More PPC 970/750 Rumors (Possible Information)

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by maraczc, May 25, 2003.

  1. maraczc macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #1
    MacBuyersGuide reports that IBM will start full production of the PPC 970 64-bit proccessors in July. They say that IBM has confirmed this. If this is true then that means it may take quite a while longer than expected for us to see any Macs using the PPC 970 or new 750.

    It also talked about the relative speeds of the new proccessors. The PPC 970 will go up to 1.8 GHZ. This model should draw around 40 W. A 1 GHZ PPC 970 should draw around 15-20 W. Appartantly, the PPC 970 does not even compete with the new AMD and Intel 64-bit proccessors. And that the new Pentiums which are due to be used in PC computers this summer will be much faster per mhz/ghz than the PPC 970. Although compared to the current Pentium 4s:

    1 GHZ PPC new 750=1.6 GHZ Pentium 4
    1 GHZ PPC 970=2 GHZ Pentium 4

    All in all MacBuyersGuide is trying to say that the new IBM proccessors will be a dissapointment, and arrive far too late for Apple to get any spotlight out of them. If the information is accurate, I happen to agree.
     
  2. e-coli macrumors 68000

    e-coli

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2002
    #2
    Man, Apple's stock price is going to drop like a stone.

    This is getting rediculous.

    Boooo... :( :mad:
     
  3. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #3
    whoa, if that's all true, that is SO bad. But this is the first I've heard of these new Intel/ AMD 64 bit processors.

    You say they are coming this summer? And will not only have higher clockspeeds, but also be faster *per* Ghz??

    If this is true... then we were all fools to get our hopes up, and apple will never catch the PC world. I hope every word you say is wrong. ;) :(
     
  4. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #4
    but you know, as I think about this more, I'm not sure how much I believe it. Since when is IBM a second-class chip manufacturer?? Forget about how it relates to macs for a second... I just can't belive that IBM would be getting its butt kicked so hard by its competitors.
     
  5. maraczc thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #5
    Apple certianly needs to shift up to the latest technology. And that is not only limited to proccessors.

    All computers right now are using at least DDR SDRam. The very idea that you have to buy a proffesional line Apple computer or the high-end $2799 CND iMac just to get the same Ram technology used by discount $300 PCs is absurd. Same with the USB ports. All PCs now use USB 2.0, it's a very useful thing to have. Being stuck with USB 1.1 is horrible when you look beside you in a classroom and someone with a low-end year old PC laptop can transfer information faster than your brand new proffesional Powerbook. Nowhere else in the industry will you find a $5000+ CND computer still stuck with USB 1.1, actually nowehere else in the industry will you find a computer that cost $1000+ still stuck with it. Not only that, Apple has disabled bluetooth keyboard and mice (would be a nice idea), probably until they make bluetooth enabled input devices, too bad they aren't making them!

    And the warranties? ****. Not only does Apple garuantee the case (defects with this are a source of major anguish), and give you limited 90 day technical support, but the cost to upgrade is so high.

    Apple should shift up to RD Ram in the Powermacs and DDR SDRam in everythign else. And add USB 2.0 finnally, better even a year late than never. Better video cards in the laptops would also give more reason to own a Mac. You can get a PC notebook with 64 MB graphics cards under $2000 CND. You need to go into the mid-level proffesional line before it even becomes an option with Apple. And give better warrantees, or at least make them customizeable.

    True, the OS is wonderful. But I think that we pay for this enough by the higher costs, lower speeds, and the fact that we have to pay $200 CND every time an update comes out. Crappy technology and bad warranties do not need to be added to this list.
     
  6. MorganX macrumors 6502a

    MorganX

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Location:
    Midwest
    #6
    I don't doubt the PPC will not seriously challenge the Pentiums. Not current 800MHz FSBs w/HT and Dual channel DDR and definitely not prescott in 2ndQ, 1MB L2 Cache (there will be a desktop 2.4Ghz version)

    But honestly, Apple doesn't need to beat them, they just need to become respectable performance-wise. If they can get into the upper third of desktop PC performance that's all they need as long as they have aggressive pricing.

    And of course, this means the consumer machines. Meaning high end iMac. If Apple won't deliver a high end consumer machine at agressive pricing, I don't think the 970 will do much more than satisfy existing PowerMac customers and even they will be tempted to pass and go with a sub edit: $1000 HT, 800MHz FSB PIV. Apple's growth will be nil. IMO anyway.
     
