Macworld Mag article- PowerPC 970

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by Raiden, Dec 6, 2002.

  1. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    #1
    Hey guys, didnt know if you knew, but there is a good article on IBM's new PowerPC 970 chip in the January 03 issue of Macworld. It was a good read for who dont know alot about the 970.

    My question is, now big name Mac magazines are speculating about the 970, so do you think apple will adopt it?
     
  2. macrumors 65816

    strider42

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    #2
    I think they will adopt it, but the fact that macworld is speculating about it does not make it in any way more likely. They don't know anything more than we do really.
     
  3. macrumors 604

    LimeiBook86

    Joined:
    May 4, 2002
    Location:
    Hanging around in NJ with his cutie. :)
    #3
    I think Apple will use which ever comes first and which ever is fastest. I am looking at teh magazine right now, :) I was reading it yesterday when I was in my house, away from the 8 inches of snow outside. :D I was nice and warm... :)
     
  4. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Location:
    cleveland:oh
    #4
    I hope they don't adopt it. IBM and Motorola are totally unreliable. It's not that exciting. It's only one processor that will most likely go through the same development as the G3.
     
  5. macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #5
    Oh look another x86 fan. Go and buy a PC if you want x86.
     
  6. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Location:
    cleveland:oh
    #6
    You're way off base. Apple's not benefitting from IBM or Motorola. I don't care what architecture they use, PPC or x86-64, just as long as somebody keeps up with development. Another thing is that Apple needs to have more options than the PPC 970. I don't think IBM or Motorola are capable of providing Apple with the options that they need to survive.

    Step out of the box and come into reality. It's fun.
     
  7. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Location:
    cleveland:oh
    #7
    I didn't see anything in the latest Macworld.
     
  8. macrumors 604

    LimeiBook86

    Joined:
    May 4, 2002
    Location:
    Hanging around in NJ with his cutie. :)
    #8
    LOOK HARDER... :)

    It is the January 2003 Thats the issue, its the one with teh TiBook on the cover and a Apple logo and a Windows XP logo on the top. Check again, it's on page 18.
     
  9. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Location:
    cleveland:oh
    #9
    Re: LOOK HARDER... :)

    Thank-you, Sir. I'll look at it when I get home.
     
  10. macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2002
    Location:
    far, far away
    #10

    Then please tell me what options the windows world has!
    A crappy P4 (fast now at 3+ghz, but a baaaad architecture:p ), an aging P3, or rather the Athlon with its wrecking VIA chips?!? Oh, I forgot, there's still the Crusoe and Cyrix alternatives for slooow mootiiiooonnn work :D But despite al those options, there's still a way too old x86 architecture under the hood, so it's no real alternative.

    The whole thing is like comparing rumbling straight eights to turbo charged 4 cylinders. I'd rather prefer the 7.5 litre 8 w/200 hp then a 2litre turbo4 w/300 hp.

    The PPC simply is superior, and the 970 will make its way. Believe me, once it'll be out, nobody looks back the x86!
     
  11. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Location:
    cleveland:oh
    #11
    WTF? Has everyone totally missed the point? IT'S ONLY ONE PROCESSOR. If Apple goes 64-bit (which I believe they will), they'll have to make every processor 64-bit. Not just on the high-end. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. Besides, IBM and Motorola have a terrible track record of maintaining the development of PowerPC. It's crippling Apple. I care about processor speed because of my work. But consumers, particularly those who are into gaming, care about speed as well and not all of them will buy high-end systems (ask Peter Cohen from Macworld). It's really sad when Apple has to make all of their desktops dual processor to compensate for the lack speed. Crippled DDR RAM makes it even worse. There's no good reason why (full) DDR isn't in all of Apple's notebooks and desktops.

    I'm sure I speak for a lot of Mac users when I say I have zero faith in IBM and Motorola. Where's IBM been since the G3? The roadmap of the PPC might as well be static. I've always been for a switch to AMD. An AMD PPC would be great. Hector Ruiz, AMD's CEO, was the president of Motorola's semiconductor unit before going to AMD and he took some of his former employees with him. Now, x86-64 looks pretty good from what I've seen. It sort of re-writes the laws of the 32-bit x86 version. AMD is driven by development and innovation. IBM, on the other hand, has their own agenda and that's to push Linux. Apple doesn't benefit from either IBM or Motorola.

    Look, I respect all of you. I'm the most hardcore Mac user I know. It's just really frustrating to see Apple suffering because of IBM and Motorola. That's all.
     
  12. macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2002
    Location:
    far, far away
    #12
     
  13. macrumors 68000

    agreenster

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Location:
    Walt Disney Animation Studios
    #13
    I agree with BlueCell

    Im also a fan of Apple computer, but it amazes me how blind some Apple enthusiasts are.

