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

IBM Delivering 90nm Chips?

Re: SoC

Originally posted by hopkinssm
Couldn't this be a typo? It makes more sense as 90nm SoI (Silicon on Insulator) chips.....
Click to expand...
That would make more sense, but looking at the original quote:

"IBM is about to deliver its very first volume production of an SOC on 90nm, said Reeves. This will be a design for Apple."

It seems strange that the talk of an SOC and that they say it is specially designed for Apple. The 970 is of course not a special design for Apple.
 
I agree that a 90nm 970 system-on-chip is highly unlikely -- as far as I can determine, the system-on-chip work that IBM is doing is all for the embedded market. (Here's an overview of IBM chip families, with the SoI chips indicated -- they are the 4xx series.)

What this all means is that either the source really meant SOI, or (and much more interestingly) the chip isn't a 970, but something else entirely, for a non-Mac device (notice that the source doesn't specify that the chip is a 970).

My guess is that it's just a typo, and it's really the 90nm Silicon-on-Insulator 970. Then again...
 
Personally, I assume that new PowerMacs will only come out after the release of the G5 Xserves, AND after the initial surge of shipments of the Xserves. As in, all initial new G5s go into Xserves, and once supply for the chips catches up with demand, then we'll have PowerMacs. They might be announced soon afterward, but only become available a month afterwards.

- Mark Collette
 
SOC

Since Silicon on Insolator is SoL (small "o").

shouldn't System on a Chip be SoC?

I think maybe this is just short for System Onboard Controller or something like that.

or, since we have all been waiting for these machines, maybe it is a Shipment Obstruction Chip using technology that IBM got from Motorola.
 
Personally, I assume that new PowerMacs will only come out after the release of the G5 Xserves, AND after the initial surge of shipments of the Xserves. As in, all initial new G5s go into Xserves, and once supply for the chips catches up with demand, then we'll have PowerMacs. They might be announced soon afterward, but only become available a month afterwards.

- Mark Collette
Click to expand...

yea but remeber the only G5 chips that are goin to the XServe are at 2 Ghz...IBM should be crankin those babies out with no prob...the updated PM G5's will use chips with speeds greater than 2 Ghz(excpet for the base model maybe) so there should be no connection between XServe and PM demand.
 
SOC

Could SOC mean silicon-on-copper? I think I've seen that phrase used somewhere or other in connection with IBM chips...
 
Originally posted by Fukui
Silicon on Cra....never mind....
Click to expand...

har har :D LOL

Now, that wouldn't be a nice thing for an Apple chip... We left that back in MOT days :)
 
Just a crazy thought, but didn't they have problems with the 20" iMac and the 10.3.3? Maybe they need to fix this problem before they can release G5 iMacs. As I said just a crazy thought.
 
Re: Re: latest word on the street is .....

Originally posted by 0 and A ai
Really? Are you sure? Seems just like two weeks ago you said something else.
Click to expand...

I think s/he's referring to a post on Mac OS Rumors which states: "Still waiting on a new 10.3.3 seed... The absence of an updated seed to take the place of 7F24, pulled early last week due to a nasty glitch when installed on 20-inch iMacs, has raised more than a few eyebrows. Several key developers who work closely with Apple on its system update seeds were led to believe there would be 2-3 more seeds before a release and that a new build would be released by now -- reports now indicate that there could be only one or possibly two."

"A final release is expected within two weeks, as the new PowerMac G5s (@ up to Dual 2.6GHz) are expected to be dependent on new machine support code in 10.3.3."
 
This is gonna be cool....

Yes if new pmacs come out then I hope the current line does get a lot cheaper. But then again, if they get cheaper then the powermac g4's on apple.com either need to get removed or get a lot cheaper as well. Personaly I think it would be great if they produced a low end single 2.0 ghz pmac (with 90 NM and all that good stuff) and a single 2.2 ghz one, and dual 2.4 and 2.6 ones.

2.0 ghz G5 -- $1,500
2.2 ghz G5 -- $1,700
dual 2.4 ghz G5 -- $2,200-$2,400
dual 2.6 ghz G5 -- $2,600-$2,900

Now those are some great prices for 64 bit computers. Oh wait, another one that would also be great...

quad 2.6 ghz G5 -- $4,000-$4,500
 
SoC = System on a chip

First, note that the article is talking about IBM's ASIC and Foundry business, which is different from IBM's PowerPC business.

