PowerPC 975 or Not?

[MacRumors]

Over the past few months, various whispers have repeated rumors of a PowerPC 975 processor which is meant to be a successor to the PowerPC 970 (G5).

Unfortunately, these rumors have come from consistently unreliable sources. As a result, the existence of a "PowerPC 975" remains in question.

Due to the nature of rumors, the information has also been repeated on numerous websites and message boards.

At this time, however, there appears to be no reliable information that the PowerPC 975 is an actual planned product. Instead, it should be regarded as a possible invention of the rumor world until further confirmation is provided.

[JFreak]

we'll see at wwdc if it's real or not.

[arn]

if anyone has/digs up any official IBM docuemntation that the 975 exists... let me know.

This thing keeps getting mentioned as if it's fact. I think it may just be entirely made up.

arn

[Shagrat]

if anyone has/digs up any official IBM docuemntation that the 975 exists... let me know.

This thing keeps getting mentioned as if it's fact. I think it may just be entirely made up.

arn

A classic piece of rumourmongering??

[gandalf55]

My wife is gonna let me get a G5 of my choosing along with a 23" flat panel. But I smell something coming down the road and I need to hold off until after WWDC. 975 would be nice, but I'll take a dual 3Ghz 970 too...

[gekko513]

My wife is gonna let me get a G5 of my choosing along with a 23" flat panel. But I smell something coming down the road and I need to hold off until after WWDC. 975 would be nice, but I'll take a dual 3Ghz 970 too...
I'll even take a Dual 2.2 GHz 970(FX) at the price of the current Dual 1.8 :)

[Twonk]

I think it's real. I want one. Would be kinda funny if it was all hot air though :D

[Zaty]

I have been skeptical about the existence of the 975 since the first rumours came up. IBM should solve the yield issue with the 970FX before developing an entirely new processor. But of the course the question remains which cpu will be put in the new PM revision.

[the future]

Well, since the PPC 970 is a derivative of IBM's Power4 proc, it seems pretty obvious/logical that there will be a derivative PPC of the Power5, which is being introduced right now, as well... called 975 or called something else. I really think/hope the non-availability of any info is just due to Apple's infamous secrecy (in this case extended to IBM).

[qubex]

It is quite offputting.

Whereas Intel and AMD are very adroit in releasing detailed roadmaps indicating exactly what they're researching, what strategies they are adopting, and what performances they expect to attain (how, and when!) IBM, Motorola and Apple enjoy keeping their own consumers in the dark and indulging in all this cloak-and-dagger stuff.

Do they consider us consumers (and especially, "prosumers") so stupid that we can't be trusted with a clear view of the future? As if the fact that next year computers will be faster and cheaper than now is some sort of secret!

I'm sure Steve is kicking himself morally for "announcing" 3GHz machines by Summer 2004 - and consequentially looking at sales of only 60,000 PowerMacs. It's not the issue of imminent new machines - it's the inherent uncertainty about what is going on.

The PowerPC really needs to issue clear roadmaps because at the moment their collective behaviour is really pathetic. In order to make informed purchasing decisions I demand clear information.

Not to offend anybody, but the whole "Apple Rumours" phenomenon is merely an indication of how confused, unclear, and downright paranoid Apple is about letting anybody understand what they're up to. That is not becoming of a mature company. It reminds me of school-kids playing their CIA games with code-wheels and secret salutes.

[johnnyjibbs]

Surely it doesn't matter what it's called? Maybe the 975 is just the 970fx (the 90nm one). I have no doubt that that they will deliver and the new line-up will include a dual 3GHz model. I think the delay in new PowerMacs is down to yield problems on the new chips at IBM. It seems almost as if all chip manufacturers have run into the speed buffers.

I've also noticed how the Moto slagging matches have gone quiet...

[JFreak]

Not to offend anybody, but the whole "Apple Rumours" phenomenon is ....

only free publicity/marketing for apple ;)

[nate13]

Knowing computer companies, i wouldn't doubt if they had a 975, and have already tested it, but have found insufficient ways of producing it. And plus, the mac community can hope for a kick @$$ processor to blow the frigin pants off Wintel boxes.:D

~Nate13

[wrldwzrd89]

It is quite offputting.

Whereas Intel and AMD are very adroit in releasing detailed roadmaps indicating exactly what they're researching, what strategies they are adopting, and what performances they expect to attain (how, and when!) IBM, Motorola and Apple enjoy keeping their own consumers in the dark and indulging in all this cloak-and-dagger stuff.

Do they consider us consumers (and especially, "prosumers") so stupid that we can't be trusted with a clear view of the future? As if the fact that next year computers will be faster and cheaper than now is some sort of secret!

I'm sure Steve is kicking himself morally for "announcing" 3GHz machines by Summer 2004 - and consequentially looking at sales of only 60,000 PowerMacs. It's not the issue of imminent new machines - it's the inherent uncertainty about what is going on.

The PowerPC really needs to issue clear roadmaps because at the moment their collective behaviour is really pathetic. In order to make informed purchasing decisions I demand clear information.

Not to offend anybody, but the whole "Apple Rumours" phenomenon is merely an indication of how confused, unclear, and downright paranoid Apple is about letting anybody understand what they're up to. That is not becoming of a mature company. It reminds me of school-kids playing their CIA games with code-wheels and secret salutes.
I agree with your points - but do keep in mind that MacRumors probably wouldn't exist without Apple's secrecy, and you couldn't have posted (or, for that matter, I couldn't have posted this either). The biggest surprise to me is that IBM is being secretive regarding the PowerPC platform, just like Apple. I wouldn't have expected IBM to do that, unless Apple specifically asked them to. I certainly think Apple and IBM would stand to gain customers (especially in the business world) by being less secretive.

[johnnyjibbs]

The PowerPC really needs to issue clear roadmaps because at the moment their collective behaviour is really pathetic. In order to make informed purchasing decisions I demand clear information.

Not to offend anybody, but the whole "Apple Rumours" phenomenon is merely an indication of how confused, unclear, and downright paranoid Apple is about letting anybody understand what they're up to. That is not becoming of a mature company. It reminds me of school-kids playing their CIA games with code-wheels and secret salutes.
Like it or not, this is Apple's way of doing business. They keep people in ignorance until they release a new product or else no-one would buy the old product. If Apple has lots of 2GHz models to sell, they would rather unsuspecting individuals paid full price for these models a few weeks before new 3GHz models come out at a lower price. No-one would buy if they knew for certain something better was around the corner. That's why sites like MacRumors exist - to give us some guidance on our purchasing decisions in addition to a discussion forum for Apple in general.

[non fiction]

I think Arn (aka Steve) has realised that the 3Ghz promise within a year has been thwarted - despite IBM's great advances.... and he is now spreading a quiet rumour of the non existence of the 975 to prevent mass dissapointment when the next revision of the G5 peaks at only 2.6Ghz.....

[crail]

The following ibm.com URL mentions the 975. Sorry about the poor translation below, it is the best babelfish could do from Chinese. The translation is from a section about 3/4 the way down the page.

http://www-901.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/tw/specialreport_1.html

IBM indicated that, Power5 is situated between 1.6GHz to 2GHz, next year will promote 90nm regulation according to the Power4+ pattern Power5+, might arrive 3GHz. IBM estimates 1.6GHz Power5 to be allowed to become 1.3GHz Power4 time of potency. Moreover, IBM constructs larger-scale many principles by the Power5 base is , PowerPC 975 also directly continues to use the Power5 core. , with at the beginning of the Power4 strategy is not opposite, a Power5 beginning by the low server host, only then gradually will extend in the future to the high server. behind represents strategy booklet, worth noting.

[manu chao]

Well, since the PPC 970 is a derivative of IBM's Power4 proc, it seems pretty obvious/logical that there will be a derivative PPC of the Power5, which is being introduced right now, as well... called 975 or called something else.

I completely agree, there will, in all likelyhood, be a successor to the 970(fx), which will most likely be based on the Power5. The only question is whether it will come out this year or next year.

I agree, this rumor (i.e. the release date & specs) could be entirely based on speculation, but it could nevertheless be true (on the stock exchange people make a living out of speculation).

[denisg]

IBM has a pretty clear roadmap, it is Apple's planned implementation of these processors that is unclear (to its customers, that is).

[tny]

The following ibm.com URL mentions the 975. Sorry about the poor translation below, it is the best babelfish could do from Chinese. The translation is from a section about 3/4 the way down the page.

http://www-901.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/tw/specialreport_1.html

IBM indicated that, Power5 is situated between 1.6GHz to 2GHz, next year will promote 90nm regulation according to the Power4+ pattern Power5+, might arrive 3GHz. IBM estimates 1.6GHz Power5 to be allowed to become 1.3GHz Power4 time of potency. Moreover, IBM constructs larger-scale many principles by the Power5 base is , PowerPC 975 also directly continues to use the Power5 core. , with at the beginning of the Power4 strategy is not opposite, a Power5 beginning by the low server host, only then gradually will extend in the future to the high server. behind represents strategy booklet, worth noting.

Because English product numbers and the like are usually given in Roman characters in Chinese texts, Macrumors readers can check this out for themselves: PowerPC 975 appears right on the page. A sequence of google searchs for "powerpc 975" with site: equal to ibm.com, apple.com, motorola.com, and freescale.com comes up with only this page that crail has brought our attention to. It may not be a clincher, but it's the best evidence in print anyone has shown.

[CmdrLaForge]

Because English product numbers and the like are usually given in Roman characters in Chinese texts, Macrumors readers can check this out for themselves: PowerPC 975 appears right on the page. A sequence of google searchs for "powerpc 975" with site: equal to ibm.com, apple.com, motorola.com, and freescale.com comes up with only this page that crail has brought our attention to. It may not be a clincher, but it's the best evidence in print anyone has shown.

At least its a real IBM page. Therefore I consider that the 975 exists or existed on a roadmap at least. Maybe even as a real proto.

[~Shard~]

975s would be nice, but Dual 3 GHz 970s @ WWDC would be more than acceptable in my books. :cool:

[wrldwzrd89]

975s would be nice, but Dual 3 GHz 970s @ WWDC would be more than acceptable in my books. :cool:
I'm not very confident that the PowerPC 970 or its FX revision are capable of reaching 3 GHz - I would NOT be surprised if a 970-based product debuts at less that 3 GHz. However, if the debut is of a PowerPC 975-based product, I'd EXPECT a 3 GHz model to be available.

[PRØBE]

but do keep in mind that MacRumors probably wouldn't exist without Apple's secrecy, and you couldn't have posted (or, for that matter, I couldn't have posted this either).





I think that was the point he was making.

[mgargan1]

i really do think that whatever the update is going to be, that we wont me disappointed. I mean, if they do have a dual layer DVD burner... that would be sooo kick ass. Maybe, this whole time the waiting is on Nvidia/ATI to ship their new graphics cards. Who knows... But we will find out in about a month...

[Rocketman]

Over the past few months, various whispers have repeated rumors of a PowerPC 975 processor which is meant to be a successor to the PowerPC 970 (G5).

Unfortunately, these rumors have come from consistently unreliable sources. As a result, the existence of a "PowerPC 975" remains in question.

Due to the nature of rumors, the information has also been repeated on numerous websites and message boards.

At this time, however, there appears to be no reliable information that the PowerPC 975 is an actual planned product. Instead, it should be regarded as a possible invention of the rumor world until further confirmation is provided.

This is why this is my primary rumor site. You look at other rumor sites, judge their accuracy, cite all claims and then analyse the veracity of the claims and try to sift repeat info from original content. That is valuable. Thank you.

If Apple will just ADMIT that the G5 Rev B will be released in June and it will not be upgraded for a full year, they would sell more units throughout the year because nobody would have incentive to wait (at various times) till June 05 rolls around.

IBM gives roadmaps and release pre-announcements. Purchase planning.

Rocketman
:eek:

[reaper]

Like it or not, this is Apple's way of doing business. They keep people in ignorance until they release a new product or else no-one would buy the old product. If Apple has lots of 2GHz models to sell, they would rather unsuspecting individuals paid full price for these models a few weeks before new 3GHz models come out at a lower price. No-one would buy if they knew for certain something better was around the corner. That's why sites like MacRumors exist - to give us some guidance on our purchasing decisions in addition to a discussion forum for Apple in general.

I agree that this is definitely Apple's current MO, but I don't think that it's the best way to gain consumer confidence, or for that matter, consistent with other manufacturers.

Apple has to be so secretive because they hardly ever lower the prices of their products before new models come out, which is in direct contrast to almost every other electronics and computer manufacturer today. This creates fear in the minds of consumers because they don't know what's going on and cannot make an informed decision, which, in turn, discourages purchasing until more information is disseminated.

If Apple lowered the prices as their products aged they would have no problem letting consumers know about upcoming releases and having the consumer decide whether it was in their best interest to purchase now (at a reduced price) or wait for the latest, greatest to come out. I think they would actually sell more this way since there wouldn't be the inherent fear in purchasing that currently exists.

Just my .02

- reaper

[PPC970FX]

If Stev don`t have a 3Ghz Powermac, will he use PR Mhz, like AMD is?

But, it is a disaster in PR for apple if Steves goes out and say: Obs, was just kiding with you, and gives out a 2,6Ghz G5.

One thing that can save his rep. is a dualcore, CPU.

[wrldwzrd89]

but do keep in mind that MacRumors probably wouldn't exist without Apple's secrecy, and you couldn't have posted (or, for that matter, I couldn't have posted this either).





I think that was the point he was making.
PRØBE, I found your post quite funny! (By the way, you're right about my main point.)

[johnnyjibbs]

I agree that this is definitely Apple's current MO, but I don't think that it's the best way to gain consumer confidence, or for that matter, consistent with other manufacturers.

Apple has to be so secretive because they hardly ever lower the prices of their products before new models come out, which is in direct contrast to almost every other electronics and computer manufacturer today. This creates fear in the minds of consumers because they don't know what's going on and cannot make an informed decision, which, in turn, discourages purchasing until more information is disseminated.

If Apple lowered the prices as their products aged they would have no problem letting consumers know about upcoming releases and having the consumer decide whether it was in their best interest to purchase now (at a reduced price) or wait for the latest, greatest to come out. I think they would actually sell more this way since there wouldn't be the inherent fear in purchasing that currently exists.
This is a good idea, although they would then have to increase the prices at each update. However, it would give people incentive to go out and get something if they thought the price was right. Apple does occasionally lower the price on models, e.g. the 12" PB started out here in Jan 2003 at £1399 and then got reduced to £1299 in June. The rev B then came out at the same price (£1299) in September and now the rev C has been accompanied by a price drop to £1149.

2 weeks before the update to PBs, you could have got the rev B 12" 1GHz PB for the same price I payed in September. Then, when they updated, you got not only a faster machine, but a price drop as well.

The problem is, Apple tends to update all in one go, rather than gradual improvements. So currently we have a very out-of-date 1GHz 15" iMac for £999 when you can get a 1.25GHz eMac for £549 - they could have just stuck a 1.25GHz processor in there but instead they're holding out until I expect a G5 will be unleashed at WWDC.

As far as PowerMacs go, I believe they will be 3GHz, whatever chip IBM can produce. They have to be, or Steve's reputation is on the line.

[reaper]

This is a good idea, although they would then have to increase the prices at each update. However, it would give people incentive to go out and get something if they thought the price was right. Apple does occasionally lower the price on models, e.g. the 12" PB started out here in Jan 2003 at £1399 and then got reduced to £1299 in June. The rev B then came out at the same price (£1299) in September and now the rev C has been accompanied by a price drop to £1149.

2 weeks before the update to PBs, you could have got the rev B 12" 1GHz PB for the same price I payed in September. Then, when they updated, you got not only a faster machine, but a price drop as well.

The problem is, Apple tends to update all in one go, rather than gradual improvements. So currently we have a very out-of-date 1GHz 15" iMac for £999 when you can get a 1.25GHz eMac for £549 - they could have just stuck a 1.25GHz processor in there but instead they're holding out until I expect a G5 will be unleashed at WWDC.

As far as PowerMacs go, I believe they will be 3GHz, whatever chip IBM can produce. They have to be, or Steve's reputation is on the line.

You're right about the price drops with the new models, I just wish they would lower prices as the models aged, and before the other models were released, so there would be some incentive to buying a 9 month old computer *before* the new models come out.

Also, I don't think Steve will let us down, even if he has to announce at WWDC and not ship until later in the summer or early fall. Oh yeah, and I do think that the 975 exists, even if only in chinese! :D

- reaper

[SiliconAddict]

So much for reclaiming world's fastest personal computer. :p :(

Who knows maybe Jobs will put off something big at WWDC but I'm starting to doubt it.

[pjkelnhofer]

Has anyone managed to track down from where the original 975 came? We have been talking about it so long, it is easy to forget that it may not exist.

What ever happened to the 750VX?

[agreenster]

I'm not very confident that the PowerPC 970 or its FX revision are capable of reaching 3 GHz - I would NOT be surprised if a 970-based product debuts at less that 3 GHz. However, if the debut is of a PowerPC 975-based product, I'd EXPECT a 3 GHz model to be available.

I always find these kind of statements hilarious. How in the world do you know anything about these chips? Do you work for IBM? Is it just a hunch? WHY cant the 970 reach 3ghz?

And the other thing is, you're talking as if the 975 is the only chip capable of reaching 3 ghz, yet the rest of this thread is debating if the 975 even EXISTS as a product!

[Frobozz]

if anyone has/digs up any official IBM docuemntation that the 975 exists... let me know.

This thing keeps getting mentioned as if it's fact. I think it may just be entirely made up.

arn

Ask, and ye shall receive.

http://www-901.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/tw/specialreport_1.html

I have no idea what the page says, since it's in Thai, but this is the official Taiwan IBM web site and it specifically mentions the PowerPC 975 (in English since it's a trademark) in the same paragraph as the POWER5. I guess we can take that as proof it exists, assuming the translation is not along the lines of "what they don't know is that there is no 975 (snickers)." :-)

[DavidCar]

I think the Chinese IBM site is confirmation that the 975 exists, but if we could get a better translation it should be easier to see the implications of exactly what is being discussed.

Wouldn't the mention of the 975 number also be an indirect confirmation of any other details in the original rumor that changed the speculation from 980 to 975?

[AidenShaw]

I have no idea what the page says, since it's in Thai, but this is the official Taiwan IBM web site :-)


Also, IMHO, a single obscure reference is more likely to be a typo or an error in translation than proof of the existence of a product.

IBM talked about the POWER4, the POWER5, and the PPC970 for months or years before they actually shipped.

Are we to believe that large numbers of a "975" exist and it has not been announced? That would be a big about-face for IBM....

("large numbers" is relative - for Apple to announce a shipping 975 product at WWDC, they'd have hundreds of prototype and pre-production units currently undergoing testing. Even if the ship date would be in the fall, fair numbers of prototypes would have to be running now to give the LGJ the confidence to announce.)

[jakemikey]

I already mentioned this on the "WWDC specs" thread, but I don't think IBM could be considered even remotely as secretive as Apple. They officially announced the 970 a full year before it shipped in volume as the G5. So far nothing on the "975".

But that's really beside the point. There seems to be (at least on the WWDC specs thread) a general prejudice against the 970 and its performance. It's referred to often as a "holdover" product which offers lackluster performance, and is there only as a spacefiller. I have to wonder how many of these people use a G5 on a regular basis. Performance, even on a stock G5, is anything but lackluster.

Other people say that if Apple releases anything but a 975 (a product which, even if mentioned once on an Asian IBM server, has had NO SPECS released, leaked, or otherwise made known by a reliable source), it will spell their doom. Come on people! Not one of us would really be able to tell the difference in daily routines between a 3GHz "975" and a 3 GHz 970FX. As to whether the FX could make it to 3 GHz, maybe not, but keep in mind that the original 970 was said to reach 1.4 or something before it showed up at 2 GHz in the G5. Right now on IBM's website, the 970FX says 2 GHz +.

I highly doubt that if IBM had a chip (in high volume) as impressive as the 975 is made out to be, that they'd keep it so tightly locked down, just on Apple's account.

[Skiniftz]

I completely agree, there will, in all likelyhood, be a successor to the 970(fx), which will most likely be based on the Power5. The only question is whether it will come out this year or next year.

Well IBM have working Power5 chips right now (http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/news/pressreleases/2003/jun/milestone.html) and are citing 4 times performance increases over Power4 servers.

Everything I find on IBM's site states that Power5 is due for delivery mid 2004. This would I believe make it highly probable that this chip is the 3hz G5 Jobs was referencing.

Another interesting quote:

The POWER5 will be in new servers code-named "Squadron," and also in the ASCI Purple supercomputer -- which will boast more than 12,000 POWER5 processors in 197 refrigerator-sized nodes that will cover an area equivalent to the size of two basketball courts -- several orders of magnitude larger than the ENIAC, whose size is the butt of many nerdish jokes. ASCI Purple is expected to be delivered to Lawrence Livermore in the second half of 2004. Servers based on the POWER5 have been up and running at IBM's Poughkeepsie Labs since June 2003.

