970 Motherboard and Chip Delivery?

[adamberti]

Originally posted by Christner
Check out Steven Den Beste's opinion on Apple's new music store strategy and the likelihood that the 970 will be its salvation:

http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/05/Applesexitstrategy.shtml

Yet another doom-and-gloomer or does he have the facts right?

I dont know about his facts, but they sound like they could be somewhat reasonable. Its been said numerous times on this board that it would be great if Apple could get millions and millions of dollars from the Music Store to help offset Hardware costs. Pretty much windows users would help reduce the cost of Apple Machines . And then it turns into a nice cycle - More and more windows users switch because the price comes down, so volume continually goes up while they still continue to purchase music no matter what side of the fence they are on.

However this guy makes it sound like a new 1.6 GHz machine is going to cost about $3000 - I think hes being a little pesimestic. I do believe that they will be the same price or more expensive, but not by that much.

 

[apemn88]

Wild speculation

Here is some food for thought:

If apple does end up using the IBM ppc970 (looks like it) and designs the OS (.3 pehaps to handle 64 bit architecture -- also likely) they have options.

Because the 970 can use both 64 and 32 bit code without penalty on either, apple could release OS X 10.3 for Intel 32bit procs.

Here is the marketing strategy: Runs better on 64 bit (2x faster) and only iApps run on Apple hardware, but all else will run on intel/AMD.

They could sell their hardware at the current premium and sell the OS for other hardware. Seems like a lot of $$ yo be made.

I know this is not likely, but it does make some sense. The OS margin would be incredible, windows folks are looking for a way out without buying new hardware, and Apple could pick up all the Linux users on PCs.

Thoughts?

 

[drastik]

Originally posted by Mudbug
now with all this info about chipsets and board designs, why can't we get a glimps (rendering, whatever) of the new case? Those boards have to go in something?

I think the prototypes boars usually come in blank grey boxes that are even sometimes welded together, they don't neccesarilly come in the finished case.

 

[RalphNumbers]

Originally posted by Christner
Check out Steven Den Beste's opinion on Apple's new music store strategy and the likelihood that the 970 will be its salvation:

http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/05/Applesexitstrategy.shtml

Yet another doom-and-gloomer or does he have the facts right?

Well, he says: "They're unlikely to ship more than a few tens of thousands of 970s in the first year."
And the MacB article this thread started on has them allready recieving shipments of 90,000 PPC970s.

 

[nagromme]

"surmounted of a traditional squanderer"

About time! PCs have had this for years, while Apple has bullheadedly continued surmounting of proprietary squanderers.

 

[nuckinfutz]

Originally posted by Christner
Check out Steven Den Beste's opinion on Apple's new music store strategy and the likelihood that the 970 will be its salvation:

http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/05/Applesexitstrategy.shtml

Yet another doom-and-gloomer or does he have the facts right?

This illustrates the problem of Internet Publishing. Any idiot with a little time and money can spout garbage. I stopped reading when he mentioned John Manzione the Bipolar Bushwacker is what I call this guy.

Because the 970 can use both 64 and 32 bit code without penalty on either, apple could release OS X 10.3 for Intel 32bit procs.

What do you Developers do. Scrap their Altivec optimations and knowledge of Mac API's to start programming for X86 which is already in transition to 64bit?

Not gonna happen.

 

[rickag]

Originally posted by Christner
Check out Steven Den Beste's opinion on Apple's new music store strategy and the likelihood that the 970 will be its salvation:

http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/05/Applesexitstrategy.shtml

Yet another doom-and-gloomer or does he have the facts right?

Very disappointing article. I guess Steven Den Beste wrote this article, it wasn't signed.

He rambled on about Apple's business model without citing any facts. Only generalizations were brought up, not a good writing technique.

He made assumptions about the price of IBM's 970 without any support for its' supposed high price. Maybe he's right, but where is any of his logic? Assumptions that IBM will price the cpu based on previous server pricing, huh?

