IBM Announces the PowerPC 970MP

[Tastannin]

here is why Apple won't put the FX in PowerBooks.

it's VERY simple. it's all about the performance and the power. Freescale beats these "low power" G5s in BOTH areas simultaneously.

at 1.5Ghz, the 7448 uses 15 watts. it also has 1MB of L2 cache and a 200Mhz FSB. Apple would not only use more power, but they'd get weaker performance with a "low power" G5. 16 watts at 1.6Ghz. the 7448 goes up to 1.8Ghz, btw.

G4s aren't going anywhere yet.

PLUS, they won't go BACK DOWN to a 32-bit CPU from a G5. once a line goes 64-bit, they are not going to be stupid enough to go back to 32-bit. marketing and PR would slaughter them.

This is just too little too late.

the PowerMacs ought to enjoy being quad-processor though

People have been chomping at the bit for a G5-based Powerbook from Apple. I think that even if the G4 'books performed better than G5 'books, people would still buy the G5 'book like crazy especially after this long wait. It's the perception that G4 is "old tech" and G5 is the new thing on the block. Also, it has a lot to do with the bus. Wouldn't a 1.6 mobile G5 have at least, a 533 mhz bus, and at most, a 800 mhz bus? That is much more desirable to me than a 200 mhz bus. Heck, even a 1.2 mobile G5 would have a 400 mhz bus at minimum, and a 600 mhz bus at max. When you push data, you want a good fat bus - especially when you want to do video on the road.

I know I'd have sold my left kidney for a G5 Powerbook back then, and heck, I might still do it anyways!

 

[tex210]

low end first...

I tend to believe the low end first thing...
The first quote I can find on it is the cnet story that let the cat out of the bag. In fact, It's the first paragraph... which should mean something to journalists... at least it used to.
"Apple has used IBM's PowerPC processors since 1994, but will begin a phased transition to Intel's chips, sources familiar with the situation said. Apple plans to move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007, sources said. "
http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM,+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html

When they published this, it was one of the reasons everyone thought it was fake...
"There's no way Apple will make people develop on a mac mini!" ... was written in many posts.
I never thought Steve said it, but I do believe it to be the real plan of action.

 

[Lynxpro]

This would make Apple 100% architecture-independent (IBM, Motorola/Freescale, intel, AMD, VIA). Yes, I said VIA (could be good enough for a low-cost version, long battery life, sub-notebook iBook).

That would give OS X yet another leg-up against the Windows monolith.

I really wish Apple would release a Mac alternative to the Windows Media PC platform. Since the machine would essentially be a living room alternative to a PVR and other devices, Apple could get away with releasing it now with an Intel based processor just to begin the transition and iron out the kinks. Yes, the Mac Mini can be made into a pseudo-media PC, but the G4 is not powerful enough to encode/decode HD content and HD is where Apple would want to shine and beat the Windows Media PC platform. Give the machine a slot for Cable Card 1.0 for today, and offer an external Firewire solution for Cable Card 2.0 (whenever it is finalized) and again, Apple would beat out the Windows Media PC platform.

Of course, Steve doesn't seem to believe that such a market exists. Then again, he said a lot of things about flash-based MP3 players before the Shuffle debuted.

 

[jrv3034]

Which brings up an interesting point. I do not want stickers on my PowerBook. I see PC notebooks with all sorts of stickers on them like "Intel Inside" etc. Ugly! Apple, please, give me a sexy smooth black 970MP PowerBook like my Pismo.

Couldn't one just peel off the stickers? I might be completely wrong here, as I've never owned a PC laptop.

On topic: New processors from IBM is a GOOD THING. I actually think they'll do a PowerBook G5 before the Intel switch. Most people don't know/care about the Intel switch anyway (except us geeks here) so average Joe walks into CompUSA and sees "ALL NEW POWERBOOK G5 64-BIT WIDESCREEN" and plunks down $3200. Why wouldn't Apple release one if they could?

 

[Spazmodius]

If Jobs' speed/watt rationalization isn't based on some truly spectacular and credible "forward-thinking" Intel claims, in light of these specs, it's very difficult to see why anyone should accept the content of his Keynote address as anything but an egregious effort at maximum spin.

 

[Lynxpro]

It's not the first time IBM has announced a chip before it appeared in Apple computers, the current G4's used in the powerbooks was announced by Motorola shortly before the Freescale spinoff, and had everyone scratching their heads about the lack of L3 Cache support, and wondering about the fact that the clockspeed of the announced chips was lower than the current G4 lineup (until someone brought up the fact that Apple usually recieved a version that was clocked higher or they over clocked themselves).

