970 at WWDC?

[ffakr]

Re: Umm... relevance? 8))

Originally posted by dudemeister
Hmmm, as far as their website is concerned... I don't see much PPC desktop action going on (nor their notebbooks or workstations for that matter), so I'm not exactly sure what you could mean... I don't know of any plans on the part of IBM of fitting desktops with PPCs, do you?
....

Well, I think This is the link you should look at. IBM does make Power desktops, just very expensive ones. Most people call them 'workstations' 😀

From what I've heard in the public releases that IBM has made, we WILL see desktop machines based on the 970, but you won't find them in CompUSA. They will be high end linux boxes, not $500 disposable Celeron boxes.

...jmho, Ffakr

 

[ffakr]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Apple will not need dual machines, i repeat this was only to make up for motorola and where it was not going and that didnt even do it for most apps. A single 1.8 970 will be about equal in power to a p4 running at about 3 ghz. ....Give up your duallies, a 1.6 970 will run all over dual 1.42 so quit the duallie crap. Duallies wont be needed. ... Get over it. Apple wont need duallies for a very long time and neither will you. Duallies where smoke and mirrors for 90% of applications. enough said bring on the SINGLE 970.

Right. Apparently you've never run OS X on a dual proc machine. Dual processors do have advantages over single processors in multi-threaded, symmetric multitasking systems. One CPU busy? Got another one.
Your argument is overly simplistic. As long as the OS can make proper use of multiple CPUs, 2 are always better than one. And just because and application is not multi-threaded, that doesn't it won't run better on a multi-processor system. At the very least, it can run on one cpu while other threads run on the other cpu.

The 970 appears to be much faster than the G4. Perhaps 3x faster than a G4 if SPEC is the only metric you use.
This doesn't mean that Apple shouldn't ship dual 970s if possible.
According to you, Apple should go all single processor and tell everyone 'we've cut out the duals because we are finally AS FAST AS the x86 world... not that we weren't before when we gave you all that short pipeline crap... but we really are as good as them now.. well, no, not significantly faster... but we're finally right up there'.
Yea, that would make interesting PR.

 

[mustang_dvs]

Re: Hardware Keynote

Originally posted by VIIGemina
Having been to over a dozen WWDCs...

WWDC has only been used for announcing hardware once, the Lombard...

Sebastian

Well, Sebastian, apparently you missed the 1998 WWDC where Apple introduced the iMac.

Apple will use the WWDC to intro breakthrough hardware, if it chooses to.

 

[ffakr]

Re: Re: Hardware Keynote

Originally posted by mustang_dvs
Well, Sebastian, apparently you missed the 1998 WWDC where Apple introduced the iMac.

Apple will use the WWDC to intro breakthrough hardware, if it chooses to.

This has been a paradox. Apple has used WWDC to introduce hardware, but in the two years I went (2000, 2001), Apple made it very clear before and during that they do not use WWDC to announce hardware. [I think they used WWDC to announce the GF 3 also ;-)]

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I'm glad I'm going again this year.

 

[gopher]

Well if this happens, it will be the best news in Apple's history. Reading the specs from last October's PowerPC 970 announcement we learn:

8 way superscaler design - i.e. 8 CPUs on a single motherboard!

900 Mhz bus

and based on most recent information a 2.5 Ghz 64 bit processor with 160 Altivec instructions.

The sooner Apple can get developers off their chairs to develop Mac OS X native applications in every field including education, the sooner Apple can release these machines. Because as long as users won't upgrade their software, Apple can't upgrade its hardware. It is a catch-22:

1. Wait for users to upgrade all their software to Mac OS X and give them reason enough to get Mac OS X before releasing Mac OS X only machines. But by waiting Apple lets the industry get too far ahead of them. By doing that Apple loses sales since they are seen as laggards in the industry.

2. Don't wait for users to upgrade to Mac OS X, but release machines only capable of running Mac OS X and hope users are ready to upgrade to Mac OS X when they make their next purchase. By doing that, Apple alienates users who don't have money for new software purchases when they are ready to buy new hardware.