To top it all off he begins the article citing Mr. John Manzione at MacNet, who broke his powerbook by forcibly prying it open and blames Apple! When Apple calls Mr. John Manzione bluff, he uses his website to shamelessly slam Apple, while in the meantime gouges his credit card company for the cost of the computer he damaged.

I say balderdash, these guys need to get a life accept responsibility for their actions and move on. phew, what a diatribe.

 

[blueBomber]

Re: Wild speculation

Originally posted by apemn88
Here is some food for thought:

If apple does end up using the IBM ppc970 (looks like it) and designs the OS (.3 pehaps to handle 64 bit architecture -- also likely) they have options.

Because the 970 can use both 64 and 32 bit code without penalty on either, apple could release OS X 10.3 for Intel 32bit procs.

Here is the marketing strategy: Runs better on 64 bit (2x faster) and only iApps run on Apple hardware, but all else will run on intel/AMD.

They could sell their hardware at the current premium and sell the OS for other hardware. Seems like a lot of $$ yo be made.

I know this is not likely, but it does make some sense. The OS margin would be incredible, windows folks are looking for a way out without buying new hardware, and Apple could pick up all the Linux users on PCs.

Thoughts?

yep, that is some wild speculation. Also, someone mentioned earlier that the 970 wasn't designed with massive power saving features built in, so it wouldn't be ideal for notebooks. Hmmmm.... kinda makes me wonder if that new G3 with Altivec will end up in all the notebooks across the line...

 

[PretendPCuser]

Let's see...cost cutting measures

Apple doesn't need to ship a dual 970 if the chip is prohibitively expensive. Nor would they have to if it is such a great performer. Yet the rumor mills seem to say that there will be a dual (or at least that's what we are all hoping). Who knows, if they make them all dual, they will be a little closer to volume discounting.

 

[seamuskrat]

Re: Wild speculation

Originally posted by apemn88
Here is some food for thought:


Here is the marketing strategy: Runs better on 64 bit (2x faster) and only iApps run on Apple hardware, but all else will run on intel/AMD.
Thoughts?

64 bit OS will NOT make it run FASTER. A misconception at work here. A 64 bit Os will allow for more memory and will allow for some efficiency with large memoroy intesnsive files. In SOME rare cases, it would actually slow a process down if it was re-written to be 64 bit.
Having an OS that is 64 bit capable with a chip that can handle 64 bits is great, but the speed we are hope will not come from the bit paths, but the chips themselves and other code enhancements on Panther.

 

[catalystx]

Re: Wild speculation

Originally posted by apemn88
Here is some food for thought:

Here is the marketing strategy: Runs better on 64 bit (2x faster) and only iApps run on Apple hardware, but all else will run on intel/AMD.

Thoughts?

Sorry, but there's at least one very large problem with your idea - 64 bit processors and software are NOT automatically twice as fast as 32 bit. There isn't much of an advantage to them other than support for a lot more RAM and the ability to handle very large numbers more efficiently, so you probably won't notice a difference.

On top of that, all mac software is 32bit right now and won't be recoded for 64 for quite awhile, if ever. Many programs won't benefit at all from being 64bit so I doubt the developers will waste time doing it.

CatalystX

 

[PaisanoMan]

Re: Wild speculation

Originally posted by apemn88
Here is some food for thought:

If apple does end up using the IBM ppc970 (looks like it) and designs the OS (.3 pehaps to handle 64 bit architecture -- also likely) they have options.

...

Here is the marketing strategy: Runs better on 64 bit (2x faster) and only iApps run on Apple hardware, but all else will run on intel/AMD.

Well, a 64-bit architecture isn't going to yield any theoretical speed gains for normal users -- none whatsoever. The speed gains will come from the improved speed and architecture of the chip itself. 64-bit CPUs are not inherently "2x faster" (but I do agree that Apple will probably try to take that marketing slant).

