Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
970MP - Still Coming?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ShnikeJSB said:
You mean the OS doesn't factor into your decision? That's 75% or more why people on boards like this buy Macs in the first place.
LunaticRed said:Sorry to pick nits, but he was indeed being ironic. A lot of people confuse irony with sarcasm.
iro·ny
3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result
Sarcastic implies an intentional inflicting of pain by deriding, taunting, or ridiculing, and ironic implies an attempt to be amusing or provocative by saying usually the opposite of what is meant or expected.
I get them mixed up a lot too,
-LR
As the original poster, I might add that I intended to be ironic but since the result certainly derides and ridicules people who base their projection of the 970MP coming out at 3 Ghz on Steve's promise, I have (had) to admit that this can be seen rather as sarcasm.
Generally speaking, where do you draw the line between provocative and taunting? Sometimes, the difference between ironic and sarcastic can be how a statement is perceived by someone.
However, since thinksecret is insisting on 3 Ghz, there are more realistic explanations why one believe that the 970MP will run at 3 Ghz.
~loserman~ said:
The rumor sites seem to disagree with you. The consensus is the 970MP starting at 3.0 GHz.
Conincidentally, this is likely why the top of the line PM is 2.7 GHz now. This revision gives Apple the time it needs (6 months?) to get IBM producing 3.0mp's outside of prototype land. In that revision, we'll probably see all the niceties that got cut for this revision: PCI-E, DDR2 667, HT 2.0, Dual Core 970's, and maybe even Blu-Ray.
Frobozz said:
That is why I bought a Mac. I could care less about the hardware. If I was into video editing and wanted the fastest speed, then there is no reason I can not go buy some Intel or AMD processor based computer and run Windows. If speed is not everything even though the current PowerMacs are fine, then buy a Mac.
OS X sold me on Apple.
Thats what gets me confused or rather wondering, as I mentioned in my earlier posts, the original 970 architecture (power4 derivative) was supposed to top out at around 2.6-2.8GHZ and most rumor sites, notably Think Secret and Apple Insider, claim that 970MP will start at 3GHZ so thats what I am wondering if the so called 970MP is in fact a Power5 derivative which would explain why the clock frequency is above 2.6-2.8GHZ... It is clearly visible that the Power4 derived 970 cant be clocked much higher than already it is considering Apple waited almost a year for the latest update and they only got 200MHZ so more and more signs in my opinion point to something other than Power4 derivative... 970 was more of a desperate move by Apple to battle the MHZ world of Wintel and Apple tagged along on the development of the 970 almost a year after the actual Power4 was developed and rumors have it that Apple helped IBM design and develop Power5 along with its derivative from scratch, thats why maybe it would explain the significant jump in floating point performance of the Power5 (where the highest clocked Power5 beats the highest clocked Itanium2 by over 20% so there is something to brag about considering that the actual Power 5 processor is smaller in size and has a lesser transistor count than Itanium)... My guess is that 970MP is pretty much a Power5 derivative (or maybe a Power4/Power5 mixture) why is it called 970? I have no clue?!?!?
wdlove said:
I have to believe that Apple is planning the update for one of two timeframes: September/October '05 or January '06. If they can go in October and have enough lead time to deplete existing stock, they'll do it IMHO. But I would say there is no doubt if they miss a fall release (I generalized as October) they'll hit January '06 MWSF.
They might even announce them at MacWorld Paris if they can-- but I tend to believe the 3 to 4 week lead time announcements are left to all but MWSF '06.
Your thoughts?
Frobozz said:
I will admit that I'm interested in the 970MP, but my understanding is the this would be a brand new technology. If so wouldn't the same apply that we should wait for the Rev. B of this particular model? Interested in your opinion on this.
wdlove said:
Well it all depends, if its an evolution of the current 970 series than I guess its just that, an evolution, nothing unproven, just evolved, BUT if its based upon Power5 or god knows what (except Power4) than it will be totally new technology and I guess it would be safe to wait for rev B, most people tend to believe that 970mp is just a continuation of the current 970fx but somehow I think that its based upon something totally different considering the relase of the Cell, Power5, XBox, and Nintendos Revolution (all IBMs accomplishment), 970mp seems to be some kind of a mixture...
i dought it. lets try (if we are going per core) a 1.8 (per core) a 2.0 (per core) and a 2.3 (per core) still super fast. assuming its 970fx cores (most likly not) it would have to be practialty that lot a seed not to burn up. tough a power mac u could turn sideways and make pancakes on might not be a bad marketing proposal.....
though they could use somthing like this http://www.nanocoolers.com/products_cooling.php (intel is going to be using them in the nott o far off future, incredible potential there), but that would fix the heat problem...i wonder if apple knows about them
though they could use somthing like this http://www.nanocoolers.com/products_cooling.php (intel is going to be using them in the nott o far off future, incredible potential there), but that would fix the heat problem...i wonder if apple knows about them
wdlove said:
I think it's always prudent to wait until revision B, but in this case I might jump on the bandwagon. My Mac is getting long in the tooth (but it has really kept relevant longer than most of my other Macs.)
