Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
SyndicateX, I think your arguments are logical -- though not, as yet, confirmable. We'll have to wait out the next few weeks to see if there is more information that leaks out.

My only problem with the French site is that when they have posted speculation about a week before an event they have proved right (I'm thinking of the laptop updates). Their track record is not as good when they speculate out longer. In this case, we are still five weeks away or so from WWDC.

(But I sure like those specs!)
 
nmk said:
I can understand wanting to buy the best system that one can afford, but this statement makes no sense. The system will not feel any slower 6-7 months down the line than it did the day you bought it. A lot of professional graphics artists (and I'm sure other professionals as well) use older systems to do their work becuase companies wont buy them the latest gear every six monts. Many people are very productive on old G4 towers. Most people who are not productive are probably suffering due to incompetance rather than the fact that they have older computers.

I agree with your statement 100%. All you have to do is look at my hardware config and you will see that people can and are still being productive even on G3's. Before anyone starts the argument of "sure, you can surf the web and get e-mail but that's it", let me just say that I have created web sites, done complete video editing, in-depth Flash interactive games and simulations. 3D modeling/animation, as well as the standard Photoshop/Illustrator/etc. things that most Mac professionals do.

Sorry to get off topic, but after reading post after post-(no neccessarilly in this thread) of how my Dual G4 sucks, it just really gets on one's nerves. I use my G3 because I can't afford even a refurbished G4-(if they still exist), but I make it work for what I need to do.
 
edenwaith said:
I can just hear Leisure Suit Larry (from LSL6) saying: "I hope, I hope, I hope..."

IF these rumors are true, or somewhat close, the feature I'd most appreciate would be the return of up to 4 hard drives. I would love to have multiple HD in a machine, which makes it easier to boot to multiple operating systems. Quite useful for the developer who needs to test on various OS's.

It scares me that i know what you are talking about with the lsl6 thing
 
SyndicateX said:
POWER5 / suppossed 975 is 130nm, IBM has a very good handle on their 130nm chip making process, so therefore it has none of the production issues limiting the 970fx. IBM announced their POWER5 chip awhile ago, and received their glory and press, but who else uses the PPC97x platform besides Apple? Not too many people, and IBM/Apple do have a very tight partnership planned to exist far into the future. So, the fact that IBM would respect apple (and the secrecy apple uses in their business strategy) enough to not disclose information on a processor built for them seems like a reasonable idea to me.
Can you point to one URL of a rumor (confirmed or otherwise) that says this 975 is supposed to be on the 130 nm process? Remember that the Power4 was 180nm when the 970 was introduced at 130nm. So even if the Power 5 is at 130nm, it says nothing about the 975. Isn't this 975 supposed to be more complex and have a higher transistor count than the 970? And it's supposed to scale way higher than the 970/970fx. All this at 130nm???
 
Roast hotdogs on the exhaust ports of that Dual G5 Dual SuperDrive

Ktulu said:
... I use my G3 because I can't afford even a refurbished G4-(if they still exist), but I make it work for what I need to do.

I bet your G3 is far more stable now than your last Mac was. A machine wouldn't be obsolete if there wasn't a faster one to compare it to. :)

And so the cycle begins...rumors flare...major event within weeks...more rumors within days of rumored rumors release...day of rumor arrives and disproves rumors...wait, "and one more thing." maybe a rumor is null/dev'd. Then that new G5 Dual 3.0Ghz will take 4-6weeks to your door and come with a coupon that says get 10.4 "tiger" for $19.95. meanwhile enjoy running 10.3.4 on this new G5. Compliments of Fishkill.
 
dongmin said:
Can you point to one URL of a rumor (confirmed or otherwise) that says this 975 is supposed to be on the 130 nm process? Remember that the Power4 was 180nm when the 970 was introduced at 130nm. So even if the Power 5 is at 130nm, it says nothing about the 975. Isn't this 975 supposed to be more complex and have a higher transistor count than the 970? And it's supposed to scale way higher than the 970/970fx. All this at 130nm???

