PPC 970 Apple Motherboards?

[MacRumors]

MacBidouille claims (http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-03-17#5017) that Apple has completed the new motherboards for the PPC 970, and that the new designs are longer and narrower.

MacWhispers made (http://www.envestco2.com/macwhispers/archives/000046.php) similar claims that new motherboard designs were complete, with assumptions that they were for upcoming PowerMacs.

[rice_web]

I bet we still won't see these in PowerMacs until 2004.

[nuckinfutz]

Originally posted by rice_web
I bet we still won't see these in PowerMacs until 2004.

Really? How much? I've got $20 that says Apple does ship a PPC 970 system in 2003. Any takers? Or should I say ...Givers ;)

A 2003 ship date is right on schedule for the PPC 970. Volume production is listed as 2H 2003. Now the next hurdle is ...will Apple use them. If the above reports are true then we have a resounding YES!

[Dj Kioto]

does anyone have a translation of this article, i saw the tidbit on whispers at work... but I'd like an accurate non-google trans...

[ibookin']

If this is true:

Wooohooo! PPC 970! OK, I'll stop now.

Hopefully, this will yeild an announcment this year. :D

[Mac OS X Addict]

Just one question. How reliable are these guys? If there track record is good, Mac Users everywhere will be dancing in the streets and the PC users will want to join in. :)

[phampton81]

This is great news if it is true, but does anyone know how long it takes to go from this stage to actually announcing that particular product? Or even just a timeframe? Thanks

[awulf]

So if that is true then these machines probably ship in September. Like the all the other rumours say!

[Coca-Cola]

They seem to have a very hot track record.

[nuckinfutz]

Originally posted by Mac OS X Addict
Just one question. How reliable are these guys? If there track record is good, Mac Users everywhere will be dancing in the streets and the PC users will want to join in. :)

Macwhispers is new. They're still unkown but the blew it with their iPod predictions.

Macbidouille has had a couple of hits in the past. They probably have a couple of decent contacts.

[ibookin']

Here still some rumours on the future machines containing PPC 970.

- APPLE finalized the drawing of the mother boards containing PPC 970
(for Xserve and the machine pro). - the firm launched an invitation to
tender near Taiwanais manufacturers for the manufacture of these
products. 2 will be retained.

The card of the machine pro, would be much longer and narrow that what
one currently has. We let to you imagine the shape of the future case
which will contain it...

Though I don't know French, this translation seems pretty good...

[reyesmac]

I hope these new Powermacs will be fast enough to make the PC crowd shut up about underpowered Macs and gets the Mac crowd to see how underpowered the rest of Apples lineup is once these debut at a nice price. Then maybe Apple can get these in the rest of its Macs in less time it took to get the G4's in the iMacs. Because if it waits to make the rest of their machines up to the competitions speeds, they arent going to raise their marketshare one bit. Not by just selling Powermacs anyway.

[beatle888]

yea, i already read this in another thread. that translation sounds the same as what i read earlier.

[Coca-Cola]

hmmm... I can imagine something... Something a lot like a mixing of the xserve metal and the current powermacs handles. That would rock.

[nuckinfutz]

Originally posted by reyesmac
I hope these new Powermacs will be fast enough to make the PC crowd shut up about underpowered Macs and gets the Mac crowd to see how underpowered the rest of Apples lineup is once these debut at a nice price. Then maybe Apple can get these in the rest of its Macs in less time it took to get the G4's in the iMacs. Because if it waits to make the rest of their machines up to the competitions speeds, they arent going to raise their marketshare one bit. Not by just selling Powermacs anyway.

As long as they offer Dual Machines. Right now the 1.8Ghz PPC 970 is equivalent to roughly a P4 2.8Ghz-3Ghz. That won't be enough by September .If Apple could shoehorn a Dual in there,even it it was more expensive than the current Dual 1.4Ghz G4 Powermacs, we'd be ahead. Maybe not on single apps but any kind of Multitasking would just blaze on a dual 970 system with the fastes RAM available.

[MacWhispers]

Again, sorry about adding some guesswork to my iPod data, and, thus, missing the whole shebang. However, everything posted to MacWhispers insofar as raw information from OEM/ODM sources is true.

It's funny to watch other "rumor" sites restate my reports... :)

[squatch]

I don't know now about the IBM chip...I'm still hoping for sure...but after reading LoopRumors.com...they seem to have inside sources that state a former rumor mentioned on here...an AMD/Apple alliance to make a PPC chip.

I wouldn't mind either one since I'm big fans of both chips. Either way, we win! :D

[Coca-Cola]

Hey, you can have your 3.6 Intel. I will take the 970. I have one word for you GERMANIUM.

[squatch]

Originally posted by MacWhispers
Again, sorry about adding some guesswork to my iPod data, and, thus, missing the whole shebang. However, everything posted to MacWhispers insofar as raw information from OEM/ODM sources is true.

It's funny to watch other "rumor" sites restate my reports... :)

I thought MacWhispers was changing their format and not doing rumor predictions anymore, or were going away?? I love the site and hope it sticks around for a long time, but I thought I heard on here we were losing MacWhispers.com. Can someone confirm the truth here? :confused:

[squatch]

Originally posted by Coca-Cola
Hey, you can have your 3.6 Intel. I will take the 970. I have one word for you GERMANIUM.

Germanium meaning??? Is that the element their going to manufacture the new 970s with?? :confused:

[NavyIntel007]

dude, one thing I read on this site that just kills me is how everyone thinks 64 bit will equal twice the performance. This is not true. For 32 bit operations and optimized programs, there will not be a speed increase. For 64 bit operations there will be obviously massive increases. No doubt though about it being faster, just not as much as everyone is screaming about.

[nuckinfutz]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
dude, one thing I read on this site that just kills me is how everyone thinks 64 bit will equal twice the performance. This is not true. For 32 bit operations and optimized programs, there will not be a speed increase. For 64 bit operations there will be obviously massive increases. No doubt though about it being faster, just not as much as everyone is screaming about.

Exactly they should be more excited by

1. A Memory Bandwidth of 7.2Gbps(6.4 realized)

2. 8 was superscaler

3. Altivec

4. G4 Bit capability without the 32bit penalty.

Now If I could just get a schematic of the Motherboard. We need a leak!

[Sol]

Originally posted by reyesmac
I hope these new Powermacs will be fast enough to make the PC crowd shut up about underpowered Macs and gets the Mac crowd to see how underpowered the rest of Apples lineup is once these debut at a nice price. Then maybe Apple can get these in the rest of its Macs in less time it took to get the G4's in the iMacs. Because if it waits to make the rest of their machines up to the competitions speeds, they arent going to raise their marketshare one bit. Not by just selling Powermacs anyway.

If you ask me it is the Mac crowd that is doing all the whining about G4 speeds. PC users don't really care as they prefer to run Windows anyway.

[Coca-Cola]

GERMANIUM. IBM is leading this chip technology right now. Germanium is better than Silicon and copper for chip making. Intel is going to get into some serious problems in the future with power usage and waste. Germanium is IBM's secret weapon. It isn't going to be in the 970, but the future of IBM chips is going to be a bright one.

[beatle888]

dont forget the masses amounts of true ddr ram...


not much of a speed increase hehehehe:D :cool:

with all that in your post and the new ram increases....oh man, i cant wait. and im sure they'll go metal or ultra clear and possibly use that new fiber optic (or whatever) effect to make the case actually be a projected image :D

damn, does anyone have that link about how apple has patented something to make the outside of the computers case change in color and possibly display images?

[MacWhispers]

Originally posted by squatch
I thought MacWhispers was changing their format and not doing rumor predictions anymore, or were going away?? I love the site and hope it sticks around for a long time, but I thought I heard on here we were losing MacWhispers.com. Can someone confirm the truth here? :confused:

I changed the format, and stopped injecting guesswork into my reports. Now, all I do is recount information that's given to me from Apple supplier sources... without the speculation.

[phampton81]

NavyIntel007 dude, one thing I read on this site that just kills me is how everyone thinks 64 bit will equal twice the performance. This is not true. For 32 bit operations and optimized programs, there will not be a speed increase. For 64 bit operations there will be obviously massive increases. No doubt though about it being faster, just not as much as everyone is screaming about.

We have been over this a thousand times at least, and you are about the thousandth person to say this. I think we all realize now that a 64 bit processor does not double speed because it has twice the bits, no it doubles the speed because it is a completely different processor and it is made by a completely different company, it is twice as fast because that is what preliminary benchmarks say, it is twice as fast because it has a ton of improvements over the G4, so the next time I have to hear someone try to explain to me why this new processor isn't going to be twice as fast as the G4 I am going to frickin spew.

[beatle888]

hehehe i love it:D

[foniks2020]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
dude, one thing I read on this site that just kills me is how everyone thinks 64 bit will equal twice the performance. This is not true. For 32 bit operations and optimized programs, there will not be a speed increase. For 64 bit operations there will be obviously massive increases. No doubt though about it being faster, just not as much as everyone is screaming about.

Just ignore this post... no need for more exhaustive 64bit FUD.

Please no more.... it goes absolutely nowhere.

[sparkleytone]

macwhispers is run by a getrichquick creep anyways. most would do themselves a favor by keeping away from that website and the guy who runs it.

[beatle888]

:rolleyes:

[Sol]

Originally posted by sparkleytone
macwhispers is run by a getrichquick creep anyways. most would do themselves a favor by keeping away from that website and the guy who runs it.

Someone has a chip on their shoulder. Considering that the editor of MacWhispers has posted a few times in this thread you can do us all a favor and keep your rude comments to yourself.

[beatle888]

:D

[MacQuest]

Originally posted by Sol
...PC users don't really care as they prefer to run Windows anyway.

:rolleyes: That's why there are so many Switchers, whether you choose to believe it or not.

It's so amusing to see these former Windows users become the loudest Mac advocates practically overnight.

They did NOT PREFER to use Windows, they just didn't realize that Macs make good consumer computers and aren't just for the "Creative" types.

The Apple Stores are changing that though...

BRING ON THE 970's!!:D

[squatch]

Originally posted by MacWhispers
I changed the format, and stopped injecting guesswork into my reports. Now, all I do is recount information that's given to me from Apple supplier sources... without the speculation.

Well keep it like it is!! I love just the fact you have the inside connections with the supplier chain. Yeah good move on not guessing...that way your not always wondering if you have to eat crow on your guesses....better to just supply it and maybe give a personal speculation like you have been.

Once again, keep up the great work!! :)

[squatch]

Originally posted by MacQuest
:rolleyes: That's why there are so many Switchers, whether you choose to believe it or not.

It's so amusing to see these former Windows users become the loudest Mac advocates practically overnight.

They did NOT PREFER to use Windows, they just didn't realize that Macs make good consumer computers and aren't just for the "Creative" types.

The Apple Stores are changing that though...

BRING ON THE 970's!!:D

That's why I'm such an avid Mac advocate now! I was repairing PCs for years and loving every bit of Win2K...then I was forced to use X in the labs here at school when I decided to further my degree....started seeing real quick the differences and never looked back.

You know, it's funny that you can talk about anything from fav automobiles to favorite restaurants and receive anything from favorable agreement to light criticism. But for some reason, you start talking about the advantages of a Mac to a PC user and almost 9 times out of 10 it's instant negative backlash.

Can anyone clue me into why this type of psyche exists in the computer industry?? Has MS brainwashed people so bad that the blinders are almost impossible to remove?? They were very difficult for me that's for sure! :p

[beatle888]

fear of the truth:p


seriously though, isnt there positive points for both platforms? i just use the mac though cause its what ive always used. but i hear the pc's are cool if you know how to set them up and keep them going. but still, i just cant get into their GUI design. i would give it a try though, if i had to.

[squatch]

Your correct beatle, both do have their advantages and I am VERY well acquainted with the Windows OS and how to set it up and use it the way I wanted it (given what it would let me do).
I just don't like not having more control over how my OS looks and feels like I have with OS X. I also like what I'm seeing with all the puzzle pieces fitting into place for X in the future. Give it a couple more years, and I believe it will be a far more advanced OS than Windows and maybe Linux (although I support it's development as well).
I still have a Windows laptop that I resort to when I do my banking online, or if I come across a website that simply will not pull up correctly in any of the Mac browsers.
I guess it was easy for me to be a "switcher" since I got a B/W G3 450, monitor and all with X and 9, for $200 from the school. I felt like it was a worthwhile investment to try something different for a while, and if I didn't like it...I was only out around $400 (after upgrading the Hard drive and RAM).
But of course, when I decide to make a "real" investment in Apple and buy a computer brand new, you can bet I will have done my research. ;)

[beatle888]

:D sounds like it.

i cant believe your impressed by a G3 450. but taking your posts into consideration, its the OS and not the hardware thats caught your eye. heres to the 970:D hopefully.

[MyLeftNut]

Whatever Apple has in mind for the design of the new PowerMac, just like everything else when it comes out I know Im just gonna want one....and not have the cash for it..;)

[beatle888]

maybe you can sell your other nut.

[backspinner]

Originally posted by beatle888
maybe you can sell your other nut. :p

[squatch]

Originally posted by beatle888
:D sounds like it.

i cant believe your impressed by a G3 450. but taking your posts into consideration, its the OS and not the hardware thats caught your eye. heres to the 970:D hopefully.

Yep, I'm quite happy with my little ole G3 450. It does what I want it to do. I run all my heavy graphic intensive mapping and GIS work on the G4s in the computer lab at school.

But of course, IF the 970 comes out...well I may just have fork up the money...I feel that that will be a worthwhile investment. I just can't justify paying for a G4 tower right now. I've seen what they do in the lab and how fast they run, and for what I do it's not worth the upgrade yet. ;)

It's funny though when I show my fellow Windows buddies what my computer can do at a third the speed of their Athlon or Intel boxes, they simply can't believe it. :D

[altair]

Originally posted by squatch
Yep, I'm quite happy with my little ole G3 450. It does what I want it to do. I run all my heavy graphic intensive mapping and GIS work on the G4s in the computer lab at school.


Wow, what GIS apps are you running on a Mac? I am just so used to running ArcView 8 on a pc that I didn't think I had an option. You using GRASS? I am also a student, minoring in GIS, and would love a way to use it on a Mac, please explain. Thanks

~altair

[OSeXy!]

Hmm. A new update today:

Apple devrait lancer aujourd'hui son appel d'offre pour la fabrication des futures machines professionnelles (non de code P62). Les fabricants ont jusqu'au 15 avril pour y répondre. Le gagnant sera désigné le 20.

That's some pretty specific "rumour" info! Those on the tender list must respond by April 15th, and the winner will be chosen on the 20th. Let the fabrication begin!

[BenRoethig]

Longer and narrower? Is it possible these were just prototype boards designed in fit in ATX cases?

[appeLappe]

It just hit me!

What happens if we combine two recent rumors?

30inch LCD + longer and narrower motherboards!

30 inch wide-screen, isn't that quite close to a longer and narrower motherboard (starting with the size of today’s G4 motherboards)?

It's the MEGA TABLET PC !!!

Or something else, with a motherboard and a screen combined!

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Macwhispers is new. They're still unkown but the blew it with their iPod predictions.


what was the deal with Envestco. I seem to remember reading something about how this same guy is making the iPod stand, running an energy company and now doing macwhispers. I know there is some dirt here, like some article about how the guy running it did something stupid or malicious.

[tazznb]

Originally posted by squatch
Your correct beatle, both do have their advantages and I am VERY well acquainted with the Windows OS and how to set it up and use it the way I wanted it (given what it would let me do).
I just don't like not having more control over how my OS looks and feels like I have with OS X.