    For example, everyone dogs the mHz of current Intel processors. But the question is, have any of you actually used these machines??? They're FAST. Sure, I understand that the speed of these chips are coming to a plateau, but their plataeu is still faster than the top of the line G4!!!

    You are arguing that the "up and coming' PPC 970 is going to kill the current Intel chips----well of course it will! Any chip that is 'in the future' is going to destroy whats out today. You cant even compare the two! Besides, its counter-productive. The real fact is: right NOW, the fastest and cheapest processor you can buy does not come from Motorola or IBM, but Intel.

    Whats to come in the future? Who knows. Hopefully Apple and (insert processor manufacturer here) can tema up and supply a nice fast chip in a branded Apple box. But, in the meantime, you have to face facts that Macs are slower, even at the interface level. I get so sick and tired of waiting for windows to pop open and my damn 'system preferences' to take 4 seconds to open.

    One more thing--speed DOES matter. A lot of Apple user today say 'speed doesnt really metter anymore.' Hogwash! The faster and more efficient the processor, the more you can do with your computer. The sky's the limit as to what your computer can do with a fast engine. People dont just read email and surf the web anymore. People are using their computers to do their digital photos and make home movies. I use iPhoto, and its too slow for me a lot of the time. I have to wait a lot, and scaling the images is jerky.

    Anyway, my point is, dont judge the Intel chip so harshly. Their chips ARE faster, and it gives you no right to say that they are crap. Sure, the x86 is reaching the end of its life, but so is the G4. If you compare the life of the G4 to the life of the P4 or Xeon, I can tell you which has been better and faster in the overall run. Here's a hint, it aint the G4.
     
  14. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2002
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON, Canada
    #14
    I more or less agree with you, agreenster... while the G4 may indeed be much more efficient than a Pentium 4, there's only so much of a gap before you start to lag behind anyways.

    In the consumer lines Apple uses, no, they don't need especially faster chips; for the foreseeable future, a G4 800 will do nicely. It's when you get to the pro lineup that Motorola's heel-dragging really starts to be felt. If you're on the bleeding edge of an architecture, you want to feel like you can do a lot more than others can, and that impression just doesn't come to you when you hear of a dual 1.25 GHz PowerMac. Powerbooks are considerably more forgiving , but nonetheless...

    One thing I don't see happening anytime soon is the switch to x86 architecture. Right now that would be a major leap, making the 68K-to-PPC switch seem relatively trivial. If Apple didn't want the bottom to drop out of their sales, they'd also have to be extremely careful about making sure that OS X didn't boot up on just any x86 system.

    For them, it's probably more worthwhile to just get the PPC 970 into their lineup as soon as possible - and while they'd certainly introduce it for the "power" series and the Xserve first, I wouldn't be shocked at all if they put a slower version of the PPC 970 into the iMac shortly afterwards.
     
  15. macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2002
    Location:
    far, far away
    #15
    Well, I never said the P4s are slower than G4s. I just said the P4 architecture is crap.

    And to give a present comparison:
    A own a 500mhz iBook and an 1.4ghz Athlon XP tower. One runs OS X, the other one does XP. One has a 4200rpm drive, the other a 7200rpm drive, 384MB vs. 512MB and 100mhz Bus vs. 133mhz Bus. Ati Rage 8MB vs. Geforce 4 64MB.

    Now if you ask me which one FEELS faster, I'd say my iBook! Despite some slugginess of the userinterface, it feels faster. But what's more important is, on my MAC I needed 1 reinstall during the past 6 months, for Jaguar! On the Athlon, I needed 11. For system crashes! Same thing for my 2ghz P4 VAIO. Well, that on just needed 2 reinstalls...

    Yes, x86 CLOCKS faster, but does it let you WORK faster :rolleyes:
     
  16. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Location:
    cleveland:oh
    #16
    Hobie:

    I'm totally aware of the backwards capabilities of the PPC 970. The problem is that no one will get full use out of it unless apps are moved from 32-bit to 64-bit. Otherwise, it's pointless making the jump. The transition isn't difficult. Besides, the G4 isn't going to cut it for most gamers, which is the reason why I brought it up. Not all gamers will buy high-end systems. Speed does matter.

    The 1GHz G3 didn't make it into any of Apple's products. IBM really hasn't done anything since the G3. So yes, both IBM and Motorola have a terrible track record of PPC development.

    The crippled DDR is an affliction of G4. None of the G3 models utilize DDR, but the processor is also very outdated.

    IBM doesn't really care about Apple's initiatives. They have there own agenda that Apple will have to adhere to.

    And Agreenster is right on. :)
     
  17. macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2002
    Location:
    far, far away
    #17
    Yes, the 1ghz G3 hasn't seen daylight yet. But don't you think it's a strategy thing not to pull out a 1ghz G3 iBook besides a 667mhz G4 TiBook?!?

