Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

IBM Announces New Chip Making Method

I always hate when people come in these forums that are negative toward the Mac, and will even put up replies to posts to futher defend their negativeness...In reality, market share doesn't matter as much as you guys think it might. Maybe we won't gain market share to over 10% (or even 5%), but, Apple has an installed base of users. There are always new generations that fall in love with Apple, and they become the younger installed base. Once someone buys an Apple, they are customers for life. You don't see people freaking out all the time that Mercedes-Benz only holds 3% of the market...its because they know a few people will always buy their cars...same holds true for Apple: they are the cream of the crop in the computer industry...a mix of outstanding software, a killer OS, awesomely designed computers and loyal users.
 
To me a more interesting question is what will Apple's strategy be? Will it wait for updates until the G5 is ready to roll on the pbook? will it introduce a final speed bump on the G4? Or will it discount the current model?
Apple will take the computing world by surprise if it will introduce a G5 in the next month or so, but I think it is very unlikely that they will be able to introduce it before fall.

let the rumors begin already 🙂
 
Re: more important

Originally posted by eric67
more important is not only performance, it is also production yield.
Intel has now delaied its road map for prescott for almost 6 month now, originally a prescott 4GHz was planned by the end of 2004, now it is rather Q1 2005, with 3.6GHz at the end of 2004...
so it is not only the performance which are lower than expected, it is also the way it will move on...
Click to expand...

This can only mean that Apple, paired with IBM, will succeed in catching up to and passing Intel in the so-called MHz race. Apple one-upping Intel in BOTH processor speed AND raw performance? That's something Mac users haven't seen since the G3 days; maybe even that's a stretch. I would love to see this - it would give Mac users something to be proud of.
 
my guess

Originally posted by .a
warming up my credit card 🙂 i do expect the announcement of these new powermac g5s in march. and i just hope, they will be available pretty soon afterwards.

and those powerbook g5s in the end of the year. i'll get one of'em, too!

what else could i buy? 🙂
.a
Click to expand...
PMG5 (based on PPC970fx, with the new chipset FSB 1.4GHz, max CPU clock=2.8GHz) at WWDC
PBG5 at MacWorld (JUly, avaialble august)
new PMG5 based on PPC975 by the end of the year, early2005
(update of the new chipset for PPC970fx+Power5-based PPC 975, starting at 3GHz)
 
Originally posted by spencecb
I always hate when people come in these forums that are negative toward the Mac, and will even put up replies to posts to futher defend their negativeness...In reality, market share doesn't matter as much as you guys think it might. Maybe we won't gain market share to over 10% (or even 5%), but, Apple has an installed base of users. There are always new generations that fall in love with Apple, and they become the younger installed base. Once someone buys an Apple, they are customers for life. You don't see people freaking out all the time that Mercedes-Benz only holds 3% of the market...its because they know a few people will always buy their cars...same holds true for Apple: they are the cream of the crop in the computer industry...a mix of outstanding software, a killer OS, awesomely designed computers and loyal users.
Click to expand...

Why does everyone use the stupid car analogy? Computers need software developers. Cars don't. Yes, Apple has a strong base of users (me being one since '93). But think about it....what if (in a very extreme case) Adobe drops software for the Mac? If you're a graphic designer that uses Photoshop all the time, would you buy a Mac the next time around? Hardly.

The Mac (in my biased opinion) is a better computer than anything Wintel has to offer. But if I can't get the software, then it's a very expensive paperweight.

I'm not spelling doom for the platform...in fact, I think marketshare will start to rise. But to say that marketshare is not important doesn't hold water for me. If Macs held 10% of the market or so, I think you would see much more software to choose from, and choice is great.
 
Well scratch my bald patch, it is so wierd how stories change and emphasis shifts.

Last week Apple sucked because nothing seemed to be happening. Mac software was great but the hardware was slow.

Now it seems the hardware is going to fly, Apple are amazing because the great things hinted at by Steve Jobs are actually likely after all. But wait, suddenly the software is crap and insufficient even for schoolkids.

