90nm PPC 970's & Altivec 2

Discussion in 'Mac Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Aug 3, 2003.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001
    MacBidouille claims tht the 90nm PowerPC 970 will start production in November, with volume production by January 2004. The site claims PowerBooks will utilize the smaller processor by Feb/March 2004.

    In addition, MacBidouille reports that the specs for Altivec 2 have been completed, and should be implemented in 2005, with the PPC 990.
  2. arn macrumors god


    Staff Member

    Apr 9, 2001
    Page 2'd because of the usual reasons - macbid has variable accuracy. This rumor is unclear, and difficult to verify, as with many of MacBidouille's rumors:

    Did PPC 970's really start production in April, as MacBid claimed?

    Will Apple sue Motorola?

    What happened to the 1.4GHz PowerMac 970's which rolled off assembly lines in May?
  3. dstorey macrumors 6502a

    Dec 14, 2002
    I wonder if Altivec 2 will be fully code compatible with Altivec, or whether programs will have to change thier code to get the advantages of it over vanilla altivec
  4. Brother Mugga macrumors member

    Are MacBid talking out of their nanobots?

    As has been stated several times in previous posts, it wouldn't be that surprising if a 90nm G5 popped out in January. It all depends on what Ned Flanders (the IIIrd) from IBM meant at the WWDC when he said that engineers were already "working on the next generation of chips."

    Does 'working' mean 'sampling' and does 'next generation' mean '90nm 970' or '980' (or whatever the Power5 derivative will be called).

    Although I'm still getting a dual G5 (switcher - can't put up with windows for another 5 months...), the evidence that it will top out around 2.5Gig would certainly seem to necessitate a chip-change if Jobs' pledge to be at 3Gig by next summer is to be realised. (In fact, given that Stevie doesn't exactly delight in being made to look like a nobber [q.v. Motorola], I feel this prediction might, in fact, be on the conservative side, but there you go...)

    Interesting rhetorical observations r.e. MacBids recent claims, by the way Arn - particularly with respect to the 1.4 970s. I know I've asked this before, but does anyone have any idea whether the power dissipation of a 1.0/1.2/1.4 970 would allow it to be shoved into a Powerbook? (I don't want one, and I doubt they'll do it before going 90nm: I'm just nosey :).)


    Brother Mugga

    PS: Or, indeed, and iMac.
  5. bennetsaysargh macrumors 68020


    Jan 20, 2003
    New York
    i can't wait. i think tht those 1.4Ghz G5s will be pouut into iMacs soon.
    at least h*opefully:)
  6. abdul macrumors member

    Feb 1, 2003
    East Midlands, UK
    power comsumption in 1.2 or was it 1.4 GHz g5 is ~18 watts

    i dont know how many watts the current G4 produces

    by knowing how many watts the g4 produces we can guess.
  7. tom.96 macrumors regular

    Jun 13, 2003
    UK (southern)
    I agree! A 1.4 ghz G5 in an imac would be ideal, a powerful consumer machine and it would also differentiate it from the emac which could take the faster G4 which has been reported. I'm in the situation where I can't afford a G5 PM but I still want a decent machine to last 3-4 years, and a G5 imac would fit that nicely.
  8. bennetsaysargh macrumors 68020


    Jan 20, 2003
    New York
    here is what i see once the iMac goes G5

    eMac-new G4
    iBook-new G4

    i can't wait untill the iBooks go G4!
  9. MrMacMan macrumors 604


    Jul 4, 2001
    1 Block away from NYC.
    Good news for all people who want the powerbook in G5...

    They would have to lower the clock speed by alot...

    But who knows they 'needed' 4 fans to keep the G5 cooled...

    That heatsink is huugee.
  10. akushlan macrumors regular

    Jun 5, 2003
    Palo Alto, CA
    They aren't going to put G4s in the iBook, instead they will put the G3+
  11. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Nov 1, 2001
    I like the idea of no Moto chips in any Apple product. The sooner they get away from the G4 the better.

    If this all turns out to be true it will be great for Apple....:D

  12. Fender2112 macrumors 65816


    Aug 11, 2002
    Charlotte, NC
    Re: 90nm PPC 970's & Altivec 2

    That's funny.:D
  13. Brother Mugga macrumors member

    Cheers, Abdul

    Cheers, mate.

    I reckon that's do-able.

    So I guess we shall see come September?

    Brother Mugga
  14. jzieske macrumors regular

    Jun 28, 2003
    Bloomington, MN
    Ok maybe I am wrong but, aren't there rumors out there saying that 970's for PM G5's still have not started production at Fishkill. One would then assume that an R&D lab must be making all of the chips for them. So now I am supposed to believe that 980's will be in mass production in Jan/Feb 2004. Sorry, I don't buy it.

    [edit: fixed spelling]
  15. jaedreth macrumors 6502

    Jul 11, 2003
    In Iraq now
    G3+, G4

    Now it's been said here before that G3+ is an IBM revved G3 with Altivec.