Apple has done a bit of both, but not enough of 1 to get people over to Mac OS X. Already by releasing machines that can only boot into Mac OS X before all the software Mac users use is ready for Mac OS X, educators and others are getting alienated. There is 3:

Apple could offer free software updates to anyone buying new hardware. Apple did that a bit with the InDesign promotion last year for QuarkXpress users buying new Macs. They should do more of that.

 

[hasapi]

What about OS X Server - used as a blade

Im wondering if as a result of 10.3 (64bit), it will allow apple's xservers to be used as a blade/clustered server. This would really help apple's server range huge! Can anyone enlighten me on this availablity in OS X Server?.

Id say when IBM moves to the 90nm process we will get 970 Powerbooks - 2004. But for now these will fix Apple's PMac problem. It looks like the 970 will scale to 2.5GHz at 130nm process, just running a little hotter, which will be fine in a workstation enclosure.

Things are looking great however, allowing the G4 to scale higher for the iMacs/iBooks and for a little while longer the PowerBooks.

IMHO, im inclined to agree that we would also see DP970's at the top end of the PMac - probably SP at the bottom. Apple have just spec'd the PMacs this way now, knowing how they will spec the 970 PMac later this year.

Bring the 970's on!

 

[janey]

Re: Re: Re: Hardware Keynote

Originally posted by ffakr
This has been a paradox. Apple has used WWDC to introduce hardware, but in the two years I went (2000, 2001), Apple made it very clear before and during that they do not use WWDC to announce hardware. [I think they used WWDC to announce the GF 3 also ;-)]

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I'm glad I'm going again this year.

ahem you forgot my favorite apple product...the Xserve.

Oh this totally seals the envelope...my mom can't stop me from going! *drool* to see a mac with a ppc 970 processor *more drool*
i guess i'll see half of you there, i just won't know it 😛

 

[DavPeanut]

Do people think that the 970 machines will have PCI-X and SATA? SATA would be cool, exept that the only SATA drives are 18 and 36 GB. I want my 10,000 RPM 200GB hard drive!

Anyway, at 90nm, the chips could scale to 6.5 Ghz! Uber L33tness!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ffakr]

Originally posted by gopher
8 way superscaler design - i.e. 8 CPUs on a single motherboard!

No. You don't know what you are talking about. It's very dangerous [to the truth] when you don't know what you're talking about and you present mis-information authoritatively.

8 way superscaler means it can issue up to 8 instructions per cycle. I believe 3 of them are load/store.
"8 way superscaler" has nothing to do with 8 cpus on one motherboard.

and based on most recent information a 2.5 Ghz 64 bit processor with 160 Altivec instructions.

64 bit integer registers won't speed up 95% of stuff you'll ever run. G4s already have 160 [162 I believe] SIMD instructions. This isn't new.
UP TO 2.5 GHz (so far) is the bonus, and the fact that this is an entirely new architecture. It will be a smoking processor, but 2 of the 3 reasons you stress won't be the reasons why it is so much faster than the current (and future) G4s.

The sooner Apple can get developers off their chairs to develop Mac OS X native applications in every field including education, the sooner Apple can release these machines. Because as long as users won't upgrade their software, Apple can't upgrade its hardware. It is a catch-22:

Once again, I question whether you know what you are talking about. I don't run any classic apps and I use my machine all day. I don't even have Classic installed.
This argument may have made sense a year and a half ago, but to infer that there are a large number of developers holding OS X deployment, that's a bit silly.
True, Quark is holding up adoption in Graphic Design, but that is just one market.
In my experience, there are other factors that have MUCH more to do with a delay...

1. Users are affraid of moving to a new OS. They don't care what the new OS has to offer, they just don't want to learn about it.
2. Macs stay in production MUCH longer than PCs. I just replaced a Centris 650 a couple months ago (I forced the user to upgrade to a 7600!) There are tons of old macs in daily use that can't run OS X (at least not well enough).

The fact is, most big apps have been ported to carbon. There are many more new apps being released in Cocoa than in Classic. Sure, you have to upgrade software, but thats the nature of the beast.
Even in the worst case, almost all of those old classic apps will run just peachy in the TrueBlu environment. Even Evil old Quark runs in classic compatibility.

