IBM Announces the PowerPC 970MP

[dongmin]

Thanks. I wasn't trying to catch you out, but a lot of people have been stating this as fact, so I wanted to find out once and for all if it was just a typical messageboard situation of a piece of speculation being taken as fact.

-Jobs' exact words:

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.

-It was either the WSJ or Cnet that reported that Apple will move the low-end and laptops first to Intel. Apple's primary reason for moving the Intel is to get low-power chips into their laptops and small-form-factor desktops. SO it makes sense that Apple will introduce the Intel chips in the Mac Minis and laptops first.

-Unless, IBM has some higher-clock 970fxs in the works, the announced line of low-power 970fxs will NOT make their way into PowerBooks. PowerBooks are already at 1.67 ghz. Apple will NOT downclock to 1.6 ghz, even if its a G5 chip. Benchmarks have shown that the G5 is not all that much faster than a G4 at the same clock. So unless IBM has some 1.8 ghz and 2.0 ghz low-power chips in the works, I don't see where these babies will go.

 

[min_t]

This is great news. I need a dual core 2ghz g5 imac for x-mas. My dual g4 quicksilver with the turbine engine noise needs to be donated.

 

[Tastannin]

I think some of you have forgotten that Apple doesn't market their products to processor geeks. Remember the G4 fiasco? Apple actually had to slap TWO processors in a machine to make up for Motorola's incompetence. They marketed the hell out of the dual processor setup. Was it good for performance? Not necessarily. (Remember this was when we had Mac OS 9 - not exactly MP-friendly, and pretty much the only programs everybody used that really took advantage of dual processors were Quake 3 and Photoshop.) But people bought machines because they believed Apple's marketing.

If Apple put a G5 in a Powerbook, even if it was (not substantially) slower than a G4, the masses would still go for it because it was a G5! Never mind that it would not be FASTER (in spades) than a G4. For most day-to-day tasks, it'd be just fine, and everyone who has the latest and "greatest" from Apple would be happy. Apple knows this, and has taken advantage of it, and will do so again.

 

[afsammie]

Just Bought Powermac

Yep, after years of waiting and watching, I bought a Powermac last week. I'm a switcher, and I guess this is the rude welcome into being a mac user that I was promised. Borderline hazing.
I'm not bitter, I love my Mac, and I'm glad I finally bought one. it's great, but, well, you know how it is. I know you know.

 

[NNO-Stephen]

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"

spec sheet for the G4s

http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC7448&nodeId=0162468rH3bTdG8653

I believe you have the G5 info already posted.

the 970MP is definitely NOT going in the XBOX 360. the XBOX 360 is using a tripple-core 3.2Ghz (per core) CPU. again, NOT the 970MP.

Nintendo has announced nothing, but I'd lean towards more the MP for it than the FX.

and nightdweller: I missed the part where I'm "messing up" your forums, sir.

 

[gmanrique]

What is that intellimac you are refering to?

Stop the non-sense. Apple makes "Macintosh" computers.

Personally, I am convinced that there will be one more PowerBook release before the intellimac version arrives.

1st - Steve said the low-end mac line would be the first intel-macs to debut prior to WWDC 2006. PowerBooks are not low-end

2nd - The dual core Yonah (intel) chip for high-end portables probably won't be in production until late 2006.

3rd - Power Users won't be happy with rosetta emulation of PPC professional apps. Especially since most of these apps use altivec.

4th - PowerBook along with PowerMac are the only Apple lines that are not up to par with high-end x86 products for the same price.

 

[JasonElise1983]

G5 POWERBOOKS NEXT TUESDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

can't believe no one said it yet....

now for my real thought, i think it is possible for Apple to utilize these processors. The new freescale processors would be great, but there woule be no good marketing behind it. You can't market "THE ALL NEW POWERBOOK G4, it's faster than the last Powerbook G4, but is still slower than your mom's dell". You could however market "THE ALL NEW POWERBOOK G5, a PowerMac G5 in your lap" Don't get me wrong, both are missleading, but it's still the fact that no one would buy a revised PowerBook G4 unless they had to. People would run out into the streets and sell organs to buy a PowerBook G5. Just my 2¢.

JE

 

[the_ki]

Intels in low-end first makes perfect sense

No power user is going to want to run, say, Maya under Rosetta. Your average Mac mini user isn't planning on running anything more than iLife and email. Since that software is already a universal binary, then it's no big deal whatsoever if the mini and the iBook and maybe even the eMac go Intel before anything else. Power users (like myself) are simply going to wait until there are Intel versions of the software we rely on (Adobe Creative Suite, which I make my living using -- I couldn't give a rat's ass what Quark is going to do). That will take longer, so the machines users like me use (Powermacs, Powerbooks) would switch last anyway. I know that nowhere did Steve say the low-end would switch first, but it simply makes the most sense in a transitional sense.

Could there be a low-power G5 in a Powerbook? I doubt it, as the product would only be on the market for a year, tops.

Will the 970 MPs make it into a Powermac? You bet your sweet bippy they will.

In an iMac? Unlikely, but entirely possible.

And to all of the internet-browsing Grandmas out there, who care's what kind of processor is in your computer? You aren't running Photoshop anyway.

It all makes PERFECT sense to me.

Now, there's no reason why the 970 FX couldn't go into some sort of box that is operated by that fancy universal remote gizmo that's being talked about.

 

[JasonElise1983]

i went and read the fact sheet on freescales website, that 7448 isn't too shabby. If i could get a drop in replacement for my quicksilver, say a dual 1.4Ghz 7448 i would. the 1Mb L2 cache is awesome. 200Mhz FSB is better than my 133 and i don't need 64-bit, but i still stick with my theory that you couldn't market it. Unless they called it something else, like the G4+ or the G4 2.0, something other than just G4.