  7. mian macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Location:
    Austin, TX
  8. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #8
    why did you turn this thread in to a rant about all the things apple is doing wrong? I thought it was about how the PPC 970 would fare...
     
  9. Mr. MacPhisto macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    #9
    Firstly, Apple is not at fault for slow FSB speed and lack of DDR support. They must work with what Motorola gives them.

    Second, not all PCs have USB 2.0. In fact, most don't yet. It is something that is being installed in new PCs only recently, and not in all of them. It's not as widespread as you think it is. All new Apples have Firewire while not all PCs do - so Apple has really had this covered for a while.

    RD RAM? Not sure Rambus would go with that (they had a deal with Intel in the past). Besides, RDRAM is really a failed experiment and is still expensive. DDR is the way to go. There is evidence to suggest Apple will employ Hypertransport, allowing FSB speeds to increase greatly.

    As far as PPC970 or Gobi 750s vs. Pentiums, they'll hold their own. As always, they will be able to do some things better while Pentiums will win in other areas - but the IBM chips will be very competitive.

    I also have to debate the information in that article based on some IBM Internal info. Internal testing shows the 750s and 970s match up quite well against Pentiums. Both will also be constantly revised and updated by IBM - expect hyperthreading, possibly on both, by late next year. The Power5 derivatives may also be dual core and hyperthreaded, and they could arrive as early as Nov/Dec of next year. When the 750s are fabbed at .10 they will reach speeds of over 2 GHZ while running on a faster bus - and remaining efficient powerwise. They're not going to blow Pentiums out of the water (at least not until Power5), but they'll hold their own, be cheaper, and be a viable alternative.
     
  10. ZildjianKX macrumors 68000

    ZildjianKX

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    #10
    He's right on all his points though... except USB 2.0 is now over 2 years old :)

    http://www.powerbookcentral.com/newspro/talk/988258586,59591,.shtml

    This is back over 2 years ago that a USB 2.0 PCMCIA came out for the powerbook... there is no reason not to update the hardware for it in 2 years... most PC laptops and desktops have been coming with them for awhile too... almost impossible to buy one without it now. Its really nice how Apple just says "USB" on their powerbook page... and neglects that its USB 1.1.
     
  11. windwaves macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Location:
    manhattan
    #11
    QCassidy352:

    THINK HARDER


    it ain't that difficult.
     
  12. windwaves macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Location:
    manhattan
    #12
    Mr. MacPhisto:

    I totally disagree with your first statement, in fact it is plain wrong: the macs are made by Apple, period. It is such a pointless statement, I can't believe it. It is exclusively Apple's problem, not Motorola's, at least to the extent that the consumer is concerned.
    Apple screwed up big time with Motorola, by relying on a single supplier and especially but not responding quick enough to problems which are now years old: that is, way uncompetitive raw processor speed, i.e. archaic processors. Had Apple worked on getting the right processors from the right supplier instead of trying to convince consumers of the "megahertz myth" we would all be much better of. Again, especially considering that the inability of the MOT powerpc to compete was well known years ago.
     
  13. maraczc thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #13
    All new PCs ship with USB 2.0, all of the ones I have seen that is. All Gateway, Sony, Toshiba, Compaq, HP, IBM, Alienware, and Dell (maybe not the Latitude, but probably that too) desktops and notebooks ship with USB 2.0 installed. As for firewire, I'd say that USB 2.0 is alot more convenient. USB 2.0 is faster and works on more periphrals. As well you spend more money getting firewire periphrals over USB ones. I'd prefer to have USB 2.0 ports instead of my firewire port, and I'm sure that many others feel the same way.
     
  14. cb911 macrumors 601

    cb911

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Location:
    BrisVegas, Australia
    #14
    maraczc, i hope your information is wrong! (in a good way, hoping for the best possible outcome for Apple). :)

    Apple will most likely demo a 970 @ WWDC, they can't afford to wait any longer then that. and then if there aren't 970's here a month or two after that, then it might be too late. we keep hearing that alot of companies are holding off purchasing a new batch of PC's, waiting to see what Apple will bring. but if Apple waits too long, then AMD or Intel will definitely cash in on the oppurtunity.
     
  15. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #15
    Err....why?
     
  16. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #16
    You do realize that this would probably drive up costs even further, right?

