CeBit: PPC 970's up to 1.8GHz

[nuckinfutz]

iMacs need a better graphics card big time. I wish Apple would let you customize all their products and have a 970 imac and pay more if you so wish, and throw a better card and leave out the extra mhz. I think they could gain more money by actually letting people have more option rather than just one system that you can't afford and one you can but are unhappy with because you want something else.

Sounds great in Theory but usually people would just gut the Mac and buy components elsewhere.

Apple didn't get into Direct Sales to "be like Dell" although that's what they told you. They did it to cut out the middleman and recoup as much margin as possible. Hence you cannot "strip" a machine down to a tiny hd and very little RAM.

 

[noverflow]

Re: yeah but

Originally posted by copperpipe
this processor has this advantage, and that processor has that advantage! Blahger flooth!

All I know is I have a duel 867 G4 and it kicks major butt. Design graphics that are 24 inches by 36 inches 300 dpi and I am cruising! Now I imagine a duel 1.42 has got to be unbelievable speed. Now let's say I change the architecture to the next gen, and bump it to 1.8 ghz? Oh my god.

My question to anyone here is this:

What type of work are you doing on a mac that requires more speed than that? There must be something, but I just can't figure out what it is...

That is a little odd
my computer dies when im working on my artworks. 20X30in at 266 dpi

i have a dual 1.0ghz
with 1.5 gigs of ram and im working off a raid

the photoshop file alone takes up 1.6gb of ram when working on it (not file size)

and the whole system ends up using the swap and my computer goes to a hult, but only 10% cpu power is being used


i dont see how you you can cruse with that machine on that big of a file, you only have a max of 2 gb ram.

 

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by jettredmont

3) it is faster to share data between two cores than it is to share data between two separate CPUs (between cores the data just has to be bumped out to L2 cache then read from there by the other CPU; between CPUs the data has to go out on the already-restricted FSB to main memory, then be read back from main memory over the FSB to the second CPU - this is a major performance hit as you can imagine!)

Actually, iirc part of the SMP protocol defines data forwarding, where one CPU can forward information directly between CPUs without having to go through main memory. Of course, this takes more circuitry that wouldn't necessarily have to exist on a dual core CPU.

Originally posted by hitman
i sure hope it's true.

it would be nice to be able to buy a dual 970 machine for around 1899.

Well, right now you can buy a Dual 1.25 G4 for 1999... Hopefully the price structure will stay similar =).

 

[job]

Originally posted by Rincewind42
Well, right now you can buy a Dual 1.25 G4 for 1999... Hopefully the price structure will stay similar =).

Bingo.

It would be extremely nice to see a dual 970 tower retail for that price. I'm sure Apple would be swamped by orders.

Although I am curious as to where Motos 7475 (is that the right number?) chips fit into this picture. Could Apple use this chip for the low-end tower, resulting in another Yikes/Yosemite situation?

 

[barkmonster]

I think they could gain more money by actually letting people have more option rather than just one system that you can't afford and one you can but are unhappy with because you want something else.

I agree.

If you configure an entry level G4 with an 80Gb HD and the dual 1.25Ghz model with a GeForce4 MX, making the only difference the CPU module, the price difference is about £320 in the UK. Without the HD increase to match things it's just over £355 more.

If it was possible to compromise and have the single 1Ghz cpu swapped for a single 1.4 GHz cpu with 2Mb L3 (not 1.42 due to the 133Mhz bus), I'm sure people would be buying the entry level system in droves if it was only another £200 or something.

A lot of people just want the fastest mac for the price, offering the fastest CPUs in a single configuration as a CTO option wouldn't exactly kill sales of the higher end hardware because they'll always be people who need that much power and can afford it.

 

[p03]

Originally posted by stonysleep
I thought the ZDnet article was lazy journalism and certainly falling victim to what jobs & co call the Megahertz Myth. I dont think u can really compare speeds of a 64bit RISC processor (PPC970) to a 32bit CISC processor (Pentium 4).

At the moment a 64bit 1.8GHz IBM processor would def hit the spot nicely.

Well, a 64-bit architecture sure sounds nice, but it actually doesn't do much for desktop users. It can address memory beyond 4 gigabytes, and it can work with huge integers. That's it.

Floating point operations and vector processing will be unaffected.