    It's also been said that G4 is nothing but G3 + Altivec.

    I'm not going to assume both are right, but if they are, then why can't IBM rev the G3+ into its own G4, and the iBooks and eMacs use that?

    (Unless of course the performance of said chips is slower than the previous G4 chips, because it would be a downgrade for eMac since they already use G4.)

  16. RHutch macrumors 6502

    May 21, 2003
    Amsterdam, OH
    The rumor about the chips not being in production at Fishkill was based on when someone took a tour of the facility; no one knows when that tour was. So we know that the chips weren't being produced there at some time, but not how long ago that was.

    Also, where did the rumor for this thread say that 980's were going to be in mass production by Jan/Feb 2004? The rumor said that 90 nm 970's would be produced at that time. Do you buy this?
  17. daveL macrumors 68020


    Jun 18, 2003
    They're not talking about the 980, they're talking about moving the 970 from 130 nm to 90 nm. You might consider this a 970+, but not a 980. Most consider the 980 designation to be the chip that results from the Power5 development. Anyway, before we get on a three day exchange over what model numbers mean what, let me say I don't give a rat's a$$. The important thing is that the chip will transition to the 90 nm process.

    I really don't consider that assertion to be out of line with other info concerning IBM's timeline for moving to 90 nm. They are supposed to be right behind Intel.
  18. jzieske macrumors regular

    Jun 28, 2003
    Bloomington, MN
    90 nm chips ... I am guess I still don't buy mass production in Jan/Feb 2004. That would mean only 3-4 months with thee current chips. Unless they don't put the 90nm chips in PM's.
  19. jaedreth macrumors 6502

    Jul 11, 2003
    In Iraq now
    90nm chips

    The 90 nm chips would be perfect for portable units and consumer products.

    Aka PowerBook G5 and iMac G5.

  20. daveL macrumors 68020


    Jun 18, 2003
    What's wrong with a PM speed bump? I'm not sure where you get 3-4 months. With G5 shipments starting in August, we'd be looking at a 6 month update. Seems reasonable, even likely, to me.
  21. Brother Mugga macrumors member

    Rack 'em and roll 'em out

    To be honest, a three month upgrade cycle is precisely what Apple needs to remain competitive (a point that has also been hammered to death on these forums in the past). After all, it wouldn't exactly be revolutionary, more a case of "welcome to the rest of the PC world..."

    The only downside would be having to listen to eeediots whining that their "old Powerbook now looks all weedy and underpowered" on a more regular basis (because there truly is no pleasing some people...jeeeez...).


    Brother Mugga
  22. 3G4N macrumors regular

    Jan 24, 2002
    3rd star to the right
    Re: G3+, G4

    It's been said, but it isn't necessarily correct.

    IIRC, the G3 was based, in part, on the ppc603,
    a streamlined approach, and not SMP-capable
    (no dual-processor support).

    The G4 was based more off the ppc604,
    which was dual-capable, and added
    the vector engine, altivec.

    I simplify, but to answer your question...

    I bet IBM is working on a nice G3 just like
    they are working on a nice G5. Patience.
    I don't know if you'll ever get a G4, per se, in an iBook,
    but you will get much better processors. (like I'm saying a lot. : )
  23. chazmox macrumors regular

    Feb 4, 2003
    Thank you Arn! These explanations have been very helpful!!!
  24. ZildjianKX macrumors 68000


    May 18, 2003
    I wouldn't hold my breath for a G5 PB... there isn't even a G4 upgrade out yet... how sad.
  25. Rincewind42 macrumors 6502a


    Mar 3, 2003
    Orlando, FL
    Re: Re: G3+, G4

    Ok, this has been beaten to death, but lets do it one more time...

    The G3 was based on the 603. Simple.

    The G4 is a moniker for over half a dozen different chips. The MPC7400, 7410, 744x series (not used on Macs), and the 745x series (used in various Mac G4 models).

    The MPC7400 & 7410 were based primarily on the G3. Added to the G3 design was a floating point unit that essentially came form the PPC604 and Altivec. Thus if you really want to split hairs, the G4 was based on the G3, the PPC603 and the PPC604 and added Altivec to the mix. But for simplicity, it can be said that the original G4s were basically G3+Altivec.

    All other G4s (744x and 745x) are evolutions of the original design. The 7 stage pipeline, the enhanced altivec unit, and the on-die L2 cache are decided differences from the original G3 & G4. Therefore, it would be unfair to consider the current G4 as "just a G3+Altivec".

    And yes, it is entirely possible that IBM could make a G3+ that includes Altivec. Will they? Who knows. What will Apple call it? Almost certainly they will call it a G4. To call it anything else would simply cause market confusion (which is why the PowerMacs are G5 and not any other of the dozens of suggestions people may have made). Customers don't care about model numbers, they just want a simple one line explaination as to why computer A is better than computer B. 5 > 4 > 3 keeps it simple.

Share This Page