powermac666 said:
No, MacMini will be first. This is about the home entertainment box that intel longs to be part of. see: http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2005Jul/gee20050708031277.htm
They made an offer to Jobs that he couldn't refuse.
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
No, MacMini will be first. This is about the home entertainment box that intel longs to be part of. see: http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2005Jul/gee20050708031277.htm
They made an offer to Jobs that he couldn't refuse.
~loserman~ said:
While I agree with you on the initial 10 million order, that will mainly be to supply the massive Mountain Dew/Xbox360 promotion. The Xbox360 won't be generating many of its own sales out-the-door because so many of the gamers are waiting for the PS3 to hit the market. Thus IBM betting the farm on Microsoft is a sure fire way to losses. And given that Microsoft tried to get Nvidia to cut their agreed-upon prices for the original Xbox chipsets, that would be another reason for IBM not to bank on Microsoft.
Furthermore, if it weren't for designing and manufacturing PPC chips for Apple, IBM wouldn't have had the tech to make PPC chips for Microsoft or Nintendo, or the Cell chip for Sony. So the question is, what will IBM follow up with after these new chips are obsolete and the PS4 is in its intro development stage?
poundsmack said:good, now apple can give up this Intel nonsense
The Apple switch to Intel is reality. Something that has been on Steve's mind for years. We will probably see the first product demonstrations at MacWorld SF.
The PPC 970MP if reality will help Apple span the time until the switch to Intel is complete. They still needs sales to stay in business.
Tastannin said:
Not to be a nit or anything, but do you honestly believe corperations as large as Apple and IBM bicker with one another like children? I only raise this point because I see variations of this statement resurface again and again and again. Apple is on the same page as IBM...they're contractually obligated. There is no animosity between the two. IBM could give a hoot one way or the other about Apple when it comes down to it. Their feelings aren't hurt by the Apple transition (I feel silly even associating emotion with IBM). I'm very sure they knew about it quite some time ago. Keep in mind, Apple is only buying a few hundred thousand processors a pop from IBM...that's a drop in the bucket.
On another note, what do you guys think in regards to performance when comparing the top of the range G4 PBook (current) and these new IBM chips...or the new G4's for that matter? I ask because at the moment I am about to seal a deal on one of the 17 1.67's. Im getting a great price, about 1000 off. I'd hate to fork over the cash and see a dramatic update relativly soon after...
$MacUser$ said:
Ha ha, you've not watched Apple with Steve Jobs at the helm at all. Who remembers the ATI leak? There's plenty of stories about Jobs and his ego. Also check this out - IBM knew NOTHING of the Intel announcement until 3pm on the Friday before WWDC! LOL. Only if Corporations were nice and civilized, the world would be a far better place.
Well, well. You're getting a good deal on a 17 incher. Go for it. Waiting won't get you a quantum leap in performance, and you'll pay at least $1000 more for the new system. Take this deal and you'll be in business. It's not going to be 'dramatic' when they revise the system. Dramatic will be when they finally go Intel.
$MacUser$ said:
with IBM it's probably more to do with marketing, not wanting egg all over their brand face with the comments that are flying around lately.
Someone up-top told the engineers to pull one out of the bag to save face on the back of the comments about their last statement
I mean, lets face it, if IBM says 'we won't make better chips for Apple on the money they pay us', what are chip buyers supposed to think - IBM can't be bothered? they're too expensive in the long run? or they just plain can't make better chips?!
Lynxpro said:
Were you being serious? IBM not having the tech to develop a stripped down POWER 4 CPU? (Which is all Apple ever got out of them)
Have you not seen the Power5 it blows away everything INTEL sells or will sell even 2 years from now.
Have you not seen the Power 6 specs? The Power 6 will be out by the time Apples have Intel inside.
Where will IBM be after the current chips become obsolete?
Hmmm...
For many years IBM has designed and manufactured the fastest systems in the World and will continue to be the market leader. Take a look at BlueGene. Then take a look at Blue Planet. These use Power derived CPUs too.
IBM has Chip tech out the wazzoo.
IBM as a company has earnings over 20 times Apples earnings(with half of Apple's earnings coming from an IPod). Does any one here really believe that Apple switching to Intel is any more than a scratch to the IBM juggernaught. Sure IBM would like them to remain as a customer but face it Apple doesn't buy even 1 million CPU's from IBM a year. It really isn't that big of a contract. They don't even buy enough CPUs to pay for the cost of developing the FAB. Heck Apple still buys more CPUs from Motorola/Freescale than they do from IBM.