Can you tell me why Win2k's system partition bloats to critical mass even though nothing is being installed, or added to it? My problem: I gave win2k a 4 GIG partition, and have installed ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on this partition, and now have 116Mb of space left. I installed everything on my other hard drives.

I always wonder how such a shabby, and underwelming OS took first place on desktop, and pro. :mad: :confused:

[Tiauguinho]

Originally posted by peterjhill
what was the deal with Envestco. I seem to remember reading something about how this same guy is making the iPod stand, running an energy company and now doing macwhispers. I know there is some dirt here, like some article about how the guy running it did something stupid or malicious.


Peter,


It was the MacTable contorversy, I think that you can check the whole story on the MacInTouch forums... hehehehehheeheh :D


As to the PPC970... Im holding here for the 2nd Revision of it! But one thing is for sure... IBM + Apple = Oh yeah!

[eric_n_dfw]

Don't knock those G3's - I recently was given a PowerBook G3 400 (Lombard) at work and, aside from the fact that it's battery is toast, it has a puny, 8MB video card and it needs more RAM, it handles OS X 10.2.4 pretty well. I know, that's a lot of aside's - but seriously, when I get a pair of 256MB SO-DIMMs in this thing, it will be every bit as usable as my companies Dell P3 700 laptop with Win2K.

As I've said 100 times here, put DDR FSB on the CURRENT chips (G3,G4) and I honestly believe their performance would astound people. Especially on the G4 with AltiVec applications. From the spec's about the 970 (900Mhz FSB!!!!) that thing should shut up even the staunchest Apple critics! (Okay, so they'll probably never shut up - but I can dream, can't I?) :)

[Rustus Maximus]

appeLappe, I was thinking the same thing :D

Originally posted by appeLappe
It just hit me!

What happens if we combine two recent rumors?

30inch LCD + longer and narrower motherboards!

30 inch wide-screen, isn't that quite close to a longer and narrower motherboard (starting with the size of today?s G4 motherboards)?

It's the MEGA TABLET PC !!!

Or something else, with a motherboard and a screen combined!

That would be incredible...

Rustus

[synp]

Originally posted by appeLappe
It just hit me!

What happens if we combine two recent rumors?

30inch LCD + longer and narrower motherboards!

30 inch wide-screen, isn't that quite close to a longer and narrower motherboard (starting with the size of today’s G4 motherboards)?

It's the MEGA TABLET PC !!!

Or something else, with a motherboard and a screen combined!

No! They are for the iMac 30" and for the iBook 30"

Get a grip.
;)

[-hh]

Originally posted by appeLappe
It just hit me!

What happens if we combine two recent rumors?

30inch LCD + longer and narrower motherboards!
It's the MEGA TABLET PC !!!

Or something else, with a motherboard and a screen combined!
I mentioned this possibility last week while it was still a page 2 rumor; it all depends on the specific dimensions, which we haven't gotten yet. If its not particularly huge, you don't need a 30"... you can squeeze it into a 17-20" widescreen footprint.

FWIW, an interesting aside is that an LCD screen form factor is probably a pretty interesting one from a cooling standpoint...a large flat vertical surface to chimney from. Or at the very least, it could put any "fan noise" behind the LCD to block it from the user.

Another alternative would be to make an integrated CPU/keyboard system (although it would be a challenge for where to put the PCI expansion slots for a "pro" system, assuming that this isn't the next iMac)


FWIW, I generally see Mac's physically shrinking in size as a general design trait . . . "small is beautiful". Much of the technology has already been developed on the laptop product lines, and the cost issue of buying 2.5" hard drives instead of 3.5's probably isn't that great anymore.



-hh

[cubist]

Originally posted by squatch
Well keep it like it is!! I love just the fact you have the inside connections with the supplier chain. Yeah good move on not guessing...that way your not always wondering if you have to eat crow on your guesses....better to just supply it and maybe give a personal speculation like you have been.

Once again, keep up the great work!! :)

I second that, MacWhispers. Since Apple is outsourcing their production, the contractors are not going to be able to keep secrets.

[Mr. Anderson]

If the new mobo is longer and narrower, I wonder if the PowerMac case will endup laying flat again and not be a mini tower? With enough support to place a 23" or even 30" monitor on top? It would be a nice space saving design for the desktop....

D

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by Macrumors
MacBidouille claims (http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-03-17#5017) that Apple has completed the new motherboards for the PPC 970, and that the new designs are longer and narrower.

MacWhispers made (http://www.envestco2.com/macwhispers/archives/000046.php) similar claims that new motherboard designs were complete, with assumptions that they were for upcoming PowerMacs.

Doesn't this at least imply that the first 970 board is a blade? This way Apple could use it in an upgrade mode, a 1U server in single or dual mode, or a 3U server in high density blade mode.

Rocketman

http://www.v-serv.com/-upload/avatar.jpg

[kansaigaijin]

so the guy is not feeling good enough about himself to just have a web page and post tidbits that probably half the fab industry in Taiwan knows about, but he has to get on Macrumors (and what other rumors sites?) and gloat about it. Where did I see this story at least a week ago? big deal. and he has a loser fan club as well, as if he can't get on and post in his own defence. like he is doing something necessary for the good of mankind, rather than boost his own ego.

no one has pointed out that the 970 supports a 900mhz frontside bus. what's that, about 6x the current real bus speed?

and 64bit= (can't find the article) a huge increase in possible memory addresses. still hunig for the story.

[robotrenegade]

I hope to see these on the next upgrades.

[drastik]

Originally posted by dukestreet
If the new mobo is longer and narrower, I wonder if the PowerMac case will endup laying flat again and not be a mini tower? With enough support to place a 23" or even 30" monitor on top? It would be a nice space saving design for the desktop....

D

Ah, sweet memories of my Centris 610, power in a pizza box!

[kansaigaijin]

centris 610, I had one of those, ah the memories . . .

[gbojim]

Originally posted by BenRoethig
Longer and narrower? Is it possible these were just prototype boards designed in fit in ATX cases?

Probably not. Low quantity prototype boards do not typically go out for bid like that.

[ryan]

Originally posted by kansaigaijin
[snip]
no one has pointed out that the 970 supports a 900mhz frontside bus. what's that, about 6x the current real bus speed?
[snip]
What are you talking about? Do you not read the previous posts in a given thread before posting yourself? The benefits of the faster bus has been brought up.

[bobindashadows]

This is rather interesting... MacBidouille has had (IMO) a rather reliable background, with some ups and downs.... however, MacWhispers is really going to be reduced to nothing if they keep on getting rumors wrong, especially since it is Jack Campbell's site...

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Friends at IBM R&D have told me Apple has had the 970 since the beginning of the year. I have a feeling we may see PPC970 based Macs by August with a slight possibility of introduction at MWNY in the summer. I've also been told that the 970 was specifically designed for Apple because the cost of development could not be justified for use in the Blade servers alone. Nice thing is that IBM is willing to listen to Apple's needs and wants and design a chip towards that. Motorola has given up in that area.

[Drewkakke]

I don't understand how anyone can be so optomistic about a product that neither Apple nor IBM has formally confirmed to be used for macs. I love macs, but to hear people boast and gush over a product that hasn't been produced yet and how it'll blow pcs out of the water once its out is pathetic. I guess its great that people are very excited about this unproven, yet-to-be produced product but, please, get a backbone people!!! I'll stay cynical until i see it on store shelves. Look at the 17inch PB. Jobs announced it last Jan. and its only trickling into stores just now. I don't know how much PCs have advanced from the time Jobs announced it to the time it is available. I hate it when mac users compare PCs available now with macs that don't even exist yet.


---Regime change...in 2004---

[drastik]

Originally posted by Drewkakke
I don't understand how anyone can be so optomistic about a product that neither Apple nor IBM has formally confirmed to be used for macs. I love macs, but to hear people boast and gush over a product that hasn't been produced yet and how it'll blow pcs out of the water once its out is pathetic. I guess its great that people are very excited about this unproven, yet-to-be produced product but, please, get a backbone people!!! I'll stay cynical until i see it on store shelves. Look at the 17inch PB. Jobs announced it last Jan. and its only trickling into stores just now. I don't know how much PCs have advanced from the time Jobs announced it to the time it is available. I hate it when mac users compare PCs available now with macs that don't even exist yet.


---Regime change...in 2004---

Though I generally agree that we shoudln't count our eggs before they fry, you have to realize where you are. This is a rumor site, it is all about speculation. "...backstage pass to the future." and all that. Once things are confirmed, they aren't rumors anymore.

[dongmin]

Originally posted by -hh
I mentioned this possibility last week while it was still a page 2 rumor; it all depends on the specific dimensions, which we haven't gotten yet. If its not particularly huge, you don't need a 30"... you can squeeze it into a 17-20" widescreen footprint.

FWIW, an interesting aside is that an LCD screen form factor is probably a pretty interesting one from a cooling standpoint...a large flat vertical surface to chimney from. Or at the very least, it could put any "fan noise" behind the LCD to block it from the user.

Another alternative would be to make an integrated CPU/keyboard system (although it would be a challenge for where to put the PCI expansion slots for a "pro" system, assuming that this isn't the next iMac)


wow, an 'integrated cpu/keyboard system' and possibly a LCD screen attached on a hinge! Wait, they already did that: it´s called a laptop. And for a desktop laptop: the 20th Anniversary Mac.

[hacurio1]

Originally posted by kansaigaijin
so the guy is not feeling good enough about himself to just have a web page and post tidbits that probably half the fab industry in Taiwan knows about, but he has to get on Macrumors (and what other rumors sites?) and gloat about it. Where did I see this story at least a week ago? big deal. and he has a loser fan club as well, as if he can't get on and post in his own defence. like he is doing something necessary for the good of mankind, rather than boost his own ego.

no one has pointed out that the 970 supports a 900mhz frontside bus. what's that, about 6x the current real bus speed?

and 64bit= (can't find the article) a huge increase in possible memory addresses. still hunig for the story.

Man.....Where have you been?

[dongmin]

Originally posted by cubist
I second that, MacWhispers. Since Apple is outsourcing their production, the contractors are not going to be able to keep secrets.

No, I don´t think so. Contractors are just as bound to NDAs as anyone else. Remember the time ATI goofed and announced new PowerMacs the day before they were supposed to be announced. Well, everyone knows what happened after that. Steve Jobs dropped them like a rock, and they´re just now getting back into supplying GPUs for the PowerMacs.

MacBidouille is just rehashing rumors posted by MacWhispers a couple of weeks ago. No new info. Of course, it´s possible that they´re posting the bit after they´ve had the time to check their sources. But we aren´t exactly talking about the NYTimes here...

MacWhispers: unproven trackrecord; they bombed on some recent iPod rumors; the site run by a really sketchy guy

MacBidouille: mixed record; do a search...

[Fender2112]

Can anyone clue me into why this type of psyche exists in the computer industry?? Has MS brainwashed people so bad that the blinders are almost impossible to remove?? They were very difficult for me that's for sure! :p

It's only human nature to not want to be proven wrong. The negative backlashing is just an inate defense mechanism. I know i get defensive about Macs, but I'm not wrong :D

[nagromme]

To my knowledge, MacWhispers hasn't had any inside info relayed through the site and then proven wrong. Every rumor site has that happen frequently--that's the nature of rumors--so such a record seems impressive to me. As for proving reports RIGHT, that will take time. We'll have to see what products come out.

What MacWhispers HAS gotten wrong was a conclusion (the date of new iPods) drawn from facts that were not relayed. That's a very DIFFERENT kind of content from the reports themselves--it's a conclusion BASED on those reports. And MacWhispers' only crime there was in overstating the certainty of that conclusion. What rumor site hasn't done that from time to time? Remember Spymac and the iWalk hoax?

If MacWhispers has (as far as we still can tell) real rumor sources--ones which are DIFFERENT from those found elsewhere on the web--and makes reasonable analyses/guesses based on those--which you can easily identify and form a different conclusion if you wish--then why reject the site? The incorrect iPod date is so clearly a different kind of content than the rest of the site that I just don't see the logic of lumping it all together. (And even the iPod date prediction admitted from the start a small chance of being wrong. Fair enough--the guy will need to time to learn how to use the sources to draw conclusions most accurately. Meanwhile, the facts BEHIND those conclusions remain--since I doubt the entire site is a hoax. And yes, some of those facts will turn out to be false info, and some will be true but then change. No rumor site is going to hit 100%.)

As for this particular rumor, if MacBidouille and MacWhispers have similar info but with different deadline dates mentioned, that seems to suggest two different sources--and adds credibility to the overall report of new motherboards.

[kenohki]

Originally posted by Drewkakke
I don't understand how anyone can be so optomistic about a product that neither Apple nor IBM has formally confirmed to be used for macs. I love macs, but to hear people boast and gush over a product that hasn't been produced yet and how it'll blow pcs out of the water once its out is pathetic. I guess its great that people are very excited about this unproven, yet-to-be produced product but, please, get a backbone people!!! I'll stay cynical until i see it on store shelves. Look at the 17inch PB. Jobs announced it last Jan. and its only trickling into stores just now. I don't know how much PCs have advanced from the time Jobs announced it to the time it is available. I hate it when mac users compare PCs available now with macs that don't even exist yet.


While I generally agree that we won't know the introduction date of the thing and how the competition will look by that time, I do think that these types of discussions are useful to those who have a clue and aren't just spreading FUD. Apple is probably not going to talk about it and the roadmaps that the AIM alliance had for desktop chips are all obsolete, so people come to sites like this to swap information and expertise. Nothing wrong in that.

I also think it's HIGHLY unlikely that IBM would put VMX/AltiVec into the 970 if it weren't required by another major vendor for the chip. I've read that IBM has told it's AIX and Linux developers not to expect vector unit support from IBM (as I guess you probably won't see VMX being integrated into future POWER iterations). The only reason I could see the vector unit being integrated is if another company could buy enough of the PowerPC 970 to make that addition worthwhile. Well, the only other volume user of PowerPC cores outside of the telecom/videogame business (for which this type of processor is overkill) is Apple, and they are the only one who specifically have a requirement for VMX due to the fact that they have optimized code for the thing. Apple is gonna use it. Its really the only scenario that makes any sense.

[beatle888]

Originally posted by Drewkakke
I don't understand how anyone can be so optomistic

---Regime change...in 2004---



ok, ask yourself this. why else would IBM develope the chip with altivec. isnt apple the biggest customer for such a chip? who else do you think would use these chips? :cool: woohoo
i cant wait.

[GPTurismo]

can these things do multithreading? I know power4's can't which is one reason they ship two chips on one die. Also if not I hope HOPE they release duals.

I just hope they release duals anyway. :D

GPT

[yzedf]

Originally posted by MacQuest
:rolleyes: That's why there are so many Switchers, whether you choose to believe it or not.

It's so amusing to see these former Windows users become the loudest Mac advocates practically overnight.

They did NOT PREFER to use Windows, they just didn't realize that Macs make good consumer computers and aren't just for the "Creative" types.

The Apple Stores are changing that though...

BRING ON THE 970's!!:D

Most of us switchers are OS X advocates. We know that the hardware is slower. But the OS is so much more than Windows or Linux. I am not talking cuteness here, but actual usability.

[jch200]

say, how hot do you think these things run? Do you think they'll be able to slap this chip into a Power Book? Or do you think they'll just stick with the G4's for that.

