970 Machines Assembled/Sealed?

[Bengt77]

Re: Re: Re: So what are they called ?

Originally posted by aasmund
Where do you have this from? how can you be sure?

Some other ideas:


* PowerMac Pro
* PowerMac G5
* PowerMac 64
* PowerMac 970 <- not likely i think
* PowerMac Ultra <- not likely i think

I think 64 or g5 are most likely, but I don't know anything...

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The successor to the current crop of Power Macs will not carry the 'Power' name anymore. The new line will be called the xMacs, and consequently the successor to the current PowerBook will be called the xBook. See the lowercase x as opposed to the uppercase one in the Xserve's name? It's name will probably changed alongside with the two (former) Power computers; it'll still be the Xserve, but then the xServe. Leaves some room for an iServe (maybe with IBM's PPC750GX or Gobi processor).



(Or, as my girlfriend would say: Pfah!)

(Does this all even remotely make any sense? Well, to me it does. I just hope they drop the 'Power' names.)

 

[AidenShaw]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Intel 64-bit desktops - buy one today...

Originally posted by Shadowfax
can you not run 32 bit windows apps in windows xp 64 bit edition? i'd just assumed you could.

Yes, they'll run - but the performance is poor compared to 64-bit apps. An Itanium is not a general purpose desktop - you'll only want one if you've got a particular 64-bit app that you want to run on it.

This is one nice thing about the PPC970 rumours - if Apple does use it - the 970 will be able to run both 32-bit and 64-bit apps at virtually the same speed (most of the time, a 32-bit app will probably be slightly faster than the same code ported to 64-bit).

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Re: Re: Re: Re: So what are they called ?

Originally posted by Bengt77
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The successor to the current crop of Power Macs will not carry the 'Power' name anymore. The new line will be called the xMacs, and consequently the successor to the current PowerBook will be called the xBook. See the lowercase x as opposed to the uppercase one in the Xserve's name? It's name will probably changed alongside with the two (former) Power computers; it'll still be the Xserve, but then the xServe. Leaves some room for an iServe (maybe with IBM's PPC750GX or Gobi processor).



(Or, as my girlfriend would say: Pfah!)

(Does this all even remotely make any sense? Well, to me it does. I just hope they drop the 'Power' names.)

I too hope they drop the "Power" names, but I don't like the "x" names either - like others have said, t sounds too much like the XBox.

 

[shadowfax]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intel 64-bit desktops - buy one today...

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Yes, they'll run - but the performance is poor compared to 64-bit apps. An Itanium is not a general purpose desktop - you'll only want one if you've got a particular 64-bit app that you want to run on it.

this is only natural, as they don't take advantage of the extra 32 bits, but how do they compare to 32 bit chips at the same clock rate? isn't it fairly similar or is it worse?

 

[Tim Flynn]

With the rate that this discussion is building at, I have to think of the backlash if Apple doesn't bring out the 970 at WWDC.

The Opteron sucks .... NO
The Opteron and the 970 will make the Itaniums (Itanics ) look like a poor design.

 

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Tim Flynn
With the rate that this discussion is building at, I have to think of the backlash if Apple doesn't bring out the 970 at WWDC.

this thread is actually growing at a fairly normal rate... apple doesn't care

 

[charley]

Re. MacWhispers

MacWhispers' source reckons that no new boxes are ready to go from where they are, but presumably machines are built at more than one location. My G4 400 was assembled in Ireland (as for the component parts who knows). Maybe MacB's sources are of european origin. Just a thought.
charley

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intel 64-bit desktops - buy one today...

Originally posted by Shadowfax
this is only natural, as they don't take advantage of the extra 32 bits, but how do they compare to 32 bit chips at the same clock rate? isn't it fairly similar or is it worse?