So in other words, 12000 Power5 CPU's should be almost ready if they are not already as they are due to be delivered soon.

Hmmm.. G5's being delayed due to the first large orders going into a supercomputer?

Where have I heard that one before...?

[iLilana]

apple and steve won't change the way they release product. They know we love the suspence and they are profitable.

[Veldek]

Well IBM have working Power5 chips right now (http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/news/pressreleases/2003/jun/milestone.html) and are citing 4 times performance increases over Power4 servers.

Everything I find on IBM's site states that Power5 is due for delivery mid 2004. This would I believe make it highly probable that this chip is the 3hz G5 Jobs was referencing.

Not at all, the current Power Macs don’t use the Power4 neither. They use the 970 which is a derivative of the Power4. So we won’t see the Power5 in one but just a derivative.

[pjkelnhofer]

Ask, and ye shall receive.

http://www-901.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/tw/specialreport_1.html

I have no idea what the page says, since it's in Thai, but this is the official Taiwan IBM web site and it specifically mentions the PowerPC 975 (in English since it's a trademark) in the same paragraph as the POWER5. I guess we can take that as proof it exists, assuming the translation is not along the lines of "what they don't know is that there is no 975 (snickers)." :-)

Here is the babelfish translation of the portion that mentions the 975:
□IBM indicated that, Power5 □□□is situated between 1.6GHz to 2GHz, next year □will promote 90nm □regulation according to the Power4+ pattern Power5+, □□□might arrive □3GHz. IBM □estimates 1.6GHz Power5 to be allowed □to become 1.3GHz Power4 □time of potency. Moreover, IBM □□□constructs larger-scale many □principles by the Power5 □base is □, PowerPC 975 also □directly continues to use the Power5 core. □, with □at the beginning of the Power4 strategy is not opposite, a Power5 □beginning □by □the low □server □host, only then gradually will extend in the future to the high □server. □behind represents strategy □booklet, worth noting.


I am not a linguist, but I believe Taiwanese is slightly different from Chinese. Since Babelfish this is the Chinese to English translation, I assume that
caused the missing words.

Now, you may all interpret this as you wish.

[stingerman]

I know Thai, and the site says that "many Apple rumor sites anticipate a Power5 derivative being called the 975. We here in IBM Thailand are still hoping to get a 970." :D

[nsb3000]

if anyone has/digs up any official IBM docuemntation that the 975 exists... let me know.

This thing keeps getting mentioned as if it's fact. I think it may just be entirely made up.

arn

This is kind of a non-rumor than...? Kind of interesting for a rumor site! :)

[DavidCar]

What happened to yesterday's Page 2 thread on the 975?

[NAG]

Not at all, the current Power Macs don’t use the Power4 neither. They use the 970 which is a derivative of the Power4. So we won’t see the Power5 in one but just a derivative.

Indeed. And believe me, you wouldn't need (or want) a Power4 or 5 in your tower.

[Frobozz]

Everything I find on IBM's site states that Power5 is due for delivery mid 2004. This would I believe make it highly probable that this chip is the 3hz G5 Jobs was referencing.

To be specific, POWER5 based IBM Servers will be released in 2 weeks on June 11th. They were officially announced on May 3rd.

http://www.ibm.com/investor/press/may-2004/03-05-04-1.phtml

[nsb3000]

i really do think that whatever the update is going to be, that we wont me disappointed. I mean, if they do have a dual layer DVD burner... that would be sooo kick ass. Maybe, this whole time the waiting is on Nvidia/ATI to ship their new graphics cards. Who knows... But we will find out in about a month...


Less than a month, if they come at the WWDC.

[ffakr]

I'm not very confident that the PowerPC 970 or its FX revision are capable of reaching 3 GHz - I would NOT be surprised if a 970-based product debuts at less that 3 GHz. However, if the debut is of a PowerPC 975-based product, I'd EXPECT a 3 GHz model to be available.

Remember that a PPC 970 has a pipe almost as long as a P4, yet it has never surpassed its introduction speed of 2GHz. There should be head room in the original 970 for a speed bump and, if the .09micron process actually runs the way it should, there should be a lot more head room for frequency increases.
3.0 may be unlikely as an attainable speed while they are just getting the process working properly, but I don't see any reason why a 970fx doesn't have the potential to hit 3GHz or at least come very close during that chip/process lifetime. Remember, P4s span almost 1 GHz from high to low on the .13 micron process, and the northwoods are currently available at 3.4 GHz.

[matthew24]

Apple knows that their custumors expect something at WWDC, if they have a serious delay ( >6 months ) they should make an anouncement now. Until now they haven't, this probably means there will be upgrades at WWDC. But 3GHz remains to be seen.

[Frobozz]

I am not a linguist, but I believe Taiwanese is slightly different from Chinese. Since Babelfish this is the Chinese to English translation, I assume that caused the missing words.

I can't believe I didn't think to try Chinese! ugh. Nonetheless, this is mention of the 975, no matter how pseudo-ficial it is. It's pretty common in large corporate environments to have foreign afficiates post information like this. Quite often their information is filtered through various channels until they can offer information to their customers. In summation I'd say the 975 exists on their roadmaps and the Thai are expecting products based on those products.

[Abstract]

Ask, and ye shall receive.

http://www-901.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/tw/specialreport_1.html

I have no idea what the page says, since it's in Thai, but this is the official Taiwan IBM web site and it specifically mentions the... They speak Cantonese in Taiwan.
Anyway, nobody knows whether there is a 975 in ANY country, so again, this conversation seems silly. Its not like IBM Taiwan is going to know something while IBM USA is going to be kept in the dark for a year.

Anyway, what happened to the 980 being derived from the Power5, and the 970 being derived from the Power4? And since I can't remember what the FX in "970FX" stands for (my mind completely draws a blank), I'll take an educated guess and assume that it's when IBM managed to make 970 procs using the 90 nm process. Okay, why wouldn't they be able to produce that chip to 3GHz? Why do people make this assumption, and what are you basing this on? There are too many people who just make hunches without basing them on anything! You guys are like the Psychic hotline, or the guy from Crossing Over.... *sigh*

Using a 90nm proc instead of a 13nm 970 may make all the difference in the world in terms of heat production, right? Even if they don't get to 3 Ghz, surely they can produce a 2.5 - 2.6 GHz proc using this process.

[sinisterdesign]

... with at the beginning of the Power4 strategy is not opposite, a Power5 beginning by the low server host, only then gradually will extend in the future to the high server. behind represents strategy booklet, worth noting...

this is fun to read w/ the voice of an old chinese shopkeeper (tried to find the pic of the "frogurt" guy from the Simpsons, but to no avail).


all i know is that it's frustrating trying to guess when & where Apple/IBM are going w/ these chips. i think we've all had a much brighter outlook since IBM took the reigns from Moto, but rumors come & go and we still have no idea when we're hitting the fabled 3GHz mark. hopefully sooner than later...

[ffakr]

I already mentioned this on the "WWDC specs" thread, but I don't think IBM could be considered even remotely as secretive as Apple. They officially announced the 970 a full year before it shipped in volume as the G5. So far nothing on the "975".

Now that Apple is buying a lot of G5s, they have marketing pull, just like Apple did with Motorola. Motorola did release road maps (which were always wrong) but they never announced a ship date for a cpu that was destined for a Mac until Apple shipped a product with that chip. They used to coordinate their official announcements, even though the chips were obviously flowing out of Motorola so that Apple could have their new machines built for the product launch.
There is no reason to believe that Apple couldn't get IBM to keep their mouth shut.. considering they are still the only vendor buying chips from this family.
I highly doubt that if IBM had a chip (in high volume) as impressive as the 975 is made out to be, that they'd keep it so tightly locked down, just on Apple's account.
I don't doubt that at all. If IBM had such an impressive chip and they had other customers, that would be a different matter. But this is essentially a chip produced for Apple at this point. You don't piss off your primary/only client. IBM has the Power5 to trumpet anyway.. a chip that is just as impressive (more so) and actually shipping in IBM servers very soon.

[Trekkie]

It is quite offputting.

Whereas Intel and AMD are very adroit in releasing detailed roadmaps indicating exactly what they're researching, what strategies they are adopting, and what performances they expect to attain (how, and when!) IBM, Motorola and Apple enjoy keeping their own consumers in the dark and indulging in all this cloak-and-dagger stuff.

IBM does not keep it's customers in the dark. I should know, I'm one of the 'keepers of the light' when it comes to the BladeCenter product lines. I'd happily tell a customer who has signed an NDA what we are doing well into 2006 and even 'thoughts' about 2007 at this time.

Apple is the enigma in the computer industry as far as keeping their mouths shut. That is probably what hurts them to some extent in the enterprise space. They don't like surprises and want to have a 24 month planning roadmap even for desktops. Having a new box show up out of the blue really ticks them off - also when a box stops before they were told it would isn't a good thing either..

[ibjoshua]

Here is the babelfish translation of the portion that mentions the 975:


I am not a linguist, but I believe Taiwanese is slightly different from Chinese. Since Babelfish this is the Chinese to English translation, I assume that
caused the missing words.

Now, you may all interpret this as you wish.

The two major Chinese languages are commonly known as Mandarin and Cantonese. I believe the Taiwanese speak Mandarin (although I'm probably wrong). I am told that both languages are written the same even though the spoken language is completely different. So it shouldn't matter which language they speak in Taiwan, a Chinese to English converter should work fine.

If someone knows more about Chinese languages feel free to correct me.

i_b_joshua

[thatwendigo]

But that's really beside the point. There seems to be (at least on the WWDC specs thread) a general prejudice against the 970 and its performance. It's referred to often as a "holdover" product which offers lackluster performance, and is there only as a spacefiller. I have to wonder how many of these people use a G5 on a regular basis. Performance, even on a stock G5, is anything but lackluster.

There's a reason for that, you know. The PowerPC 970 isn't all that much greater than the G4, especially when the massive changes in architecture are taken into account. Despite the five to sixfold increase in FSB, despite the full use of DDR, and despite clock advantages ranging from a fifth or more, the performance increase just isn't as great as the numbers would lead you to believe on many tasks, especially in the lower-clocked units. A 1.6ghz 130nm 970 barely beats out a 1.5ghz MPC7447A at Final Cut, for example, and it has the massive advantages listed above.

Why wait a year? Why the amateurish feel of a less-efficient AltiVec implementation on the G5?

Might it be because, as we guess over on the WWDC thread, you've got something even bigger in your pocket but it needs more time to be brought to market? Just a thought. :cool:

Other people say that if Apple releases anything but a 975 (a product which, even if mentioned once on an Asian IBM server, has had NO SPECS released, leaked, or otherwise made known by a reliable source), it will spell their doom. Come on people! Not one of us would really be able to tell the difference in daily routines between a 3GHz "975" and a 3 GHz 970FX.

The Power4 is being outperformed by something between a factor of three and four when it's put against its new big brother, the Power5. Are you telling me that you wouldn't notice a computer being four times faster? I probably would, though it might be a little less obvious if you didn't have the machines side by side. However, if you were to benchmark a 975 and it did four times better than clock extrapolation of the 970 would indicate, that would be pretty clearly backing up the whole point.

Also, I think you're overstating the general consensus of the 975 cheerleaders. We want it, we think it's likely to be better than the 970 in most ways, but there's not a one of us you'd find who think Apple will die without the chip. There is room to argue that there would be some serious consequences from not meeting the 3.0ghz promise, and from not moving on with technology as its adopted (Intel's already using SSOI, and AMD is about to use SSOI and Black Diamond low-k).

As to whether the FX could make it to 3 GHz, maybe not, but keep in mind that the original 970 was said to reach 1.4 or something before it showed up at 2 GHz in the G5. Right now on IBM's website, the 970FX says 2 GHz +.

It's conceivable that the 970FX will reach 3.0 ghz and beyond, but I doubt that's the chip that we'll see do it any time soon. Part of the problem is just the core that was used - the Power4 - is not intended for that kind of clock, even with the gate oxides thinned out. The parent chip in IBM Big Iron is running at 1.3ghz, after all.

There's a budget to be played with at this point, provided that the SSDOI process in the 970s has been resolved and is no longer a problem, and some room to play with the clock. The question is still whether or not it will allow a jump in the realm of 1ghz without soaring back over 51 watts, as the Prescott 90nm parts exploded when they were tried.

I highly doubt that if IBM had a chip (in high volume) as impressive as the 975 is made out to be, that they'd keep it so tightly locked down, just on Apple's account.

They would if Apple spent $1 billion to pay for the R&D for the chip, since that would come out to a little more than a tenth of IBM's revenue for last year. Apple's sitting on a huge pile of cash, and that would be one hell of a way to use it...

[dongmin]

I think the Chinese IBM site is confirmation that the 975 exists, but if we could get a better translation it should be easier to see the implications of exactly what is being discussed. As mentioned in another thread, this is simply a reprint of an article in some journal, and not an official statement from IBM.

Go to the end of the article in part 3. It says: "Wen?? this article from iThome 132nd issue of p.56 ~ p.60 < core new generation of server - Gao?? principle big soldier >." (Yes, this is a butchered babelfish translation.) 99% of the article is simply comparing different server cpu roadmaps. The 975 reference is probably a just a guess on the part of the author.

[wrldwzrd89]

I was recalling past statements made on these forums regarding the PowerPC platform when I made my earlier post about the PPC970 not reaching 3.0 GHz. If I remember correctly, IBM didn't expect the PPC970 to surpass 2.4-2.6 GHz. I don't know if IBM gave any maximum frequency guidance for the PPC970fx, but I'd expect its maximum frequency to be similar to that of the PPC970 (if it is higher, I don't think it would be that much higher).

[itsa]

Over the past few months, various whispers have repeated rumors of a PowerPC 975 processor which is meant to be a successor to the PowerPC 970 (G5).

Unfortunately, these rumors have come from consistently unreliable sources. As a result, the existence of a "PowerPC 975" remains in question.

Due to the nature of rumors, the information has also been repeated on numerous websites and message boards.

At this time, however, there appears to be no reliable information that the PowerPC 975 is an actual planned product. Instead, it should be regarded as a possible invention of the rumor world until further confirmation is provided.

The thing is... no one really cares! We do not care if it is 950, 975, or even 980 :). It's just a number! What we do care for that it is faster, and that APPLE does it NOW!!!
Thousands are waiting for the next rev to buy. Even if they plan on buying the current line. You would need to be as dumb as dirt to pay the same price as others did a year ago on a Dual 2giger.

just my view??

[qubex]

Like it or not, this is Apple's way of doing business. They keep people in ignorance until they release a new product or else no-one would buy the old product. If Apple has lots of 2GHz models to sell, they would rather unsuspecting individuals paid full price for these models a few weeks before new 3GHz models come out at a lower price. No-one would buy if they knew for certain something better was around the corner. That's why sites like MacRumors exist - to give us some guidance on our purchasing decisions in addition to a discussion forum for Apple in general.
No, I don't like it at all. It's plain stupid. It makes it impossible to purchase Macs at a corporate level because I cannot point to a definitive roadmap like my Wintel arch-nemesis can.

I've never seen Intel or AMD sales grind to the embarassing level of 60,000 units a year just because everybody knows there is a new processor on the horizon. There is always a new processor on the horizon.

The little dirty secret of corporate computer purchases is that you don't wait for the Next Great Thing to buy - you buy when you need new machines, no sooner and no later.

[&RU]

It is interesting to find references from this IBM site. However, how hard is it really to fabricate this rumor? Unless IBM packs up its operations tomorrow, we can expect new chips. And knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that there will be a chip you can employ the "next logical name" of current name ++. 970 becomes 975, Taa Daa! You have a near bullet proof rumor. Shall we try this again in 6 months?

[Pale Fire]

It only says that Power PC 975 will incorporate the most important elements of the Power 5.

Most people in Taiwan speak a Chinese dialect which has a couple of different names, but the easiest is just to call it Taiwanese. Mandarin is official language and is taught in school, so everyone knows that as well. Written Chinese is virtually the same regardless of dialect.

The dominant Chinese dialect in Hong Kong on the other hand is Cantonese.

[Phinius]

People have been jumping to conclusions that seem to be unfounded.

First, the 9XX PowerPC chips that Apple uses are based on the Power processor core. The Power4+ (130-nm process) now tops out at 1.9GHz and the Power5 (130-nm process) will top out at 2GHz according to IBM. That's mainly due to the Power4 and Power5 having the same amount of pipeline stages. So, any version of the 9XX PowerPC, made on a 90-nm process, will probably not go much higher in frequency than the 970FX.

The probable reason for Steve Jobs stating that IBM will produce a 3GHz PowerPC chip for Apple within one year is the use of strained silicon and a process shrink. IBM states that their version of strained silicon can add 20-30% higher frequency. Add that onto as much as a 30% boost from a process shrink and you wind up with a 50% increase in frequency for the 970FX over the 970. An IBM spokesperson has already stated that the 90-nm version of the Power5 (the Power5+) will top out at 3GHz.

Second, if a Power5 derived version of the 9XX PowerPC processor comes out very shortly, then it will probably be at least a year until the next 9XX PowerPC processor update occurs. That's because IBM intends to update the Power5 to the Power5+ version mainly by using a 65-nm process shrink in the second half of 2005. It's more likely that Apple scheduled processor updates for every 6-8 months, rather than at one year intervals. So, I would expect that the version after the 970FX would happen late in 2004, or perhaps early 2005 and it's likely not to be a frequency increase, but a 40-50% speed increase from using SMT and perhaps more L2 cache. The 970FX will probably be Apple's answer to Intel's Celeron in the iMac and perhaps the eMac. The iMac could therefore top out at 3GHz using the 970FX, while the PowerMac also only goes up to a maximum 3GHz with the 975, or whatever the next version is called.

So what is the likely update for the PowerPC 9XX chips at the 65-nm process level that might arrive late in 2005? I'd bet on there being a dual-core version, since the next Power chip, after the Power5, is not scheduled to appear until 2006. The Power6 version for the 9XX PowerPC chips should get a big boost in frequency because IBM has stated that the Power6 chip will have a much higher frequency and a process shrink alone will not get more than a 30% boost in frequency or a max of around 4GHz.

[manu chao]

If anybody cares to remember, when IBM presented the 970FX in January or February, they stated power consumption numbers for it running at 2.5Ghz or rather said something like "at 2.5Ghz the 970FX consumes less than the 970 at 2 Ghz".

That does not mean that the 970FX can reach 3 Ghz but I would say 2.6 Ghz is a pretty save bet.

[qubex]

IBM does not keep it's customers in the dark. I should know, I'm one of the 'keepers of the light' when it comes to the BladeCenter product lines. I'd happily tell a customer who has signed an NDA what we are doing well into 2006 and even 'thoughts' about 2007 at this time.

Apple is the enigma in the computer industry as far as keeping their mouths shut. That is probably what hurts them to some extent in the enterprise space. They don't like surprises and want to have a 24 month planning roadmap even for desktops. Having a new box show up out of the blue really ticks them off - also when a box stops before they were told it would isn't a good thing either..
That is precisely the point I was making. Thanks for clarifying it.

(And yes, I've signed Big Blue NDAs for zSeries machines before. Your legal department is scary. Kind of makes one wonder what the hell SCO were thinking.)

[manu chao]

What happened to yesterday's Page 2 thread on the 975?

Indeed, what happened to it? It simply dissappeared from page 2. Did Apple asked Arn to remove it, did Arn no longer even thought it worth being listed as a page 2 rumor?

The French site, is now claiming as well that Steve will announce the launch of the European iTMS on June 18.

[Anonymous Freak]

My wife and I have finally decided it's time to buy. Unfortunately, with possible updates only a month away, we're going to wait the month. I think we'll end up getting an eMac to fill the void until then.

I personally thought, based on IBM's publicly available info, that the Power5 derivative was going to be the PowerPC 980. But, maybe I'm remembering rumors for that. IBM is usually very forthcoming with their upcoming processor designs. Look at the 970. It was announced almost a full year before Apple admitted that it was really for them.

So since there's very fuzzy information on a '975', I'm assuming that the 975 isn't real, but the 980 is. (Possibly the name 975 was an old codename for the 980?) And I doubt we'll see a 980 at WWDC. I'm expecting a 970fx based machine, possibly not quite at 3GHz. (Of course, it also wouldn't surprise me if they make a 'Special Limited 20th Anniversary Macintosh Edition 3GHz Power Macintosh G5' for $10,000. Just to say they had 3GHz on time.)

[nsb3000]

IBM does not keep it's customers in the dark. I should know, I'm one of the 'keepers of the light' when it comes to the BladeCenter product lines. I'd happily tell a customer who has signed an NDA what we are doing well into 2006 and even 'thoughts' about 2007 at this time.

Apple is the enigma in the computer industry as far as keeping their mouths shut. That is probably what hurts them to some extent in the enterprise space. They don't like surprises and want to have a 24 month planning roadmap even for desktops. Having a new box show up out of the blue really ticks them off - also when a box stops before they were told it would isn't a good thing either..

