970 Motherboard and Chip Delivery?

[maxvamp]

Not hard to compare if rumors come true

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

I think the system you will probably see for that price would be

apple needs to offer something comparable to the following:

$2,249.00 (US)

dual 970 1.6 GHz 900MHz bus
1GB Dual DDR 400MHz RAM
128MB ATi Radeon 9700
250GB UATA 100 hdd
4x DVD-R/RW
56k PCI modem
10/100/1000 ethernet
Keyboard / Mouse
Mac OSX 10.3
AppleWorks
Maybe .Mac

A couple of things I want to point out here that makes up for the differences from your list but equal out are :

- dual 1.6 procs. If IBM's numbers are to be believed, a single 1.6 will give a P4 3GHz a run for it's money ( but won't beat it ). Following Apple's logic, if you add two procs together you get get about the same speed as a competitor's single ( dual 1 Gig G4s to compare against a 2 GHZS P4, for example ). This configuration would eat the single P4 alive

- DVD Reader with CDRW. In my opinion, this is a rotton configuration. Why would you want redundant CD drives, and have a 5" drive bay waisted? this combo approaches a single DVD-R in cost, so why not just get a single drive. It looks less cludgy

- Ethernet while 10/100 cards are a dime a dozen, I do run a small network in my home, and take a little comfort knowing that the nic in the Mac is going to be reliable, that it isn't from the cheapest bid that Apple could get. I have seen a lot of crappy 10/100 cards out there. Furthermore, I like longevity, and I like knowing that when I upgrade my network, that there is one less card to have to buy.

- Mouse : When in Rome.....

- Windows XP Home: To be honest in your comparisons, you need to add $199 to upgrade to WindowsXP Professional. WinXP Home has to many crippled features. One would be no dual proc support, another is networking diversity.

- I believe that AppleWorks can compare to Wordperfect rather easily. In both cases, if you want to standardise, you have to upgrade to MS Office.

- Virus scan? - See .Mac

I did leave off the speakers and the monitor. I also am not going into the scenario of the performance you can gain or lose in the Dells depending on what chipset they put in it ( they have been known to cripple good procs with bad chipsets ), but honestly, I think you can, and will continue to get good comparable machines from Dell and Apple for about the same price, even though they will not be exactly the same machine. There are some trade offs ( 1000 ethernet nics are expensive ), but that is the way it goes.

Max

 

[drastik]

Re: to be competitive

Originally posted by yzedf

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 don't see how you get the 1 ghz powermac to over $3k. Even is you bought the extra HD and RAM from apple and the 19 CRT seperately from Dell or wherever, it doesn't get up to three grand.

 

[macmunch]

I have an idea on this !
A very good I think

If there are 4 Models that would be cool !
and dont forgett the DP coudnt ne so expensice because than there werent 3 models of them !!!!

So look at this idea:

1.4 SP low Price Tag 1199 - 1399
1.6 DP 1699 - 1899
1.8 DP 2099 - 2399
2.0 DP 2799 - 2999 or even 3099


But if they introduce so many models with DUAL I see a big chance to get this Single PPC970 very cheap !

 

[ktlx]

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

Originally posted by jettredmont
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.

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.

I am skeptical that 64-bit CPUs will help much for either of these cases. In my opinion, the address manipulation work is a small part of the total time taken. For file systems, there is still a bandwidth I/O issue and for RAID 5 it is still computing the parity and striping information that is the bottlekneck.

I think the increase in clock speed and much faster memory I/O will be where you see the benefit here.

Please don't misunderstand me, I am not saying 64-bits is worthless, I just think too many of us think of 64-bits as this magic nirvana when we would see just as much performance increase from a 32-bit version of the PowerPC 970 (all other factors being equal).

If you are not doing video editing, 3D rendering or something else with very large datasets, 64-bits doesn't help enough to be noticeable. Encryption and random number generation will see some benefit, but look at how much this is really happening on a typical system. Not enough to be noticeable.

 

[IVIIVI4ck3y27]

Originally posted by 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?

How about them Apples?!?

Not likely in Winter 2003 on them Powerbooks, I figure sometime in mid-late Q2 (May-June 2004) or as late as early Q3 2004 (usual August-September-ish release spot), and not likely a PPC 970, but a further evolution of the PPC 9xx lineup. The next upgrades to Powerbooks will likely be faster G4's. Those will likely fill the gap until Apple can get a PPC 9xx that is laptop ready. You "MIGHT" see a 9xx make it into the iMac, which has moved from the bottom of the line machine to a more "midrange" machine, but even that to me is a bit curious as it'd further drive the costs up on the iMac over the eMac, which is basically it's CRT-based fraternal twin sold at a slightly cheaper price (due to monitor costs). My bank is, Apple will release these processors "ONLY" in top of the line machines, with Apple Pro and Apple XServes getting the first 970's, and it trickling down into the other desktops (next iMacs and eMac together on similar architecture to keep costs relatively low, followed by Powerbook and eventually iBook) by the time the next generation of 9xx processors hit.