Unless there was a typo, SoC refers to system on a chip. There has been many reports of Apple having 90nm PPC970 chips since late last year, so I don't think the article is referring to first shipment of 90nm G5s to Apple.

Despite what has been posted on this thread, Apple does not need a 90nm system controller to ship XServe G5, the same set of 2 system controller chips that are used in G5 PowerMacs would work just fine in the XServe. These 130nm chips are designed for expandability (3 PCI-X busses, etc.) but they do occuply a lot of space (very large pin count --> large package) and burn quite a bit of power. Apple probably designed a more integrated system controller (most likely single chip) targeted at future G5 iMac and G5 PowerBook designs. The last sentence in the article is most likely referring to this chip.

If IBM can deliver new system controller ASICs to Apple over the next few weeks and if the first silicon is fully functional (IBM guy claims this is the case 95% of the time), then we can expect to see 90nm G5 based iMacs and/or PowerBooks in early summer timeframe.
 
Originally posted by Tulse
I agree that a 90nm 970 system-on-chip is highly unlikely -- as far as I can determine, the system-on-chip work that IBM is doing is all for the embedded market. (Here's an overview of IBM chip families, with the SoI chips indicated -- they are the 4xx series.)

What this all means is that either the source really meant SOI, or (and much more interestingly) the chip isn't a 970, but something else entirely, for a non-Mac device (notice that the source doesn't specify that the chip is a 970).

My guess is that it's just a typo, and it's really the 90nm Silicon-on-Insulator 970. Then again...
Click to expand...
i'm just shooting from the hip here but could this new chip be for the Power Books? System-on-chip as a way of reducing heat?

More likely it's just sloppiness on the part of the rumormongers...
 
Updates

Why would you want all those new machines when Final Cut runs just fine on your beige 500 mhz?
Okay, I'm just giving you a hard time.
 
SOC = system on a chip

OK, the whole purpose of a system on a chip is to embed it in a device. You don't need memory, drives, or peripheral controllers as these things are all built in to the chip.

SOCs, also known as SOSs (systems on silicon), also tend to have a much higher reliability than their processor cousins. The cost for having a SOS/SOC is that their clock speed is usually dramaticaly lower due to the heat issues of having several peripheral parts integrated into the processors core.

SO what does this all mean you may ask? It means first that this will probably not end up in a desktop device. This also means that this will not be the next generation of Apple laptop. This only means that IBM has developed a better embedded controller based on the PPC architecture. So expect to see PPC in more phones, pdas, and other personal devices.

Since the article indicates that the design was done for Apple, this could be substantial evidence that Apple intends to create embedded personal devices (iRefrigerator anybody) and is probably beginning to prototype them with IBMs 90mm SOCs.
 
Re: Updates

Originally posted by Voiteur
Why would you want all those new machines when Final Cut runs just fine on your beige 500 mhz?
Okay, I'm just giving you a hard time.
Click to expand...

I did not say I wanted them did I, all I said was it would be cool. And dont make fun of my beigey haha. I think the only reason FCP runs not completely crappy on my beige is cause I have 700 megs ram, if it was not for that it would run really crappy.
 
Re: SOC = system on a chip

Originally posted by ghost1911
OK, the whole purpose of a system on a chip is to embed it in a device. You don't need memory, drives, or peripheral controllers as these things are all built in to the chip.

SOCs, also known as SOSs (systems on silicon), also tend to have a much higher reliability than their processor cousins. The cost for having a SOS/SOC is that their clock speed is usually dramaticaly lower due to the heat issues of having several peripheral parts integrated into the processors core.

SO what does this all mean you may ask? It means first that this will probably not end up in a desktop device. This also means that this will not be the next generation of Apple laptop. This only means that IBM has developed a better embedded controller based on the PPC architecture. So expect to see PPC in more phones, pdas, and other personal devices.

Since the article indicates that the design was done for Apple, this could be substantial evidence that Apple intends to create embedded personal devices (iRefrigerator anybody) and is probably beginning to prototype them with IBMs 90mm SOCs.
Click to expand...

Thanks, you be me to it. I was just doing some research on the IBM website. So this means either one of two things:
1)It is a typo (or misquote) and should be SOI in which case these are most likely just chips for the XServes.
2)It is for some as yet unannounced device that Apple has up it's sleeve.
Either we shouldn't get our hopes up for new G5 anythings anytime soon.