On the other hand, the secrecy Apple employs allow them to created almost unprecedented buzz about their products. Right now, Apple in mainly a consumer company, and so I think the Buzz is worth it for them.

[the future]

No, I don't like it at all. It's plain stupid. It makes it impossible to purchase Macs at a corporate level because I cannot point to a definitive roadmap like my Wintel arch-nemesis can. (...) The little dirty secret of corporate computer purchases is that you don't wait for the Next Great Thing to buy - you buy when you need new machines, no sooner and no later.

So if you don't wait for the "Next Great Thing" as a corporate buyer - why would you need a roadmap showing you when it'll arrive??

[wrldwzrd89]

My wife and I have finally decided it's time to buy. Unfortunately, with possible updates only a month away, we're going to wait the month. I think we'll end up getting an eMac to fill the void until then.

I personally thought, based on IBM's publicly available info, that the Power5 derivative was going to be the PowerPC 980. But, maybe I'm remembering rumors for that. IBM is usually very forthcoming with their upcoming processor designs. Look at the 970. It was announced almost a full year before Apple admitted that it was really for them.

So since there's very fuzzy information on a '975', I'm assuming that the 975 isn't real, but the 980 is. (Possibly the name 975 was an old codename for the 980?) And I doubt we'll see a 980 at WWDC. I'm expecting a 970fx based machine, possibly not quite at 3GHz. (Of course, it also wouldn't surprise me if they make a 'Special Limited 20th Anniversary Macintosh Edition 3GHz Power Macintosh G5' for $10,000. Just to say they had 3GHz on time.)
The original speculation was that IBM's next PowerPC would be known as the PowerPC 980. However, later rumors implied that the PPC 980 was three revisions away and that the next two PPCs would be numbered 975 and 976. If your post is correct, that means the second rumor is false, and the original rumor about the PPC 980 was correct.

[qubex]

So if you don't wait for the "Next Great Thing" as a corporate buyer - why would you need a roadmap showing you when it'll arrive??
Not needing to wait for something is not the same as being uninterested as to when it will arrive. For example, in the x86 world, CIOs are already considering their upgrade paths to 64-bit and the implications of Wiindows 2003 Server R2 and what it will require when it is released - and the hardware roadmaps allow them to chart software and hardware, thus giving them a decent idea of ROI and time-to-mandatory-replacement.

[the future]

IBM is usually very forthcoming with their upcoming processor designs. Look at the 970. It was announced almost a full year before Apple admitted that it was really for them. (...) So since there's very fuzzy information on a '975', I'm assuming that the 975 isn't real.

The difference is that when the 970 was being developed, IBM and Apple hadn't bonded publically like they did when the G5 was finally announced. Now the connection is established, it gives IBM reason to be secretive over the 975 (or whatever the Power5 derivate will be called) as it would be crystal clear the chip will be going straight into the next G5 Rev.

[Frobozz]

They speak Cantonese in Taiwan.
Anyway, nobody knows whether there is a 975 in ANY country, so again, this conversation seems silly. Its not like IBM Taiwan is going to know something while IBM USA is going to be kept in the dark for a year.


They speak and read Thai in Taiwan... the Chinese speak Cantonese if they are from certain areas of China. Cantonese is similar to Thaiwanese, but it's different. That's why his translation didn't work perfectly.

And, I hate to be a stickler about the 975 information, and I won't claim it to be 100% accurate-- but it's normal for this type of information to come out in a foreign source prior to a domestic. The Thai likely don't care or know why the local boys would have put an embargo on the name. Again, I'm not taking this as gospel by ANY stretch of the imagination, but it certinaly indicates that the chip does indeed exist somewhere. What that means for Apple-- no clue. But I'm optimistic it means 975 based macs.

I remember a time when a good portion of people on this board said the 970 would never see the light of day, or that it would never run at 2 GHz in it's first revision, etc.

What can I say-- I'm not going to loose any sleep over it, but I do believe the 975 (or whatever they call it) chip will be in the next revision of PowerMacs.

[jsw]

On the other hand, the secrecy Apple employs allow them to created almost unprecedented buzz about their products. Right now, Apple in mainly a consumer company, and so I think the Buzz is worth it for them.

Except that the buzz always creates a front-loaded buying frenzy (well, "frenzy" might be the wrong word for the G5 stats) that drops off precipitously because then everyone is waiting for the next product bump. You end up thinking that the only time to buy Macs is when they're fresh.

Likewise, with corporate custumers, even though they buy when they need to, regardless of what's out there at the time, they often buy in bulk, and so they want some idea of how fast what they're buying will become obsolete. Scarily, they don't really often care how fast, they just want to know. So roadmaps help them to buy products, because they can see numbers. Never mind that the ideal for individual employees would be to buy when needed by each employee, thus lowering the average age of computers in a company; they want to buy massive numbers of exactly the same system so IT has an easier time. And the types who use that reasoning just want to see charts.

So both consumers and corporations are hesitant to buy Macs.

I know Steve's a "genius". He's rich. Apple's profitable. OS X is great. I love my top-dog-vastly-longer-that-I-expected-it-to-be nine-month-old dual-2.

But, darn it, I just can't figure out why they aren't doing the obvious to sell more systems - letting people know some vague idea of their plans, reducing prices on older systems, etc. I don't want 90% market share. That invites too many viruses. But I'd like 25%, so maybe more corporations would at least consider buying a Mac.

I think that the "3GHz in a year" announcement last year was due to some acid flashback of Steve's interfering with his common sense. Why make one - ONE! - specific prediction that then cripples sales of your current flagship product? I can only blame bad drugs.

[eytan]

The Register has the following story about the 975
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/26/ibm_ppc_975/

IBM's PowerPC 975 - verified or vapour?
By Tony Smith
Published Wednesday 26th May 2004 14:25*GMT

Analysis So is IBM working on a processor called the PowerPC 975.

Take a look at the company's web site, and it appears that yes, IBM's first PowerPC processor derived from the Power 5 core will be called the PowerPC 975, company documents confirm.

Or do they? We found a reference to the CPU on IBM Taiwan's web site, but closer inspection reveals it to have been taken from a local publication, IT Home.

In essence, then, IBM is simply reprinting a rumour posted on a variety of Apple-watching web sites over the last few months.

They reckon that the 975 will be followed by a dual-core version, the 976, which is will be fabbed using a 65nm process. The 975 will be a 90nm CPU, the rumours suggest.

We're a little sceptical. IBM is having enough problems getting its 90nm 970FX out the door in volume, so it's hard to imagine it simultaneously starting to pump out chips based on an entirely new core using the same process but without the hitches. The problems is said to be experiencing with the 970FX sound like material problems rather than issues surrounding the chip design itself. That suggests the trouble lies with the 90nm process rather than the processor.

At this stage we can't rule out the existence of the 975 on IBM's roadmap, but it's interesting to note that much of the features attributed to the 975 were previously said to be components of the PowerPC 980. Nowadays, the 980 is alleged to be based on the Power 6 architecture. There's the PowerPC 990, a multi-core part based on the Power 8 coming after the 980. Previously, the 990 was a 65nm single-core part.

We've been supplied with accurate-looking roadmaps that purport to have come out of IBM, but the technology ramp is so fantastical, we remain doubtful as to their authenticity. At the very least, they're a guide to where IBM would like to be and not necessarily where it will be. Since so much can happen in just a short time in the life of a putative processor - just look at Intel's 'Tejas' cancellation - such long-term forecasts should be taken with a pinch of salt, even if they're genuine.

Does it matter? Inasmuch as IBM is almost certainly working on multi-core Power-derived PowerPC processors, no it doesn't. It's also working on a Power5-based powerPC. The fine point of what the products are actually called is irrelevant - particularly since Apple rarely acknowledges which specific chip it is using in any given system. Its admission that the Xserve G5 uses the 970FX was a rare slip-up.

Timing matters, of course. But that's as much because of the games played by x86 and PowerPC fanboys:

"My Apple's faster than your PC!"

"No! My PC's faster than your Mac!"

No! My Mac's... and so on.

Macatistas want Steve Jobs' promise to a 3GHz Power Mac for next summer to come true partly because they want to see the kit, but mostly because they don't want to Apple losing face by failing to make good its promise. Instead, they want to see Intel and AMD buffs eat crow/humble pie. Intel proponents and AMD fans want to see Apple fail to make good this promise for exactly the same reason.


This reporter would very much like to see a 3GHz Power Mac this summer, too. But like a lot of Mac users - Wintel users too, actually - he won't be rushing out to buy one. There's plenty of life left in his current system, a first-generation 12in PowerBook G4.

In any case, we look forward to Steve Jobs' Worldwide Developers Conference keynote next month with considerable interest. ®

[iriejedi]

Who's the 'Negative Nancy' that woke up on the worng side of the bed this morning and posted this story?? Let's all try to be Positive Pollys at least until WWDC - save this story for a Monday or the Tuesday after the three day weekend!

:eek:

Over the past few months, various whispers have repeated rumors of a PowerPC 975 processor which is meant to be a successor to the PowerPC 970 (G5).

Unfortunately, these rumors have come from consistently unreliable sources. As a result, the existence of a "PowerPC 975" remains in question.

Due to the nature of rumors, the information has also been repeated on numerous websites and message boards.

At this time, however, there appears to be no reliable information that the PowerPC 975 is an actual planned product. Instead, it should be regarded as a possible invention of the rumor world until further confirmation is provided.

[pjkelnhofer]

They speak and read Thai in Taiwan... the Chinese speak Cantonese if they are from certain areas of China. Cantonese is similar to Thaiwanese, but it's different. That's why his translation didn't work perfectly.
... snip .... The Thai likely don't care ...

Not to nitpick, and this is way off topic, but Thai is from Thailand (formerly known as Siam) which is an entirely different country, language and culture then Taiwan (an island off the coast of mainland China) some five hundred miles away. There is no such thing a Thaiwanese. There is Thai and there is Taiwanese. This is not a geography forum, but when you get things this wrong, it make your whole post look rather ignorant. Especially, if you are emphatic about the things you got wrong.

If I could figure out how to attach a jpeg of a map I would, but here is good intro to Taiwan (http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5-gp/brief/info04_2.html) and the many languages spoken there.

Just trying to help. :)

[qubex]

They speak and read Thai in Taiwan... the Chinese speak Cantonese if they are from certain areas of China. Cantonese is similar to Thaiwanese, but it's different. That's why his translation didn't work perfectly.
Excuse the question, but exactly what psychotropic substances have you recently injested?

You've confused Taiwan and Thailand.

Taiwan is an island contested between the People's Republic of China (PRC, "mainland China") and the Republic Of China (ROC, "Taiwan"). The official language in Taiwan is Mandarin - the script is Traditional Chinese. There is also a Chinese dialect known as Taiwanese but it is written in exactly the same way as Mandarin and using the same glyphs and is thus irrelevant for the purposes of textual translation.

Thailand is a sovreign country in South-East Asia. It is unrelated to China. The language there is indeed Thai and it is written in Thai phonetic script, which is totally unlike Chinese ideographic script.

Clear now?

[3G4N]

They speak and read Thai in Taiwan... the Chinese speak Cantonese if they are from certain areas of China. Cantonese is similar to Thaiwanese, but it's different. That's why his translation didn't work perfectly.

And, I hate to be a stickler about the ....

Alright guys. Thai is spoken in Thailand. Hello!!?!
There's no such thing as Thaiwanese, or Thaiwan.
Get a map. Take a geography class. Go travel.
Please.

[pjkelnhofer]

The Register has the following story about the 975
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/26/ibm_ppc_975/

So basically he took the ongoing discussion in this (and other) forums and wrote an article about them.

Still no actual information.

[qubex]

The mind boggles.

*boggle*

[Frobozz]

It only says that Power PC 975 will incorporate the most important elements of the Power 5.

Most people in Taiwan speak a Chinese dialect which has a couple of different names, but the easiest is just to call it Taiwanese. Mandarin is official language and is taught in school, so everyone knows that as well. Written Chinese is virtually the same regardless of dialect.

The dominant Chinese dialect in Hong Kong on the other hand is Cantonese.

Well, I sure have learned a lot about the Thai dialects today. :-)

[Wonder Boy]

whatever, we'll see in a month.

[Postal]

qubex:

What I can't help but think is that the very declaration by Jobs of the 3 GHz goal reflects IBM's influence as an enterprise-oriented company. I don't think Apple has ever made a performance goal public that far in advance, ever! There's also been talk that Virginia Tech knew that Apple wanted to have Xserve G5s in early 2004, and had factored the "dry run" with PowerMacs into the budget. Could it be that Apple is making sincere gestures to become more institution-friendly?

I believe that Apple should make a regular practice of it (if they haven't already) to offer long-term hardware and software plans to institutional buyers, with strict NDAs attached - but, unlike companies such as Intel or Microsoft, keeping their roadmap out of the general public's eye. It would hopefully give Apple the best of both worlds: companies that want to sign major deals AND the "wow" factor of announcing a new computer or OS release to the public.

[pjkelnhofer]

What I can't help but think is that the very declaration by Jobs of the 3 GHz goal reflects IBM's influence as an enterprise-oriented company. I don't think Apple has ever made a performance goal public that far in advance, ever! There's also been talk that Virginia Tech knew that Apple wanted to have Xserve G5s in early 2004, and had factored the "dry run" with PowerMacs into the budget. Could it be that Apple is making sincere gestures to become more institution-friendly?

I believe that Apple should make a regular practice of it (if they haven't already) to offer long-term hardware and software plans to institutional buyers, with strict NDAs attached - but, unlike companies such as Intel or Microsoft, keeping their roadmap out of the general public's eye. It would hopefully give Apple the best of both worlds: companies that want to sign major deals AND the "wow" factor of announcing a new computer or OS release to the public.

Apple needs to deliver on the 3 GHz promise (time is running out no matter if you believe in the one year from the announced date or one year from the ship date). If the 3 GHz does not materialize, then Steve can say what ever he wants at his keynote. No one will believe him.

[qubex]

I've talked to Apple sales managers in China and Italy and nobody has been interested or willing to initiate that kind of a process.

So whereas they may be considering a change, they haven't executed it yet. At least not here. So in the meantime the whole office got kitted out with HP Pentium4s rather than G5 1.6 GHz or iMacs...

*sigh*

Another three years to go.

[dongmin]

Who's the 'Negative Nancy' that woke up on the worng side of the bed this morning and posted this story?? Let's all try to be Positive Pollys at least until WWDC - save this story for a Monday or the Tuesday after the three day weekend!

:eek:

There's nothing negative about this 'story.' It precisely Arn's job to evaluate the source of various rumors and weigh in on whether something is more credible or not. Given that there is zero actual fact regarding the 975, Arn is more than within his rights (as the editor of this site) to state his opinion.

Also, I'm guessing that the 'G5 Specs for WWDC!' story was pulled from Page 2 because Croquer dans la Pomme lifted the specs directly from a weblog: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=853785&highlight=blog#post853785

[Frobozz]

Clear now?

Nope.

[wdlove]

whatever, we'll see in a month.

That is the truest of facts. Everyone seems to be so hungry to hit on any kind of news.

[The Red Wolf]

What do you mean the 975 doesn't exist? Years ago it laid the ground work for creating the first quad core PowerPC chip from IBM/AMDs Power 7. Which of course led to the dual 8.5 GHz G8 for $2799, Apple's current Enterprise class desktop code-name: Octane. I'm sure this machine will soon be available in Taiwan and on time for this summer and in Thailand as well per Jobs' statement at the 2008 MacWorld in San Francisco.

[cubist]

My wife and I have finally decided it's time to buy. Unfortunately, with possible updates only a month away, we're going to wait the month. I think we'll end up getting an eMac to fill the void until then.
...

You could also consider a refurb 1.6 for $1395. I got one, and it works fine. Or you might consider an iBook, since you may have need for a portable even after you get your dual 3G.

[autrefois]

In a surprise move, Apple is set to announce the following specs for their new Power Mac G5 line-up.

Power Mac G5, 1 GHz, 20 GB HD, $1999
Power Mac G5, dual 1.2 GHz, 40 GB HD, $2699
Power Mac G5, dual 1.4 GHz, 40 GB HD, $3299

Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, will announce the new G5s as the start of a new campaign entitled "Less is more."

"Up until now, Apple has kept on building Power Macs that are faster and faster, and they just kept getting hotter and noisier," Jobs will say. "We have finally come up with a revoluntionary new trend in computer making: what consumers want is not faster machines at cheaper prices, but slower machines that are more expensive. Less is definitely more.

"People long for the good old days when life was more laid-back, with no need to rush around at lightning speed, just taking our own sweet time to do things. Apple is determined to give consumers computers that do just that, and this new line-up is the first step in an amazing new trend that we are proud to be the first to come up with."

The amazing new line-up Power Mac G5 will come with optional 14- or 16-inch monitors. According to Steve Jobs, "Boom!"

After initial outrage from the Mac community, the new "less is more" Power Mac G5s will sell in record numbers, despite actually shipping 5 to 6 months after the announced shipping date.

A new PowerBook line-up, using 500 MHz G3 chips and a built-in 3.5" floppy drive, is expected by January 2005.

:D

[AidenShaw]

Which of course led to the dual 8.5 GHz G8 for $2799, Apple's current Enterprise class desktop code-name: Octane.

http://www.sgi.com/products/remarketed/octane/images/hp_octane.jpg

[aldo]

Someone raised a very important point about the fact that people are buying a dual G5 for the same price as they could of got it at the very start of last year.

I don't know of anywhere else where this is true. AMD and Intel do almost weekly price changes on their chips (which in 95% of cases is the price going down), yet apple still manages to charge the same a year down the line.

In the PC world, you'd of expected the price of hardware to drop to at least half of what it cost 12 months ago.

Also, personally I can't see Apple delivering on this 3GHz promise. While I deeply wish it was true, I don't think its possible - I mean only a couple months ago they were having problems with 970FXs running at 2GHz in Xserve. How they expect a brand new chip (the fabled 975) to run at 3GHz with a good yield is beyond me. It will be very interesting and I'm sure it will be a real test of Steve's charisma if he can't get 3GHz.

[jakemikey]

In a surprise move, Apple is set to announce the following specs for their new Power Mac G5 line-up.

Power Mac G5, 1 GHz, 20 GB HD, $1999
Power Mac G5, dual 1.2 GHz, 40 GB HD, $2699
Power Mac G5, dual 1.4 GHz, 40 GB HD, $3299

Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, will announce the new G5s as the start of a new campaign entitled "Less is more."

"Up until now, Apple has kept on building Power Macs that are faster and faster, and they just kept getting hotter and noisier," Jobs will say. "We have finally come up with a revoluntionary new trend in computer making: what consumers want is not faster machines at cheaper prices, but slower machines that are more expensive. Less is definitely more.

"People long for the good old days when life was more laid-back, with no need to rush around at lightning speed, just taking our own sweet time to do things. Apple is determined to give consumers computers that do just that, and this new line-up is the first step in an amazing new trend that we are proud to be the first to come up with."

The amazing new line-up Power Mac G5 will come with optional 14- or 16-inch monitors. According to Steve Jobs, "Boom!"

After initial outrage from the Mac community, the new "less is more" Power Mac G5s will sell in record numbers, despite actually shipping 5 to 6 months after the announced shipping date.

A new PowerBook line-up, using 500 MHz G3 chips and a built-in 3.5" floppy drive, is expected by January 2005.

:D


That was the best post I've read all day. -- especially Steve's trademark "Boom!"

[kenaustus]

It's easy to forget that after Steve J said 3 gigs in a year (at last year's WWDC) an IBM VP walked on stage and said *3 gigs in a year*. IBM's commitment is generally forgotten - people only talk about Steve's statement.

Both IBM and Apple had a road map to get to a 3 gig announcement at this year's WWDC. The 3 gig statements by BOTH Apple & IBM were well considered and were not some off the cuff remark.

Then something happened: a bit of a fab problem.

That has forced some major changes to the joint IBM/Apple road map and I believe that both companies are busting ass to get moving down the revised path.

I'm one of those that believe that the 970FX was originally designed to be used for a G5 PM speed bump in Feb/March. I also believe that it can be released before the WWDC as the WWDC is to let developers know where Apple is going in terms of developer tools and (last year) to announce a G5 PM for fall delivery. It is possible that 970FX PMs in the 2.2 to 2.6 range will be shipping soon, with the 3 gig announced for fall deliveries.

One important factor in getting any speed bump for the PM now is to Apple can release a new generation G5 iMac and generate some strong sales from that range. In an ideal situation the PM would be shipping up to 2.6 by WWDC and the hardware announcements at WWDC could be 3 gig PM in the fall and a new generation iMac available now.

On IBM's side, they are probably as unhappy with the current situation as Apple is and might just provide Apple with the 975 chip for fall to make up for the delays. Also might give Apple priority on the dual processor chip that is in the works. They will definitely want a situation were everyone knows that, yes, they did have a fab problem, but overcame the problem and then really kicked ass with major advances. Call it IBM pride, but I think they will push hard to blow our minds as soon as they can.

