Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
IBM Announces the PowerPC 970MP
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That depends somewhat on the binary. If it's a "real" Mac program and uses Apple's recommended bundling scheme, then yes, building for two architectures is going to have a small impact on size. Other software, say, command-line Unix programs, won't necessarily be so lucky (but since these don't carry all the GUI bloat, they tend to be much smaller anyway).eXan said:
Disks are so much larger now than they used to be that few need to care about it, though.
Compile time can add up, especially during writing and debugging, and there's little point in waiting for two compiles to run if you know you'll only need one of them. That will end up being the case for lots of in-house work.
I'd expect gaming companies to be all over x86-only binaries. that doesn't necessarily mean that the amount of PPC software will suddenly go down, there are people who see a market in porting to PPC today and they'll still see that market in two years. It does, however, mean that the amount of available entertainment software could expand, and the expansion may only happen on the x86 side.
apollo8fan said:
Actual real world numbers are considerably lower for Intel than the numbers quoted above. I have an app that will measure battery drainage.
Running on my inspiron 600m, a 1.6 Pentium M, 14" LCD turned all the way down (trying to take it out as much as possible), wireless running, mostly idling (just playing itunes) is pulling 11.5-13 watts for the entire system. If I kick off a render (CPU slammed) it jumps to 17 - 19 watts for the entire system. It will jump up to 24 watts total if the harddrive is working hard too.
I just let the lcd go to sleep and then looked at the numbers right after it woke up. CPU going full tilt was only 15 watts. Did it again and mostly idle was about 10.5 watts without lcd.
Those numbers are for the total system, cpu, video, wireless, audio, fan, etc. and are signficantly less than 24.5 watts.
~loserman~ said:
Remember, IBM IS NOT! the fab for microsofts chips. They designed it for microsoft, however, they are not making them.
Microsoft owns the design, and shopped it to the lowest bidder. And will do so again over the life of the console. THIS was the main reason for going with a powerpc. Intel would not let microsoft own the design or outsource the actual chip production. End of Story.
7on said:I hate to say it, but universal binaries aren't the end all solution. Forgetting games? So inorder to support both PPC and Intel for a longer term, Apple would need a Bizzaro Rosetta
As so often stated by a few of us, Rosetta and Universal Binaries have nothing to do with eachother!!!!!! (How often does that have to be repeated).
Rosetta is to run PPC code on Intel. Universal Binaries run native, yes native, on Intel and PPC. So, if you take Doom3 and they will create a Universal Binary, it is a native Intel app. If you run the current compile, you will run it under Rosetta, and it may or may not work (if they use direct PPC addressing and/or Alti-Vec). But don't think that Universal Binaries need Rosetta, it doesn't!
it depends, but basically they'll need to be twice as big
Note that the fat binary will need to contain:
An application might not be twice as big (since data files in the application will probably be common across architectures), but the binaries themselves will usually be.
_______________________
BTW, IMO universal binaries will be a market failure. Technically, they might work perfectly, but developers won't be happy supporting and optimizing for two or three architectures, and the management folks won't want to spend the money for two or three QA teams nor for training support to handle more possibilities for failure.
A couple of years after the transition starts, binaries that support PPC will be as rare as kits for Photoshop CS2 for 68K.
Where does "as far as I know" come from here - have you been building fat binaries? (Notice the old name "fat" - that's a hint.)eXan said:
Note that the fat binary will need to contain:
- two complete code streams - x64 and PPC (maybe 3 - x86, x64 and PPC)
This is unavoidable - the x86, x64 and the PPC streams are incompatible and required. - two or three constant data segments
The native data format differs between Intel and PPC architectures, the constants will have to be saved in native format for performance reasons
An application might not be twice as big (since data files in the application will probably be common across architectures), but the binaries themselves will usually be.
_______________________
BTW, IMO universal binaries will be a market failure. Technically, they might work perfectly, but developers won't be happy supporting and optimizing for two or three architectures, and the management folks won't want to spend the money for two or three QA teams nor for training support to handle more possibilities for failure.
A couple of years after the transition starts, binaries that support PPC will be as rare as kits for Photoshop CS2 for 68K.
Looks like some exciting stuff coming from IBM, but at this point you would be more likely to see an Apple with a Pentium 4 then one of these processors.
My guess is Steve is waiting for Intel to release new technology. If it does not come in the next year to 18 month from Intel, Steve will still use whatever they have because x86 is Apple's focus now. So it is MUCH more likely to get a Pentium 4 then one of these upgraded G5's.
I don't even know why the rumor sites even discuss the PowerPC anymore. Steve said it himself...x86 is a much more modern and very simple processor. PowerPC is old technology that won't clock very fast. The fact is that even a Pentium 4 would beat these dual core G5's.