[Dave Marsh]

An AppleInsider poster (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?threadid=3102) noted that an IBM official confirmed Apple would be using the 970.;)

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by MyLeftNut
Whatever Apple has in mind for the design of the new PowerMac, just like everything else when it comes out I know Im just gonna want one....and not have the cash for it..;)

I right there with you!

I've been waiting so long for those real DDR Macs restaining myself from that buying urge every time a speed bump came around by saying, "If it only had a faster memory bus."

That excuse is gonna be gone if/when these puppies come out!

That's why I just upgraded from my G4/400 to a dual G4/500. Old enough to get a good deal, but fast enough to feel like a big upgrade. (Plus, I got a steal of a deal on a CompUSA floor model - the sale of my G4 chip and B&W on eBay paid for over half of the new machine! :D )

[barkmonster]

can these things do multithreading? I know power4's can't which is one reason they ship two chips on one die. Also if not I hope HOPE they release duals.

You mean Hyperthreading It's the OS that handles multithreading. I think Apple have backed themselves into a corner with the dual cpu thing. It's the only way they've had any hope in hell of competing with PCs over the past few years, Mac owners have had several generations of dual models to upgrade to.

Imagine someone who's stayed high end for a few years but only upgraded when there's been a significant increase in speed from doing it.

Dual 500Mhz G4 -> Dual 1Ghz G4 -> Dual 1.42 Ghz G4

The next one would logically be dual n Ghz PPC970. It wouldn't matter if it was only a 1.6Ghz dual, it would be significantly faster than the current top of the range dual model just from the bandwidth increases alone.

[squatch]

Originally posted by altair
Wow, what GIS apps are you running on a Mac? I am just so used to running ArcView 8 on a pc that I didn't think I had an option. You using GRASS? I am also a student, minoring in GIS, and would love a way to use it on a Mac, please explain. Thanks

~altair

I would heavily suggest looking into TNTmips by Microimages. They make a FREE version of mips for students like myself that has all the functionality of a full blown vector/raster GIS called TNTlite (it has a few size restrictions however). It's free, easy to use, has a plethora of tutorials to help you, and I like it much better than the Arc products and even GRASS. In fact, I'm using it for my Master's thesis right now.

I would definitely give it a try. It runs in the new X11 program that Apple came out for UNIX programs, since it is natively a UNIX based GIS like GRASS.

[squatch]

Originally posted by tazznb
Can you tell me why Win2k's system partition bloats to critical mass even though nothing is being installed, or added to it? My problem: I gave win2k a 4 GIG partition, and have installed ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on this partition, and now have 116Mb of space left. I installed everything on my other hard drives.

I always wonder how such a shabby, and underwelming OS took first place on desktop, and pro. :mad: :confused:

It is the eternal mystery of Windows OS. Every one has been like that pretty much since Win95. They keep getting bigger and more bloated with each release. That is why I had to format my laptop after having Win2K on it for about a year cause it just seemed to slowly deteriorate over time. Plus my HD was only about 4 GB in size. I was constantly uninstalling and deleting files to keep free space available. Defragmenting and Scandisk never seemed to work.

Even though I recently reloaded Win98 back on it (which isn't any better by any stretch) to save space, it does what I need when I have to use Windows. Much faster than VPC IMHO. ;)

[squatch]

Originally posted by GPTurismo
can these things do multithreading? I know power4's can't which is one reason they ship two chips on one die. Also if not I hope HOPE they release duals.

I just hope they release duals anyway. :D

GPT

No, neither the Power4 NOR the 970 is capable of multithreading. It is capable of multiprocessing though.

HOWEVER, I believe there is factual evidence that the Power5 will have this....which could possibly mean if a derivative consumer chip was made of it (say a 980), then yes it could support multithreading/hyperthreading or whatever you want to call it.

[nagromme]

At Ars Technica (sorry I don't have the link) there was a chart of chip power consumption. At lower MHz, a PPC 970 seems to be in the portable range. I assume low power goes along with low waste-heat.

I'm not buying a PowerBook without one!

[MyLeftNut]

Ah yes..the 970 in the powerbook...is that as likely to come about as the powermacs, I mean in about the same time? It would sure as hell make me less able to decide on buying a new mac....

[ogun7]

Originally posted by MyLeftNut
Whatever Apple has in mind for the design of the new PowerMac, just like everything else when it comes out I know Im just gonna want one....and not have the cash for it..;)

AMEN!!!

[RIP]

Originally posted by Coca-Cola
GERMANIUM. IBM is leading this chip technology right now. Germanium is better than Silicon and copper for chip making. Intel is going to get into some serious problems in the future with power usage and waste. Germanium is IBM's secret weapon. It isn't going to be in the 970, but the future of IBM chips is going to be a bright one.

With CPU's running at such low voltages now, I would bet that they all are using germanium.

[nuckinfutz]

You mean Hyperthreading It's the OS that handles multithreading.

Actually he is correct "Hyperthreading" is Intels name for Simultaneous Multithreading(SMT). In the near future we'll have mulithreading at the Processor-OS-App level

At Ars Technica (sorry I don't have the link) there was a chart of chip power consumption. At lower MHz, a PPC 970 seems to be in the portable range. I assume low power goes along with low waste-heat.

I'm not buying a PowerBook without one!

42 Watts @ 1.8Ghz

19 Watts @1.2(PPC 970 1.1Volt)

Depending on the supporting chipset the PPC 970 itself is Powerbook ready.

I honestly don't see Apple moving the 970 to Powerbooks until the 970+ comes at .09um. And judging from reports the 1st gen motherboards are sounding like they're too large.

[RIP]

I doubt that there will be a 970 Mac this year. It was stated that the motherboard's drawing was complete. That is a far cry from having a real motherboard in possesion. There is still time needed to have samples made and populated. More time is needed to test and troubleshoot those samples. Since it is not a perfect world, errors will be found and need to be fixed, either with the drawing or with components. New suppliers may be needed to correct component problems, which will require time to reasearch. If the motherborad was found to be a problem, which is a 100% gaurentee, a new drawing will have to be worked up taking more time. Then the process if having samples created and boards populated starts over again. Taking more time. Finally, after spending time troubleshooting revised boards everything looks good, then it goes into environmental testing. Simetimes you get lucky here, but if you don't you start over at the drawing table repeating the sample and population process. If the environmental tests out OK, you can then submit the final product to manufacturing after all documentation has been submitted to the library. There will be time to ramp put production, and more time to package and distribute the product through the channels. And lets not forget that Marketing needs to be on track. They can hold everything up with a simple misprint.

I don't see them coming out with a 970 mac this year if they are only at the drawing stage for the MOBO.

I'll take that bet.

[nuckinfutz]

Originally posted by RIP
I doubt that there will be a 970 Mac this year. It was stated that the motherboard's drawing was complete. That is a far cry from having a real motherboard in possesion. There is still time needed to have samples made and populated. More time is needed to test and troubleshoot those samples. Since it is not a perfect world, errors will be found and need to be fixed, either with the drawing or with components. New suppliers may be needed to correct component problems, which will require time to reasearch. If the motherborad was found to be a problem, which is a 100% gaurentee, a new drawing will have to be worked up taking more time. Then the process if having samples created and boards populated starts over again. Taking more time. Finally, after spending time troubleshooting revised boards everything looks good, then it goes into environmental testing. Simetimes you get lucky here, but if you don't you start over at the drawing table repeating the sample and population process. If the environmental tests out OK, you can then submit the final product to manufacturing after all documentation has been submitted to the library. There will be time to ramp put production, and more time to package and distribute the product through the channels. And lets not forget that Marketing needs to be on track. They can hold everything up with a simple misprint.

I don't see them coming out with a 970 mac this year if they are only at the drawing stage for the MOBO.

I'll take that bet.

Rip and you would lose that bet.

Read the reports again. Apple is now looking for a builder. They've ALREADY prototyped and built test models and have them working correctly. They are now looking at who will build the MB. Odds are Apple has been working with IBM over a year on this.

What are you talking about "Distribuiting through channels" what channels? The MB are built...shipped to Apple and Apple puts the computers together. I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Let me know if you're serious about losing your money ;)

[kansaigaijin]

Ryan, can you find where someone mentioned it, in this thread, before I made my comment? I don't think so.
I always read the whole thread before I post, do you? I am starting to think this is a big waste of time, too many people jumping in, without having tried to find info first anywhere else. Ars technica has had excellent knowledgable articles, only a few people have read them and have anything intelligent to say.

[IJ Reilly]

More then likely, Uncle Steve will announce a 970 Mac in July and it won't ship until September or October, in very small numbers. Now, there's a prediction in line with recent rumors and recent history. All of this will happen right after the PB17 ships in quantity and Apple releases the revised iPods.

I'm turning blue over here.

[nuckinfutz]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
More then likely, Uncle Steve will announce a 970 Mac in July and it won't ship until September or October, in very small numbers. Now, there's a prediction in line with recent rumors and recent history. All of this will happen right after the PB17 ships in quantity and Apple releases the revised iPods.

I'm turning blue over here.

I think you're right. It's almost april Sept is 5 Months away. These rumors seem inline with whats needed to produce 970 based Powermacs late summer.

Also finished Motherboards must mean that IBM is done sampling PPC 970s to vendors and ready to do volume production. That's where the fun will be.

[szark]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Also finished Motherboards must mean that IBM is done sampling PPC 970s to vendors and ready to do volume production.

I don't agree with that -- many vendors had completed motherboards for AMD's Hammer months ago, but AMD is still not ready to do volume production. :)

[MetallicPenguin]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
I think you're right. It's almost april Sept is 5 Months away. These rumors seem inline with whats needed to produce 970 based Powermacs late summer.

this is off topic, but I bet 10.3 will be also coming out about that time, if not sooner

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by barkmonster
can these things do multithreading? I know power4's can't which is one reason they ship two chips on one die. Also if not I hope HOPE they release duals.

You mean Hyperthreading It's the OS that handles multithreading.



Well, actually, multithreading is a valid CPU term as well. It means that a CPU can handle multiple threads across its pipeline stages (ie, stage 1 may be Thread1; stages 2-4 may be Thread2; stage 5 may be Thread1 again, etc) ... while this is obviously less usefull in a wide/short pipeline like the G4, it is a very useful technology for countering memory latency in longer-pipeline CPUs.

Hyperthreading, or SMT, is essentially a refinement of multithreading, allowing multiple threads across a specific pipeline stage (ie, the FPU Stage 1 may be Thread1 while the int units' Stage 1 may be Thread2, etc).

SMT is an extra bump in processor efficiency in that it both counters memory latency issues as MultiThreading, and also keeps all pipelines fed as close to 100% of the time as possible.

To answer the previous question: I've not seen anything indicating that the 970 supports multithreading or SMT/hyperThreading, and such an advance would be odd considering that its "big brother" Power4 does not support either technology either. However, the "Power5" is slated to support SMT in all its glory (reportedly more efficient than Intel's first-gen hyperthreading implementation), and the scant rumors around a "980" tend to agree that HT is being designed into the 980 as well.


I think Apple have backed themselves into a corner with the dual cpu thing. It's the only way they've had any hope in hell of competing with PCs over the past few years, Mac owners have had several generations of dual models to upgrade to.

Imagine someone who's stayed high end for a few years but only upgraded when there's been a significant increase in speed from doing it.

Dual 500Mhz G4 -> Dual 1Ghz G4 -> Dual 1.42 Ghz G4

The next one would logically be dual n Ghz PPC970. It wouldn't matter if it was only a 1.6Ghz dual, it would be significantly faster than the current top of the range dual model just from the bandwidth increases alone.

Well, two things.

First, the 970 gets a lot of its performance increase from the fact that it has a nice, fat FSB going to it, that is quite true. It has four times the memory bandwidth than any G4 to date.

How does that compare to dual G4s? Well, the 970 has an increase in core efficiency which will, combined with a modest frequency bump, give the user the same raw power s their dual G4s, but the real kicker is this: a single 970 still has four times the memory bandwidth of dual G4s!

So, a single 970 would be "enough" to justify a top-of-the-line machine, and though it may be hard psychologically for some to accept it, the rational side should be able to overcome. Question is: can Apple go the extra step and make it a dualie?

The problem here is that the 970's architecture demands a single FSB per chip, which means the SC chip now has to support not just one FSB but two. Where "dual G4s" were essentially "free" from the design perspective ("cheap' is probably the better word), dual 970s are not.

On the other hand, dual 970s would indeed offer a 75-90% performance improvement in many scenarios (dual G4s tend to average out around 25-30% improvement over singlies), because it keeps that big fat pipe going to each chip without compromise (granted, they still both share the SC-memory bandwidth, which is likely to be less than the sum of two full-speed FSBs).

In essense, with the 970s, Apple moves more into the Intel-like pricing structure regarding dual processors. They perform great, but they are expensive. I'm not sure if Apple will put itself that high up on the performance/price ladder.

[Dave Marsh]

AMD is not IBM. I wouldn't be surprised if IBM is currently ramping up production on this chip. I seem to recall their schedule called for just that to happen around this time.

That said, I agree with others, the real excitement here is the technology that Apple is building into the motherboard to take advantage of this CPU. I'd be really surprised to see USB 2, however. I don't think it provides any value added from Apple's viewpoint, and undermines Firewire. USB 1 works fine for routine peripherals. If USB 2 support is included, I think it'll only be for political reasons, to hedge against having to modify the motherboard later to accommodate it if FW dies. I think FW2, Bluetooth, and AE are a given. It would be nice to see PCI-X, but if they include that wouldn't AGP 8X become redundant/legacy technology (even though nothing currently takes advantage of it)?

Exciting times...:)

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by MyLeftNut
Ah yes..the 970 in the powerbook...is that as likely to come about as the powermacs, I mean in about the same time? It would sure as hell make me less able to decide on buying a new mac....

Powerbooks traditionally have crippled BANDWIDTH regardless of chip speed. If Steeviepoo were so farsighted as to put a hyperbandwidth portable together with whatever crippled 970 chip he wanted I would specify them for the company. We have 2 17" Powerbooks on order now purely on speculation to check out a computer with truly cool specs. We will be buying more. But the 970 Powerbook would serve yet another portion of our user base. We would buy perhaps 2 dozen (we are a very small company) if the BANDWIDTH were wicked. Steve? Hello?

Rocketman

http://www.v-serv.com/-upload/avatar.jpg

[rjwill246]

Here is my translation, if it will help

Apple has finalized the design of the mother boards of the PPC 970 ( for the Xserve and the professional machines).

The firm has sought tenders from Taiwanese manufacturers for the production of these products. Two will be retained.

The card for the professional machine will be longer and narrower than those currently used. We shall leave it to your imagination what the form of the future enclosure will take,,,

[Hugh]

Okay, what are we talking about here? What are the exect advanages the 970. I have read that it will be speed, others say since it's 64bit apps can be more complex with the loss of speed.

What are the advanages (and disavanages) of the 970 over the Intel X86?

-Hugh

[chewbaccapits]

Originally posted by sparkleytone
macwhispers is run by a getrichquick creep anyways. most would do themselves a favor by keeping away from that website and the guy who runs it. Hilarious spark...but give me some more empirical details.

[phampton81]

I am curious as to whether most people here would rather see dual 970's or a price drop in the powermac line with single 970's only. Not that either will happen, but I am just curious as to how much people really want that second processor. If the priceing/lineup stayed the same with a single for the lowend I think I might just go ahead and buy the single 970 for the 1500 it cost.

