IBM PDF about PPC 970

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by maradong, May 12, 2003.

  1. macrumors 65816

    maradong

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Location:
    Luxembourg
    #1
  2. macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #2
    Nice one.

    I especially like the fact that they wanted to compare it to a G4....
     
  3. macrumors 68020

    barkmonster

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2001
    Location:
    Lancashire
    #3
    The wording of the bit about apple using the ppc970 in the powermac reminds me of that lawyer in the simpsons.

    "Mr. Simpson, the state bar forbids me from promising you a big cash settlement. But just between you and me, I promise you a big cash settlement" - Lionel Hutz

    :D
     
  4. thread starter macrumors 65816

    maradong

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Location:
    Luxembourg
    #4
    i see this as the major presentation of the chip in itself. Officially, if i understand it all well, only the apple managers have to say: << YES, we 're gonna use that chip ! >> and i think everybody would be happy.
     
  5. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Location:
    Seattle
    #5
    strange.. did anyone else feel like this was a pitch to apple to use the 970's? Almost felt like a powerpoint..err.. keynote presentation from a past meeting between IBM and Apple put into pdf form.

    Hmm...

    that said, I'm inserting the obligatory statement - I can't wait for a 970 based powerbook.

    _f
     
  6. thread starter macrumors 65816

    maradong

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Location:
    Luxembourg
    #6
    i really hope you are NOT right. that would be a pity.. no really.
     
  7. macrumors 65816

    strider42

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    #7
    best part of the PDF: "Obviously, the Power4 is overkill for a desktop computer or local server, especially one that doesn’t have to run Windows"

    Implying that windows might be better off with the otherwise overkill of the power4. funny stuff.
     
  8. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Location:
    Denver, CO.
    #8
    date

    this .pdf is dated 1/28/02.......pretty old don't you think?

    edit: sorry, i meant 10/28/02.

    -dornball
     
  9. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Location:
    Seattle
    #9
    Re: date

    AH-HA So, it *was* a presentation to Apple by IBM. I was right...I'm soo good it hurts... :p
     
  10. macrumors 601

    cb911

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Location:
    BrisVegas, Australia
    #10
    that is an old PDF... i din't even know, or hear about any rumors of the 970 back then:eek:

    although it is dated from way back last year, could IBM have updated some info in it?

    anyway, i've never seen this before and it looks like good reading.:)
     
  11. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    #11
    Powernac sale!??!

    Just checked macwarehouse...they are offer "clearance sale" on all apple products. That really doesn't mean much, but why the term "clearance"?

    Ape
     
  12. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2002
    #12
    Re: Re: date

    Hang on a minute. This is not an IBM presentation to Apple. It is an article written for the Microprocessor Report magazine, presumably as a followup to the IBM presentation of the PPC970 at the Microprocessor Forum last year.

    Apple would have been on board with this much earlier than late last year.
     
  13. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Location:
    Denver, CO.
    #13
    Re: Powernac sale!??!

    you could be on to something, though as a side note, its hardly a bargain. you save ~$60 on a DP1.42 pmac, and ~$40 on a DP1.25.

    though it does say clearance on everything.

    interesting......

    -dornball
     
  14. macrumors 65816

    Ambrose Chapel

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #14
    come all ye doubters, IBM will guide you...

    This really reads like an open letter to the Mac comminity - all the digs at the G4, with the promise of a 970 salvation. Telling everyone who is down on Mac hardware to just wait til 2003. They all but announce Apple's adoption of the chip, and the performance boost Macs will see with it.

    Or maybe I'm just reading into it too much...
    :D
     
  15. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Location:
    Denver, CO.
    #15
    clearance date

    the macwarehouse clearance date ends on 5/18/03. i wonder if this holds any significance? probably not.

    -dornball
     
  16. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    #16
    How can IBM use the term "Altivec" without Apple's or MOT's support? Obviously MOT isn't going to give it to them, so it must have been apple.
     
  17. macrumors 68000

    Freg3000

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    #17
    Yeah, the only thing even more convincing would be if they used Apple's name for Altivec, "Velocity Engine." No one ever does. :)
     
  18. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2003
    #18
    Altivec

    IBM and Moto worked on the AltiVec architecture together, but Moto got the product. I seem to remember something about IBM licensing it from Moto in some news about the 970 around Christmas time. OS X will roar on any one of 970 procs!!!! Can't wait!:D
     
  19. arn
    macrumors god

    arn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    #19
  20. macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Location:
    Springfield, PA
    #20
    hey everyone =P

    i'm new posting here, but i've been reading the forums for a while, and, while i (UNFORTUNATELY) still own a pc, i'll be getting a sweet mac this summer for school.

    the only thing that i am curious about regarding the 970 pdf was the mention of the "deep pipelines". i remember that apple made a big deal about the g4's short pipeline which would allow the user to "see results faster". would this make the longer pipeline of the 970 a disadvantage to speed? or are the chips faster enough in general to eliminate this disadvantage?
     
  21. macrumors regular

    tazznb

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #21
    Deeeeep & Wiiiide.... did I misspell?

    They made the assumption that the G4 is better due to the fact that it's wide, and not deep; the 970 is DEEP & WIDE, but there's a trade-off for making it that way. Read this article for a better understanding: http://arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc970-1.html
     
  22. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    #22
    Surprised no one mentioned that it states the 970 max speed is 1.8ghz. So all the rumors that we will get a 2.3ghz is BS.
     
  23. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #23
    Don't forget that this is an old report. At the time this was printed 1.8 gig was supposedly the highest, but since then IBM has released statements indicating higher sppeds of 2 gig+.
     
  24. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    #24
    Am I correct in understanding that all of the references to the 970 going in a notebook are intended as jokes?

    Because it seems the 970 sucks far too much juice to be a laptop processor.

    Edit: I just read the Ars Technica article.

    I guess I'm wrong again.

    Ah, well. I'll stick to reading.
     
  25. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    #25
    970 not as fast as everyone thinks?

    970 not as fast as everyone thinks?

    In the IBM PDF, it states that a single 1.8 970 can do 18M keys at 1.8Ghz in RC5

    the dual QS 1.0ghz g4 mac does 21M keys in RC5

    no, if you dream ad just double the Keys for a dual system you get 36M Keys at 1.8ghz

    do the math and if you scale a G4 to do 36M Keys in rc5 you would need a dual 1.7143 GHZ ...

    this means that even if you loose info to the dual system, the 970 will not be faster in Altivec programs.

    however if you note that apple dual 1.42 can acheave 21Gf. the dual 1.8 will do near 30gf/s

    and we know by the altivec fractle program that the second processor will double the Gf... we do our math again

    a Dual 1.947Ghz G4 would be needed to do the same work as a dual 1.8ghz 970


    according to apple one of my 1.0ghz g4s should do 1.5gf with NO altivec

    so at 1.8 should do 2.7Gf with NO altivec

    BUT a 1.8 970 does 7.2Gf

    That is 2.6X faster with no altives used

    So while the 970 will not do a ton more work using altivec, it will do a bunch more for normal non altivec enhanced code.


    but i could be wrong about all of it
     

Share This Page