IBM Delivering 90nm Chips?

[idea_hamster]

Re: This is gonna be cool....

Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
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.

I agree that the G5 line would probably shift down along the price points (i.e., we pay the same $3k for the top-of-the-line G5, but it's now 2.6GHz rather than 2.0).

However, I think that the PowerMac G4's will likely not change much at all -- just about everyone who is in the market for a brand new G4 desktop today probably has a non-$ reason (software licenses, OS9, etc.). Or at least that's what I think that Apple thinks. Part of their strategy to migrate Mac users to OSX seems to be making it less cost effective to stay with OS9.

My guess is that the PM G4 will not drop in price. Will it be removed altogether? Someday -- but not before the G5 PowerBook comes out. Once Apple's pro line is all G5, they'll be much more interested in debuting the G6 and severing all Motorola connections -- and much less interested in supporting users who cling to what by then will look like an artifact OS.

JMHO.

 

[ionas]

@ spencecb

hehe i see sj talking about 3ghz at wwdc:

"Next is - WHOHOHOHOHO - ...."

"and then at some point: "and we still offer the world fastest personal computer - now even faster - even compared to our competitors"

besides that i dont believe that the g5 is or was the fastest personal desktop computer. maybe it was in cubase and other apps but there are apps that will run defenatly faster on the pc - cause of what reasons ever

though i consider the g5 dual 2ghz being a very fast system

lol

 

[NusuniAdmin]

hmmmmm premature speculation, remember?

Remember premature speculation....well that would be funny if we look on the g4 pmac section and it is all screwed up again talking about 2.6 ghz g4's and such. haha. Then next tues. have steve talk about it, "Well....you may have seen on the internet (laughter) this page. It is fake, and it is true...."

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Re: The earlier statement was based on

Originally posted by RichardCarletta
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 .

What difference would that make. Apple is not going to charge to upgrade from 10.3.2 to 10.3.3. It will just come through software update. In fact, even if they do wait until after 10.3.3 comes out, I wouldn't be suprised if machines still ship with 10.3.2 preloaded at first.

Where are these drastic discounts? The only thing really being sold at a discount is the single 1.8 GHz G5 which is an already discontinued model. Otherwise I would be very interested to hear what is discounted. As far a inventories, Apple is notorious for not being able to produce machines fast enough to keep every dealer stocked with inventory. Just ask people who originally ordered the G5's.

 

[NusuniAdmin]

Re: Re: The earlier statement was based on

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
What difference would that make. Apple is not going to charge to upgrade from 10.3.2 to 10.3.3. It will just come through software update. In fact, even if they do wait until after 10.3.3 comes out, I wouldn't be suprised if machines still ship with 10.3.2 preloaded at first.

Where are these drastic discounts? The only thing really being sold at a discount is the single 1.8 GHz G5 which is an already discontinued model. Otherwise I would be very interested to hear what is discounted. As far a inventories, Apple is notorious for not being able to produce machines fast enough to keep every dealer stocked with inventory. Just ask people who originally ordered the G5's.

They would not even ship with 10.3.2, they would ship with plain ol' 10.3 When my dad got his emac 10.2.6 was out, it came with 10.2, when i got my dual 10.2.3 was out (i dont remember was one was out actualy, i got it in christmas 2002, it came with 10.2, so it does not matter if thye wait or not

 

[aquafina]

you guys just love making stuff up

SoC is a typo, it is SoI (Silicon on Insulator) and it represents a technology that IBM employs to produce the chips. These are the chips that are due in the Xserves, and potentially in new PBs and PMs, but those have not been announced yet.

 

[leftbanke7]

Sometimes I wonder if people purposly give out tidbits of information to watch us Mac users begin to salivate and lose our collective minds.

My philosophy: Whatever they release, they release. Whenever they do it, they'll do it.

Regardless of whatever Apple decides to do with these chips (xServe, PB, iMac, dip them in guacamole and eat them) it'll make some people very happy and disappoint just as many so relax. In due time, we will all have our upgraded G5s, our G5 Powerbooks, and our G5 iMacs (or something that resembles it). Why don't we all go outside and enjoy the day.

 

[army_guy]

SOC has nothing to do with the G5, it just a controller chip at 90nm. They run at very low speed anyway and small size so IBM can get good yields and sell them cheaply at 90nm. 90nm is still having problems regardless of what IBM, AMD, or INTEL says.