There are many rumor sites that have it at 130nm, but it is mostly just purely speculation by me. 130nm is currently IBM's bread and butter, and considering the fact they can fit all the POWER5's features on 130nm, I see no reason that a stripped down apple version would be unable to fit easilly. I just know that it is 99% unlikely to be a 90nm chip, due to the technology on it and IBM's recent woes at fishkill, and I dont know all the steps in creating a processor, but it seems alot easier to be to take a POWER5 based on 130nm and make an Apple chip with its own specific features at 130nm.

I do have some very interesting sites though pertaining to the current G5 and Apples relationship with IBM and their goals. IBM makes it VERY clear they want to destory the Itanium (Intel) along with take away alot of AMDs growing power. It also talks about how the POWER5 will completely replace the POWER4 in IBMs production, supporting the idea that it would be much easier for them to strictly pump out POWER5 based chips for apple & their own hardware then continuing to produce the power4. So read them if you are interested, they are quite informative.....(the 2nd link you have to get a few pages in before it gets interesting..)

IBM Plots Road Ahead With POWER5

IBM's 970 Designed Just For Apple
 
numediaman said:
SyndicateX, I think your arguments are logical -- though not, as yet, confirmable. We'll have to wait out the next few weeks to see if there is more information that leaks out.

Yes, but seeing as this is a rumor site, nothing on it should be confirmable. :) If there were specs on a 975 on IBM's website, it would be a fact and not a rumor. Im just trying to offer as many intelligent and logical points from my perespective to try and support the suppossed specs, because they are pretty close to what I have believed Apple would release for the past few months.

I could be 100% wrong, or 50% right, or dead on, but these forums would be no fun at all if all we did was post facts posted on companies websites instead of making calculated perspectives based on our own knowledge to try and support, or refute any suppossed rumors. Just my take on things and wether Im right or wrong, I just hope I can offer information that is helpful and intellectually stimulating to the whole mac community.
 
bertagert said:
SyndicateX - those stories you linked to are over a year old. A lot has changed since then.

Have they? or am I not correct in saying that the current G5 still has the exact same specs in that article? Seeing as it hasnt been updated at all? Alot has changed, but IBM's attitude of dominating the chip market and the current specifications (Which somewhat illustrates that the 970 was just a stepping stone to be the initial 64bit release, and not the processor of the future.) of the chip in Apples G5's. They may be old, but they are still informative and offer insights. Read before you jump all over me for dates.
 
jakemikey said:
I spent a little time on IBM's PowerPC site to try and find any official confirmation on the status of the 975. I found nothing. Nothing mentioning the 975 on the PowerPC roadmap, no documentation, not even anything on IBM's PowerPC newsletter. A quick Google reveals that any mention of the 975 is limited almost exclusively to various Mac rumors sites.

I also did some extensive searching. The only place I found 975 references were on the IBM Thaiwan web site. It has the 975 mentioned right along with the Power5 and Power5+:

http://www-901.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/tw/specialreport_1.html

As for English information, it looks like it requires a little gleaning. In the investor relatations portion of the web site you can find press releases for the POWER5 based servers:

http://www.ibm.com/investor/press/may-2004/03-05-04-1.phtml

.. which clearly states that POWER5 based servers were announced on May 3rd and will be available June 11th of this year. Assuming (yes, I know) that the 975 is coming along at the same rate (rumors state they are) then it stands to reason the 975 based Macs will be announced on June 28th.
 
SyndicateX said:
130nm is currently IBM's bread and butter, and considering the fact they can fit all the POWER5's features on 130nm, I see no reason that a stripped down apple version would be unable to fit easilly. I just know that it is 99% unlikely to be a 90nm chip, due to the technology on it and IBM's recent woes at fishkill, and I dont know all the steps in creating a processor, but it seems alot easier to be to take a POWER5 based on 130nm and make an Apple chip with its own specific features at 130nm.
You're missing my point. The Power 5 is targetted for servers. The 975, or whatever the Power 5 derivative will be called, is intended for the desktop. These systems have VERY DIFFERENT tolerances for heat. The point of producing the 975 at 90 nm is to reduce the heat to manageable levels for a desktop. Yes, the 130 nm is a much more reliable process than 90 nm, but if a 130 nm 975 doesn't work in a desktop (and 1U servers) heat-wise, it's useless.