Apple doesn't need the 970 because it's 64-bit (though it surely sounds great in a press release), but because it's a damn processor that finally improves on the ancient G4 in some ways and is still compatible with PowerPC code. Apple would use the 970 even if it was a 2-bit processor if it worked better than the G4 which has been around for a staggering 4 years.

By the way, is there a way Apple can tweak the OS that would take advantage of its 64-bit architecture for everyday tasks?

 

[DavPeanut]

It's kind of off topic, but how big do SATA drives get? Also, do they go by the 18,36,72 GB structure, or the 20, 30, 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, 160, 180, 200 GB structure? I think they may be like SCSI drives, which kinda sucks. That would mean that I just SCSI but cheaper, instead of ATA but 10,000 RPM.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by barkmonster
I agree.

If you configure an entry level G4 with an 80Gb HD and the dual 1.25Ghz model with a GeForce4 MX, making the only difference the CPU module, the price difference is about £320 in the UK. Without the HD increase to match things it's just over £355 more.

If it was possible to compromise and have the single 1Ghz cpu swapped for a single 1.4 GHz cpu with 2Mb L3 (not 1.42 due to the 133Mhz bus), I'm sure people would be buying the entry level system in droves if it was only another £200 or something.

A lot of people just want the fastest mac for the price, offering the fastest CPUs in a single configuration as a CTO option wouldn't exactly kill sales of the higher end hardware because they'll always be people who need that much power and can afford it.

Man do i agree with this why not ave a single g4 at 1.42 but no apple competes with itself stupid! How about a single 1.25 and 142 and then a dual 1.42? I hope Apple figures this out, Oh well i will just keep waiting for a 970 i guess. Apple just keeps screwing themselves in my opinion. If they can make a dual 1.42 they sure can make a single 1.42 Just another example of them competing with themselves. Sort of like the cube.

 

[bones]

Originally posted by Nemesis
SpecFP and SpecInt ....

Stop comparing apples and oranges. Those tests mean absolutely nothing.

Those AREN'T TESTS. Those scores were ESTIMATES from IBM.

Stop quoting them, they are not benchmarks at all!

Allow me to repeat myself: This processor will be much faster than everone thinks based on these spec scores.

Think how fast the G4 currently runs. Its deficiency in SPEC vs the P4 does not match the difference in performance in real-world apps.

 

[job]

Originally posted by bones
Think how fast the G4 currently runs. Its deficiency in SPEC vs the P4 does not match the difference in performance in real-world apps.

However we have to remember that the speed and effeciency of a program depends on the quality of the code.

You may have a poorly ported app on the Mac, an app which runs wonderfully on a P4. Something like that may hypothetically run worse on a 970, even if the chip itself outperforms a P4 in terms of raw data through-put, speed, etc. On the other hand, if the app is optimized for the OS and/or hardware, (i.e. Altivec) then the performance gap is less likely to be seen.

 

[Kid Red]

A possibole confirmation about the 970 was posted over at AI-

Hi,

I work in IT for a large corporation and IBM gave us a presentation about the future of their pSeries and other systems today. Part of the presentation was about the Power processors. They talked about the Power 4, 4+, 5 and 5+. They also briefly discussed the blade servers running what they had listed as the Power 970. They mentioned the Vector unit but said it would not be used in their blade servers, it was for something else. I later asked the rep if the 970 was going to be sold to Apple and he said yes. He was sure of this, and seemed surprised that I knew anything about it. He said they (Apple) have them in their labs now, and that they plan to release them. He said the Vector unit (altivec) was for Apple and that IBM has been told to caution their customers that they have no plans to implement it in their Linux or AIX versions of the blade servers. I told him I heard that Linux may support it in the future, but he wasn't sure about that. He said the Blades would be available Q3 but didn't know when Apple would release them. I later asked if the Blades would be out before Macs and he didn't know. So it's possible we could see a 970 Mac at least as soon as the Blades come out, which would fit in with the timelines we've been hearing elsewhere.

Another interesting thing he talked about was the work they were doing on the Playstation 3. He said it was going to be a dual core chip, but one core would be for graphics. He also said they were implementing something with a company called (or a technology called) Blossom that was a grid computing system for the PS3. It had something to do with multiplayer gaming, but allowed the processing power to be shared, at least part of it, on the grid. Then I remembered Apple's XGrid trademark. I would say it's a safe bet that Apple intends to incorporate that sort of technology into future XServes.

