Apple and IBM's PowerPC Potential

[Zigster]

Coulda, woulda, shoulda...

IBM trying to cover it's ass. They are saying Apple is not a big enough customer for them to build them? Well, now they don't have to.

And "can build them but they'll be 2 years late and they don't run in notebooks" doesn't really count, does it.

 

[mvc]

...by this I mean, the more you use a processor the slower they get, over the years processors do get slower, but I've always found the Intels slow down a lot quicker....

Yeah, those long pipelines must be getting clogged up with sticky bits, they need some digital draino...

Really... what tosh, I have never heard anyone before seriously suggest processors get slower over time. Tell me you mean the whole system, not the processor, and I might perhaps believe you.

Sure, computers CAN get slower as more software is installed, more processes start running in the background and various caches fill up and files fragment etc.

But I hope you realise it has NOTHING to do with the processor itself. Blame the OS.

 

[Scottgfx]

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

Eh? Whatever.

 

[CubaTBird]

i could seriously see a dual core g5 of some type coming out soon.. if not sooner rather than later... the current crop of g5's are perfectly capable machines nevertheless...

 

[freiheit]

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

I would not go so far as to say I hate IBM -- I hate the way IBM have neglected and even hindered some of their best products over the years (OS/2, OS/2 on PowerPC, now the PowerPC itself). But to love Intel?

I've been a PC user for 12 years and have never once owned an Intel chip. It's been a good 12 years. Intel's chips are priced too high and run too slow compared to AMD's offerings since 1999. I can't foresee any Intel-based Macs being inexpensive. There won't be any significant price drop for Macs when the move to Intel comes, espcially if Apple chooses to use Xeon or dual-core chips.

All in all, I didn't buy a Mac because of the chip it runs on. I bought it for the OS, so I'll be happy using it on an Intel when the time comes.

 

[freiheit]

Sure, computers CAN get slower as more software is installed, more processes start running in the background and various caches fill up and files fragment etc.

And general wear and tear on the parts. Everything wears out.

 

[GregA]

And general wear and tear on the parts. Everything wears out.

Sorry can you give me an example of wear and tear on a computer slowing something down?

Certainly over time parts break, and Windows slows down with lots of installs and uninstalls - but I haven't really experienced 'wear and tear" slow downs.

XP's 'fix' for speed by reinstalling XP may be a differentiator for OSX and XP on Intel.

 

[mvc]

And general wear and tear on the parts. Everything wears out.

Maybe they stop working abruptly one day in a catastrophic cooling failure or shortcircuit or though some cosmic ray incident, but processors don't slow down.

They can't.

All those electrons and holes zooming around do not wear away at the silicon like dirt does in a motor. Processors do not need six monthly lubrication, they have no friction, they do not simply get tired and if they start blowing smoke you need to call the fire brigade not the mechanic.

 

[BenRoethig]

Yeah but Yonah isn't going into the PowerMacs.

In a manner of speaking, yes it will. Yonah will be succeeded by Merom. Merom also has a desktop version called conroe and a xeon variant called woodcrest. No netburst (P4) based chip will ever see a production Mac.

 

[macdong]

This eWeek article gives more credence to the idea that Apple -> Intel is a direct attack on Microsoft.

that would be an attactk coming more from the Intel side, i believe.

 

[macdong]

Wow, a decent rumor.

This must have some merit to it. Apple switching to Intel is a huge move, a huge risk, and utterly mind boggling. Apple doesn't do this kind of thing unless they have something BIG up their sleeve.

So, if it isn't a secret conspiracy to eventually allow OEM OS X, then there is something up.

Or maybe Jobs was pissed! Who knows.

ha, either that or IBM's sleeve is empty

 

[BenRoethig]

Don`t forget the new game consoles ! X Box 3 - 3.2 PPCs,
Nintendo Revolution 4 - 2.5 Ghz PPCs with a pricing of ca. 300 Dollar.
Expensive Powermac 2 2,7 Ghz Units - sounds like a joke to customers

For the last time, the chips are are using are not PowerPC 970s. There are much simpler chips designed for playing video games, not general computer tasks. To compare them to the PC side, they'd be a step below the celeron.

 

[GregA]

In a manner of speaking, yes it will. Yonah will be succeeded by Merom. Merom also has a desktop version called conroe and a xeon variant called woodcrest. No netburst (P4) based chip will ever see a production Mac.

Yeah the Pentium-M family is what is currently being focussed on for future developments of Intel processors.

Yonah is a codename for a SPECIFIC chip made for mobile machines, which is dual core and a new member of the Pentium-M family, and in production Q1-2006.