Funny old game.
 
I'm not spelling doom for the platform...in fact, I think marketshare will start to rise. But to say that marketshare is not important doesn't hold water for me. If Macs held 10% of the market or so, I think you would see much more software to choose from, and choice is great.
Click to expand...

I never said market share DOESN'T matter...I said it doesn't matter as much as some people think...read what people type before you comment!!!
 
Originally posted by spencecb
I never said market share DOESN'T matter...I said it doesn't matter as much as some people think...read what people type before you comment!!!
Click to expand...

Fine. To imply that marketshare is not as important as many people think is overlooking the importance of software developers measuring cost to products sold.

That work for you?
 
Regarding software

I really hope that rumors of OSX 10.4 supporting Linux UI API-s out of the box comes true. this wuld eliminiate a lot of software barriers for Apple.

There's lot of small pieces of niche applications that are holding customers back from mac platform. I for example have to keep at least one wintel box in house because of the aviation-specific (I'm a soaring pilot) applications that I use. Yes, the partly work via virtualPC, but only partly.

So this is a real problem, not a hoax. I really hope that Apple solves that equation soon.
 
970FX

{The new manufacturing process for the new chips includes silicon-on-insulator, strained silicon and copper wiring based on a 90nm chip making process. The resulting chip "which can process vast amounts of computer memory compared with a standard 32-bit chip, can either run at faster speeds or use less power".}

This chip seems to be a special version that is designed to run at variable speeds and power, presumably to run cooler and more efficiently. That would seem to make it ideal for the smaller enclosure of a Xserve or PowerBook (or iMac), but what about the PowerMac? They have so many fans, cooling zones, etc., does it really need a cooler running chip? And if the 970FX maxes out at 2.5GHz, what chip will be used for the 3GHz PowerMac promised for later this summer? Just wondering, because I want a Rev. B PowerMac . . .
 
Dare I Say It (Does The Dr Evil Finger To Mouth) Quad..?

What I don't understand is that if Steve Jobs knew about these cooler chips, why did they make the G5 tower so big? Maybe....dare I say it? Quad machines?

On a different note, I hope Coral doesn't give up on the Mac as i've grown really fond of Painter 8 with my Wacom Tablet and when it comes down to art and traditional drawing and painting, it runs circles around Photoshop.
 
THESE CHIPS ARENT FOR THE G5!!

THEY'RE FOR THE XBOX2!


Just kidding. Wanted to see how high I could get ya'lls blood pressure! 😉

Of course, this is great news. Man, getting a G5 Powerbook and a 3ghz desktop by the end of the year would just be great. Good for Apple. They are certainly positioning themselves to be real players in the 3d industry.

Projected 2005 technology in the computers of today. Someone over at IBM is getting a raise.
 
Re: 970FX

Originally posted by MacEyeDoc
This chip seems to be a special version that is designed to run at variable speeds and power, presumably to run cooler and more efficiently. That would seem to make it ideal for the smaller enclosure of a Xserve or PowerBook (or iMac), but what about the PowerMac? They have so many fans, cooling zones, etc., does it really need a cooler running chip? And if the 970FX maxes out at 2.5GHz, what chip will be used for the 3GHz PowerMac promised for later this summer? Just wondering, because I want a Rev. B PowerMac . . .
Click to expand...

A cooler running chip for the PowerMac simply means that they are able to push it to faster clock speeds to produce a similar amount of heat as the old 130nm process.
 
Re: THESE CHIPS ARENT FOR THE G5!!

Originally posted by agreenster
Projected 2005 technology in the computers of today. Someone over at IBM is getting a raise.
Click to expand...

But lets see these things soon! 😀

It would be nice to see no semblance of foot dragging on getting these to market....its been quite a while since the first G5 PowerMac was announced.....