[jakemikey]

The way I see it, there are two scenarios for how WWDC will turn out:

1) Apple will announce a 3 GHz machine based on (insert processor here). People are wowed. Steve keeps his promise. The rest of WWDC will be kind of ho-hum. Neat-o features from Tiger. Everybody goes home.

2) Apple announces machines shy of 3 GHz, and feeling EXTREME pressure to compensate, they go for a "shock and awe" approach with software and even non-processor related hardware to distract from the fact that Steve was a little over-zealous last year. If they implemented the rumored distributed rendering in the pro Apps in a really incredible way, along with some unbelievable features in Tiger and some novel ways to take advantage of 64-bit computing (other than marketing), throw in huge leaps in graphics cards, double layer DVD drives, storage, etc. on the PowerMacs, I think we would tend to be a little more forgiving.

New hardware doesn't mean a lot unless you've got cutting edge software that takes advantage of it, and I'm sure there's still a hefty gap between the potential of the 970 and the software that runs on it.

Now obviously you can't just come up with killer software overnight, but I have to believe that if they knew at least at the beginning of the year that they weren't going to hit 3 GHz, that would put some huge pressure elsewhere in Apple to come up with some really impressive stuff to dull the blow at WWDC.

Personally I would rather have scenario 2 - some serious software announcements and more modest PowerMac announcements at WWDC. Efficient, lean, mean, powerful, innovative software benefits everyone, not just the people who can drop 3 G's on a 3G.

[jsnuff1]

Since no one else seems to have proved a human translation here is one...this is accurate and seems to point out that the 975 should be in production by now.


"According to IBM, the Power5 will reach speeds between 1.6GHz to 2GHz at this time, next year these chips will be released on the 90nm system
, at which these chips could reach speeds of 3GHz. IBM has estimated the 1.6GHz Power5 may achieve twice the proccessing power of the 1.3GHz
Power4. Moreover, as IBM updates its foundries for the larger-scale multi-processor systems, the PowerPC 975, which is a derivitive of the Power5 core, will start production. But the Power5 is employing a reverse stradegy of the Power 4, the Power5 will first debut in lower end servers and then be gradually extended to the higher end servers. This represents a strategy transition, worth
noting."

[makkystyle]

Why has everyone forgotten about rumors past:

<Quote><I>originally posted by <B>Macrumors</B></I>
The PowerPC 980 Processor is a rumored chip to be coming from IBM as a followup to the PowerPC 970. Just as the PowerPC 970 is based on the Power4 Processor, the PowerPC 980 is rumored to be based on the upcoming Power5 Processor.

First hints of a new derivative chip came from this extensive roadmap of the PowerPC, Apple, Motorola and IBM's relationships from November 2002. At that time, the PowerPC 970 had been announced by IBM but not yet publicly endorsed by Apple. Apple later announced PowerPC 970 based PowerMacs in June of the following year (2003).

Today, Appleinsider reports that the PowerPC 970 will max out at 2.6GHz with the Power 980 coming due in Q3 of 2004 to bring the PowerMac line up to and beyond 3.0GHz. The 980 is reportedly a 90nm chip and may be branded as the G6. Appleinsider also comments on updates to the subsystems of the upcoming PowerMacs offering significant performance gains.

This "980 @ 3GHz" timeframe was echoed by a detailed report from July 2003. In that report, Apple and IBM were said to be working on parallel development of the Power5 and PowerPC 980. That report also claimed that the 3GHz PowerMac would not arrive by way of the 970 -- which was said to top out at 2.6-2.8GHz, while the 980 was expected to start at 2.6-3GHz (from the July report).

A subsequent report noted that Apple was already given PowerPC 980 samples in October, and also made predictions about 90nm 970 based PowerMac updates in February at 2.5-2.8GHz. The also offered significant details regarding cache, SPEC scores, and bus multipliers on the as-yet-unannounced PowerPC 980.

Without any tangible releases from these rumors, it's hard to gauge their accuracy, though the information appears to be consistent.</Quote>

This was posted on November 20th of last year by Arn himself. As you can note IBM themselves stated that the 980 was the chip being developed alongside the POWER5. Nowhere has there been any real info about a 975 chip and now everyone is abuzz with new rumors.

A look at the release dates above does seem to fit: the expected release of a 90nm 970 in February was correct, but because of fabrication problems was only released at 2.0Ghz and only in the XServe. The 980 that was rumored to be released "quarter 3 of 2004" is also supposed to be 90nm and my guess is that IBM is probably having the same fabbing problems with this chip as it did with the 970FX. <B>IF</B> there is a "975" it would seem likely that this was a step back from the 980 and not likely to scale as high (perhaps a 130nm derivitive of the POWER5). This might be an interim step for the company until they can work out the problems they are having at 90nm.

I'm not a hugely technical computer person, so please tell me if my thinking is not logical. It just seems everyone is so caught up in the rumors that they forget about reality.

Now i'm going to Thailand to practice my cantonese withe the Thaiwanese people. :confused: :(

[NNO-Stephen]

there are three possible scenarios the way I see it.

1. IBM was targeting the 3Ghz part to be the 975. The manufacturing problems were with the design of the 970FX, and not the 90nm process as some have suggested. Thus, they can still meet the 3Ghz projection by summer end.

2. IBM was targeting the 3Ghz part to be the 975. The manufacturing problems were with the 90nm process, and not the design of the 970FX as some have suggested. Thus, they can not meet the 3Ghz projection by summer end, and will instead release aprox. 2.6Ghz processors at best.

3. IBM was targeting the 3Ghz part to be a ramped 970FX. the manufacturing problems were with either the 90nm process or the processor itself (it is a moot point in this scenario.) They have solved these issues and will release aprox. 2.6Ghz processors at best.

I believe the 2nd one may be true. they could have possibly worked out the issues with the process, and then made some massive runs for Apple, but I just don't know. we'll see. Either way, IBM must be busting their collective asses right now. the POWER 5 introduction, nVidia chip manufacturing, and Apple is undoubtedly putting great pressure on IBM to deliver the 3Ghz promise.

but either way, those are the three scenarios I see. take your pick.

[wrldwzrd89]

Why has everyone forgotten about rumors past:

<Quote><I>originally posted by <B>Macrumors</B></I>
The PowerPC 980 Processor is a rumored chip to be coming from IBM as a followup to the PowerPC 970. Just as the PowerPC 970 is based on the Power4 Processor, the PowerPC 980 is rumored to be based on the upcoming Power5 Processor.

First hints of a new derivative chip came from this extensive roadmap of the PowerPC, Apple, Motorola and IBM's relationships from November 2002. At that time, the PowerPC 970 had been announced by IBM but not yet publicly endorsed by Apple. Apple later announced PowerPC 970 based PowerMacs in June of the following year (2003).

Today, Appleinsider reports that the PowerPC 970 will max out at 2.6GHz with the Power 980 coming due in Q3 of 2004 to bring the PowerMac line up to and beyond 3.0GHz. The 980 is reportedly a 90nm chip and may be branded as the G6. Appleinsider also comments on updates to the subsystems of the upcoming PowerMacs offering significant performance gains.

This "980 @ 3GHz" timeframe was echoed by a detailed report from July 2003. In that report, Apple and IBM were said to be working on parallel development of the Power5 and PowerPC 980. That report also claimed that the 3GHz PowerMac would not arrive by way of the 970 -- which was said to top out at 2.6-2.8GHz, while the 980 was expected to start at 2.6-3GHz (from the July report).

A subsequent report noted that Apple was already given PowerPC 980 samples in October, and also made predictions about 90nm 970 based PowerMac updates in February at 2.5-2.8GHz. The also offered significant details regarding cache, SPEC scores, and bus multipliers on the as-yet-unannounced PowerPC 980.

Without any tangible releases from these rumors, it's hard to gauge their accuracy, though the information appears to be consistent.</Quote>

This was posted on November 20th of last year by Arn himself. As you can note IBM themselves stated that the 980 was the chip being developed alongside the POWER5. Nowhere has there been any real info about a 975 chip and now everyone is abuzz with new rumors.

A look at the release dates above does seem to fit: the expected release of a 90nm 970 in February was correct, but because of fabrication problems was only released at 2.0Ghz and only in the XServe. The 980 that was rumored to be released "quarter 3 of 2004" is also supposed to be 90nm and my guess is that IBM is probably having the same fabbing problems with this chip as it did with the 970FX. <B>IF</B> there is a "975" it would seem likely that this was a step back from the 980 and not likely to scale as high (perhaps a 130nm derivitive of the POWER5). This might be an interim step for the company until they can work out the problems they are having at 90nm.

I'm not a hugely technical computer person, so please tell me if my thinking is not logical. It just seems everyone is so caught up in the rumors that they forget about reality.

Now i'm going to Thailand to practice my cantonese withe the Thaiwanese people. :confused: :(
Did you not read the earlier posts in the thread? If you didn't, I made a post about this very issue - that the planned replacement for the PowerPC 970 was the PowerPC 980, not the 975.

[Soire]

What would happen if no G5s were released at WWDC? Or just as bad nothing was going to be shipped for months?

Flying Pigs? :confused:

The apocalypse? :(

Steve announces he's selling out to Bill Gates? :mad:

;)

[mklos]

It is quite offputting.

Whereas Intel and AMD are very adroit in releasing detailed roadmaps indicating exactly what they're researching, what strategies they are adopting, and what performances they expect to attain (how, and when!) IBM, Motorola and Apple enjoy keeping their own consumers in the dark and indulging in all this cloak-and-dagger stuff.

Do they consider us consumers (and especially, "prosumers") so stupid that we can't be trusted with a clear view of the future? As if the fact that next year computers will be faster and cheaper than now is some sort of secret!

I'm sure Steve is kicking himself morally for "announcing" 3GHz machines by Summer 2004 - and consequentially looking at sales of only 60,000 PowerMacs. It's not the issue of imminent new machines - it's the inherent uncertainty about what is going on.

The PowerPC really needs to issue clear roadmaps because at the moment their collective behaviour is really pathetic. In order to make informed purchasing decisions I demand clear information.

Not to offend anybody, but the whole "Apple Rumours" phenomenon is merely an indication of how confused, unclear, and downright paranoid Apple is about letting anybody understand what they're up to. That is not becoming of a mature company. It reminds me of school-kids playing their CIA games with code-wheels and secret salutes.

Apple never discloses what its going to introduce. They've never done that, and never will do that. If they do then people will know that new products are coming out and nobody will buy the currently models. This makes it very hard for Apple and Apple Resellers to get rid of their current inventory of the old machines to make room for the new ones. I think its hard to predict where things will be down the road. Steve Jobs made a promise of 3 GHz and could be wishing he didn't make that promise. Not that I really care if he does fulfill that promise. He doesn't have any power over whether or not IBm can make a 3 GHz G5.

As far as the chip makers go...well both Motorola and IBM have announced where they want to be down the road. All you gotta do is look! IBM announced their potential roadmap I believe sometime last year, and Motorola just announced their new chip lineups a few weeks ago.

As far as rumors go...well its actually bad for Apple. Some ignorant people believe everything they read and get their hope up so high then when Apple only announces some of the rumors that are only partially correct, or doesn't announce anything that had to do with the rumors they get all pissed off and of course they blame Apple. Thats exactly what the rumor sites do for Apple. You just wait and watch after the WWDC Keynote how many people start bitching and complaining about Apple was supposed to announce this, or Apple didn't do this, or this didn't have this feature in it. So the rumor sites don't do anything but hurt Apple.

[wizard]

HI Arn;

Flights of fantasy it may be but something has to be up. The reason I say that is that the 970/FX simply isn't up to the task. That is from the standpoint of being a chip one would want in their flagship model its time has already come and passed.

The rumored chip addresses on of the 970's biggest problems, especially as clock rates increase, and that is its very limited cache size. Hopefully other issues are addressed also, but as clock rate starts to our strip memory again cache becomes very important.

That doesn't mean though that the 975 is exactly as rumored, it could be an upgraded 970 instead of a down graded Power5 device. Either way the chip would have to address performance scaling at higher clock rates. Otherwise what is the sense.

Dave



if anyone has/digs up any official IBM docuemntation that the 975 exists... let me know.

This thing keeps getting mentioned as if it's fact. I think it may just be entirely made up.

arn

[danbirchall]

I'm sure Steve is kicking himself morally for "announcing" 3GHz machines by Summer 2004 - and consequentially looking at sales of only 60,000 PowerMacs.


So you're saying that 40,000 of the 100,000 pre-orders they had by the time the G5's started shipping late last summer were withdrawn?
Or did you, perhaps, mean 600,000?

[dongmin]

Did you not read the earlier posts in the thread? If you didn't, I made a post about this very issue - that the planned replacement for the PowerPC 970 was the PowerPC 980, not the 975.

confirmed:
970
970fx
power 5

unconfirmed:
975
976
980
990
etc.

It's true that the rumors were calling the power 5 derivative the 980 before. But at this point, the 980 is no more real than the 975. They're both pure guesswork.

[SeaFox]

You're right about the price drops with the new models, I just wish they would lower prices as the models aged, and before the other models were released, so there would be some incentive to buying a 9 month old computer *before* the new models come out.

- reaper

There is. It's all those rebates/bundled offers with iPods and printers and Cinema Displays that appear in the month or two prior to an update.

[soosy]

Apple never discloses what its going to introduce. They've never done that, and never will do that. If they do then people will know that new products are coming out and nobody will buy the currently models. This makes it very hard for Apple and Apple Resellers to get rid of their current inventory of the old machines to make room for the new ones.

That may be true but you have to wonder about other companies who are more open about what is coming up around the corner. Do they suffer this problem? I'm wondering about the Dells/Gateways/etc. There may be a factor of scale that makes the difference, but maybe not.

A LOT of people (possibly the great majority) don't follow the rumor sites to see what is coming up. And even if Apple pre-announced products or gave roadmap indications, I'd have to think those same people still wouldn't be aware and just buy machines when they needed them. I guess the question is, how big of a user segment follows Apple so closely and demands only the latest and greatest?

Another angle is how many people would have bought machines during months and months of waiting for new models, if they just new that nothing was coming out for a while?

On the other hand, when Apple does "preannounce" a new product that won't be shipping for a few months, there is a segment of people who complain to no end... and I suppose those who do keep up on Apple would definitely wait for the updates.

[AidenShaw]

That may be true but you have to wonder about other companies who are more open about what is coming up around the corner. Do they suffer this problem? I'm wondering about the Dells/Gateways/etc.

Don't ask Dell or Gateway, Intel puts the roadmap on their website.

Go to:

http://www.intel.com/products/desktop/processors/index.htm?iid=ipp_desk+proc&

and click on the Processor Roadmap link.... You'll see the planned roadmap for the next 6-12 months.
---
IMO, when people see that something is 6 months or more away, they'll buy today if they need something today. If the upgrade is one month away, they'll be more likely to wait.

With Apple, there's always a concern that it's only one month away, so they wait....

[wms121]

http://e-www.motorola.com/files/netcomm/doc/fact_sheet/MPC8540FACT.pdf



...but if you guys find that IBM page.

ww ; )

[wrldwzrd89]

confirmed:
970
970fx
power 5

unconfirmed:
975
976
980
990
etc.

It's true that the rumors were calling the power 5 derivative the 980 before. But at this point, the 980 is no more real than the 975. They're both pure guesswork.
OK - point taken. I still claim the validity of my point, which is that the PPC 980 was rumored to replace the PPC 970 before the rumored PPC 975 came into the picture. (keyword: rumored)

[Sun Baked]

OK - point taken. I still claim the validity of my point, which is that the PPC 980 was rumored to replace the PPC 970 before the rumored PPC 975 came into the picture. (keyword: rumored)But it's a little hard for me to check back on one of the publishers of that roadmap rumor, since MacOSRumors isn't responding.

[justytylor]

The little dirty secret of corporate computer purchases is that you don't wait for the Next Great Thing to buy - you buy when you need new machines, no sooner and no later.

So what's preventing you from making corporate orders of Apple products then? There's obviously something new "always" on the horizon (sometimes the horizon is further away). Get what you need: while the criticisms of the 970 above may be valid, the G5s are very good machines, particularly when you get into the dualies. I use a 1.6 GHz G5 at work and I'm very pleased with it: it chugs through an hour of digital video in 4 hours (dual pass); my 667 MHz G4 would take at least 24 hours, and I'm sure my G5 would outperform my new 1.2GHz Aluminum Powerbook, so I don't even bother encoding on that.

[kenaustus]

What ever is announced at the WWDC is not going to be a last minute decision on Apple's part. They would have been working with IBM to make a powerful (and dependable) announcement at the WWDC - with discussions STARTING big time when the 970fx problems surfaced in Dec/Jan. I also believe that when both Steve and IBM said 3 gigs in a year they were fairly well along with prototypes.

The interesting issue now is what IBM is going to do now and over the next 6 to 12 months. Apple's going to get some good pricing to make up for this year's lost sales and probably some very interesting offers to bring the lower end models to a "G5" level.

The word from on high at IBM will be to get the job done, even without Steve's prodding - and I'll bet that Steve has been prodding just a little bit . . .

[Mord]

I have been skeptical about the existence of the 975 since the first rumours came up. IBM should solve the yield issue with the 970FX before developing an entirely new processor. But of the course the question remains which cpu will be put in the new PM revision.

they have already desighned the ppc 980 it's not about the desighn it's about the size of the die and the heat and the yeild

[melgross]

This is from IBM's site. I wish it had held the formatting. I tried to manually lay it out. If you have enough horiz. space it might work. You can read about the speeds, again-beyond 2.0GHz-not explicitly stated as 3.0GHz. Also of interest further down in the specs is the junction temps-to 85C for the 970, but 105C for the FX. That might tell us something about top achievable speeds. So far, all of the analysis done by the engineers at Microprocessor Report and others have agreed that the 970FX won't get to 3.0GHz. Take it from there. Also, I checked out IBM's entire site. No mention of the 975, 976, or 980.

PowerPC 970 & 970FX Processors Highlights • Based on the award-winning POWER4TM architecture • Manufactured in IBM’s 90 nm (970FX) and in 0.13 ?m (970) copper process technologies with lower power and small die sizes • Products can range from1.4 to beyond 2.0GHz for high performance computing, networking, storage, workstation and entry-level server systems • High-superscalar 64-bit design, with dual fixed point, dual floating point, and dual load/store units with 64-bit data paths, along with AltiVec* SIMD units with 128-bit data paths • 32-bit compatibility allows continued use of legacy operating systems and applications and offers the ability to migrate to 64-bit at your own pace • Provides 512KB of internal L2 cache with ECC • Achieves high system performance with up to 1.1GHz processor bus, with dedicated read and write data paths, to avoid performance bottlenecks
PowerPC 970 & 970FX Processors
970 970FX Frequency
1.4 – 2.0GHz 1.4 – 2.0+GHz
Performance 1.8GHz 2.0GHz
SPECint2000 828 (est) 890 (est)
SPECfp2000 1036 (est) 1100 (est)
Dhrystone 2.1 MIPS 5800 7584
Typical power 51W@1.8GHz 12.3W@1.4GHz
24.5W@2.0GHz
Voltage (logic/ I/O) 1.3V / 1.3V 1.0V / 1.3V
Junction temp. range 0o to 85oC 0o to 105oC
L1 Caches 64KB instr. w/par 64KB instr. w/par
32KB data w/par 32KB data w/par
L2 Cache Internal 512KB w/ECC Internal 512KB w/ECC
Bus Interface 1.0GHz 1.1GHz
Dual unidirectional Dual unidirectional
32-bit logical busses 32-bit logical busses
w/ECC w/ECC
Package (mm x mm) 576-CBGA (25x25) 576-CBGA (25x25)

[ingenious]

Check this out:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/26/ibm_ppc_975/

They're saying yes, the 975 and the 976 are real.

Isn't Google wonderful? :D

[Sun Baked]

Check this out:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/26/ibm_ppc_975/

They're saying yes, the 975 and the 976 are real.

Isn't Google wonderful? :DNope...

Try reading down a bit where they say the IBM document comes from a local paper.Or do they? We found a reference to the CPU on IBM Taiwan's web site, but closer inspection reveals it to have been taken from a local publication, IT Home.So there is no proof, at least from IBM.

[LauShu]

I was directed to this forum and thread by an American friend of mine who is very interested in Chinese culture. I am from Taiwan. I am also a dedicated Mac users. I know MacRumors for long, but this is my first time posting because the discussion has become unbelievable.

So here is the deal.

First of all there are three locations for discussion: China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.