Yonah isn't designed for desktops, isn't designed for dual-processor motherboards, and is also likely to be a good deal slower than current G5 powerMacs.... thus Yonah isn't gonna be in a powerMac. But the same technologies that went into Yonah will continue to develop into other chips that will eventually include Intel's high performance desktop chips.

Greg

 

[BenRoethig]

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."

You forget the P-M is an updated PIII core. Given the same type of remake the G4 could still be a very good mobile chip if a dedicated computer version were made. However, it's all academic. Whatever advantage the PowerPC had has been eroded by a financial lack of interest in development and the small user base. Nobody wants to take the time to write specifically for the architecture.

 

[jared_kipe]

They can't.

All those electrons and holes zooming around do not wear away at the silicon like dirt does in a motor. Processors do not need six monthly lubrication, they have no friction, they do not simply get tired and if they start blowing smoke you need to call the fire brigade not the mechanic.

Ever heard of entropy? Its a well known fact that any kind of transistor wears down and fails. If it didn't then it would be doing work for free and dS=0, but dS!=0 but there is no maintenance, so you can't keep your processor from dying. Except for maybe running it cooler.

 

[eXan]

If Apple is going to be using only Intel in a couple years, and Rosetta only goes from PPC to Intel, not Intel to PPC, why would anyone buy a PPC Mac now unless they absolutely HAD to, or they normally upgrade their Mac every couple of years? No one is going to be making new programs for PPC in a couple years. So why still put out PPC Mac's? Obviously they can't go 2 years without any new Mac's, who is going to buy those?

I am

 

[BenRoethig]

[IBM] could build PowerPC chips that satisfy the needs of the entire range of Apple's product lines, including portables such as the PowerBook, said Rod Adkins, vice president of development for IBM's Systems and Technology Group, which produces IBM's PowerPC chips.

In a sense IBM is telling the truth. They could make any chip that Apple wants. They just left out the fine print: Apple pay for all development costs. IBM's money lies elsewhere than the chip fabrication business. They are able to make chips on their own timetable and the timetable of those who fork out the cash. If they make a competitive desktop chip doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Intel only makes chips. It's in their best interests to to be able to make competitive consumer chips and have them available in volume.

 

[GregA]

Ever heard of entropy? Its a well known fact that any kind of transistor wears down and fails. If it didn't then it would be doing work for free and dS=0, but dS!=0 but there is no maintenance, so you can't keep your processor from dying. Except for maybe running it cooler.

No one said computers don't wear down and fail.

We said they don't wear down and, due to this, slow down.
So which are you refuting?

 

[macagain]

Typical IBM, so full of sh*t (i.e. themselves)

I'm a self confessed Mac bigot... I choose to use a mac at home (pb4 1.25), but have to use a pc (p-m 1.4) at work.

i hate having to work in windows, but every night when on the mac, i curse that windows feels faster.

i know that the pb4's are not running ibm chips, but my point is if IBM could deliver power efficient mobile 970 chips, what the hell haven't they???

sure, ibm can deliver power efficient 970 chips... but by the time they do, the p-m will be twice as fast again!

the day Gerstner left and put a lifelong IBM lifer back in charge, that was the beginning of the end.

 

[Surreal]

one thing no one seems to have pointed out in debating these chips is the architecture that accompanies them.

I think that the G5 is an excellent chip. a BEAST of a chip. i use Logic and the G5 optimization makes for no tangible cieling. but i do not think that it is only the 2.7 ghz. on each of the powermacs the Front side bus is half of the processor speed. Per processor. on the imac they are all 300 mhz now. but the powebook is stuck at 167mhz FSB because of the G4 architecture. the dual core g4s have a cap of 667 mhz FSB..and those arent out yet.

while i am not sure about all this quad pumping nonsense that intel talks, i will believe that it is most likely faster than 167 mhz and that is what the pentium m runs with. especally when numbers giving vary from 400-533mhz.

remember the talk about the G5 erasing a major bottleneck? the Front side bus was it. there was a PPC chip that was mobile worthy and the same speeds we have now, but with 400 mhz FSB apple might have reason to stay.

i do not especially dig on intel, but i decided maybe a year ago not to buy a laptop with a fsb lower than 333 mhz. thanks to this decidsion i might have an option around the time i get the money this sept...or in february. (financial aid from college.

 

[remingtonhill]

NetVista or Intellistation.

