Say Hello to the PPC NextGen (G5?) [Archive]

DaveGee

Aug 7, 2002, 11:03 PM

Well boys and girls what you are about to read is what I think the next 'MAJOR' bump to the PowerMac will be powered by.... And it AIN'T a MOT CPU!!!

"IBM is disclosing the technical details of a new 64-bit PowerPC microprocessor designed for desktops and entry-level servers. Based on the award winning Power4 design, this processor is an 8-way superscalar design that fully supports Symmetric MultiProcessing. The processor is further enhanced by a vector processing unit implementing over 160 specialized vector instructions and implements a system interface capable of up to 6.4GB/s."

And before anyone asks...

In articles where Altivec has been written about they also state phrase 'over 160 specialized vector instructions' so even if IBM can't or ain't calling it Altivec it sure as heck 'sounds' pretty dern close.

Link: http://www.mdronline.com/mpf/conf.html

EDIT..

Oh and HyperTransport just happens to be/support 6.4 GB/s.

Dave

theranch

Aug 7, 2002, 11:23 PM

Sounds good so far...

theranch

Aug 7, 2002, 11:25 PM

Too bad that conference is in October...it would rule out a G5 in August.

Mr. Anderson

Aug 7, 2002, 11:27 PM

Disclosing new technical details? This won't be ready anytime soon - at least not something to get excited about yet. Its all *futuretech*, and its not happening till October. Nice specs though - love to have one now.

D

Hemingray

Aug 7, 2002, 11:41 PM

Well, based upon Apple's current rollout of "new" technologies, we should be seeing this in no LESS than a year... sounds promising but I'm certainly not expecting to see it any time soon.

DaveGee

Aug 7, 2002, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by dukestreet
Disclosing new technical details? This won't be ready anytime soon - at least not something to get excited about yet. Its all *futuretech*, and its not happening till October. Nice specs though - love to have one now.

I'm not so sure about that... hey you might be right but if the next PowerMac really does have a MASIVE heatsync (as per those leaked pics) then this sure as heck could be the reason... 8 way superscalar (all things being equal - but their not) that means twice as fast as the G4 at a given speed!! :eek: (the G4 is 4 way superscalar)

Dave

ibookin'

Aug 7, 2002, 11:53 PM

30th post...

I would love to see such a thing. It would be AMAZING if Apple could beat the PC makers to the puch and offer HyperTransport before they did. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that HyperTransport has been adopted yet in the PC world (haven't seen mobos supporting it, not card, etc.)

Too bad it probably won't happen...:(

snoopy

Aug 8, 2002, 12:41 AM

We have no idea how long IBM has been working on this. It could be close, which goes along with some information that came with those deleted pictures. It is said to be "next generation G5 ready." If so, Steve anounces the new PowerMac line up with G4s now, and introduces the soon to be released G5. Then Apple will really have the power to run very high end video applications. No? It could also go into a 2U or 3U rackmount, as the anouncement said "for desktops and entry level servers." I hope we won't be disapointed.

DakotaGuy

Aug 8, 2002, 01:07 AM

It all makes some sense now. I think the statement that the Canadian Motorola made about Moto stopping development on the PPC for the desktop market is true. Apple has probably been working with IBM for some time now in this processor. I would make a bet...and a pretty sure one at that...IBM will take over the PowerPC for Apple in the future...you can count out AMD and Intel...this is the way Apple will go....mark my word on this.

Nipsy

Aug 8, 2002, 01:23 AM

Motorola = Semi conductor company
Motorolla = German moped parts store

dongmin

Aug 8, 2002, 01:23 AM

Well a few weeks ago, there was a rumor posted on MOSR claiming that the G5s to be introduced next year are to be Power4 based. This new development certainly adds more fuel to that fire.

an older thread on this topic (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=7601)

We know IBM's desktop hardware presence is small (if any at all) so this new desktop-targeted PPC chip can't be for themselves. And if it's PPC-based, it's probably not for the x86 crowd. Who does that leave? Linux? Nah, it's gotta be Macs.

-new Mac cases with a radically redesigned cooling system...
-IBM opening a new state-of-the-art manufacturing plant...
-And now this...

the pieces are falling into place...

nuckinfutz

Aug 8, 2002, 02:28 AM

IBM's not building it to sit idle. This proc sounds very interesting. I thing the possibilities are definitly there.

alex_ant

Aug 8, 2002, 04:24 AM

A lot of people are saying "PPC is dying! Apple needs to switch x86 pronto!" This article is only further proof that PowerPC is a strong architecture that will be around for a long time, even if it's not very strong in its G4 iteration. Can we kill the x86 rumors now... please?

One thing about IBM is that they don't drag their asses like Motorola. When they announce a chip, there it comes. Articles like this make me question the sanity of those who think Apple should port to x86 - most computer companies would KILL to have IBM AND Motorola peeling their grapes.

Alex

GrizzlyHippo

Aug 8, 2002, 04:52 AM

I hope this comes to the Mac soon. My problem is that I need to upgrade from my G4/400 AGP a.s.a.p. and I'm waiting for the next PowerMac announcement before making a decision what to do.

Trouble is a 1Ghz upgrade card is £700 and a new base model of whatever is launched should be around £1300. So I think I have to buy whatever Apple launches, as the upgrade card seems a false economy even though the thought of having another G4 for a few years doesn't fill me with joy.

If this IBM processor is true, it would be really nice to get a hint as to when it will come to market. I don't want to stick with the G4/400 any longer than I have to but if IBM powered Macs were to come in January I'd be really peeved if I buy a G4 this month.

Oh God, the termoil.

P.S. Can anyone help with my first ever post in the 'General Mac Discussion' forum about updating a Mk1 iBook... Thanks.

Nipsy

Aug 8, 2002, 05:00 AM

Originally posted by theranch
Too bad that conference is in October...it would rule out a G5 in August.

Not necessarily...if aliens killed Kennedy because the Loch Ness monster told them to, Apple may intro this chip from Area 51, and this October conference may be IBM's chance to explain the technology to industry.

If Apple and IBM have secured the '160 Vector instructions' from Motorola, and black op'ed this chip in secret (we all know Apple loves secrets), IBM may relaize there is value in letting Apple get the press for consumer and IT sales, and wow industry purchasers in October.

Or, it could just be an announcement of a new chip for us to wait for...

Chryx

Aug 8, 2002, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by ibookin'@mwny
I would love to see such a thing. It would be AMAZING if Apple could beat the PC makers to the puch and offer HyperTransport before they did. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that HyperTransport has been adopted yet in the PC world (haven't seen mobos supporting it, not card, etc.)

Nforce boards have utilised Hypertransport links for 9 months or so now?

tjwett

Aug 8, 2002, 06:26 AM

sounds promising. i'll bet my left nut that Apple goes IBM and ditches MOTO. And BTW, Moto does not own the actual technology of a vector proc unit. they own the name "AltiVec" and their exact instruction of it. that doesn't mean the rest of the world are not free to build similar, bigger, or better VPUs. this is worth waiting for.

Faeylyn

Aug 8, 2002, 06:49 AM

This processor was announced last October. I doubt IBM has been sitting around playing solitare since then. Even if it doesn't make it into this next round of Macs (and I think it will), my guess is it will be out in less than 12 months.

topicolo

Aug 8, 2002, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Chryx

Nforce boards have utilised Hypertransport links for 9 months or so now?

Not to my knowledge (or any of the hardware sites' either)

whiskeybravo

Aug 8, 2002, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by snoopy
If so, Steve anounces the new PowerMac line up with G4s now, and introduces the soon to be released G5.

I don't see that happening, Steve is a bit more clever than that. Introducing the new G4's and simutaneously announcing G5 plans whould effectively cut the legs off of G4 sales. If the G5 is around the corner, but Apple can't wait to introduce new motherboards/architecture, you can bet Steve will trumpet the G4 as the mostest insanely greatestest processor ever...only to be replaced with a G5 at MW in the Spring :)

sneed

Aug 8, 2002, 11:12 AM

It may be one reason why os9 is due to be abandoned this fall.

jadam

Aug 8, 2002, 11:22 AM

not really sneed, its PPC compatible, no reason why it cant boot into OS0.

Nvidia Nforce mobos do have hypertransport, so does XBox.

w00t for apple, IBM all the way!

macmunch

Aug 8, 2002, 11:26 AM

Hmm looks good I think ...

6,4 GB /troughput the same size as the Nforce2 can manage
interesting !

:)

We see a G5(or new chip) and a Nforce2 ?

sneed

Aug 8, 2002, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by jadam
not really sneed, its PPC compatible, no reason why it cant boot into OS0....

Wouldn't there be an issue with 64 bit?

mischief

Aug 8, 2002, 11:38 AM

Since it's clear that the p58 chassis rumoured to be replacing the current Quicksilvers is still basically the same frame and structure it's quite possible Junkyard is a part-out option for present B&W G3 and G4 tower owners.:eek:

Wouldn't that be a kick in the ass?

Take in that old pre-sawtooth G4 and have it's guts, panels and power supply swapped out for a G5 w/Hypertransport and DDR333.

( HUGE EVIL GRIN):D :eek: :D :p

drastik

Aug 8, 2002, 11:51 AM

All Right, this could be very cool. I'd like to See it by Next year, just in time for me to buy, probably cost a bundle though. Maybe IBM can produce enough chips to keep em cheap though, moto can't seem too, but the Saharas are cheap, and peopl keep saying on par with G4 sans Altivec.:D

Chryx

Aug 8, 2002, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by topicolo
Not to my knowledge (or any of the hardware sites' either)

How about straight from the Horses mouth?

Nforce page on Nvidia.com (http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?PAGE=nforce)

The SPP/IGP features the TwinBank™ Memory Architecture for efficient memory processing, a Dynamic Adaptive Speculative Pre-processor™ (DASP) to help boost CPU performance, and the AMD HyperTransport, a high-performance I/O bus interface.

For the record, the interconnect between chipset components on Nforce is Hypertransport.

Faeylyn

Aug 8, 2002, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by jadam
not really sneed, its PPC compatible, no reason why it cant boot into OS0.

While getting OS9 to work on newer hardware like this is technically possible, it also would be a big resource drain on Apple. And it's not just booting, but all the drivers for all the different goodies out there. The more radical the change to the machine, the more time it will take. Why bother?

bobindashadows

Aug 8, 2002, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by sneed

Wouldn't there be an issue with 64 bit?
There could be a 64-bit/backwards compat-32 bit proc to run classic in os x, but when Apple drops classic bootup their just going to take out the boot handlers/(drivers whatever you want to call them) for os 9. Apple isn't going to want to hold on to OS 9 that long, and I'm pretty sure that if there was no backwards compat- chip and classic didn't work on 64 bit (dunno if it wouldn't but i don't think so) then Apple would take this chip over classic.

Just my non-refundable $0.02 USD Restrictions Apply Results may vary.

sneed

Aug 8, 2002, 12:08 PM

rice_web

Aug 8, 2002, 12:25 PM

How many pipeline stages in this puppy? If it's 4, that will be three less than the current batch of G4s, and result in more work per clock--just like the 750FX is now.

And that vector processing... yowser, this could be great.

digital1

Aug 8, 2002, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by bobindashadows

There could be a 64-bit/backwards compat-32 bit proc to run classic in os x, but when Apple drops classic bootup their just going to take out the boot handlers/(drivers whatever you want to call them) for os 9. Apple isn't going to want to hold on to OS 9 that long, and I'm pretty sure that if there was no backwards compat- chip and classic didn't work on 64 bit (dunno if it wouldn't but i don't think so) then Apple would take this chip over classic.

Just my non-refundable $0.02 USD Restrictions Apply Results may vary.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, there could be special handlers directly on the processor that could handle backwards compatibility. Basically you throw seperate pipes within the processor core to handle this. And since this could be based on the Power4 processor, and the Power4 processor was designed to handle multiple cores, hardware wise this could be possible. But also, I think it would be apple shooting itself in the foot. They are talking so much about putting OS 9.2.x to rest and letting OS X take the torch. But hardware wise this could be possible.:D ;)

ddtlm

Aug 8, 2002, 12:37 PM

rice_web:

Well over 4 stages, since it's Power4 related. I don't know how many Power4 has, but at 1.3ghz and 130nm, it's not any 4-stage chip.

Chryx:

Bingo about hypertransport.

mischief:

A nice dream, but I don't know how you'd cool a "G5" in a case without the right fans in the right places.

macmunch:

Give up on the nForce2. It's not even very good, all it offers is onboard graphics almost as good as GF4MX. AFAIK, it fails to outperform more down-to-earth alternatives such as VIA's KT400.

everyone:

There is nothing to suggest this will be released anytime real soon, but I bet it will show up in 2003 and give Apple a fighting chance again.

Hawthorne

Aug 8, 2002, 12:39 PM

What is the heat output associated with this chip? Does it mean the installation of so many fans that a Mac would sound like the flight line of the John C. Stennis?