[ryan]

Originally posted by kansaigaijin
Ryan, can you find where someone mentioned it, in this thread, before I made my comment? I don't think so.
I always read the whole thread before I post, do you? I am starting to think this is a big waste of time, too many people jumping in, without having tried to find info first anywhere else. Ars technica has had excellent knowledgable articles, only a few people have read them and have anything intelligent to say. Look again:

Page 1: Post by nuckinfutz "1. A Memory Bandwidth of 7.2Gbps(6.4 realized)

Page 3: Post by eric_n_dfw "From the spec's about the 970 (900Mhz FSB!!!!) that thing should shut up even the staunchest Apple critics"

You lose, thanks for playing.

[nuckinfutz]

Originally posted by Hugh
Okay, what are we talking about here? What are the exect advanages the 970. I have read that it will be speed, others say since it's 64bit apps can be more complex with the loss of speed.

What are the advanages (and disavanages) of the 970 over the Intel X86?

-Hugh

Here's some info

The PPC 970 is a "8" Superscaler chip as opposed to the G4's "4".

PPC 970= 8 Instructions 5 dispatch

G4= 4 Instructions 3 dispatch(IIRC)

This simply means even at a base leve the PPC 970 can dispatch 66% more date per clock cycle.

Memory subsystems are crucial to feeding the various components of a computer

The G4 supports a Front Side Bus of 1.3Gbps(Gigabits per second). This is the maximum speed at which the processor directly access the memory.

The PPC 970 supports 7.2Gbps(6.4Gbps when overhead is accounted for). This 4x the throughput of the G4. This will make Altivec and memory bound applications simply fly.

Next we have L2 ondie cache.


PPC 970= 512k G4= 256k

Die Size

G4 .18 Micron= 106mm squared
PPC 970 .13Micron= 121mm squared

This is less than %15 between the two meaning that the PPC 970 should be damn near equal to the G4 in production costs. If IBM produces high yield rates the PPC 970 could be cheaper.

The 64bit part won't affect a majority of consumers. High End apps will benefit from 64bit code and processing but you won't see much improvement at the consumer level IMO.


I am curious as to whether most people here would rather see dual 970's or a price drop in the powermac line with single 970's only. Not that either will happen, but I am just curious as to how much people really want that second processor. If the priceing/lineup stayed the same with a single for the lowend I think I might just go ahead and buy the single 970 for the 1500 it cost.

Hell I say Apple should do both. Make the low end Powermac a single 1.6Ghz and then the midrange could use Dual 1.6Ghz and top would be Dual 1.8Gz.

Apple needs to stay dual. It's an advantage over Intel right now(as far as Pentium4) Multitasking is very important. and buy keeping Dual Processor based system constantly available you keep your Developers focused on making their software multithreaded to take advantage of Dual Proc systems. In the future you will see Dual Cores running multiple threads to the processor itself.

Now imagine this. What would be easier. Stuffing 4 seperate chips in a box or running a Single Processor with Dual Cores and again bisecting each core with Multithreading? That gives you the logical equivalent of a Quad Processor system yet you've only have to use one physical chip. This IS the future!

[JavaCoder]

Any one have an idea much are these 970s supposed to cost -- ballpark? Dramatically more or less than the G4 or about the same?

We're hearing this the 970 the same week the last of the CRT iMacs are finally de-listed. One of the great things about the original iMac was that it was positioned as a low cost machine. In my opinion, the low-cost lineup from Apple today is too under-powered.

I hope 2003 and 2004 bring some power-boosts to the low end as well as to the Power Macs. If we have to wait until 2005 to get an iMac or iBook that can really compete with Intel (perfomance, not design of course), I'm afraid that will be too late.

[gopher]

Originally posted by reyesmac
I hope these new Powermacs will be fast enough to make the PC crowd shut up about underpowered Macs and gets the Mac crowd to see how underpowered the rest of Apples lineup is once these debut at a nice price. Then maybe Apple can get these in the rest of its Macs in less time it took to get the G4's in the iMacs. Because if it waits to make the rest of their machines up to the competitions speeds, they arent going to raise their marketshare one bit. Not by just selling Powermacs anyway.

The problem is knowledge that the G4 is better optimized. The problem is software that isn't optimized. The G4 presently can outpace a PC 4 to 5 fold. Look at the MTOP numbers here:

http://forgetcomputers.com/~jdroz/09.html

PCs faster than Macs? Maybe in Adobe Premier, but that's because Adobe doesn't optimize Premier as well as they should for the Mac. Final Cut Pro is more optimized.

[springscansing]

I'd put my Dual 867 up against a 3.06 P4 anyday...

... and watch my mac's ass get kicked.

Sorry gopher, but no way.

[Dave Marsh]

No one's mentioned this, so I'll raise the question. The rumor is stating that two new motherboards have gone out for bids, one for the XServe and one for the PowerMacs (that's new speculation I first noticed above). If this is the case, and since the original rumor stated that one of these boards was for a dual processor and one for a single processor configuration, doesn't that suggest that the dual is for the XServe and the single is for the PowerMac? Or, can the PowerMac use the XServe's motherboard in a dual CPU setup? If it can't, that means only single CPUs for the new PowerMacs.:confused:

[beowolf]

All I have to say is that i'm 19, just started my first REAL job (been helping on the farm the last year) and despite having other things that I could save the money for, I would VERY seriously consider going out and buying a Powermac with one of these...a powermac with two of these...wet dream. Heck, i'd prolly lack anything to compare it to since i'm typing this on a PowerBase 180 with a 350mhz g3 upgrade.

"Chooooocccccckkkkllaaaaate." *drool* -Homer Simpson

"Power Peeeeceeeee nine-seventy." *drool* -Mac users of the world

[trose]

I dont know about a 3.06 P4 (Isnt that the highest end P4 available?) but I know my DP 867 feels quite a bit faster than the Athlon 1700 at work. This is doing basic office work like Microsoft Office, Web browsing, Email etc.

Oh, and of course we have all heard the Photoshop stuff a million times, but my G4 is so much faster than the Athlon in PS its just sad...I wanna pull my hair out using PS on that thing.

I dont really know what im getting at...and its offtopic..but Im very happy with the cash I plunked down on this machine :)

[Kamu-San]

I was looking at Barefeats the other day and saw that he has a test of the dual 1.42GHz G4 on his site.
He included a comparison with a 3 GHz P4, which is a lot faster. Until you notice that this P4 actually has a Radeon 9700 Pro on board, while the Mac has a GeForce4 Ti. Clicking through on the link to Anandtech, I read that a 9700 gives a 30%-70% speed increase over the GeForce4. Then suddenly the speed difference is not that impressive anymore, it could well be caused by just the difference in gfx cards alone.

[sparkplug]

I assume you are talking about this article linked on barefeets

-- Reality Check for Apple: The test results comparing the 3GHz Pentium 4 to a Dual 1.25GHz G4

that links to

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii2.htm

No the speed of the video card does not account for the difference, These are processor heavy benchmarks, ie composites/renders. They have nothing to do with how quickly pixels are being rendered and/or pushed around in the framebuffer. Whats more The P4 tested was nearly 100% faster in most of the benchs, not 30%.

Just give it up, the g4 is slow, end of story, nomatter how overclocked it is. Your dollar buys you ALOT more performance if you spend it on a pc, indeed if you read afew more of his articles it would seem obvious that the athlons are the smart money.

To continue to believe otherwise is to wantonly ignore the facts. I understand the want, heck I even sympathise, but it's fantasy, desperate fantasy.

[kansaigaijin]

hugh, and anybody else interested,go to ARS Technica there are some great articles explaining in great detail and comparing to intel hardware.

nuckinfutz, nice clarification, thankyou.
I would concur and add that Apple wouldn't recieve finished motherboards, they would go an assembler, who would finish the job (mount in cases, add processors, ram, etc, and ship to dealers or end-users in the case of Apple online purchasers.) Apple just does development and marketing. They contract out all the manufacturing.

[Kamu-San]

Actually I meant this article:
http://www.barefeats.com/pm07.html

See the comparison on page 2 ( http://www.barefeats.com/pm07b.html )

In the Q3 test the dual 1.42 scores 291 fps, and the P4 3Ghz scores 366 fps, but has a Radeon 9700 Pro.


Anyway, I read the articles at Ars and I played around with FCE on a dual 1.25GHz PM last Saturday. It rendered the effects pretty fast. But then again, my reference is a 800MHz iMac and a 500MHz P3 :rolleyes:

The main problem as I see it, is that although Apple sells decently fast computers (but not extremely fast) that are fast enough for most things, they are (still) pretty expensive. And I guess that people who pay that kind of money want to know that they bought one of the fastest computers available.
So, if Apple would lower the prices some more, then suddenly their offering would become much more interesting.

Another thing, although the 3GHz P4 is out now, I haven't seen it in use anywhere yet. Most businesses still use old hardware and with the current market conditions are not likely to buy new stuff soon. That means that Apple's dual 1.42GHz might be outperformed by a P4 3GHz, it will still be a lot faster than most other machines around.

[Hattig]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Here's some info

The G4 supports a Front Side Bus of 1.3Gbps(Gigabits per second). This is the maximum speed at which the processor directly access the memory.

The PPC 970 supports 7.2Gbps(6.4Gbps when overhead is accounted for). This 4x the throughput of the G4. This will make Altivec and memory bound applications simply fly.


1.3GigaBYTES per send and 7.2GigaBYTES per second. Don't understate the bandwidth by almost an order of magnitude!


Next we have L2 ondie cache.
PPC 970= 512k G4= 256k

Die Size

G4 .18 Micron= 106mm squared
PPC 970 .13Micron= 121mm squared

This is less than %15 between the two meaning that the PPC 970 should be damn near equal to the G4 in production costs. If IBM produces high yield rates the PPC 970 could be cheaper.
[/b]

0.13um G4 has 512KB L2 cache, and is probably around 80 to 90 mm^2 in size.


[/B]

Also the part of the 970 that bundles up instructions has some severe limitations that means that it is very rare that all 5 instruction slots in a bundle are filled - the 5th has to be a branch instruction (no branch, no slot filled), and is the only place a branch can go (1 instruction, 1 branch = 2 slots filled out of the 5). There are other limitations as well.

I expect the architecture to have plenty of headroom for the 980 with SMT when it comes out in a couple of years.

[rickag]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz

...
G4 .18 Micron= 106mm squared
PPC 970 .13Micron= 121mm squared

This is less than %15 between the two meaning that the PPC 970 should be damn near equal to the G4 in production costs. If IBM produces high yield rates the PPC 970 could be cheaper....


Just asking, but how many layers of silcon are used in the G4 and 970? I think I remember the G4 has 6 layers, but can't remember.

Could the number of layers conceivably affect the price of each?

[nuckinfutz]

1.3GigaBYTES per send and 7.2GigaBYTES per second. Don't understate the bandwidth by almost an order of magnitude!

Thanks Hattig. Normally I'm a stickler for getting that correct but I was fast and didn't check my work.

0.13um G4 has 512KB L2 cache, and is probably around 80 to 90 mm^2 in size.

Yes I purposely did not mention the 7457 @.13um because it's not due to ship until Q3 possibly Q4. Once can only imagine how much heat the 1.4Ghz .18um G4's are producing. I'd guess about 45-50watts per processor!! Have you seen the heatsink on them!!! :eek:

I expect the architecture to have plenty of headroom for the 980 with SMT when it comes out in a couple of years.

Yes I agree Hattig. The PPC 970 looks to be IBM's initial foray. The fun starts with how well the handle the Power5. I can't wait to read about the SMT results.


Just asking, but how many layers of silcon are used in the G4 and 970? I think I remember the G4 has 6 layers, but can't remember.

Good question. I'll look to see if there's any info in any pdfs.

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by Dave Marsh
... doesn't that suggest that the dual is for the XServe and the single is for the PowerMac?

I would say it's just as likely that the dual processor is for high end desktop systems, whereas the single processor is for the Xserves.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by Sol
If you ask me it is the Mac crowd that is doing all the whining about G4 speeds. PC users don't really care as they prefer to run Windows anyway.


I have to disagree w/this statement. I split my time between macrumors and Anandtech.com (http://www.anandtech.com) and most of the PC geeks over there would rather run OS X but they see Macs as being underpowered for the price. Something I've noticed in the Mac vs. PC debates over there is that PC people keeping pointing to hardware specs and Mac people keep pointing to the software bundle. I've come to realize that when most people shop for computers they only look at the hardware, and not the software they are getting. This makes sense 'cause the bundled software that comes w/most PCs is either crap or a limited version of an expensive program. But when you buy a Mac you get, IMO, a very nice software bundle and can do almost anything you want right out of the box.

/rant


Lethal

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by MetallicPenguin
this is off topic, but I bet 10.3 will be also coming out about that time, if not sooner

Ah, not OT at all -- in fact, a keen observation. Presumably 10.3 will be the minimum OS for 970-based Macs. I will take this as a friendly amendment to my original prediction: Steve will announce the 970-based Macs and 10.3 in July and they both will ship in the late summer or early fall.

[firestarter]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
I have to disagree w/this statement. I split my time between macrumors and Anandtech.com (http://www.anandtech.com) and most of the PC geeks over there would rather run OS X but they see Macs as being underpowered for the price.
/rant

Lethal
It's not just that, it's the flexability of the PC. If you're a hardware geek (Anand audience) you probably have more than one PC and swap stuff between them. You keep costs low by slowly upgrading, and you know how to assemble a faster better PC than a Dell for the same price.

It's a tough change for someone like that to accept Apple's market and price manipulation. What I have to wait for ever for the next chip, there's no roadmap, and I have to change my whole computer to upgrade? Forget that!!!

The problem with the 970 that everyone is waiting for is that it's going to be marketed in a computer by Apple. Do you really think you'll get one in an iMac? Forget it - these will be shipped in the $3000+ macs first, and most of the folks lusting for one on this board will have to wait a year until they get down to sensible prices.

[prewwii]

Originally posted by Coca-Cola
GERMANIUM. IBM is leading this chip technology right now. Germanium is better than Silicon and copper for chip making. Intel is going to get into some serious problems in the future with power usage and waste. Germanium is IBM's secret weapon. It isn't going to be in the 970, but the future of IBM chips is going to be a bright one.

There was a yield problems in the late 1980's with some 5ns stuff made with germanium. The yield was about 5% while the performance was excellent. IBM has done a lot if they can achieve acceptable production yields using germanium.

[ReggaeFire]

>Steve will announce the 970-based Macs and 10.3 in July

No he won't. It has already been annouced that Steve isn't going to be giving a Keynote at MacWorld in July, Phil Schiller will be. That's the best indication that the new Powermacs will be post-MacWorld.

[rickag]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz

....Yes I purposely did not mention the 7457 @.13um because it's not due to ship until Q3 possibly Q4. ...

Q3 may be slightly over optimistic.

Motorola Press Release (http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,2322_1901_23,00.html)

Pricing and Availability
Alpha samples of the MPC7457 and MPC7447 PowerPC processors are available today to selected customers. General market sampling is planned for March, with production expected to commence in Q4 2003. Suggested retail pricing for the MPC7457 at 1 GHz is expected to be $189 (USD) in quantities of 10,000.

Let's see what exactly is Motorola's track record meeting expectations:confused:

[From Win to Mac]

Because Apple won't be at this year's Macworld Boston, so there will definately be no annoucements there. And Steve named 2003 the Year of the Laptop.

So it's January 2004.

Marc K.

[Arcady]

Originally posted by From Win to Mac
Because Apple won't be at this year's Macworld Boston ...