As noted earlier by someone, the PPC 970 doesn't have any "power saving" features for battery efficiency. Unless Apple is on the verge of some incredible battery technology that compensates for this... don't count on it anytime soon. I mean... I don't think Marty McFly and company are going to just slip Apple the Flux capacitor tomorrow, with a USB-based Mr. Fusion for added oomph.

The PPC 9xx, while less energy intensive than the current top of the line desktop G4 variant (also not laptop suitable at around 30w), is not as efficient as the current Powerbook variant of the G4 (they're not all the same model of G4, last I checked), which is already accused by many to be a "lap scorcher" at it's 12w of consumption, even with energy management/power saving features. Unless they can get the 970 down to that similar temp and to that level of wattage or better (mind you, the G3 in the iBook is around 7w, and it's barely lukewarm to the touch), don't expect to see it in a laptop.

I know you all want them... but even in Apple's history, the laptops were always the last one's to get the new generation of processors. Where were the G4's launched? Desktops. Where were the G3's launched? Desktops. Depending on the complexity and the time to get the heat down... it could be a short period (6 months) or a full year to year and a half before we see a PPC 9xx Powerbook. At which point Apple will still not be G3/G4-free, as obviously the iBook will likely transition to a faster G3 or uprated G4 before too long. Perhaps even using a hand-me-down Powerbook G4 motherboard, obviously updated for better I/O so as to make it faster than the current Powerbooks, on a more budget-minded philosophy, of course.

1-970-FOR-MEEE

There's a cost outlook to look at... and then a volume standpoint. Apple is going to be selling desktops like crazy as the desktop people have sat on G4 with the same enclosure for far too long. That is the #1 priority for Apple right now because all other product ranges are selling well, but the Pro models which are a staple of the Creative market are sitting damn near stagnant in sales, and losing ground to the PC at an alarming rate. The odds of Apple having enough PPC 970's to fill out an entire lineup is hard to fathom, because it usually takes a bit to ramp up processor technology, much less bring the efficiency down to be suitable for laptops... and PPC 970 is like bleeding edge first generation of this platform.

Then there's the ability to mfg. all of these at the same time and meet demand. Apple has "NEVER" revamped the entire lineup in one swing... and I don't expect to see it now. Even if Apple could, you'd want to minimize the ties to something new until you have it ironed out so that if it's erroneous, you're not doing a mass recall and hurting your image (remember the Pentium floating point disaster? Apple couldn't withstand that level of PR right now). If all of Apple's machines were based on 970, which not even any PC mfg.'s are based all on Athlon XP or Pentium 4; that'd be a substantially large risk, you'd have a flatlined price philosophy, and why would anyone want to buy a Pro Desktop if they could get an iMac with the same processor and speed for less? If you had Powerbooks with the same 970's... then you'd basically be telling me that the desktop is obsolete because the Powerbook is the same speed and same performance range? Notttt gonna' happen. Even the PC's use Centrino's and Durons for their laptops, while having a midrange Celeron/Duron, and a top of the line Athlon XP/Pentium 4, followed by Pentium 4 Xeon and Athlon MP.

Apple doesn't have as complex a lineup as the PC... but I do expect to see G3 iBooks, G4 Powerbooks, iMacs, and eMacs, and PPC 970 Pro Desktops and XServes; then seeing the PPC 9xx Powerbook lineup next year when the next variants of the PPC 9xx roll out (along with uprated versions of the 9xx in desktops; one more efficient and slightly slower or similar to current speeds... the other breaking 2.2-2.8 Ghz. and still requiring more energy than the laptop version), then PPC 9xx eMacs and iMacs (likely same processors as the Powerbook), with the iBook moving to G4 or faster G3's briefly before getting a 9xx variant as the other processors move ever upwards in speed (likely third evolution of the PPC 9xx; with the iBook getting the old PowerBook's revised processors). It's how Apple's done it in the past, and it just makes sense.

How about that Sodium plated Powerbook?!? ::whistling::

The aluminum laptops were just released a short time ago... and they have yet to launch an uprated replacement for the titanium 15" model. I expect a G4 aluminum accompaniment to the 12" and 17", much as Mac OS Rumors spoke of, likely at around 15.x inches. Some expect to see 9xx launched in this model, but I can't fathom it, not with the lack of power management features and it's higher than current laptop G4 wattage. I could see Motorola scaling down their G4 desktop processor in wattage and bumping up the speeds of the G4's so that at the time of the 970 Pro desktops and XServes... that Apple bumps the iMac and eMac lineup up past the current models in speed, and uprates the Powerbooks with a faster and more efficient wattage version of the G4, perhaps somewhere in the 1.2-2 Ghz. range. That same variation of G4 processor might be found in Powerbooks, eMacs, and iMacs where heat is a major concern. At that point we might see 1 Ghz. G4 iBooks too, or a faster G3 from IBM, although I expect the iBook to take advantage of SIMD before too long and make "Velocity Engine" a bigger standpoint. Especially since I figure the next "MAJOR" Powerbook design next year will get the Pro laptops up to 9xx.