StephenBeckwith

Aug 8, 2002, 12:41 PM

In case you all missed it, when AMD showed off their "Hammer" parts back during the IDF (Intel Developer Forum) in Feb 2002, the test systems were running with API (the old Alpha Semi guys) HT silicon, primarily for CPU to PCI bridge functionality. The Hammer (or Opteron, or whatever they call them these days) are built strictly with HT interfaces. So, this technology has been around for quite some time. It will be interesting to WHEN (not IF) HT makes it's debut in a "mainstream" PC System (Mac or otherwise).

sneed

Aug 8, 2002, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Hawthorne
What is the heat output associated with this chip? Does it mean the installation of so many fans that a Mac would sound like the flight line of the John C. Stennis?

wouldn't the larger heat sink take care of that?

Rocketman

Aug 8, 2002, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by dongmin

We know IBM's desktop hardware presence is small (if any at all) so this new desktop-targeted PPC chip can't be for themselves. And if it's PPC-based, it's probably not for the x86 crowd. Who does that leave? Linux? Nah, it's gotta be Macs.
[/B]

TV commercials in the LA market for IBM tout their hardware with linux os.

Rocketman

bousozoku

Aug 8, 2002, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Faeylyn
This processor was announced last October. I doubt IBM has been sitting around playing solitare since then. Even if it doesn't make it into this next round of Macs (and I think it will), my guess is it will be out in less than 12 months.

if they are playing solitaire, they're probably playing it really fast. :)

digital1

Aug 8, 2002, 12:50 PM

Think about it this way. If any of you have seen the huge layer of Heat sink for the PS2,than you can speak too. But I think if you have a decent enough heat sink, and Decent fans, and just plain good ol' manufacturing processes. By the time these processors come out we will .13 and .1 manufacturing processes, and that will dramatically cut down heat dissipation.

Chryx

Aug 8, 2002, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by ddtlm

Give up on the nForce2. It's not even very good, all it offers is onboard graphics almost as good as GF4MX. AFAIK, it fails to outperform more down-to-earth alternatives such as VIA's KT400.

Point of contradiction #1 : VIA chipsets tend to be fast, but twitchy

Point of contradiction #2 : Nforce also offers a pretty powerful DSP for Audio purposes, I can see that being useful in a mac

Point of contradiction #3 : remove the onboard video (which I can still see as a useful thing for consumer lines) and you have a BIG FAT MEMORY SUBSYSTEM to feed whatever processor you hang off it, dual PC3200 channels and a processor with an FSB big enough to actually utilise that bandwidth would be somewhat astonishing :)

the current Athlon's only have a 133Mhz DDR fsb, which is obviously the bottleneck,

Processor < 2.1GB/s > Memory controller in 'northbridge' < 6.4GB/s > memory

crank the FSB of the processor up to match and you have a serious powerhouse :)

dongmin

Aug 8, 2002, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Faeylyn
This processor was announced last October. I doubt IBM has been sitting around playing solitare since then. Even if it doesn't make it into this next round of Macs (and I think it will), my guess is it will be out in less than 12 months.

Can you provide a link of this announcement?

Assuming the rumored new motherboard and case makes an appearance next week, I would say 12 months MAX before the G5 replaces the G4.

My bet is for MWNY, July 2003.

Chryx

Aug 8, 2002, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by rice_web
How many pipeline stages in this puppy? If it's 4, that will be three less than the current batch of G4s, and result in more work per clock--just like the 750FX is now.

For the record, the number of stages isn't directly tied to the IPC.

notice how the 12-stage AthlonXP manages to land fairly evenly with the 7-Stage 7455 on a clock-for-clock basis. (unless Altivec and/or L3 cache come into the equation)

mischief

Aug 8, 2002, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by ddtlm
rice_web:

mischief:

A nice dream, but I don't know how you'd cool a "G5" in a case without the right fans in the right places.

Perhaps you read too quickly: I was saying that the FRAME was effectively unchanged and that it would be possible to swap out BASICALLY EVERYTHING. If you saw the P58 images and really looked at them you'd see that it's an El Capitan with it's guts completely reworked, new faceplate/backplate assemblies and a fan hacked into the stationary side. Really it would be quite possible for all but the dual Optical drives.

Chryx

Aug 8, 2002, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by dongmin
Can you provide a link of this announcement?

I think he means the POWER4 (which was announced/released late last year) ?

bobindashadows

Aug 8, 2002, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by sneed

wouldn't the larger heat sink take care of that?

The heat sink wouldn't dampen the sound of the fans, well maybe a little if the fans are close enough to the heat sink, though i doubt Apple would release a machine that loud ;-)

sneed

Aug 8, 2002, 01:09 PM

I was under the impression that a heat sink reduces the need for fans.

bobindashadows

Aug 8, 2002, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by digital1
Think about it this way. If any of you have seen the huge layer of Heat sink for the PS2,than you can speak too. But I think if you have a decent enough heat sink, and Decent fans, and just plain good ol' manufacturing processes. By the time these processors come out we will .13 and .1 manufacturing processes, and that will dramatically cut down heat dissipation.

I recently had a little lesson in transistor construction with a man by the name of Dr. Murarka - the person titled as being the father of the copper manufacturing process, and i believe (believe) he said that the smallest theoretical space we are going to be able to use w/ a practical amount of leakage is .11 microns... however i might be mistaken.

ddtlm

Aug 8, 2002, 01:11 PM

Chryx:

IBM will have their own chipsets as they always do... I would be amazed if the nForce2 was even on their radar. People *love* to believe unsubstantiated rumors round these forums, but just cause the nForce2 exists, just cause it has two channels of DDR memory, and just cause it sounds like it could be cool... we have not been provided any reason to believe that it will ever show up in a Mac.

The Athlon's FSB "which is obviously the bottleneck" is not really standing in the way of progress, see http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2002q3/athlon-333bus/index.x?pg=1
for some hard numbers. At anandtech there is an article http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1344 which shows that lower speed Athlons (up to 1.2ghz) do not benefit much from DDR vs SDR. Since the G4 core outside of AltiVec is arguably weaker than the Athlon core, and since the G4 additionally has an L3 cache which reduces main memory traffic, there is no reason to believe that DDR is a big deal for the G4 or that dual-channel DDR would be a big deal for this "G5". I think that overall, bandwidth is overated, and has become nothing more than a scapegoat for the G4's performance.

As I've said many times, my 1.53ghz Athlon on KT133A (PC133) kicks the crud out of my G4-800-DP on PC133.

Chryx

Aug 8, 2002, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by bobindashadows

I recently had a little lesson in transistor construction with a man by the name of Dr. Murarka - the person titled as being the father of the copper manufacturing process, and i believe (believe) he said that the smallest theoretical space we are going to be able to use w/ a practical amount of leakage is .11 microns... however i might be mistaken.

I think Intel have already got .09 stuff working in the labs?

dongmin

Aug 8, 2002, 01:15 PM

Remember this quote by Steve Jobs:
"Now, as you point out, once our transition to Mac OS 10 is complete, which I expect will be around the end of this year or sometime early next year and we get the top 20% of our installed base running 10, and I think the next 20 will come very rapidly after that. Then we'll have options, and we like to have options. But right now, between Motorola and IBM, the roadmap looks pretty decent."

He seems to be hinting at two things here: first, dropping OS 9 support and second, introducing new architecture(s), made possible by going fully OS X. And even though it's ambiguous, he seems fairly comfortable with staying with the PPC for a while. (that means no to OS X on Intel)

He makes the point of mentioning both Moto and IBM so IBM will obviously play a big role in the future, and we know that's not going to be with G3s.

"The roadmap on the PowerPC actually looks pretty good and there are some advantages to it. As an example, the PowerPC has something in it called AltiVec, we call the Velocity Engine -- it's a vector engine -- it dramatically accelerates media, much better than, as an example, the Intel processors or the AMD processors... so we actually eke out a fair amount of performance from these things when all is said and done."

Yeah, Altivec is here to stay. IBM must be licensing it from Moto. Or maybe Apple bought out the PPC assets from Moto. It's one aspect of the G4 that really shines. So it's good to see Apple keeping it around and committing to it more. Hopefully developers are hearing this and following suit.

Chryx

Aug 8, 2002, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by ddtlm
Chryx:

IBM will have their own chipsets as they always do... I would be amazed if the nForce2 was even on their radar. People *love* to believe unsubstantiated rumors round these forums, but just cause the nForce2 exists, just cause it has two channels of DDR memory, and just cause it sounds like it could be cool... we have not been provided any reason to believe that it will ever show up in a Mac.

Absolutely, I think it's very unlikely that we'll see Nvidia chipsets in Macs at any point, I would like to see a DSP for audio purposes though, realtime 5.1 encoding would seem like a Digital Hub features if anything is :)

The Athlon's FSB "which is obviously the bottleneck" is not really standing in the way of progress, see http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2002q3/athlon-333bus/index.x?pg=1
for some hard numbers. At anandtech there is an article http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1344 which shows that lower speed Athlons (up to 1.2ghz) do not benefit much from DDR vs SDR

The higher clocked Athlons (1.8Ghz / 2200+) ARE FSB limited, to the extent that if you overclock the FSB from 133Mhz to 166Mhz you get roughly two speed grades worth of performance at the same clockspeed.

133/166Mhz FSB article on Tech Report (http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2002q3/athlon-333bus/index.x?pg=1)

And for the record, I saw a VISIBLE speed improvement switching from PC133 (cas2) to DDR (also CAS2) with the same AthlonXP 1700+, it wasn't just a "ooh, it benchmarks faster now" thing, games ran visibly smoother for example :) (same board BTW, SiS 735 based)

having a big fast L3 cache is all well and good, but it's not much use if your dataset is larger than the cache size.
(how fast is the L3 cache on a Quicksilver anyway, and not the raw cache speed, the speed it connects to the G4?)

Also, all the coders I've spoken to on the matter say that Altivec is bandwidth limited a lot of the time, a faster FSB and a suitably meaty memory subsystem would be of huge benefit to the Mac based on what they've told me.

ddtlm

Aug 8, 2002, 01:24 PM

sneed:

You bet, huge heatsink plus large, slow fan => heat "breezes" away. Very quiet. Sadly, I've seen things like that in some OEM PC's for a while, bout time Apple got on the ball.

mischief:

Ahh, yes seems I did. But I still don't agree with you. :)

Chryx

Aug 8, 2002, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by bobindashadows

The heat sink wouldn't dampen the sound of the fans, well maybe a little if the fans are close enough to the heat sink, though i doubt Apple would release a machine that loud ;-)

Um, that would increase the turbulence... and hence the noise?...

sneed

Aug 8, 2002, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by ddtlm
sneed:

You bet, huge heatsink plus large, slow fan => heat "breezes" away. Very quiet. Sadly, I've seen things like that in some OEM PC's for a while, bout time Apple got on the ball.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=8117

dongmin

Aug 8, 2002, 01:32 PM

BTW, what the heck does 8-way superscalar design mean? Does it mean 8 cores on a single chip or 8-stage pipeline or that it can clock like crazy?

ddtlm

Aug 8, 2002, 01:37 PM

Chryx:

Do you find it amusing that you linked exactly the same article that I did? In any case, the 25% increase in FSB sure did not yield anywhere near a 25% increase in performance, which I believe backs up my assertion that the Athlon is not especially bound by it's FSB speed.

My point about my Athlon on PC133 is that is so much faster than my G4 on PC133, which suggests that PC133 would not benefit the G4 much in situtions that I have encountered.

The L3 on current Apollo G4's is 1/4 clock speed and DDR, so it's effective 500mhz on the 1.0ghz machine. The data bus is 64 bits wide. This means the bandwidth is not that high, but the latency is still very good compared to main RAM. Even though 2mb is small compared to main RAM, most of the time it should do a very nice job of reducing main memory usuage.

I agree that AltiVec can use up all available memory bandwidth, but for most of us that just isn't an issue. I'd much rather have G4 clock speed than a pure DDR memory system right now.

snoopy

Aug 8, 2002, 01:46 PM

Adding to the speculation, what about the G4? IBM might be building one, but the 64 bit processor gets the attention. The last statement is, "... implements a system interface capable of up to 6.4GB/s." The system interface a weak link of current G4s, yes? Low end PowerMacs would likely use a G4, but current G4s may not be compatible with the G5 for motherboard functions. If IBM builds a G5 for Apple, it would be simple to do a G4 with the same system interface.

ddtlm

Aug 8, 2002, 01:47 PM

dongmin:

"Superscalar" => beyond-scalar => more than one instruction per clock cycle. They are claiming this "G5" can theoretically do 8 instuctions per clock cycle (in an ideal case obviously).

Chryx

Aug 8, 2002, 01:48 PM

[/i]
Chryx:
Do you find it amusing that you linked exactly the same article that I did? In any case, the 25% increase in FSB sure did not yield anywhere near a 25% increase in performance, which I believe backs up my assertion that the Athlon is not especially bound by it's FSB speed.

It wasn't bound by it's FSB, but it's becoming that way, when a 33Mhz DDR bus speed increase gives you the same performance increase as a 200Mhz core increase?.. well, that should tell you something, and what it should tell you is that the core is starving for data :)

My point about my Athlon on PC133 is that is so much faster than my G4 on PC133, which suggests that PC133 would not benefit the G4 much in situtions that I have encountered.

oh, you just reminded me, the Athlon has a much meatier FSB than the G4, which means that it can get much closer to saturating the memory subsystem whilst it's communicating with other things in the system (eg, it has the "opposite" of the Xserve situation, the processor can service everything but the memory subsystem is easily maxed out), also I've heard from (fairly reliable sources, but don't quote me on this) that the G4's FSB is actually quite inefficent on a per-mhz basis.