JE

 

[AliensAreFuzzy]

This is great news. I need a dual core 2ghz g5 imac for x-mas. My dual g4 quicksilver with the turbine engine noise needs to be donated.

You can donate that quicksilver to me

 

[NNO-Stephen]

i went and read the fact sheet on freescales website, that 7448 isn't too shabby. If i could get a drop in replacement for my quicksilver, say a dual 1.4Ghz 7448 i would. the 1Mb L2 cache is awesome. 200Mhz FSB is better than my 133 and i don't need 64-bit, but i still stick with my theory that you couldn't market it. Unless they called it something else, like the G4+ or the G4 2.0, something other than just G4.

JE

actually, you'd still get a 133Mhz bus.

good news though you could get a 2Ghz dual CPU upgrade in there w/ 1MB of L2 cache per processor they already have single 7447As that run at 2Ghz and duals that run at 1.8Ghz (I have the dual 1.8) I'd definitely want to trade up as well. the cache alone will make a huge impact.

 

[alexf]

Despite what people here are saying, I do think that these chips will probably make it into new Powerbook - and hopefully soon.

I am sure that Apple has put a great deal of energy into designing a PB for the G5, and they are just waiting for these chips. In fact it is probably all but ready to go, and likely has been for quite awhile. The new low-power FX chips announced today should finally be able to make the G5 PB dream come true.

Apple desperately needs to upgrade its PBs from the outdated G4 chip to something - ANYTHING - else ASAP or they are in danger of losing even more sales.

It is definately not good for them that a consumer end iMac can burn the top-of-the-line "pro user" Powerbook.

I think there is no way that they would let a G4 chip stay in the PB line for the rest of the year.

Yet I have been wrong before (once or twice in my life)...

 

[MikeAtari]

So, Apple Start Selling!!!

So, let's go Apple, Update the machines.

Would there be any way in He** we could get the 970MP into a Powerbook?
You know just one last "incredible" update? Too much heat?

With a good Processor update, this would be the time for that one last buy before the big switch. Unless you use Virtual PC for 90% of your processing work.

 

[lizard79]

Intel iBook and Mac Mini at Expo?

no way

 

[Yvan256]

The trick is getting the developers to.

They will also have to have Rosetta run backwards. Right now I think it only does PPC on x86

They're already asking developers to make universal binaries. It's not really hard to tell them "keep doing what you're doing now".

As for a backward Rosetta, that would be Apple's job, except for the fact that you don't need Rosetta if all programs are universal binaries.

 

[MikeAtari]

How much heat?

How much heat or what's the watts on the 970MP 1.4?

 

[zap2]

This just in, apple is staying with PPC chips, wow that Piss a lot of people off( or make them happy).

 

[DavidCar]

If a 970MP PowerMac is in the works, would it include PCI Express, as I assume they would need a new motherboard anyway? And if so, would it be cost effective for graphics board makers to create a PCIe PPC board for a PowerMac when there will be a switch to Intel in two years? Would it be possible to make PCIe graphics boards compatible with both PPC and Intel PowerMacs? It seems clear they could sell more boards that way.

 

[artifex]

Actually no. Rosetta is only for running PPC code on Intel. You don't need Rosetta to run intel code on PPC because all intel compatible binaries will be univeral binaries, which run on PPC.

There should be a way to make Intel-only binaries. Not necessarily because you want to shut people with older machines out, but what if you're building programs for your own use, and only have an Intel based mac? Why should your program take almost double the space it should on your hard drive, and almost double the compile time, for functionality that will be wasted?

 

[Hattig]

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.

Whilst the 970FX could be going into the Revolution, the XBox360 is using a tri-core PowerPC based design with VMX-128. It is probably more like a very fast IBM 4xx series processor * 3.

 

[lizard79]

ok..
so we will see new powerbook g5 with slightly overclocked (or faster) processors and new iBooks with the current g4 cpus of the powerbooks end of sept. in paris..

sounds ok to me (besides i'd like the update now)

 

[IlluminatedSage]

Well, better late than never.

hope this means they are avail soon.

not in 1/2 year.

ibm is SLOW and cheap like HP. they wont lift a finger unless someone pays them to do it.

 

[iCreate]

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.

It may be his statements were made for chips of a particular speed and higher. 3GHz plus vs anything currently out now.

 

[BJNY]

I'm hoping for Dual Dual-Cores announced at Siggraph at the very end of July. Wouldn't mind a $500 rebate on a 30" ACD with purchase of Powermac either.

 

[Ti_Poussin]

There should be a way to make Intel-only binaries. Not necessarily because you want to shut people with older machines out, but what if you're building programs for your own use, and only have an Intel based mac? Why should your program take almost double the space it should on your hard drive, and almost double the compile time, for functionality that will be wasted?

OK, dual binaries won't take twice the space, in fact a little part of a programme is made for a platform specific. An exemple, you could install PC expension pack of NeverWinter Night on the Mac version! The executable that go seek the ressource of the programme is different but a lot of the code still the same, just have to remove Alti-vec or split the part of the code that use it for ON/OFF depending on the machine it currently running on.

So please stop spreading idea like that. Thanks, sorry but there's no offence, just don't like misinformation.

Just for exemple, right click (or control-click if you haven't get a multi button mouse yet) on an application, select show package content. Now there's a folder MacOS with content the launching part of the programme, this part will change under Intel processor. Get info on the MacOS folder part. Now check the ressource folder, this part will suffer low change or even not at all, click and get info on this part of the software. Compare both of it, you should get a good idea of what size a dual binary will take.

N.B.: I believe you need developper tool installed to use "show package content", I'm not sure but I think soo.