The language Chinese does have two prominent forms, one called Mandarin, and one called Cantonese. As someone pointed out, the writing is the same, but the speaking is different. To be more accurate Cantonese is a dialect, just like there is a dialect in Taiwan called, Taiwanese. There are hundreds of dialects all over China. What's different about Cantonese though, is that they use the Chinese characters to read and write, unlike most other dialects, they are for speaking purpose only. But, Mandarin IS the language that uses the Chinese characters to read write and speak. The catch is that, as time go on, people try to write Taiwanese, so there are words invented, or phrases written to immitate the sounds of Taiwanese, just like there are characters that people from Hong Kong write is not in the real Mandarin's character set. One thing to note is the writing. There are two types of writing, Traditionally and Simplified. In China, Singapore, and Malaysia, they all use Simplified. In Taiwan, we use traditional, and I believe so do people in Hong Kong. But this is just the sake of the writing of the characters, the language is the still the same.

So Who does what?
Almost all Chinese from China speak Mandarin.
All Chinese from Hong Kong speak Cantonese, and some speak Mandarin.
All Chinese from Taiwan speak Mandarin, and some speak Taiwanese.
We all speak Chinese, the language.

Cantonese is also spoken at the south region of China, as you may see from a map, that's where Hong Kong is near at.

There is nothing to do with Thai the language and Thailand. It's a totally different race though some of them are Chinese heritage which might speak a little Chinese.

Many Chinese heritage from Malaysia and Singapore also speak Chinese, though the official language in Malaysia is Malay, and English for Singapore.

[jakemikey]

As interesting as that last post about all the ins and outs of the dialects and languages of the Asian continent was, I think it shows that this thread is quickly running out of steam. Come on, people!

[Rower_CPU]

As interesting as that last post about all the ins and outs of the dialects and languages of the Asian continent was, I think it shows that this thread is quickly running out of steam. Come on, people!

Agreed. Let's get back to and stay on the topic, folks. :)

[makkystyle]

Did you not read the earlier posts in the thread? If you didn't, I made a post about this very issue - that the planned replacement for the PowerPC 970 was the PowerPC 980, not the 975.

I did read them and my point was an agreement with yours and to provide a reference to material that substantiated this.

[makkystyle]

Here is an interesting link. It leads to a PDF in french that mentions IBM using "PowerPC 970 at 3Ghz" in their Blade servers. If someone out there reads french and can please give us a rundown on what this says that would be great. I can't vouch for the validity of this article, because I have no idea where it came from (the whole not being able to speak french thing). Also it doesn't lend itself to Sherlock translation very well because of the format. Hope someone can shed some light:

http://www.irisa.fr/orap/Publications/Bi-orap/biorap-35.pdf

[Telomar]

Did you not read the earlier posts in the thread? If you didn't, I made a post about this very issue - that the planned replacement for the PowerPC 970 was the PowerPC 980, not the 975.The 980 was always an invention of the rumour boards for what would follow the 970. The 975 comes more out of IBM roadmaps that showed a 97x processor I suspect.

[river_jetties]

i unfortunately think that apple might have put their money on the wrong horse by going with IBM. They probably should have picked AMD last year for the new Power Mac's and XServe's.

The problem with IBM is that this truly isn't their core business. Not trying to be critical.

[maverick13]

i unfortunately think that apple might have put their money on the wrong horse by going with IBM. They probably should have picked AMD last year for the new Power Mac's and XServe's.

The problem with IBM is that this truly isn't their core business. Not trying to be critical.

Why should they have done this? By switching to AMD, Apple whould abandon the PowerPC platform and throw compatibility out of the window plus requiring a port of Mac OS X to x86. Moreover they would need a rewrite of ALL the current applications for the new hardware.
I believe that switching to IBM was the wisest thing Apple has done in the last few years.They kept their PowerPC platform, progressed to a chip with great performance(G5's floating point performance is bettern than the Opteron's, see flop/s ratings and the virginia tech interview) and placed their bet on IBM who uses the POWER processors for most of her systems. So it will definetely support and progress the architecture and it can always uses this progress to future PowerPC chips.
I am not worried about this, I am only worried if we will actually see the PowerPC 975(if it is named like this) this year and a PowerBook G5 till the first quarter of 2005.

Maverick

[wizard]

It is interesting that I see much of what you describe as far as corporate mentality goes with respect to Apple. I work for a large corproation, but outside of the main IT departments. It is an attitude that is largely unjustified in my opinion.

Frist in Apples defense they keep the same basic designs around longer than anyone in the industry. They have also kept their OS stable while doing a pretty amazing job of upgrading it.

From the corporate perspective I've seen a lot of strange things there. Standardizing on a new vendor every year or so is one of the moves common in IT departments which makes me wonder what value there is in any NDA. I could go into more detail but I think it is safe to say that Apples approach is used as an excuse at times but when it comes right down to it other things are a factor in IT attitudes.

I look at it this way if you standardize on Apple as a platoform you pretty much are at their mercy. It is not so much that they won't share the informaiton it is more a matter of the platform not offering alternatives.

Thanks
dave



IBM does not keep it's customers in the dark. I should know, I'm one of the 'keepers of the light' when it comes to the BladeCenter product lines. I'd happily tell a customer who has signed an NDA what we are doing well into 2006 and even 'thoughts' about 2007 at this time.

Apple is the enigma in the computer industry as far as keeping their mouths shut. That is probably what hurts them to some extent in the enterprise space. They don't like surprises and want to have a 24 month planning roadmap even for desktops. Having a new box show up out of the blue really ticks them off - also when a box stops before they were told it would isn't a good thing either..

[Gyroscope]

I could bet you that when Steve made those 3ghz promises Apple has already had some working 3ghz prototype boxes in their labs. But god knows what Power derivative those bxes were using. I still think that 970 was rushed off to market (tucked-in AltiVec, Power4 core,no ddr controler on die) as stop-gap measure. Apple-IBM have certainly been working together on more than just 970. Question however is ,how long Apple will be milking 970's in their pro desktops before they decide to move upIn the last 12 months there certainly wasn't much pressure on them from Intel or AMD while everyone pretty much stagnated. They could more or less afford to sit on 2 Ghz for a year now. Intel is about to release 3.7 and 4.0 ghz P4's with upto 2 MB L2 cache + other enhancements, where 2.4 ghz 970 just won't cut anymore. Apple knows this. ;)

[Clive At Five]

Here is an interesting link. It leads to a PDF in french that mentions IBM using "PowerPC 970 at 3Ghz" in their Blade servers. If someone out there reads french and can please give us a rundown on what this says that would be great. I can't vouch for the validity of this article, because I have no idea where it came from (the whole not being able to speak french thing). Also it doesn't lend itself to Sherlock translation very well because of the format. Hope someone can shed some light:

http://www.irisa.fr/orap/Publications/Bi-orap/biorap-35.pdf

I knew that C in college French would pay off...

The section that mentions a 970 at 3ghz translates approximately as follows:

"The secret weapon of IBM will be, without any doubt, its server "Blade", a super-dense architecture: the same frame of 7U will be able to contain 14 "blades" Bi processors equivalent to either 28 Pentium 4s DP Xeon 2.4 Ghz with network gigabit Ethernet and network of administration integrated for 32 bit calculation, or a POWERPC 970 with 3Ghz (a denser version of the POWER4) at 3 Ghz with Myrinet network integrated for 64 bit calculation! The whole functioning under... Of course Linux. There is no doubt that the advertisement of this product will make the effect of a bomb..."

So basically, IBM's "secret weapon" is a processor which has the speed of a 3.0 GHz 970... Another false alarm. The article did get one thing right though. It surely did have the effect of a bomb... a bomb of disappointment =P

Linux? What is with this talk of Linux?

-Clive at Five

[sun-ice]

1-
So basically, IBM's "secret weapon" is a processor which has the speed of a 3.0 GHz 970...

the article from the irisa is date April 2003 :)

2-
Linux? What is with this talk of Linux?

IBM says "when you put 1$ in a server on m$ Windows, you have to put 1$ (or more) in software to work with... so buy an IBM server at 1.5$ and put linux on it... it's free... you would have a better and more powerfull hardware for less" :D
So... it's normal to talk about Linux... :cool:
And it's easier for them to offer drivers... and it's a p-series IBM server, not a X serve Apple... :D
What OS do you want they sell with ? :confused:

[AidenShaw]

IBM says "when you put 1$ in a server on m$ Windows, you have to put 1$ (or more) in software to work with... so buy an IBM server at 1.5$ and put linux on it... it's free..."

Actually, IBM charges a minimum of $1295 for a Linux license for a small pSeries...

http://www-132.ibm.com/content/home/store_IBMPublicUSA/en_US/eServer/pSeries/entry/6306C4_70286C4121C.html

[Telomar]

Actually, IBM charges a minimum of $1295 for a Linux license for a small pSeries...Keep in mind that is largely a support contract price.

[qubex]

A full 24 hours have passed and I am still incredulous that someone wrote "Thaiwanese". I just can't get over it.

Anyway, everybody here keeps bashing the 970 processor and stating that it needs to be replaced with something else. Clock-rate aside, why does anyone want to replace the 970/970FX? Are you all climbing on the wagon and shooting in the air just because everybody else is?

So far as I can see, they're nice chips.

And just for the record, I still can't get over the fact he wrote "Thaiwanese".

[Wendy_Rebecca]

I think it's real. I want one. Would be kinda funny if it was all hot air though :D

This is getting ridiculous. Now the rumor sites are reporting about rumours about rumours.

There's nothing to see here. Back to your lives, citizens.

[AidenShaw]

Keep in mind that is largely a support contract price.

If you believe that, then please post the URLs where I can download Enterprise Linux 3.0 for free...

Or SuSe Professional for workstations, that lists at $89 or so.
______________

Most of the people buying IBM POWER servers aren't the kind of people who enjoy downloading random bits of their operating systems from various places, recompiling the kernels, and then trying to get it to boot and stay up.

The TCO of a $1295 contract is much better than "roll your own".

[AidenShaw]

Now the rumor sites are reporting about rumours about rumours.

Don't forget the "proof" which is really a quote from an IBM web page in Chinese from the fantasy island of Thaiwan which also mentions the rumour !!

Wow !!

[pjkelnhofer]

I apologize if this has already been posted but here (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39155678,00.htm) is story on CNet that says IBM own blade servers are being pushed back due to low chip yields. It also references difficulty with the Xserves:
However, shipments of Apple Computer's Xserve, which also uses the PowerPC 970, have been constrained by a shortage of chips from IBM. "Obviously we were not happy with the delivery we got," Timothy Cook, Apple's executive vice president of worldwide sales and operations, said in April, adding that the company hopes to have caught up with demand by the end of June.
Doesn't sound like a company getting ready to ship an all new, 3.0 GHz version of the 970 (or 975 or 980...).
I wonder if the best we can hope for is the 1.6 GHz PowerMac becoming a dual and a lower cost single processor line of the same speed chips.
:( :( :( :( :(

[Frobozz]

A full 24 hours have passed and I am still incredulous that someone wrote "Thaiwanese". I just can't get over it.

And just for the record, I still can't get over the fact he wrote "Thaiwanese".

Since most of us are not from Taiwan or Thailand it really doesn't seem like more than a typo. That extra letter "h" must really bug you...

*ahem*

To stay on topic I'd like to say that, whatever IBM is calling the 970 successor, it will be in the new PowerMacs this year... probbably WWDC. I wouldn't be suprised. I guess I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, but I believe a 3.0 GHz part is coming from IBM sometime this year.

The nice thing is that a 3.0 GHz 975/980 whatever will be faster per clock than the 970/970fx. Sweeet.

[Frobozz]

Doesn't sound like a company getting ready to ship an all new, 3.0 GHz version of the 970 (or 975 or 980...).
I wonder if the best we can hope for is the 1.6 GHz PowerMac becoming a dual and a lower cost single processor line of the same speed chips.

One of 2 scenarios have been covered: either the 970 delays ARE or ARE NOT going to effect the successor (975/980) shipments. My belief is that they will not, but I have no inside information. The 970 and 975 are different beasts and assuming they use different production processes we should be okay.

My fingers are crossed. :-)

[pjkelnhofer]

Since most of us are not from Taiwan or Thailand it really doesn't seem like more than a typo. That extra letter "h" must really bug you...

It was more than a typo. It was repeated, there was the Thai in who speak Thaiwanese. It is very funny go back a couple pages and read it.

To stay on topic I'd like to say that, whatever IBM is calling the 970 successor, it will be in the new PowerMacs this year... probbably WWDC. I wouldn't be suprised. I guess I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, but I believe a 3.0 GHz part is coming from IBM sometime this year.

The nice thing is that a 3.0 GHz 975/980 whatever will be faster per clock than the 970/970fx. Sweeet.

It is nice to dream isn't it, but there is absolutely no indication that IBM, who cannot even mass produce the 970 or 970fx chips with a good yield, is secretly producing a chip that is 150% faster in pure clock speed and even faster than that in performance. Maybe we will be suprised, but I doubt that they could keep the existence of a chip that would be essentially twice as fast as what is out there right now, this much of a secret.

[JFreak]

IBM, who cannot even mass produce the 970 or 970fx chips with a good yield

says who? i remember seeing a single slide of some ibm presentation where they had put an estimated good-cpu rate and an actual produced good-cpu rate on the same chart, and the actual numbers weren't so far off the estimate. so if they haven't estimated a failure, they aren't so far off - given that the slide i saw was a genuine one.

i think too little about this topic is based on facts.

[thatwendigo]

Anyway, everybody here keeps bashing the 970 processor and stating that it needs to be replaced with something else. Clock-rate aside, why does anyone want to replace the 970/970FX? Are you all climbing on the wagon and shooting in the air just because everybody else is?

I was among the first to start up the '970 looks hokey' strikes after the initial furor over their release, and I stand by my reasoning to this day. The SIMD implementation is less efficient than the G4s and was just tacked onto the Power4 core so that it could do vector math the way Apple would want to. There's no on-die memory controller, which is one of AMD's big strengths and part of the only reason that their chips beath the G5 at similar clockspeeds on some tasks. If IBM and AMD were working on the same projects, sharing the same fab space, and the former was licensing technology to the latter, you'd think that they might have similar design philosophies, no?

The Power5 core has all the things the 970 does not. It has fewer pipeline stages but faster clock, on-die DDR and DDR2 control, SMT implementation, a multi-core design that could possibly be staged at the consumer level, and the rumors say that they 975/980/what-have-you is designed from the ground up to be a new chip. It could easily have a fully functional, even more optimized dual-precision SIMD unit, especially since that's a published feature of FreeScale's next-generation chip - 128-bit dual precision vector math.

So far as I can see, they're nice chips.

Nice is not the same as cutting edge, and the technology world is always moving. The 970 is starting to fall behind, and it just doesn't feel like it was really intended to be the flagship.

[AidenShaw]

i think too little about this topic is based on facts.


Fact: Order an XServe G5 - 5-7 weeks quoted for delivery

Fact: Apple said IBM's chip delay only reason for XServe delay

Fact: Virginia Tech's cluster is shut down, and probably won't be in the next Top500 list at all - they sold the PowerMacs and haven't been able to get the XServe G5s....

http://www.tcf.vt.edu/
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/virginiatech3.html
__________________

Those facts don't point to a huge success....

[JFreak]

Fact: Order an XServe G5 - 5-7 weeks quoted for delivery
Fact: Apple said IBM's chip delay only reason for XServe delay

this can also mean that business purchase decisions have been delayed in anticipation of the G5 going into xserves, and apple is facing more demand than they predicted in the light of G4 xserve sales. my interpretation is not a fact, but a fact is i can very well be right.

Fact: Virginia Tech's cluster is shut down, and probably won't be in the next Top500 list at all - they sold the PowerMacs and haven't been able to get the XServe G5s....

someone has then made a stupid decision for selling the production hardware without knowing the replacement unit's delivery date. that is poor business practice on behalf of virginia tech, IF they need to have the supercomputer up and running at all times. that is not apple's fault, nor ibm's. they should have made such a deal that the existing hardware leaves the building a day before the replacement arrives, IF they need to have the supercomputer up and running at all times.

if they can afford downtime, they may have reasons other than staying on the list. we can only guess.

[qubex]

To thatwendigo:

Fair enough, I see your line of reasoning, even though I don't necessarily agree with it.

But having just recently introduced the POWER4-derived 970, doesn't it seem odd that IBM would run off and introduce the POWER5-derived "975" (or whatever) a mere twelve months later?

POWER4 and POWER5 are radically different designs, as you indicate (and I know first hand because I have an AS/400 Advanced Series with POWER4 chips inside). It seems to me that would instantly vanify all the hard work and money invested into the 970: in other words, retrospectively, investing all that hard work into the 970 would look like a very bad idea if they were planning to introduce the 975 already a year ago.

I can foresee a hypothetical 975 as being an "evolution" of the 970/970FX with a few additional features - for example, SMT or even revised AltiVec. But I think it is simply too early for the Next Generation to be unveiled.

That's just my own opinionated view. I'm not really informed so I guess it's just idle speculation.

[pjkelnhofer]

says who? i remember seeing a single slide of some ibm presentation where they had put an estimated good-cpu rate and an actual produced good-cpu rate on the same chart, and the actual numbers weren't so far off the estimate. so if they haven't estimated a failure, they aren't so far off - given that the slide i saw was a genuine one.

i think too little about this topic is based on facts.

Once again here is the quote from the CNet article:
However, shipments of Apple Computer's Xserve, which also uses the PowerPC 970, have been constrained by a shortage of chips from IBM. "Obviously we were not happy with the delivery we got," Timothy Cook, Apple's executive vice president of worldwide sales and operations, said in April, adding that the company hopes to have caught up with demand by the end of June.
It's been a nearly year and so far there has been absolutely no increase in the speed of 970's that had been made public.
That is a fact.

[dongmin]

This is getting ridiculous. Now the rumor sites are reporting about rumours about rumours.

There's nothing to see here. Back to your lives, citizens. That's the 95% of what's out there and that's what the internet is good for. And you're forgetting that the original purpose of MacRumors was to provide a kind of a digest of floating rumors.

As for chip yields, the 90 nm process has been a disaster so far. All this talk of working prototypes of 980 this and 975 that is pointless if IBM can't produce these chips in MASS quantities, not just samples for testing. I'm of the camp that believes the 975/980 faces the same manufacturing hurdles as the 970fx. Now, IBM is claiming that they're getting a handle on the problem. We'll see. As someone else have noted, the Xserves still show 5-7 week shipping times; that hasn't changed since March I think.

[AidenShaw]

apple is facing more demand than they predicted in the light of G4 xserve sales.

Well, the VaTech cluster systems didn't have to be predicted - and Apple wasn't able to fill that order in a timely manner.

[pjkelnhofer]

Well, the VaTech cluster systems didn't have to be predicted - and Apple wasn't able to fill that order in a timely manner.

And, they received preferential treatment when they got the original G5's, you would have thought they would get that for the Xserves as well.

[river_jetties]

AMD has basically put an emulation layer to run on top of their chips ot be x86 compatible. So when you quote windows numbers, that's not really accurate. Much of their gain is from memory architecture.
My point isn't that they should change now but that they might have made the wrong choice last year.

also, related to VTech, name one project that has been done on it. Gee, there isn't one because it was all a marketing, not a technical, decision.

The biggest reason (and this was the logic behind my original post) was that IBM runs many businesses and THEY MUST MAKE THE NUMBERS EVERY QUARTER. Chip-making is R&D intensive and if they're going to cut, this is a place where they will cut whereas AMD MUST PRODUCE THE BEST CHIPS IN ORDER TO MAKE THE NUMBERS.


Why should they have done this? By switching to AMD, Apple whould abandon the PowerPC platform and throw compatibility out of the window plus requiring a port of Mac OS X to x86. Moreover they would need a rewrite of ALL the current applications for the new hardware.
I believe that switching to IBM was the wisest thing Apple has done in the last few years.They kept their PowerPC platform, progressed to a chip with great performance(G5's floating point performance is bettern than the Opteron's, see flop/s ratings and the virginia tech interview) and placed their bet on IBM who uses the POWER processors for most of her systems. So it will definetely support and progress the architecture and it can always uses this progress to future PowerPC chips.
I am not worried about this, I am only worried if we will actually see the PowerPC 975(if it is named like this) this year and a PowerBook G5 till the first quarter of 2005.

Maverick

[pjkelnhofer]

AMD has basically put an emulation layer to run on top of their chips ot be x86 compatible. So when you quote windows numbers, that's not really accurate. Much of their gain is from memory architecture.
My point isn't that they should change now but that they might have made the wrong choice last year.

Some one who knows a lot more about this than me can go into more depth about this one, but I am under the impression that modern Intel chip also have an "emulation layer" to make them x86 architecture compatible.

also, related to VTech, name one project that has been done on it. Gee, there isn't one because it was all a marketing, not a technical, decision.

Of course it was all marketing, aren't most of these supercomputers built to be just that, bragging rights for the institution that built it and the companies that supplied the parts. How many people can off the top of their head name projects run on any of the top ten supercomputers in the world?

