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

IBM Announces the PowerPC 970MP

JasonElise1983 said:
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
Click to expand...
---earlier---
crazzyeddie said:
Remeber also that Motorola just announced the MPC7448 (G4 processor) that uses the 90nm process. That processor uses less than 15 watts to run at 1.7ghz with a 200mhz bus. It also has 1MB L2 cache, etc... Popularly, this processor is referred to as the e600 PowerPC. It is much more likely that this will be the next Powerbook processor.

MPC7448 Information Page
Click to expand...

So it's all right there... It's the e600.
I think I'd like that in the Mac mini before the intel processor, but what do I know, I just want everything to work.
 
IMHO Apple will NEVER use this chips in the Powerbooks nor iBooks. Steve has the biggest ego in the world and thinks that all of us will continue to buy the current crops of products with a little ipod bundle tossed in every so often until the switch to Intel is made. Fool.

My wife's iBook 800 just died after a very long illness and she wants to replace it. There is no way that I will buy another "chicklet" that has not been updated in the last 261 days. Apple is counting on the uninformed out there to keep their sells going.

I say give me an Powerbook/iBook option with Intel inside already. OS X and the rest of Apple's software is up and running and let me worry about Adobe/Microsoft/Whoever. I will buy the stuff when it is available not when Steve thinks I need it.

Apple is starting to really piss me off.
 
sithlord said:
IMHO Apple will NEVER use this chips in the Powerbooks nor iBooks. Steve has the biggest ego in the world and thinks that all of us will continue to buy the current crops of products with a little ipod bundle tossed in every so often until the switch to Intel is made. Fool.
...
Apple is starting to really piss me off.
Click to expand...

Go watch the developers keynote AGAIN.
There are new PPCs coming out. They will be in new Apple products. This is what is known as a transition. It will take two years. Get over yourself and calm down. :rolleyes:
 
What is obvious is that Apple will show something really good next september in Paris Expo, that everybody will wanna have.

Here you have one reason: "apple is giving ipods mini for free if you get a mac till september 24th".
 
TDP is max sustained power, typical is lower

apollo8fan said:
Just for comparison, the Intel Pentium M 1.6GHz and 1.7GHz are rated at 24.5W. The 2.13GHz Pentium M 765 is rated at 27W.
Click to expand...
The TDP is the maximum sustained power used by the chip, and represents a worst-case scenario that the engineers who design the heat sinks should worry about.

The beauty of the Pentium M is that it will pull the watts and deliver great performance when you need it, but it will also cut back power consumption when the demand isn't there.

I get about a 3 to 1 range of battery life in my Pentium M laptop depending on what I'm doing. If I do big Visual Studio project compiles, or pound on virtual machines - I'll get 2 or 3 hours max. Do email, surf, read PDF - it will last 8 hours or more.
 
afsammie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yep, we know. Welcome.

Well, on the bright side, the new PowerPCs are no faster per core than the current ones, and the old PowerPCs were not exactly cache-starved. The performance difference between 2.5 dual processors and 2.5 dual cores will be minor.
 
iN8 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I hate to say it, but universal binaries aren't the end all solution. Forgetting games? They don't rely on only the binaries. Sure you can take Quake 3 for the PC and copy the data from that and grab a Mac binary to run it - but not all companies are as resourceful as id. Halo, for instance, will not run if you take the PC data and put it into a folder with the Mac app. There are many little parts of games like this that make direct calls to the GPU and CPU - and won't be fixed by a simple recompile. This is why most game companies outsource for their Mac ports - because it'd mean double work for them to support a small platform. I reckon that as soon as the entire line goes Intel, more game companies would stop going to porters like MacSoft and Aspyr and just write the Mac APIs themselves - since it's already compiled for x86.

So inorder to support both PPC and Intel for a longer term, Apple would need a Bizzaro Rosetta ;)
 
I am planning on buying my 12" PB by mid September so that I can still get the Cram and Jam. Hopefully the PB sees some sort of upgrade by then and I will be even happier with my purchase.
 
7on said:
I hate to say it, but universal binaries aren't the end all solution. Forgetting games? They don't rely on only the binaries. Sure you can take Quake 3 for the PC and copy the data from that and grab a Mac binary to run it - but not all companies are as resourceful as id. Halo, for instance, will not run if you take the PC data and put it into a folder with the Mac app. There are many little parts of games like this that make direct calls to the GPU and CPU - and won't be fixed by a simple recompile. This is why most game companies outsource for their Mac ports - because it'd mean double work for them to support a small platform. I reckon that as soon as the entire line goes Intel, more game companies would stop going to porters like MacSoft and Aspyr and just write the Mac APIs themselves - since it's already compiled for x86.

So inorder to support both PPC and Intel for a longer term, Apple would need a Bizzaro Rosetta ;)
Click to expand...


But what I want to know is when Apple goes intel will we be able to use PC VIDEO CARDS?
 
MacTruck said:
But what I want to know is when Apple goes intel will we be able to use PC VIDEO CARDS?
Click to expand...

i doubt it. Graphics cards aren't much related to the CPU, its all down to drivers. but i suppose if thats the case then why cant people write new drivers for PC video cards on OSX now? hmm.
 
Object-X said:
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?
Click to expand...
You are obviously not a developer. For simple applications it would be fine, and Rosetta would not have to go both ways as long as devs don't compile Intel only. The problem is with games and pro apps, developers would now need to optimize for both Altivec and SSE which would not be very easy. Time is money so if the developer's are told only to support what they know (Altivec) to get the product out in time then consumer computers would run much slower than PPC computers. BTW I still think the Inhell switch is a bad move.
 
artifex said:
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?
Click to expand...

I am sure you can compile for Intel only if you want to, but most developers want to reach the wider audience so they will make a uni-binary.
 
jrv3034 said:
Couldn't one just peel off the stickers? I might be completely wrong here, as I've never owned a PC laptop.
Click to expand...

An ugly solution. The stickers often leave marks and shouldn't be on there to begin with. Hopefully if enclosed they will be on paper and you can add them rather than having to remove them.
 
iN8 said:
I think we can still see a Powerbook G5 before the switch to Intel procs. Reason being, I think Apple will make the transition by moving consumer machines first and then pro, instead of portable and then desktop. This way we see the transition go in this order:mac mini, iBook, eMac, iMac, PowerBook, PowerMac.
Click to expand...
The eMac really needs to go away. Simply replace it with a low-end iMac.
 
thequicksilver said:
When and where did he say this about the low end? I have watched the keynote more times than I would like to admit, and he said nothing of the sort during it.

If you can provide a bona fide link to this statement, please do, as I've only heard this as hearsay and rumour from people who know people who know people who know people who know the guy whose brother once met Steve Jobs' brother's wife.
Click to expand...

Thank You! Alot of people say that and its bugging the crap out of me becuase I have not seen anything supporting what people are saying about the way they are going to make the switch.
 
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