Also, the Xserve benchmarks I've seen would indicate that DDR helps quite a bit... unless there's something going on in the Xserve architecture that nobody is telling me about :)

The L3 on current Apollo G4's is 1/4 clock speed and DDR, so it's effective 500mhz on the 1.0ghz machine. The data bus is 64 bits wide.

Yes, I know that, but is the actual interlink between the G4 core and the L3 running at 250Mhz DDR?

This means the bandwidth is not that high, but the latency is still very good compared to main RAM. Even though 2mb is small compared to main RAM, most of the time it should do a very nice job of reducing main memory usuage.
Indeed, cache is a good thing, but it can't make up for a slow FSB AND a slow memory subsystem all by itself, a balanced architecture is better IMO.

I agree that AltiVec can use up all available memory bandwidth, but for most of us that just isn't an issue. I'd much rather have G4 clock speed than a pure DDR memory system right now.

Personally, I'd rather it were clocked higher (substantially), AND had a DDR memory subsystem AND 4MB of DDR Sram, but I'm picky like that :)

bobindashadows

Aug 8, 2002, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by sneed
I was under the impression that a heat sink reduces the need for fans.

Well it does, but i mean there's a pretty good size heat sink in the G4 tower and it still has a number of fans. I personally don't know the heat produced by the power4, but I don't think even a huge heat sink is going to eliminate the need for fans. Like i said, Apple isn't going to produce a loud computer anyway so why argue about it?

Chryx

Aug 8, 2002, 01:56 PM

BTW ddtlm, when I was referring to the Athlon's FSB being a bottleneck, I was referring to it not being able to utilise all the memory bandwidth available, NOT to it being 100% memory bound.

If the cpu NEEDS that extra bandwidth or not is a different issue, the point is that having the bandwidth is fairly pointless unless the chip can actually use it :)

bobindashadows

Aug 8, 2002, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Chryx

I think Intel have already got .09 stuff working in the labs?

Ah - well like i said i probably got the number wrong, but i'll talk to him again

ddtlm

Aug 8, 2002, 02:04 PM

Chryx:

As revealed on this page http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2002q3/athlon-333bus/index.x?pg=3 of TR's review, the increase in core clock was in fact 133mhz in one case (2 speed grades) and 166mhz in the other, not 200mhz. Additionally, those 33mhz of FSB represented a 25% increase whereas the 166mhz represented only a 10% increase and the 133mhz represented only a 7.5% increase. As far as I can tell, in NOT ONE benchmark did the FSB increase yield more performance than the clock speed increase, although at ~ the same core clock, the faster RAM almost always meant a faster system. Looks pretty definate to me: the 333mhz FSB is no big deal.

The bus connected the L3 to the 1.0ghz G4 runs at 500mhz (250x2).

ibookin'

Aug 8, 2002, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by topicolo

Not to my knowledge (or any of the hardware sites' either)

I think topicolo is right. I haven't seen any mobos with true HyperTransport technology yet myself.

Joshlew

Aug 8, 2002, 02:27 PM

64-bit G5 by IBM.........

Excellent............:cool:

Chryx

Aug 8, 2002, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by ibookin'@mwny

I think topicolo is right. I haven't seen any mobos with true HyperTransport technology yet myself.

both the Xbox and the Xbox derived Nforce boards have real Hypertransport buses on them...

If you mean CPU <> other component interlinks, then no, they haven't been seen outside of an AMD Hammer demonstration.

ImAlwaysRight

Aug 8, 2002, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by bobindashadows
... Apple isn't going to produce a loud computer anyway so why argue about it?
You must not have one of the 2002 Quicksilvers. I owned a dual 1ghz and the thing was so noisy I sold it. I hope Apple gets noise under control with the new case design. At least put in some higher quality fans that have a lower noise output. The new iMac G4 fans run virtually silent. Let's hope the new PowerMacs are quieter than the Quicksilvers.

myrdred23

Aug 8, 2002, 02:36 PM

Oh if these are going to be built in their recently opened ny factory then they will be .1 micron because they announced this at the opening of the factory.

ddtlm

Aug 8, 2002, 02:42 PM

ibookin'@mwny:

The nForce does in fact have a hypertransport link between it's chipset components and it does exist. Note, that's the nForce (1) not (2), so it's not even all that new.

Hypertransport is no big deal IMO, won't replace the current FSB, won't replace AGP... won't replace PCI... it's an internal interface. It is designed for chip-to-chip comunication such as for AMD's upcoming SMP systems and nVidia's nForce.

kenohki

Aug 8, 2002, 02:46 PM

Rocketman

Aug 8, 2002, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Joshlew
64-bit G5 by IBM.........

Excellent............:cool:

and I wrote in another thread (in part)

Originally posted by Rocketman

The fact that future Macs will not even boot on OS9 is your indicator of things to come. Unix kernal is OS agnostic and processor agnostic. A today Mac for example can boot OS9 and thus VCP running every major flavor of Wintel OS on a "virtual machine".

OSX classic is OS9 on a "virtual machine". In short very son now your main OS will be Unix/OSX and any legacy applications will run on virtual machines smoother, faster, more reliably than they did on legacy hardware!

This is a good thing. Furthermore this whole environment will run on whatever chips happen to be hooked underneath. Right now the debate is PowerPC v Intel v AMD. But in the near future it will be Sparc v Power v BioChip(tm).

This is the very leading edge of the "new era" in computing. On the lower end the CPU agnostic OS allows use in embedded systems like phones and pagers and dishwashers.

We are witnessing the first round of an infection perhaps more pervasive and long lasting than any windows variant, which itself was lisenced from, um, APPLE!.

Rocketman

This also means servers can run 64 bit applications right now (many web server applications have been compiled for 64 bit already). This is NOT a consumer chip and even might not be a prosumer chipset. It is a server.

The bottom line is this. When a superchip comes out, it can have a low level kernal written for it to chat with OSX and is immediately useable. I suspect 64 bit Power chips will have 32 bit and perhaps even 16 bit modes for compatibility during transitions.

The scary thing is this announcement will start the rumor mill about 128 bit chips. "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

The rest of the computer cannot keep up with the chips now. Hypertransport is one bottleneck reduced, but I/O is going to require a Firewire 2 main drive bay protocol as well and possibly some sord of solid state drive to keep up with it all.

I used to have a solid state drive hooked to my Mac+ and to be honest my G4 is not all that much faster.

Rocketman

i_wolf

Aug 8, 2002, 02:59 PM

Just my two cents worth. Opteron will be launching shortly. I reckon that we will see G5 much much sooner than later. Please don't flame me for saying this but i would not be surprised if we see one of these babies announced at the end of this month with production and shipping to begin in October. Apple probably have one of those agreements with IBM as they did with MOTO where they get to demonstrate the newest processor first.
Also for what ever its worth i live in Ireland. There is a huge apple manufacturing plant down in the south of Ireland in a place called Cork. I rang apple today because i was not so sure whether or not i should place an order for a DP 1GHZ ... i was worried that it might go out of date. The sales rep on the phone (very nice to deal with) said that i should not worry.... it was said to me that i should not worry because if i buy a G4 dual Proc this week .. if apple were to launch a G5 in the next few weeks.... and she would not commit on knowing anything officially about a g5 launch ...soon after they will upgrade it to the G5 for me at cost difference.
The very fact that she did not say "listen there s no such thing as a G5 and if there was it would be months if not years away" on top of the fact that IBM have this wonder proc.... makes you think. Just my two cents worth. I don't claim to know anything!
Regards,
i_wolf

StuPid QPid

Aug 8, 2002, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by ImAlwaysRight

You must not have one of the 2002 Quicksilvers. I owned a dual 1ghz and the thing was so noisy I sold it. I hope Apple gets noise under control with the new case design. At least put in some higher quality fans that have a lower noise output. The new iMac G4 fans run virtually silent. Let's hope the new PowerMacs are quieter than the Quicksilvers.

What I can't understand is that we have the technology to make computer chips with 90nm pipelines, but are unable to come up with a silent fan :confused:

I know the make some noise owing to air turbulence, but maybe the blades need redesigning? I'm not a mechanical engineer, but is there some physical reason why it's not possible to make a fan quieter?

davei

Aug 8, 2002, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by StuPid QPid

I know the make some noise owing to air turbulence, but maybe the blades need redesigning? I'm not a mechanical engineer, but is there some physical reason why it's not possible to make a fan quieter?

A fan can only push so much air. You can make the blades bigger and make it spin slower, make the blades smaller and make it spin faster, etc. It's cost vs. noise. Most people side with cost. Those that have no regard for cost go with water cooling. :)

ftaok

Aug 8, 2002, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by dongmin
Yeah, Altivec is here to stay. IBM must be licensing it from Moto. Or maybe Apple bought out the PPC assets from Moto. It's one aspect of the G4 that really shines. So it's good to see Apple keeping it around and committing to it more. Hopefully developers are hearing this and following suit. I agree that Altivec is here to stay (in some form or another).

But, there is no way that Apple has bought out the PPC assets of Motorola. If they had, there would have been press releases and SEC filings. Publicly traded corporations can't make large deals like that without announcing it. More likely, if the IBM chips do have Altivec, is that Apple has persuaded IBM to license Altivec from Motorola or that IBM engineered their "own" version of it.

whiskeybravo

Aug 8, 2002, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by StuPid QPid

What I can't understand is that we have the technology to make computer chips with 90nm pipelines, but are unable to come up with a silent fan :confused:

I know the make some noise owing to air turbulence, but maybe the blades need redesigning? I'm not a mechanical engineer, but is there some physical reason why it's not possible to make a fan quieter?

Yes, it does seem odd, but things are rarely as simple as they seem. Several conflicting requirements come into play for fans. Size, airflow and efficiency. Silence is easy if you eliminate the first constraint. Make a really big fan with a lot of blade pitch and turn it r e a l slow. You move lots of air with little sound. Now make the same fan 3" in diameter and 1/2" thick and you can't move any air at that low speed. Small fans have generally low efficiency, but efficiency can only help you so much in any event, even 100% efficient means each revolution can only move 3 1/2 cubic inches of air (assuming the entire area of the fan is useful, which it isn't). So you still need to rely on speed to increase volume. High tip speeds = turbulence = noise, period. And yes, I am an ME.

sneed

Aug 8, 2002, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by bobindashadows
Well it does, but i mean there's a pretty good size heat sink in the G4 tower and it still has a number of fans. I personally don't know the heat produced by the power4, but I don't think even a huge heat sink is going to eliminate the need for fans. Like i said, Apple isn't going to produce a loud computer anyway so why argue about it?

I didn't say that a heat sink would eliminate the need for a fan, only that it would reduce it. And the reason why I brought it up in the first place was that the rumored new box has quite a large heat sink in it.

As far as whether Apple has produced a loud computer or not, I believe they have produced several; the quicksilver, the pre 800 Ti's, and the xserve (though it's a server, what d'you want?) Frankly, if Apple made it's product offerings by how quiet the box was we'd still be able to buy the cube, which would be fine by me.

kenohki

Aug 8, 2002, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by i_wolf
Just my two cents worth. Opteron will be launching shortly. I reckon that we will see G5 much much sooner than later. Please don't flame me for saying this but i would not be surprised if we see one of these babies announced at the end of this month with production and shipping to begin in October. Apple probably have one of those agreements with IBM as they did with MOTO where they get to demonstrate the newest processor first.

I would have to agree. Maybe not October but I don't think it's as abysmal as the guys who are screaming x86 would have us believe. This chip is going to be based on POWER4 which is an existing architecture. It's not like it's being 100% engineered from the ground up. It could purely be one of those POWER4 cores sans the MCM dual-core layout. But let's not get into pure speculation here.

Bottom line is, I bet we'll be seeing this processor fairly soon and maybe even transitioning to POWER5 or POWER6 (or some subset) when they are launched. 5 and 6 are supposed to be significantly less power-hungry and expensive than the POWER4 and as such, would make more sense to use in a purely desktop environment. Apple convincing IBM to to let it use POWER chips though (which traditionally have been an IBM exclusive) may be a little tricky.

Brent

Aug 8, 2002, 03:37 PM

Assuming that Apple does go with the IBM chip in 2003 - the nforce2 will have been updated by nvidia by the time this G5 (G4.2?) comes out. Apple needs something that can trump the current nforce2 specs, not just equal it. It's not like nvidia is just going to sit still.

I'm putting my money on Apple working in collusion with ATI, especially now that they have proven their mettle with the Radeon 9700 graphics card.

I just want Apple to stay reasonably close in the tech arms race and make up the difference with all of the intangibles - form function, superior os, etc. I think they've proven time and time again that they just don't have it in them to stay up with PC specs.

peterh

Aug 8, 2002, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by dongmin
Well a few weeks ago, there was a rumor posted on MOSR claiming that the G5s to be introduced next year are to be Power4 based. This new development certainly adds more fuel to that fire.

an older thread on this topic (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=7601)

We know IBM's desktop hardware presence is small (if any at all) so this new desktop-targeted PPC chip can't be for themselves. And if it's PPC-based, it's probably not for the x86 crowd. Who does that leave? Linux? Nah, it's gotta be Macs.