.....ffakr

 

[ffakr]

Originally posted by DavPeanut
Do people think that the 970 machines will have PCI-X and SATA? SATA would be cool, exept that the only SATA drives are 18 and 36 GB. I want my 10,000 RPM 200GB hard drive!

Anyway, at 90nm, the chips could scale to 6.5 Ghz! Uber L33tness!!!!!!!!!!!

SerialATA is a good possibility. They don't need to ship macs with SATA drives, just SATA ports. I'd be very surprised if a big move, like an entirely new 970 board didn't ship with SATA.

PCI-X is different. There aren't PCI-X mainstream products. Luckily, I've been told that PCI-X can co-exist with PCI so it is a possibilty. Apple did, after all, include 64bit and 66MHz PCI slots WAY back in the Blue and White G3s. Consumer PCs STILL don't have that. You need a workstation class PC at least if you want anything other than 32bit 33MHz PCI.

... and no, the 970 at .09 micron will NOT scale to 6.5 GHz.

 

[nighthawk]

OK, good news first... I just found out that I got a WWDC Student ADC scholarship, so I WILL BE THERE. Of course, if the announcement is behind closed doors, I won't hear anything... but something might come out (like a new version to ProjectBuilder that supports 64bit compiles... maybe).

Second, all applications can take advantage of the 64bit processor once the OS is 64bit because then all native double floating point calculations will be native. I am guessing that it would be somewhere around 4x faster for a single double calcuation than a 32bit chip.

Third, I am thinking that it would still be the "Year of the Laptop" if Apple comes out with the PPC970 Powerbook. The 1.0ghz PPC970 uses only 10 watts -- perfect for the Powerbook!

Fourth, I would guess that Apple would release
Fast: Single 1.8ghz PPC970
Faster: Single 2.2ghz PPC970
Fastest: Dual 1.8ghz PPC970

 

[scem0]

Originally posted by nighthawk
Fourth, I would guess that Apple would release
Fast: Single 1.8ghz PPC970
Faster: Single 2.2ghz PPC970
Fastest: Dual 1.8ghz PPC970

I don't think the speeds will go over 2 GHz. Just because IBM is
capable of 2.5 GHz doesn't mean they are capable of mass
producing them. I wouldn't be suprised if speeds only went up
to 1.8 GHz. If you are expecting a dual 2.5 GHz powermac, you
are in for some dissapointment, me thinks.

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by scem0
I don't think the speeds will go over 2 GHz. Just because IBM is
capable of 2.5 GHz doesn't mean they are capable of mass
producing them. I wouldn't be suprised if speeds only went up
to 1.8 GHz. If you are expecting a dual 2.5 GHz powermac, you
are in for some dissapointment, me thinks.

I am not saying I expect 2.5 ghz machines but some of what you say is wrong. First if we believe the article discussed then not only can IBM produce 2.5Ghz machines in quantity but they already have.

Also if you read the post you quoted and attacked you will see the poster did not say there will be 2.5Ghz machines (dual or single). So attacking the poster saying they shouldn't expect 2.5Ghz machines when the highest they predicted was 2.2Ghz single machines and 1.8Ghz dual machines is unjustified.

The problem discussed in the article isn't whether IBM can produce 2.5Ghz chips but whether Apple can deal with the heat generated by these chips. The heat is stated to be less than that of P4 or Athlons but is still of concern.

Before you get snotty with another poster perhaps you shouldl do everyone the courtesy of reading the original article in question AND reading the person's post whom yo are attacking.

 

[maxterpiece]

Re: 'scuse-me??!

.

" Hell yeah. And they better be quick about it, cause if something doesn't happen soon, then even the alleged 2,5 GHz are going to look like a bad joke. AMD and Intel aren't exactly asleep at the wheel! Besides, "businesses that are looking to be productive are going to be interested in speed"???! Great, so to be the most productive I have to buy a PC...?! 😕 :confused"

You make my point for me - IBM, Motorola, or whoever else Apple finds to make their chips are just not going to invest the same $ that Intel will. It's simple math - there are about 33 times more PCs sold, so there is about 33 times more money being made, and more money being reinvested.
And I agree with you when you say that we need speed, and my argument wasn't necessarily against that, but I think it's unrealistic to think that Apple will win users with blazing speeds. I do believe that the discrepancy between apple and PC processor speeds is pretty ugly right now, and probably will get smaller, but I don't think its logical to think that any processor is gonna be Apple's messiah.
Because there are no clones pushing forward processor speeds (I still have a place in my heart for Power Computing). And IBM and Motorola don't rely much on the $ they make from selling Apple chips (nor do they have any competition), they aren't gonna be doing anything that'll blow intel out of the water. Apple can count on being at least a little behind in the processor speeds. The way they are going to win users is through innovation. The position they have put themselves in really leaves them no other option.

