afford it. And Apple looses another sale because it competes with itself.

While I generally agree with you, there are reasons to not have consumer level machines customizable. Cost & Inventory. As the iMacs & iBooks stand now, Apple has a known quantity when dealing with both. Designing the iMac to be upgradable would add to it's cost to the point that it would probably break the 2k barrier on the high end.

What Apple would need is a machine that is more Pro-sumer than the PowerMac and the iMac. Something that can take 1 or 2 expansion cards and upgradable CPUs. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be room for it on the current cost setup, as the top of the line iMac configured for expansion (i.e. 512MB ram) is $600 less than the bottom of the line PowerMac similarly configured. Unfortunately, you need more like a $1000 difference to consider adding a category that wouldn't canibalize sales of the PowerMac. The best solution currently would be to make the PowerMac more afforable.

astrocity20

Mar 16, 2003, 12:44 PM

That's sorta what I was saying Making a different machine that'd look like a PowerMac throw a different color on it and make it more affordable. Mac users and people who want to be mac users only have two options at the moment the iMac that may not have the power they need or want without upgradability or... and over priced PowerMac that adds expandibility. High price just to expand. I know iMacs are more or less made to be allinone no expandability but the fact that people want an affordable Mac that they can expand goes without saying. Generally I think for iMacs to be more customizable they'd have to make a bunch of different variations or the board, which could be hard, but then again I think it's a bit to easy to throw one of 4 variations of a board in there at such a price. I don't have an imac but I know in PCs you can just get the processor and throw it out for a new one at a higher clockspeed as long as the mobo supports it. But I dunno.

maradong

Mar 17, 2003, 10:58 AM

The question might indeed be stupid, but as a future switcher i wonder what the 970 cpu will bring?
Is it something like a faster g4, i mean at a higher fsb or anything like that. Or has it got an entirly new core?
Last is it the future g5 ?

thx for the help.

p.s. planning to buy a 17 inch pb. Shall i wait for the 970 or buy right now ?

Rincewind42

Mar 17, 2003, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by maradong
The question might indeed be stupid, but as a future switcher i wonder what the 970 cpu will bring?
Is it something like a faster g4, i mean at a higher fsb or anything like that. Or has it got an entirly new core?
Last is it the future g5 ?

thx for the help.

p.s. planning to buy a 17 inch pb. Shall i wait for the 970 or buy right now ?

The PowerPC 970 is an entirely new chip, faster core, faster fsb, pretty much everything faster. It is also a 64-bit chip, so it can access more than 4GB of memory easily (but will probably not have that particular feature enabled initially). It is not the G5 as classically reffered to, but will probably end up carrying that moniker should Apple use the chip (which is generally agreed). As for if you should wait or get the 17" PB, expect that there is first a possiblity that all of the 970 hype has been for nothing and Apple will not use the chip, also that Apple will not have a 970 capable portable chipset ready for the 970, thus causing a wait for PowerBooks to use the chip, and that the 17", regardless of the delays, will be available within the next 4 weeks, while a 970 based powerbook is at least 4 months away.

And as you are a switcher to be, welcome to the Light :D.