They will not be writing Panther to "handle 64 bit" because that won't really be necessary. The words "64-bit" refer to the size of the CPU's registers, meaning that the new chips can crunch numbers that are far more precise or larger than the 32-bit chips, but that doesn't necessarily mean they do it faster.

It's fun speculating about Apple's future, but it also helps to stay grounded a bit. I just want to make it clear that 64-bit != 2x faster.

 

[greg6028]

I heard of talk about a dual processor in a PowerBook.
Will this happen now with the 970?

Ultimate PowerBook with Dual 970
Fastest PowerBook with 970
Faster PowerBook with Dual G4
Fast PowerBook G4

I have a feeling this will happen in winter of 2003. The desktops will be first. Are not the desktop to oldest in the Apple line now?

 

[maxvamp]

So there will be no improvements with 64 bit?

Let me understand this...

When I am downloading , or working with data off the web through a cable modem, the 128 bit encryptions on various data objects can't benefit from a 64 bit machine?

When I am using journaling( like BeOS's 64 bit file system, which technology from this system is rumored to be in Panther) there won't be any file system performance improvements? Sherlock can't take advantage of this? RAID 5 won’t make aannnnyyy use of this?

When I am opening a .dmg, or stuffit archive with encryption, or need to do a MD5 check, Are you saying that there will be no advantage to the 64 Bit Proc?

All, I understand that most of performance increase to be gained from the 970 is from basic architectural design changes, and most apps will not take advantage from the increased memory addressing available, but people keep forgetting that computer security has a bright future, and we will ( with the war on terrorism ) see encryption show up in more and more components of the average computer system. Anyone that thinks 32-bit encryption is enough, or thinks that 256 bit encryption will be processed in the same time on either a 32 bit or 64 bit machine, is sorely mis-informed.

You see, 64 bits won’t be needed for the average user, or app, but for the average system for the sole purpose of security. Now, isn’t this what UNIX seems to be good at?

Just my two cents.

Max

 

[york2600]

According to the PDF from yesterday the 970 uses about 8X more power than the G4 used in the PowerBook. It'll be a while until there's a version for laptops.

Originally posted by dabirdwell
Please be true...

Can the 1.4's go in PowerBooks? What are the power usage figures?

 

[ffakr]

everybody forgets this

Originally posted by dabirdwell
Please be true...

Can the 1.4's go in PowerBooks? What are the power usage figures?

there is one point that I've never seen addressed. There is more to notebook viability than average or max thermal output. Most modern processors have powersaving features built into hardware that make them more attractive as portible processors.
The real question is, can the lower power 970s cycle through multiple levels of sleep. Can they dynamically shut down sections of the chip for micro-naps (Like Intel's Mobile P3s can)...
or is it a true spin off of Power-4. It it designed to just run 24x7.

this is what will make or break the processor as a mobile cpu. Maybe this is the reason that there are rumors of an IBM G3 with Altivec tacked on. That may be the future of macintosh portible cpus... at least for a while.

 

[nuckinfutz]

Originally posted by york2600
According to the PDF from yesterday the 970 uses about 8X more power than the G4 used in the PowerBook. It'll be a while until there's a version for laptops.

That PDF only compared the 1.3V PPC 970. The orginal pdf from the Microprocessor Report shows a 1.2Ghz 1.1volt that dissipates 19 watts. That's still higher than the 1Ghz G4 so I don't think Apple attemtps a PPC 970 notebook until 970's are fabbed at 90nm

 

[ffakr]

Re: So there will be no improvements with 64 bit?

Originally posted by maxvamp
Let me understand this...

When I am downloading , or working with data off the web through a cable modem, the 128 bit encryptions on various data objects can't benefit from a 64 bit machine?

When I am using journaling( like BeOS's 64 bit file system, which technology from this system is rumored to be in Panther) there won't be any file system performance improvements? Sherlock can't take advantage of this? RAID 5 won?t make aannnnyyy use of this?