The biggest reason (and this was the logic behind my original post) was that IBM runs many businesses and THEY MUST MAKE THE NUMBERS EVERY QUARTER. Chip-making is R&D intensive and if they're going to cut, this is a place where they will cut whereas AMD MUST PRODUCE THE BEST CHIPS IN ORDER TO MAKE THE NUMBERS.

I am sure that IBM's chip department is expected to produce. Otherwise, why be a chip manufacture at all? We are not talking about a product you can sell at a loss to make money in the future. I would think IBM expects to see the best chips rolling out of their plants.

[wrldwzrd89]

Some one who knows a lot more about this than me can go into more depth about this one, but I am under the impression that modern Intel chip also have an "emulation layer" to make them x86 architecture compatible.
You're thinking of Intel's Itanium line of processors. The Pentiums (including Pentium 4 and Pentium M) are THE original x86 processors (no emulation).

[ffakr]

Fact: Order an XServe G5 - 5-7 weeks quoted for delivery

we just got 19 of them. :-)

Fact: Apple said IBM's chip delay only reason for XServe delay

IBM has more recently said that they've got this ironed out.
[/QUOTE]

[AidenShaw]

You're thinking of Intel's Itanium line of processors. The Pentiums (including Pentium 4 and Pentium M) are THE original x86 processors (no emulation).

This isn't correct. (and the 8086, 286, 386 and others are more truly the originals)

Starting with the Pentium Pro, the Pentium chips have had a RISC-like core that has a translation layer to emulate the x86 instruction set.

The x86 instructions are broken down into "micro-ops" that the core executes.

http://www.intel.com/design/Pentium4/prodbref/index.htm

In addition to the data cache, the Pentium 4 processor includes an Execution Trace Cache that stores up to 12-K decoded micro-ops in the order of program execution.

This increases performance by removing the decoder from the main execution loop and makes more efficient usage of the cache storage space since instructions that are branched around are not stored.

The result is a means to deliver a high volume of instructions to the processor's execution units and a reduction in the overall time required to recover from branches that have been mis-predicted.

[AidenShaw]

we just got 19 of them. :-)

...and how long ago were they ordered ????

[pjkelnhofer]

we just got 19 of them. :-)

Do you really need them all?

[wrldwzrd89]

This isn't correct.

Starting with the Pentium Pro, the Pentium chips have had a RISC-like core that has a translation layer to emulate the x86 instruction set.

The x86 instructions are broken down into "micro-ops" that the core executes.
I didn't know that...I learn something new every day on these forums :)

[ffakr]

...and how long ago were they ordered ????

Not exactly sure. I'm divisional support, a department just got them. I know they were evaluating G4's before the G5 was announced, so they probably ordered them pretty early.
My point was really that they are shipping in quantity finally.

[pjkelnhofer]

This isn't correct.

Starting with the Pentium Pro, the Pentium chips have had a RISC-like core that has a translation layer to emulate the x86 instruction set.

The x86 instructions are broken down into "micro-ops" that the core executes.

See I knew that some one smarter than me would explain this properly.

[ffakr]

This isn't correct.

Starting with the Pentium Pro, the Pentium chips have had a RISC-like core that has a translation layer to emulate the x86 instruction set.

The x86 instructions are broken down into "micro-ops" that the core executes.

The athlon family also uses risc-like micro-ops. This is one of the big reasons why x86 hasn't died like many were predicting in 1994 when the PPC came out.
Even the G5 breaks down PPC code into even simpler micro-ops. This is pretty common these days.

I don't see how this has anything to do with how one evaluates performance though.

[pjkelnhofer]

The athlon family also uses risc-like micro-ops. This is one of the big reasons why x86 hasn't died like many were predicting in 1994 when the PPC came out.
Even the G5 breaks down PPC code into even simpler micro-ops. This is pretty common these days.

I don't see how this has anything to do with how one evaluates performance though.

I doesn't really have anything to do with evaluating performance. It started as a question of Apple going with IBM vs. AMD.

[maverick13]

AMD has basically put an emulation layer to run on top of their chips ot be x86 compatible. So when you quote windows numbers, that's not really accurate. Much of their gain is from memory architecture.
My point isn't that they should change now but that they might have made the wrong choice last year.

also, related to VTech, name one project that has been done on it. Gee, there isn't one because it was all a marketing, not a technical, decision.

The biggest reason (and this was the logic behind my original post) was that IBM runs many businesses and THEY MUST MAKE THE NUMBERS EVERY QUARTER. Chip-making is R&D intensive and if they're going to cut, this is a place where they will cut whereas AMD MUST PRODUCE THE BEST CHIPS IN ORDER TO MAKE THE NUMBERS.
Paying 4.5 Million for marketing reasons? :D :D :D
Sorry but whereas marketing reasons may exist for their decision, I don't believe they are a major factor. I am in a university right now and don't think that the university professors did this for a marketing reason.
As for naming a project, can you name me many projects for the other top 9? :rolleyes: The system is offline now due to the upgrade. They are expecting the Xserves in June(due to the delays), we'll see the projects after it is set up (again).

Maverick

[thatwendigo]

But having just recently introduced the POWER4-derived 970, doesn't it seem odd that IBM would run off and introduce the POWER5-derived "975" (or whatever) a mere twelve months later?

Actually, it doesn't seem at all odd to me, because the 970FX looks to be moving in one direction, and the potential 975/980 in another. The former is undergoing massive power optimizations to have dropped 50% of its heat in a single generational revision, and I'll readily grant that (though I still think it's too hot for a portable). It's also ideal for the growing market of blade servers, where IBM could cram two on a card and sell them as 7U racks with 48 processors (or however many) in the space that 1U servers would only fit 14 at the moment. In those environments, heat is a concern, but you're already spending a lot of money on powering and cooling the whole rack.

On the other hand, I can see the 975/980 being positioned as a server and workstation class chip, where you want as much performance as possible from a smaller number of processors. If you fit two to four of them in a chassis and kit them out with a very different kind of system - PCI-Express and so on - then you come up with the kind of system that Apple needs to sell, and which IBM could also market under their own brand. They can't be happy about being beholden to Intel and Microsoft, and having a serious contender would allow them some freedom to pursue their own agenda, which seems to tie neatly with that Office application they just announced.

It seems to me that would instantly vanify all the hard work and money invested into the 970: in other words, retrospectively, investing all that hard work into the 970 would look like a very bad idea if they were planning to introduce the 975 already a year ago.

Segmentation of the market, man. IBM can easily afford to roll out a new generation that's more powerful than their embedded 750 line, while not cannibalizing that too badly (power consumption REALLY matters to some). They're going to need to answer the new efforts from FreeScale or risk losing business to the relative new-kid player in the current market.

[jakemikey]

It is nice to dream isn't it, but there is absolutely no indication that IBM, who cannot even mass produce the 970 or 970fx chips with a good yield, is secretly producing a chip that is 150% faster in pure clock speed and even faster than that in performance. Maybe we will be suprised, but I doubt that they could keep the existence of a chip that would be essentially twice as fast as what is out there right now, this much of a secret.

I've got to echo this. Building a prototype in a lab and mass producing a product are two completely different games, and unless IBM was cranking out thousands of 975s or whatever back when Steve made his projection, it was a foolish prediction to make (even if it does come true).

I think as chip manufacturing continues to appoach a near-atomic level, were going to see more and more of a discrepancy between making a prototype chip in a lab and reliably mass producing it. Predictions and roadmaps will become less meaningful until serious breakthroughs in materials engineering take place. Just a thought.

One last thing: in response to me pointing out that IBM announced the 970 a full year before it shipped in volume as the G5, several people have written off the "secrecy" around the 975 as a result of Apple's request, saying that Apple is probably the sole financer of the project and therefore has more control over what information is released. That's a pretty weak argument considering that NO ONE else (other than IBM itself) uses the 970. If someone else does, please point it out. After the G5 was released, the joint venture with IBM was always described in general terms as "Apple hired IBM to make the 970". There's no doubt that Apple had a SIGNIFICANT investment, if not the entire investment, in the 970, and yet it was still announced a year before it shipped for Apple. If anything, between the 970 and the 975, the 970 should have been kept more secret as it was an entire generation processor leap for Apple. Why secrecy now and not then? If there is an argument for screcy now, it sure isn't "Apple financed this processor". Keep trying.

[the future]

One last thing: in response to me pointing out that IBM announced the 970 a full year before it shipped in volume as the G5, several people have written off the "secrecy" around the 975 as a result of Apple's request, saying that Apple is probably the sole financer of the project and therefore has more control over what information is released. That's a pretty weak argument considering that NO ONE else (other than IBM itself) uses the 970. If someone else does, please point it out. After the G5 was released, the joint venture with IBM was always described in general terms as "Apple hired IBM to make the 970". There's no doubt that Apple had a SIGNIFICANT investment, if not the entire investment, in the 970, and yet it was still announced a year before it shipped for Apple. If anything, between the 970 and the 975, the 970 should have been kept more secret as it was an entire generation processor leap for Apple. Why secrecy now and not then? If there is an argument for screcy now, it sure isn't "Apple financed this processor". Keep trying.

Some of the answers you have been given had nothing to do with Apple's investment. To shortly repeat them: before Apple officially anounced the G5 at WWDC 2004, linking the 970 to Apple was just guessing. Now that Apple and IBM have said they will be working together closely on new PPCs for the foreseeable future, a publicly announced 975 would be linked to Apple with absolut certainty, which would destroy Apple's secrecy. Keep listening.

[jakemikey]

Some of the answers you have been given had nothing to do with Apple's investment. To shortly repeat them: before Apple officially anounced the G5 at WWDC 2004, linking the 970 to Apple was just guessing. Now that Apple and IBM have said they will be working together closely on new PPCs for the foreseeable future, a publicly announced 975 would be linked to Apple with absolut certainty, which would destroy Apple's secrecy. Keep listening.

"just guessing"? The G4's were way behind in performace, and IBM comes out with a 64-bit processor, a PowerPC processor (!), with the specs and heat ratings suitable for a desktop, and you're telling me it was "just guessing"? How many other computer manufacturers use the PowerPC platform? How often does IBM deviate from making beastly server processors into making desktop processors just for fun?

[Zappa]

Of course it was all marketing, aren't most of these supercomputers built to be just that, bragging rights for the institution that built it and the companies that supplied the parts. How many people can off the top of their head name projects run on any of the top ten supercomputers in the world?

These computers are mostly used for science projects I think. Computationally intensive tasks such as calculating protein folding, weather forecasting, running climate models, modelling nuclear bombs and so on. Ofcourse its great for a scientific institution and the suppliers to have the fastest supercomputer but the scientific output is the most important part. The supercomputers around the world are very often paid for (or leased by) by various national research councils. There is usually very little to be gained from having the best supercomputer unless you have scientists using them....

[AidenShaw]

The [970fx] is undergoing massive power optimizations to have dropped 50% of its heat in a single generational revision, and I'll readily grant that (though I still think it's too hot for a portable).

It's also ideal for the growing market of blade servers, where IBM could cram two on a card and sell them as 7U racks with 48 processors (or however many) in the space that 1U servers would only fit 14 at the moment.

First of all, you can fit seven 1U servers in a 7U space - that should be pretty obvious.

The IBM BladeCenter chassis is 7U, and holds 14 dual CPU blades. (http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/bladecenter/chassis/more_info.html)

IBM is currently shipping dual 3.2GHz Xeon blades, so they've obviously solved the heat problem (the two 8-inch squirrel cage blowers in the BladeCenter chassis pull a *lot* of air over the heat sinks). BTW, the chassis has 7200 watt power supplies (4*1800w) for the 7U unit...

http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/bladecenter/i/bladectr_svr_hero.jpg

[pjkelnhofer]

These computers are mostly used for science projects I think. Computationally intensive tasks such as calculating protein folding, weather forecasting, running climate models, modelling nuclear bombs and so on. Ofcourse its great for a scientific institution and the suppliers to have the fastest supercomputer but the scientific output is the most important part. The supercomputers around the world are very often paid for (or leased by) by various national research councils. There is usually very little to be gained from having the best supercomputer unless you have scientists using them....

I shouldn't have said it was all marketing, but a big part of getting a computer onto the "Fastest Supercomputer" list is about having bragging rights not to mention excellent PR when some is going trying to find a place to do the kind of project that requires teraflops of computing. Like you said, they are often leased so it is important to be able to get your computer used and thus making money for the institution that owns it.

I also, understand what kind of projects are normally done on these things, but I was trying to point out to the orignal poster (who was implying that the Big Mac was a fraud because we couldn't name something done on it) that outside of the people actually working on the projects 99.9% are unknown. These are not the kind of thing that get reported on the evening news. They go on silently, probably doing amazing work that is benifitting all, but with most people having no idea that the work is being done at all.

[the future]

"just guessing"? The G4's were way behind in performace, and IBM comes out with a 64-bit processor, a PowerPC processor (!), with the specs and heat ratings suitable for a desktop, and you're telling me it was "just guessing"? How many other computer manufacturers use the PowerPC platform? How often does IBM deviate from making beastly server processors into making desktop processors just for fun?

Hindsight makes guessing that much easier, doesn't it? Maybe you don't remember the heated discussions, here on macrumors and elsewhere, but there were a great many doubters who were not convinced at all that the 970 would become the G5.

Oh how I wish that in hindsight it will be so very obvious that WWDC 2004 would see the introduction of the PPC 975 as Rev. 2 of the G5...

[AidenShaw]

How often does IBM deviate from making beastly server processors into making desktop processors just for fun?

IBM was showing PPC970 chips in their BladeCenter boards before the Apple G5 announcement.

IBM also has a confused set of desktop and small server systems running various older POWER chips - simplifying that product line with the PPC970 would make a lot of sense.

Those were both good reasons for the 970, without any involvement with Apple.

[jakemikey]

IBM was showing PPC970 chips in their BladeCenter boards before the Apple G5 announcement.



Are you sure about that? I seem to remember reading that announcement a few months after WWDC - on MacRumors nonetheless. I could be mistaken.

Anyway, I'm glad we've got the two camps on this thread. Keeps things interesting. I guess I'm in the pessimist/realist camp because I think it'd be more interesting to see what Apple does under the pressure of not delivering a 3 GHz machine. Apple's got a lot of talent, and talent goes a lot further under extreme pressure. Of course I guess they didn't do a whole lot during the G4 lag - except market the idea of a "megahertz myth".

Just another thought--I wonder what the long -term precedent has been as far as chip announcement from the manufacturer / implementation as an actual product. Just off-hand I remember Moto announcing their 1.5 GHz chips a good month before they hit the Powerbooks. I can't think of anything else off-hand, but can anyone help me out? What's the precedent for Apple announcing a breakthrough product with a brand-new chip with no prior manufacturer announcement? Just curious - I honestly have no clue other than the G4 1.5 and the 970.

[ffakr]

IBM is currently shipping dual 3.2GHz Xeon blades, so they've obviously solved the heat problem (the two 8-inch squirrel cage blowers in the BladeCenter chassis pull a *lot* of air over the heat sinks). BTW, the chassis has 7200 watt power supplies (4*1800w) for the 7U unit...


That wattage is misleading because those are redundant power supplies. Typically (I don't have one of these to confirm this) you can run the server with about half the redundant power supplies. It wouldn't be unusual to require at least 3 of the 4 power supplies to actually boot the system, mainly because all the drives spin up at once. Since I don't own one, I can't (easily) confirm this, but it is probably 2 of 4 or 3 of 4 required, or at worst, 3 of 4 required to run and 4 of 4 required to boot.

One thing I haven't seen a lot of notice of...
AFAIK, the typical wattage for a 2 GHz 970 or 970fx is the typical wattage at the rated speed. Both CPUs bus slew, the 2 GHz 970s slew down to a cpu clock of 1300 MHz.
The Centrino (Dothan and Banias) have very low typical thermal ratings because they are designed to run at 600MHz unless under load, at which point they clock up. I've seen much higher numbers for the Dothan when the cpu is running full speed. Intel reports a "Thermal Guideline" of 21.0W for a 2.0 GHz Dothan. I'm not precisely sure what they mean by "Thermal Guide" but I'm assuming it is the upper thermal range that OEMs need to deal with when building 2 GHz Dothan systems. This number (low 20's) is consistant with what I've seen in online reviews of Pentium-Ms.

Saying that a PPC 750fx can't run in a notebook based on a typical rating of 24.5 watts at 2GHz ignores many facts..
* Who says it has to be 2 GHz?
* What would the average wattage be if it ran at the bus slewed 1300 MHz?
* PC manufacturers already make notebooks with Pentium 4 desktop processors and Athlon 64s which use MUCH more than 24.5 watts. Sure their battery life sucks unless they de-clock themselves, but thermally, it has been done.

jmho,
ffakr

edit: Intel's 2GHz Dothan info:
http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/details.asp?sSpec=SL7EM&ProcFam=942&PkgType=ALL&SysBusSpd=ALL&CorSpd=ALL

[Frobozz]

"just guessing"? The G4's were way behind in performace, and IBM comes out with a 64-bit processor, a PowerPC processor (!), with the specs and heat ratings suitable for a desktop, and you're telling me it was "just guessing"? How many other computer manufacturers use the PowerPC platform? How often does IBM deviate from making beastly server processors into making desktop processors just for fun?

IBM has produced PowerPC chips from the very beginning (PowerPC 601). Apple always knew they COULD go to IBM. They just didn't for a long time. I think he's right to say that when Moto failed on their version of the G5 that Apple went to IBM and said "slap some AltiVec on a desktop-ified POWER4." Now that they delivered on that promise, and (allegedly?) delivered protoype 3 GHz chips last year, Jobs said we'll have Desktops running at 3 GHz in one year. Not sure what those chips were based on but there are a couple of things we know for sure:

1) IBM had prototype PowerPC chips running at 3 GHz last year at this time. Could've been a 970, 975, 980 etc. but they did. That's the basis for Jobs saying "in 1 year we'll b at 3 GHz." This is pretty widely reported.

2) IBM is shipping POWER5 based servers in 2 weeks-- June 11th.

3) IBM is building the sucessor to the 970 off the POWER5 design simultaneously. This is the opposite way they did the POWER4/970.

4) IBM hit snags with the 90nm / SSOI process but are largely out of it now.

Take it for what you will, but I still believe the 970 sucessor is coming soon.

[AidenShaw]

Are you sure about that? I seem to remember reading that announcement a few months after WWDC - on MacRumors nonetheless.

I held one in my hands before WWDC - it was NDA and before official product announcement, but real.

Note the date on this article:

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/02/27.11.shtml


IBM Introduces PowerPC 970 Servers, Touts 970 As "Fastest PowerPC So Far"
by Bryan Chaffin,
12:00 PM CST, February 27th, 2003

Many have hoped that Apple will move the PowerMac line to the PowerPC 970, a new 64-bit PowerPC processor being developed by IBM.

With Motorola lagging behind in G4 development, and the G5 being nowhere in sight, many have hoped that Apple could turn to IBM's 970 line to erase the performance gap between Intel/AMD and Apple's G4-based products. This suggestion has been given more power by the fact that IBM has officially included AltiVec support in the 970, a technology crucial to many of Apple's developers.

Today, IBM announced the first products to use the 970 -- the PowerPC Blade -- at Europe's CeBit conference.

The PowerPC Blade will be added to IBM's BladeCenter product line, a line of servers powered by Intel processors. The company is touting the PowerPC Blade as "superior to Intel Blades for certain applications in the High Performance Computing Sector," and goes on to offer some details on the PowerPC 970 itself.

Included in those details is a speed range for the processor of 1.8 GHz to 2.5 GHz, higher than previous announcements from the company. ...


Hmmm.... Now why was there surprise at 2.0GHz at WWDC?

[thatwendigo]

First of all, you can fit seven 1U servers in a 7U space - that should be pretty obvious.

Yeeeees... So what? My point was that 7 1U servers with two processors each takes up far more space per processor than a 7U blade with 14 dual-processor blades in it (2 processors per 1U, as opposed to 4 processors per 1U).

Saying that a PPC 750fx can't run in a notebook based on a typical rating of 24.5 watts at 2GHz ignores many facts..
* Who says it has to be 2 GHz?
* What would the average wattage be if it ran at the bus slewed 1300 MHz?
* PC manufacturers already make notebooks with Pentium 4 desktop processors and Athlon 64s which use MUCH more than 24.5 watts. Sure their battery life sucks unless they de-clock themselves, but thermally, it has been done.

I'll assume that you mean the PowerPC 970FX and go from there. In the same order as your questions:[list=1]
Nobody says that the 970 has to be run at 2.0ghz, but if it's going to be competitive with what Intel is offering right now, it's going to need to be higher clocked than 1.4-1.6ghz. Also, I find it unlikely that the 1.3ghz slewed clock of the 970FX is as efficient as the 2.0ghz Dothan's minimum power of some 5-8 watts (as I recall). In other words, you're trying to put a server-derived chip into a laptop format to compete against a chip designed to go in laptops. It sounds like a losing proposition.
I can't tell you what the average wattage is, but since they're on the same process and at the same core clock, but the 970FX is hotter, that doesn't bode well for the slewed wattage in my mind.
Correction: PC manufacturers make 10-pound monsters with less than an hour of battery life, but call it a laptop. Were Apple to get into the laughable "desktop replacement" market and give up on at all being sleek or lightweight, then they could certainly make a laptop that would be speed competitive. The problem would be that the Centrino systems would then clean the floor with them by being cheaper and just about as fast.