Contrast this to Dell buying from Intel... Dell buys 20 million CPU's a year from INTEL.
Which brings up another point.....
I keep seeing on these boards comments like" Apple has special inside info about CPU's that people don't know about" and " Mactels will be better than (insert favorite PC vendor here) because Apple will be getting better CPUs from Intel"
Both are malarky.
Unlike Apple.... Companies like Intel are NOT very secretive about product roadmaps.
Generally Intel posts CPU roadmaps that extend up to 18 months as public information. Under NDA they give roadmaps out to between 18 months and 2 years.
Believe this Dell, HP and all other PC vendors have the same info as Apple and possibly even better info.
970MP&FX
Imagine this:
iMacs: single 970MP (2 Cores) in the sub 2 GHz
PowerMacs: dual 970MP (4 Cores) 2.0-2.5 GHz
Mac Mini, iBooks and 12/15" PowerBooks: 970FX, 1.2-1.6 GHz
PowerBooks 17": 970MP (2 Cores, since one can be turned off, 1 Core when on battery, then 2 Cores when plugged) @ 1.8 or maybe even 2.0 GHz.
That would be sweet! If all PowerMacs could also get 1 GB RAM standard, some kind of a Video Card price drop and perhaps even PCIe (dare I say SLI?)... *drool*
Now I'm just dreaming...
Imagine this:
iMacs: single 970MP (2 Cores) in the sub 2 GHz
PowerMacs: dual 970MP (4 Cores) 2.0-2.5 GHz
Mac Mini, iBooks and 12/15" PowerBooks: 970FX, 1.2-1.6 GHz
PowerBooks 17": 970MP (2 Cores, since one can be turned off, 1 Core when on battery, then 2 Cores when plugged) @ 1.8 or maybe even 2.0 GHz.
That would be sweet! If all PowerMacs could also get 1 GB RAM standard, some kind of a Video Card price drop and perhaps even PCIe (dare I say SLI?)... *drool*
Now I'm just dreaming...
~loserman~ said:
Unfortunately, I think I will have to agree with you on this... IBM never really cared much for Apple, they are simply another small customer ordering a bunch of processors. If Apple Laptops were G5s, maybe it would have helped the IBM-Apple relationship...
In any event, IBM was not able to supply the d@mned CPUs when Apple needed them the most (rising demand thanks to iPods' branding effect). Steve got pissed. Now look were we're going: sleek towers and laptops with a friggin' Intel Inside sticker. I still remember the time when we used to trash Intel using the Megahertz Myth and bits and scratches of other info from all over the net, now we're struggling to convince our PC friends it's for the best because intel processors rock (some even go as far as to believe Intel will develop "special" ultra-powerful CPUs just for Apple)...
On a brighter note, I trust Apple. In the likely event we do get the same "crap" processors than Dell, we'll get lower prices, and good ol' Steve will find something to compensate; I don't know what, could be a Multi-Processing Module that would allow 16 CPUs to compute symmetrically in a PowerMac, could be a new Mac OS X, say 11.0 that would beat the crap out of those Pentiums to achieve optimal performance, I really don't know...
All I know is this: we're going Intel, let's move on and pray for the best (I'm not a religious man... I just wish there was a God right now)!
Shouldn't just be a dream
If these new chips are to be real competitors to windows hardware wise, I would think that we would have to read the bottom line on that slide in the presentation "Watch for continued enhancements".
By January A 970MP 2GHz iMac with a PCIe nvidia6800/6600GT or X700upwards would be scraping adequate.
I suppose they could overclock the low power offerings in the Macmini. ibook could do with the low power G5.
However that leaves Powerbook a bit out at the moment - those low power 970fxs would have to clock faster, or they would have to squeeze in a 970mp to be a POWERbook. Presumably they could overclock the 970MPs in the water cooled Powermacs...
Lord Kythe said:Imagine this:
iMacs: single 970MP (2 Cores) in the sub 2 GHz
PowerMacs: dual 970MP (4 Cores) 2.0-2.5 GHz
Mac Mini, iBooks and 12/15" PowerBooks: 970FX, 1.2-1.6 GHz
PowerBooks 17": 970MP (2 Cores, since one can be turned off, 1 Core when on battery, then 2 Cores when plugged) @ 1.8 or maybe even 2.0 GHz.