Personally, I would be more worried about a liquid cooling unit's long term prospects as opposed to, say, addition of PCI-E, HT 2.0, Dual cores, or faster ram (DDR2 667?).
So, in an ideal world, waiting to revision B of the dual cores would be best. As a side note, I don't think you're looking at people with G5's already in this upcoming revision anyway. It's people like me with a 3, 4, or 5 year old machine that is still in their production workflow. We're getting antsy.
I've considered waiting until the dual 2.7's come in on refurbished status at the Apple store ... but my belief is in the long term viability of a PCI-E bus, coupled with dual core processors. I think I bought my DP Quicksilver in the sweet spot and my gut tells me this new revision will be the next sweet spot for me.
Is $3,500 enough
The PowerMacs just had a price increase when Apple eliminated the builit-in modem. Unlike when the PowerBook had lame updates, Apple lowered prices. Not so with the PowerMac. That would seem to indicate that $3,500 may not be enough. But Apple has done it before.The longer the wait I would thik would mean the lower the price. Jan. of 2006 is about as early as I expect to see new PowerMacs given its 8-10 update history. After that the price would have to be $3,000 or less.
Bill the TaxMan
keysersoze said:I think that's a *wee* bit optimistic of a price point... ain't no way apple sells a dual-dual for that few pennies.
The PowerMacs just had a price increase when Apple eliminated the builit-in modem. Unlike when the PowerBook had lame updates, Apple lowered prices. Not so with the PowerMac. That would seem to indicate that $3,500 may not be enough. But Apple has done it before.The longer the wait I would thik would mean the lower the price. Jan. of 2006 is about as early as I expect to see new PowerMacs given its 8-10 update history. After that the price would have to be $3,000 or less.
Bill the TaxMan
blitzkrieg79 said:
Ehm - Apple did not get 200Mhz more. The new G5 2.7 ist overclocked like the 2.5 machine was. IBM still builds 2.3 Ghz pieces only.
What? Apple helped IBM to develop the Power5???? Cool
The basis of Power4 and Power5 is essentialy the same. IBM added an on-die memory controller (like AMD did), on-chip SMP (like Intel's hyperthreading), larger caches and an improved memory subsystem. Floating point performance is the same, [#Ghz * 4] GFLOPs. In praxis Itanium is superior to Power5, which masks much of it's performance drawbacks with gigantic caches.
On-chip SMT and on-die memory-controller will surely find its way into a hypothetical PPC970 successor and add a performance win from 10%-40% in multithreaded applications. But Power5 is still 90nm and one can not expect a PPC970 sucessor be be clocked higher than the current model.
On word to "cell". This thing is nothing a fully featured OS can run on. The Power core is crippled and by far no Power4 or PPC970. And it is virtually impossible that Apple is able to adapt it's OS to cell. This would take years.
Again, Apple is driving down a blind alley with it's PPC970. There is not even hope...
Kaborka
p.s The current Power4+ ist dual-core since years.
Kaborka said:Ehm - Apple did not get 200Mhz more. The new G5 2.7 ist overclocked like the 2.5 machine was. IBM still builds 2.3 Ghz pieces only.
What? Apple helped IBM to develop the Power5???? Cool
The basis of Power4 and Power5 is essentialy the same. IBM added an on-die memory controller (like AMD did), on-chip SMP (like Intel's hyperthreading), larger caches and an improved memory subsystem. Floating point performance is the same, [#Ghz * 4] GFLOPs. In praxis Itanium is superior to Power5, which masks much of it's performance drawbacks with gigantic caches.
On-chip SMT and on-die memory-controller will surely find its way into a hypothetical PPC970 successor and add a performance win from 10%-40% in multithreaded applications. But Power5 is still 90nm and one can not expect a PPC970 sucessor be be clocked higher than the current model.
On word to "cell". This thing is nothing a fully featured OS can run on. The Power core is crippled and by far no Power4 or PPC970. And it is virtually impossible that Apple is able to adapt it's OS to cell. This would take years.
Again, Apple is driving down a blind alley with it's PPC970. There is not even hope...
Kaborka
p.s The current Power4+ ist dual-core since years.
