Apple and IBM's PowerPC Potential

[apollo8fan]

A lot of people here seem to be stuck on the Gigahertz = Power marketing technique from Intel. I realize Stevo promised 3GHz, but clock speed really isn't where it's at. I just received my new IBM AS/400; it's running the new Power 5 processor at a whopping 1.5GHz! This unit is about three times faster than my old PowerPC-based AS/400 at less than twice the clock speed.

Everyone's still talking G5's when we should be asking, "where are the G6's?" Now that IBM is shipping the Power5, the Power4 (from which the PowerPC970 is derived) is now a generation old.

I, for one, would rather see a dual-core Freescale G4 in a powerbook before I see and x86-based powerbook. But, that's just me it seems.

 

[fluidinclusion]

Agreed

Spot on m8y.
Power per watt? I think Jobs see us as morons, theres BS and theres iBS. With each keynote the marketing nonsense increases. Saying that I personally think the Intel move and its ramifications for Apple is a very, very smart move. Roadmaps are vapourware until the plants are spitting them out. Apple are bravely edging their bets, who knows whos going to have the next technical breakthrough? IBM? AMD? Intel? Who knows?
Just hope Intel don't turn into IBM or Moto before the transistion.

1. Agreed with the iBS. What sealed it for me was the "enhance" option in iPhoto during one of the keynotes. Jobs must have said "this is just amazing" like 50 times. Gee, whiz, I've NEVER seen a quick fix option before in any other company's software. Duh.

2. Even if Intel has vaporware, they eventually come up with the product. Most of the market is Intel, so if Intel lags, at least Apple's products will be equal to the rest in the market. Yeah, yeah, AMD is a possibility, but I still think Intel's R&D will always allow them to be near the top if not at the top. Freescale and IBM just can't or won't dedicate those resources.

 

[compcrusher]

It had nothing to do with processor power consumption or performance. Remember that promise 2 years ago about 3GHz? That's the ONLY thing this is about.

So what does IBM expect us to believe actually happenned? That SJ's decision to switch was based wholy on his embarassment at not delivering 3GHz? Come on, the man has an ego, but not that big of one.

 

[Ti_Poussin]

A lot of people here seem to be stuck on the Gigahertz = Power marketing technique from Intel. I realize Stevo promised 3GHz, but clock speed really isn't where it's at. I just received my new IBM AS/400; it's running the new Power 5 processor at a whopping 1.5GHz! This unit is about three times faster than my old PowerPC-based AS/400 at less than twice the clock speed.

Everyone's still talking G5's when we should be asking, "where are the G6's?" Now that IBM is shipping the Power5, the Power4 (from which the PowerPC970 is derived) is now a generation old.

I, for one, would rather see a dual-core Freescale G4 in a powerbook before I see and x86-based powerbook. But, that's just me it seems.

You're not alone, the dual core with integreted memory controller was very promissing for the powerbook. More cache, integrated mem controller finally, 90nm process, low wattage, dual core, it will have been a killer chip, hope Apple use them for a revision before they turn Powerbook in X86.

 

[gwangung]

2. Even if Intel has vaporware, they eventually come up with the product. Most of the market is Intel, so if Intel lags, at least Apple's products will be equal to the rest in the market. Yeah, yeah, AMD is a possibility, but I still think Intel's R&D will always allow them to be near the top if not at the top. Freescale and IBM just can't or won't dedicate those resources.

This is an overlooked point.

Apples loses a lot more when IBM's chips are slow to reach higher speeds, than when Intel chips are slow to reach higher speeds. There is the actual hit in performance, there is the hit in performance as the two chips reach milestones at different times, and there's the perceived hit in the market as IBM chips are slow to reach targets.

For Apple to continue to use IBM chips, the clock speed HAD to be at least as fast as Intel, and probably had to be FASTER in order to be competitive. Lag behind, or look like you're lagging behind, and you've opened up a gap that gets harder and harder to close as time goes on.

 

[Quixcube]

I, for one, would rather see a dual-core Freescale G4 in a powerbook before I see and x86-based powerbook. But, that's just me it seems.

Do you really think that a dual-core G4 is going to be competitive with anything that Intel or AMD is making now? The G4 is old technology, and unless it is taught so many new tricks that calling it a G4 becomes ridiculous, I don't think it can be comparable in any way to the modern x86 chips.

I think of it this way: Nobody argues that a G4 dualie 1.42 GHz G4 tower is competitive with a new Pentium 4. Well some poeple do, but it isn't. The much faster G5 processors hold their own in many areas, although they are bested in many areas too.

So why insist that the same G4 series processor (with a few enhancements, but probably nothing dramatic) is going to trounce a Pentium M, a processor that has more potential for performance than a Pentium 4? (see http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/pentium4-10.html for a good discussion of the Pentium M compared to the Pentium 4.)

I use a Pentium M laptop daily and have yet to run up against its performance limits, and it is only an older 1.6 GHz one. My G4 powerbook has been given over to web surfing duty, although its very slow Java performance makes even that a bit painful at times.

This is my long way of saying "Keep your dual core G4 and give me a Pentium M, single or dual core ASAP."