D
 
Originally posted by wrldwzrd89
I agree. With Intel's Prescott line of Pentium 4s not showing performance improvement (they're actually SLOWER than the previous generation at current clock speeds) and IBM's PowerPC 970FX looking more efficient/faster than the regular PowerPC 970, plus having the PowerPC 975 (and other PowerPCs too) in development, the future looks far brighter for IBM than for Intel. Another thing that holds Intel back (but not IBM, thanks to SOI and SSOI) is their inability to get any significant power consumption drop on their move from a 130 nm to a 90 nm production process.
Click to expand...

You do realize that Intel packed the processor with more transistors, right? Any space they saved by the die shrink, they decided to use it. IBM kept the chip pretty much the same during a die shrink. The Pentium 4 was slower in some areas then the Pentium III, clock for clock.
 
Originally posted by Lanbrown
You do realize that Intel packed the processor with more transistors, right? Any space they saved by the die shrink, they decided to use it. IBM kept the chip pretty much the same during a die shrink. The Pentium 4 was slower in some areas then the Pentium III, clock for clock.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do realize this. However, what Intel completely failed to do with their manufacturing process revision was reduce their ridiculously high power usage figures for the Pentium 4 (the Itanium is even worse). Do you bring up the fact that the Pentium 4 was slower initially than the Pentium III to illustrate that this is to be expected from Intel? If so, all the better for IBM/Apple!
 
Re: my guess

Originally posted by eric67
PMG5 (based on PPC970fx, with the new chipset FSB 1.4GHz, max CPU clock=2.8GHz) at WWDC
PBG5 at MacWorld (JUly, avaialble august)
new PMG5 based on PPC975 by the end of the year, early2005
(update of the new chipset for PPC970fx+Power5-based PPC 975, starting at 3GHz)
Click to expand...

The bus on the PB will most likely not be half what the processor speed is, like the current G5's. I say it will be a third or a quarter. A 3GHz G5 could be a third as well. You eventually get to a point where the speed doesn't matter as you have so much throughput that you can't fill it. Then all it does is create more heat.
 
Re: Re: my guess

Originally posted by Lanbrown
The bus on the PB will most likely not be half what the processor speed is, like the current G5's. I say it will be a third or a quarter. A 3GHz G5 could be a third as well. You eventually get to a point where the speed doesn't matter as you have so much throughput that you can't fill it. Then all it does is create more heat.
Click to expand...

You're right, Lanbrown. The current G5s already have trouble keeping their high-speed system buses saturated with data. Newer, faster G5s, including those in the future PowerBook G5, will only make the bandwith problem worse. This is the exact opposite situation than that the G4s had, i.e. a system bus that couldn't keep up with main memory and all the other components. Now, the memory and everything else are too slow for the system bus!
 
Originally posted by iggyb
Fine. To imply that marketshare is not as important as many people think is overlooking the importance of software developers measuring cost to products sold.

That work for you?
Click to expand...

Even if their market share doesn't increase, they still grow. If Apple has a 3% share and the whole industry sold one million systems, Apple would sell 30,000. If the industry sells 10 million and Apple still has 3%, that is 300,000. Their market share has stayed pretty much the same, but they are selling more and more systems every year. There are companies that see their market share slip a little each year, but yet their sales are higher year over year.
 
The Trouble is....
Click to expand...

Well I agree. PalmSource is making a huge mistake....and to correct someone Palm made Apple support NOT PalmOne, PalmOne is ONLY the hardware design & manufacturing arm of the split company, managed independantly. PalmOne can still license conduits for its products but it doesn't code them itself.

How can Apple change recent software & hardware companies from limiting or reducing their support? Well by teaming with IBM, and designing new hardware & software as they've done thus far. The ball is in OUR court now. Use your hard earned cash to buy new 3 Ghz PowerMac G5s. If too expensive then be satisfied with Dual 1.8/2.0 GHz machines, and buy that kid of yours or the one down the block, you know the bright one that isn't well off one. Increase Apples sales. Invite those weenies at work/shcool whom think Macs suck to see your Mac in action for 1 hour.

