Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

barkmonster

macrumors 68020
Dec 3, 2001
2,126
12
Lancashire
The wording of the bit about apple using the ppc970 in the powermac reminds me of that lawyer in the simpsons.

"Mr. Simpson, the state bar forbids me from promising you a big cash settlement. But just between you and me, I promise you a big cash settlement" - Lionel Hutz

:D
 

maradong

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 7, 2003
1,058
0
Luxembourg
i see this as the major presentation of the chip in itself. Officially, if i understand it all well, only the apple managers have to say: << YES, we 're gonna use that chip ! >> and i think everybody would be happy.
 

freundt

macrumors member
Apr 8, 2003
87
0
Seattle
strange.. did anyone else feel like this was a pitch to apple to use the 970's? Almost felt like a powerpoint..err.. keynote presentation from a past meeting between IBM and Apple put into pdf form.

Hmm...

that said, I'm inserting the obligatory statement - I can't wait for a 970 based powerbook.

_f
 

maradong

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 7, 2003
1,058
0
Luxembourg
Originally posted by freundt
strange.. did anyone else feel like this was a pitch to apple to use the 970's? Almost felt like a powerpoint..err.. keynote presentation from a past meeting between IBM and Apple put into pdf form.

Hmm...

that said, I'm inserting the obligatory statement - I can't wait for a 970 based powerbook.

_f

i really hope you are NOT right. that would be a pity.. no really.
 

strider42

macrumors 65816
Feb 1, 2002
1,461
7
best part of the PDF: "Obviously, the Power4 is overkill for a desktop computer or local server, especially one that doesn’t have to run Windows"

Implying that windows might be better off with the otherwise overkill of the power4. funny stuff.
 

freundt

macrumors member
Apr 8, 2003
87
0
Seattle
Re: date

Originally posted by dornball
this .pdf is dated 1/28/02.......pretty old don't you think?

-dornball

AH-HA So, it *was* a presentation to Apple by IBM. I was right...I'm soo good it hurts... :p
 

cb911

macrumors 601
Mar 12, 2002
4,125
4
BrisVegas, Australia
that is an old PDF... i din't even know, or hear about any rumors of the 970 back then:eek:

although it is dated from way back last year, could IBM have updated some info in it?

anyway, i've never seen this before and it looks like good reading.:)
 

apemn88

macrumors newbie
May 5, 2003
6
0
Powernac sale!??!

Just checked macwarehouse...they are offer "clearance sale" on all apple products. That really doesn't mean much, but why the term "clearance"?

Ape
 

gbojim

macrumors 6502
Jan 30, 2002
353
0
Re: Re: date

Originally posted by freundt
AH-HA So, it *was* a presentation to Apple by IBM. I was right...I'm soo good it hurts... :p

Hang on a minute. This is not an IBM presentation to Apple. It is an article written for the Microprocessor Report magazine, presumably as a followup to the IBM presentation of the PPC970 at the Microprocessor Forum last year.

Apple would have been on board with this much earlier than late last year.
 

dornball

macrumors member
Apr 3, 2003
79
0
Denver, CO.
Re: Powernac sale!??!

Originally posted by apemn88
Just checked macwarehouse...they are offer "clearance sale" on all apple products. That really doesn't mean much, but why the term "clearance"?

you could be on to something, though as a side note, its hardly a bargain. you save ~$60 on a DP1.42 pmac, and ~$40 on a DP1.25.

though it does say clearance on everything.

interesting......

-dornball
 

Ambrose Chapel

macrumors 65816
Jul 24, 2002
1,141
3
Massachusetts
come all ye doubters, IBM will guide you...

This really reads like an open letter to the Mac comminity - all the digs at the G4, with the promise of a 970 salvation. Telling everyone who is down on Mac hardware to just wait til 2003. They all but announce Apple's adoption of the chip, and the performance boost Macs will see with it.

Or maybe I'm just reading into it too much...
:D
 

type_r503

macrumors member
Jul 14, 2002
46
0
How can IBM use the term "Altivec" without Apple's or MOT's support? Obviously MOT isn't going to give it to them, so it must have been apple.
 