When I am opening a .dmg, or stuffit archive with encryption, or need to do a MD5 check, Are you saying that there will be no advantage to the 64 Bit Proc?

All, I understand that most of performance increase to be gained from the 970 is from basic architectural design changes, and most apps will not take advantage from the increased memory addressing available, but people keep forgetting that computer security has a bright future, and we will ( with the war on terrorism ) see encryption show up in more and more components of the average computer system. Anyone that thinks 32-bit encryption is enough, or thinks that 256 bit encryption will be processed in the same time on either a 32 bit or 64 bit machine, is sorely mis-informed.

I think this depends heavly on what type of math in involved with the type of operations you're talking about. The PPC 970 will bring native support for 64bit integer ops but the G4 can process double precision floats already (64bit). So the places where you'll see the biggest increase in performance would be applicaions that could benefit from 64 bit integer math.
Personally, I don't know enough about encryption to say what the algorithms look like. A 64bit filesystem would certainly be much faster because memory addresses could be stored in one register.

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if all of the areas you mentioned benefited from the 64bit'ed'ness of the 970, but I guess we'll have to wait and see... (or talk to the developers at WWDC)

 

[-hh]

Re: Wild speculation

Originally posted by apemn88
Here is some food for thought:

If apple does end up using the IBM ppc970 (looks like it) and designs the OS (.3 pehaps to handle 64 bit architecture -- also likely) they have options.

Because the 970 can use both 64 and 32 bit code without penalty on either, apple could release OS X 10.3 for Intel 32bit procs.

Here is the marketing strategy: Runs better on 64 bit (2x faster) and only iApps run on Apple hardware, but all else will run on intel/AMD.

They could sell their hardware at the current premium and sell the OS for other hardware. Seems like a lot of $$ yo be made.

I know this is not likely, but it does make some sense. The OS margin would be incredible, windows folks are looking for a way out without buying new hardware, and Apple could pick up all the Linux users on PCs.

Thoughts?

Well, the "2x faster with 64 bits" is wrong.

But what might be a different twist on this is that the iApp's do run on Intel hardware -- but only under an"OS X for x86" bundle, instead of under Windows.

The reason that this makes something interesting is because of Apple's move into selling music. We need to keep in mind that the Music Mavens are scared of the Windows platform because they've been burned by a lot of pirating (Kazaa, etc).

Currently, they're willing to "experiment" with Apple because its a very small market...very little downside risk. A way that you could get into the Intel hardware but to limit your risk would be to limit the compatible hardware, and one way to do this is to only support one OS. This is where OS X for x86 comes in.


-hh

 

[ktlx]

Re: So there will be no improvements with 64 bit?

Originally posted by maxvamp
Anyone that thinks 32-bit encryption is enough, or thinks that 256 bit encryption will be processed in the same time on either a 32 bit or 64 bit machine, is sorely mis-informed.

A lot depends upon the algorithms chosen and how they are implemented. If the implementation uses AltiVec, 32-bit versus 64-bit will not make a difference. If you are choosing a streaming cipher over a block cipher, you probably are not going to notice a difference. If you are using public key encryption, you probably are not going to notice a difference.

A block cipher using 128-bit to 256-bit encryption without AltiVec help should be significantly faster on a 64-bit processor compared to 32-bits. Lazy implementations of 3DES, AES, Blowfish, etc. will show the most benefit.

You see, 64 bits won?t be needed for the average user, or app, but for the average system for the sole purpose of security. Now, isn?t this what UNIX seems to be good at?

Encryption != Security

 

[ktlx]

Re: Re: So there will be no improvements with 64 bit?

Originally posted by ffakr
I think this depends heavly on what type of math in involved with the type of operations you're talking about. The PPC 970 will bring native support for 64bit integer ops but the G4 can process double precision floats already (64bit). So the places where you'll see the biggest increase in performance would be applicaions that could benefit from 64 bit integer math.
Personally, I don't know enough about encryption to say what the algorithms look like.

