...but they don't have the thing available. They can't use it until it comes out, same as any other product. That means late summer 2003 at the VERY EARLIEST. Also, the SPEC numbers for the 970 are 3-5 times the G4's, and while the G4 IS slower than the competition, it isn't 4 times slower. If the 970 behaves like the G4 on SPEC, then real world performance may be significantly better. Also, they don't state what compiler they're planning to get those numbers with, if it's GCC we're in luck. If it's some ubercompiler, then the numbers probably mean more (since that's what Intel's using).Originally posted by dukestreet
But there's even worse news in the article at the bottom.
The estimated SPEC INT and SPEC FP numbers (937 and 1051) would allow the 970 to clearly dominate the desktop scene were it released tomorrow, but by the time we see this chip in a shipping system the performance landscape will look significantly different in both the 32-bit (P4 at 4GHz+ with SMT) and 64-bit (AMD's Hammer) desktop markets. I won't try to predict exactly how it will stack up to the x86 and x86-64 offerings in late 2003/early 2004, but when it finally ships the 970 certainly won't spanking anything from Intel or AMD in the SPEC benchmarks. It should, however, enable Apple to avoid the kind of overpriced embarrassment (from a hardware perspective, at least) that is their current "pro" desktop line. And in fact a dual- or quad-970 system could potentially compare quite nicely in terms of price/performance to a single-processor Prescott or Hammer machine.
Is Apple going to shoot itself in the foot again?!?! This is not acceptable, if they have the thing available, use it. Damn, and damn again....
Did you even bother to read my explanation above? They say they will start producing the chips--NOT shipping--mid to late 2003. As stated before, it takes a while to reach a volume suitable for Apple to release it.Originally posted by ddtlm
Anyway, not sure where Ars Tech got 2004 from, since everyone else was saying 2003 and some even said middle of 2003. I'm still betting on late 2003.
I'd say it's a fair bet you'll see the final product in August/September and I am fairly certain Apple will announce it at MW Boston.Originally posted by MacCoaster
Did you even bother to read my explanation above? They say they will start producing the chips--NOT shipping--mid to late 2003. As stated before, it takes a while to reach a volume suitable for Apple to release it.
This has always interested me. It seems that even though Apple only has about a 3% market share there is always a perceived or real shortage of chips for their computers. This indicates they are employing JIT methods on the limited supply of chips that do exist and often get bitten by it.Originally posted by MacCoaster
Why before? Do you realize the PowerPC 970 is planned to start being produced (as in final RTM) in Q3/Q4 2003. They need to produce a lot of chips and many of those fail to meet tests so not all of them produce at a 100% rate. At any rate, Apple won't get enough of those until late Q4 or so to start assembling the new Macs.
Amen!Originally posted by nickgold
WHO THE HAY GIVES A POO?!?!
So what if they come out late 2003 or at the January MWSF '04. Does it really matter? The answer is, no. Apple is not competing with the Windows world, in many ways. Especially not in "hardware specs." So what if these things are released around the time of a 4+ GHz P4. WHO THE HECK REALLY WANTS THAT CRAP?!
If you're into Apple, freaking yay. But don't act like a bunch of little weenies and get all super-paranoid and stressed over what may or may not happen in the future. Please. Apple will still be there, and if you're still a Mac user by then, you'll probably be pretty happy with the offerings. Enjoy what you have now, and get over it already. It's so funny you can go onto a forum and see hundreds of people bickering and going bonkers over the latest dorky Mac rumor, and almost nobody talking about what they even DO with their machines. Wudda world, wudda world...
Why is it that I have an old rev A G4 450 Sawtooth that rocks out to this day, even with its Rage 128 AGP (not Pro) graphics card. And all sorts of peeps are freaked because THE UBERMAC's freakin' SPEC scores are weak. I know that I couldn't give a rat's arse, and that's true for 97.5% of the Mac user base. I love my machine as much today -- no, in fact more -- than the day it arrived. The PPC970's are going to be BEASTS, and the thought of them makes me quiver.
Since the 970 is a cripled Power 4 (for cost manufacturability and temperature purposes), I wonder if the actual Power 4 might be found in a future X-serve? It has the cooling balls and has the throughput need, and has no price sensitivity due to the low lisencing costs. Makes sense to me!Originally posted by j763
IMO, we'll see a new moto chip before the 970 comes out. The 970 will be in the pro-line in '04 (mwsf announcement probably), but apple will need something for their consumer line... what do you guys think? can moto pull something out of the hat during 2004 or is it just going to be more g4 speed bumps?
I doubt Motorola is ever going to do the 7470. Hell, is the 7470 even real, or was it fabricated (pun intended) by rumors? My guess is that since the DP1.25 is technically a 7455A, maybe simply a bumped up 7455A?Originally posted by gazelips
Isn't Motorola going to do a PPC7470? It seems like I remember reading about it, and that it would help with memory issues, etc.
Finally, someone who realizes the 85xx isn't intended for Macs. Yes, the MPC7455 is still on the .18m process. They (Motorola) had plans for .15m G4 from the start, but we haven't seen it.I realize the 85xx stuff has no place in Macs, but what about a 7470 on at least a .13micron process. Aren't the 7455s still on .18? Maybe a 7470 would go a long way toward easing the wait for the 970...
I didn't follow this 700MHz logic. Can you expand please?Originally posted by Rocketman
This has always interested me. It seems that even though Apple only has about a 3% market share there is always a perceived or real shortage of chips for their computers. This indicates they are employing JIT methods on the limited supply of chips that do exist and often get bitten by it.
But it also means the fabs they use are a very small fraction of the volume of the pee cee marketplace. Probably even smaller in relative terms.
It is my understanding the PowerPC itself had higher yield per wafer and higher % yield, so that is not the issue.
It may be that because they are behind in the Mhz race they are trying to use chips closer to the technical limit of the process than Intel has to and thus there is a lower yield because of that.
The fact there is a 700mhz chip in Apples premiere product this year supports that theory.