I found at least two rumors that says the Power 5 derivative will be starting at 90 nm (note that the Power 5 derivative was originally called the 980 by rumor-mongers):

https://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/10/20031029165235.shtml

and

https://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/07/20030706031041.shtml
 
dongmin said:
You're missing my point. The Power 5 is targetted for servers. The 975, or whatever the Power 5 derivative will be called, is intended for the desktop. These systems have VERY DIFFERENT tolerances for heat. The point of producing the 975 at 90 nm is to reduce the heat to manageable levels for a desktop. Yes, the 130 nm is a much more reliable process than 90 nm, but if a 130 nm 975 doesn't work in a desktop (and 1U servers) heat-wise, it's useless.

I found at least two rumors that says the Power 5 derivative will be starting at 90 nm (note that the Power 5 derivative was originally called the 980 by rumor-mongers):

https://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/10/20031029165235.shtml

and

https://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/07/20030706031041.shtml

I agree with you that they have very different tollerances for heat but I'm still not sure that's an open and shut case for 90nm vs. 130nm. I'd say it's likely, though. :) It's probably possible on both processes given the nature of the 975 vs. the POWER5. The 975 will have a single core, etc. blah blah.
 
dongmin said:
You're missing my point. The Power 5 is targetted for servers. The 975, or whatever the Power 5 derivative will be called, is intended for the desktop. These systems have VERY DIFFERENT tolerances for heat. The point of producing the 975 at 90 nm is to reduce the heat to manageable levels for a desktop. Yes, the 130 nm is a much more reliable process than 90 nm, but if a 130 nm 975 doesn't work in a desktop (and 1U servers) heat-wise, it's useless.

I found at least two rumors that says the Power 5 derivative will be starting at 90 nm (note that the Power 5 derivative was originally called the 980 by rumor-mongers):

links...

Yes, but like it was said in the above post, the 975 (or Ill just say the first release of POWER5 derivative) will most likely be a single core. And not feature alot of the fault tolerant aspects IBM uses in their chips to make them reliable for server use. But honestly, I really dont think wether the 975 will be manufactured on a 130nm or a 90nm processor is the heart of the discussion, they could throw it on 180nm as long as it runs at the rumored specs for all I care!

I just think that Apple knows 100% that they MUST release G5 updates at MW or they will have riots from Mac users. Seeing as IBM has had problems rolling out the 90nm 970fx and there are already HUGE delays for the Xserves, I just think it is unlikely Apple would risk further lengthening the xserve / new powermacs wait times by introducing a highly demanded consumer computer based on a very, very low yield chip, that for all purposes, still has problems. if IBM couldnt work out its kinks within the allotted time frame, then they would loose many business customers for failing to meet deadlines, and we would all be waiting until next january to receive a new power mac.
 
dongmin said:
You're missing my point. The Power 5 is targetted for servers. The 975, or whatever the Power 5 derivative will be called, is intended for the desktop.

The Power4 was rated at 1.3ghz at the end of its life cycle, and yet the 970 was introduced on at 2.0ghz and with the addition of a SIMD unit. The respective die sizes were 414mm^2 and 267mm^2, with more than a halving of the transistors from 170 million approximately 58 million. The first chip is a 180nm process, the second a 130nm process.

By comparison, the Power5 is 2 389mm^2 cores on a single chip, manufactured at 130nm CuSOI (copper-process silicon-on-insulator) with 276 million transistors, an on-chip DDR/DDR2 memory controller, interconnects between processors, and other necessary aspects of the multi-core design. If IBM can coax 2.0ghz+ (the 970 has been rumored to reach clocks of at least 3.2ghz in engineering samples, but not quanitity) out of the aging Power4 line, imagine what a well-designed Power5 companion chip could do. Drop the transistors by an equal amount (276 x 0.34 = 93.8 million) and you're in the ballpark, especially with the improved manufacturing process (copper and SOI).

Also, the 970 is intended for servers, thought not the kind of Big Iron and mid-level designs that the Power series chips are aimed at.

These systems have VERY DIFFERENT tolerances for heat.