They also listed the speed on the Blades as 1.7Ghz+. I suspect that was for marketing though, as the fastest Power 4+ they had on the roadmap for this year was 1.7GHz. So they probably will have 1.8's as reported elsewhere but didn't want to make it in any way seem faster than the POWER based boxes. They also listed a Blade+ but he never showed that slide and like an idiot I forgot to ask him. Although I'm sure it would be just info about the 980 and other things we've already heard.

Anyhow, I hope that's helpful. I'd consider this to be absolute confirmation that the 970 is going to be in Macs soon. The question now is when.

Cheers,
John

 

[anand]

noverflow, I agree with you. I don't understand it either. Big file, no processor being used. I blame Adobe. Photoshop 7 never seems to use much processor time. I bet I could save big time if my dump processors were being used!

 

[mariner77]

Originally posted by BenRoethig
Hopefully Apple will use PC3200 or PC3500 for RAM. As for motherboards, I would expect 1 8x AGP slot, 4 PCI slots, mini-PCI for Airport Extreme, 2 FW400, 2 FW 800, 4 USB 2.0, highend on board sound. I wouldn'y be surprised to also see 2 USB 2.0 and 1 FW400 port in front.

Don't forget, one of the key advantage of a 64 bit CPU is that it can support a LOT more memory! I hope Apple's new mobo takes at least 8GB of RAM. Yes, I need it. Modern day CCD arrays can produce HUGE image files (in astronomical applicaitons) of over 400MB per image. If I have a couple of those open there goes several gigs. It only gets worse. To me, the fast speed of PPC970 is nice and all but equally important if not more is the super fast bus!!! Let the images (video, sound, or whatever) flow!

 

[nickgold]

geez...

To the guy working on large (several foot) graphic files at a high resolution, complaining that your processing tasks go slowly...

NO FREAKING DUH!

I hate to break it to some of the folks on here, but realtime processing of anything you throw at a several thousand dollar dekstop PC IS NOT QUITE HERE YET, if you hadn't noticed!

I do audio and video on my "ancient" G4 450 Sawtooth, and you know what? Sometimes a render takes 8 hours to complete!!! So yeah, I feel the need for speed.

But let's not act like Apple is at fault or deficient because our machines can't do everything and anything we want them to, in realtime. People use machines that are a lot more expensive than Macs when they have those demands.

It's like me buying my ECHO, and instead of being happy to have got a reliable, perky little efficient car, totally whining about the fact that it doesn't drive like a Porsche.

Let's take the several foot high res graphic files as an example... Do you think they would really be THAT much faster to process on a high-end Pentium, vs. a top of the line Mac? Let's assume for argument's sake that the Pentium is twice as fast as the Mac...

Things are still going to be slow as a dog, and will not be anywhere close to realtime!

This is why I don't understand these speed arguments at all... To me, when I'm in the market to get a new machine, a 50%, 100%, or even 200% increase in efficiency is NOT enough to get me to buy a new machine. When I see a MAJOR leap in performance, so I can now do totally new things, then I upgrade. But I am just not all that excited about being able to do the same old things a bit faster.

And yes, blah blah blah, I know a lot of pros need all the speed they can get, yadda yadda. I feel for ya. Try running Logic Platinum on OS X and plenty of virtual synths, samplers, and fx in realtime on a G4 450! Yer preaching to the choir, believe me!

But you know what? Tons of "pros" are still using beige G3s in their workflow, and get the job done! Sometimes being a pro is about knowing how to get the most out of the tools you already have -- not wishing for the next thing that's always going to be right around the corner.

Trsut me, I am waiting for the next gen of Macs as much as anyone else -- but all of this bellyaching about the current state of Macdom is soooo overly mellodramatic. If you really need realtime processing of huge graphics files, get a freaking turnkey system already that can actually do that.

No offense intended, and I mean that. But come on. My first computer was a C64. And when you compare what we have today to what we had 15 years ago or so, well, frankly, the differences between a G4 1.4 dual and a P IV 3 GHz don't really seem all that significant. Sometimes, a little more perspective is in order.