 

[lewdvig]

SOC - System on a Chip? IBM does a lot of SOC stuff for embedded systems. But I am puzzled to the significance of this.

I think the above poster is right. This must be refering to part of the system logic (Northbridge) like the Athlon64. But if it is, wasn't this already reported?

I think I read a site refering to low K with copper interconnects as SOC but I can't find the article.

 

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by stingerman

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.

Back in the stone age (System 6 IIRC) you could put your entire environment on a floppy disc and go to a foreign mac and install your disc and click on your preferences file and all the settings would be yours.

Rocketman

 

[army_guy]

Apple doesnt design or manufacture ASICS, they dont have the experience or resources to do such a thing, any companies volunteering to design an entire embedded MAC?

 

[NusuniAdmin]

Originally posted by army_guy
Apple doesnt design or manufacture ASICS, they dont have the experience or resources to do such a thing, any companies volunteering to design an entire embedded MAC?

umm....MAC is the ethernet address of a compututer......lol

 

[steveh]

Originally posted by army_guy
Apple doesnt design or manufacture ASICS, they dont have the experience or resources to do such a thing

Apple has been designing ASICs for *years*, well over a decade, close to two.

Manufacture is done by various rent-a-foundry firms; fab facilities are expensive, and Apple buys nothing by setting up one of their own.

 

[jettredmont]

Re: SoC

Originally posted by hopkinssm
Couldn't this be a typo? It makes more sense as 90nm SoI (Silicon on Insulator) chips.....

Exactly what I was thinking. Wouldn't be the first time "SOC" ("Silicon on Conductor" aka "Silicon on Silicon" aka "Standard CMOS") and "SOI" ("Silicon on Insulator") were confused. And, in the context, SOI seems to fit better.

Are the 90nm G5s supposed to use SOI technology, or the older SOS?

 

[army_guy]

Originally posted by steveh
Apple has been designing ASICs for *years*, well over a decade, close to two.

Manufacture is done by various rent-a-foundry firms; fab facilities are expensive, and Apple buys nothing by setting up one of their own.

Contracts dude. You know when you hire someone give them the spec and they deliver the product (in this case the someone is an ASIC designer. Apple designs computer systems etc.. not ASICS.

 

[wizard]

I have to believe that this is an alternative to the 970 destined to low cost and laptop platforms. If you read carefully the whole article revolves around IBM's issues with custom chips, the 970 is never mentioned. My suspicions are that this is a high integration 32 bit processor. There is little advanatge to trying to go SOC with the 970 as that device runs to ht as it is.

Embedded is just a frame of mind, in many cases the hardware does not vary from the run of the mill processors. Besides with 90nm technology available to them there is no reason why IBM can't go the SOC route with any of their processors.

I don't think that this is a 970 based device but I'm not willing to say that it is for a non-Mac device. Apple and IBM have been indicating that they are working together on a laptop chip. This could be the baby.

Thanks
Dave

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...

 

[wizard]

Re: SOC = system on a chip

Via has chip sets that serve as SOC for a IBM PC as does AMD. Some of these are not high performance but that should not imply that it is a characteristic of the concept. It is a charactristic of the process the SOC is built on.

With IBM's 90 nm technology, i see nothing to keep Apple from implementing a SOC suitable for a laptop or low cost machine. This would be a high performance chip too.

The other reality is that we don't know exactly what they mean by SOC. They could be talking about a processor with built in memory control and a couple of hypertransport ports or it could contain the better part of a laptop. Either is a possibility with todays technology.

Thanks
Dave

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.

 

[numediaman]

Is it just me, or has EN pulled the story off their site?

EDIT: Did you see the front page on MacMall? They are selling refurbed G5s from Virginia Tech!! I thought these puppies wouldn't be available to the general public?

 

[jared_kipe]

It is interesting to think about this in the stand point of anouther post: these chips might not be meant for a computer. With the raised issue of heat due to several components built in it makes it more certain that this isn't going to be a desktop or laptop chip. If it were, it would have to be clocked low to deal with the heat issues.

So if we take this to mean that it will be clocked low, extreamly low, then it might be a good chip for the much adored ideas of an apple branded consumber device or pda. Think about it, the iPod has a great deal of chips to do only one basic function, that is, manage a hard drive of music. If they went to an embeded chip they could reduce size, and boost preformance at the same time. With a size reduction perhaps they could move those buttons under the wheel, ala mini, giving enought space for a relativly small color touchscreen. This product would sell like lemonade on a hot summer day.