Quick web search turns up the following:

1. Windows XP 64 Bit Edition will run 32 bit software
2. The Itanium runs 32 bit code very slowly, but is working on software to speed it up to as fast as a similarly clocked XEON
3. AMD's x86-64 ISA will run 32 bit code as fast as a similarly clocked Athlon (on a 64 bit OS)
   [/list=1]

 

[fiardinkum]

970 Macs? What Else?

If Apple are shipping PPC 970 based macs then that may not be the only treat in store. What goes down really well with a shiny new 64 bit processor? A 64 bit OS, of course! Could Panther also be sealed in those mystery boxes too? If uncle Steve thinks that it's now the right time to take the dust covers off the old cube and give it a lick of new, 64 bit paint then my check book is ready and waiting!!!

 

[MetallicPenguin]

This is huge! This is going to be extremely awesome. And I'll be near SoHo the weekend of around that time, and I can start questioning the people who work there By the way I didn't read the past posts, so this isn't remotely on topic I would think

 

[aasmund]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So what are they called ?

Originally posted by Foxer
Remember that "Pentium" simply resulted from the fact that after 286, 386, 486, etc. Intel wanted to make the 586 flashier, and "pent-" being the prefix for 5, one thing led to another. Now, however, even thought htey are on the contradictory Pentium IV (or whatever), they're locked into using the brand name Pentium becuase of their own success.

This is not true. The reason they changed to pentium is that numbers cannot be trademarked, that's why....

 

[nagromme]

name

Simplest name possible: Mac 5.

Nobody will know just what it means and what "the other 4" were, but they'll know it's one beyond "G4" and it's new and simple!

And Apple names its processors whatever they like. The Mac 5 could thus contain a Mac 5 CPU, or an M5, or a G5, or an M970, or a PowerMac70, or... whatever.

And they should hype "the world's first 64-bit personal computer" just because they can. Along with the speed, of course. True, the two aren't a direct connection, but it "sounds" good--just like MHz #s "sound" good on Wintel. It's all marketing, but if it works... it may sell Macs better than the REAL detailed benefits of the new models, which the average consumer will never bother to understand. The experts who DO understand will ignore the marketing spin anyway, and just buy their new Macs.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Re: name

Originally posted by nagromme
Simplest name possible: Mac 5.

Nobody will know just what it means and what "the other 4" were, but they'll know it's one beyond "G4" and it's new and simple!

And Apple names its processors whatever they like. The Mac 5 could thus contain a Mac 5 CPU, or an M5, or a G5, or an M970, or a PowerMac70, or... whatever.

And they should hype "the world's first 64-bit personal computer" just because they can. Along with the speed, of course. True, the two aren't a direct connection, but it "sounds" good--just like MHz #s "sound" good on Wintel. It's all marketing, but if it works... it may sell Macs better than the REAL detailed benefits of the new models, which the average consumer will never bother to understand. The experts who DO understand will ignore the marketing spin anyway, and just buy their new Macs.

Yeah - and they could have "Fly Away" from Lenny Kravitz's "5" CD as the theme for their ad's. (Showing it downloaded from iTMS of course!)
Somebody needs to photoshop this up -->

 

[mcl]

Re: Re: name

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw

Yeah - and they could have "Fly Away" from Lenny Cravitz's "5" CD as the theme for their ad's. (Showing it downloaded from iTMS of course!)

Oh, I don't know. The DJ Keoki "pr0n mix" of the Speed Racer theme would be ...amusing. Mac 5 == Mach V.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Re: Re: Re: name

Originally posted by mcl
Oh, I don't know. The DJ Keoki "pr0n mix" of the Speed Racer theme would be ...amusing. Mac 5 == Mach V.

How about Elton John, The Bitch is Back?

 

[barkmonster]

Wrong!!!!