    It's a vicious cycle. Newer better tech results in higher prices, thus people are less likely to purchase them until they drop in price, which in turn usually occurs when something better is available. ;)
     
  17. maraczc thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #17
    I meant for free. Not as an option but standard. I payed $1500 for a machine with Ram (SDRam) that hasn't seen the inside of a $1500 computer in over a year (years?), and I find that sad.
     
  18. Catt macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #18
    Am I right in thinking that the FSB of current G4's is only 200mhz?
    I would like to see an experimental Mac running Mac OS 10.2 on a Pentium 4 3.2Ghz, or even on an Athlon XP 3200+; I would like to see how performance would compare to the same processors running Windows XP - although I am fully aware that this ain't going to happen but I would be interested to see it regardless.
     
  19. maradong macrumors 65816

    maradong

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Location:
    Luxembourg
    #19
    forget rd ram. it is no more top of the line.. ddr400 is much faster.
    response is slightly better in rd. but the price of rd is nt realistic compared to ddr.

    ppc970 @ 1ghz as fast as a p4 @ ghz ? what are you talking about ? that is ligning fast. if it can go up to 1.8 ghz that woul be like a p4 @ 3800 mhz. meaning a dual 1.8 970 chip wil outperform every x86 system on this world.. that is fast enough for me.

    for the usb2 point. right, apple sould really introduce usb 2 everywhere in their computers. while firewire is still much better. ( IMHO )
     
  20. Zeke macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Location:
    Greenville, SC
    #20
    I just figured I'd throw in my 2 cents for the people who are bashing Apple. Everyone seems to want USB 2.0, faster RAM, faster FSB, faster blah blah blah. What all of these things would require would be a redesigned motherboard. Doesn't it seem likely that Apple considered this and said, "You know what...it's not going to make any difference in the overall speed since our main bottleneck is processor speed. So why waste the money designing another motherboard when we're working on the 970 MB." This makes much more sense than assuming that Apple just doesn't feel like making their computers faster. I think with the 970 we'll see all of the options people want simply because the motherboard has been redesigned. It would be stupid to redesign for the G4 if the 970 is coming soon paying R&D costs and retooling the plant only to scrap it soon after. There aren't enough PowerMacs purchased right now for them to make their investment back in years let alone months. I personally see them not including stuff like this as suggestive that something big is in the works.
     
  21. ozubahn macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #21
    I don't understand you, maraczc. This is at least the second thread you have used to complain about how outdated, overpriced, and generally worthless your new iBook is. Why did you buy the thing anyway? You are obviously the perfect candidate for a new PC laptop, so why didn't you get one of those instead? Is it just that you didn't bother to do any research first?
     
  22. the future macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    #22
    The speed envy so many people seem to have is really quite funny. C'mon, people, 99,9% of you can do EVERYTHING you want to do on current G4s and the 970s WILL be a lot faster - what more could you ask?
     
  23. Catt macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #23
    I think its a desire to have their machines recognised by the wintel world as being a viable computing platform, and pure speed is one way to gain silicon respect.
    The only three things (that a high end consumer/prosumer might use a computer for) that require speed and raw processing power above current levels (or those of the theoretical future) are video editing, CAD pakages and the like and hi intensity 3D games. All these have the potential to require greater and greater levels of power, especially 3D games. But yeah esentially the average consumer doesn't need anything above a 1Ghz P3/P4 - they might want something faster to make stuff like photo editing a little quicker but essentially there is nothing the computer couldn't actually run
     
  24. will macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2002
    #24
    Hmmm, many applications that Apple users use every day slurp CPU. I bet that even with a duel 1.4G G4 there are times when you want Photoshop to be faster. What about Maya, the latest 3D games, video editing? There is clearly still a need for greater speed, especially in many of the areas Apple are strongest.

    Apple needs faster processors and better bus speeds. They then need to offer a wider range of professional machines, ranging from low priced models, to highend workstations with professional graphics cards.
     
  25. Catt macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #25
    I think one problem apple has is the apparent lack of enthusiasm in the big two graphic chip designers ATI and Nvidia. If Apple could get its games status raised and sell iMacs on the back of gaming ability then they would see their sales rise amoungst families with vocal children; most families would alter what they want to buy on what their children want, if only slightly. I don't know but I think its an idea.
     

Share This Page