-new Mac cases with a radically redesigned cooling system...
-IBM opening a new state-of-the-art manufacturing plant...
-And now this...

the pieces are falling into place...

IBM has a great use for this chip, the RS6000s are in desperate need of a new low end processor to replace the 604e. currently the cheapest POWER4 machine is ~$12,500. As to when we will se this chip in CPUs, who knows, maybe sooner rather than later

sneed

Aug 8, 2002, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by peterh
IBM has a great use for this chip, the RS6000s are in desperate need of a new low end processor to replace the 604e. currently the cheapest POWER4 machine is ~$12,500. As to when we will se this chip in CPUs, who knows, maybe sooner rather than later

The reference that started the thread was pretty clear that this chip was for desktops and low end servers. As such, we can probably assume (at leaset for the sake of this discussion) that the price will be lower.

bobindashadows

Aug 8, 2002, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by ImAlwaysRight

You must not have one of the 2002 Quicksilvers. I owned a dual 1ghz and the thing was so noisy I sold it. I hope Apple gets noise under control with the new case design. At least put in some higher quality fans that have a lower noise output. The new iMac G4 fans run virtually silent. Let's hope the new PowerMacs are quieter than the Quicksilvers.

I have one right underneath my desk. It purrs a little, but that's about it. I don't know about dual 1 gig, but this one's barely noticeable. Reminds me of my last computer, a G3 450 Mhz.

bobindashadows

Aug 8, 2002, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by sneed

I didn't say that a heat sink would eliminate the need for a fan, only that it would reduce it. And the reason why I brought it up in the first place was that the rumored new box has quite a large heat sink in it.

As far as whether Apple has produced a loud computer or not, I believe they have produced several; the quicksilver, the pre 800 Ti's, and the xserve (though it's a server, what d'you want?) Frankly, if Apple made it's product offerings by how quiet the box was we'd still be able to buy the cube, which would be fine by me.
Well I compare the noise to my friend's homebrewed Athlon 1.6(? maybe 1.7 unsure) Ghz comp, which he was forced to put 5 fans in because at times the computer would suddenly shut off and he'd have to wait a half hour before it would start up. The thing is a monster, and you should hear it when it has a CD in it, though that's because my friend got the cheapest CD drive possible. my father has a Ti, and it isn't loud.. i think your standards are a tad high because i barely hear both computers. (as you see in my above post, i'm runnin a quicksilver right now, and its not loud at all.

bobky

Aug 8, 2002, 04:21 PM

I have a Dual 800, and it's hums a bit, but nothing compared to my house mate's pc (with 5 fans or something) which is in the next room, and drowns out my G4!

sneed

Aug 8, 2002, 04:22 PM

Actually those aren't my standards. There have been published criticisms of all three from a number of sources. Hard to say whether they would be too loud for me as I have none of the above.

As to your friend's build, I have no comment.

Falleron

Aug 8, 2002, 04:22 PM

Bang, there is the future of high end macs!!

ddtlm

Aug 8, 2002, 04:31 PM

Quicksilvers are louder than all Dell desktops I've seen within the past two years; no need to compare to home-brew Athlons. Looking at how each is cooled and silenced, I have to say Apple did a rather poor job. I look forward to the new case.

eirik

Aug 8, 2002, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by davei

A fan can only push so much air. You can make the blades bigger and make it spin slower, make the blades smaller and make it spin faster, etc. It's cost vs. noise. Most people side with cost. Those that have no regard for cost go with water cooling. :)

Well, the US Navy did it for their nuclear submarines. NASA has been researching quieter jets and props for years. I wouldn't be surprised if the 'fan makers' have not looked up NASA to see what might be used to maker quieter, more efficient fans. You'd be amazed at how technology sometimes fails to propogate.

snoopy

Aug 8, 2002, 05:40 PM

Maybe we are too conservative. Steve Jobs could have struck a deal with IBM two years ago to do the G5 for Apple. In return, Apple might have even agreed to help underwrite the cost of a state-of-the-art plant to build it. Apple's G5 might be the first chip out of that plant. Certainly, IBM suddenly got interested in SIMD, after being very cool to it before. Someone looked up patent information on AltiVec, and he claims that all three parties are on the original patents, Motorola, Apple and IBM. He further claims that later patents have only IBM on them. If true, it suggest that IBM has rights to it, and has continued to develop this vector processor on its own. The vector processor in the G5 may be second generation. We could speculate that all the new PowerMac will be G5 except for one low end model? Well, maybe that's going too far.

Knox

Aug 8, 2002, 05:48 PM

On the subject of IBM 'licencing' altivec from Motorola for this chip, just noticed this being mentioned

http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-ppc/

Altivec (also called VMX) is a SIMD (Single Instruction Multiple Data) 128-bit vector coprocessor found on Motorola's 74xx ("G4") line of processors.

And, from a rumour back in 1996,

http://bwrc.eecs.berkeley.edu/CIC/otherpr/ppc_vmx.html

According to sources, IBM and Motorola intend to add VMX to the upcoming PowerPC architecture code-named G4 and are considering it for some future G3 processors

Maybe IBM had it all along but never had the need to use it before since their chips were for servers and not desktops.

markseaton

Aug 8, 2002, 06:35 PM

If indeed this new IBM 64-bit PowerPC is based or the POWER4 design this this is what the white papers say it's cable of

a .13 micro processor running at 1.1 to 1.4 ghz maybe up to 2ghz in future
Dual FPU on chip
L2 of 512k ECC
L3 of 32MB!! "data array is stored in two 16MB eDRAM"
unknow MAIN ram amount but it will be DDR 400 MHz

The chip can be areanged into 4 linked CPU's into a module that can be linked to 4 others for a total of 16 CPU's

here is the link to the detailed explanation of the POWER4 design

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/461/tendler.html

eirik

Aug 8, 2002, 06:46 PM

The embedded processor market, particularly in communications, is absolutely gaga over the 74XX. I'm sure IBM has no doubt changed its mind about SIMD.

As for the upcoming PowerMac announcement, I very much doubt, though prey to the contrary, that it will include a super CPU from IBM. At best, it'll feature a Motorola 74XX with built-in memory controller that supports DDR fully.

I don't see anything from MOSR to indicate that they know anymore than we do, no 'inside' information. Frankly, I think their conservative speculation on the new CPU speeds is total guess work. It is conservative because they seem to feel that their reputation is damaged with past predictions of CPU nirvanna. So, they're predicting modest speed bumps.

Given the timing, August, as opposed to May, I expect the top end CPU to be around 1.5/1.6, possibly even higher and almost certainly hotter, as Apple has no doubt been pressuring them to squeeze the most out of the CPU's regardless of power consumption.

If there is to be a 7470, as opposed to a 7455, I wonder if it (7470) will be fully MERSI compliant so that a quad configuration would be practical, provided, of course, that the memory bottleneck is overcome with the on-chip memory controllers or something else.

There's been much talk about bottlenecks in this thread. I'd like to emphasize a point about this. Bottlenecks exist for different applications. If one is just looking for a more snappy response from one's computer, then the memory/FSB is not critical. However, if one is talking of large memory applications such as Photoshop or Final Cut Pro, then fast and fat DDR would make a tremendous difference.

E

G4scott

Aug 8, 2002, 06:46 PM

Could this chip, hyper transport, and all of these other new features be why Apple hasn't been working on stuff like what pee-cee's have now? Maybe Apple's planning on the future, rather than the present...

G4scott

Aug 8, 2002, 06:57 PM

As far as noise goes, I really don't care with a desktop... My monitor and other perephials all make so much noise, the computer doesn't really matter...

RIP

Aug 8, 2002, 07:01 PM

I say anchor down the computer, spin a large fan like hell and wear ear-plugs if that means a faster computer....

Chryx

Aug 8, 2002, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by G4scott
As far as noise goes, I really don't care with a desktop... My monitor and other perephials all make so much noise, the computer doesn't really matter...

Um, your MONITOR makes a noise?..

?

It's been a LONG time since I saw a CRT that had a fan in it..

Johnny7896

Aug 8, 2002, 07:05 PM

First, I hope Apple goes the IBM way. Moto isn't competative in the processor market. IBM is working with sony on new processor chips also. IBM has is a serious technology provider. Don't be surprised if Apple makes an agreement with IBM to use their OS to run their servers. Linux sucks eggs. Where Mac OS X is eligant, stable, and not windows. IBM and Apple may be on the same page again. I can see an extremly strong gain (profitable and popular) from this alliance for both companies. For all those people that went to the dark side.....they will want to come back. Apple is going to make some major inovative and unique changes. Windows is running out of tricks with their inablility to change. They can only make things look pretty and do the same tricks diferent ways. Apple is on the ball with Itunes, Idvd, Ical, ect.... Micro$$$$ is lost. They aren't going to inovate these technologies they can only copy them later. Apple has and will continue to make unique changes and give the computer world some fresh air. This is a great time in history to separate the copy cats from the inovators.

Chryx

Aug 8, 2002, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by RIP
I say anchor down the computer, spin a large fan like hell and wear ear-plugs if that means a faster computer....

http://chryx.shacknet.nu/maximumfan.jpg

I think that speaks for itself :)

snoopy

Aug 8, 2002, 07:40 PM

I get the feeling that some have come late to this discussion, and missed IBM's announcement of a very G5 like processor, to be presented in detail on October 15th. I don't think it could be any clearer, without violating a non-disclosure agreement IBM may have with Apple.

alex_ant

Aug 8, 2002, 08:04 PM

Here are two excerpts from this news.com article (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-949030.html?tag=fd_top) regarding this next-gen PPC:
"It's a really hefty processor in terms of performance," said Kevin Krewell, managing editor of industry newsletter Microprocessor Report, which hosts the annual Microprocessor Forum. He added that the chip might debut in a server but declined to offer more details.

...

The chip's heritage--the Power 4 design--suggests that it will be a high-performance processor. Though it's unclear what clock speed the new PowerPC will offer, IBM has been gunning for the 2GHz mark. The company said last year that it intended to hit that speed target by the end of 2002.

A 2GHz G5 or G5-like chip would eat a 2.5GHz P4 for lunch.

Alex

ddtlm

Aug 8, 2002, 08:23 PM

A link the discusses the Power4 core: http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?AID=RWT101600000000&p=2

alex_ant:

Yeah, but why wait till 2.0ghz to "eat it for lunch?" A Power4 can do it (easily) at 1.3ghz, and that's without any sort of vector unit. Not too shabby.

alex_ant

Aug 8, 2002, 08:36 PM

But a POWER4 is too large, expensive, and energy inefficient to use in current Macs. It also lacks AltiVec. This new PPC is said to be derived from the POWER4. At 2.0GHz, I wouldn't be surprised to see SPEC benchmarks only slightly worse than the 1.3GHz POWER4 - I would actually except to see better CFP results once GCC is improved to automatically make better use of AltiVec. That would mean a 6X+ speed gain in floating-point over the current 1GHz G4, which is very exciting.

Alex

Rocketman

Aug 8, 2002, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by alex_ant
Here are two excerpts from this news.com article (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-949030.html?tag=fd_top) regarding this next-gen PPC:

A 2GHz G5 or G5-like chip would eat a 2.5GHz P4 for lunch.

Alex [/B]

I am pretty sure it is supposed to eat sparc and sun servers for lunch and also, incidentally be rackable, lower service contract cost, and of course run OSX.

Rocketman

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

jadam

Aug 8, 2002, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by sneed

Wouldn't there be an issue with 64 bit?

too pissed off for other reasons to explain but, no there wouldnt be any problems.

ezzyme

Aug 8, 2002, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by topicolo

Not to my knowledge (or any of the hardware sites' either)

Please check out Nvidia press releases:

http://nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=IO_20020312_7354

http://nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=IO_20011106_6135

And more info at:

http://nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=IO_20020312_7354

ddtlm

Aug 8, 2002, 10:00 PM

alex_ant:

The Power4 is too lage an expensive, but a single one of it's cores with reduced cache may not be. The cores themselves are not that big. I think IBM could easily hit the size of a P4 yet loose only a few percent of the performance of a Power4 for sinlge-CPU tasks. A good deal of the Power4, including the massive caches, is designed for massive CPU-count scalability and not for single-CPU performance.

In fact, your position that the "G5" will not perform like a Power4 on single-CPU tasks seems quite baseless. What would IBM gain by altering the core itself? When Intel needed a Celeron, they took cache from a Pentium. When AMD needed a Duron, they took cache from an Athlon. Messing with the execution core is just too difficult.

Not even the things Intel did to the Celerons ever crippled them as much as you suggest IBM will do to the Power4.

ktlx

Aug 8, 2002, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by Johnny7896
Don't be surprised if Apple makes an agreement with IBM to use their OS to run their servers. Linux sucks eggs. Where Mac OS X is eligant, stable, and not windows. IBM and Apple may be on the same page again. I can see an extremly strong gain (profitable and popular) from this alliance for both companies.