 

[~Shard~]

Yes, interesting how my comments are not shot down, eh?

Actually, thogs_cave (post #31) already challenged it in case you missed his post. Regardless, I, too, am looking forward to the future Intel chips in Macs. Personally I have nothing against IBM chips and do not consider them "idiotic", but to each his own.

 

[MongoTheGeek]

A lot of people here seem to be stuck on the Gigahertz = Power marketing technique from Intel. I realize Stevo promised 3GHz, but clock speed really isn't where it's at. I just received my new IBM AS/400; it's running the new Power 5 processor at a whopping 1.5GHz! This unit is about three times faster than my old PowerPC-based AS/400 at less than twice the clock speed.

How many cores in each chip 8?

I, for one, would rather see a dual-core Freescale G4 in a powerbook before I see and x86-based powerbook. But, that's just me it seems.

That would be sweet...

There has to be something that we are missing though. This really sounds like a tremendous CF. Its like playing hearts without knowing where la femme noir is.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Apple should intro the Intel Machines Now!

They already did a developers model and from reports performance was not way better then the G5 like you are trying to say. Are you saying that the G5's should be dumped for Pentium 4's? That is what Intel has available right now. I would agree that the Pentium M would speed things up in the Powerbook today but what software are you going to run on it? Do you even own a G5? Just because bashing PPC seems like the trendy thing to do, does not mean that todays Pentium 4's and Celerons are running over it in performance. The P4 is nothing but a big ugly pipeline monster that looks better on paper then actual performance.

Apple should wait until something worthwhile comes out and I think that is their plan with the transistion. Last you have to have some compatible software on it, because just running all the old stuff with Rosetta is going to take your dream machine to new lows in performance.

 

[billyboy]

It's really just a guess, but I'll venture that developers and Apple will be supporting PPCs at least until 2010.

I hope so because that´s how long I reckon this amazing G4 Powerbook I m using is likely to last.

I also work with a single 1.8 G5 Powermac and it is good, but even now, it feels to me that some software is not optimised for it - say some Canon craposcan does not run as smoothly as what is also installed on my G4.

So if developers arent getting it totally right now, is it going to get any better with a new architecture to deal with too?

 

[minimax]

This is an overlooked point.

Apples loses a lot more when IBM's chips are slow to reach higher speeds, than when Intel chips are slow to reach higher speeds. There is the actual hit in performance, there is the hit in performance as the two chips reach milestones at different times, and there's the perceived hit in the market as IBM chips are slow to reach targets.

For Apple to continue to use IBM chips, the clock speed HAD to be at least as fast as Intel, and probably had to be FASTER in order to be competitive. Lag behind, or look like you're lagging behind, and you've opened up a gap that gets harder and harder to close as time goes on.

This is EXACTLY my point. Steve Jobs did not make the switch because PPC is actually weaker, but because they are tired of swimming against the stream, and it's a mighty powerfull one. To me it's obvious the mac mini was their last desperate attempt to increase market share, but it failed. Remember people talking about the mac mini trippling market share in two years time? they may be lucky if they got 0.1 % extra marketshare with it. Obviously, they did a lot of market research before this switch. It would not come as a suprise to me if most wintel users said: 'those macs look mighty pretty to me, and that OS X i heard a lot of positive stories about, but what's that thing running the computer? No intel? Dunno about that.'

 

[hulugu]

Spot on m8y.
Power per watt? I think Jobs see us as morons, theres BS and theres iBS. With each keynote the marketing nonsense increases. Saying that I personally think the Intel move and its ramifications for Apple is a very, very smart move. Roadmaps are vapourware until the plants are spitting them out. Apple are bravely edging their bets, who knows whos going to have the next technical breakthrough? IBM? AMD? Intel? Who knows?

But, if engineering past the 3.8ghz mark on x86 becomes difficult than every consumer computer maker will be in the same boat, now Apple won't appear to be playing catch-up with their processors. Apple is putting its eggs into the same basket as Dell, HP, etc.

QUOTE=crap freakboy]Just hope Intel don't turn into IBM or Moto before the transistion.[/QUOTE]

They probably will, as soon as Apple has transitioned to x86 Moto, Freescale, and IBM will have a sudden breakthrough. Typical.

 

[hulugu]

It had nothing to do with processor power consumption or performance. Remember that promise 2 years ago about 3GHz? That's the ONLY thing this is about.

Ummm...no. This is about lots of things:

Tactical: Apple hopes to get faster chips and be more in line with the rest of the market, the current perception—right or wrong—is that Apple's computers are slower at 2.7ghz than the best Pentium at 3.2+. This becomes a truism when you compare the 1.5ghz G4 Powerbook to a machine running with a Pentium M and Apple wants to sell more laptops. Apple hopes that Intel's roadmap is true and that much faster chips, running at lower temperatures and wattage, will become available at a lower price than IBM. This means faster, cheaper computers. So Apple manages to lose the "slow and expensive" moniker.
Strategic: Apple wants to compete with Microsoft and they are flanking Windows by making it easier to run both OSX and Windows XP+ on an Apple machine, which they believe will increase hardware sales, which means more money to develop.
Possible Strategic: Intel's baked-in-the-chip DRM. If, and when, this becomes important Apple won't be locked out of the market for media.