That would be sweet! If all PowerMacs could also get 1 GB RAM standard, some kind of a Video Card price drop and perhaps even PCIe (dare I say SLI?)... *drool*
Now I'm just dreaming...
If these new chips are to be real competitors to windows hardware wise, I would think that we would have to read the bottom line on that slide in the presentation "Watch for continued enhancements".
By January A 970MP 2GHz iMac with a PCIe nvidia6800/6600GT or X700upwards would be scraping adequate.
I suppose they could overclock the low power offerings in the Macmini. ibook could do with the low power G5.
However that leaves Powerbook a bit out at the moment - those low power 970fxs would have to clock faster, or they would have to squeeze in a 970mp to be a POWERbook. Presumably they could overclock the 970MPs in the water cooled Powermacs...
sacear said:
If this is truly a new high end chip, I have no doubt it will be included in the xServes eventually. The PowerMacs will probably still receive them first.
Multimedia said:I have found that after adopting the EyeTV 500 digital broadcast HD recorder that I need all the power I can get to compress these huge 7GB per hour digital video files in a reasonable amount of time. Thus I now see the need for 4x the power of my new dual 2.5 GHz G5 like YESTERDAY. Anyone else reach the upper limit need like I have? The idea that a dual 2.5 or 2.7 GHz processor G5 is powerful is no longer true for me at all. In fact it seems pretty weak in the face of trying to compress video files from 7 to 1 GB.
I would love two or four of those dual core processors in one G5 PowerMac asap.
The upgrade cost of the additional CPU requirements and the price of the slave EyeTV 500 together make me think that buying an HDTivo (which will work on OTA, not just DirecTV) or some other hackable HD PVR would probably be cheaper.
sacear said:
I think they should use the FX, at least. Lower power consumption is always better, especially when you've got a rackful. Especially if the FX is a pin-compatible replacement, and just needs a bios update for current machines
Even if the current machines are all surface-mount, pin-compatibility means Apple wouldn't need to change the design for future iterations, right?We knew these chips were coming, and if the rumours are true IBM didn't know Apple was moving to Intel till 5 weeks ago... so I have my doubts that IBM has cooked up these new chips!Mass Hysteria said:
sacear said:
I wonder if we'll see the Power 5 or 6 in Apple's Xserve? It would certainly be a way of keeping a performance edge and customer interest in top-of-the-line servers while consumer machines move to Intel.~loserman~ said:
This is where a custom compression chip comes in handy, can't some video cards be used as a co-processor for this kinda thing in the Intel world? The Pentium-M family doesn't do well in video compression speed either.Multimedia said:
The Purpose of the New Chips
can be deduced on the presumption that the laptops will be first to get the new Intel chips:
The 970MP is for the PowerMacs/[XServes] - Dual chip Dual core
and is for the iMacs - Single chip Dual core
[Edit: It is possible Apple will only use a dual-dual configuration for the XServe and just distinguish the PMacs from the iMacs in speed, but I doubt this.]
The 970FX is for the MacMini - 1.4 and 1.6 GHz - they need to be cool to stay in that little enclosure. To put the 970s in the laptops would require a redesign, a prospect which seems highly unlikely unless SJ was fibbing about the transition to Intel because this will also require a redesign to the motherboard. I can't see Apple doing two different designs in 12 months to accommodate two different chips in the same product.
BTW, sorry if this was already stated, but I don't have time (on my dial-up) to read all 13 pp. at this point.
can be deduced on the presumption that the laptops will be first to get the new Intel chips:
The 970MP is for the PowerMacs/[XServes] - Dual chip Dual core
and is for the iMacs - Single chip Dual core
[Edit: It is possible Apple will only use a dual-dual configuration for the XServe and just distinguish the PMacs from the iMacs in speed, but I doubt this.]
The 970FX is for the MacMini - 1.4 and 1.6 GHz - they need to be cool to stay in that little enclosure. To put the 970s in the laptops would require a redesign, a prospect which seems highly unlikely unless SJ was fibbing about the transition to Intel because this will also require a redesign to the motherboard. I can't see Apple doing two different designs in 12 months to accommodate two different chips in the same product.
BTW, sorry if this was already stated, but I don't have time (on my dial-up) to read all 13 pp. at this point.