I would be very suprised if IBM provided Mac OS X on its servers. Mac OS X does not support any enterprise applications and does not provide any enterprise class hardware or software support. IBM is in the business of selling servers to moderate to large enterprises. If these companies want a 1U server to run Apache or Samba, it will be x86 based running Linux. Heck, Mac OS X does not even run any of IBM's own enterprise software.

As for Windows server customers moving to Mac OS X server, please. That is ridiculous when they have other options that run on their existing hardware.

IBM is not going to sink tons of bucks into providing Linux on its full line of servers only to embrace Mac OS X. Stevie's servers are toys until they have a real file system (not HFS or ufs).:D When Mac OS X server supports a journaling file system, either Oracle or DB/2 and network backup to a remote tape jukebox, then the situation may change but not until then.

alex_ant

Aug 8, 2002, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by ddtlm
alex_ant:

The Power4 is too lage an expensive, but a single one of it's cores with reduced cache may not be. The cores themselves are not that big. I think IBM could easily hit the size of a P4 yet loose only a few percent of the performance of a Power4 for sinlge-CPU tasks. A good deal of the Power4, including the massive caches, is designed for massive CPU-count scalability and not for single-CPU performance.
Yes, welcome to the whole topic of this thread: The next-generation PowerPC derived from the POWER4 architecture. :) And the POWER4 most certainly is designed for single-CPU performance in addition to high-end multiprocessing, unless the fact that it's the fastest chip in the world aside from the Itanium2 is pure coincidence.
In fact, your position that the "G5" will not perform like a Power4 on single-CPU tasks seems quite baseless. What would IBM gain by altering the core itself? When Intel needed a Celeron, they took cache from a Pentium. When AMD needed a Duron, they took cache from an Athlon. Messing with the execution core is just too difficult.
I never said anything about altering the core. I made a guess; I think the POWER4 would be faster per-core than this new PPC because it has the advantage of tons of on-chip cache which would almost certainly be stripped out of a PPC designed for desktops. I still think this new PPC will be a great performer - just not the best performer. Competitive with commodity x86 chips yes, competitive with ultra-high-end server chips probably not.

Alex

ezzyme

Aug 8, 2002, 10:45 PM

More products using Hypertransport:

http://www.hypertransport.org/featuredproducts/products.html

G4scott

Aug 8, 2002, 11:06 PM

ok... We know for sure that IBM is not going to make servers that run OS X... That would mean IBM is making a mac 'clone', and I think we all know how Steve Jobs feels about clones...

The only thing IBM ever had to do with Apple is the engineering of processors. IBM won't make a Mac, but they can (and apparently will) make a scaled down desktop processor that is derived from their Power4 processors that will work with Apple computers...

As for air flow, would it be possible for Apple to make a fan that's about 1" thick, and about 1.5-2 feet in diameter, and run it at a slower speed on the side of the computer, sucking air from the bottom and front, and pushing it out the back?

IndyGopher

Aug 8, 2002, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Chryx

Um, your MONITOR makes a noise?..

?

It's been a LONG time since I saw a CRT that had a fan in it..
What kind/size monitor are YOU using? Every 19, 20,21, and larger CRT I have seen has had a fan, with the exception of the NEC 29" but those are really just televisions, no matter what NEC says.

kenohki

Aug 8, 2002, 11:19 PM

Shrek

Aug 8, 2002, 11:28 PM

I only hope that whatever is best for Apple and the PowerPC Platform happens. Other than that, I have no comment on this thread. :rolleyes:

ezzyme

Aug 8, 2002, 11:28 PM

List of computers using Hypertransport tech:

http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=nforce

eirik

Aug 8, 2002, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by ktlx

I would be very suprised if IBM provided Mac OS X on its servers. Mac OS X does not support any enterprise applications and does not provide any enterprise class hardware or software support. IBM is in the business of selling servers to moderate to large enterprises. If these companies want a 1U server to run Apache or Samba, it will be x86 based running Linux. Heck, Mac OS X does not even run any of IBM's own enterprise software.

As for Windows server customers moving to Mac OS X server, please. That is ridiculous when they have other options that run on their existing hardware.

IBM is not going to sink tons of bucks into providing Linux on its full line of servers only to embrace Mac OS X. Stevie's servers are toys until they have a real file system (not HFS or ufs).:D When Mac OS X server supports a journaling file system, either Oracle or DB/2 and network backup to a remote tape jukebox, then the situation may change but not until then.

What enterprise applications that run on Linux will not run on MacOS X Server? From what I've read, porting from one to the other, without any Aqua stuff involved, is fairly easy. I seriously doubt that business decisions regard GUI as a particularly relevant or positive feature in Linux.

I think the more appropo point to make is why MacOS X over Linux? Almost all enterprise apps that do and/or will run on MacOS X undoubtedly run on Linux. Linux is dirt cheap and runs on just about any hardware. MacOS X is 'more expensive' but still a bargain relative to WinDon't. But, it only runs on Apple hardware. So, what compelling features do Apple servers offer the enterprise over that of Linux or WinDon't? Sounds like a good thread, BTW.

A journalling file system is cool, indisputable fact (okay opinion). BUT!!! Is it really that compelling on a server that rarely fails? What kind of server applications benefit from it to the degree that it actually influences enterprise decision-making? IMHO, a journalling file system has considerably greater benefits in client machines that deployed in the jungle and trenches, exposed to nasty external threats as well as relentlessly stupid or inconsiderate users. Bottom line, I don't see journalling as being all that compelling to enterprises today.

As for IBM and Apple partnering in some way, where there is a will there's a way! That said, there are many landmines, such as would you like WebSphere or WebObjects with your server dear customer?

IBM is considered by many industry analysts to be the king of IT. They just announced their intention to acquire PriceWaterhouseCoopers consulting to be combined with IBM"s already prestigious IBM Global Services (or whatever they call it these days). If I were Apple, I'd look for IBM to provide support and implementation services for Apple Xserve customers. IBM could be an enormous knowledge base of problems based by enterprise IT outfits that Apple could mine to discover the problems that Xserve and OS X can solve better for them than do Linux or WinDon't. There are possibilities; I'll leave it at that! Also, I won't hold my breath either. But, if I were SJ, I'd think long and hard about it: instant enterprise credibility enhancement.

Now, back to the subject of this thread:

psych!!!

Shrek

Aug 8, 2002, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by theranch
Too bad that conference is in October...it would rule out a G5 in August.

Now where did that come from? :confused:

eirik

Aug 8, 2002, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by theranch

Too bad that conference is in October...it would rule out a G5 in August.

Just to elaborate on what I suspect Shrek is thinking:

Would it really?

What is the Microprocessor Forum all about? Is it not to discuss the state of the technology as well as its direction?

So, not that I'm predicting we'll see this new CPU in the PowerMac this month, it seems plausible to me that IBM would talk about the technology of the new CPU after Apple has introduced it in the PowerMac.

I don't see this as a reason to conclude that this new CPU won't be in this month's new PowerMac. But there are plenty of other reasons.

Scottgfx

Aug 8, 2002, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by ibookin'@mwny

I think topicolo is right. I haven't seen any mobos with true HyperTransport technology yet myself.

Well here, go have a look for yourself...

http://www.directron.com/k7n420pro.html

Take note: it says "Hyper Transport interface to MCP". I've also helped a friend build one of these systems.

snoopy

Aug 8, 2002, 11:49 PM

The HyperTransport issue keep popping up, and the "system interface capable of up to 6.4GB/s" sounds a lot like HyperTransport. If it is, I think this processor was made specifically for Apple, who is on the HyperTransport committee, and is said to be working with nVidia on something. Well, that something would only happen when PowerMac processors get HyperTransport. If it's a HT system interface on the G5, then IBM could be making a G4 with HT too. A G4 would take less design effort than a G5, which uses Power4 technology. IBM would surely use the same vector engine as the G5, which may be a second generation design. It makes sense to have the same system interface on both the G4 and G5, to keep motherboards as much alike as possible.

mmoore00

Aug 9, 2002, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Rocketman

The bottom line is this. When a superchip comes out, it can have a low level kernal written for it to chat with OSX and is immediately useable. I suspect 64 bit Power chips will have 32 bit and perhaps even 16 bit modes for compatibility during transitions.

Here's my one question about 64 bit OSX:

Does OSX need to be fully re-written to take advantage of 64bit processing (or work on a 64 bit chip at all) or can just the mach kernel be rewritten to handle OS X's commands and instructions in 64bit chunks? Could apple (or the open source community) rewrite darwin (and/or mach) to work on a 64bit chip and emulate a 32 bit process quickly?

I'm sure this question was laced with a bit of technical incompetence, so please don't lash back with the normal "jeez, doesn't he know that the 387643813 widget is incompadible with the 984580459-4842-487458484?!?!?!? What year is it? Two-thousand ONE????" posts. I think I have a good grip on what is going on, but this one question lingers in my mind.

jadam

Aug 9, 2002, 12:35 AM

Power4 64bit processors can run 32bit powerpc code natively with no emulation involved.

Power processors and PowerPC processors have the same number of registers. Difference is that Power 64bit registers are 64bit and PowerPC registers are 32bit, now, running a 32bit app on a power4 would jsut leave half of the register empty, no other real difference. Believe me, thats how they designed PowerPC, remember, PowerPC came from Power processors, just like this new PowerPC processor is being derived from Power4 processors. the PowerPC ISA is backwards compatible unlike that x86 crap :)

york2600

Aug 9, 2002, 12:43 AM

I love reading comments on this board. You people say things that surely come right out of your ass. If you say something learn to back it up with facts. If you read something always question it. Some of the things said in response to this post are absurd.

1) not really sneed, its PPC compatible, no reason why it cant boot into OS0

First of all I'm assuming that OS0 was OS9. OS 9 is build around Apple's current round of motherboards and 32bit PowerPC processors. If Apple wants it to run on ANYTHING else they have to modify it. Notice a new OS release comes out with every new round of hardware. Even a G4 board with a few minor tweaks requires Apple to release hardware enablers to allow the OS to work with the new components. A 64bit PPC would require quite the massive motherboard redesign and right there without proper maintence of OS 9 code would end OS 9s compatibility with new Mac hardware. That's just the motherboard though. A 64bit processor woud require a complete recompile of all code. Simple as that. Notice MS has different version of XP and .Net server for Itanium. It's not because they like making two boxes. They have to recompile for the different architectures. Apple would have to do the same and without a similar system to the 68k/PPC FAT application system they would have to convince developers to distribute two version of all their apps for this radically different platform.

Nforce with a G4
This one is just crazy. Yes they both use Hypertransport, and yes Apple's current motherboard goals are similar to that of Nforce, but Nforce is a PC chipset build around a PC BIOS. You would have to fundamentally redesign the architecture to make it work with a Mac. Some of you make it sound like they just change the pin out on the ZIF slot to allow a PowerPC and their done. It would be a huge task to create a Mac compatibile Nforce chipset.

Think about what you read.

-Tim

mmoore00

Aug 9, 2002, 12:44 AM

Great. You answered my question and I now consider myself educated.

My other question: If half of the register is left empty, would all of Mac OS X need to be rewritten in a 64bit native version to take advantage of that extra processing space, or would just darwin / mach be required to be rewritten?

Shrek

Aug 9, 2002, 12:45 AM

York, Apple is dropping OS 9 in their next release of OS X (Jaguar), so case closed. . .

GPTurismo

Aug 9, 2002, 01:23 AM

Well. SGI, Suns, and HP's desktop market is basically DEAD.

That's why SGI is pushing into the higher end market and not really getting far since Linux is dominating. I expect to see them being bought in the next year or two by big blue or somoene, even terracomputing.

As for AIX VS. etc, it depends on what you are running. AIX is GREAT, and the best after irix, for floating point instruction operations. But for something like databases, you want SUN.

Linux is eating up at the lower to lower/mid range market. But it still can't compete with the super duper mid/high to high end computers. But those super duper servers are only 10% of the market, and that's the place BIG BIG BIG money is, and a place MS can't even think of playing, but they want to.

As for the hammer, and some of the new things, still designed on legacy designs, why do I want a new 2002 car that is still being designed around 30's engineering ideals? That's what's happening there. All the higher end machines, mainly SGI, have no FSB, and are true risc, and each component talks to each other at full speed, elimiating all bottlenecking.

blah blah blah

GPT

snoopy

Aug 9, 2002, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by york2600
A 64bit processor woud require a complete recompile of all code. Simple as that.

You speak like such an authority on the subject that I fear many readers will take what you say for fact. It is not, and the most glaring is the above. The beauty of this line of processors is that a 64 bit processor will run old 32 bit applications as they are. No modification. It is not emulation. Read about it on the IBM web site, as they discuss merits of the Power4 series running old code, and "protecting the customer's investment in software." Apple's G5 will do the same.

djwoolf

Aug 9, 2002, 03:20 AM

Sounds like were in for a huge change. Finally, its seems Apple is switching to IBM for its chip supply. That coupled with Apples recent partnering with Nvidia sounds like a pretty good combination. Maybe well see prices on systems drop? Just wishful thinking though. I do wish Apple would get the upper hand in tech at least on the Pmac side. I do understand the philosophy behind the iMac. I low cost consumer pc that uses current tech but there is no excuse for the Pmacs. Come on this is the proverbial "flagship of the fleet"! Onward and upward i say!
I think since Jobs returned the simplification of the computer line was needed but now there should be more options to choose from like so:
iMac: Consumer model
Power Mac: For home and small bussines power users that want power for a good price
ProMac: For the pros, the latest and greatest: Multi-Processprs, Top of the line video, Better system boards than the other lines, more room for expansion: HD's PCI cards Memory and the like

Just my opinion. ;)

dguisinger

Aug 9, 2002, 03:45 AM

I love reading comments on this board. You people say things that surely come right out of your ass. If you say something learn to back it up with facts. If you read something always question it. Some of the things said in response to this post are absurd.