Dual Quad 4-barrel... phooey

The odds of dual processor Powerbooks isn't that good... for one that's an extra processor chewing up juice (desktops it makes sense, laptops... unless they can get dual G4's or 9xx's running at 7w like the current iBook, you're talking even more heat than a current laptop G4 which is already hot to a lot of people's chagrin), generating more heat, and eating up more battery life. Yet if it does happen, it'll likely be some hybridization of G3/G4... and that's just not logical at this stage. I doubt we'll see this happen for quite some time, if ever. For one, I doubt IBM is going to invest in making a new desktop-based G3 processor when they're moving towards PPC 9xx as their next generation (likely to replace their 64-bit G3's they use in their server platforms), effectively phasing out much need for desktop G3's outside of the iBook which will likely get to a low-end 9xx (likely go G4 as interim or a uprated speed G3, although I doubt IBM will keep evolving it as it is) before too long after the Powerbooks finally get one. They might focus on embedded, but adding SIMD to a G3 would require a lot of work, work that could be better focused on making a laptop variation (with power management, shrunken die, etc.) on the 9xx series of processor which already has it. There's also the fact that the Apple variation of the G3 itself isn't designed for SMP, at least not the Apple compatible variations of the PPC architecture made by IBM, so IBM would have to invest extra time and technology, when they could be better off making a whole new architecture based off the 9xx line which supports SMP and could be made to work in laptops with some efficiency work and streamlining. Which is what I'm expecting more than anything.

 

[Abstract]

*looks above* Geezus!!!!

Originally posted by macmunch
I have an idea on this !
A very good I think

If there are 4 Models that would be cool !

So look at this idea:

1.4 SP low Price Tag 1199 - 1399
1.6 DP 1699 - 1899
1.8 DP 2099 - 2399
2.0 DP 2799 - 2999 or even 3099


But if they introduce so many models with DUAL I see a big chance to get this Single PPC970 very cheap !

Is there any guarantee that the new PM's will have dual 970 processors? I mean, couldn't there be a single proc 1.8 and 2.0 GHz IBM 970 out before they release the duals? If these processors only go to 2.5GHz, there won't be too much room for Apple to offer speed bumps over the next 3-4 years or so unless they can offer singles for now, and duals later.

If dual 970's will truly be released immediately, then I think this config is more like it:

1.4 SP iMac
1.6 SP iMac

1.6 DP PowerMac
1.8 DP PowerMac
(or maybe 1.4 and 1.6 DP PowerMacs)
I can't see them releasing the 1.8 and 2.0 GHz 970 processors immediately because of the upgrading reasons I previously mentioned. I also can't see there being 3 processor choices for the PM's with the 970 processor.

 

[copperpipe]

64 bit, hmmmmmm...

Well, most people here have been saying that 64 bits doesn't really make any difference except in encryption, which is to say that the difference they will make is miniscule at best. Now the people saying this definitely know more than I do, because I can't even understand what they are talking about in some cases. But, I just don't understand why Intel, AMD, and IBM are all investing billions of dollars in the race for 64 bit? It doesn't make sense to me, for such a tiny gain. Maybe we should go back to 16 bit? or 8? did they make a big difference? The POWER 4 uses 64, and it descimates every processor out there, but I suppose that it could be 32 and would descimate every processor, except when it's decoding an encryption. I dunno, maybe everyone here is right about 64 bit not making any noticable difference, but I'm having a hard time believing it.

PS - I truly don't mean to upset anyone by this, and I don't doubt that everyone has good reasons for their beliefs...

 

[rjwill246]

Originally posted by Christner


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

A number of things don't make sense here and that is the "fact" that all Macs are wierd or too slow to be useful etc. This is an untenable line since not all Dells or HPs etc are the fastest most loaded machines on the planet and XP isn't the most blazing OS either but like OS X it hasn't been around that long and it is quite likely that both Apple and Microsoft will continue to work on the bloat etc. in their respective OSes in order to speed them up.
The author has assumed that Apple will be the only user of the 970s and that is a very poor assumption... does he think that IBM is about to go out of business too and wouldn't have any need for them either?
While the user comes off as a long time Apple fan, the words ring hollow and sound much like those of "flamers" etc in these forums. In any case, the comments about the AAC format are not entirely true.. there is a difference between an AIFF formatted CD and a transcoded AAC format file but it is not huge and to claim otherwise means that the person doing the transcoding had no idea what they were doing.
Apple's demise ( note that their market share is now 2.9% and falling..mmm where did that come from?) is clearly apparent in the 50% increase in just 2 weeks of their share value!
Still, it is troll-like articles like this that make one think and then be glad that you are a Mac user and that Apple is far from doomed. Btw, the writer sounds like a ZD-net reviewer where any Apple product (notable exception, the iPod) is just terrible compared to any flavored Dell.

