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

IBM Inside - some insider information

details, more?

Mr. macPhisto,

Any idea at what front-side bus speeds, system bus speeds (is Apple going to be using IBM system controller chips?), and what amount if any L3 or L4 caches will also ship to Apple in June regarding the 970 cpu's??

Will the 970cpus support 32/64-bit OS X? What I mean is if OS X 10.3 Panther is 64 bit and I'm executing a 32-bit application withing OS X will the 970 cpu support this??

ANy info would be great thanks.
 
What if the IBM 750fx chip modified to have altivec is what will actually be used in the new 15-in. powerbooks at, say, 1.4 GHz? Any info on this?
 
Re: details, more?

Originally posted by Prom1
Mr. macPhisto,

Any idea at what front-side bus speeds, system bus speeds (is Apple going to be using IBM system controller chips?), and what amount if any L3 or L4 caches will also ship to Apple in June regarding the 970 cpu's??

Will the 970cpus support 32/64-bit OS X? What I mean is if OS X 10.3 Panther is 64 bit and I'm executing a 32-bit application withing OS X will the 970 cpu support this??

ANy info would be great thanks.
Click to expand...

IBM has announced that it will have no L3/L4 cache (although, in theory, Apple could put it on the northbridge). They have also announced that it will run all 32 bit applications just fine, although 32 bit operating systems will require minor tweaks.
 
Will the 970cpus support 32/64-bit OS X? What I mean is if OS X 10.3 Panther is 64 bit and I'm executing a 32-bit application withing OS X will the 970 cpu support this??
Click to expand...

The PowerPC Book E instruction set is the same for both 32-bit and 64-bit code, so 32-bit code works just fine on 64-bit machines. (The reverse is not true, since the 64-bit instructions of Book E do not need to be supported on 32-bit machines.)

Kritter out
 
Originally posted by Kritter
The PowerPC Book E instruction set is the same for both 32-bit and 64-bit code, so 32-bit code works just fine on 64-bit machines. (The reverse is not true, since the 64-bit instructions of Book E do not need to be supported on 32-bit machines.)

Kritter out
Click to expand...

The PowerPC 970 is not Book-E according to discussion on arstechnica.com. It implements PowerPC64, PowerPC32, and POWER, iirc.
 
Re: Re: details, more?

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
IBM has announced that it will have no L3/L4 cache (although, in theory, Apple could put it on the northbridge).
Click to expand...

Yes, it would actually be highly desirable from Apple to put a small amount (certainly needn't exceed 1 MB, I think) of SRAM cache between the memory and the 970's unidirectional busses. Presumably (hopefully?) Apple will use Dual Channel DDR400 memory so that the memory bandwith matches up with the 970's FSB bandwidth (6.4 GB/s in both cases). The "problem" is that the dual channel DDR is bidirectional, so at any given moment it can only read or write, but not do both. In contrast, the 970 can simultaneously read and write 3.2 GB/s in each direction, since it has two unidirectional buses. As I understand it, a direct connection between the dual channel DDR and the 970 FSB w/o any cache would be suboptimal in the sense that the dual channel DDR could only read or write while the 970 FSB was both reading and writing, cutting the effective bandwidth in half. But with a small amount of SRAM cache in between, the 970 FSB and the dual channel DDR could both read and write into this cache at full speed (6.4 GB/s) at any given time, thus elminating this potential bottleneck.
 
Originally posted by macrumors12345
It is unclear how these "facts" would match up with MacBidouille's assertions that Apple will shortly begin shipping 1.4 Ghz 970 based PowerMacs. If Apple has 2.5 Ghz processors available to them (which the IBM rep at CeBit supposedly denied would be immediately available), then I would find it difficult to believe that the PowerMac would start as low as 1.4 Ghz...there would be too much of a disparity between a single processor 1.4 Ghz machine and a dual processor 2.5 Ghz machine (hehehe...I can only dream about the latter...my desktop computer would literally have more processing power than our department's "heavy duty" quad-Xeon Dell PowerEdge server). Not that I necessarily consider MacBidouille to be a credible source either, of course!
Click to expand...

The PPC970 is rumored to use an upgradable socket. Apple could be offering a wide range of speeds ranging from a single 1.4 tower for under $1000 to the dual 2.5 on the ultra high end (maybe $5000 or more).
 
One question - I thought in one of your earlier posts you said that you were still in college (a senior?). So when were you working at IBM?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm a senior. I worked for IBM after my first semester in college. I stopped going at that point and worked for IBM a couple of years, starting when I was 18. I left because I was weary of computer work and wanted to finish my degree. I'm 24 now (turn 25 in a few weeks). I worked down here in Tampa, dealing primarily with network design for Advantis, but also doing IT work down here as well.

As for the chips in June, they're supposed to be there by June. It is possible they could get the chips to Apple before then, but I haven't asked about shipping status.
 
Originally posted by DHagan4755
What if the IBM 750fx chip modified to have altivec is what will actually be used in the new 15-in. powerbooks at, say, 1.4 GHz? Any info on this?
Click to expand...