" A 64bit PPC would require quite the massive motherboard redesign and right there without proper maintence of OS 9 code would end OS 9s compatibility with new Mac hardware. That's just the motherboard though. A 64bit processor woud require a complete recompile of all code. Simple as that. Notice MS has different version of XP and .Net server for Itanium."

Wrong. You can run an old version of Windows 2000 on an Itanium...it runs under legacy mode using IA32 instructions. Simple as that. Just as the PPC had 68k legacy instruction set to run mac applications from before the PPC introduction. The reason for a seperate version of .NET server is to add 64-bit API calls for memory and other services that can take advantage of the 64-bits. You DONT NEED to rebuild it, not to mention, if Apple doesn't take advantage of the 64-bit processor off the bat, they don't have to do a thing to make it work.

"Nforce with a G4
This one is just crazy. Yes they both use Hypertransport, and yes Apple's current motherboard goals are similar to that of Nforce, but Nforce is a PC chipset build around a PC BIOS. You would have to fundamentally redesign the architecture to make it work with a Mac. Some of you make it sound like they just change the pin out on the ZIF slot to allow a PowerPC and their done. It would be a huge task to create a Mac compatibile Nforce chipset."

Wow...you don't know how computers work do you.....PCI and AGP devices follow strict protocols, and can be used on both machines as long as the software is written for the device. Thats where the BIOS and drivers come in. These chips don't fit in freaking ZIF sockets...chipsets are soldered onto the motherboard and the motherboard is designed around the functionality of the chipsets. The GForce and NForce chips are the same on PC and Mac....and can handle Big & Little Endian data formats with a simple register setting on the chip. And to people who don't like the embedded video of the NForce, remember it can be disabled and a high-end AGP card can be added. Buying a machine with the NForce disabled, you would barely notice a difference in price....why? The cost of the NForce significantly lowers the cost of the machines....look at the ethernet, usb, firewire, ata, video, and dobly sound controllers that are built in. NVidia charges very little for this chip compared to what the components would cost seperately. I would prefer Apple to use NForce as it would reduce their custom ASIC costs and costs for the end user, even if the video isnt used on all machines.

In addition, lets not forget NForce already has multiple CPU bus interfaces. While they only sell for the Athlon EV-6 bus on the open market, Microsoft/NVidia licensed the Intel PIII GTL+ bus for the XBox Northbridge version of the NForce chipset. Adding support for even the current line of PPC processors would be relatively easy.

"Think about what you read."

Think about what you say.

GrizzlyHippo

Aug 9, 2002, 03:59 AM

Sorry if someone has already said this but...

I think I remember reading about a year ago that Apple was hiring people to work on microprocessor designs. What were the results of these hirings? Maybe working on the next gen chips with IBM?

Just a thought, and forgive a newbie if I'm mistaken.

pfrencken

Aug 9, 2002, 04:52 AM

According to this eWeek article (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,449725,00.asp) , the new IBM Power4 might not be intended for apple:

IBM's decision to tout the chip may indicate that Apple has so far balked at embracing the chip, one analyst said.

"What I find is interesting is the fact that IBM can talk about it. If there was committed iMac design, you know (Apple CEO) Steve Jobs would have his hands around IBM's neck not to talk about this chip," said Kevin Krewell, a senior analyst at In-Stat/MDR. "The fact that IBM is talking about it indicates to me that it's not a mainstream Apple product at this time."

P.

alex_ant

Aug 9, 2002, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by IndyGopher

What kind/size monitor are YOU using? Every 19, 20,21, and larger CRT I have seen has had a fan, with the exception of the NEC 29" but those are really just televisions, no matter what NEC says.
Samsung 900p, 19", ca. 1999, no fan.
Sony GDM-20E21, 20", ca. 1994, no fan.

I've personally never seen a modern computer CRT with a fan in it...

ddtlm

Aug 9, 2002, 06:40 AM

IndyGopher:

I've never seen a CRT with a fan, and I have seen and used a lot of them.

snoopy:

"6.4gb/s bandwidth" says nothing about how they got it. So it happens to equal the max spec of HyperTransport, so what? Also equals dual channels of DDR400, or quad channels of PC800 (RDRAM). Also equals a 800mhz FSB P4-style... that is to say 200mhz, quad pumped. Could be a 128 bit wide 100mhz quad pumped bus, or a 128 bit wide 400mhz single-pumped bus, or a 256-bit wide 100mhz double-pumped bus, or any number of other options.

york2600:

Of course the G4 does not currently use any sort of HyperTransport.

GPTurismo:

Huh? You seem to be equating OS's with certain operations like floating point math and running databases well, which doesn't reflect reality. The OS can influence overall performance somewhat, and filesystem can influence performance, but at the core of it you need competent hardware. (Oh, and Irix is the worst OS I have ever interacted with.)

dguisinger:

Amusing that you chose to start your post the same as york2600... but in the end I'm not sure that you are more correct than he is. I too am highly sceptical of the nForce for Mac rumor. Amoung the advantages of the nForce you list integrated components which is exactly what we already have from Apple, except nForce lacks the gigabit ethernet. Amoung the nForce disadvantages is the huge pin count due to dual-channel DDR which sure hasn't shown any performance advantages on the Athlon platform (and note we're already discussed the issue of the Athlon FSB being too slow for it). You are also in error about the nForce being used in the XBox, that's a GeForce4ti-like chip, not GeForce4mx-like.

pfrencken:

Uh, I think the situation is that IBM is not intimidated by Apple and intends to drum up the processor for it's own good. IBM will be using it in their own machines at least, I'm sure Apple is just an extra market.

groovebuster

Aug 9, 2002, 07:14 AM

A german article states, that the vector unit in the IBM chip will NOT(!!!!!) be Altivec-compatible, but can emulate Altivec instructions.

So the new processor apperas in a new light then, it's questionable if it will be used in the given design in a Mac. It would be weird if Altivec would be just emulated and not run native anymore. A lot of the speed advantages would be burned by the emulation then...

Here is the link:

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/as-09.08.02-000/

groovebuster:(

Chryx

Aug 9, 2002, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by IndyGopher

What kind/size monitor are YOU using? Every 19, 20,21, and larger CRT I have seen has had a fan, with the exception of the NEC 29" but those are really just televisions, no matter what NEC says.

I'm sitting at a 21" Sony CRT, to my left is a 17" Iiyama VM Pro naturalflat CRT screen, downstairs is a 21" Mitsubishi CRT.

None of them have fans, I haven't seen a big screen with a fan for.. oooh.. 4-5 years?, and they weren't new at the time.

Chryx

Aug 9, 2002, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by ddtlm
You are also in error about the nForce being used in the XBox, that's a GeForce4ti-like chip, not GeForce4mx-like.

He's sorta right, the Xbox chipset and Nforce are fairly closely related. the audio /networking hardware is the same, the video hardware on nforce is scaled down, and the processor bus is GTL+ instead of EV6, other than that they are pretty similar.

peterh

Aug 9, 2002, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by dguisinger
I love reading comments on this board. You people say things that surely come right out of your ass. If you say something learn to back it up with facts. If you read something always question it. Some of the things said in response to this post are absurd.

" A 64bit PPC would require quite the massive motherboard redesign and right there without proper maintence of OS 9 code would end OS 9s compatibility with new Mac hardware. That's just the motherboard though. A 64bit processor woud require a complete recompile of all code. Simple as that. Notice MS has different version of XP and .Net server for Itanium."

Wrong. You can run an old version of Windows 2000 on an Itanium...it runs under legacy mode using IA32 instructions. Simple as that. Just as the PPC had 68k legacy instruction set to run mac applications from before the PPC introduction. The reason for a seperate version of .NET server is to add 64-bit API calls for memory and other services that can take advantage of the 64-bits. You DONT NEED to rebuild it, not to mention, if Apple doesn't take advantage of the 64-bit processor off the bat, they don't have to do a thing to make it work.

Think about what you say.

Not entirely correct. The PPC ISA is a 64 bit ISA with 32 bit implementations, i.e. it was designed from the start to be used on 64 bit processors. In other words the instructions used in 32 bit PPCs are also natively present in 64 bit PPCs. No emulation necessary. IBM states that the POWER4 will run both 32 and 64 bit AIX 5.1 kernels. Furthermore, it also states that 64 bit applications can run on the 32 bit kernel and visa versa, with very little performance degradation. The only warning is that all kernel drivers for the 32 bit kernel must be 64 bit and all kernel drivers for the 64 bit kernel must be 64 bit. AIX 5.1 also breaks binary compatibility with AIX 4 64 bit binaries, but that seems to be an OS issue. What this means is that most likely this machine won't boot OS9, though it may depending on how much effort Apple spends on enabler, but it will run Classic, because all Classic is to the OS is another application. Apple can even do the M68K emulation still.

P.S. The M68K emulation is not part of the PPC, it is an Apple addition.

kenohki

Aug 9, 2002, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by peterh

Not entirely correct. The PPC ISA is a 64 bit ISA with 32 bit implementations, i.e. it was designed from the start to be used on 64 bit processors. In other words the instructions used in 32 bit PPCs are also natively present in 64 bit PPCs. No emulation necessary. IBM states that the POWER4 will run both 32 and 64 bit AIX 5.1 kernels. Furthermore, it also states that 64 bit applications can run on the 32 bit kernel and visa versa, with very little performance degradation. The only warning is that all kernel drivers for the 32 bit kernel must be 64 bit and all kernel drivers for the 64 bit kernel must be 64 bit. AIX 5.1 also breaks binary compatibility with AIX 4 64 bit binaries, but that seems to be an OS issue. What this means is that most likely this machine won't boot OS9, though it may depending on how much effort Apple spends on enabler, but it will run Classic, because all Classic is to the OS is another application. Apple can even do the M68K emulation still.

P.S. The M68K emulation is not part of the PPC, it is an Apple addition.

Which is why the hell I'm wondering why people in this thread are talking about having to recompile the OS or applications for binary compatibility. C'mon guys...Sun has been doing this for years. The UltraSPARC is a 64 bit implementation of SPARC. You can run a SPARC32 binary on a SPARC64 processor with no problems. Granted you won't get all the features of the 64bit environment, but your binaries will run unmodified which means your investment in software is protected. Apple just needs to add 64bit support to certain core parts of the OS in order to enable large memory addressing, etc. It's really not that hard considering OS X's roots.

PowerPC was designed as a 64bit ISA from the ground up. I'm sure that in the ten or so years of the PowerPC's existence, Apple's had a chance to play with the 64bit ISA (I'm sure they have a few POWER4 machines kicking around too.)

GPTurismo

Aug 9, 2002, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by ddtlm
Huh? You seem to be equating OS's with certain operations like floating point math and running databases well, which doesn't reflect reality. The OS can influence overall performance somewhat, and filesystem can influence performance, but at the core of it you need competent hardware. (Oh, and Irix is the worst OS I have ever interacted with.)

Well, AIX is designed to run on Processors that do fpi's strongly. It's designed for mass calculation, on risc chips. As for Solaris which runs on cisc is a very stable slow os. Here is the thing. If you were building a standard Oracle database, I would say sun because simple placement of files and datamanagement you want a system that would be stable and has less chance or err.

If you were doing some higher end searching, a lot of calculations, and a lot of higher end processing, i would go AIX on Power4 or another IBM Risc.

It does reflect real world.

Also IRIX is a pain. Powerful, but just a pain. As for worse, I don't know, it really depends on what what is your classification for bad.

IRIX is very clean, but very very complicated. Yet powerful.

And they also changed a lot fo the standard apps >_<

snoopy

Aug 9, 2002, 10:35 AM

What is difficult to believe is that this very G5-like processor was developed for some other application than a Macintosh computer. Maybe we are to believe that Steve Jobs knew nothing about it? Unlikely, in my opinion. Considering the cost of doing this chip, there is a specific, big application for it, like the next PowerMac.

So IBM wouldn't talk about it before Apple? True. That is why I think Apple will announce the G5 before October 15, so IBM is free to discuss the chip in detail. There is no rule about what stage of development IBM can talk about a chip at this forum. It could be in pilot production. They would likely not talk about it in the early stage of development, which would tip their hand too soon.

Someone looked up patent information on AltiVec, and he claims that all three parties are on the original patents, Motorola, Apple and IBM. He further claims that later patents have only IBM on them. If true, it suggests that IBM has rights to it, and has continued to develop this vector processor on its own. The vector processor in the G5 may be second generation.

chubakka

Aug 9, 2002, 10:36 AM

Maybe this article will clear things up a bit.

http://news.com.com/2117-1001-949030.html

"Network equipment and other communications gear is the most likely destination for the new PowerPC, as the bulk of existing PowerPCs are used there. However, IBM is also wooing Apple Computer, sources familiar with the chip said. The company is in a constant tug of war with Motorola, which makes most of the PowerPC chips slotted into Macs, for Apple's business.