 

[speechgod]

Something is wrong. Foxconn makes connecters. They don't make mobos, cases, or anything else. They, for example, make the ADC connector. Why would they currently be sitting on the world's largest supply of 970's?

This puts the LoopRumors rumor is bad light.

 

[Frobozz]

Re: don't think that's correct.

Originally posted by d.f
i hate to piss on your chips, but IMO: you won't see then use the 2.0Ghz. just because they exsist, doesn't men we (the consumer) get to see them. it doesn't look like they are in any sort of bulk production either.

i'd still be happy with your line up regardless.

I tend to agree that just because the 2.0 is out, doesn't mean we will have them. There will be at least one revision in January, and probably another next June/July before the 980's are ready. If the 970's will only reach 2.5 GHz at their current process, I would think you'd see two revision cycles:

initial (june):
sp 1.4 970
dp 1.6 970
dp 1.8 970

1st rev. (jan. '04):
sp 1.8 970
dp 2.0 970
dp 2.2 970

2nd rev. (jun. '04) if still using 970's instead of 980's:
sp 2.0 970
dp 2.2 970
dp 2.5 970


That would space it out nicely based on current numbers. The only variable is if they can crank out .09 process chips. If they can, then we may see speed bumped 970s, but why not make the 970's only in laptops and consumer computers at that point? Then move the pro line to 980's.

Either way the lineup is going to be ludicrously faster than my DP 1.0 G4 Quicksilver... and that's a FAST mac. ;-)

 

[nawk]

Originally posted by speechgod
Something is wrong. Foxconn makes connecters. They don't make mobos, cases, or anything else. They, for example, make the ADC connector. Why would they currently be sitting on the world's largest supply of 970's?

This puts the LoopRumors rumor is bad light.

A simple trip to their website will show that they make more than connecters. Their section on PC enclosures even shows an G3 powermac tower.

 

[IVIIVI4ck3y27]

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?

Putting the (Mac OS) X in x86

::buzzer::

Nada.

Apple will never release their OS (as in not just Darwin, but the whole enchilada) on other people's hardware, unless the Mac goes the way of NeXT, or Be Inc. Not very likely...

With Jobs at the helm and a healthy dosage of applications vendors available, and with a successful launch of products like the iPod (for Windows and Mac now), the further evolution of the iPod, and the further evolution of Apple into being more than just a computer developer... Apple is even less concerned about processors than they are just flat-out innovating and making $.

I heard some tunes through my window...

Diversification is something Apple will likely do a lot more of, by deploying products like iTunes on Windows, so they can exploit the Apple iTunes internet store for all it's worth, while also increasing brand awareness to the Windows crowd with having an elegant MP3 player with a nice interface, great sound, AAC support, an integrated online music store experience, and support for CD-burning directly from the player.

I know, I know... "...but give them iTunes and why would they want to switch?!?"

Simple, because...

Any other iApps to Windows will likely come at a cost, if it's even available at all. I mean, Apple doesn't want to just give away the greatest assets to luring people to switch. Yet, if Apple doesn't at least give Windows users a chance to help their bottomline (via something as nifty as the Apple music store that will appeal to anyone), and also give them something that they can download for free and use to see how much better it is than anything on the Windows platform (and hell... why not support Linux too?!? I'm all for an x11 based iTunes variation using KHTML in KDE)... it's sort of like... if a tree falls in the forest... will anyone hear it?

The iPod is a great component that showed the Windows crowd what Apple is about. A free download of iTunes for Windows that 1) interconnects with the iPod, 2) trumps any and all MP3 software players for Windows (if Winamp is the best they have... y'know it's pretty sad), and *WILL* likely be the only AAC-compatible player on Windows (outside of QuickTime, eventually), and 3) offers Apple's iTunes KHTML storefront? Pure genius, limited costs to Apple, and considerable rewards in terms of mindshare and marketing for Apple, as well as music sales and secure music sales to Windows users that lines Apple's, and the major recording studios, pockets. It's a win-win and a definite "MUST DO" for Apple...

I also look to see some coders (not necessarily Apple, and in fact... I doubt we'll see Safari persay on Windows) bring a KHTML-based browser experience that pseudo-integrates with Windows XP (much like Konqueror does in KDE) and allows you to navigate through the system much like IE does in XP (perhaps KDE with Konqueror for Windows?!?). Especially if Microsoft is forced into not bundling IE with their system, or is forced to give users the option to install Konqueror or IE on startup. If the browser situation was opened up on Windows to choice like it is on the Mac (and all variants of browsers should be included on the OS CD's, much like Netscape, IE, and Cyberdog were before on the Mac)... it could be a coup for KHTML, and as a result... Apple/KDE. After all, if Apple and KDE could win the browser war back from Microsoft, who has been incredibly sluggish with IE updates to increase it's usability on the Mac, much less improve it's look/feel on the PC... KDE and Apple via KTHML could generate a coup to make KHTML and W3C more prevalent... especially with the DOJ's rulings requiring Microsoft to unintegrate IE from XP in future versions by default.