It would be pretty tough to be at an expo that won't exist until 2004... :D

[RIP]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Rip and you would lose that bet.

Read the reports again. Apple is now looking for a builder. They've ALREADY prototyped and built test models and have them working correctly. They are now looking at who will build the MB. Odds are Apple has been working with IBM over a year on this.

What are you talking about "Distribuiting through channels" what channels? The MB are built...shipped to Apple and Apple puts the computers together. I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Let me know if you're serious about losing your money ;)

Looking for a builder and being ready to manufacture are two separate things. You can have a vendor lined up a year in advance to help meet schedules. I really don't think you will see them this year. Most likely next if they will exist at all. As for distribution channels, I am referring to a finished product. One that can be purchased from MacMall or Apple Stores. I am well aware that Apple does not manufacture the boards in-house. I simply believe that the time to have a working unit in volumes on the market to purchase by you or me will be too long to have it ready this year. Probably next. Keep your optimism though! I hope I'm wrong.

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by From Win to Mac
Because Apple won't be at this year's Macworld Boston, so there will definately be no annoucements there. And Steve named 2003 the Year of the Laptop.

So it's January 2004.

Marc K.

First there is no Macworld Boston this year (that is next year, it's still NY till then) and second just because it is the year of the laptop doesn't mean that apple will be trying to weather the entire year selling Dual 1.42Ghz PowerMacs, they'd get laughed outta the computer industry. And unless Moto has been doing something we don't know, they won't be pumping the G4s much higher before the end of the year when the 7457s ship in volume.

And who said that that wide but narrow motherboard is for a PowerMac anyway? It could be for a PowerBook...

[macrumors12345]

Originally posted by rickag
Q3 may be slightly over optimistic.

Motorola Press Release (http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,2322_1901_23,00.html)



Let's see what exactly is Motorola's track record meeting expectations:confused:

Yes, the Q4 target date from Moto makes it unlikely that we will see 7457 before then.

However, to play the devil's advocate, what Moto publicly announces and what Moto gives to Apple are to very different things. For example, Moto still claims (publicly) that the 7455 does not run at over 1 Ghz. But we know that in fact they produce 7455's running at 1.25 Ghz and 1.42 Ghz, since you can buy them in a PowerMac today! Likewise, when Moto claims in that very same press release that the 7457 will (only) run at up to 1.3 Ghz, we can be almost sure that they are lying. After all the 7455 is already running at 1.42 Ghz, so at a minimum the 7457 is going to be able to beat that (1.3 < 1.42, in case that was unclear). They may only sell 1.3 Ghz 7457s to the general public, but unless Apple goes all 970 on both PowerMacs and Powerbooks this year (the latter is NOT going to happen...that is just wishful thinking), then Moto will definitely be selling 7457s running at over 1.3 Ghz to Apple.

So the moral is that you clearly can't trust everything you read. On net I would still guess a Q4 intro of the 7457 in an Apple product, but at the same time, I would not be shocked if we were to see a 7457 in an Apple product before then (e.g., Q3). Even with the Moto press releases, you just don't know what they are supplying to Apple until you see an announced Apple product.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by macrumors12345
However, to play the devil's advocate, what Moto publicly announces and what Moto gives to Apple are to very different things. For example, Moto still claims (publicly) that the 7455 does not run at over 1 Ghz. But we know that in fact they produce 7455's running at 1.25 Ghz and 1.42 Ghz, since you can buy them in a PowerMac today!

I think the two statements are different in way that makes it hard to draw a parallel. In one, Motorola does not say anything over 1Ghz is available. In the other, Motorola says they will not be able to commence production until Q4 2003.

Just because Apple has 1.25Ghz to 1.42Ghz 7455 parts does not mean Motorola is lying. It could be that the yields are low enough that Apple has contracted to receive every > 1Ghz 7455 part Motorola can produce. That would mean Motorola could not advertise having > 1Ghz parts because they are not available to any other customers. It would be pointless to claim they have that part when it is not available to any customers other than Apple. The costs to update the documentation would be wasted.

On the other hand, Motorola said that production would not start until Q4 2003. It did not say (according to quotes) that the part would not be generally available until Q4 2003. If the quotes are correct, that would mean Apple could not get anything but samples until Q4 2003.

[type_r503]

Originally posted by macrumors12345
Yes, the Q4 target date from Moto makes it unlikely that we will see 7457 before then.

However, to play the devil's advocate, what Moto publicly announces and what Moto gives to Apple are to very different things. For example, Moto still claims (publicly) that the 7455 does not run at over 1 Ghz. But we know that in fact they produce 7455's running at 1.25 Ghz and 1.42 Ghz, since you can buy them in a PowerMac today! Likewise, when Moto claims in that very same press release that the 7457 will (only) run at up to 1.3 Ghz, we can be almost sure that they are lying. After all the 7455 is already running at 1.42 Ghz, so at a minimum the 7457 is going to be able to beat that (1.3 < 1.42, in case that was unclear). They may only sell 1.3 Ghz 7457s to the general public, but unless Apple goes all 970 on both PowerMacs and Powerbooks this year (the latter is NOT going to happen...that is just wishful thinking), then Moto will definitely be selling 7457s running at over 1.3 Ghz to Apple.

So the moral is that you clearly can't trust everything you read. On net I would still guess a Q4 intro of the 7457 in an Apple product, but at the same time, I would not be shocked if we were to see a 7457 in an Apple product before then (e.g., Q3). Even with the Moto press releases, you just don't know what they are supplying to Apple until you see an announced Apple product.

the title of the press release:

"Motorola Delivers Gigahertz-Class Performance for Power-Sensitive Embedded Applications". MOT will never ever ever ever never ever never ever make another desktop cpu. the 7457 is for embedded use only. PPC970 you are our only hope.

[Mr T]

This information can currently be found on the MacInTouch site about Jack Campbell, the operator of MacWhispers. I like the MacWhispers site but Jack has had a very colorful past to say the least. He also has posted articles on SpyMac that have had little accuracy. The following are blurbs taken from the MacInTouch report:

"I found that Jack Campbell (of MacTable fame) is now rumor mongering with his new website at www.macwhispers.com. The website redirects to a server which is his company Envestco.com: http://www.envestco2.com/macwhispers.

Jack Campbell of MacTable.com and DVFortge is back again. For his third business startup in six months he's started macmice.com.

MacMice sells a $20 mouse for $40. When I saw the colorful copy I got suspicious. I checked the DNS/whois for the domain and found it to be a private record. A moment of hunting on one of the Mac rumor sites and I found that "DangerousDan" had already uncovered Jack's trail. Good work DD.

Just thought you'd like to know something regarding a new firm calling itself DVForge; news outlets today announced a new product from dvforge.com called DVBase.

Some simple surface checking reveals that, while the domain name is registered to "Dale Sanders" of "Sanders Tool & Mould" out of Hendersonville, TN., the domain and its current content are being hosted by none other than Jack Campbell (also of Henderson) of the recent MacTable.com debacle.

The reason why I continue caution with this man is that I tried to set up an appointment to view in person one of the 'MacTables', of which on SpyMac forums JC variably claims no resale models were produced to having more than 45 "left over", but I never received one reply to email inquires and received the runaround on the phone. I don't think they exist, nor did they ever.

Jack Campbell (as PowerJack) claims in a "spy report" over on SpyMac that after, "...working several months to engineer a company...", he's, "...joined the management team of a terrific start-up...", and is giving a "two-week advance sneak peak'' of DVForge; but given that it's hosted as yet another company under the "Envestco" flag, I would be wary that it's possibly another shell game "

;)

[Dave Marsh]

I just posted this over at AppleInsider and would also like to hear MacRumors' tech heads' opinion:

As I recall, Jobs really liked his NeXT cube, which he temporarily revisited with the Mac Cube. However, it was too small, too difficult to upgrade, too expensive...a dead end. Now, we have an upcoming powerhouse of a CPU, with a strong upgrade path, backed by industry technology leader IBM.

The thought occurs to me that this might be a good opportunity to revisit the cube design. The odd shape of the reported two new motherboards gave me this thought. What if these new mother(?)boards were designed to plug into a backplane, alá the old NeXT cube design? The basic case shell would contain the backplane, all the usual port/connectors on the back with power supply and hard/DVD/CDROM drives; USB, FW, headphone jacks on the front. With such a modular design, true power users could add additional boards, perhaps up to four, while the basic box would only come with one board (either single or dual CPU version).

Such a modular construction could handle the entire Mac desktop lineup. Low end consumer boxes would be outfitted with the single CPU board, and perhaps even a backplane that didn't allow for more than one or two boards in a smaller case design, while the PowerMac lineup would come with the larger cube and be configured with from one through four single/dual CPU boards.

Such a design would allow true performance users the opportunity to throw money at the box and load it up with eight CPUs, while mere mortals could satisfy themselves with a simpler configuration. Of course, Apple would have to select several standard configurations to simplify the purchasing decision of regular users.

Now I'd like to hear from the true tech heads on this forum as to whether such a modular design would really be viable. Are such backplanes horrendously expensive? Would the firmware to handle multiple boards plugged into a single plane be prohibitively difficult to create or expensive to implement? Remember, the entry level box has to remain in the low $1500 range.

This just seemed such a logical approach. Apple has the opportunity to begin moving ahead and once again set the hardware standard. Since they have to completely redesign the electronics of the Mac to accommodate the new CPU, why not create an architecture that'll support rapidly upscaling the Mac's performance over the next few years?
:cool:

[Mr. Dibbs]

Originally posted by squatch
It is the eternal mystery of Windows OS. Every one has been like that pretty much since Win95. They keep getting bigger and more bloated with each release. That is why I had to format my laptop after having Win2K on it for about a year cause it just seemed to slowly deteriorate over time. Plus my HD was only about 4 GB in size. I was constantly uninstalling and deleting files to keep free space available. Defragmenting and Scandisk never seemed to work.

Even though I recently reloaded Win98 back on it (which isn't any better by any stretch) to save space, it does what I need when I have to use Windows. Much faster than VPC IMHO. ;)

Ok, as far as windows machines getting bloated over time, I can give you a solution that helps out the wazzoo. I am a student IT Admin at my highschool, and trust me, there are way too many keys floating around in this building. unauthorized users download everything from smut to games, and every last one bit of it can screw your machine. the likely cause: adware/spyware. not on your machine you may say... but trust me, I have resurrected machines I would have had to reformat by getting all the adware/spyware crap off. first of all, if you have any of the follwing programs on your PC, uninstall them ASAP:

Gator, Gain, and Offer comapnion
Comet Cursor, Precision time, etc.

these programs screw your machine more than you will believe, and they don't die when uninstalled. uninstall them anyways, and the install and run ad-aware with reghance. it is free and can be downloaded at Lavasoft (http://www.lavasoftusa.com) also, I suggest checking the amount of space available for your offline webcache, and emptying out and deleting ALL cookies and ALL temporary internet files at least once a week. do this for a few days, and if your system still is bogged down, then you should run the system information utility, and check/repair the registry, and religiously scan for viruses. also, a firewall may be of use. hope this helps you windows users ~Danny

[squatch]

Originally posted by phampton81
I am curious as to whether most people here would rather see dual 970's or a price drop in the powermac line with single 970's only. Not that either will happen, but I am just curious as to how much people really want that second processor. If the priceing/lineup stayed the same with a single for the lowend I think I might just go ahead and buy the single 970 for the 1500 it cost.

I don't think I would need the power of dual 970s, seeing as a single chip runs par with the power of a P4 2.8-3.0. I would only consider duals if the lack of multithreading caused a huge speed decrease, when compared to an HT P4 chip, and if the price was around $2,000. Otherwise, a single chip will do just fine. :)

[squatch]

Originally posted by Mr. Dibbs
Ok, as far as windows machines getting bloated over time, I can give you a solution that helps out the wazzoo. I am a student IT Admin at my highschool, and trust me, there are way too many keys floating around in this building. unauthorized users download everything from smut to games, and every last one bit of it can screw your machine. the likely cause: adware/spyware. not on your machine you may say... but trust me, I have resurrected machines I would have had to reformat by getting all the adware/spyware crap off. first of all, if you have any of the follwing programs on your PC, uninstall them ASAP:

Gator, Gain, and Offer comapnion
Comet Cursor, Precision time, etc.

these programs screw your machine more than you will believe, and they don't die when uninstalled. uninstall them anyways, and the install and run ad-aware with reghance. it is free and can be downloaded at Lavasoft (http://www.lavasoftusa.com) also, I suggest checking the amount of space available for your offline webcache, and emptying out and deleting ALL cookies and ALL temporary internet files at least once a week. do this for a few days, and if your system still is bogged down, then you should run the system information utility, and check/repair the registry, and religiously scan for viruses. also, a firewall may be of use. hope this helps you windows users ~Danny

Yes, I am all too familiar with ad/spyware clogging up a system. I worked as a DSL tech last summer and the number 1 complaint was that they could not connect because their computer was running so dang slow. After cleaning out temp IE files and cookies and a few other tweaks...I always inevitably ended up in the msconfig utility unchecking programs like Gator and others that "uninstall" didn't take care of.
This 9 out of 10 always fixed the problem. I couldn't suggest downloading third party software to them, but I would make "hints" at software like adaware.
I usually format my PC at least once a year to keep it running clean and smooth. Thank God I don't have to do this with my Mac! ;)

[ddtlm]

Dave Marsh:

The backplane-oriented computer you describe is in fact far too expensive a thing for Apple to produce for consumers. In this day and age makers of low-end computers try to ship with few or no add-in cards at all, because even simple things like PCI cards add $15 at least over an integrated equivelent. In the PC world, even slot-1 and slot-A processors were abandoned because of the cost differential between that and socketed processors. It was worth Intel's and AMD's time to design and roll out entire new connectors and packaging rather than keep making slot-connecting processors (the cards were needed while PC's had high-speed off-die L2's).

[ffakr]

Originally posted by kansaigaijin

no one has pointed out that the 970 supports a 900mhz frontside bus. what's that, about 6x the current real bus speed?


The current bus is 166MHz and 64bit wide. The new bus is comprised of two, one way, 32bit busses.

The most data you can move in or out of the 970 is about 3.2 GB/sec EACH WAY (6.4 GB of total bandwidth after overhead is taken into account.. for a 900MHz bus)
The most data you can move in or out of a current G4 is is around 1.3 GB/sec EACH WAY (about 1.3 GB/sec of total bandwidth)

In either direction, the 970 will have around 2.5 more bandwidth than the G4. It will have around 5x the total available bandwidth.

[ddtlm]

ffakr:

The most data you can move in or out of the 970 is about 3.2 GB/sec EACH WAY (6.4 GB of total bandwidth after overhead is taken into account.. for a 900MHz bus)
The most data you can move in or out of a current G4 is is around 1.3 GB/sec EACH WAY (about 1.3 GB/sec of total bandwidth)
The G4 bus only transfers one way at a time, not both ways at once. That 1.3GB/sec is shared upload and download, whereas the PPC-970 has dediced 3.2GB/sec up and 3.2GB/sec down. Its not quite clear from your comment wether or not you already know this.