The new chip offers significantly higher performance than IBM's current desktop PowerPC 750 and so could provide Apple with a performance boost if used in future desktop computers, the source said. "

Rocketman

Aug 9, 2002, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by kenohki

Well, the journaling file system will not happen until Apple either extends HFS+ or gets application developers to stop using metadata features of HFS+ to the point where they could move to an existing journaling filesystem.

Isn't it fairly trivial to support yet another file system? They already support CD and DVD format, HFS, HFS+, Wintel, and Unix by being able to mount, read and write those formats. Why is a journaling file syatem any more difficult to believe can happen. In fact isn't it an element of BSD distribution on which OSX is based anyway?

And as for IBM vertical market applications for unix/linux, it seems to me unix is unix to a large degree and the porting issues are fairly minimal.

Rocketman

ntg

Aug 9, 2002, 10:52 AM

interesting link to Cnet regarding "Book E" from 1999:-

http://news.com.com/2100-1040-225442.html?legacy=cnet

IBM and Motorola noted that one of the main advantages of the new "Book E" architecture will make it easier for customers to migrate from 32-bit to 64-bit PowerPC designs, executives said. Applications designed for the current PowerPC architecture will run on 64-bit versions of the chip, although no specific products have been announced yet.

Another advantage, said Tom Sartorius, senior engineer for PowerPC products at IBM, is that the new design allows for the easy addition of what he calls "application-specific processing units." These can act as specialized co-processors such as a digital signal processor or multimedia playback accelerator, but are on the same piece of silicon.

If IBM did indeed continue with their co-implemented "Book E" standards, including AltiVec, then wouldn't it be interesting to see new DSP and MuliMedia acceleration 'on the same piece of silicon' ?:rolleyes:

Faeylyn

Aug 9, 2002, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by chubakka
Maybe this article will clear things up a bit.

http://news.com.com/2117-1001-949030.html

"Network equipment and other communications gear is the most likely destination for the new PowerPC, as the bulk of existing PowerPCs are used there...."

The new IBM chip is NOT an embedded chip. Just because a chip carries the label "PowerPC" doesn't mean anything. The PowerPCs used in Macs are NOT used for embedded applications and the PowerPCs used for embedded applications are NOT used in Macs. This doesn't mean that can't be. Just that there are different requirements that are needed for each application. The design of the new IBM processor has Mac written all over it.

That author is a dolt.

chubakka

Aug 9, 2002, 11:14 AM

He mentions network and communications in one sentence.

Also... his source STATES that IBM is wooing Apple to use the chip.

kenohki

Aug 9, 2002, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Rocketman

Isn't it fairly trivial to support yet another file system? They already support CD and DVD format, HFS, HFS+, Wintel, and Unix by being able to mount, read and write those formats. Why is a journaling file syatem any more difficult to believe can happen. In fact isn't it an element of BSD distribution on which OSX is based anyway?

Yes, it is easy for the OS to add support but it can break Macintosh applications. HFS and HFS+ have extra metadata in the filesystem that is used to set type/creator codes, and provide the resource fork. Traditional Mac applications have a data fork and a resource fork (used to store resource data and accessable through ResEdit). The reason encoding schemes like BinHex and MacBinary were created is that other filesystems can't handle the resource fork of Macintosh applications like HFS and HFS+ can. They strip out the resource fork, leave the data fork and thus, you are left with an unusable application.

Apple's new guidelines for developers are to stop using the resource fork and to move resources into .rsrc files which should typically be hidden within application bundles. Apple would also like everyone to stop using the four charachter type/creator codes embedded in the HFS/HFS+ metadata and use a dot notation file extension like Windows. However, there are developers who are not following these guidelines to the T. Also, the Classic environment as well as most Classic applications require the resource fork and usually at least like to have type/creator codes.

So in short, yes, you could add support for whatever you want, FAT32, NTFS, HPFS, EXT2...whatever. But it would break your apps so that's why we haven't migrated yet.

dubstud

Aug 9, 2002, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by ddtlm
alex_ant:

When Intel needed a Celeron, they took cache from a Pentium. When AMD needed a Duron, they took cache from an Athlon. Messing with the execution core is just too difficult.

Not even the things Intel did to the Celerons ever crippled them as much as you suggest IBM will do to the Power4.

Wouldn't IBM have to mess with the core to include a vector
processor? Or maybe they could include a vector coprocessor
core? (like in the old days when we had a seperate FPU
coprocessor). Is that possible? The Power4 is desgined to
schedule instructions to more than one core. They could
keep one core, replace the other with a vector processor
and reduce the cache.:D

Chryx

Aug 9, 2002, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Faeylyn
The PowerPCs used in Macs are NOT used for embedded applications

I was under the impression that some high end routers had 7455's in them?

Rocketman

Aug 9, 2002, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by kenohki

Apple's new guidelines for developers are to stop using the resource fork and to move resources into .rsrc files which should typically be hidden within application bundles. Apple would also like everyone to stop using the four charachter type/creator codes embedded in the HFS/HFS+ metadata and use a dot notation file extension like Windows. However, there are developers who are not following these guidelines to the T. Also, the Classic environment as well as most Classic applications require the resource fork and usually at least like to have type/creator codes.

So in short, yes, you could add support for whatever you want, FAT32, NTFS, HPFS, EXT2...whatever. But it would break your apps so that's why we haven't migrated yet.

With all computers being on a network now at one time or another couldn't there be a central database on an apple server that provides "equivelent type and creator codes" for files and aplications as they arise? There could be a whole hackerbase making and updating those codes as a back channel operation sort of against the will of the original UNIX/WinX authors.

Likewise Apple could assign .3 and .4 codes to common Mac applications and files (as it has already largely done).

In short it would be like a super version of the older DOS compatibility built into some older macs

By using a central server for maintaining the codes any new discovery updates it for all users, and all users would be using the SAME .3 and .4 codes, UNLIKE either wintrel or unix now. Making it yet another mac specific seamless user friendly aspect, yet FULLY COMPATIBLE with you know who.

Rocketman

Hi Steve Jobs!
Send me a share of Pixar.

kenohki

Aug 9, 2002, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Rocketman

With all computers being on a network now at one time or another couldn't there be a central database on an apple server that provides "equivelent type and creator codes" for files and aplications as they arise? There could be a whole hackerbase making and updating those codes as a back channel operation sort of against the will of the original UNIX/WinX authors.

Likewise Apple could assign .3 and .4 codes to common Mac applications and files (as it has already largely done).

In short it would be like a super version of the older DOS compatibility built into some older macs

By using a central server for maintaining the codes any new discovery updates it for all users, and all users would be using the SAME .3 and .4 codes, UNLIKE either wintrel or unix now. Making it yet another mac specific seamless user friendly aspect, yet FULLY COMPATIBLE with you know who.

Rocketman

Hi Steve Jobs!
Send me a share of Pixar.

Woah, the resource fork is not just type/creator codes. All bundle bits, icons, menus, dialogs, code snippiet, are all stored in the resource fork. A big giant "hackerbase" on a central server would constitute software piracy I'm sure by Adobe or Quark's standards.

G4scott

Aug 9, 2002, 11:38 AM

Ok, let me see if I'm right... A 32 bit OS or App could run on a 64 bit chip, but it would only process 32 bits at a time, meaning the processor is running at a 50% performance level.

Now, to have a 32 bit app take advantage of a 64 bit processor, would it be possible to have the processor put two 32 bit commands in each clock cycle? Isn't this how Apple was able to say that Velocity Engine could process data in 128 bit chunks, because in reality, it just does 4 32 bit chunks per cycle?

So, 32 bit apps will work with a 64 bit chip, right? Well, if an app was to take true advantage of that chip, rather than just work with it, it would have to be changed to a 64 bit app, right? But this change would be only to optimize it, because it would run ok without it... This is how I see it, based on some of the stuff I've been reading here...

kenohki

Aug 9, 2002, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by G4scott
Ok, let me see if I'm right... A 32 bit OS or App could run on a 64 bit chip, but it would only process 32 bits at a time, meaning the processor is running at a 50% performance level.

Now, to have a 32 bit app take advantage of a 64 bit processor, would it be possible to have the processor put two 32 bit commands in each clock cycle? Isn't this how Apple was able to say that Velocity Engine could process data in 128 bit chunks, because in reality, it just does 4 32 bit chunks per cycle?

So, 32 bit apps will work with a 64 bit chip, right? Well, if an app was to take true advantage of that chip, rather than just work with it, it would have to be changed to a 64 bit app, right? But this change would be only to optimize it, because it would run ok without it... This is how I see it, based on some of the stuff I've been reading here...

Not really correct. The processor is an eight way superscalar design meaning it's going to get eight ops out per cycle whether or not they are 32 or 64 bit precision.

The real advantage of 64bit processors is that using 64bits exponentially raises your ability to address memory. So you move beyond 32 bit memory limits.

Snowy_River

Aug 9, 2002, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by kenohki

Apple's new guidelines for developers are to stop using the resource fork and to move resources into .rsrc files which should typically be hidden within application bundles. Apple would also like everyone to stop using the four charachter type/creator codes embedded in the HFS/HFS+ metadata and use a dot notation file extension like Windows. However, there are developers who are not following these guidelines to the T. Also, the Classic environment as well as most Classic applications require the resource fork and usually at least like to have type/creator codes.

This is one of the worst moves that Apple has ever made, IMHO. Just from a simple stand point, three letter case insensitive extensions allows for a specification of 17576 different kinds of files, whereas four letter case sensitive creator and type codes allows for specification of 5.345e13 different kinds of files. (There is an excellent document that talks about meta data handling on different OSes, and the three letter extension issue is just one part of it. If there's interest, I'll see if I can find the link to it...)

For what it's worth, it seems clear that Apple isn't just using the .3 to specify the file's associations, as, unlike Windows, you can have two .pdf files that will each automatically open with a different application. On the Info window, you can specify that a particular file will open with a particular file. So, in some sense, they are still storing an equivalent to the creator code somewhere.

MMBosstonesDA

Aug 9, 2002, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by whiskeybravo

I don't see that happening, Steve is a bit more clever than that. Introducing the new G4's and simutaneously announcing G5 plans whould effectively cut the legs off of G4 sales. If the G5 is around the corner, but Apple can't wait to introduce new motherboards/architecture, you can bet Steve will trumpet the G4 as the mostest insanely greatestest processor ever...only to be replaced with a G5 at MW in the Spring :)

Just to throw in something else to think about. If the G5 was designed for massive video editing/business workstations, SJ could do that. He could release the G4 for small/home businesses or just people who want alot of power and the discuss plans for the G5 for large corporations needing that kind of workstation power. He could release ball park prices for each of these. If the G5 was a workstation it would be too rich for the people wanting G4s and the they would go for them.

To tell you the truth I don't think any of this is going to happen. Apple's coming back and doing a great job but I think they've expanded their business so much since '97 that I think they need to settle down and return back to the niche they've created in the last five years, which is having a high end (the PowerMac) and a low end (the Performa/iMac). If this would be their strategy they would introduce the G5 as the new PowerMac the iMac with the G4 getting rid of the classic iMac.

Although there are many other things you could say like Apple's character is to be radical and do thing nobody's done before but it will all happen in good time. This is too much too soon. Just my two cents.

Mike

Faeylyn

Aug 9, 2002, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by chubakka
Also... his source STATES that IBM is wooing Apple to use the chip.

IBM already has a customer for this chip. Note that the customer may be IBM itself and, if so, then they might as well woo Apple to use it as well. The development costs prohibit IBM from making such a chip in the hopes that someone somewhere will use it. Intel and AMD can get away with that practice but not IBM.

As far as embedded stuff, they don't need this type of power. They're still stuck using very slow (by Mac standards) PowerPCs. So unless IBM has plans to enter the desktop market, this chip was custom designed for Apple.

(Either that or Amiga. I hear they're moving over to the PowerPC and should have their new OS out real soon now.)

alex_ant

Aug 9, 2002, 04:39 PM

As for this chip "emulating" AltiVec, don't count it out because of that, because nobody knows what "emulating" means in this context. Vectorized code is vectorized code which should run well on any compatible CPU with a vector unit. For all anybody knows, IBM is only "emulating" AltiVec because it doesn't own the trademark rights to the term "AltiVec."

Everything about this chip, to me, makes me think that it or something very like it will be the next Mac CPU. It puts all the pieces into place. I don't think the messages of these articles could be any clearer if they were written by Captain Obvious himself.

Alex

jadam

Aug 9, 2002, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by york2600
I love reading comments on this board. You people say things that surely come right out of your ass. If you say something learn to back it up with facts. If you read something always question it. Some of the things said in response to this post are absurd.