Apple supporting PC cloning with OS X would be a nightmare due to the incredibly large myriad roster of components that a PC is built with. Be Inc. (remember BeOS on Intel?) even struggled at supporting all of the video cards, all of the processors, et al. Apple trying to support their own hardware and chase their tail on the PC side? Not a chance. If Apple ever does support AMD/Intel outside of Windows... it'll be in proprietary made enclosures, with proprietary motherboards, and a closed circle of supported hardware that barring a leak of architectures (or reverse engineering)... wouldn't even run Windows most likely (because Apple wouldn't want it to where you could buy a Mac and replace their OS with their arch-enemies). Any vendors wishing to support said hardware would have to create their own drivers... and either submit them to Apple or ship them on disk themselves. Microsoft does what they do because they don't build their own PC's, they're #1 priority is based on cloning (as a result of not making their own hardware), and the only OS that comes even remotely close to competing with Microsoft on sheer amount of hardware supported is Linux; and that's more because it's an open-source movement than a company with a ridiculously large engineering staff (bought and supported via the monopolistic funding they receive by own 90+ % of the marketshare).

I may be a Mac enthusiast, but I'm not a foolish zealot... and I do have to give credit where credit is due. Microsoft went from Plug and Pray in Windows '95 to a freakin' Plug and Play miracle with 2k and XP on a large myriad of machines. The fact that they support anywhere near close to 40-50% of the currently available PC hardware is downright amazing, especially with some of the shotty crap hardware by no-name vendors lurking in the wings (and some of the shotty drivers for that shotty crap). This might be the one thing Microsoft's done the best... it's not so much that they've innovated in doing this, it's that they've selected and copied the better ideas and worked at doing them equally as good or better, or they cannibalized the more successful competition via guerilla tactics so that they couldn't spend $ to out-develop them. Either way... if Apple had to support a myriad of clone hardware vendors... it'd be a time period before everything was running at full song anywhere near to what Microsoft is. I don't doubt that Apple could do it... but I doubt Apple would take such a plunge when they make the whole kit and kaboodle and reap the profit margin rewards as a result.

For some things though... it's like brand equity. It gets Apple known. Apple will be an applications provider for Windows (not an OS X provider for x86), with stuff like Keynote and a future Office suite, along with iTunes with iTunes music store for Windows, the further evolution of QuickTime, and more breakthrough products like iPods that cater to all computer users near and far. After all... to lure them in, you have to let them at least kick the tires... and what better way than from in the privacy of their own P.C. (piece of crap).

 

[Freg3000]

Originally posted by Abstract
*looks above* Geezus!!!!




Is there any guarantee that the new PM's will have dual 970 processors? I mean, couldn't there be a single proc 1.8 and 2.0 GHz IBM 970 out before they release the duals? If these processors only go to 2.5GHz, there won't be too much room for Apple to offer speed bumps over the next 3-4 years or so unless they can offer singles for now, and duals later.

i think that the biggest piece of evidence for dual processor Powermacs came today in the chip numbers. 20,000 for the 1.4, yet 40,000 for the 1.6 and 1.8. Why twice as much?
Twice as many processors per machine.
Dual configurations for machine carrying 1.6 and 1.8 processors, and single for the 1.4.

 

[posixstudent]

I hate to bring this up, but I have never heard any verification that the 970's would be in PowerMacs. I have a feeling that they will appear in Xserves first with a 64-bit version of Mac OS X Server. This would make more since to me. If Apple could improve their market share for servers then they could push for a better volume discount for the chips. The concept is called "economies of scale." The last thing Apple needs to do is bet the farm on a new processor that could cause more 3rd party software incompatabilities then the Release of Mac OS 10.2.

 

[Abstract]

*points up (again)* Why the novel,IVIIVI4ck3y27? No offense, but I didn't read all of it. Skimmed.....yes, but I didn't read it, per se.


I think Frobozz has a similar idea as myself when it comes to the processors that come out. Although, I think the SP 970's will be available for iMacs, not for PM's. I'm not quite sure how the single processor PM's are selling, but I think its a mistake to have them in the first place, and the single proc will be relegated to the iMac only while the single proc PM is eliminated.

Thanks alot, Freg. I didn't notice that.

 

[Frobozz]

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, to be honest I think the odds of Apple using Intel/AMD is zero. The only way it would happen is if there was no longer a PowerPC chip available.

Also, the 970 is in the same ballpark for price as a G4. It might end up being cheaper in the relatively close future.

I'm not knocking you at all on this. Sincerely. I think your post deserves a lot of merit... but I did get me thinking. After all, what incentive is there if you eleminated everything but the financial factors? First, I don't think Apple's price point has much of anything to do with their success. They're a success now. Maybe if they could knock $500 off their pro lines... but their consumer lines are actually cheaper than comparable PC systems. But, let's take the financial factor into account on it's own.