 

[$MacUser$]

Portable Updates?

hey guys,

This may shade slightly from the topic at hand but it is still relevant. I need a new portable ASAP. Im certainly not going with a Windoze box, even though IBM makes a nice example. Im looking at the top of the line Powerbook. Im reluctant to pick it up not only because macrumors suggests I refrain from doing so, but also because my consumer savvy is called into question. Historically, Ive only bought bleeding edge tech. The 1.67 has been out for how long?

Fact of the matter is, however, that I need a portable and I need it soon. Will there be a significant update to the Powerbook within the next several weeks or should I make the plunge now? As an aside, I intend to pawn it off on ebay once the macintel portables come up, so I wont be stuck in PPC land when x86 is ruling. My main concern is that Im going to buy this 17 and then two weeks later a 2Ghz dual core G4 with a high def screen is going to hit the market.

Thanks for any input.

 

[macdong]

one thing no one seems to have pointed out in debating these chips is the architecture that accompanies them.

I think that the G5 is an excellent chip. a BEAST of a chip. i use Logic and the G5 optimization makes for no tangible cieling. but i do not think that it is only the 2.7 ghz. on each of the powermacs the Front side bus is half of the processor speed. Per processor. on the imac they are all 300 mhz now. but the powebook is stuck at 167mhz FSB because of the G4 architecture. the dual core g4s have a cap of 667 mhz FSB..and those arent out yet.

while i am not sure about all this quad pumping nonsense that intel talks, i will believe that it is most likely faster than 167 mhz and that is what the pentium m runs with. especally when numbers giving vary from 400-533mhz.

remember the talk about the G5 erasing a major bottleneck? the Front side bus was it. there was a PPC chip that was mobile worthy and the same speeds we have now, but with 400 mhz FSB apple might have reason to stay.

i do not especially dig on intel, but i decided maybe a year ago not to buy a laptop with a fsb lower than 333 mhz. thanks to this decidsion i might have an option around the time i get the money this sept...or in february. (financial aid from college.

you have a good point there.
the important thing is after all these years the PowerBook line still sucks.
many friends of mine want to buy a Apple laptop, and i could only suggest iBook on my consciousness.

 

[mvc]

Ever heard of entropy? Its a well known fact that any kind of transistor wears down and fails. If it didn't then it would be doing work for free and dS=0, but dS!=0 but there is no maintenance, so you can't keep your processor from dying. Except for maybe running it cooler.

Obviously work is being done, nothing is for free and yes I have heard of entropy. Resistance, Reactance and Impedence != friction though, so electronic parts of this sort do not 'wear' out, sure all the activity requires energy input, and generates heat, but the physical material is not eroded by the activity itself.

Denser processor dies over the last years have increased the resistance because the metal traces & transisitors are smaller which means more resistance and therefore more heat.

Smaller traces and transistors are also more vulnerable to tunnelling leakage (which has been the main problem with the shift to 90nm manufacturing), manufacturing faults become more noticable and cosmic ray transient errors increase. So they certainly fail, overheat, freak out, crash, kernal panic and meltdown - but they don't 'wear' out.

Anyway, the topic went thataway! ----->

 

[macdong]

Windows XP doesn't crash. My experience has shown me that people who bash windows for crashing and become frustrated enough to switch to mac are running ancient computers with windows 98 or Millenium. I've had to reinstall Panther more often due to kernal panics more then once (on a new machine). Since I've switched an old PII system to XP I have never had a problem.

well, that's weird. i had about 5 kernel panics with Panther, none that required reinstallation.

My experience has shown me that slower Pentium Computers run windows XP faster then faster G4s run OSX. Especially Web surfing and Java applications.

well, i really can't comment on this. i have not touched a windows computer in 6 years.

Windows Computers, PIV @ 3+ Ghz can be had for $1000 or less. Lesser Performing Mac Computers cost twice as much.

Pentium M Centrino Laptops can be had for less then $1200 with 15" screens.

Ever go to a computer store looking for Mac software? None at all. All windows.

i think we've been over these topics many times.
for price debat please find an old thread.

Tiger revolutionary? Over Panther? Give me a break! Am I the only one who finds the "new" widgets the only real compelling new feature?

yep. you would be the only one.

[edit]actually, Dashboard didn't impress me that much...[/edit]

IBM slow at development of newer faster technology? What about iBooks with 32 MB of vram with a non core-image compatible 9200 processor?

Whatever folks. I liked mac for awhile. My next computer will be a windows machine. Cheaper, Faster, Better, More Compatible. Probably an IBM NetVista or Intellistation.

by all means. while you switch away, others will swich in.
the point is, everyone makes his/her own choice.