[Dave Marsh]

DDTIM:

Thanks for your input. It was just a thought.:)

[tazznb]

Originally posted by squatch
Yes, I am all too familiar with ad/spyware clogging up a system. I worked as a DSL tech last summer and the number 1 complaint was that they could not connect because their computer was running so dang slow. After cleaning out temp IE files and cookies and a few other tweaks...I always inevitably ended up in the msconfig utility unchecking programs like Gator and others that "uninstall" didn't take care of.
This 9 out of 10 always fixed the problem. I couldn't suggest downloading third party software to them, but I would make "hints" at software like adaware.
I usually format my PC at least once a year to keep it running clean and smooth. Thank God I don't have to do this with my Mac! ;)

:confused: One weird thing is that when I look at how much size taken up by all my files are that are in my drive I see only2.7Gb used out of my 4Gb HD. Out of curiosity I faked installing a dual boot, and windows tells me I have the extra 1.5Gb needed to install XP (which I won't touch with a ten foot pole)

Translation: Bill Gates can kiss my ass.

If he wants to work on an real OS he should put in an application to work for Apple; tough economy though.... he may not make the cut. :(

[Lanbrown]

Originally posted by Dave Marsh
That said, I agree with others, the real excitement here is the technology that Apple is building into the motherboard to take advantage of this CPU. I'd be really surprised to see USB 2, however. I don't think it provides any value added from Apple's viewpoint, and undermines Firewire. USB 1 works fine for routine peripherals. If USB 2 support is included, I think it'll only be for political reasons, to hedge against having to modify the motherboard later to accommodate it if FW dies. I think FW2, Bluetooth, and AE are a given. It would be nice to see PCI-X, but if they include that wouldn't AGP 8X become redundant/legacy technology (even though nothing currently takes advantage of it)?

Exciting times...:)

I wouldn’t count on PCI-X as it is just not needed. Very few boards are actually capable of utilizing it, even in the PC world. PCI-X was nothing more then a Band-Aid to the bus problem. It is a temporary solution until the next generation I/O is here. As soon as it is here, PCI-X will fade away quite rapidly while PCI will survive. I would tend to believe that Apple would move to the multiple 64-bit 66MHz buses. If you had four PCI slots and two buses, each pair of PCI slots would have a maximum throughput of 528MBps. That is enough to sustain the system for sometime to come. They may even through a third one in for the ATA, FEW, USB, Bluetooth, etc. equipment. I doubt they will get away from AGP for the video card; there are just too many video card options to use anything else. As for 8X, while nothing can utilize it, implementing it is not that much harder then implementing 4X, especially on a totally new design. It will be the same case for Serial ATA over ATA. Why implement an older technology when you can use a better one?

[Lanbrown]

Originally posted by Hugh
Okay, what are we talking about here? What are the exect advanages the 970. I have read that it will be speed, others say since it's 64bit apps can be more complex with the loss of speed.

What are the advanages (and disavanages) of the 970 over the Intel X86?

-Hugh

Besides the fact that the x86 design is 25 years old and has some serious limitations? Look at a PC, you have the BIOS, which has serious problems/limitations, the system architecture is pieced together, it has an IRQ subsystem that causes problems. While the clock speeds keep climbing, performance per clock cycle is actually decreasing with every recent iteration. Per clock cycle, the PIII beats the P4. The reason being is that Intel want to be king on the GHz and designed a chip that would give that. Intel and AMD are both using MHz to get work done instead of designing chips that are more suited to task completion with lower cycles. Look at the power requirements for their chips; it is enormous. They generate way too much heat. Companies like Sun and IBM make processors that generate less heat and do more with every clock cycle with less MHz. While x86 processors have some good performance numbers in some categories, in others they are absolutely pathetic. While some say that the Intel processors have twice the performance of say a SPARC processor from Sun, there is more to it then that. In some benchmarks and real world scenarios, the SPARC can be up to 20% faster with less then half the MHz. The same holds true for the G4 and other processors. No one make a processor that is good at everything. Each chip is designed for specific needs. Back to the X86, you have several manufacturers, mainly Intel and AMD. A few years ago, a test was done on two systems. Both had the same setup, just one had an Intel processor and the other an AMD. The OS was the same, the memory config was the same, etc. The only difference was the MB and the processor. As expected, one could complete the Adobe Photoshop test faster then the other. The real surprise was that the size of the file was also different. So the x86 arena is not even truly compatible with themselves. So the real advantage of the 970 over any x86 design is that you don’t have to worry about compatibility problems. In general, the system is better designed then what the PC world has, not to mention the OS. Most of the time, the CPU is waiting for something to work on, and real performance gains can be made by reducing that, then making a faster processor. This is the game that companies like Sun and IBM excel in. It’s a safe bet to say that IBM was very deeply involved in the system design for their chip. Not only just for Apple, but for their own systems as well. The better they can make their own systems perform better, the more they can sell and compete against Sun and keep the Itanium from getting any type of footing at all. Plus, the better the Apple runs, the more they can sell and thus make more on selling chips and beat Intel on another front. Where do you think the money feeding the Itanic is coming from?

[kenohki]

Just another thing about the NeXT Cube. It wasn't really a typical backplane like you would see in high end machines (like Sun's Gigaplane). It really was just a NeXTbus (read: NuBus) plane if IIRC. It provided power and connectors and the like, but you could only have one system board per system.

(Well, unless you hacked your backplane and then you could have an 030 board and an 040 board in the same cube but you had to NetBoot the second board off of the first over ethernet and they didn't do any sort of parallel processing or peripheral/storage sharing. They were just two separate machines running in the same box.)

Plus, the NeXTdimension graphics board (the one with the Intel i860) was large enough to resemble another motherboard. Maybe that caused some confusion too.

[Lanbrown]

Originally posted by Dave Marsh
No one's mentioned this, so I'll raise the question. The rumor is stating that two new motherboards have gone out for bids, one for the XServe and one for the PowerMacs (that's new speculation I first noticed above). If this is the case, and since the original rumor stated that one of these boards was for a dual processor and one for a single processor configuration, doesn't that suggest that the dual is for the XServe and the single is for the PowerMac? Or, can the PowerMac use the XServe's motherboard in a dual CPU setup? If it can't, that means only single CPUs for the new PowerMacs.:confused:

Sun uses the same board in their workstation as they do in their servers. It saves money, speed development and can yield better performance. Apple will probably adopt the same setup.

[mathiasr]

Originally posted by ReggaeFire
>Steve will announce the 970-based Macs and 10.3 in July

No he won't. It has already been annouced that Steve isn't going to be giving a Keynote at MacWorld in July, Phil Schiller will be. That's the best indication that the new Powermacs will be post-MacWorld.

AppleExpo 2003 (http://www.apple-expo.com/) Paris (France) 16-20 September, could be another opportunity to introduce new Powermacs.

Steve used to deliver the opening keynote of the AppleExpo these last years.

[MacWhispers]

Originally posted by Mr T
This information can currently be found on the MacInTouch site about Jack Campbell... I would be wary that it's possibly another shell game "

;)

I'm always amazed that a mix of lies and innuendo, cloaked in the guise of consumer advocacy is accepted behavior on the internet... but that, seemingly, working one's rear end off running three demanding businesses, plus an industry rumor/news site is something to be ashamed of?

Both DVForge and MacMice will be exhibiting at MacWorld NY 2003. Whoever you are, you are welcome to come by for a visit.

Sorry to everyone else here for continuing an off-topic diversion.

As for the new motherboards even being produced for a PPC970, there is no word... repeat, none... from either of the two assembly bidders confirming such an idea. And, again, this entire idea, now propogated by several other web sites, started with my conversation with a sales engineer who had briefly seen the RFP for the motherboards, and was knowledgeable about the timetable involved.

While the speculation here is logical based on some known facts, it would be just as logical to speculate that the new boards are for an earlier than expected 7457, or even for an Intel Itanium deployment. And, there is nothing at all available contradicting the idea that these boards are not the ONLY PowerMac boards slated for year's end. These could well be only a high-end or low-end variant.

All that is known with some certainty, today, is that there are two variants of new PowerMac boards finalized for production, and on short-deadline for production bids with (at least) two potential assembly contractors. Given the normal pacing of such events, this indicates any production machines using these boards would be released in the July-September period... given no cause for intermediate delay in the process.

Yes, IBM is sampling the PPC970. Motorola is sampling 7457's. And, Intel has supplies of Itaniums available for OEM development.

Throw an Apple dart among the three.

[mathiasr]

Originally posted by MacWhispers

While the speculation here is logical based on some known facts, it would be just as logical to speculate that the new boards are for an earlier than expected 7457, or even for an Intel Itanium deployment. And, there is nothing at all available contradicting the idea that these boards are not the ONLY PowerMac boards slated for year's end. These could well be only a high-end or low-end variant.

Isn't the 7457 supposed to be pin to pin compatible with the 7455 and therefore not require a new motherboard?

The Itanium is not a desktop processor, it whould be like sticking a POWER4 in a Mac, without proper integer and SIMD (AltiVec like) capaciticies Photoshop and FCP users whould not be pleased with such an underdog.

[ddtlm]

Lanbrown:

Besides the fact that the x86 design is 25 years old and has some serious limitations?
No it really doesn't have any real "limitations" as you allude to, and the fact that it is 25 years old is a good thing because that means it has 25 years of compatible software.

Look at a PC, you have the BIOS, which has serious problems/limitations
More ignorance! The BIOS system works well enough and in any case is much easier to use than Apple's open firmware. All sorts of things are accessable through BIOS that are found in obscure firmware commands in Apple land, if they are to be found at all.

the system architecture is pieced together
Hand-wavy nonesense.

it has an IRQ subsystem that causes problems
Not very many problems on newer OS's and hardware. I haven't messed with IRQ's in the entire 5 years that I have been using PCs, and I have had my hands on plenty of hardware during that time.

While the clock speeds keep climbing, performance per clock cycle is actually decreasing with every recent iteration.
No! The only recent example of this is the P4. The Athlon is more powerful per clock than either a P3 or a K6, and the Hammer series are more powerfull still. The Pentium M's are another example of new chips that are more powerful per clock than their predecessors.

Intel and AMD are both using MHz to get work done instead of designing chips that are more suited to task completion with lower cycles.
AMD's Opteron is going to have a work-per-cycle number right up there with the PPC-970, and (apparently) slightly higher clockspeeds as well. In any case, how the work gets done is not so important as how fast it gets done, and x86 is delivering the speed in quantity.

Companies like Sun and IBM make processors that generate less heat and do more with every clock cycle with less MHz.
So now your trying to drag in server processors against x86 desktop chips? In that case, lets also consider the Itanium2, with the highest work-per-clock and highest overall performance of any processor anywhere.

While x86 processors have some good performance numbers in some categories, in others they are absolutely pathetic. While some say that the Intel processors have twice the performance of say a SPARC processor from Sun, there is more to it then that. In some benchmarks and real world scenarios, the SPARC can be up to 20% faster with less then half the MHz.
Ah hah. Why don't you demonstate these things you claim?

The same holds true for the G4 and other processors.
The G4 is pathetic. Give up already.

The real surprise was that the size of the file was also different. So the x86 arena is not even truly compatible with themselves.
WTF? This whole section of your post is borderline irrational.

So the real advantage of the 970 over any x86 design is that you don't have to worry about compatibility problems.
Why don't you tell me about some compatibility problems with x86?

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by Hugh
Okay, what are we talking about here? What are the exect advanages the 970. I have read that it will be speed, others say since it's 64bit apps can be more complex with the loss of speed.

What are the advanages (and disavanages) of the 970 over the Intel X86?

-Hugh

Advantages (970 vs. Intel x86):
1) Low power (19-42 watts)
2) Competetive performance (a 1.8GHz 970 probably isn't going to beat a 3.2GHz Prescott P4, but it'll put up a good fight, and win on vector code)
3) Runs existing PowerPC code (BIG advantage)

Disadvantages (970 vs. Intel x86):
1) Probably a more expensive
2) Probably a bit slower (although this is comparing the .13 micron 970 to the .09 micron Prescott. At .09 microns the 970 should do better)
3) Lower clock frequency is bad for marketing

Advantages (970 vs. G4 [7457])
1) SPEED (higher clock frequency, faster bus, more instructions at once, bigger L1 and L2 caches, better out of order execution, dual floating point units, etc...). The 970 will be MUCH faster than the G4 on almost all code.
2) Handles poorly optimized code better (because of improved out of order execution)
3) Future. Motorola isn't interested in desktop chips. The 970 signals that IBM is. IBM also has a great manufacturing process
4) Ability to address more memory (because of being 64 bit)
5) Better multiprocessing (although harder and more expensive to do)

Disadvantages (970 vs. 7457):
1) Price. I would expect the 970 to be at least somewhat more expensive
2) Altivec dispatch. The 970 uses the older 7400/7410 Altivec scheme.
3) No L3 cache
4) Cheaper, easier multiprocessing (but really crappy)

[Kamu-San]

Article in The Inquirer:
Intel confirms clock speed irrelevant for notebooks

... A Pentium M 1.60GHz processor outperforms the 2.40GHz part and the Pentium III-M which we have in our own brand new machine. ...

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8391

[Kamu-San]

Catfish_Man, why do you expect SMP to be harder and more expensive with the 970?
I thought SMP was one of the engineering decisions in the 970.

[ddtlm]

Kamu-San:

Unlike G4's, P3's, and Xeons but like Athlons, PPC-970's must each have their own dedicated FSB. Whereas Apple up till now could have a chipset that supported one FSB and from that either one or two processors, now they are faced with either making one chipset which has two FSB's and wastes one of them for single-CPU systems, or alternatively they could make two chipsets, one with one FSB and one with two. In this situation AMD made two chipsets (760 and 760MP).

As you might guess, a chipset supporting two FSB's costs more to design, costs more to make, and requires a more costly motherboard than a chipset with one FSB.

The benefit of two FSB's is generally going to be better SMP performance.

[Kamu-San]

Tnx for the info. I guess this will mean that Apple will release at least the first generation of 970s (if!) as single CPU only.

Bummer.


Although I'd guess that a dual-970 would be too expensive for me.

[GroundLoop]

Just saw a new confirmation on MacWhispers about the use of the 970 in the PowerMacs...single and DUAL processor boards...also with WWDC pushed back for Panther...I would expect a PowerMac announcement either then or very soon after...

Good days are ahead for Apple fans.

Hickman

[Lanbrown]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ddtlm

No it really doesn't have any real "limitations" as you allude to, and the fact that it is 25 years old is a good thing because that means it has 25 years of compatible software.

Sure it has limitations. IRQ issues are becoming more common. The IRQ subsystem was never designed for all the hardware that are in these machines. They still have separate mouse/keyboard connectors, as they were never designed for a mouse. On some HP machines that are a few years old, forget about using any current ATI video card. The BIOS does not like them. The BIOS is also very crude in comparison to what every other platform uses. Some systems can handle more then one video card, other cannot because the BIOS just cannot deal with it. That is a common problem for systems that have a built-in video and then they wish to upgrade. They are forced to use PCI cards and even then, some systems just will not use it. The PC in general needed a makeover in the late 80’s early 90’s.

25 years of software compatibility? Yeah sure, some programs didn’t run properly when clock speed was over 25 MHz. That software compatibility that you speak of is limited to an MS OS. Their current line of software just emulates DOS and does not really run DOS programs that well.

What about when a software package says NT 4.0 SP6 or 2000? Doesn’t sound like compatibility to me. Can’t even use SP5 of NT 4.

More ignorance! The BIOS system works well enough and in any case is much easier to use than Apple's open firmware. All sorts of things are accessable through BIOS that are found in obscure firmware commands in Apple land, if they are to be found at all.