Which is why you can easily build an Opteron workstation with two or four processors, provided you can find the motherboard? I'm not sure that you're right on this point, especially since AMD and Intel are licensing manufacturing processes that IBM pioneered (SOI, SSOI, and so on).

The point of producing the 975 at 90 nm is to reduce the heat to manageable levels for a desktop. Yes, the 130 nm is a much more reliable process than 90 nm, but if a 130 nm 975 doesn't work in a desktop (and 1U servers) heat-wise, it's useless.

Wait, wait, wait... People are practically pissing themselves thinking that the PowerBook G5 is around the corner, with all the heat issues of the 970 over the G4, and yet you think that a 975 couldn't be put into a desktop? For one thing, the 970s that are currently in the towers are 51 watts each at 2.0ghz and there's not really been a single problem cooling them efficiently and quietly because of Apple's case design. The 975 is supposedly around 65 watts at 3.0ghz, and if so, that's still barely hotter than a single Prescott 3.4ghz. That also assumes that PowerTune hasn't been refined even further, and that power management couldn't keep the heat down.

I found at least two rumors that says the Power 5 derivative will be starting at 90 nm (note that the Power 5 derivative was originally called the 980 by rumor-mongers):

What it's called is largely marketing, you know. It could just as easily be called the PowerPC 10 and it wouldn't make any difference to the features or capabilities of the chip in question.


"Following the microprocessor forum, IBM presented Apple with a handful of PPC 980 alpha samples to begin work on the next generation Powermac due out in 9-12 months. ... The reason why the 980 is appearing only 12 -16 months after the 970 is that Apple chose to engage in parallel development with the Power 5, rather than wait 12-18 months after the fact. The 980 samples that were given to Apple were 90nm chips, as opposed to 130nm chips for the PPC 970 and the Power 5.​

Interestingly, they got the die size on the Power5 right, but the thing that struck me about this rumor is that the date it's posted is October 29th. Let's call that November for the sake of argument... What's 9 months after November? August. If on-schedule, neither behind nor ahead, that could be demo at WWDC with one of the machines that will go on sale, and then delivery in August.

Sadly, the latter half of that rumor was obviously false. The 90nm problems were more extensive than thought, and the revisions didn't come in February. At least Fishkill is running almost on-target now, though, according to IBM's recent press.


Apple and IBM have been working on parallel development of the Power5 and PPC 980. The PPC 980 is a single core version of the Power 5. While prototype forms of this chip exist, it is almost a year away from shipping in Macs.

Once again, this points at an August release of 975/980 chips, as the rumor is from July of last year. It's intersting to note that, even at that date, they were claiming that 90nm was necessary for heat, but the server chips are running at dual-core, dual-processor without any issues.

Steve's comment of 3GHz in 1 year will not be accomplished with the G5 (970) - which will top out at 2.6-2.8GHz. The PPC 980 will start at speeds of 2.6-3GHz and top out around 4.5-5GHz. The G5 will make its way into PowerBook lines in Jan/Feb, Xserve's later this year, and iMacs in approximately one year.​

This also goes along with what I've been saying, since I've been suggesting for a while now that Steve never once said that the PowerPC 970 would be at 3.0ghz this summer, merely that Apple and IBM would be there. A release of a new chip, one built from the ground up for the performance Apple would like, is much more palatable and desirable than the relatively stopgap-feeling 970.

As always, just as Arn cautioned, take it with a grain of salt. Just be like me and hope for the best, but don't let yourself be too disappointed if it doesn't happen. Dreaming is fun. :D
 
From Below Web Page... said:
One of the major concerns of chip designers at this process generation is current leakage. The tiny dimensions of today's silicon chips mean electrons can start to break through the features and leak out of the processor as heat. This heat can disrupt system performance and require expensive cooling solutions to manage.

To prevent current leakage, IBM has implemented SOI on its last two process generations. The SOI technique requires chip makers to build transistors on top of a silicon wafer that is coated with an insulating material such as silicon oxide.

hrmmmm.....for some reason this is the first time Ive seen this but did any of you know that IBM had codenamed its 90nm chip process 'trinity"? Not quite sure how to take that into the fact this rumor codenamed the 975 trinity. Interesting.....