If Apple was only able to save $100 a chip, the Intel/AMD thing it mute. Never gonna happen. If the diff. was $500, then maybe. If it was $1000, then def. a possibility. The bottom line is Apple's bottom line. They will charge the same as they always have, plus or minus a couple hundred dollars. The reason is that is what the marketplace is capable of withstanding. Apple makes huge profit on their hardware and it's the only way they can sustain themselves with their smaller marketshare.

Intel/AMD will not make people switch to the Mac unless it meant that Apple could sell a machine for $500. They never will, because they can't make a margin on that and stay in business. They won't switch based on brand recognition, either. The only people that care about the chips in their machines are dorks like us. Ask your average PC user what CPU model and speed they are running. They haven't a clue. Yes, your gamers and your younger peple might, but Apple isn't doing as bad there as one might believe, IMHO.

 

[ktlx]

Re: 64 bit, hmmmmmm...

Originally posted by copperpipe
Well, most people here have been saying that 64 bits doesn't really make any difference except in encryption, which is to say that the difference they will make is miniscule at best. Now the people saying this definitely know more than I do, because I can't even understand what they are talking about in some cases. But, I just don't understand why Intel, AMD, and IBM are all investing billions of dollars in the race for 64 bit? It doesn't make sense to me, for such a tiny gain. Maybe we should go back to 16 bit? or 8? did they make a big difference? The POWER 4 uses 64, and it descimates every processor out there, but I suppose that it could be 32 and would descimate every processor, except when it's decoding an encryption. I dunno, maybe everyone here is right about 64 bit not making any noticable difference, but I'm having a hard time believing it.

You are talking cats and dogs here and even then, not everything you say is correct.

Except for AMD, all of the mainstream players (Intel, IBM, Sun, HP) are going 64-bit for servers and high end workstations. You really do see a benefit there for large databases and working with large data sets. The work being done on those machines and the work being done on Apple Power Macs and Xserves have almost nothing in common.

AMD is mostly targeting servers but they are also going after high end desktops (in the same belief that many have the 970 based Power Macs) that there are some desktop applications which will benefit from 64-bit processors. However, it should be noted that while AMD believes there is a market there, Intel has stated publicly they do not feel there will be one until later in the decade. I think Intel is wrong but their argument might be why develop a new 64-bit processor for a $3500 desktop when a low end Itanium 2 workstation is in this range.

Also, IBM's POWER4/4+ does not decimate every other processor out there. For 32-bit integer math, it is beaten soundly by the Pentium 4 which is the reigning king for 32-bit integer math. For floating point, it is beaten soundly by the Itanium and probably by the Alpha.

But that is not where the POWER4/4+ is targetted. It is targetted for large databases and transaction processing. In that arena it is king. Although due to its high cost, you can generally get a Sun or HP that can compete with almost any IBM server at a similar price point. You need more UltraSPARCs to do an equivalent amount of work, but Sun's are cheaper per processor so it washes out unless your software is per-processor licensed.

 

[IVIIVI4ck3y27]

Re: 64 bit, hmmmmmm...

Originally posted by copperpipe
Well, most people here have been saying that 64 bits doesn't really make any difference except in encryption, which is to say that the difference they will make is miniscule at best. Now the people saying this definitely know more than I do, because I can't even understand what they are talking about in some cases. But, I just don't understand why Intel, AMD, and IBM are all investing billions of dollars in the race for 64 bit? It doesn't make sense to me, for such a tiny gain. Maybe we should go back to 16 bit? or 8? did they make a big difference? The POWER 4 uses 64, and it descimates every processor out there, but I suppose that it could be 32 and would descimate every processor, except when it's decoding an encryption. I dunno, maybe everyone here is right about 64 bit not making any noticable difference, but I'm having a hard time believing it.

PS - I truly don't mean to upset anyone by this, and I don't doubt that everyone has good reasons for their beliefs...

Rollin' in my '64

It's quite simple actually. The reason for mor-125ts + a processor is that there's a need for more RAM. For most desktop services that us casual users are doing right now, 64-bit is overkill for the "NEAR" term. Eventually as programs get more and more advanced, a traditional inevitability... and as more and more "featuritis" is added to the OS resulting in bloat, the ability to make use of more RAM, more drive space, etc. etc. will be a major concern.

Why's everyone tramplin' each other?!?

Simple. Desktop processor-based computer sales only make a small margin of product sales for most PC companies. You're selling processors made in large volumes, at low cut-rate prices in order to draw people in. Therefore your profit margin per machine is cheap, and the costs to research and develop said processors is expensive if they're based on a "SINGULAR" task.

Now... where is 64-bit "NEEDED".

Enterprise, and I don't mean Star Trek

By eventually shifting the desktop PC from Pentium/Duron/Celeron to an Itanium based architecture, much as AMD shifts from Duron/Athlon XP/Athlon MP to Hammer; the advantage is that they can do their R&D work for their server processor families, and trickle that down to desktop-based versions of their high end processors, limiting the wide-ranging R&D and creating a singular roadmap that branches to serve needs, rather than two separate roadmaps. It's common logic.

Why is Apple going 64-bit?