Mainstream encryption algorithms are all integer math based. All of the "secret key" algorithms (DES, 3DES, AES, ...) benefit greatly from AltiVec so any good implementation is going to rely on that. The "public key" algorithms (RSA, ...) require very large numbers of bits (1024-bits to 2048-bits) but are only used for a brief period probably will not be all that noticeable.

Hopefully generating good, large random numbers should be significantly faster. This operation is not helped by an AltiVec unit so 64-bit is definitely better than 32-bit.

 

[maxvamp]

Understood

Encryption != Security

My point was more of that encryption is a facet of security that will be used everywhere ( eventually ). Thank you, however for pointing out that they are not synonymous.

Another poit I was trying to point out was thate there will clearly be places where the 64-bitness well help an application. That while the speed of 64 bit procs will not mean an absolute 2x increase in speed, there will be areas in common apps where there will be an increase.

In short, I am trying to debunk the thought of 'There will be no increases what so ever in using a 64 bit app for the common user.'

This is not quite right...

Max

 

[yzedf]

to be competitive

apple needs to offer something comparable to the following:

$2,249.00 (US)

P4 3GHz 800MHz bus
1GB DDR 400MHz RAM
128MB ATi Radeon 9800
200GB UATA 100 hdd
16x DVD
48x/24x/48x CD-RW
56k PCI modem
10/100 ethernet
19" CRT
Harman Kardon® HK-395 Speakers with Subwoofer
Keyboard / Mouse
XP Home
Wordperfect Productivity Pack
90 day McAfee
6 months Earthlink or AOL

As of right now the closest priced Apple PowerMac is over $3k (US). LCD does cost more, RAM is way overpriced, so is the hdd upgrade, Radeon 9700 Pro, Combo drive instead of seperates, No subwoofer, No AOL / Earthlink, no anti-virus (not that it's needed but switchers do want it), and a single button mouse. And that is for the single proc 1GHz G4!

I fully understand that comparing a Dell system to a Mac is not fair, but that is the market Apple has chosen to be in (personal computers). And in 3 months, the target will have moved again; either better pricing, or better hardware. Most likely both will happen

It is time for SJ to deliver. Year of the notebook or not, the PM needs help.

And the sad part is, there is no proof yet that Apple will get access to the IBM PPC 970. If Apple does get them, a increase in price would be a disaster.

 

[jettredmont]

Re: So there will be no improvements with 64 bit?

Originally posted by maxvamp
Let me understand this...

When I am downloading , or working with data off the web through a cable modem, the 128 bit encryptions on various data objects can't benefit from a 64 bit machine?

A good point, that I hadn't thought of. Yes, security is one area where hardware 64-bit ints will help.

When I am using journaling( like BeOS's 64 bit file system, which technology from this system is rumored to be in Panther) there won't be any file system performance improvements? Sherlock can't take advantage of this? RAID 5 won’t make aannnnyyy use of this?

64-bit file system? I'm not sure there will be many performance improvements here on a 64-bit processor, but there will likely be some. Most of the work of a 64-bit file system can be done in 32-bits; its just the addresses which require munging in a 32-bit system.

Sherlock? I don't see how that would directly benefit frm 64-bit (aside from encryption, which you mentioned before).

RAID 5? I don't see a direct performance boost there with 64-bits, although both Altivec and the faster bus of the 970 would help it.

But encryption, that's one that hasn't been mentioned here (that I've seen) before, and should benefit from a 64-bit processor.

Note, again, though, that the chief benefits we'll see in a 970-equipped machine will not be from its 64-bit registers, but from its overall enhanced performance and much more matched FSB size.

 

[Freg3000]

Is Foxconn the place where the Powermacs are made now? Or will this plant be a new place for Apple (for their Powermacs).