IBM Reveals Chip Process 'Trinity'
 
SyndicateX said:
hrmmmm.....for some reason this is the first time Ive seen this but did any of you know that IBM had codenamed its 90nm chip process 'trinity"? Not quite sure how to take that into the fact this rumor codenamed the 975 trinity. Interesting.....

Of interest (and much salivation and disbelief) to the Cube lovers, the Apple code name for the benighted line was also 'Trinity.' There's your trivia for the day. ;)

However, it's hardly any secret that IBM is going the route of SOI and other processes, because the Power5 is (as I noted above) built on the CuSOI technology. They're also the patent holders on the emerging SSDOI (strained silcon directly on insulator) technology.

The process and benefits of SSOI and SSDOI
Holdups on 970FX because of SSDOI process, which is now resolved

Fromt the last link:
IBM has said it is using SSDOI to fab its 90nm PowerPC 970FX chip, which Apple uses in its Xserve G5 server. Apple recently said during its latest quarterly results conference that the delays it had experienced shipping said server were due to difficulties IBM has had producing sufficient 90nm G5s, so IBM's SSDOI process may not be working as smoothly as anticipated.​

Reasons why SOI, SSOI will be the future.

Interestingly, the author of that article is based in Grenoble, France, which is the new home of the Crolles2 fab for FreeScale.
 
Hey thatwendigo, you know more about chips and internal workings than I do, so let me ask you a question. I remembered that in a previous rumor, it claimed that the initial G5 delays were due to sensor problems / daughterboard problems. So just vagely for my understanding can it deducted (if that rumor was true) that....

A. Since they have already attempted to use a 970fx and completely reworked the internals already, that there is almost no possibility of the next G5 having a 970 processor....

B. That the next G5 would have to use a 90nm chip? I know that the pin config should still be different between a POWER5 based chip and a 970fx or 970 (correct???) but wouldnt it be kind of redundant to develope three different configurations to accomadate three completely different processors when we will only see one in the end? Just curious, and your input is always appreciated! :)

C. That since they did attempt to use a 970fx, that 975/980's are far off? or of course, the rumors could have been wrong all along and it could have been 975's all along. (or 980's as seen in this suprising rumor)

and please let me know if I have fallen way off my rocker!!! :cool:

This is also interesting when you look at alot of the rumored specs that are suprisingly close, even though they were predicted 7+ months ago....
 
One last good rumor from last summer, yet again...suprisingly accurate.

Rumor

i just find it very interesting and suprising that so many rumors, from close to a year ago coincide with what we do actually know about the POWER5. At the time these rumors would have just been dismissed and unbelievable, but now looking at our timeline today, they do seem to support the idea that apple/ibm only released the 970 for the initial processor, and supports both your and my own belief that Steve Jobs knew when he made that guarantee that it would not be a 3.0ghz 970,and focused all their efforts jointly on the next generation of processors. Basically if all holds true he was experimenting with POWER5 derived chips when he made that announcement. If I had those chips in my hand, I would feel pretty good about making a guarantee for 3.0ghz by summer too!
 
A. Since they have already attempted to use a 970fx and completely reworked the internals already, that there is almost no possibility of the next G5 having a 970 processor....

Since who have attempted to use the 970FX, Syndicate? The only Apple product I'm aware of to use the part is the xServe (since a 130nm motherboard is likely not compatible with a 90nm part, though this isn't automatically the case), and so it's entirely possible that this long wait has been a complete redesign of the G5 tower motherboard and enclosure to allow the 975s to roll off the line when they're ready in quantity.

B. That the next G5 would have to use a 90nm chip? I know that the pin config should still be different between a POWER5 based chip and a 970fx or 970 (correct???) but wouldnt it be kind of redundant to develope three different configurations to accomadate three completely different processors when we will only see one in the end? Just curious, and your input is always appreciated! :)

The Power4 and Power5 are not pin-compatible, nor are the Power4 and 970 pin-compatible. I find it extremely unlikely that the 975/980 would be backwards compatible with the 970, especially if it's dual core. Even if it merely adds a DDR/DDR2 on-die memory controller, that would make it less likely to be workable on the old format. The bus is rumored to be vastly different, as well, and so it could be that we'll see all-new motherboards along with all-new chips.