I think its high time that IBM spun off its chip division so that a more interested party could buy the company and seriously give a push to the PPC architecture as well as the Cell chips. Maybe the division would do better under the leadership of Sony or some other company. I mentioned Sony since its probably improbable (due to antitrust issues in the US and the EU) that Intel could buy the company.

And the PPC chip business is not the first time IBM's semiconductor division has screwed up. IBM screwed over Atari with the Jaguar (they were one of the chip suppliers and actually had the contract to build the machine prior to Flextronics picking up the slack - Flextronics currently makes the Xbox for Microsoft). Definitely something for Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo to consider since they are all now dependent upon IBM for their next-gen console chipsets.

 

[nagromme]

Steve said the first Intel Macs would be out by WWDC 2006, and the transition would be almost complete by WWDC 2007. He also said the low end machines would be first to transition, so presumably no Intel PowerMac until June 2007 or later.

"Almost complete" may well just mean that Xserves will lag into 2007. I expect all other Macs to go Intel by early 2007. MAYBE by end of 2006. The Mac Mini is likely to transition early, and so are laptops--but that could start as early as the end of this year (early next more likely) since Steve said Intel Macs would ALREADY be in the marketplace BY WWDC 06. There's no reason some Macs can't transition in early 06, and others in late 06. I really don't think Intel PowerMacs will have to wait for Summer 07.

Take a look to all...... in tiger one of the features is the 64bit processors (look at apple.com/tiger), powerbooks by intel wont be out till at least june '07, for the first time PC notebooks are getting ahead apple, etc.....

Pentium M laptops are already ahead of PowerBooks in speed, and do it with good power efficiency. 64-bit dual-core laptop chips (Merom) are expected from Intel late next year, and at that time PowerBooks will probably go 64-bit. But there's no reason Apple can't go Intel before then--and I expect they will, with the dual-core Yonah, due late this year. (So Yonah PowerBooks early next year are likely.)

Just because Tiger has new 64-bit functionality doesn't make 64-bit more important than all other concerns. In fact, for now, 64-bit computing is useful only rarely. Tiger supports lots of things--DVD burning, Firewire 800, WiFi--but that doesn't mean every Mac--or even every pro Mac--has to have all of them.

If Intel can give us dual-core PowerBooks that use a fraction of the power of a G5, I can't imagine Apple choosing the G5.

(FYI, Intel's roadmap: http://freespace.virgin.net/m.warner/Roadmap2006.htm )

 

[andiwm2003]

People have been chomping at the bit for a G5-based Powerbook from Apple. I think that even if the G4 'books performed better than G5 'books, people would still buy the G5 'book like crazy especially after this long wait. It's the perception that G4 is "old tech" and G5 is the new thing on the block. Also, it has a lot to do with the bus. Wouldn't a 1.6 mobile G5 have at least, a 533 mhz bus, and at most, a 800 mhz bus? That is much more desirable to me than a 200 mhz bus. Heck, even a 1.2 mobile G5 would have a 400 mhz bus at minimum, and a 600 mhz bus at max. When you push data, you want a good fat bus - especially when you want to do video on the road.

I know I'd have sold my left kidney for a G5 Powerbook back then, and heck, I might still do it anyways!

do the low power g5's have altivec? i don't mind having a G4 and the FSB doesn't matter to most people unless they do video. i can't imagine that apple goes down in GHz either. so my guess: no G5 PB with 1.4 GHz G5.

does anybody know how expensive those chips are? they may be an option for a mac mini.

regarding the dual cores: they are not faster then a dual G5. so apple can't bring them in 6 month as the new powermac. "it's slow, but it's dual core" doesn't sound good. i hope they get the dual cores in the iMacs. but thats a price point issue. will a dual core G5 2.0 GHz be cheap enough for an iMac?

seeing that PPC roadmap i can see why apple makes the switch. too little too late.


BTW: i hope you didn't already sell your right kidney........

 

[caccamolle]

well, I wonder if IBM would keep apple of it's selling list, just to spite them. Make them suffer for going to Intel? I know it probably wouldn't happen, because IBM can still make money off of Apple in the mean time, but just a thought.

But, way to go IBM... I also like the fact that each core has double the current cache. That will really help things out.

way to go my sweet behind ! IBM was supposed to deliver 3ghz g5 last summer. Way to go Apple for saying enough is enough and FINALLY switching to Intel.

 

[link92]

Intel iBook and Mac Mini at Expo?