IBM. IBM previously had no interest in SIMD, and in truth... the AltiVec compatible SIMD unit in the PPC 970 *ISN'T* put there for IBM. IBM's servers that the PPC 970 will reside in will likely "NEVER" make usage of the AltiVec part of the chip. However, having it there makes the processors viable to Apple, and allows Apple to continue to evolve the XServe line, while IBM can recoup some R&D development costs and increase sales of it's PPC 9xx platform... thereby making a little extra $ on the side by helping Apple, and in turn helping themselves.

Why is it so apparent that IBM won't use SIMD?

Simple. AltiVec is a vector-processing SIMD chipset. It's designed for handling more graphical tasks. It's exactly why Apple was so adamant on using it in the G4, and exactly why IBM and Motorola split in their roadmaps, with IBM continuing to evolve the 32-bit & 64-bit versions of the G3 rather than go Motorola's route in developing the G4 with a SIMD unit.

The deal is...

1) IBM later realized that they weren't going to fit into Apple's roadmap for very long if the G4 took off.

2) They also realized that the PowerPC, after the split, wasn't as strong.

3) IBM realized that if Apple dumped the PowerPC, which was verrrry likely after Motorola ditched out on the G5 (Motorola's always focused on embedded moreso than the desktop side anyways... whereas IBM uses the PowerPC more in servers than in embedded sales)... if Apple bailed on the PowerPC, what's the sense in contining on with the PowerPC?

Not much really.

IBM doesn't use PowerPC's in workstations... because the only OS's they use on PowerPC are AIX and Linux, both more geared towards server than workstation because neither is optimized with Assembly calls, there's no vector processing calls, and there's not likely to be any anytime soon. Why? Linux and Unix are designed to be portable. Any application or part of the system is written to be ported easily through some mild alterrations and a recompile. The minute you specialize the code for MMX, or 3DNow, or AltiVec... is the minute you have a lot more porting work ahead of you to gut out, remove, and reoptimize said items.

This is why SIMD is not of interest to IBM.

Apple, on the other hand, has a "PROPRIETARY" set of API's with AltiVec support written into OS X. Even Apple's own x11 version includes support for AltiVec. They took the time to add it because so much of Apple's future is centered around vector processing because of the way they're gearing the OS as a "MEDIA" OS. OS X, unlike the other Unix variations, is more of a graphical workstation OS. Yes it can do ample serving work... but if Apple decides to gun for Enterprise, as I've said before, they're more than likely to work on different principles to innovate themselves into the market. They more than likely won't go for the leaders jugular... but they are going to become the next SGI, in that they're more than apt to eventually create their own rendering farms, and having that 64-bit advantage there will help them, much as the added sales will help IBM on their Enterprise "SERVER" sales of Linux-based PPC's. Apple and IBM in this way complement each other very nicely.

Apple will likely gear towards low-end Enterprise sales, and especially hammer hard on the SoHo front, an area that IBM is too massive and monolithic to support. So 64-bit will help as small web servers and mom and pop shops that need print and file servers will be able to buy an easy to administrate server (especially one-click Apache built-in) and upgrade it via 1u and 3u rack updates. I eventually see Apple going beyond this... but Apple's niche of Enterprise or their move into Enterprise (if they do ever attack the big wigs) will be a slow process full of innovation. It'll be like taking the conventional ideas of what an IT expert is used to and throwing it out the window... simply because IT experts cost $, and if Apple can make an easy to administer server that is reliable, easy to setup, and practically runs itself... IT WILL be successful in this market.

So 64-bit doesn't buy the average user anything... but it buys Intel and IBM and AMD a chance to move it towards the desktop, cutting the costs, and increasing the volume and validity of the platform. After all... if AMD were to beat Intel to 64-bit, they could gain a slight advantage and if they can transition the platform to the desktop from servers... you have one inclusive architecture that scales far and wide, and has a strong degree of longevity left in it.

Mark my words... PPC 9xx will be around for longer than 2.5 Ghz. The PPC 970 has been said to only reach that far... but there will be further evolutions past that, and quite likely the 980 or 990 or 975 or whatever comes in between or beyond will keep taking us just as far as the Pentium 4 and Duron/Athlon/Athlon T-bird/Athlon XP/Athlon MP has taken AMD. For the person above that didn't think we'll see the 2.0's... I'd count on it. The minute Apple gets ample enough volume, it'll be the next processor in line... whereas the bottom rung processor then, and only then, will likely find it's way into something else. Perhaps even the Powerbooks with some revamping (like a PPC 970e; similar to what happened with the PowerPC 603e).

 

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by macmunch
I have an idea on this !
A very good I think

If there are 4 Models that would be cool !
and dont forgett the DP coudnt ne so expensice because than there werent 3 models of them !!!!

So look at this idea:

1.4 SP low Price Tag 1199 - 1399
1.6 DP 1699 - 1899
1.8 DP 2099 - 2399
2.0 DP 2799 - 2999 or even 3099


But if they introduce so many models with DUAL I see a big chance to get this Single PPC970 very cheap !