Also, the difference in design is not a waste if Apple does what I'd like, which is to make the old towers the new consumer line, sell a new line of pro machines, and kill the iMac.

C. That since they did attempt to use a 970fx, that 975/980's are far off? or of course, the rumors could have been wrong all along and it could have been 975's all along. (or 980's as seen in this suprising rumor)

This has been my guess for a while, but the strong possibility remains that eh 975s aren't ready yet. We just don't know enough, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that a Power5 derivative could be ready around the time that the Power5s are shipped (June 11th, incidentally).
 
thatwendigo said:
Of interest (and much salivation and disbelief) to the Cube lovers, the Apple code name for the benighted line was also 'Trinity.' There's your trivia for the day. ;)

Hey, no fair! I made the same comment back on post #149. :cool: :D I think it was drowned out by the 10 quotes of the fire-breathing G5 photo.

Anyway, I'm not holding my breath that the new G5s will have anything to do with a Cube-like design. Just image, every article about the new machine would start off with a paragraph or two about what a huge failure the original Cube was. That would be a PR nightmare.

BTW, I love my Cube.
 
Why Fire GL?

I would like to see something explained for the benefit of us unter-geeks.

What are the advantages of and impediments to Fire GL cards on a Mac? I see the cards are already available for AGP slots. Is it sensible to believe the next generation Macs will be able to use these cards, and with an advanced PC-Express interface? Would such Macs be incompatible with the more common Radeon cards? I don't understand what is going on here.
 
4 to 6 weeks?

I was just about to place an order for a new Dual 1.8 G5 and the shipping time is 4 to 6 weeks. Yesterday it was one to two days. Could this be a sign of new machines AVAILABLE in 4 to 6 weeks? :eek:

iReilly

Dell 3.2 (soon to be an adder)
 
DavidCar said:
I would like to see something explained for the benefit of us unter-geeks.

What are the advantages of and impediments to Fire GL cards on a Mac? I see the cards are already available for AGP slots. Is it sensible to believe the next generation Macs will be able to use these cards, and with an advanced PC-Express interface? Would such Macs be incompatible with the more common Radeon cards? I don't understand what is going on here.

There are a class of cards that are massively more expensive than consumer ones, but which excel at the kind of calculations used by certain kinds of graphical applications -3D modeling, video compositing, and so on. ATI's line is the FireGL series, nVidia's is the Quadro, and Matrox's is the Parhelia. All of these cards start around the pricing point for a top of the line consumer card, and go up from there (I've seen Quadro cards for $1,5000). For an everyday user, they're overkill and less optimized than the GeForce or Radeon series, and so a bad buy, but they're invaluable to professionals and probably the main reason that anything beats the G5 at CineBench at this point (there's a chart floating on MacRumors somewhere that demonstrates this).

If the mac moves to PCI-Express, I would expect apple to also have an AGP 8x slot for the people who don't have cash to shift a generation yet. Also, the pro cards are all AGP 8x still, as far as I know, so you would need the legacy port unless someone has secretly updated their line and is cooperatively announcing with Apple. Oh, and to be completely specific about your last question, it would indeed make AGP cards incompatible without a bridge adapter (which is being made, incidentally), but that hardly matters. The new generation of cards are blowing the old one out of the water and using less power to do it.
 
iReilly said:
I was just about to place an order for a new Dual 1.8 G5 and the shipping time is 4 to 6 weeks. Yesterday it was one to two days. Could this be a sign of new machines AVAILABLE in 4 to 6 weeks? :eek:

iReilly

Dell 3.2 (soon to be an adder)

People have made these assumptions before, sometimes it means something, often it does not.

What I would love to see (but don't really think will happen) is a Daul Processor series (2.4, 2.8, 3.0) and a Single Processor series (1.6, 1.8, 2.0).
Apple could take advantage of the single processor and come out with a different form factor. Basically a mini-tower with room for two HD's and one optical drive and only four RAM slots on the motherboard. That would be cool. If a Dual 2.4 is $1999, what would a single 1.6 in a smaller case cost :D

It won't happen, but it would be cool.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.