 

[Gyroscope]

Im sick

Im sick of waiting for next gen. PM
Im sick of 970 rumors
Im sick of war-heads
Im sick of american foreign policy

I give up
I give up
Its too much

 

[foniks2020]

Re: Re: Umm... relevance? 8))

Originally posted by ffakr
Well, I think This is the link you should look at. IBM does make Power desktops, just very expensive ones. Most people call them 'workstations' 😀

From what I've heard in the public releases that IBM has made, we WILL see desktop machines based on the 970, but you won't find them in CompUSA. They will be high end linux boxes, not $500 disposable Celeron boxes.

...jmho, Ffakr

just to continue the dudemeister counterpoints...

I'll add a quote from the very respected analysts over at Arstechnica...

"Also, I'm sure that there are those who would insist I compare the 970 to other 64-bit offerings, like a MIPS processor, the recently deceased Alpha, the Itanium2, etc.. To this I would answer that this chip's intended place in desktop Apple and Linux systems will pit it directly against the successor to the P4, and as such a comparison to the P4 is more useful from a consumer standpoint. "

http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc970-1.html

Key word there being 'desktop'. Just google up some more desktop references yourself and you'll see that there is a widely confirmed expectation that the PPC 970 will be a desktop CPU, even moreso it will be primarily a desktop CPU and most reviews and press releases indicate that it was indeed designed specifically as a desktop CPU. That is why it has one core, no off chip L3 cache, etc., etc.

IBM intends to run Linux in their desktop boxes. Apple will run OS X. Seems like a pretty straightforward plan.

And to answer dudem's question about whether I've seen evidence of IBM putting this chip in Desktops, YES. They've been putting out press releases pretty consistently to this very effect. Come on.... they said it was intended for desktop systems when they announced it last october. Where have you been all this time dudemeister?

 

[MacBandit]

Re: Re: 'scuse-me??!

Originally posted by maxterpiece
You make my point for me - IBM, Motorola, or whoever else Apple finds to make their chips are just not going to invest the same $ that Intel will. It's simple math - there are about 33 times more PCs sold, so there is about 33 times more money being made, and more money being reinvested.

You're numbers are more then a little skewed. They don't take in to account that the chips that Apple traditionally uses are not just for computers and other uses also. So the numbers wouldn't work. Also just because new Apples sold is between 3-4% of the market doesn't mean that PCs make up the other 96% you have to understand there are servers and dumb stations and other such things that are in that number. All in all I would say it's more like %75. The only proper way to compare the demand of the processors is to find out the actual total sales figure (not just PCs and Macs) for each processor that you want to compare.

 

[maxterpiece]

Re: Re: Re: 'scuse-me??!

Originally posted by MacBandit
You're numbers are more then a little skewed. They don't take in to account that the chips that Apple traditionally uses are not just for computers and other uses also. So the numbers wouldn't work. Also just because new Apples sold is between 3-4% of the market doesn't mean that PCs make up the other 96% you have to understand there are servers and dumb stations and other such things that are in that number. All in all I would say it's more like %75. The only proper way to compare the demand of the processors is to find out the actual total sales figure (not just PCs and Macs) for each processor that you want to compare.

yes, but my point still stands - Intel has a both greater resources and more of an incentive to keep ahead of others in processor speeds.

 

[cr2sh]

Originally posted by Gyroscope
Im sick of waiting for next gen. PM
Im sick of 970 rumors
Im sick of war-heads
Im sick of american foreign policy
I give up

I don't know. I think there's two ways to go about it. You either sit back and wait... and wait.. and wait... and then, when that new 970/g5 does get released you go out and buy it and its all that you ever wanted and so worth the wait and oh god.. i think i'm going to die.