I can just see things ten years from now...

"I can't believe this freaking underperforming POS G8 7 Terrahertz... I can only run a dozen self-aware fully-conscious AIs simultaneously, and the Pentium 15 can run 20 at the same time! Waaaaah!"

 

[speechgod]

Re: geez...

Originally posted by nickgold
It's like me buying my ECHO, and instead of being happy to have got a reliable, perky little efficient car, totally whining about the fact that it doesn't drive like a Porsche.

I love my ECHO. When people get mad about the cost of gas, I just tell them the 35-39 MPG I get. They shut up fast.

 

[robguz]

I'm done being excited about what's just around the corner. A year and a half ago, the real G5 was running at over 2GHz and would be here any day (back when the P4 was running at 2.2 GHz and was shipping). Never happened. I'm sure the 970 will. But like every chip before it, except maybe the G3, it will come later than expected and be slower than we need to keep up with the Wintel world. Let's all keep our panties non-bunched about this. The last time Apple surprised us with a new chip was in August 1999 when the G4 came out a few months before people thought it would. turned out to be only faster for the 1 or 2 apps at the time that could make use of it.

 

[Scottgfx]

Re: Re: yeah but

Originally posted by noverflow
That is a little odd
my computer dies when im working on my artworks. 20X30in at 266 dpi

i have a dual 1.0ghz
with 1.5 gigs of ram and im working off a raid

the photoshop file alone takes up 1.6gb of ram when working on it (not file size)

I just finished a similar project, except that it was even larger but I only started out at 150dpi. I found that to be too slow and I went down to 72 dpi just to get the Photoshop document size below 1GB. It was possible to finish the project at the higher rez, but it would have taken a lot longer to finish. I only have 1GB of memory and the page swapping was getting quite painful.

After I was done I found out that the recommended resolution was 40dpi! I was working at almost double the resolution that I needed to! Anyway, my dual 1.25 worked pretty well and I'm learning all about the quirks of using Photoshop under OS-X. It can be quite frustrating. It doesn't crash as much, but the weird refresh problems are so annoying!

 

[Scottgfx]

Originally posted by DavPeanut
It's kind of off topic, but how big do SATA drives get? Also, do they go by the 18,36,72 GB structure, or the 20, 30, 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, 160, 180, 200 GB structure? I think they may be like SCSI drives, which kinda sucks. That would mean that I just SCSI but cheaper, instead of ATA but 10,000 RPM.

Being that the industry is targeting SATA (Serial ATA) to replace IDE/ATA, expect the drives to progress in a similar fashion at standard (parallel) ATA/IDE drives. There are some reviews out there on SATA drives now. You can even pre-order drives now. Try some of the big PC tech outlets like Anandtech, HardOCP, Ars Technica and others. While I prefer Macs, I still spend a lot of time reading up on the other camp. I find that I usually know more about PCs than my PC using co-workers.

 

[Scottgfx]

My guess for Apple's processor name

I work in design/marketing, so I will take a stab as to what I think Apple will call the new 970 in their marketing of their new systems.

Introducing the new "PowerMac GX"



Lets think about it...

Unless Apple wants to get away from the whole "G" thing, This is the first new processor since the introduction of OS-X.

With the inability of Moto to keep to a timetable, the whole G+(processor generation) numbering has been thrown out the window. The number is meaningless now.

Apple has a vested interest in the letter "X" with much newer products like the X-Serve and the X-Raid.

With Microsoft, Macromedia also getting on the "X" bandwagon, Apple hasn't backed away from the use of the letter. (Microsoft==XP Macromedia==MX)

If it's not "X", than what's next? Well, let's see. The Gen-Xers are starting to get into their 30's and we're being followed by Generation "Y". Would Apple call the processor a "GY"? Nawww, that's just silly. Someone might try to add a vowel in there somewhere.

If it's not GX then I'll eat my hat, but Apple may have a aversion to "G anything" after what Moto has put them through these past few years. "GX" is a possible way to get above that stigma and not lose any value in the "G" name.

Keep in mind that I'm in Florida and not starting a rumor. Only offering an educated guess. If I am right, I would like someone at Apple to please contact me at my .mac address and offer me a job. Or at least give me a t-shirt or perhaps a cookie?