Lets not get too ahead of ourselves with PowerBook G5 hopes just yet. These new chips, as impressive as they are, were designed for reduction in power consumption and heat. I'm the amount of fans in the Xserve I'm betting that the former was more a priority. unless Apple already has a prototype design waiting for a motherboard according to that design needs then I don't expect PowerBook G5's until after October 2004.


Good job IBM, great show!

Motorola your days are numbered. Get out by sundown.
 
Originally posted by spencecb
You don't see people freaking out all the time that Mercedes-Benz only holds 3% of the market...its because they know a few people will always buy their cars...same holds true for Apple: they are the cream of the crop in the computer industry...a mix of outstanding software, a killer OS, awesomely designed computers and loyal users.
Click to expand...

Yep. The car analogy, not just old... very lame. What if GM (or more like Fiat) owned the other 97% of the market and most consumers (car buyers) thought that was the only game in town. THEN imagine, and follow me on this, that GM was going to develop it's own highways, and it's own car developments that would be considered "standards." To top that off GM advertised the heck out of their crappy cars ad nauseum so that's all people saw. And GM went to companies and schools and agressively had vaguely illegal contracts binding those places to using their crappy cars agressively. Then GM pays off all the antitrust DOJ judges, it basically can do whatever it wants in the auto industry without repercussions.

Get over the whole "Apple is BMW" or Merecedes or whatever analogy, it's not optimistic, it's dangerous. The car market has many car makers and works on a completely different economic scale, supply and demand scale, and technology scale... there is no comparison between the two.

Apple needs to have market share, needs to expand market share, need competitive pricing, needs to (hello Jobs HELLO?!?!) MARKET themselves (more) aggressively, needs to court more and more developers and be viable, and needs to stay ahead, well ahead, of the (sucky) competition. It's not enough to be a slowly dwindling segment and cling to some arcane silly "we're this or that German car company of computers." Naiveness will lead us to a bleak windoze world, realizing what we have to do will get us to the computer promise land. Amen.
 
Originally posted by wrldwzrd89
Yes, I do realize this. However, what Intel completely failed to do with their manufacturing process revision was reduce their ridiculously high power usage figures for the Pentium 4 (the Itanium is even worse). Do you bring up the fact that the Pentium 4 was slower initially than the Pentium III to illustrate that this is to be expected from Intel? If so, all the better for IBM/Apple!
Click to expand...

The new 970 is not a new chip compared to the Pentium 4 to the Pentium III. Intel could have reduced the power requirements, but they kept it pretty much the same as its predecessor. Every processor has its strengths and weaknesses. The Pentium 4 needed more clock speed to start surpassing the Pentium III in integer tasks. The longer pipeline was to blame for that. The UltraSPARC III could beat the Pentium 4 at fp at half the clock rate. What makes you think the successor to the 970 won't be a little slower per clock cycle?
 
Originally posted by Lanbrown
Even if their market share doesn't increase, they still grow. If Apple has a 3% share and the whole industry sold one million systems, Apple would sell 30,000. If the industry sells 10 million and Apple still has 3%, that is 300,000. Their market share has stayed pretty much the same, but they are selling more and more systems every year. There are companies that see their market share slip a little each year, but yet their sales are higher year over year.
Click to expand...

A very good point. And the total number will speak more to companies than marketshare does. However, as unfortunate as it is, dwindling marketshare scares some developers off because they take it as a sign of a dying platform.
 
Originally posted by Lanbrown
The new 970 is not a new chip compared to the Pentium 4 to the Pentium III. Intel could have reduced the power requirements, but they kept it pretty much the same as its predecessor. Every processor has its strengths and weaknesses. The Pentium 4 needed more clock speed to start surpassing the Pentium III in integer tasks. The longer pipeline was to blame for that. The UltraSPARC III could beat the Pentium 4 at fp at half the clock rate. What makes you think the successor to the 970 won't be a little slower per clock cycle?
Click to expand...

The PowerPC 970FX could very well be slower per clock cycle than the PowerPC 970; I don't have a good sense of this and I guess I didn't get this across very well in my previous post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back