    Moto wasn't able to deliver faster chips, and hence Apple couldn't utilise IBMs faster chips.
     
  18. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Location:
    cleveland:oh
    #18
    I think all of Apple's original strategies fell through due to the lack of PPC development. Which makes me ask the question, why would Apple seed the rumor of an x86 port of the Mac OS (and I'm certain that they did)? The G3, like the G4, should be dead and buried.
     
  19. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2002
    Location:
    PA
    #19
    How long did it take x86 architecture to reach 1ghz? 10+ years? It was created in the late 70s or early 80s if i am not mistaken. How old is the PPC now around 10 give or take a few? I would imagine this is the peak of x86 and it's been around 20 years. PPC is still up and coming. it's still young and relatively immature. So have faith and give it time. Apple wouldn't have switched to PPC if they didn't see it as the next big thing. Apple is a leader in the industry. People follow their lead sooner or later. Take a look what does the PC have hardwarewise other then QDR ram and Mhz?
     
  20. macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2002
    Location:
    far, far away
    #20
    ...USB2 ?...:D

    But I'm with you, PPCs time will come yet!
     
  21. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2002
    #21
    Re: I agree with BlueCell

    The statements about the x86 architecture being old from Apple supporters don't make much sense (although agreenster's comments seemed the most clued-in).

    There is no such thing as an x86 architecture. The x86 is an Instruction Set Architecture (ISA), not an implementation. Besides the instruction set, the Pentium 4, Pentium III, Pentium, Pentium Pro, 486, Athlon and Athlon XP have very little in common. For more information about this, pop over to ArsTechnica and read some of their processor black papers.

    The x86 ISA has a lot of life left in it given the hefty investment by AMD and Intel. AMD is even planning on taking it farther with the x86-64 extensions. Intel has said over and over again that the Pentium 4 and Pentium 4 Xeon processors will be the desktop and low end workstation and server processors for the foreseeable future.

    Yes, the processors implementing the x86 ISA are starting to reach a plateau. But that has almost nothing to do with technical limitations. It is due to the PC market and the lack of an application requiring something faster. Intel has said they can easily take the Pentium 4 past 4Ghz and I am sure they will once the economic drivers to make it profitable exist.

    On the other hand, look at the G4. It really has hit a plateau. Why that is, I don't know but I imagine it is more techincal than economic. During the time the G4 has went from 933Mhz to 1.25Ghz, the Pentium 4 has gone from 2Ghz to 3Ghz and added hyperthreading.
     
  22. macrumors 68000

    agreenster

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Location:
    Walt Disney Animation Studios
    #22
    So, if the user interface is slower, then what exactly makes it feel faster? Photoshop? I have a really really hard time believing this.

    I have a 550 Powerbook and it doesnt even come close to the speed of my PC desktop.

    11 software reinstalls? Good god man. What did you do? Drop your computer into the tub? I've used Windows for over a year and have never need a system reinstall.

    I really dont think what you are saying is true. My PC clocks faster and works faster.
     
  23. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2002
    Location:
    PA
    #23
    I think USB2 is overrated. I don't think it offers much more then Firewire. Of course i do realize that firewire is not nearly as standard on PC as it is on Macs. I also do not know that much about USB2 so i guess i am not one to judge. The only thing i really see is the fact you can now connect harddrives via USB. Which i can do perfectly with firewire who cares about the extra 80bits per second you get with USB2 frankly know one is going to notice the difference
     
  24. macrumors 68000

    agreenster

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Location:
    Walt Disney Animation Studios
    #24
    Boy, talk about caring for the consumer. If I were Apple, I'd be ashamed to admit this. Not releasing a good computer because of how it would look to the consumer? C'mon.
     
  25. macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2002
    Location:
    far, far away
    #25
    You're none of those marketing guys, huh?! Customers would never buy a 667 TiBook @ $3500 when a 1ghz iBook sells at the same time for $1500. Simple as that.

    Intel did exactly the same thing with the P3 and P4. The P3 never clocked faster than the P4, though it could be easily done. And why? Because the P3 was faster than the P4 at the same clock rates (Checked by downclocking the P4 and/or overclocking the P3), and would kill the P4 at higher rates. But unfortunately the P4 has been chosen as the way to go, so there was no way back!
    Customers would just be confused by all those figures, like they where back in the 90's with Apple's "interesting" product politics.

    My MAC UI is sluggy SOMETIMES, and then it's only cheeesy. But when the Windows UI is stuck, then it's really stuck for a couple of minutes.
    That's what I mean when I say the iBook feels faster.

    Yes, I was really unlucky with my PC's so far, especially the Athlon one. The VAIO is bearable though.
     

Share This Page