The cheap tower is an area that Apple needs to address. If you can get a low end PC for $400 (with monitor, speakers, printer, etc.), you should be able to get a low-end tower Mac for under a grand. Other than marketing strategy, there's no reason you shouldn't.... - j

 

[mathiasr]

Based on the rumors:

If Apple uses 1.4 and 1.6 GHz PPC 970 CPUs they will probably not be able to keep the front side bus at 900 MHz and are more likely to use a more conservative 800 MHz frequency (400 MHz DDR, x3.5 and x4 respectively).

 

[Bengt77]

Please, don't let that be true...

Originally posted by posixstudent
I hate to bring this up, but I have never heard any verification that the 970's would be in PowerMacs.

I surely hope you'll be proven wrong here. Of course, and I know that too, there has indeed been no announcements whatsoever (perhaps maybe that PDF MacBidouille was speaking of, that came from the Micro Processor Forum) regarding Apple's commitment to using the PPC970 in their next lines of computers. But still, every bit of information now available (or should 'bit of information' be stated as being 'rumour') actually does point in the direction of it.

Again, I really hope you'll be proven wrong. I'd hate to see the xServe get them first, and then Power Macs only next year, or something. I don't know how big this rumourmill is, but I'm sure it's not that the whole Mac community is expecting the PPC970. The majority of the community probably doesn't even know of it's very existence. Apple could care less (probably, but hopefully not) about 'us' rumour mongors. So why would Apple feel the pressure just because all the rumours say it will do this or do that? They never have. Look at the iMac. Mac rumour sites said, even like one and a half year before the very introduction of the LCD iMacs, that a new model was coming. The whole community was deeply dissapointed because some rumour turned out to be wrong. That's a shame. Why should Apple be penalised becaus there are some rumours saying they would do A, while they did B?

Some rumours are wrong. Some rumours are right. Who knows which are what? This one might prove right. And hopefully rather sooner than later. I'd love Apple to have some serious power computing ready to be introduced at the Create-Expo-or-whatever-the-new-name-was-again. But just don't bet on it.

Darn, that's exactly what you said. Okay, so I agree with you, but I just hope you're wrong...



Edit: the bold 'right' was 'wrong' until just yet. That was not what I meant to say (or write, for that matter)!

 

[ktlx]

Re: Re: 64 bit, hmmmmmm...

Originally posted by IVIIVI4ck3y27
This is why SIMD is not of interest to IBM.

I have been thinking about this and while I generally agree with you, I see one situation where IBM might be interested in SIMD.

IBM is going to put PPC 970s in blade servers. One of the things blade servers do well is handle Web servers. Currently high volume transaction sites use add-on hardware for HTTP/S acceleration. I could see IBM pursuing using the SIMD unit as a cheaper way to provide the same functionality.

Of course it would still not perform as well as the dedicated hardware accelerators, but I wonder how many customers might say good enough when comparing a Linux Web server running on a PPC 970 blade to a Linux Web server running on an Intel Pentium 4 blade with an HTTP/S hardware accelerator given the cost savings.

 

[AidenShaw]

Inconsistent arguments

Originally posted by maxvamp
- dual 1.6 procs. If IBM's numbers are to be believed, a single 1.6 will give a P4 3GHz a run for it's money ( but won't beat it ). Following Apple's logic, if you add two procs together you get get about the same speed as a competitor's single ( dual 1 Gig G4s to compare against a 2 GHZS P4, for example ). This configuration would eat the single P4 alive

- Windows XP Home: ...One would be no dual proc support....

Hmmm.... You knock off XP Home for not supporting dual CPU, yet you don't position the 970 against dual P4 (Xeon, of course).

Methinks a dual 3.06GHz Xeon with Hyperthreading probably wouldn't be "eaten alive"!

 

[ktlx]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
The cheap tower is an area that Apple needs to address. If you can get a low end PC for $400 (with monitor, speakers, printer, etc.), you should be able to get a low-end tower Mac for under a grand. Other than marketing strategy, there's no reason you shouldn't.... - j

Or business reasons. Look at Apple's volumes. Look at the R&D they would have to invest in creating the machine. At the bottom end PCs, there is almost no R&D because they are just using yesterday's components. It would also seriously hurt their iMac and low end Power Mac sales.

Apple is smart. The companies making $500 PCs are either loosing money in that market or existing on a razor's edge. There is some business you just don't want. If someone wants a sub $1K Power Mac, there are lots of them on e-Bay.

I am not a business major, but all of the business major types I talk to hammer one thing in over and over again. Increased revenue in one market segment does not mean increased profit overall. If your business model is low volume, high margin (i.e. Apple and not Dell), there is lots of business out there you just don't want.

 

[PaisanoMan]

Re: Understood

Originally posted by maxvamp
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.'

That's not true, either, of course -- try not to be too extreme. The idea that a 64-bit CPU will automatically be twice as fast, however, is just naive; I think that's what most of us are trying to debunk.