[Sun Baked]

Saying that a PPC 750fx can't run in a notebook based on a typical rating of 24.5 watts at 2GHz ignores many facts..
* Who says it has to be 2 GHz?
* What would the average wattage be if it ran at the bus slewed 1300 MHz?
* PC manufacturers already make notebooks with Pentium 4 desktop processors and Athlon 64s which use MUCH more than 24.5 watts. Sure their battery life sucks unless they de-clock themselves, but thermally, it has been done.

jmho,
ffakrThe MAJOR fact people are ignoring is that you don't design around the "Typical" number, but the "Maximum" number.

People see the 25W number and say it's low enough for the PowerBook and forget that the Maximum Power Dissipation for the 2GHz PPC970FX is 55W (Apple's marketing docs).

IBM Presentation on PPC Power Dissipation (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=73147) thread

[ClimbingTheLog]

So what's preventing you from making corporate orders of Apple products then? There's obviously something new "always" on the horizon (sometimes the horizon is further away).

The situation has been somewhat misrepresented. Yes, you buy what you need when you need it - as long as it's in your budget. It's very hard to buget for and justify mystery machines. This isn't so much an issue for a generic desktop but it's a showstopper for new product category machines. Noone budgeted for a G5 supercomputer last year because they didn't know it was coming. Same for the XServe RAID. You'll probably see some this year, because now people know about it, but you could have seen more last year if Apple wasn't so wrapped up in its own secret chic.

[AidenShaw]

Yeeeees... So what? My point was that 7 1U servers with two processors each takes up far more space per processor than a 7U blade with 14 dual-processor blades in it (2 processors per 1U, as opposed to 4 processors per 1U).


OK, I see my confusion.

You said "48", when you meant "28 processors per 7U" for the BladeCenter.

Then you said 14 in a 7U, and I read that as 14 1U, not 7 dualCPU 1U.

You weren't actually wrong, but had you used a few more words it would have been easier to pick up at a quick first reading.

Sorry 'bout that!

[NNO-Stephen]

Yeeeees... So what? My point was that 7 1U servers with two processors each takes up far more space per processor than a 7U blade with 14 dual-processor blades in it (2 processors per 1U, as opposed to 4 processors per 1U).



I'll assume that you mean the PowerPC 970FX and go from there. In the same order as your questions:[list=1]
Nobody says that the 970 has to be run at 2.0ghz, but if it's going to be competitive with what Intel is offering right now, it's going to need to be higher clocked than 1.4-1.6ghz. Also, I find it unlikely that the 1.3ghz slewed clock of the 970FX is as efficient as the 2.0ghz Dothan's minimum power of some 5-8 watts (as I recall). In other words, you're trying to put a server-derived chip into a laptop format to compete against a chip designed to go in laptops. It sounds like a losing proposition.
I can't tell you what the average wattage is, but since they're on the same process and at the same core clock, but the 970FX is hotter, that doesn't bode well for the slewed wattage in my mind.
Correction: PC manufacturers make 10-pound monsters with less than an hour of battery life, but call it a laptop. Were Apple to get into the laughable "desktop replacement" market and give up on at all being sleek or lightweight, then they could certainly make a laptop that would be speed competitive. The problem would be that the Centrino systems would then clean the floor with them by being cheaper and just about as fast.

for starters, I am only taking issue with one part of your statement. you say that when the G5 goes into PowerBooks, it's got to be higher clocked than 1.4-1.6Ghz. why? PowerBooks are currently topping out at 1.5Ghz. why the hell couldn't Apple start off with 1.4Ghz in the low end, and possibly 1.8Ghz in the high end, with 1.6 being stuck right in the middle?

they could and I think you need to reconsider that point in your statement. The current PowerBooks are far from the most powerful laptops on the market. The primary goal right now is to move them to an architecture that has room to grow, the G4 is definitely out of steam for the time being. They need to move it to the G5, and with a different bus multiplier and some other tricks, this could be done. for instance, they could make it a 1:4 bus multiplyer. for instance, on a 1.8Ghz PowerBook, it would have a 450Mhz bus. that still beats the hell out of the current system bus which is the main issue of the G4. well, one of them. :) and furthermore, the PowerBooks don't have to be 1 inch thin. although that is ideal, think back to the PowerBook G3s. they most certainly were NOT 1 inch thin.

either way, consider this point.

[ffakr]

The MAJOR fact people are ignoring is that you don't design around the "Typical" number, but the "Maximum" number.

People see the 25W number and say it's low enough for the PowerBook and forget that the Maximum Power Dissipation for the 2GHz PPC970FX is 55W (Apple's marketing docs).

IBM Presentation on PPC Power Dissipation (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=73147) thread

Your link leads to another link on PPC 750fx thermal output.. NOT 970fx thermal output.

I've yet to see any indication that the 970fx Max is 55 W. Could you provide a proper link to this info?

thanks,
ffakr.

[~Shard~]

for starters, I am only taking issue with one part of your statement. you say that when the G5 goes into PowerBooks, it's got to be higher clocked than 1.4-1.6Ghz. why? PowerBooks are currently topping out at 1.5Ghz. why the hell couldn't Apple start off with 1.4Ghz in the low end, and possibly 1.8Ghz in the high end, with 1.6 being stuck right in the middle?

Although I would be quite happy with a 1.6 GHz G5 PowerBook, I think one aspect of what thatwendigo is getting at is that if you clocked the chips at 1.4 GHz or 1.6 GHz, they would probably get taken down by Centrinos when one does a cost/performance comparison. Of course the G4 PowerBooks are lagging right now, and any G5 would be welcome, but unfortunately, a Centrino system would probably match up with a lower clocked G5 PowerBook quite closely, yet be quite less expensive. This is just my impression though, please correct me if I’m misinformed.

The current PowerBooks are far from the most powerful laptops on the market. The primary goal right now is to move them to an architecture that has room to grow, the G4 is definitely out of steam for the time being.

Agreed – the G5 is the chip of the future (until the G6 comes out!) and it is obvious that Apple is going to work on putting them into the PowerBooks. However, the 1.5 GHz 17” PowerBooks are pretty fast, all things considered, and I wouldn’t classify them as slow by any means. Slow compared to some Intel systems, perhaps, but there a lot of other factors at play that would still make me select a PowerBook over an Intel laptop. Plus, my G4 does everything I need it to, and more - everyone has their different requirements of course, but for many people, a G4 is more than adequate (supplemented with a lot of RAM of course!)

They need to move it to the G5, and with a different bus multiplier and some other tricks, this could be done. for instance, they could make it a 1:4 bus multiplyer. for instance, on a 1.8Ghz PowerBook, it would have a 450Mhz bus. that still beats the hell out of the current system bus which is the main issue of the G4. well, one of them.

Easier said than done - take it from an Electronics Systems Engineer who has dabbled in microprocessor and hardware design. There are numerous other factors involved with cramming one of those G5 beasts into a laptop, which have been addressed numerous times on these forums – motherboard redesign, heating/power issues, etc. and a lot of other technical issues I won't re-hash here. It will obviously be done at some point, but I don’t see G5 PowerBooks being announced until 2005 (and who knows when they’ll ship!) Just being realistic.

The fact that some people overlook (not saying you’re one of them, by the way), is that the G5 is a server-class chip - putting the G5 in a PowerBook is the equivalent of putting an Itanium into an Intel laptop – not that easy to accomplish! The other fact, like it or not, is that the G5 was not designed to be a portable chip. And although Apple will of course turn it into one, and re-engineer the PowerBooks to incorporate and handle them, it will still take some time.

and furthermore, the PowerBooks don't have to be 1 inch thin. although that is ideal, think back to the PowerBook G3s. they most certainly were NOT 1 inch thin.

Yes, but technology has come a long way since then – think back 15 years ago to the monsters that they used to call laptops! ;) I don’t think that’s a fair excuse for making the G5 PowerBooks thicker, and many people won’t be satisfied with the reasoning and necessity of a larger enclosure. As a result, Apple will no doubt be in a bit of an engineering quandary, as larger enclosures will no doubt be required!

I’ll definitely be interested to see the G5 PowerBooks when they come out, (especially if they’re 1” thick!) and I have no doubts I will drool over the engineering marvel that Apple will accomplish as I have many times before. :cool:

[Sun Baked]

Your link leads to another link on PPC 750fx thermal output.. NOT 970fx thermal output.

I've yet to see any indication that the 970fx Max is 55 W. Could you provide a proper link to this info?

thanks,
ffakr.Read between the lines... Typical Power Dissipation is NOT the design criteria, Maximum Power is.

All we have seen is IBMs Typical numbers, not their max. Apple posted the Max awhile ago, and everyone ignored it.

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13881

If you do a search you can probably find the original link.

[NNO-Stephen]

Although I would be quite happy with a 1.6 GHz G5 PowerBook, I think one aspect of what thatwendigo is getting at is that if you clocked the chips at 1.4 GHz or 1.6 GHz, they would probably get taken down by Centrinos when one does a cost/performance comparison. Of course the G4 PowerBooks are lagging right now, and any G5 would be welcome, but unfortunately, a Centrino system would probably match up with a lower clocked G5 PowerBook quite closely, yet be quite less expensive. This is just my impression though, please correct me if I’m misinformed.



Agreed – the G5 is the chip of the future (until the G6 comes out!) and it is obvious that Apple is going to work on putting them into the PowerBooks. However, the 1.5 GHz 17” PowerBooks are pretty fast, all things considered, and I wouldn’t classify them as slow by any means. Slow compared to some Intel systems, perhaps, but there a lot of other factors at play that would still make me select a PowerBook over an Intel laptop. Plus, my G4 does everything I need it to, and more - everyone has their different requirements of course, but for many people, a G4 is more than adequate (supplemented with a lot of RAM of course!)



Easier said than done - take it from an Electronics Systems Engineer who has dabbled in microprocessor and hardware design. There are numerous other factors involved with cramming one of those G5 beasts into a laptop, which have been addressed numerous times on these forums – motherboard redesign, heating/power issues, etc. and a lot of other technical issues I won't re-hash here. It will obviously be done at some point, but I don’t see G5 PowerBooks being announced until 2005 (and who knows when they’ll ship!) Just being realistic.

The fact that some people overlook (not saying you’re one of them, by the way), is that the G5 is a server-class chip - putting the G5 in a PowerBook is the equivalent of putting an Itanium into an Intel laptop – not that easy to accomplish! The other fact, like it or not, is that the G5 was not designed to be a portable chip. And although Apple will of course turn it into one, and re-engineer the PowerBooks to incorporate and handle them, it will still take some time.



Yes, but technology has come a long way since then – think back 15 years ago to the monsters that they used to call laptops! ;) I don’t think that’s a fair excuse for making the G5 PowerBooks thicker, and many people won’t be satisfied with the reasoning and necessity of a larger enclosure. As a result, Apple will no doubt be in a bit of an engineering quandary, as larger enclosures will no doubt be required!

I’ll definitely be interested to see the G5 PowerBooks when they come out, (especially if they’re 1” thick!) and I have no doubts I will drool over the engineering marvel that Apple will accomplish as I have many times before. :cool:

please note that I agree with you that we more than likely will not see a PowerBook G5 until MWSF '05 at the earliest.

Only one issue with your statements. You say that the G5 at a low clock speed 1.6Ghz won't be able to compete with Intel Centrino notebooks, yet you say that a 1.5Ghz G4 is plenty of power. this is a bit confusing. Seems to me that a 1.6Ghz G5 is more powerful than a 1.5Ghz G4. The cost will be about the same most likely, and yet the G5 PowerBooks will be more powerful, so how the Centrino's will have an even greater lead in any price/performance comparison than they already do... please explain.

[ffakr]

The cost will be about the same most likely, and yet the G5 PowerBooks will be more powerful, so how the Centrino's will have an even greater lead in any price/performance comparison than they already do... please explain.

The cost of a 1.6 GHz G5 would likely be much less than a 1.5 GHz G4.

.09 micron 970fx'es are only 65^mm. That's pretty tiny. And they are made on a 300mm wafer. IBM should be able to make them much more efficiently than Motorola especially considering that Moto has historically had bad yields.

Also, a 1.5 G4 is the high end for Moto.. the top sort is always the most scarce.
A 1.6 GHz 970fx would be the absolute bottom of the speed bin barrel. They would be chips that might otherwise be considered rejects. Apple could probably get slow G5s for a song.

I, also, really don't expect we'll see Powerbook G5s any time soon. I spend last night with a 17" 1.33GHz Powerbook and I thought it was a plenty speedy machine for a laptop so I'm not freaking out because we still have a G4 in the powerbook line either. I've simply been trying to debunk the idea that it would be absolutely impossible to put a chip that hot into a notebook (Alienware would definately argue that)
All that said, there is one really compelling reason to move the powerbooks to a low clock G5 processor.. because you could make the transition to a modern architecture sooner rather than later. Why is it a bad idea to move to the G5 architecture early on even if the resultant machine is only slightly faster than the existing machine. It's a win-win situation in my eyes. Users get a faster machine, and Apple has an easier time ramping up to more agressively clocked G5s later on.

as always
jmho
ffakr

[~Shard~]

please note that I agree with you that we more than likely will not see a PowerBook G5 until MWSF '05 at the earliest.

Only one issue with your statements. You say that the G5 at a low clock speed 1.6Ghz won't be able to compete with Intel Centrino notebooks, yet you say that a 1.5Ghz G4 is plenty of power. this is a bit confusing. Seems to me that a 1.6Ghz G5 is more powerful than a 1.5Ghz G4. The cost will be about the same most likely, and yet the G5 PowerBooks will be more powerful, so how the Centrino's will have an even greater lead in any price/performance comparison than they already do... please explain.

My apologies, I should have clarified this better - I am kind of speaking of 2 different things, so perhaps I didn't make myself clear. All I meant was that independently, on its own, a 1.5 GHz G4 is quite powerful for the average user's needs. Do Centrino's and the like outperform it on certain benchmarks and price? Yes, of course. The G4 PowerBooks could technically be the slowest laptops out there (although obviously they aren't) but if it does the job for users, it does the job, right? And I was essentially saying the same for the G5, just to a lesser degree. They of course will be faster than the 1.5 GHz G4s, but not significantly so as to tip the scales, so to speak, when doing certain comparisons to the PC laptop world. So as for your inference that Centrinos will have an even greater lead than they already do, I never said this nor implied this, so my apologies. Obviously the G5 PowerBooks will fare better in benchmarks than their G4 counterparts. Also please take into account that by the time the G5 PowerBooks are released, there will no doubt have been advancements to the Centrino line as well, so although it's fair to compare current G4 PowerBooks with current PC offerings, we cant really compare current PC offerings with future G5 PowerBooks.

Fair enough?

[PPC970FX]

IBM have for a year had a PPC CPU running in a lab at 3Ghz. Thay did not say if it was 970, 970fx, 975, 980. But it was a 3Ghz PPC CPU. Dear Stev, I have been a god boy all year. Plz give me a 3Ghz at WWDC. Then I will not dobut you again.

If Stev/ IBM makes it ot 3Ghz they will blow AMD, Intel out of the water. Can`t wait ot see the x86 people to see the dust behaind the PM. IBM is not moto. IBM have a lot more money, and they need apple, to make god programs, so that the samme programs could be used on there Power 5 CPU. And IBM are pissed off at Intel after they tok over the PC world.

muhahah

[NNO-Stephen]

IBM have for a year had a PPC CPU running in a lab at 3Ghz. Thay did not say if it was 970, 970fx, 975, 980. But it was a 3Ghz PPC CPU. Dear Stev, I have been a god boy all year. Plz give me a 3Ghz at WWDC. Then I will not dobut you again.

If Stev/ IBM makes it ot 3Ghz they will blow AMD, Intel out of the water. Can`t wait ot see the x86 people to see the dust behaind the PM. IBM is not moto. IBM have a lot more money, and they need apple, to make god programs, so that the samme programs could be used on there Power 5 CPU. And IBM are pissed off at Intel after they tok over the PC world.

muhahah

that has to be the worst bastardization of the english language I've ever come across.

[maverick13]

Guys, guys let's be a little serious here. Of course the G5 Powerbooks will be faster than the Centrino ones when they are released. I give you that the Centrinos may get an update as well but they are not IBM POWER4-based 64 bit G5s ;)
Think is just my opinion based to whatever I've read about this chip's architecture.

Maverick

PS: Do you know the consider the POWER4 to be the most powerfull CPU available? And the G5 has an excellent FP performance at the level of the Itanium 2

[NNO-Stephen]

Guys, guys let's be a little serious here. Of course the G5 Powerbooks will be faster than the Centrino ones when they are released. I give you that the Centrinos may get an update as well but they are not IBM POWER4-based 64 bit G5s ;)
Think is just my opinion based to whatever I've read about this chip's architecture.

Maverick

PS: Do you know the consider the POWER4 to be the most powerfull CPU available? And the G5 has an excellent FP performance at the level of the Itanium 2

the POWER 5 craps all over the POWER 4 in terms of performance.

[thatwendigo]

for starters, I am only taking issue with one part of your statement. you say that when the G5 goes into PowerBooks, it's got to be higher clocked than 1.4-1.6Ghz. why? PowerBooks are currently topping out at 1.5Ghz. why the hell couldn't Apple start off with 1.4Ghz in the low end, and possibly 1.8Ghz in the high end, with 1.6 being stuck right in the middle?

A 970Fx 1.4ghz would be lower performing than the G4 at 1.5ghz, unless we see numbers that tell us otherwise. To take some of the rest of what you say and throw it in, reducing the bus multiplier is just asking for the performance to degrade even further, since a huge part of the strength of the G5 is its underlying architecture. Take that away (FSB, SATA, and all) and you neuter a powerful chip and it gets slaughtered on the portable market for being neither as battery-efficient nor as powerful as the Centrino. So, what you're advocating here is a crippled G5 in a thicker powerbook that would lose in performance and battery life tests to its competition, all so that there could be the magical "G5" in the name? I'll take a miss on that one, and I hope Apple does, too.

I'm not sure who's "primary goal" you're talking about here, but I want Apple's "primary goal" to be making the best laptop possible, not caving in to people who don't understand system design and just want a shinier, higher number in the specs.

Of course the G4 PowerBooks are lagging right now, and any G5 would be welcome, but unfortunately, a Centrino system would probably match up with a lower clocked G5 PowerBook quite closely, yet be quite less expensive.

There's also the minor issue of battery life to be dealt with, since current Centrinos can live for five hours (in actuality, not just marketing) if you're not pushing them all-out for rendering and similar tasks. When allowed to slew, the thing drops around two thirds of its clockspeed and dissipates a paltry 6-8 watts. The current MPC7447A in the PowerBook dissipates 11 watts in general.

Agreed – the G5 is the chip of the future (until the G6 comes out!) and it is obvious that Apple is going to work on putting them into the PowerBooks.

I disagree. The 970 is the future of the lowend, and a serious performance level chip needs to take its place as quickly as possible, because Intel and AMD are about to take some serious leaps. The Athlon 64 line is moving to 90nm and low-k dialectric processes, while having already achieved 2.4ghz clockspeeds and competiition with the fastest PC systems. Jonah, the Centrino-based 90nm dual-core processor, is due out next year if it doesn't slip its target, which I find less likely now that Intel has publically declared the Pentium 4 to be at least temporarily dead.

The fact that some people overlook (not saying you’re one of them, by the way), is that the G5 is a server-class chip - putting the G5 in a PowerBook is the equivalent of putting an Itanium into an Intel laptop – not that easy to accomplish! The other fact, like it or not, is that the G5 was not designed to be a portable chip. And although Apple will of course turn it into one, and re-engineer the PowerBooks to incorporate and handle them, it will still take some time.

No matter how often you point this out, people will call you and I the ones who are dreaming when we talk about other chips being better solutions. Go figure. :rolleyes:

All we have seen is IBMs Typical numbers, not their max. Apple posted the Max awhile ago, and everyone ignored it.

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13881

The 1.33ghz xServe utilizes the MPC7455, a generation behind the current and much lower power MPC7447A. If you double the typical wattage for the MPC 7447A at 1.5ghz, you come up with 16-22 watts (depending on your source), as opposed to 33 watts for the older processor.

The cost of a 1.6 GHz G5 would likely be much less than a 1.5 GHz G4.

.09 micron 970fx'es are only 65^mm. That's pretty tiny. And they are made on a 300mm wafer. IBM should be able to make them much more efficiently than Motorola especially considering that Moto has historically had bad yields.