First off, Apple IS involved in the actual PowerPC research/development (how would IBM exactly know what Apple exactly needs and they attached the Velocity Engine mainly because Apple demanded it) and from all the reading I recently did it does appear that Apple was involved form the beginning in the parallel development of the mythical 980 processor with Power 5, second of all, I agree with you that the current 970 is a dead end for Apple, waste of money on further R&D, and we will never see a mobile 970 processor... As far as Power5 vs Itanium2 is concerned, notice I said highest clocked Power5 (1.9GHZ) beats highest clocked Itanium (1.5GHZ) in floating point performance by 20%, of course every processor has drawbacks but you also have to take in to consideration the fact that Power5 is a lot smaller than the Itanium2 chip and yet it delivers threatning performance to Itanium, just like in our world, it doesnt matter if G5 clock for clock is faster than Pentium 4, what matters is that Pentium 4 at one time had almost double the MHZ of the fastest G4, I always compare the fastest of what each company can produce, not MHZ to MHZ... And floating performance on Power5 is by no means the same as on Power4 clock for clock...
As far as Cell is concerned, as a mentioned earlier, Cell is a broad concept, Apple doesnt have to spend years on updating its OS to suit Cells needs, it can ask IBM to develop (if they already didnt do it) a Cell like architecture with Apple in mind (When I say Cell I dont mean the Playstation 3 version of it), Apple and IBM can borrow couple of CELL features in its "after970" processor such as independent vector units (make Altivec2(another mythical creature) independent something like the vector units of the Cell and you got a serious floating point hardware), and how do u know if Tiger doesnt already have few hidden routines/features that take advantage of Cell-like processor, day after day we are finding out that Tiger has much more to offer underneath than everyone expected...
First, the 970 @ 2.5 and 2.7 GHz are not overclocked. You are incorrect.Kaborka said:
Second, the Power5 is NOT manufactured on a 90nm process. It's is produced with the older 130nm process:
"POWER5. The new POWER5 microprocessor features 276 million transistors per processor, and is manufactured with IBM's 0.13-micron copper wiring and SOI (Silicon-on-Insulator) technologies. POWER5 defies historic focus on clock speed for performance with unprecedented levels of integration. POWER5 integrates not only multiple microprocessor cores in silicon, but elements of memory and task management that have long been outside the chip." from:
http://www-1.ibm.com/press/PressServletForm.wss?MenuChoice=all&TemplateName=ShowToPrint&SelectString=t1.docunid=7220&TableName=DataheadApplicationClass&SESSIONKEY=any&WindowTitle=Press+Release&STATUS=publish&ShowContacts=$ShowContacts$
Third, given the above, the remainder of your post has no merit.
additional info
that's also why Apple has been waiting before finally introducing a Xserve 2.3GHz...wainting that IBM can produce a real 2.5GHz PPC970FX wish can be clocked at 2.3 and be installed in a non-liquid cooling box liek the Xserve...and only later one in the PMG5.
the first batch of Dual 2.5GHz were equipped with overclocked 2.3GHz processor... you believe it or not, des not matter, it is a fact.daveL said:
that's also why Apple has been waiting before finally introducing a Xserve 2.3GHz...wainting that IBM can produce a real 2.5GHz PPC970FX wish can be clocked at 2.3 and be installed in a non-liquid cooling box liek the Xserve...and only later one in the PMG5.
Frobozz said:
I'm running a Power Mac older than yours. Mine is a Graphite dual 450 from September 2000.
It would seem that the water cooling should be better, since we are on Rev. B. Someone previously said that water is an older technology, just new to Apple.
I'm still think that it's possible that we could see Steve announce the 970MP at WWDC. The recent update could have just been something to keep us off guard.
I think saying "we need altivec" and "we need a CPU that need less than 100W" is not really something I would call "involvement". The PPC970 is basicly a crippled Power4 with added Altivec (also crippled compared to G4's implementation) and added power-saving features.blitzkrieg79 said:
Rumours. But indeed. IBM develops the PPC9X0YY line for Apple. They don't need such a CPU for their own.
You mix up theoretical and practical performance. Theoretical peaks are (double precision):
Itanium 2 1.6GHz: 6.4GFlops
POWER4/5 1.9GHz: 7.6GFlops (single core performance)
PPC970 2.3Ghz: 9.2GFlops
Opteron 2.6Ghz: 5.2GFlops
Pentium 4 3.8Ghz: 7.6GFlops
In praxis for broad range of scientific applications the ranking is this:
Itanium 2
Power5/Opteron
Power4/Pentium 4
PPC970
Itanium dominates all other machines and shines bright in every floating point intense application.
PPC970 only shines bright in some special cases, where it can fully exploit it's multiply-and-add capabilities (e.g. in LINPACK (TOP500)). SPECfp(rate) numbers low and disqualify this CPU for general numbercruching tasks.