MacBidouille is WRONG.
possibly not about this, but about how powerfull they are.

how do i know?
look at IBM's specs for the chip.
do the math, and see that the 970 is not faster then the g4 for altivec things

for non altivec it is 2.5x faster, but still slower than altivec enhanced code...
knowing this, it is not possible that a single 1.4 970 would be faster at altivec enhanced code than a dual 1.4 g4. IT IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE given the known info from IBM.

bandwidth is always quoted in 1000ths of a Gb/s rather than 1024ths as you'd expect. For comparison :

Altivec @ 1.4Ghz : ((128 x 1400)/8) / 1000 = 22.4Gb/s

FSB of PPC970 : (((32 x 2 x 400) / 8 ) / 1000) x 2 = 6.4Gb/s

FSB of G4 : ((64 x 167) / 8) / 1000 = 1.3Gb/s

The PPC970 can supply over 4 times the bandwidth of the G4, altivec is practically choking on a G4. add a second CPU into the mix and you're effectively doubling the bandwidth requirements of altivec and halving the available bandwidth to the cpus. I believe a single 970 will blow a dual G4 of the same clockspeed out of the water just based on bandwidth alone.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Re: Wrong!!!!

Originally posted by barkmonster

The PPC970 can supply over 4 times the bandwidth of the G4, altivec is practically choking on a G4. add a second CPU into the mix and you're effectively doubling the bandwidth requirements of altivec and halving the available bandwidth to the cpus. I believe a single 970 will blow a dual G4 of the same clockspeed out of the water just based on bandwidth alone.

Is it just me or haven't you, I and just about everyone been saying this for years?!?! (The fact that the G4 is bandwidth strangled that is)

 

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by moyashi
Here's my shot at what's happening.

We're gonna see a whole 970 family. I wonder that there while be a family name change too ... however I doubt that.

The megahertz posted here and there I agree with since it makes sense.

I see 970 15" powerbooks too. Hey, where are they already? Probably a boost in the 17" and 12" versions too. dual??? hehe, I wish.

I will be very happy if there is a single version of any 970 machine even with a pre "64 bit clean" mobo. Even for a week after DevCon.

The mac II was a dinosaur by any objective standard but was a bridge machine to the future despite it.

Rocketman.

 

[FijiBoy]

What Nonsense

How can anyone take this claim seriously? Apple runs a "just-in-time" manufacturing process with one of the industry's shortest inventory storage times (I believe only Dell is any better). They try not to build computers more than seven days out from sale.

The units are assembled at factories (mostly in Asia) and then air-freighted in racks (ie unboxed) to distribution points where they are boxed and whatever localisation needs are included (eg keyboards, power cords and modems differ from country to country).

Apple does a global release of new equipment ie all countries get their hand on new gear at the same time. So there would need to be sealed boxes in around a dozen warehouses worldwide.

In addition sealed boxes would indicate that whatever software was in the box was finalised.

All of the above mean one simple thing - there are NOT new towers sitting in boxes in some warehouse waiting to go.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Re: This report is wrong.

Originally posted by MacWhispers
Again: There are no finished/packed Power Mac 970's in existence at this time. Period.

So Apple uses only one fabrication plant?

 

[MacWhispers]

Re: What Nonsense

Originally posted by FijiBoy
How can anyone take this claim seriously? Apple runs a "just-in-time" manufacturing process with one of the industry's shortest inventory storage times (I believe only Dell is any better). They try not to build computers more than seven days out from sale.

FijiBoy: Glad to see someone here who knows the Apple distribution process. Your accurately described process is why I snickered out loud when I first read this MacBidoule joke; aside from info from my own sources, just knowing Apple's methods flatly makes these claims impossible, at face value.

I have suspected that the editor of MacBidioulle has been intentionally spoofing and flaming the PPC 970 rumors, just for fun and games... as **NONE** of their past five or six published reports jives at **ALL** with what my own daily, very-real human contacts in Taiwan have been telling me about PPC 970 based Macs.

If you'll look back about 5-weeks, you'll see that the day followingmy MacWhispers report that PPC 970 productionwas surprisingly ahead of schedule, MB published a hauntingly similar piece, but with a number of "details" added as flourish. Since that time, the site has just been cranking up the intensity of the 970 drumbeat.