1) not really sneed, its PPC compatible, no reason why it cant boot into OS0

First of all I'm assuming that OS0 was OS9. OS 9 is build around Apple's current round of motherboards and 32bit PowerPC processors. If Apple wants it to run on ANYTHING else they have to modify it. Notice a new OS release comes out with every new round of hardware. Even a G4 board with a few minor tweaks requires Apple to release hardware enablers to allow the OS to work with the new components. A 64bit PPC would require quite the massive motherboard redesign and right there without proper maintence of OS 9 code would end OS 9s compatibility with new Mac hardware. That's just the motherboard though. A 64bit processor woud require a complete recompile of all code. Simple as that. Notice MS has different version of XP and .Net server for Itanium. It's not because they like making two boxes. They have to recompile for the different architectures. Apple would have to do the same and without a similar system to the 68k/PPC FAT application system they would have to convince developers to distribute two version of all their apps for this radically different platform.

Nforce with a G4
This one is just crazy. Yes they both use Hypertransport, and yes Apple's current motherboard goals are similar to that of Nforce, but Nforce is a PC chipset build around a PC BIOS. You would have to fundamentally redesign the architecture to make it work with a Mac. Some of you make it sound like they just change the pin out on the ZIF slot to allow a PowerPC and their done. It would be a huge task to create a Mac compatibile Nforce chipset.

Think about what you read.

-Tim

youve just pissed me off.

OS0 was OS9, it was a typo.

By the ****ing way, Itanium IS NOT x86, its a WHOLE NEW instruction set. OK??? GET THAT????????? ITS A RISC PROCESSOR NOT CISC LIKE THE PENTIUMS, IT uses IA-64 WHICH WAS BUILT FROM TEH GROUND UP. NOT AN EXTENSION TO x86, THE ONLY REASON IT CAN RUN x86 CODE IS BECAUSE INTEL PUT IN AN EMULATION LAYER, READ EMULATION EMULATION EMULATION!!! GOT IT???????????? ITS NOT NATIVE, THE REASON FOR THE NATIVE BUILDS OF XP IS BECAUSE NATIVE GET IT NATIVE IS FASTER THAN ANYTHING THATS EMULATED GOT THAT??????????? NATIVE AND EMULATION, now you should go on talking out of YOUR ass when you dont seem to know ****.

Youve REALLY PISSED ME OFF

now its time to cool down.................

g4scott- no its not utilizing 50% of the performance, 64bit does not add 100% performance boost just cuz its twice the amount of bits, you can have more ram, and if your using say photoshop, you could calculate LARGE Integers WICKED fast. but if you were using a word processor where only 16bits would be really necessary, then ... no real performance boost.

ohh yeah, not to mention, we can all say

AMD Hammer- a 64bit extension to a 32bit processor that ran on a 16bit os that was designed for 8bit processors that were extensions to a 4bit caculator processor that was based on a 2bit processor that comes from a company that has 1bit in its brain that is controlled by a tyrant that has 0bits :p

or whatever you want to say :D

MacCoaster

Aug 9, 2002, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by jadam
...ITS A RISC PROCESSOR NOT CISC LIKE THE PENTIUMS, IT uses IA-64 WHICH WAS BUILT FROM TEH GROUND UP...
Actually, it's neither RISC nor CISC. It's EPIC.

Article here (http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/1q99/ia-64-preview-1.html).

Wry Cooter

Aug 9, 2002, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by GrizzlyHippo
[B]I hope this comes to the Mac soon. My problem is that I need to upgrade from my G4/400 AGP a.s.a.p. and I'm waiting for the next PowerMac announcement before making a decision what to do.

If you don't like what may be announced at the end of the month, a g4 1.x with faster motherboard, and want to wait for a real g5, or whatever comes next, bide your time with Jaguar and a good video card and your g4 400 agp. That is my plan.

I may have to wait another year that way, but I think I will manage.

Perhaps Apple has been calling it the Velocity engine instead of altivec, so there can be more similarity in the instruction set they may be able to add to a chip made by the fast and reliable IBM corporation.

timothyjoelwrig

Aug 9, 2002, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by ftaok
I agree that Altivec is here to stay (in some form or another).

But, there is no way that Apple has bought out the PPC assets of Motorola. If they had, there would have been press releases and SEC filings. Publicly traded corporations can't make large deals like that without announcing it. More likely, if the IBM chips do have Altivec, is that Apple has persuaded IBM to license Altivec from Motorola or that IBM engineered their "own" version of it.

Not true. The SEC only requires reporting for activities relating to investing or shareholder welfare. The most common forms being earnings reports on a quarterly (10-Q) and and annual basis (10-K) for the purpose of calculating shareholder's equity, new securities issues (the F and S series forms), and the stock transactions of people owning 10% or more stock (Forms 3, 4, and 5). Public corporations can make all the asset transactions (intellectual or otherwise) they choose with no obligation to make it public knowledge. Despite this, I highly doubt Apple could buy Moto's PowerPC intellectual property. They don't have the cash or the credit to do so. IBM would be a more likely purchaser.

As a suggestion to those really desperate for clues to what Moto, Apple, and IBM could be doing, read their recent 10-Q reports. They often show what shares they own in who and their opinions on those investments. You can search for these filings on the SEC web site (http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html) . The CIK's for the companies are: Apple - 0000320193, Motorola - 0000068505, and IBM - 0000051143.

Also, notice that Apple has their own name for AltiVec (Velocity Engine). This would allow them the flexibility to change the underlying hardware. From what's been said here, it could be surmised that Apple could easily use the VPU provided with this new chip, keep the Velocity Engine name for it, and the consumer would be none the wiser.

As for fans and cooling, I don't understand why Apple (or any computer manufacturer for that matter) doesn't use something based on the Zenion Effect (U.S. Patent No. 4,789,801). It's silent, no moving parts, and has proven to be very effective at moving a lot of air quickly in the other markets in which it's been integrated. Not to mention it wouldn't cost much more to manufacture.

Overall, I'm praying Apple uses this processor from IBM simply because they're doing a crappy job of keeping up with the rest of the world. Motorola has a weak business model and hasn't been going anywhere exciting many years. This kind of move with also help IBM by giving them a little light at the end of the tunnel. They've been admittedly losing marketshare due to lack of direction.

Dave K

Aug 9, 2002, 07:41 PM

"IBM's decision to tout the chip may indicate that Apple has so far balked at embracing the chip, one analyst said.

"What I find is interesting is the fact that IBM can talk about it. If there was committed iMac design, you know (Apple CEO) Steve Jobs would have his hands around IBM's neck not to talk about this chip," said Kevin Krewell, a senior analyst at In-Stat/MDR. "The fact that IBM is talking about it indicates to me that it's not a mainstream Apple product at this time."

A certain analyst obviously didn't notice that IBM announced the Sahara G3, what, 6-8 months?, before Apple was more than happy to use it in the iBook...

As long as IBM never says: "Apple will be using our wonderful chip" and/or proceeds to leak other Apple procuct info before Apple does, I highly doubt SJ cares what they say with regards to IBM's own proprietary tech info nor is he likely in a position to make them stop...

ddtlm

Aug 9, 2002, 08:22 PM

Dave K:

Yeah that analist does sound way off. About now, IBM probably expects S. Jobs to salute and scream "Yes Sir!" when they becon. This "G5" could mean a lot to Apple... a whole heck of a lot.

jadam

Aug 9, 2002, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Actually, it's neither RISC nor CISC. It's EPIC.

Article here (http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/1q99/ia-64-preview-1.html).

woops forget about that one :) thanks for poiting that out.

yeah i read that arstechnica article a while back.

Cappy

Aug 9, 2002, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by york2600
I love reading comments on this board. You people say things that surely come right out of your ass. If you say something learn to back it up with facts. If you read something always question it. Some of the things said in response to this post are absurd.

1) not really sneed, its PPC compatible, no reason why it cant boot into OS0

First of all I'm assuming that OS0 was OS9. OS 9 is build around Apple's current round of motherboards and 32bit PowerPC processors. If Apple wants it to run on ANYTHING else they have to modify it. Notice a new OS release comes out with every new round of hardware. Even a G4 board with a few minor tweaks requires Apple to release hardware enablers to allow the OS to work with the new components. A 64bit PPC would require quite the massive motherboard redesign and right there without proper maintence of OS 9 code would end OS 9s compatibility with new Mac hardware. That's just the motherboard though. A 64bit processor woud require a complete recompile of all code. Simple as that. Notice MS has different version of XP and .Net server for Itanium. It's not because they like making two boxes. They have to recompile for the different architectures. Apple would have to do the same and without a similar system to the 68k/PPC FAT application system they would have to convince developers to distribute two version of all their apps for this radically different platform.

Nforce with a G4
This one is just crazy. Yes they both use Hypertransport, and yes Apple's current motherboard goals are similar to that of Nforce, but Nforce is a PC chipset build around a PC BIOS. You would have to fundamentally redesign the architecture to make it work with a Mac. Some of you make it sound like they just change the pin out on the ZIF slot to allow a PowerPC and their done. It would be a huge task to create a Mac compatibile Nforce chipset.

Think about what you read.

-Tim

Some of us do. You, yourself, are not even offerring any expert testimony on your last claim. For years many of the pci and agp cards could not work in both a mac and pc. That's not the case as long as the design and firmware are done correctly. Granted it's not a motherboard chipset but I would never say it's impossible. There is nothing to back it up unless you just go with the fact it may not have been done before. If nvidia and Apple wanted to do it, I think they're technically capable of it.

Your first point though on OS 9 I might somewhat agree if we follow your words very strictly. The thing is that Classic is something many are worried about and I think Apple will be as well. I think Apple cares more about this working than whether OS9 will boot. Emulation could address this and I would guess they will go that route if they use this chip. Doing this would keep developers somewhat satisfied while helping move people more toward OSX.

Cappy

Aug 9, 2002, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by kenohki
The real advantage of 64bit processors is that using 64bits exponentially raises your ability to address memory. So you move beyond 32 bit memory limits.

Actually the "real" advantage for 64bit on the desktop for now may prove to be more for marketing. ;)

Scottgfx

Aug 10, 2002, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by jadam

youve just pissed me off.

OS0 was OS9, it was a typo.

By the ****ing way, Itanium IS NOT x86, its a WHOLE NEW instruction set. OK??? GET THAT????????? ITS A RISC PROCESSOR NOT CISC LIKE THE PENTIUMS, IT uses IA-64 WHICH WAS BUILT FROM TEH GROUND UP. NOT AN EXTENSION TO x86, THE ONLY REASON IT CAN RUN x86 CODE IS BECAUSE INTEL PUT IN AN EMULATION LAYER, READ EMULATION EMULATION EMULATION!!! GOT IT???????????? ITS NOT NATIVE, THE REASON FOR THE NATIVE BUILDS OF XP IS BECAUSE NATIVE GET IT NATIVE IS FASTER THAN ANYTHING THATS EMULATED GOT THAT??????????? NATIVE AND EMULATION, now you should go on talking out of YOUR ass when you dont seem to know ****.
Youve REALLY PISSED ME OFF

I have two words for you... Anger management.

I really don't think you said anything more than what york2600 said. He wasn't even impolite. So "OS0" was a typo, so what?

me_animal

Aug 10, 2002, 06:17 AM

The Power PC has always been desiged by Motorola, Apple and IBM.

http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/chips/
Scott

Catfish_Man

Aug 10, 2002, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by me_animal
The Power PC has always been desiged by Motorola, Apple and IBM.

http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/chips/
Scott

You're quite right. The big news is not that IBM makes PPC chips, it's that IBM is making an 8 way superscalar desktop targetted 64 bit chip with a VPU. Based on this I'm retracting most of my previous statements about the G5 until we get some more info (Right now, if I understand this correctly, both Motorola's and IBM's chips look like a very plausible G5). We could be getting a fun 6-12 months coming up... :) :) :)

ezzyme

Aug 12, 2002, 11:19 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by timothyjoelwrig
[B]

Despite this, I highly doubt Apple could buy Moto's PowerPC intellectual property. They don't have the cash or the credit to do so. IBM would be a more likely purchaser. "

I guess $1.25 billion cash wouldn't take an asset that is losing Motorola a billion a year. But maybe if they dipped into the three billion in short term investments (cds, commercial paper, treasury notes....) Apple has on hand. No, I'm sure they couldn't afford it.

APPLE COMPUTER,_INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (Unaudited)
(in millions, except share amounts)

_ _ June_29, 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------ _ September_29, 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------ _
ASSETS: _

Current assets:
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_ Cash and cash equivalents _ $ 1,246 _ $ 2,310 _
_ Short-term investments _ _ 3,060 _ _ 2,026 _
_ Accounts receivable, less allowances of $52 and $51, respectively _ _ 626 _ _ 466 _
_ Inventories _ _ 34 _ _ 11 _
_ Deferred tax assets _ _ 164 _ _ 169 _
_ Other current assets _ _ 313 _ _ 161 _
_ _
------------------------------------------------------------------------ _
------------------------------------------------------------------------ _
_ _ Total current assets _ _ 5,443 _ _ 5,143 _
Property, plant and equipment, net _ _ 589 _ _ 564 _
Non-current debt and equity investments _ _ 48 _ _ 128 _
Acquired intangible assets _ _ 99 _ _ 76 _
Other assets _ _ 114 _ _ 110 _
_ _
------------------------------------------------------------------------ _
------------------------------------------------------------------------ _
_ _ Total assets _ $ 6,293 _ $ 6,021 _
_ _
------------------------------------------------------------------------ _
------------------------------------------------------------------------ _:D ;)