Opteron has the most advanced system topology and can compensate it's peak performance disadvantage especially in multi-CPU configurations.
SPEC numbers for Itanium and Power4/5 are some kind of misleading, because their large caches disort the results to some extend. SPECcpu 2004 will correct this later this year with larger memory footprints.
To sum it up, I have never seen an scientific application where another CPU can beat Itanium 2
Since 4 years (probably more), Apples is developing OS X and it is still not 64bit and kind of beta. How can one expect Apple to adopt OS-X to a completely different architecture. OS X requires a fully featured PPC core. Cell is no replacement. The only thing I could imagine ist a cell DSP card in a Mac.
For IBM Apple has no importance. IBM will never build a special-Mac CPU, far different from their own existing CPUs.
Kaborka
Air-cooled has nothing to do with anything. I have an air-cooled dual Opteron at a mere 2 GHz; the fans sound like a jet taking off. The 2.5 GHz G5 does not require water cooling; it's water cooled so you can still take a phone call in your office with the system running full tilt. Anyway, at the end of the day, the whole topic is relatively unimportant.Kaborka said:
Kaborka said:
Ok you seem to be in love with Itanium and I feel the same about Power5, and thats why the entire Itanium sereis (considering the amount of money HP and Intel invested in it) is rather a big disappointment, Power series has a broader range of audience and its also at the heart of the Blue Gene...
You show me benchmarks and then you say that some are misleading so basically you just pick all the ones that put you in a bright light and I will repeat this again, 1.9GHZ Power5 is faster at floating point than 1.5-1.6GHZ Itanium, add to that the size of Power 5 is a lot smaller than of Itanium2 and add to that Power5 is cheaper than Itanium2 and add to that IBM efficiently uses its Power technology and processors such as 970 or CELL or the XBOX are all derived from some form of the Power series and you can clearly see which technology generates more revenue and has a potentially brighter future...
GOing back to benchmarks, I bet you can find a few that prove me wrong and I can find a few that prove you wrong so I wont even go there...
As far as IBM and Apple, seems you underestimate the importance of Apple, IBM needs Apple to market its products mainly processors, you can say whatever you want about Apple but not a lot companies can match Apples marketing campaigns and originality... Remeber the G5 Fastest PC in the World campaign??? What else can IBM ask for... Its all about advertising/marketing... IBM needs Apple for another simple reason, PowerPC development, Apple IBM and Motorola have been the pioneers of the PowerPC technology, they all RESEARCHED AND DEVELOPED and standardized PowerPC architecture and to this day on Power line is based upon those fundamentals...And last reason, IBM wants to separate it self from the Wintel world, they need as many allies as possible considering Apple would love to drown the Wintel world too, its always easier to split research and development costs between companies rather to burden all of it on oneself on something that is yet unproven, Apple is the largest PowerPC customer of IBM so I hardly doubt Apple is not important to IBM nor further development of the PowerPC, thats where IBM sees the future and the money... Everyone wants to escape from the Wintel regime... You dont need a better ally that is going in the exact same direction and against the common enemy... If you think that Apple just goes to IBM and says we need this this and this and IBM does it and Apple just pays per purchased processor than you are wrong, Apple invests in the PowerPC development and has its own staff of engineers working with IBM... Apple is the last company that defines what I like about computers and technology, being innovative and not afraid of being different (sometimes it doesnt work out but when it does it looks even better)...
And about the CELL and Mac OS X not being fully 64 bit optimized, well 970s are 64bit processors and that didnt stop Apple from releasing them, and they seem to fair well against the competition from the Wintel world... I didnt say Apple should use the exactly same CELL processor found in PS3 but to borrow some of Cells technologies, mainly to make the altivec units independent, acting as separate cores, imagine a Power5 derivative with few independent Altivec2 units and even the Cell will feel the competition...
auxplage said:That is why I bought a Mac. I could care less about the hardware. If I was into video editing and wanted the fastest speed, then there is no reason I can not go buy some Intel or AMD processor based computer and run Windows. If speed is not everything even though the current PowerMacs are fine, then buy a Mac.
OS X sold me on Apple.
To speak for those of us editors out there...any one of us with half a brain (with the exception of those who absolutely MUST use Avid Symphony or DS suites) edit video on a Mac. I've tried it on a PC, and it isn't pretty. I would rather cut on a Mac that is slower, than try to edit on a PC.
since liquid cooling was brough up a few times and it seems some people are scared of its longevity i would have to say I think it is a fine sollution.....for now. it is certianly not the answer. the answer lies here http://www.nanocoolers.com/technology_liquid.php this si the company Intel will be using in the not sooo distant future. they have some amazing stuff.