Or you go out, spend $3k now, get a hella nice machine.. and go on doing what you do. Its not that big of a deal, the majority of us spend SO much time on these baords, cuz its entertaining. We enjoy it.. and if there comes a point at which it really is causing you distress (over the fact that you cant own something) then maybe you should just stop obsessing, stop coming here. The fact is, the 970 isnt going to solve anyone's problems. Its not going to change our lives. Its not going to make us happier (other than in some sort of confussed sexual way 😕 ) If I had $3k to spend on a desktop right now, would I hold off... well maybe, but jeez, if you're that worked up over it - bite the bullet or step away from the machine. 🙂

okay.. back on topic!

 

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by scem0
I don't think the speeds will go over 2 GHz. Just because IBM is
capable of 2.5 GHz doesn't mean they are capable of mass
producing them. I wouldn't be suprised if speeds only went up
to 1.8 GHz. If you are expecting a dual 2.5 GHz powermac, you
are in for some dissapointment, me thinks.

According to rumor, they're mass producing chips that are capable of running at 2.5 GHz. This does not mean that Apple will clock them at 2.5. IBM has the chips already made and is making more as we speak that run at up to 2.5 GHz.

Since the speed at which a chip is certified is not the same (but usually is) we can assume a certain amount of tweaking. I'm pretty sure they can even dynamically clock the chip, so that when it gets too hot, they reduce some of the juice going to it.

What'cha think? A possibility?

 

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
Before you get snotty with another poster perhaps you shouldl do everyone the courtesy of reading the original article in question AND reading the person's post whom yo are attacking.

Sheesh. Chill out, man. The guy was just trying to make a point. Are you having a bad day or something?

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by Frobozz
Sheesh. Chill out, man. The guy was just trying to make a point. Are you having a bad day or something?

I do not think it is too much to ask that each poster read the article on which he/she is commenting on and read the post of the person they are quoting before taking a rude, agreesive, or argumentative tone with said person.

Some posters seem to want to use these forums as their platform to take out their agression by mindlessly attacking other users. Where this motivation comes from I will never understand, but when i see someone so blatantly being rude to another individual for absolutely no reason I do not think their is anything wrong with pointing out the rude individual's errors.

 

[ffakr]

Originally posted by scem0
I don't think the speeds will go over 2 GHz. Just because IBM is
capable of 2.5 GHz doesn't mean they are capable of mass
producing them. I wouldn't be suprised if speeds only went up
to 1.8 GHz. If you are expecting a dual 2.5 GHz powermac, you
are in for some dissapointment, me thinks.

IBM pre-announced that they would ship blades at 2.5. Unless this press release was factually wrong, IBM should have no problem producing 970s over 2GHz early on.

 

[nighthawk]

Just to remind everyone, even the 1.8Ghz draws 45w of power... which is much closer to the 64w of the 2.5Ghz than to the 10w of the 1.0Ghz.

Sure Apple/IBM may develop a "Speed-Step" like feature and that would make a lot of sense... even stepping it down to 1.0Ghz for idle would make the machine still quite responsive and produce less heat. However, doesn't the processor need to support this "Speed-Stepping". I think the way that the AMD/Intel chips do it is reducing the front-side bus because the clock multiplier is locked. Is this even technically possible with the IBM bus?

I do bet that a PPC970 Powerbook will be coming out within the year, and it would make the most sense to do it during the summer (NOW) because buyers are not expecting to have the Powerbook go much above 1.0Ghz for a while. If Apple releases a 1.2Ghz PPC970 Powerbook, it would be one solid machine and most-likely would draw less power/heat than the current G4 chip. Then the iBook could be stepped up in speed, and at the end of the year when the Motorola chips are at the .13 microns, the iBook gets the G4.

 

[cr2sh]

Originally posted by nighthawk
Then the iBook could be stepped up in speed, and at the end of the year when the Motorola chips are at the .13 microns, the iBook gets the G4.

You hit the nail on the head. The only question is when. g4's in the ibooks by christmas? maybe, but I bet we'll get a 1ghz g3 before then. the g3 isn't dead yet.