More ignorance on YOUR part. OF firmware is also used by Sun, which they call it Open Boot. Plus add in the fact that it is a standard, unlike the BIOS. OF could be upgraded to a GUI if need be. OF has more features then the BIOS as well. You can actually run systems tests; you cannot in the BIOS. Some PC makers also limit or hinder what can be done in the BIOS. There is a BIG difference between the BIOS showing you what it sees in the system and actually being able to test the system.

Hand-wavy nonesense.

The PC is pieced together. They just keep slapping components into a beige box.

Not very many problems on newer OS's and hardware. I haven't messed with IRQ's in the entire 5 years that I have been using PCs, and I have had my hands on plenty of hardware during that time.

Using a PC doesn’t count. Talk to someone that has had to support them. Some cards refuse to work under IRQ sharing.


No! The only recent example of this is the P4. The Athlon is more powerful per clock than either a P3 or a K6, and the Hammer series are more powerfull still. The Pentium M's are another example of new chips that are more powerful per clock than their predecessors.


AMD's Opteron is going to have a work-per-cycle number right up there with the PPC-970, and (apparently) slightly higher clockspeeds as well. In any case, how the work gets done is not so important as how fast it gets done, and x86 is delivering the speed in quantity.

The Hammer is not more powerful until it is released to the general public. You could even say the Ultra SPARC VII is even more powerful, but it is still in development stages. Why talk about the future, what matters is what is available now. AMD has better per clock cycle performance then the P4, but they are in the speed war with Intel. They want MHz not more performance per tick.


So now your trying to drag in server processors against x86 desktop chips? In that case, lets also consider the Itanium2, with the highest work-per-clock and highest overall performance of any processor anywhere.

Ah hah. Why don't you demonstate these things you claim?

The Itanium is not the highest in all categories. In fact, very few people can even get an Itanium 2 system. You can order them, but you can’t get a delivery date.

Companies that have the software for benchmarks do not have test results for the Itanium2. They have a few here and there, but the majority of the important ones are not published. What is Intel trying to hide?

I have a Sun system on my desktop at home. A lot of people have a Ultra SPARC processor on their desk. Try again. The Itanium or Itanic is also an unknown processor with limited software support.

Want proof, no problem. Let’s take two systems that were out at the same time. The Dell Precision Workstation 340 with a 2.4GHz P4 processor and a SB 2000 with a 1.05GHz US III.

Clock speed, the Dell is 2.2 times faster.

SPECfp2000 on the Dell was 801, while the Sun was 827. The Sun is only marginally better here. Both single processor machines.

SPECfp_rate2000 on the Dell PowerEdge 2650 (2.4 GHz Xeon x 2) got 12.9. The SB 2000 got 16.8. Quit a bit of difference there. Both dual processor machines

SPECfp_rate2000 on the Dell PowerEdge 6650 (2.0 GHz Xeon MP x 4) got 20.2. The Sun 480R got a 29.9 and that was with 4 900MHz processors.


Why don't you tell me about some compatibility problems with x86?

I already did. Same task, different results, not just in the time it takes to do the task either.

[kenohki]

Originally posted by Lanbrown

SPECfp2000 on the Dell was 801, while the Sun was 827. The Sun is only marginally better here. Both single processor machines.

SPECfp_rate2000 on the Dell PowerEdge 2650 (2.4 GHz Xeon x 2) got 12.9. The SB 2000 got 16.8. Quit a bit of difference there. Both dual processor machines

SPECfp_rate2000 on the Dell PowerEdge 6650 (2.0 GHz Xeon MP x 4) got 20.2. The Sun 480R got a 29.9 and that was with 4 900MHz processors.


First off, if you're going to compare the fastest UltraSPARC IIIs for a SPEC comparison, you'd better use the fastest P4s in your comparison too.

Sounds like the problem is because of chipset and/or cache issues in the Dell, not because of the processor. UltraSPARC III isn't all that great (Fujitsu's SPARC46 V kicks it's ass) but Sun knows how to provide a balanced system architecture tuned for scalability and throughput (although for a little more $$$). However, it remains to be seen how the new Intel based chipset that IBM is releasing for the xSeries and the chipset HP is working on for Itanium machines will change this landscape.

However, you can't dispute the fact that the 3GHz P4 absolutely screams on SPECint and 1GHz Itanium2 does the same on SPECfp. The only chip I think presents comparable (and a little more balanced) performance is POWER4+.

[GeneR]

If they make the motherboard more compact, would that mean that they might have the laptops in mind as the first place to put the new chips? Or maybe that they will be able to use the motherboard in both the desktops and the laptops?

Just a thought. :D

[Lanbrown]

Originally posted by kenohki
First off, if you're going to compare the fastest UltraSPARC IIIs for a SPEC comparison, you'd better use the fastest P4s in your comparison too.

Sounds like the problem is because of chipset and/or cache issues in the Dell, not because of the processor. UltraSPARC III isn't all that great (Fujitsu's SPARC46 V kicks it's ass) but Sun knows how to provide a balanced system architecture tuned for scalability and throughput (although for a little more $$$). However, it remains to be seen how the new Intel based chipset that IBM is releasing for the xSeries and the chipset HP is working on for Itanium machines will change this landscape.

However, you can't dispute the fact that the 3GHz P4 absolutely screams on SPECint and 1GHz Itanium2 does the same on SPECfp. The only chip I think presents comparable (and a little more balanced) performance is POWER4+.

I used products that were out at the same time. Plus, the XEON processors for a while were always trailing behind the desktop counterpart. Whose fault is that besides Intel? The 1.05GHz USIII has been available for sometime now. Even if I used the 1.015GHz USIII, it still beats it. The 1.015 is not that much slower then the 1.05. Intel released the 2.8GHz XEON on 11/18/2002 while Sun released their 1.05GHz USIII in the first half of 2002. Using the 2.4GHz was a fair comparison.
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20021118comp.htm

Just to make you happy, that same server with the 2.8GHz XEON got a 13.2, not much different then the 2.4GHz. While the 1.015 GHz USIII got a 16.1. So using the 1.015GHZ USIII against the 2.8GHz XEON still results in 16.1 to a 13.2. Or how abut using the 900MHz III Cu in the 280R, which is basically the same as the SB 2000. It gets a 14.3, still faster.

The problem with the Dell is because it is a PC, nothing more. They may brand it as a server, but is nothing more then a PC. Cache problems? Chipset problems? Hmm, if you did any research you would have noticed that the 2650 uses the Intel chipset. So if the performance is lacking and it’s the chipset, Intel failed to do its job. Do you think Sun just throws a chip on a board and sells it? What about IBM? Do you think Apple didn’t have IBM involved in the PPC 970 board design?

Fujitsu does have a good SPARC processor; nonetheless, it is still a SPARC design. Which is open for anyone to use, all you need is $99.00 for the develop kit. Compare that to Intel that has sued many over that design and nomenclature.

I wouldn’t count on anything for the Itanium. Intel has very few companies that will touch the chip. Most enterprises do not want it. HP screwed the Compaq Alpha community by selling it to Intel. They want those companies to go to the Itanium. Most likely they will leave to Sun or IBM and forget HP and Intel. The people that have the Alpha’s didn’t want HP initially. The same could be said for IBM and Sun as well, but they didn’t sell them out.

Sun will have the US IV out next year with dual cores. The IIIi is due in May of this year. The V is not to far off as well. The III took much longer to get out then Sun expected. So yes, they did get behind the ball. But expect them back on top or close to it in the near future. Sun doesn’t need a killer processor to win. When they became the leader, they didn’t have the killer processor then either. Now they are focusing on better processors and getting the most out of their systems. You will have to look no further then the IIIi systems that will be out.

The Itanium2 test results are mainly shrouded with secrecy. Getting a system is even harder.

[ddtlm]

Lanbrown:

Sure it has limitations. IRQ issues are becoming more common.
IRQs are a non-issue. Time for you to move onto something new.

OF firmware is also used by Sun, which they call it Open Boot.
Who cares? I'm calling it Apple's open firmware cause Sun is irrelevant.

The PC is pieced together. They just keep slapping components into a beige box.
I guess this is an attack on interchangable components?

Using a PC doesn't count. Talk to someone that has had to support them. Some cards refuse to work under IRQ sharing.
I worked as a PC tech of about 1.5 years prior to getting a real programming job, never messed with IRQ's. I assume this is because I was dealing with modern hardware. I continue to build my own machines and machines for others, pretty much being the PC hardware guru amoung anyone that I know. I've encountered quite a few problems over the years but I have never had problems with IRQs.

The Hammer is not more powerful until it is released to the general public.
This is supposed to refute my claim about work per clock?

In fact, very few people can even get an Itanium 2 system.
They seem to be shipping, and in any case you hardly have room to poke holes in Intel's shipping dates when Sun has legendary delays of their own.

Companies that have the software for benchmarks do not have test results for the Itanium2.
SPEC exists for the Itanium, and it looks quite good.

I have a Sun system on my desktop at home.
I use Suns at work and I have no idea why anyone would volentarily use one as a desktop. Linux is a far better choice for Unixy stuff, with OSX and Windows taking everything else.

Try again. The Itanium or Itanic is also an unknown processor with limited software support
It is quite well known, and the software support is steadily building as Intel pushes onward.

SPECfp2000 on the Dell was 801, while the Sun was 827. The Sun is only marginally better here. Both single processor machines.

SPECfp_rate2000 on the Dell PowerEdge 2650 (2.4 GHz Xeon x 2) got 12.9. The SB 2000 got 16.8. Quit a bit of difference there. Both dual processor machines

SPECfp_rate2000 on the Dell PowerEdge 6650 (2.0 GHz Xeon MP x 4) got 20.2. The Sun 480R got a 29.9 and that was with 4 900MHz processors.
Well first, I'm glad to see you reference SPEC because that is exactly the field where Itanium2 likes to play. Next step is for you to compare your $11000 Sun desktop to a system based on an Intel chip costing more than $175. Also note that the 2.4ghz P4 was released in April 2002, almost a year ago. While a year-old Sun might be exactly the same as a brand-new Sun, that is not the case for PCs where technology is noticably progressing. It is good to see that you included the XeonMP 2.0 though, thats a new chip, but it is still closely related to common desktop chips.

I already did. Same task, different results, not just in the time it takes to do the task either.
No, you didn't.

I used products that were out at the same time.
Yes but was the US3 1.015 actually shipping a year ago? I see Sun has 1.05ghz US3's now, quite the improvment!

Using the 2.4GHz was a fair comparison.
So comparing year-old PCs to Suns which are essentially identical to brand-new top-end $16000 desktops is fair?

Just to make you happy, that same server with the 2.8GHz XEON got a 13.2, not much different then the 2.4GHz. While the 1.015 GHz USIII got a 16.1. So using the 1.015GHZ USIII against the 2.8GHz XEON still results in 16.1 to a 13.2. Or how abut using the 900MHz III Cu in the 280R, which is basically the same as the SB 2000. It gets a 14.3, still faster.
Venture outside your safe multiprocessor haven and you'll see some different SPEC numbers compared to those modern chips, or alternatively, we can bring in some Itanium2 iron which should defeat any US3.

The problem with the Dell is because it is a PC, nothing more. They may brand it as a server, but is nothing more then a PC. Cache problems? Chipset problems? Hmm, if you did any research you would have noticed that the 2650 uses the Intel chipset. So if the performance is lacking and it's the chipset, Intel failed to do its job. Do you think Sun just throws a chip on a board and sells it?
And now this thread has deteriorated into you defending Sun. Noone here cares about Sun.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by ddtlm
And now this thread has deteriorated into you defending Sun. Noone here cares about Sun.

Nearly all of Lanbrown's rants were completely irrelevant to MacRumors.com. Who here cares about Dell's versus Sun's versus Itanium 2 servers? Even less it has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion on possible PPC 970 motherboards.

So stop arguing with him and hopefully he will go back from whence he came. :D

[kenohki]

Originally posted by Lanbrown
I used products that were out at the same time. Plus, the XEON processors for a while were always trailing behind the desktop counterpart. Whose fault is that besides Intel?

The problem with the Dell is because it is a PC, nothing more. They may brand it as a server, but is nothing more then a PC. Cache problems? Chipset problems? Hmm, if you did any research you would have noticed that the 2650 uses the Intel chipset. So if the performance is lacking and it?s the chipset, Intel failed to do its job. Do you think Sun just throws a chip on a board and sells it? What about IBM? Do you think Apple didn?t have IBM involved in the PPC 970 board design?


Actually, the scores at www.spec.org show a SunBlade 2000 with 1 1.015GHz processor coming in at 682 base and 775 peak while the Dell Precision Workstation 430 with a 2.4 GHz P4 comes in at 872 base and 882 peak. So your speed numbers were off. The Dell won there.

Your throughput numbers look okay but you must consider that the Sun has 32KBI+64KBD of on chip primary cache and 8MB(I+D) of off chip secondary cache. The Dell has 12K(I) micro-ops + 8KB(D) of on chip primary cache and 512KB(I+D) of on chip secondary cache. Quite a damn difference. Talk about loading most of the benchmark into cache.

What I'm saying is that you're using SPECfp_rate scores and that SPECfp_rate is much more heavily influenced by factors such as FSB layout and amount of cache than SPECfp. That's why the single processor UltraSPARC III was beaten by the P4 in the speed test but the UltraSPARC III machine won in the throughput benchmark.


I wouldn't count on anything for the Itanium. Intel has very few companies that will touch the chip. Most enterprises do not want it. HP screwed the Compaq Alpha community by selling it to Intel. They want those companies to go to the Itanium. Most likely they will leave to Sun or IBM and forget HP and Intel. The people that have the Alpha?s didn?t want HP initially. The same could be said for IBM and Sun as well, but they didn?t sell them out.

Well, HP will definitely touch Itanium. They created the damn thing. They're counting on it for everything from workstations to Superdome. SGI has comitted to building Origin 3000 class machines with it. IBM will build Servers with it. etc. Yes, the Alpha community may not be happy about what happened to Alpha but it's never really had mainstream acceptance. (Remember NT for Alpha?) PA-RISC software will, on the other hand, run very nicely on PA-WideWord er, EPIC, er Itanium because it will sit on top of Dynamo.


Sun will have the US IV out next year with dual cores. The IIIi is due in May of this year. The V is not to far off as well. The III took much longer to get out then Sun expected. So yes, they did get behind the ball. But expect them back on top or close to it in the near future. Sun doesn?t need a killer processor to win. When they became the leader, they didn?t have the killer processor then either. Now they are focusing on better processors and getting the most out of their systems. You will have to look no further then the IIIi systems that will be out.


UltraSPARC IV is nothing more than a shrink of the USIII core with maybe some extra memory, control goodies, and dual core thrown in for good measure. I'm not excited.


The Itanium2 test results are mainly shrouded with secrecy. Getting a system is even harder.

http://www.realworldtech.com/includes/images/articles/battle64-2003-fig1.gif


EDIT:

P.S. Speaking of Sun's missteps with MPU design...

Don't get me started on MAJC.

[DavidRavenMoon]

Originally posted by chewbaccapits
Hilarious spark...but give me some more empirical details.


http://www.macintouch.com/mactable.html#macwhispers

[DavidRavenMoon]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Why don't you tell me about some compatibility problems with x86?

OK... it doesn't run OS X! ;)

[ddtlm]

OK... it doesn't run OS X!
Crap! :eek: Now thats a hard one to argue with.

[Dave Marsh]

I thought Apple's MacOS X Marklar project DID run on x86?:D

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by Dave Marsh
I thought Apple's MacOS X Marklar project DID run on x86?:D Marklar is a rumor, not a project.

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Unlike G4's, P3's, and Xeons but like Athlons, PPC-970's must each have their own dedicated FSB.