It is a possibility. Any comments on this would be purely speculative. I assume Apple would want a 970 in the PB. I also have assumed they're introduce a whol enew lineup, but I coul dbe wrong there too. I'd almost guarantee a PM revision, but I think it would make most sense to introduce new lines for all the products. That would make the most buzz in the computer industry because Apple would be able to catch up in speed (not raw MHZ, but rendering speeds, etc) with Intel in one big leap.
 
Originally posted by Catfish_Man
The PowerPC 970 is not Book-E according to discussion on arstechnica.com. It implements PowerPC64, PowerPC32, and POWER, iirc.
Click to expand...

Ah! Thanks for enlightening me :)

Kritter out
 
You know guys, what I'm about to say has nothing technical, yet makes sense to me...

I thnk that it can be concluded that Jobs is a hardass (as seen by this thread ). Well, we also know that Jobs is not suicidal, and with motorola in it's current condition, and Jobs being super excited about this year, I think he has something like this up his sleeve. Yes, OS X is better than anything else, and we have cool stuff, but Jobs knows probably more than anybody that we're losing to the intel/AMD world in speed...

If Jobs can talk to all 5 major recording companies and not have word get out about it for a year, I think they could hide something like this...

I would be really excited to see stuff like this happen this summer. (Of course, I'd want a new computer then...)

The only problem that I can see, and it may not necessarily be a problem, is that I don't think IBM is the type of company who pulls surprises like Apple does. Either this is false, or Jobs has a sweet deal worked out with IBM, and it'll be even sweeter to us...

I really need to talk to my uncle who works for IBM in Austin...

Mr. MacPhisto, I hope you're right. If so, I think you should be hired to work with MacRumors on this stuff... I just hope your information sources aren't violating their NDA's. If this is the first word we've heard of such exciting news, and it comes so freely from you, I wonder why we haven't heard it before... Besides, we all know how Steve Jobs likes to keep things under wraps...
 
hmm, i was just gonna say that apple wouldnt let someone else manufacture desktops running osx. but then i guess if its just ibm it might do more good than anything. as so many already mentioned, ibm's name will really help apple gain ground in the business sector. also, couldnt apple use a bit of help manufacturing systems? they can barely get their new systems out the door (17" pb). i just hope (if its true) its a good decision.
 
Re: names of new powermac?!

Originally posted by Reed Black
I hope this Mr. MacPHISTO is right. I believe that he is regarding everything. The same folks saying that Apple wouldnt allow OSX on an IBM station are the same people who said that there would NEVER BE A 17" powerbook and wa-laa its here.
Click to expand...

BTW they also said there would never be iTunes for Windows....
:D

charles
 
ok, here is my problem...

mr macphisto said....
think Apple may put 1MB of L3 on the 750 machines, 2MB on the PBs and PowerMacs. However, the PMs can
take up to 4 - and it may be best for the laptops to only have 1.

there is no l3 cache on the 970. this makes all this info. suspect for me.

;(

i am surprised no one picked this up before...at least i did not see it posted...
 
Re: ok, here is my problem...

Originally posted by anonmac
mr macphisto said....
think Apple may put 1MB of L3 on the 750 machines, 2MB on the PBs and PowerMacs. However, the PMs can
take up to 4 - and it may be best for the laptops to only have 1.

there is no l3 cache on the 970. this makes all this info. suspect for me.

;(

i am surprised no one picked this up before...at least i did not see it posted...
Click to expand...

Please note, that was my OPINION and not info from a source inside IBM. Notice how I started out with "I think" and said "Apple may". I have no sources in Apple, only in IBM. And, as was noted before, even though IBM does not configure the 970 with L3, Apple may be able to add it on their own. A couple posts up it is mentioned that it may be placed on the north bridge. Just because IBM doesn't spec out L3 doesn't mean that Apple can't add it.
 
Superbowl

Never posted here before but I had to sign up just to make this point. Quite some time back I read (can’t remember where), that Steve had called on ad firm Chiat-Day to prepare a major TV commercial exceeding the 1984 superbowl ad. It is to air this coming superbowl and is to be a milestone event. I’ve been chewing on that since then. The 970 news started trickling out and I thought perhaps that’s it. But really the 970 just isn’t big enough to warrant a move like this. Certainly music deals are big and interesting but still don’t fit the stature of the original Mac ad. I decided at one point that an IBM alliance announcement would fit, but chalked it up to over the top pipe dreaming. If this story has legs, the pieces start to fall in place.
 
DDR400?

Unfortunately,
Dual-Channel DDR400 will only support 800Mhz for the Front Side Bus. When the PowerPC970 will need 900Mhz. still itll acheive the 6.4GB/sec. bandwidth.

Got a serious question, what is the difference or how is both related.......clock cycle and operations per second.
Even on ArsTechnica I cannot find info regarding operations per second and Mhz/Ghz of a clock cycle. If I have a 1Ghz chip how many operations per second will it do, or/and how do seconds and Mhz correlate to one another???

thanks
 
What makes IBM aggresivly make new CPU's for Apple?

I do not think IBM can make enough profit to cover the development costs just from Apple.
Are there any other companies planinng to use these CPUs? If not, I have this feeling that it will end up just like Moto
 
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