This I agree with, actually. The G5 should be significantly cheaper per chip than the G4 ever was, in part because of the size of the die, but also because IBM seems to have a firmer rein on their quality control than Motorola did. It's likely a significant part of the allowance for massive technology upgrades in the towers while keeping the same price points.

I've simply been trying to debunk the idea that it would be absolutely impossible to put a chip that hot into a notebook (Alienware would definately argue that)

I never said it was impossible and never would happen, no matter what/ I did, however, say that the current form factor and battery life would basically be eradicated by doing something like this. There is no PC laptop I've ever come across that's as quiet as an Apple PowerBook of the same generation, and that's largely because even the Centrino is hotter than the current offering.

Why is it a bad idea to move to the G5 architecture early on even if the resultant machine is only slightly faster than the existing machine. It's a win-win situation in my eyes. Users get a faster machine, and Apple has an easier time ramping up to more agressively clocked G5s later on.

I'd be remarkably surprised if the G5 at an even remotely similar clock was faster the the MPC7447A in a portable. If you cut back the bus multiplier and ramp the chip down to save on battery life, then you're killing the main benefits of the chip itself - which says nothing of the less efficient AltiVec implementation.

[~Shard~]

So, what you're advocating here is a crippled G5 in a thicker powerbook that would lose in performance and battery life tests to its competition, all so that there could be the magical "G5" in the name? I'll take a miss on that one, and I hope Apple does, too.

This is actually a good summary, emphasis on crippled - the G5 essentially would indeed have to be crippled to be re-engineered for the PowerBooks at this stage, and cutting corners here and there to accomplish this task (i.e. messing with the bus multipliers) will take away from what the G5 truly is, and, in essence, what makes it a G5 in the first place!

I disagree. The 970 is the future of the lowend, and a serious performance level chip needs to take its place as quickly as possible, because Intel and AMD are about to take some serious leaps. The Athlon 64 line is moving to 90nm and low-k dialectric processes, while having already achieved 2.4ghz clockspeeds and competiition with the fastest PC systems. Jonah, the Centrino-based 90nm dual-core processor, is due out next year if it doesn't slip its target, which I find less likely now that Intel has publically declared the Pentium 4 to be at least temporarily dead.

My apologies, you misunderstood me - by saying the G5 was the future for Apple, all I meant was the G5 or a future derrivative, whether that is 90nm, FX, G6, POWER5, POWER6 - whatever Apple wants to eventually call it - would be the future. I was simply referring to the G5 architecture in general, which I think will be around for some time in one form or another, and not the current 970 chipset itself. :) I agree with you - due to AMD and Intel's future roadmaps, Apple does need to make significant advancements in the near future to stay competitive. (And for some of you it may come as a surprise, but yes, Intel does have roadmaps, is NOT stalled out and still needs to be respected in this market.)


No matter how often you point this out, people will call you and I the ones who are dreaming when we talk about other chips being better solutions. Go figure. :rolleyes:

I know what you mean. ;)

I never said it was impossible and never would happen, no matter what/ I did, however, say that the current form factor and battery life would basically be eradicated by doing something like this. There is no PC laptop I've ever come across that's as quiet as an Apple PowerBook of the same generation, and that's largely because even the Centrino is hotter than the current offering.

This is somewhat where I am coming from as well. Although I still stand by prediction of G5 PowerBooks in 2005 (and definitely not sooner), it's more because I believe that right or wrong and regardless of the improbability, Apple will accomplish this engineering feat - whether it ends up being a good thing or not! Is it the best solution? Perhaps not - the G5 isn't suited for laptops, as I indicated above, just like the Itanium2s aren't suited for Intel laptops.

I'd be remarkably surprised if the G5 at an even remotely similar clock was faster the the MPC7447A in a portable. If you cut back the bus multiplier and ramp the chip down to save on battery life, then you're killing the main benefits of the chip itself - which says nothing of the less efficient AltiVec implementation.

Once again, to summarize your above point, you are effectively crippling the G5 if you do this. Will the G5 PowerBook perform better than the G4 PowerBooks? It depends, but probably. By how much? Not as much as many people would think, especially from getting their hopes up by seeing that glistening "G5" emblem on it.

Hmm, I can just see the posts now - all the people who have been whining and complaining for G5 PowerBooks, (and will continue to do so for the rest of the year), slamming Apple for not being able to release them for so long, and then by the time the G5 PowerBooks actually do come out, they'll be so disappointed with the specs and peformance that they'll just start complaining again. <sigh, shudder>

[NNO-Stephen]

1.4Ghz for the low end, to replace the current low end. the 1.8 would replace the 1.5Ghz G4. besides, even with the crippled bus, it would still be a huge advantage over the current ****ty busses in all G4 based macs.

[thatwendigo]

1.4Ghz for the low end, to replace the current low end. the 1.8 would replace the 1.5Ghz G4. besides, even with the crippled bus, it would still be a huge advantage over the current ****ty busses in all G4 based macs.

How is it an "advanage" if it drains the battery more but doesn't provide a performance advantage. Keep in mind that the single 7447A competes with the 1.6ghz and 1.8ghz 970 at this point, and that Motorola is developing the G4's successor as we speak - a 2.0ghz dual-core, 400mhz FSB, on-die DDR controller chip that's pin-compatible with the older 74xxs. All of that, and you get two processors at low latency and high clock. How much does this cost in heat? A little more than a singel 970FX 2.0ghz, at around 30 watts instead of 24.5 watts. That would be worth making a sacrifice for, but this wouldn't.

[NNO-Stephen]

go to Bare Feats. the 1.5 doesn't preform as well as the 1.6Ghz, much less the 1.8.

check your facts. the recently published FCP4 benchmarks might be useful.

[~Shard~]

go to Bare Feats. the 1.5 doesn't preform as well as the 1.6Ghz, much less the 1.8.

check your facts. the recently published FCP4 benchmarks might be useful.

I believe you when you say the 1.5 GHz G4 doesn't perform as well as the 1.6 GHz G5, however, unless I am looking at the wrong FCP test, it appears as though this test was conducted between the 1.5 GHz G4 PowerBook vs. the 1.6 GHz G5 PowerMac (among other systems of course). In this case, of course the 1.6 GHz G5 will outperform the 1.5 GHz G4. However, this is simply due to the architecture of the PowerMac vs. the PowerBook, where there is a lot more at play than simply the chip - FSB, RAM, the list goes on and on, coupled with the fact that you're comparing a Power desktop machine to a laptop. If the 1.6 GHz G5 was put in a PowerBook, you could not expect the same benchmarks out of it, due to the re-engineering and corner-cutting that would have to take place as previously mentioned.

Again, unless I'm looking at the wrong test (please correct me if I am), this appears to be a test between the systems as a whole, not simply the chips, which introduces a whole range of additional variables into the equation - as a result, you cannot accurately compare the processors on their own. Perhaps I am missing something though? :confused:

[thatwendigo]

I believe you when you say the 1.5 GHz G4 doesn't perform as well as the 1.6 GHz G5, however, unless I am looking at the wrong FCP test, it appears as though this test was conducted between the 1.5 GHz G4 PowerBook vs. the 1.6 GHz G5 PowerMac (among other systems of course). In this case, of course the 1.6 GHz G5 will outperform the 1.5 GHz G4.

MPC7455 1.25ghz scores 1412
MPC7447A 1.33ghz scores 1269
MPC7447A 1.5ghz scores 1236
IBM 970 1.6ghz scores 1123

7455 -> 7447A = 80mhz and 143 point shift
7447A -> 970 = 100mhz and 113 point shift
970 -> next 970 model = 200mhz and 157 point shift

143/80 = 1.79 per mhz
113/100 = 1.13 per mhz
157/200 = 0.78 per mhz

Despite the massive FSB, RAM, and I/O advantage, the G5 is slower clock-for-clock than the revised MPC7447A. This does not deny the performance shift, but it does show that the G5 is not necessarily as amazing in single processor systems as the G5 PowerBook zealots would have you believe.

If the 1.6 GHz G5 was put in a PowerBook, you could not expect the same benchmarks out of it, due to the re-engineering and corner-cutting that would have to take place as previously mentioned.

More interestingly, the G5 loses on efficiency even when it has its support systems in place. Also, the towers suck up an astounding 420+ watts at peak operation, and that's without add-on cards or anything other than the parts inside the case when it ships.

[Telomar]

MPC7455 1.25ghz scores 1412
MPC7447A 1.33ghz scores 1269
MPC7447A 1.5ghz scores 1236
IBM 970 1.6ghz scores 1123

7455 -> 7447A = 80mhz and 143 point shift
7447A -> 970 = 100mhz and 113 point shift
970 -> next 970 model = 200mhz and 157 point shift

143/80 = 1.79 per mhz
113/100 = 1.13 per mhz
157/200 = 0.78 per mhz

Despite the massive FSB, RAM, and I/O advantage, the G5 is slower clock-for-clock than the revised MPC7447A. This does not deny the performance shift, but it does show that the G5 is not necessarily as amazing in single processor systems as the G5 PowerBook zealots would have you believe.There's actually a pretty fundamental flaw in how you're looking at those results and that is there is pretty much no meaning to the argument you are putting forward based on the numbers. Having numbers in an argument doesn't benefit it unless there is some meaning behind using them.

First things first, the 7455 to 7447 sees an increase in the level 2 cache along with a better graphics cards and other motherboard improvements. You'd find the level 2 cache is almost entirely responsible for the improvement hence the reason the jump is more substantial.

Just looking at the 1.5 GHz vs the 1.33 GHz, and these are both the same chip with similar motherboards, you can see for near identical G4 systems the scaling in performance is crap. In fact for a 167 MHz it gains 33 seconds and you want to talk about the 7447 being an efficient chip? Add a 78 seconds to the G5's times to simulate a 1.5 GHz chip and it still comes out ahead, which actually suggests clock for clock it is more efficient. Mind you there is cross over at about 1.42 GHz.

The G4 was a potentially good chip but it's currently crippled and scaling it further won't gain anything. They either need to improve the G4, and there are plenty of areas to improve, or swap it out for a G5 if they realistically want to continue the line otherwise performance will just go nowhere. As for the power debate I don't think you'd find either chip is a great deal better for power. A 1.6 GHz G5 will have about the same power consumption as a 1.5 GHz G4 and Apple is using a higher bus speed and higher frequency, for reference the 7447A has a max power consumption of 30W at 1.42 GHz or 5W higher than 1.33 GHz and I suspect 1.5 GHz would be very close to 40. Where the differences lie would be the supporting architecture and cost.

If IBM can sort out their manufacturing I actually think the 970 would make a much tidier package, then again I'm not working on the engineering team so am not aware of what other issues they are currently facing.

[~Shard~]

MPC7455 1.25ghz scores 1412
MPC7447A 1.33ghz scores 1269
MPC7447A 1.5ghz scores 1236
IBM 970 1.6ghz scores 1123

7455 -> 7447A = 80mhz and 143 point shift
7447A -> 970 = 100mhz and 113 point shift
970 -> next 970 model = 200mhz and 157 point shift

143/80 = 1.79 per mhz
113/100 = 1.13 per mhz
157/200 = 0.78 per mhz

Despite the massive FSB, RAM, and I/O advantage, the G5 is slower clock-for-clock than the revised MPC7447A. This does not deny the performance shift, but it does show that the G5 is not necessarily as amazing in single processor systems as the G5 PowerBook zealots would have you believe.



More interestingly, the G5 loses on efficiency even when it has its support systems in place. Also, the towers suck up an astounding 420+ watts at peak operation, and that's without add-on cards or anything other than the parts inside the case when it ships.

Thanks for sorting me out thatwendigo, I don't think I was looking at quite the correct info on BareFeats - interesting! :cool: It still essentially sums up what you, I, and others here have been saying at least.

[NNO-Stephen]

ok, now, since I was saying replace the mid-range powerbook with the 1.6, and replace the 1.5Ghz with the 1.8Ghz.

redo your math and you see this would increase the performance of the PowerBooks, plus, move it to an architecture that is not almost entirely out of steam.


5. Rendering with Final Cut Pro is a CPU intensive operation. Adding "gobs" of memory or super fast disk arrays will not speed up rendering. If you want to render faster, get a faster CPU -- preferably two of them -- with a faster front side bus.


also, it's not the HD or tons of memory that make the PowerMacs faster, it's the CPU, and the non- "circa 1998" bus speed.

[JFreak]

actually, there's nothing wrong with G4 cpu:s itself, but the bus is really a limiting factor.

put in current 1.5GHz G4 and 1.6GHz G5 chips to a benchmark and you'll see that the G5 wins purely beca

use of the bus speed (throughput!) of the G5 that is about 5X of the G4 bus speed. apple once had the L3 cache in G4 chips and that helped a lot; in my personal experience i can say that a 667MHz 15" dvi powerbook is really equal in power to a 12" 867MHz powerbook - and the only major difference is that the 15" dvi pb has a 1MB L3 cache and the 12" pb doesn't have it. that L3 cache is a clear indicator about the benefit of the L3 cache, and i personally cannot see why on earth apple chose to drop the cache away in designing the al-books.

if apple chooses to continue using the G4 chip, they better re-introduce the L3 cache. it really helped a lot to hide the bottleneck of the crippled front-side-bus. naturally, it would be far better if the G4 could have a competitive fsb, but as that is not likely to happen, the G4 will need the L3 cache.

does anybody remember the "supercomputer" ads about the G4 chip? that hasn't gone anywhere, th G4 chip design is still more than ok. it is only the FSB that isn't feeding the cpu with enough data. so APPLE IF YOU'RE LISTENING, please, re-introduce the L3 cache or give a faster fsb if you're going to stick with the G4 with the powerbook line... give us protools users someting usable for a change. the current powerbooks are not cutting it.no mattr if the G4 could be run at 10GHz, the throughput isn't enough. fix it, period.

[NNO-Stephen]

It wasn't Apple that decided to drop the L3 cache from the 7447A CPU, it simply doesn't support it, that's why it's not there. Apple claims it doesn't need it because it now has 512k of L2 Cache.

the bus speed, also not going to change. again, not due to Apple, but the design of the G4 itself.

[Henriok]

if apple chooses to continue using the G4 chip, they better re-introduce the L3 cache.Apple does not manufacture nor design the G4 processors, Motorola/Freescale do. They have for some years done some serious refocus on the embedded market and large and fast L3 caches are no priority here.

Freescale have released some compellig roadmaps though with two new cores that will replace the G4 sometime in the future. e600 and e700 targets the high end embedded and computing market and will probably reintroduce L3 caches, as well as on die RapidIO based memory controllers.

The question is when.

[thatwendigo]

There's actually a pretty fundamental flaw in how you're looking at those results and that is there is pretty much no meaning to the argument you are putting forward based on the numbers. Having numbers in an argument doesn't benefit it unless there is some meaning behind using them.

The meaning is thus, since you missed it: Changing the processor to a hotter one doesn't really benefit (7447A to 970), whereas the [i]redesign[/o] of an existing line became more efficient (7455 to 7447A).

First things first, the 7455 to 7447 sees an increase in the level 2 cache along with a better graphics cards and other motherboard improvements. You'd find the level 2 cache is almost entirely responsible for the improvement hence the reason the jump is more substantial.

Motorola product data sheet (http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/taxonomy.jsp?nodeId=03C1TR04670871)

MPC7455 - 1.0ghz max frequency; 32.5w typical, 50w maxl; 1.3, 1.6, 1.8v core; 32k L1 Data, 32k L1 Int; 256k L2 Internal; 2MB max L3
MPC7447 (not A revision) - 1.267ghz max frequency; 18.3w typical, 25.6 max; 1.1, 1.3v core; 32k L1 Data; 32k L2 Int; 256k L2 Internal; no L3

And, pulled from MPC7447AEC Rev. 0, 2/2004 - MPC7447A RISC Microprocessor Hardware Specifications (a Motorola PDF):

MPC7447A - uncertain max frequency; 12.5w typical. 25w max (DFS enabled); v; 32k L1 Data; 32k Int; 512k L2 Internal

There is a discrepancy between the PDF (which is pre-release) and the later Motorola parts catalog that is linked above. The catalog claims 256k on the 7447, but the PDF says 512k on both 7447 and 7447A. That makes it a little hard to say for certain. The 7447A does have a thermal diode and a new feature called Dynamic Frequency Switching that keeps the processor from running anything close to maximum heat when its enabled, unless you're pushing it with full CPU usage all the time.

The G4 was a potentially good chip but it's currently crippled and scaling it further won't gain anything. They either need to improve the G4, and there are plenty of areas to improve, or swap it out for a G5 if they realistically want to continue the line otherwise performance will just go nowhere.

Which is one reason for the upcoming FreeScale e600/e700 lines of processors. (http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?nodeId=02VS0l72156402) The e600 is supposed to come in around 2.0ghz and climb from there, while supporting CMP (chip multiprocessing), which is a way to say that it's going to have more than one core on the die. It's also supposed to come in with a 400mhz FSB instead of the older 166mhz bus, on-die DDR control, and other niceties, with a target heat of 25 watts for the dual-core 2.0ghz part.

Oh, and it's instruction set compatible with the G4, so if your code runs on the G4, it runs just fine on the e600. For those who doubt that this can be done, FreeScale has already brought two new processors to market. The e300 and e500 are rolling as we speak.

A 1.6 GHz G5 will have about the same power consumption as a 1.5 GHz G4 and Apple is using a higher bus speed and higher frequency, for reference the 7447A has a max power consumption of 30W at 1.42 GHz or 5W higher than 1.33 GHz and I suspect 1.5 GHz would be very close to 40. Where the differences lie would be the supporting architecture and cost.

Actually, if you read the specifications in the PDF I mentioned, the DFS feature, when enabled, allows the MPC7447A to run at around 12.5 watts typical. This is because of the dynamic power management features in the chip, which allow it to actually beat the Centrino on low-powered state consumption at a mere 4 watts in sleep mode.

[Dont Hurt Me]

All i can say is thatwendigo has a lot of faith in Moto/freescale roadmaps not based on actual shipping cpu's such as current shipping G5. I have much more faith in IBM and what they can do rather then Moto's years of screwing Apple and Apple's customers with last place G4(unless the test is on powerused rather then performance. The current G5 was a rush job to get something to market to make up for lackluster G4. I think the new G5(WWDC) will show a more polished G5 (970 970fx 975 )or whatever but when i see 1 g5 1.8 matching and exceeding what 2 G4s 1.42 can do then you should know the gig is up with G4. way past time.

[thatwendigo]

All i can say is thatwendigo has a lot of faith in Moto/freescale roadmaps not based on actual shipping cpu's such as current shipping G5.

Not shipping? Crolles2 is on target and moving chips in volume, and FreeScale has been consistently providing what they said they would, incvlcuding bringing new and competitive processors out in the e300 and e500 lines. They never said that the e600 would be available right now, and neither have I, aside from a few wishful comments about wanting one in the PowerBookj.

I have much more faith in IBM and what they can do rather then Moto's years of screwing Apple and Apple's customers with last place G4

Ah, right... IBM's vastly superior because they've put out a lot of 970 consumer revision... Oh, no, it seems that we're still waiting on the chips to be delivered. Really, DHM, it doesn't make any sense to be cheerleading IBM when they've yet to truly prove that they're going to do things differently than the old Motorola. If they show an update at WWDC that's significant, then that goes a long way towards making a name for them with the mac world, but it still leaves a yearlong gap.

At the end of the day, we're all operating on a thin layer of fact and a lot of speculation. It's senseless to be in either the IBM or FreeScale camp until we see just what Big Blue can do. :rolleyes:

The current G5 was a rush job to get something to market to make up for lackluster G4. I think the new G5(WWDC) will show a more polished G5 (970 970fx 975 )

This is one of the rare things that I've seen you say that I might agree with, though it's still not exactly how I would put things. We might or might not see a "polished" G5 at the conference, and if it's nothing more than slightly bumped 970s or 970FXs, then I'm going to be a little more than lightly pissed at IBM.

That's putting us back in that "slow" boat that you keep calling the G4 and blaming on Motorola.

or whatever but when i see 1 g5 1.8 matching and exceeding what 2 G4s 1.42 can do then you should know the gig is up with G4. way past time.

Unlikely, but possible. We'll see what the conference brings.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Question is will Apple wait for WWDC to update the powermac? WWDC will tell the story of what Apple is doing and where they are going. Apple has known a lot longer then you or I about Freescales/moto plans and wouldnt have signed on to IBM unless they were going this route. as of today there is no G4 that can take on a G5 and you know it. To sell computers you have to move forward and roadmaps and promises dont cut it. G5 is real,e600 e700 are not but i will concede that why bother with a e600 at all unless it was going to be used by Apple? we can speculate forever no one knows what Apple does until they do it. Fact is G5 kills G4 and Apple says so themself. Selling G4 for years hasnt helped Apple marketshare and i would say that G4 is one of the main reasons so many left Apple.

If Apple wants to act like top dog and price for it then the Cpu they are using better kick the crap out of the other guys and G4 hasnt done that in years. Solution? G5s :D my next machine will have one.