 

[dongmin]

Originally posted by benpatient
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)

You obviously haven't been keeping up with the PPC970 news. Steve Jobs has publicly stated that the G5 will hit 3 ghz before the summer is over. That's September at the latest. Secondly, the Xserves, which are slated to ship next month, will use 90nm 970s. So if you add those two bits of news together, it means that Apple will be doing at least one, probably two, update with 90nm 970s by this September.

 

[wizard]

YEP THE ARTICLE WAS PULLED!!!!!

This seems to indicate that one, the article was accurate as written and that the article was a slip up. Something good is coming our way we just don't know what it is.

How about it guys who is willing to vote indicating that this mystry device is a laptop chip. I'm thinking it has to be, but some of the argurments for an alternative device are sound.

Dave

Originally posted by numediaman
Is it just me, or has EN pulled the story off their site?

EDIT: Did you see the front page on MacMall? They are selling refurbed G5s from Virginia Tech!! I thought these puppies wouldn't be available to the general public?

 

[MarkCollette]

Originally posted by jsnuff1
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.

It still takes a while to accumulate sufficient yields of the higher spec'ed chips, when starting up a new process, leaving the lower spec'ed chips more available. That might be why they're releasing the xServe first, since it can use the slower of the newer chips.

- Mark Collette

 

[dongmin]

Originally posted by wizard
YEP THE ARTICLE WAS PULLED!!!!!

This seems to indicate that one, the article was accurate as written and that the article was a slip up. Something good is coming our way we just don't know what it is.

How about it guys who is willing to vote indicating that this mystry device is a laptop chip. I'm thinking it has to be, but some of the argurments for an alternative device are sound.

Dave

or it could be that the article was pulled because everything in it was totally fabricated... i.e. it doesn't mean jack.

 

[wizard]

While I can't argue with the possibility of other devices I can say this much your arguments with respect to the laptop are not accurate.

First you have to consider that the laptop is by design a limited I/O device. So there is less I/O to support in the first place. Second the need to run high speed ports to system controllers is power hungery in and of itself.

It is the arrival of several rather new technologies that makes a SOC laptop possible and a smart move. First is the wide spread use of Serial Ports (SATA, FireWire, USB and maybe a Ethernet port), these save pincounts and more importantly power usage. The second is 90 nm technology which should allow IBM to supply a very low power 32 bit core. The addition of a memory interface and a port to a video processor round out the package. In the end you end up with a modest increase in pin count over a general purpose 32 bit processor. Mind you we are talking laptop here where you are limited to the I/O you can have in place.

I'm not trying to discount some of your speculated devices, I just want to point out that a SOC processor doesn't have to be low performance and can in fact be just the opposite of that. Properly done a SOC could make one hell of a laptop. It would afford the designers the ability to run at high clock rates yet keep the overall system power usage levels under control.

Dave

Originally posted by jared_kipe
It is interesting to think about this in the stand point of anouther post: these chips might not be meant for a computer. With the raised issue of heat due to several components built in it makes it more certain that this isn't going to be a desktop or laptop chip. If it were, it would have to be clocked low to deal with the heat issues.

So if we take this to mean that it will be clocked low, extreamly low, then it might be a good chip for the much adored ideas of an apple branded consumber device or pda. Think about it, the iPod has a great deal of chips to do only one basic function, that is, manage a hard drive of music. If they went to an embeded chip they could reduce size, and boost preformance at the same time. With a size reduction perhaps they could move those buttons under the wheel, ala mini, giving enought space for a relativly small color touchscreen. This product would sell like lemonade on a hot summer day.

 

[Chryx]

Re: Hoi.... now I recall why I stay in the "back room"

Originally posted by mischief
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.

There's something else you're not accounting for...

I'll give you a reference point..

Opteron.

the 970FX's weakness is it's memory latency, putting the memory controller on the die, and THEN putting AGP/PCI controllers on the die as well would remove that weakness and then gives it a leg up on Opteron, leaving its only weakspot as it's relatively weak integer execution resources.

seriously, most SOC's are low power devices, but the tech has major potential in the performance segment, as AMD are demonstrating by putting the memory controller on the die.

45ns first word latency on a 2.2Ghz Athlon64 verses 135ns on a 2Ghz G5... O_O