I would really like to know where you found this tidbit. Everything that I have read up until now says that the PPC 970 is designed for SMP, so I can't see any reason why it couldn't operate in the same way that other PowerPC chips designed for SMP could. And I'm not being sarcastic :).

[nuckinfutz]

Originally posted by Rincewind42
I would really like to know where you found this tidbit. Everything that I have read up until now says that the PPC 970 is designed for SMP, so I can't see any reason why it couldn't operate in the same way that other PowerPC chips designed for SMP could. And I'm not being sarcastic :).

Features
– Two unidirectional busses
– 32-bit read, 32-bit write
– Point-to-point
– Source synchronous


Page 12 of 16

PPC 970 PDF (http://www.simdtech.org/apps/group_public/download.php/23/IBM_PPC970_MPF2002.pdf)

This should anwer most of your questions and easily debunk most of the "guesses" that you'll see regarding the PPC 970.

Point to Point Busses must dedicate a FSB for each processor. AMD also uses a P2P Bus(EV6 I believe)

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz

Features
– Two unidirectional busses
– 32-bit read, 32-bit write
– Point-to-point
– Source synchronous

Page 12 of 16

PPC 970 PDF (http://www.simdtech.org/apps/group_public/download.php/23/IBM_PPC970_MPF2002.pdf)

This should anwer most of your questions and easily debunk most of the "guesses" that you'll see regarding the PPC 970.

Point to Point Busses must dedicate a FSB for each processor. AMD also uses a P2P Bus(EV6 I believe)

Ok, I knew all but the point-to-point bit. (I'd seen the PDF many times but not really paid attention to what that meant =p). However, I would argue that it wouldn't make a huge difference to Apple's design practices (and probably not a huge different to the price either). Given the nature of the PPC 970's bus, Apple will probably need to put silicon between the CPU bus and the memory system, if only to convert from the memory systems' 64-bit bus to a 32-bit bus. There isn't anything saying that this sub system could also arbitrate CPU access to the rest of the system. Remember, the CPU bus makes requests on the rest of the system, there are generally few hard requirements on when it expects that data to arrive, it will simply delay the processing until that data arrives. So while it may not be the nicest setup, it is possible to built a chip that would do this job.

So I submit that even with the requirement that each chip had it's own FSB, that doesn't mean that each chip must have it's own dedicated connection to the system controller. It's not the optimal solution, but it's cheaper than two dedicated channels with no performance benefit. Of course I could be wrong... :D

[mathiasr]

Originally posted by Rincewind42
So I submit that even with the requirement that each chip had it's own FSB, that doesn't mean that each chip must have it's own dedicated connection to the system controller. It's not the optimal solution, but it's cheaper than two dedicated channels with no performance benefit. Of course I could be wrong... :D

I think they will use separate wiring, the rumor stated that there were two different mobos : one dual and one single CPU.
On the current G4 design the daughter card makes a machine MP or not, you cannot tell if the machine will be an MP system only looking at the mobo.

This time each PowerPC 970 will probably have it's own socket and wiring to the chipset. This of course will increase the cost of the system.
Apple could even have soldered the processors on the mobo to reduce cost and increase stability (since the bus will run in the 400-450 MHz range), and in the move kill the processor upgrade market.

[BenRoethig]

Originally posted by mathiasr
I think they will use separate wiring, the rumor stated that there were two different mobos : one dual and one single CPU.
On the current G4 design the daughter card makes a machine MP or not, you cannot tell if the machine will be an MP system only looking at the mobo.

This time each PowerPC 970 will probably have it's own socket and wiring to the chipset. This of course will increase the cost of the system.
Apple could even have soldered the processors on the mobo to reduce cost and increase stability (since the bus will run in the 400-450 MHz range), and in the move kill the processor upgrade market.

My hope is that Apple offers a a single motherboard with two (upgradeable) cpu sockets. I think Apple's lack of uprade options in the CPU department is keeping some people from switching to macs.

[nuckinfutz]

My hope is that Apple offers a a single motherboard with two (upgradeable) cpu sockets. I think Apple's lack of uprade options in the CPU department is keeping some people from switching to macs.

CPU upgrade are sooooo overhyped in the PC industry. I have a Slot1 based PC and a Flip Chip based PIII system. Sure I could search on Ebay for higher speed chips but the natural quick evolution of PC means that I'm always going to be behind. For someone looking to spend the "least" then that's a viable option but then they should NOT be looking at Apples.


Apple could even have soldered the processors on the mobo to reduce cost and increase stability (since the bus will run in the 400-450 MHz range), and in the move kill the processor upgrade market.

I think the upgrade market will be shut out anyways. The PPC 970 bus looks a little complicated to make a Daughter Card based processor system. Doing it with 100mhz is one thing but the tolerance that must be required for 450 Double Pumped buses must be more difficult.

[-hh]

Originally posted by GeneR
If they make the motherboard more compact, would that mean that they might have the laptops in mind as the first place to put the new chips? Or maybe that they will be able to use the motherboard in both the desktops and the laptops?

Just a thought. :D


Hmm...I think its an interesting thought. Afterall, people don't expect dual processors in laptops (yet!), so an "early adoption" of the 970 could very well be a laptop like the still-yet-to-be-upgraded 15"



-hh

[Lanbrown]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ddtlm
IRQs are a non-issue. Time for you to move onto something new.

IRQ’s are not a non-issue; today there are IRQ issues. Especially on those SFF PC’s that companies seem to like, like the ones from HP/Compaq. Shipped from the factory they are fine; try to add one or two PCI cards, especially some a few years old and viola, IRQ problems.

Who cares? I'm calling it Apple's open firmware cause Sun is irrelevant.

Really, they are the same thing.

I guess this is an attack on interchangable components?

In the PC world, compatibility is not in their vocabulary. Each company likes to do things their way and virtually everything in a PC is all based upon specifications and not standards. ATA/133 and USB are two perfect examples. Maxtor and Agere decided to extend ATA from 100 to 133. Most of the big players in the PC world are on the USB committee, which there are compatibility problems with USB. Why, because it’s a loose spec. They have used three different controller chips, plus add all the operating systems in, you have too many to do a through test. The PC world looks at the present and not the future, it’s this lack of planning that causes them problems.

I worked as a PC tech of about 1.5 years prior to getting a real programming job, never messed with IRQ's. I assume this is because I was dealing with modern hardware. I continue to build my own machines and machines for others, pretty much being the PC hardware guru amoung anyone that I know. I've encountered quite a few problems over the years but I have never had problems with IRQs.

Some vendors and specific systems are even worse. Modern hardware has more of a problem then the older hardware. Name another system that uses IRQ’s? If it’s so great, why aren’t others?


This is supposed to refute my claim about work per clock?

If it isn’t out yet, it’s a mute point. You are comparing their yet to be released chip to already released chips that most have been out for several years.


They seem to be shipping, and in any case you hardly have room to poke holes in Intel's shipping dates when Sun has legendary delays of their own.

I never said the USIII was on time.


SPEC exists for the Itanium, and it looks quite good.

There are very few test results. Ask anyone that has tried to buy a Itanium2 system from HP; you can order it, just don’t expect a ship date.


I use Suns at work and I have no idea why anyone would volentarily use one as a desktop. Linux is a far better choice for Unixy stuff, with OSX and Windows taking everything else.

Linux is nothing. It is just a compilation of the various flavors of UNIX. Plus, you are comparing a platform to an OS. Sun has their platform plus Solaris. Linux is just an OS; you still need a platform to put it on.

If you have to ask why a company would use Sun, you obviously don’t see the whole picture.

It is quite well known, and the software support is steadily building as Intel pushes onward.

Once they get software support, they also need to get customers to accept it. Sun continues to sell their systems at a brisk pace.

If you don’t have the software that a company want today, why would they buy your platform?

Onward with their revolutionary design (EPIC) that was invented and failed in the 70’s?

[B]Well first, I'm glad to see you reference SPEC because that is exactly the field where Itanium2 likes to play. Next step is for you to compare your $11000 Sun desktop to a system based on an Intel chip costing more than $175. Also note that the 2.4ghz P4 was released in April 2002, almost a year ago. While a year-old Sun might be exactly the same as a brand-new Sun, that is not the case for PCs where technology is noticably progressing. It is good to see that you included the XeonMP 2.0 though, thats a new chip, but it is still closely related to common desktop chips.

The 2.4GHz XEON processor was released not to long ago. Try again; I posted the link to a press release on Intel.com that specifically said when the chip was announced.

It was the choice of Intel to take a desktop chip, make a few changes to it and call it a server chip. They made the choice; they must live with it.

What does cost have to do with it? Sun sells a 2-way server and the PC companies do as well. Since Itanium servers are hard to come by and may not have the software one wants, a comparison between those two is totally legitimate.



No, you didn't.


Yes but was the US3 1.015 actually shipping a year ago? I see Sun has 1.05ghz US3's now, quite the improvment!

The 1.015 was released shortly after the 1.05GHz.

So comparing year-old PCs to Suns which are essentially identical to brand-new top-end $16000 desktops is fair?

Let’s see, I also included two servers with the same number of processors. If Intel wants to use desktop processors in a server, then so be it. They all followed the same rules; there are no rules.

Venture outside your safe multiprocessor haven and you'll see some different SPEC numbers compared to those modern chips, or alternatively, we can bring in some Itanium2 iron which should defeat any US3.

Sun makes most of their money in the servers, most of which are multiprocessor machines. So Sun does multiprocessor machines better then what Intel and it’s clients can do.

So you bring up that I am comparing an older CPU to a newer one, and now YOU want to do the same thing.

Sun doesn’t need the fastest CPU to win; they didn’t when they became #1 in the UNIX market years ago. The US IV and then the V will close the gap.


And now this thread has deteriorated into you defending Sun. Noone here cares about Sun.

I used Sun as an example. You are defending Intel.

[jettredmont]

Note, IMHO, this is completely off-topic and academic here. However, maybe Lanbrown can tell us precisely how Sun's hardware compared to Intel relates to the IBM 970 and especially Apple's motherboards for such a chip.

Originally posted by Lanbrown
Originally posted by ddtlm

IRQ?s are not a non-issue; today there are IRQ issues. Especially on those SFF PC?s that companies seem to like, like the ones from HP/Compaq. Shipped from the factory they are fine; try to add one or two PCI cards, especially some a few years old and viola, IRQ problems.


Are you sure? Have you been doing IT for an Intel-based company?

I'm not IT, but I've done my fair share of upgrading Intel-based hardware. IRQ conflicts ... gosh, I can't remember the last time I had one! I think the last one that I had was adding a Voodoo graphics card (Voodoo 1 ...) to an onboard-video NEC computer, and that one only gave me about ten-fifteen minutes' hassle (had to set the IRQ instead of letting it set itself). That would have been 1996 if I remember correctly, perhaps 1995 (about a month after the Voodoo 2 cards debuted, if anyone feels like looking it up).

I've moved aging network cards and modems and sound cards between computers without having to think about it at all since then. I even installed a combo USB/secondary PP/SP card into that old NEC before retiring it, and it was an insert/start computer/play prospect!

Again, not coming from an IT perspective, but are IRQ problems really that prevalent? I haven't seen them in years. Seems like you're working off old experience and conditioned reflexes instead of facts here.


I guess this is an attack on interchangable components?

In the PC world, compatibility is not in their vocabulary. Each company likes to do things their way and virtually everything in a PC is all based upon specifications and not standards. ATA/133 and USB are two perfect examples. Maxtor and Agere decided to extend ATA from 100 to 133.


Interesting you should use that as an example. I just bought and installed a Maxtor ATA 133 drive in my Windows machine (the Maxtor was cheaper than its competition, so it's not like I paid extra for ATA 133). I have a "standard" ATA66 controller card in there (and even more "standard" ATA33 on the motherboard which drives my optical and Zip drives). How many problems did I have with the installation?

Well, aside from the fact that I found my 3.5" floppy was dead and I couldn't use Maxtor's "recommended" non-fdisk method of partitioning the new drive (I just used fdisk anyways and it worked perfectly), installation went hitch-free. If there is a problem with Maxtor's ATA133 standard extension, I don't see it.

Most of the big players in the PC world are on the USB committee, which there are compatibility problems with USB. Why, because it?s a loose spec. They have used three different controller chips, plus add all the operating systems in, you have too many to do a through test.


Again, are you basing this on fact or superstition? What kinds of problems have you seen with USB? Aside from the "install driver before or after plugging in" per-device confusion in Windows (which is an unfortunate side-effect of MS's architecture), I haven't seen interoperability problems on USB hardware. The only hardware problem I've had with USB is a USB hub that wasn't fully spec-compliant (the last DLink hardware I've bought, I might add!) Everything else works great. And, yes, I have a USB scanner from Epson, a printer from HP, a camera from Intel, a Belkin UPS, a keyboard and mouse from MS, a flash card reader from Dazzle (not sure who actually makes the device and I've seen identical hardware branded otherwise), along with (occasionally) a Kodak digital camera and a Sony video camera. So, the USB buses (two root ports on my PC == two buses) get quite a bit of pounding. Still, no conflicts.


This is supposed to refute my claim about work per clock?

If it isn?t out yet, it?s a mute point. You are comparing their yet to be released chip to already released chips that most have been out for several years.


Actually, he was comparing the work-per-clock of the Opteron (unreleased) with the IBM 970 (also unreleased). He never mentioned the G4; go back and look at the original post.


If you have to ask why a company would use Sun, you obviously don?t see the whole picture.


Again, he didn't ask why a company would be using Sun. He said he can't see why you would use it as a desktop (which was in response to you saying that comparing Suns and P4s was valid because you use a Sun as your desktop computer).


It was the choice of Intel to take a desktop chip, make a few changes to it and call it a server chip. They made the choice; they must live with it.


Let us not forget that Apple calls G4 computers servers too. Anyone shopping for a server should understand the scope of their options quite well, and will probably already have at least a pretty good idea of the answer to the 32/64-bit question.

On the low end of servers (which traditionally do not require 64-bit procs), the Xeon is a very nice processor. One wouldn't compare a $5k Xeon to a $30k Sun system any more than one would compare a $4k Mac to an Itanium2. Keep your comparisons realistic, in other words, or at the very least acknowledge that a Cray and a Xeon have a slight price difference between them.


What does cost have to do with it? Sun sells a 2-way server and the PC companies do as well. Since Itanium servers are hard to come by and may not have the software one wants, a comparison between those two is totally legitimate.


Well, first of all "what does cost have to do with it"? Everything. Companies are in business to make money, and often making money correlates to not wasting money. If a $5k server is just slightly less fitting for an enterprise than a $30k server, the cost difference will drive the decision. On the other hand, if the difference is measurable and will affect profit-making ability, it may be wiser to go with the more expensive hardware.


So comparing year-old PCs to Suns which are essentially identical to brand-new top-end $16000 desktops is fair?

Let?s see, I also included two servers with the same number of processors. If Intel wants to use desktop processors in a server, then so be it. They all followed the same rules; there are no rules.


Correct. There are no rules. Except, of course, for the company actually paying for the hardware, which is buying said hardware today, not a year ago. Today, if you have $16k to spend on a server you'll not artificially restrict yourself to last year's model just so that Sun hardware looks better.

And now this thread has deteriorated into you defending Sun. Noone here cares about Sun.

I used Sun as an example. You are defending Intel.

So what, precisely, was the point? How does Sun's rockin' upcoming UltraSparq lineup relate to the IBM 970?