 

[FoxyKaye]

This is emberassing, please stop that nonsense. Apple switches to Intel thus IBM are losers, lyers, retards etc. RDF in full effect, long live MacEvangelism.

I don't think it's being MacEvangelistic to point out that IBM is trying to save face. It doesn't mean they can't try to spin losing Apple however they want. They never delivered for Apple, and then were surprised when Apple jumped ship? Come on now. It's business, plain and simple. Or have you not read the gazillion other threads complaining about IBM ganking Apple around?

Though it has been interesting to watch the MR community at large through this switch - there seems to be or have been three basic camps: PPC-ers saying "Heck no, we won't go!"; folks (myself included) who saw this as a business decision and/or were like, "um, well, OK. But there better be real support for PPCs well in to the future."; and folks who were instant Intel converts. Of course, everyone seems to have gone through that list of anger, denial, bargaining, etc... made so famous in Fosse's "All That Jazz."

 

[joeconvert]

From my readings this has been a key claim from IBM- Apple didn't give us enough money to develop what they wanted. This seems like an arrogant claim. Implying Apple should pay for IBMs advancements. While there are leveraged situations that may create this scenario - it is a heck of a lot to ask for. It also implies that Apple is stuck with IBM - and Apple is proving they are not.

PPC is a good chip- I hope there are some opportunities in the future for Apple and PPC, but right now IBM is stinking of desperation (in the media) . Constantly trying to defend themselves makes their position weaker.

Apple's advancements you mean. IBM always sells processors way beyond the 970 in their POWER line. In addition this isexactly how the low volume/botique processor business works. Ask Microsoft, Sony and Toshiba.

 

[joeconvert]

I hate IBM and I hate their idiotic PowerPC chips. Long live Intel!!!

Ah, gotta love those well informed remarks....

 

[the silver fox]

Well...

The big guy did say theyt wanted platform independence

 

[DakotaGuy]

Funny how we seemed to be all anti Intel and now we are all anti IBM.

Good Comment. It makes one wonder what would happen in the next year or two if Apple decided to cut OS development costs. Steve comes out at WWDC and states Longhorn has finally arrived and we are so impressed with it, we will start to use it on our computers. (Steve and Bill even hug on stage) Apple will just develop x86 hardware and applications for Windows.

How long would it take for 90% of the people around here to start saying things like...MacOSX was worthless...long live Longhorn and Microsoft??? If Steve says its the best...it must be!

 

[Chaszmyr]

i cant believe that someone said this. last year, they would have been shunned by every1 on this site.

Nah. A year ago we were already disappointed that we didn't have 3ghz G5s... 15 months ago, though, you're right.

 

[Apple Hobo]

Of course, everyone seems to have gone through that list of anger, denial, bargaining, etc... made so famous in Fosse's "All That Jazz."

I think IBM is doing that in a way.

First IBM said they were surprised and didn't know about the switch until the last minute. Then IBM acted like they didn't need Apple since they were only a small part of their other chips. Now IBM says they can make lots of nice chips for Apple, and Apple is not right about their reasons for switching. What's next, bargaining, depression and acceptance?

 

[~Shard~]

Nah. A year ago we were already disappointed that we didn't have 3ghz G5s... 15 months ago, though, you're right.

Quite true. When the 3 GHz promise was broken, many people were seeing shades of Moto all over again...

 

[crap freakboy]

They probably will, as soon as Apple has transitioned to x86 Moto, Freescale, and IBM will have a sudden breakthrough. Typical.

hee, that'll be ironic, hope Steve can laugh at himself and his dumb luck.

 

[autrefois]

Boy, IBM is slow. Look at how long it took for them to come up with their spin on Apple's move to Intel!

 

[MongoTheGeek]

I think IBM is doing that in a way.

First IBM said they were surprised and didn't know about the switch until the last minute. Then IBM acted like they didn't need Apple since they were only a small part of their other chips. Now IBM says they can make lots of nice chips for Apple, and Apple is not right about their reasons for switching. What's next, bargaining, depression and acceptance?

This sounds like bargaining.

I wonder if this move was just to get game developers over to develop on Macs.

The high-end desktops and the XServes will be G5's and G6's. Laptops might be split and the rest would be intel and used by gamers.

 

[B_Gates]

This is EXACTLY my point. Steve Jobs did not make the switch because PPC is actually weaker, but because they are tired of swimming against the stream, and it's a mighty powerfull one. To me it's obvious the mac mini was their last desperate attempt to increase market share, but it failed. Remember people talking about the mac mini trippling market share in two years time? they may be lucky if they got 0.1 % extra marketshare with it. Obviously, they did a lot of market research before this switch. It would not come as a suprise to me if most wintel users said: 'those macs look mighty pretty to me, and that OS X i heard a lot of positive stories about, but what's that thing running the computer? No intel? Dunno about that.'

mac mini trippling marketshare, what a joke