 

[macSwitch]

Well, so what...a dual core 2.5...Sounds to me a lot like a dual proc 2.7. So whats the big deal? They won't be much more powerful and still not as fast as intel says theirs are. you can't put a dual core in a powerbook yet so who cares. IBM sucks. Doesn't sound like that great of news, thats why Apple left IBM!

 

[Tastannin]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple put a G5 in the current portable enclosure. Apple has done something like this before - when the G3 first came out, they modified the Powerbook 3400c to accommodate a G3 until they could do a proper redesign. I had one of those Kanga G3 machines, and they were nice for only about _five_ months when the WallStreets hit the market with the sharks ! LOL.

I don't see why Apple couldn't do the same - throw the G5 in the PB until the intel transition is ready.

 

[pgwalsh]

Apple Developers Conference 2006

"because of strong customer demand and the amazing success of universal binaries, we have decided to support both Intel and IBM in our products indefinately. As we stated before, we want to continue to offer our customers the very best products, and both Intel and IBMs chip roadmaps are strong."

Ultimately, I don't see why they couldn't continue to use both chips. They have to support both platforms for some years to come, so why not just continue to do so?

I agree with you. With Apple pushing Xcode and expressing how easy it is to port to both platforms and pushing for universal binaries. Maybe Apple realized it would be a failure to say that we're going to "include" x86. They knew they needed people on Xcode to realize the dream of fully supportin both platforms. By pushing universal binaries and emphasizing that Xcode is way to go and that Code Warrior isn't, it seems that they are trying to get everyone on board and then announce support for both platforms.

I don't think they would get as many developers onboard if they said they were going to include x86 support. Developers might say, "forget x86 support" so they had to emphasize the switch. Perhaps they're not showing us their full hand yet. I think they realized that it would suck big time if they had some developers supporting PPC and other x86.

 

[caccamolle]

too little to late?

Indeed.

ah, at least some here, though very few, get it right. But that's no surprise.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Apple New this

I think Mr. Jobs new about this, as in the WWDC 06 keynote he stressed more than once that there are still some good G5 processors in the pipe. However over long-term is the major concern.

IBM 970MP will go into the PowerMac G5 lineup once a deal is struck; heck I'll be happy with a cheap Dual 1.8Ghz. Now as for Dual Dual 970MP; I think that'll be reserved for Xserve's lineup - if its cool enough at full song.

Major company's & institutions that previously purchased G5 PowerMacs will be looking for a MP core iteration before sinking their wallet in Intel core's because of AltiVec & also for Steve's mention of Mac OS X Singing on Intel, then he corrects himself when mentioning OS X's performance and was about to say "singing" and doesn't. hehe. That'll take some time.

Its smarter for Apple to update the consumer lineup with Intel chips, cheaper costs, and doesnt russel the feathers of the G5 hardcore faithful.

 

[NNO-Stephen]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple put a G5 in the current portable enclosure. Apple has done something like this before - when the G3 first came out, they modified the Powerbook 3400c to accommodate a G3 until they could do a proper redesign. I had one of those Kanga G3 machines, and they were nice for only about _five_ months when the WallStreets hit the market with the sharks ! LOL.

I don't see why Apple couldn't do the same - throw the G5 in the PB until the intel transition is ready.

you don't see why?

power is one thing, heat is another. an iMac G5 is one thing, it's twice as thick as a powerbook and considerably larger in both length and width.

the PowerBook G5 would be slower than what we actually have NOW. why the **** would you want that? I swear to god some of you are the idiots that a lot of us are talking about who just care about what it says on the box, performance be damned.

 

[wizard]

Is there any mention of actual availability? This may be just something from IBM to tick Apple off. Also, Apple might be "just finding out" about this announcement as well (like they did to IBM about the Intel switch). I bet products based on these new chips will be at least three months away. Don't get your hopes up.

No if yoiu believe that Apple just found out about these I know of a bridge that is for sale

The reality is simple, the products described suck! That is why Apple said screw it we are going with Intel. Take a close look at the specs they are terrible for a processor that would be going on line towards 2006.

If Apple knew about these chips - and they were ready to go in shipping products VERY SOON, why would they have made the big Intel announcement? Either Intel has something really really big up their roadmap, or Steve Jobs fell under Paul Otellini's reality distortion field.

See above the product is pathetic! Applle would be better off to stick with Freescale.

It just isn't making sense. LOL. I've already decided I'll get one last PPC machine and not worry about being on the bleeding edge of Mactel. It's not the hardware I'm worried about. It's the native Intel software I'm worried about - and the cost to upgrade all my Mac PPC software.

Apple has efective killed themselves as a PC manufacture, you would be far better off switching to Intel now on a different OS.