 

[JavaCoder]

It's ridiculous that Apple has yet to make public a CPU roadmap for the Mac. I won't buy another Mac until they do.

I'm still paying for the loaded $$$ WallStreet PowerBook I bought late in 1998. One reason I went ahead and agreed to a lifetime of AppleLoan payments was because Apple had promised that the "next generation" mac OS (now OS X) would support G3 machines. Until my WallStreet finally died last month, I'd been able to make a happy transition to OS X.

If Apple can't get out of this Motorolla CPU rut they're in, their future as a PC and Laptop company is doomed. I can't justify paying a premium for Apple hardware without some confidence that Apple's going to be able to roll out a new CPU strategy as deftly as they (finally) rolled out a modern OS. I don't necessarily care what Apple does -- port OS X to x86 and shrink wrap it, go with the 970, go with the AMD -- I just want to know.

I'm buying a new laptop next month, and I'm 90% decided it's going to be a cheap Intel machine and not a new PowerBook. I won't enjoy it as much, but I'll be out a lot less cash when it becomes obsolete.

 

[Scottgfx]

Originally posted by JavaCoder
I'm still paying for the loaded $$$ WallStreet PowerBook I bought late in 1998.

I'm buying a new laptop next month, and I'm 90% decided it's going to be a cheap Intel machine and not a new PowerBook. I won't enjoy it as much, but I'll be out a lot less cash when it becomes obsolete.

Even when your Wallstreet came out, spreading out the payments all the way into 2003 should have been seen as a bad idea. Think about amortization and the value that your Wallstreet provided every day. Take it's cost (Base price not plus interest) and divide it by the number of days you used it. Now take your proposal of the Wintel book, it's price, and how long you think you will use it. My guess is that you will find that the Apple product gave you better value over a longer period of time than the Wintel can provide.

Also, when you finance, make a extra payments toward the principle. Don't just make the mimimum payments. I paid off my last Automobile 8 months early by doing that. And I've never bought a computer that I couldn't pay cash for... And I am not rich. Don't let a bad financial decision in the past cloud your vision of the true value that Apple's product provide. If you are not getting the Wallstreet fixed, I bet it's worth something to someone for parts... Probably a lot more than a similarly priced laptop from the same era... even if it's working!!!

 

[Kai]

Some more Information:

Since there are some people that doubt the credibility of the provided information and/or our site:

We did talk directly with IBM, because the originally planned Booth #13 which existed on all plans was just not built up and the scheduled Power970-Blade-Presentation didn't (and won't) take place. After our inqueries one of the heads of PR at IBM called our reporter there and did tell him the mentioned details on the roadmap especially TO CLEAR UP THESE RUMOURS (litho-process, MHz at launch etc)

Apple itself ofcourse declined to comment.

On behalf of the team,
Kai / MacGuardians

 

[Kai]

Oh, and one more thing:

To be honest it hardly matters at how many MHz the P970 launches (if it does!).. The one major disadvantage Macs have today over PCs is the bus, folks, not the CPU MHz!

And since it will have the 6.4GByte/s (now we have 1.3 GByte/s!) two-way Bus i could care less about CPU MHz! ;-)

Especially since it's definately designed for better MHz-scaling than the G4 anyway if you look at the pipeline!..

 

[TMay]

I haven't seen this mentioned about PS

It is conceivable that Adobe will configure Photoshop to support 64 bit integer processing in PS8 while also simultaneously supporting Altivec. 64 bit would give you (4) 16 bit channels w/o having to touch Altivec, which would then be free for concurrent use of more complex filters.

Now if you throw in SMP and perhaps Hyperthreading in the follow up 980, one could argue that this would be quite the platform for Photoshop. The same can be said for many other multimedia applications, such as Maya and FCP.

I imagine, needless to say, that Apple is quite aware of this in pushing the 970.

 

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by JavaCoder
It's ridiculous that Apple has yet to make public a CPU roadmap for the Mac. I won't buy another Mac until they do.

And if they make public a roadmap that doesn't show the computer that you want shipping for over a year, you won't buy another Mac until then. And if something slips such that they can't meet the schedule that they presented, then they will get raped in the press for not being able to meet their own roadmap. For Apple publishing a roadmap is a lose-lose situation, so they won't do it.