If it turns out to be the second it will increase my opinions that Apple's future is moving away from the Mac and more into other digital lifestyle devices.
 
The earlier statement was based on

the fact that many retailers were still selling inventories of remaining inventories of some machines while inventories of the others were gone. Recently discounts on remaining models are common now. Apple could be desparately trying to use this time to drastically reduce all inventory of the revision A . Powermacs to as close to zero as possibble until OS 10.3.3 gets released. Also many people on this forum stated interest in waiting to buy revision B. Powermacs instead of buying the Revision A . If this forum is typical of the general mac buying public, then that would explain the reason for the remaining number of PowerMac G5 revision A. inventories.

As for OS 10.3.3 , wouldn't it make sense to release the Revision B. G5 PowerMacs with 10.3.3 ? Why release the machines with the previous OS ? The revision B. might be able to operate with 10.3.2 , but if the 20 inch iMac shows problems with 10.3.3 , why should Apple release the revision B. with it ? Apple should fix and release the 10.3.3 , then release the Revision B. G5 with it and maybe the G5 iMac this season .
 
They are

1. for xServes
2. for PowerMacs

maybe they are only for xServers - question is how many they need for xServes...

I don't see PowerBooks.
I see Powerbooks around 1.6-2ghz when they release 3ghz powermacs.
 
Hoi.... now I recall why I stay in the "back room"

SoC is an IBM-specific term. System on Chip.

The 970 was slated as an "embedded" chip before Apple released it as the G5.

Going to 90nm would dramatically reduce heat consumption.

Doing a version of the 970 with SoC would mean it would be possible to ditch the ASIC sistem controller chip and run it all direct. This would only have advantages in single processor machines where space on the mobo is at a premium.

Analysis:

Either:

There's either a new rev of G5 comming for iMac or PowerBook that doesn't need the ASIC.

OR:

There's a new ASIC. This one makes less sense considering that the current ASIC runs the fastest bus in the industry. It's still a possibility, to reduce heat but.... less likely.


I have to point out the quote from SJ:

"Apple has NO PLANS to develop a PDA."

The only other possibility (less than 30% odds) is an Apple device designed to "kill" the now-defunct M$ Mira project and it's accompanying set-top box. Note: the company who was developping a cheap Apple-parts based Pizza-box is no longer calling it "iBox".;)
 
SOC means only one thing, System on a Chip. It basically almost every non external connector part of the Motherboard reduced down to one chip. What is left is the physical interfaces for Ethernet, Firewire, that need to interface with the chip. IBM's current 90NM SOC design technology, CU-08, allows Apple to mix PowerPC cores such as the 400 series (used in the recent IBM cell supercomputer) and floating point units, such as FP2 (the 64-bit FPU used in the 970) with other features usually reserved for the chip set and other support chips on a motherboard.

With the 90NM technology, there is no reason why Apple couldn't put an entire Mac on one chip to be embedded in an ultra-thin notebook (the 12" could drop from 5lbs to 2+lbs). Apple could include an entire Mac into a device the size of an iPod, or cell phone. With the right docking technology, you could carry your Mac in your shirt pocket an just plug it in the office or home. How about a Mac built into a Cinema TV, and/or the rumored iBox. It would definitely blow away a Palm or PocketPC.

There are so many things Apple can do with a Mac on a Chip. It should allow Apple to continue to innovate in very exciting ways.
 
i see a 4-6 month wait for 90nm process in PowerMacs....and any sort of price change...

Glad i didn't decide to wait for an announcement...

I think the sad truth is that apple hasn't changed their release schedule speed at all.

back last fall when the dual 1.8 came out and we all got excited about more frequent releases with G5, i think that was just a 1-time thing.

I hope you're all ready for the 3300 dollar dual 2.2ghz in may...

i'm sure the price on the year-old dual 2.0 will go down 200 dollars or something, and get a graphics card upgrade to the REAL version of the 9600 Pro (with the 128mb of RAM it's supposed to have anyway)
 
Yoda works for macrumors?

Unclear is the significance of the "SOC" -- whether this represents any new information, or somehow simply refers to the 970 chip is not completely clear.
Click to expand...

Why is this written like Yoda said it?
 
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