Thanks
Dave

 

[Booga]

Watts: Typical vs. Maximum

970MP @ 1.4-2.5GHz
+
970FX @ 1.4GHz, 13W

= 970MP @ 1.4GHz, 26W (15" PBG5)
or
= 970MP @ 1.6GHz, 32W (17" PBG5)

The TDP of Intel's Dothan processor is 27W.

Apple are clearly moving to Intel for long-term roadmap reasons.

And this really messes up my purchasing plans, argh!

IBM uses "typical" power consumption. Intel uses "maximum" power consumption. It's unclear how, exactly, they compare. The current 2.13GHz Pentium M is 27W maximum, but who knows how much "typical". (If I were to make a wild-ass guess, I'd say cut max in half to get typical for a laptop chip.)

In short, the current Pentium M is more than competitive with this chip per Watt, especially if you consider chipset considerations.

 

[wizard]

The specs are terrible, it does look like Steve had no choice in the matter. Please look and digest the data again.

Dave

If Jobs' speed/watt rationalization isn't based on some truly spectacular and credible "forward-thinking" Intel claims, in light of these specs, it's very difficult to see why anyone should accept the content of his Keynote address as anything but an egregious effort at maximum spin.

 

[sw1tcher]

Would you do me the honour of copying and pasting? Here's a transcript.

I don't see anything there about the low end Macs getting the Intel proc first. All I see is this:

"Now this is not going to be a transition that happens overnight, it's going to happen over a period of a few years. Again, we've got great products right now and we've got some great PowerPC products in the pipeline yet to be introduced. But starting next year we will begin introducing Macs with Intel processors in them and over time these transitions will again occur. So when we meet here again this next time next year, our plan is to be shipping Macs with Intel processors by then, and when we meet here again two years from now, our plan is that transition will be mostly complete. And we think it will be complete by the end of 2007. So this is a two-year transition."

 

[apollo8fan]

If Jobs' speed/watt rationalization isn't based on some truly spectacular and credible "forward-thinking" Intel claims, in light of these specs, it's very difficult to see why anyone should accept the content of his Keynote address as anything but an egregious effort at maximum spin.

Well put!!

As I put in one of my posts earlier, the top-of-the-line Pentium M consumes quite a bit more power than the top-end 970FX.

"...egregious effort at maximum spin." Great word usage!

 

[nightdweller25]

you don't see why?

power is one thing, heat is another. an iMac G5 is one thing, it's twice as thick as a powerbook and considerably larger in both length and width.

the PowerBook G5 would be slower than what we actually have NOW. why the **** would you want that? I swear to god some of you are the idiots that a lot of us are talking about who just care about what it says on the box, performance be damned.

Whoa there fiesty, if your going to respond to people like that maybe you should just leave cause we don't want people like you messing up these forums.

 

[g0gie]

jus for kicks, can someone who knows, post the current watt rating of the current G4's and G5's? also note if they are "typical" or "max"

 

[ninja86]

I would love any of those chips in any new Macs. However, I don't think the announcement was aimed towards Mac fans.

The 970MP is definitely going in the XBOX 360.

The 970FX is more-than-likely going in the Nintendo Revolution.

Think about it. It fits.

 

[wizard]

You may very well be right, though I have to think that TI might be a better choice.

I'm totally shocked to see people posting on this board in a positive manner with respect to this hardware. It is far to little far to late! I'm not sure where IBM the corporation will go with the semiconductor business now. This pretty much seals thier fate as in industry, they will have a very hard time drumming up custom work after this fiasco.

I mean what would you (any of us) think as a prospective CPU purchaser if IBM came out with a late CPU that could not compete with stiff being sold by Freescale - yes Freescale. I would imagine that more people than just Steve, at Apple, where puking their guts out when they got samples of these chips.

Further who is IBM going to sell these chips to after Apple leaves the party in two years? All IBM did today was to announce a dead product, they must really feel proud of themselves now.

Dave

I think its high time that IBM spun off its chip division so that a more interested party could buy the company and seriously give a push to the PPC architecture as well as the Cell chips. Maybe the division would do better under the leadership of Sony or some other company. I mentioned Sony since its probably improbable (due to antitrust issues in the US and the EU) that Intel could buy the company.

And the PPC chip business is not the first time IBM's semiconductor division has screwed up. IBM screwed over Atari with the Jaguar (they were one of the chip suppliers and actually had the contract to build the machine prior to Flextronics picking up the slack - Flextronics currently makes the Xbox for Microsoft). Definitely something for Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo to consider since they are all now dependent upon IBM for their next-gen console chipsets.