If anyone's really interested in first-person supplied info, from a Mac guy who's just trying to share what he knows, here's the reality:

1. 90% Confidence level: The next PowerBook is indeed going to sport a PPC 970, and have a specially built 15.4" LCD from ChiMei at a resolution higher than 1280x800

2. 90% Confidence level: The next Power Macs are still being referred to as "Power Macs" by everyone in the OEM channel, and are coming with PPC 970 chips, as well. They will have a completely new case desing, but still following the silver/gray/clear muted color schemes of recent pro machines, and will have an (at least substantially) aluminum front panel

3. 95% Confidence level: Both the Powerbook and new Power Macs are entering the production cycle "soon," whatever the hell that means.

I plan on still being around next year, and afterwards, and truly don't want to see what little reputation I've earned get fried right here and now, so I am being excrutiatingly cautious in what I report here, and on MacWhispers.

Take it for what you will.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Re: Re: What Nonsense

Originally posted by MacWhispers
Take it for what you will.

With all due respect, I think that's exactly what some of us are doing.

I take it we all understand Apple's commitment to inventory management. Apple is no different then any other company in that respect. But some of us also quite well remember the pain, embarrassment and lost sales they experienced by not having enough G4 iMacs to sell when the product was hot. Do you really think they want to commit that blunder again?

Simple fact: new products and products in the pipeline follow different inventory rules -- not just at Apple, but especially at Apple.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- you can easily reality-check any rumor by asking yourself the simple question: What must Apple do to survive? In this case, they have to get these suckers out the door, they have to do it soon, they have to accompany it with a big splash, and most of all, they must have the product ready for customers to buy when the big splash happens, not months later.

Honestly, I think we often make this analysis way more completed then need be. A little applied good sense goes a long way, IMO.

 

[Hattig]

Originally posted by noverflow
Time to inject some logic into this thread!

Opteron SUCKS
Yes, that is right. it is not faster than even the xeons right now... how do i know? look at www.tomshardware.com for quite some time now that have had info on real running ones.

Decent reviews (i.e., not Toms Hardware) have the Opteron competing very well and beating dual Xeons that are each running 1GHz faster than the Opteron. Opteron also is currently running at 1.8GHz max, but on the current process can scale to 2.4GHz or more, when AMD release the chips over the course of the next year. Intel's main performance increase for this year is upping the FSB of the P4 to 800MHz, which isn't valid for the Xeons because of the shared bus topology which will restrict the top bus speed for dual setups to 533MHz still. Until Intel get 90nm working, I doubt you will see many faster processors that 3.2GHz this year.

SO WHY WOULD YOU EVER WANT TO PUT ONE IN A MAC??????

Certainly not for the architecture. A Mac will never use x86 chips of any form, I reckon, but not because of any perceived lack of power - x86 processors these days are very powerful.

MacBidouille is WRONG.
possibly not about this, but about how powerfull they are.

how do i know?
look at IBM's specs for the chip.
do the math, and see that the 970 is not faster then the g4 for altivec things

for non altivec it is 2.5x faster, but still slower than altivec enhanced code...
knowing this, it is not possible that a single 1.4 970 would be faster at altivec enhanced code than a dual 1.4 g4. IT IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE given the known info from IBM.

Altivec on current G4's is crippled by the lack of bandwidth from main memory, even worse in dual configurations where each processor is sharing that 1.3GB/s of bandwidth. At high speeds, the G4 is a very unbalanced processor in terms of processing power vs. memory bandwidth.

The 970 has 6.4GB/s of bandwidth - that is seriously going to be able to feed a lot more data to the altivec units.

Hence a single 1.8GHz 970 is most likely going to run as fast as a dual 1.4GHz G4, even running Altivec algorithms.

 

[mim]

Re: it's not a rumor - it's a humor!

Originally posted by Ture
Wake up - it's not a rumor - it's a humor!

No no - it's a TUMOR!

A big fat cancerous brain rumor tumor that's effecting our ability to think rationally. It's not humor. It's a conspiracy created by zoomer baby-boomers to destroy our....

....mojo?

<...quietly curls up over the keyboard and goes insane - and there's still another 8 pages of this thread to get through...>

 

[maraczc]

According to another rumors site, IBM has confirmed that production of the new proccessors will not even begin until late June. Just to add another side to this discussion.