I still like the G5 and defended it for a long time and got tired of people going off on me around this place, so now I will just agree with them.
My guess is Steve is waiting for Intel to release new technology. If it does not come in the next year to 18 month from Intel, Steve will still use whatever they have because x86 is Apple's focus now. So it is MUCH more likely to get a Pentium 4 then one of these upgraded G5's.
I don't even know why the rumor sites even discuss the PowerPC anymore. Steve said it himself...x86 is a much more modern and very simple processor. PowerPC is old technology that won't clock very fast. The fact is that even a Pentium 4 would beat these dual core G5's.
I still like the G5 and defended it for a long time and got tired of people going off on me around this place, so now I will just agree with them.
Abercrombieboy said:
??? x86 is the old technology here, PowerPC is much more modern. This is just a classic example of, if you put enough frosting (billions of dollars) onto a turd (x86 architecture), eventually it starts to taste like cake (higher performance)
The PowerPC is a much more elegant design if for no other reason (and it's not the only reason
than it was designed many years after x86 was already getting dusty and crusty. IBM just never spent the money on it that Intel has, at least not for the "low end" types of chips used in a desktop PC.
Squire said:
Well, if you like Soft Windows and Virtual PC then you'll love the slow a molasses Rosetta
I am rethinking my G5 in powerbooks approach after reading Slashdot's story on the IBM G5 announcement. Someone on there made the point that Apple hasn't released anything to developers about doing 64 bit Intel stuff, and hasn't even said anything to developers at WWDC. That person says from this info, he deduces that Apple will be using 32 bit Intel chips at first. He goes on to say that it would be foolish of Apple to go 64 bit with a G5 FX in the Powerbook then go back to 32 bit with an Intel chip. I have to agree with him, unless Apple plans to go Intel on the low end and G5 on the high end until suitable Intel 64 bit chips are ready.
We'll see. I'm now of the opinion that we'll see those new G5's in the existing G5 systems, but we won't see a G5 powerbook, maybe if Apple has info from Intel that they will have a suitable 64 bit Pentium M chip ready in the right time frame.
We'll see. I'm now of the opinion that we'll see those new G5's in the existing G5 systems, but we won't see a G5 powerbook, maybe if Apple has info from Intel that they will have a suitable 64 bit Pentium M chip ready in the right time frame.
Squire said:
I also consider myself to be the average Mac user. At least I hope so, because I wouldn't even consider replacing a HD in my Mac. Like to have the best that I can afford.
The PPC 970MP if reality, would be just what Apple needs to boost sales again. They need something between now and the switch.
No, just no.stockscalper said:
I own a copy of Soft Windows, and Rosetta in that demo was infinitely faster than Soft Windows.
let you NEVER speak of Soft Windows again.
oingoboingo said:
Somehow, I think Transgaming would have a much easier and much successful time with their wares on the Mac platform than on Linux. Think about it. They'd only have to support certain portions of the Mac line anyway. That's a whole helluvua lot easier than trying to support Linux with multiple distributions and and endless combination of hardware tacked together.
To all those who are vindictively saying "too little too late", I find this baffling. What do I care about the morality of IBM and who got screwed and who deserves to get screwed back. All I care about is can I get a hoppin fast machine that'll do everything I want for the forseeable future. A quad Powermac would be just the ticket.
I work out my morality plays in my relationships. For hardware, if it works it works.
I work out my morality plays in my relationships. For hardware, if it works it works.
Bregalad said:
Which means to me the true reason Apple is switching totally to Intel is for volume discounting. Otherwise, with the universal binaries, there's no reason why Apple couldn't use Intel Centrino in their laptop line + the Mac Mini and keep the PowerPC G5's for the PowerMac line. This has more to do with $$$ than with the alleged misgivings about the *roadmap.*
Perhaps Apple also doesn't want to ship laptops with reportedly higher clock speeds than the professional PowerMac line too... That would take too much explaining to do for Joe Average to understand. Even 6+ years later, I'm sure that's no easier to do than when I was trying to explain the whole megahertz myth when selling PCs with K62's and Athlons in them to people with Intel branding in their minds.
Hattig said:
Its really sad that IBM can make a quad core 3.2Ghz PPC processor (whether its a G4 or G5, I dunno) for Microsoft's Xbox360 but can only make a dual core 2.5Ghz G5 for Apple. Over the long term, Apple would sell more Macs than Microsoft will sell of the 360.
Even sadder that IBM can crank out a 7 core Cell chip for Sony.
I think IBM is really cutting their microprocessor throat.