Freg3000

macrumors 68000
Sep 22, 2002
1,914
0
New York
Originally posted by type_r503
How can IBM use the term "Altivec" without Apple's or MOT's support? Obviously MOT isn't going to give it to them, so it must have been apple.

Yeah, the only thing even more convincing would be if they used Apple's name for Altivec, "Velocity Engine." No one ever does. :)
 

zigi

macrumors newbie
Apr 5, 2003
25
0
Altivec

IBM and Moto worked on the AltiVec architecture together, but Moto got the product. I seem to remember something about IBM licensing it from Moto in some news about the 970 around Christmas time. OS X will roar on any one of 970 procs!!!! Can't wait!:D
 

valve83

macrumors member
May 12, 2003
32
0
Springfield, PA
hey everyone =P

i'm new posting here, but i've been reading the forums for a while, and, while i (UNFORTUNATELY) still own a pc, i'll be getting a sweet mac this summer for school.

the only thing that i am curious about regarding the 970 pdf was the mention of the "deep pipelines". i remember that apple made a big deal about the g4's short pipeline which would allow the user to "see results faster". would this make the longer pipeline of the 970 a disadvantage to speed? or are the chips faster enough in general to eliminate this disadvantage?
 

tazznb

macrumors regular
Jul 22, 2002
141
0
New Jersey
Deeeeep & Wiiiide.... did I misspell?

Originally posted by valve83
hey everyone =P

i'm new posting here, but i've been reading the forums for a while, and, while i (UNFORTUNATELY) still own a pc, i'll be getting a sweet mac this summer for school.

the only thing that i am curious about regarding the 970 pdf was the mention of the "deep pipelines". i remember that apple made a big deal about the g4's short pipeline which would allow the user to "see results faster". would this make the longer pipeline of the 970 a disadvantage to speed? or are the chips faster enough in general to eliminate this disadvantage?

They made the assumption that the G4 is better due to the fact that it's wide, and not deep; the 970 is DEEP & WIDE, but there's a trade-off for making it that way. Read this article for a better understanding: http://arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc970-1.html
 

Kid Red

macrumors 65816
Dec 14, 2001
1,417
148
Surprised no one mentioned that it states the 970 max speed is 1.8ghz. So all the rumors that we will get a 2.3ghz is BS.
 

mislabeledstar

macrumors regular
May 12, 2003
140
0
Los Angeles
Don't forget that this is an old report. At the time this was printed 1.8 gig was supposedly the highest, but since then IBM has released statements indicating higher sppeds of 2 gig+.
 

JEdiBeavis

macrumors newbie
Jul 23, 2002
23
0
Am I correct in understanding that all of the references to the 970 going in a notebook are intended as jokes?

Because it seems the 970 sucks far too much juice to be a laptop processor.

Edit: I just read the Ars Technica article.

I guess I'm wrong again.

Ah, well. I'll stick to reading.
 

noverflow

macrumors regular
Jul 4, 2002
188
0
970 not as fast as everyone thinks?

970 not as fast as everyone thinks?

In the IBM PDF, it states that a single 1.8 970 can do 18M keys at 1.8Ghz in RC5

the dual QS 1.0ghz g4 mac does 21M keys in RC5

no, if you dream ad just double the Keys for a dual system you get 36M Keys at 1.8ghz

do the math and if you scale a G4 to do 36M Keys in rc5 you would need a dual 1.7143 GHZ ...

this means that even if you loose info to the dual system, the 970 will not be faster in Altivec programs.

however if you note that apple dual 1.42 can acheave 21Gf. the dual 1.8 will do near 30gf/s

and we know by the altivec fractle program that the second processor will double the Gf... we do our math again

a Dual 1.947Ghz G4 would be needed to do the same work as a dual 1.8ghz 970


according to apple one of my 1.0ghz g4s should do 1.5gf with NO altivec

so at 1.8 should do 2.7Gf with NO altivec

BUT a 1.8 970 does 7.2Gf

That is 2.6X faster with no altives used

So while the 970 will not do a ton more work using altivec, it will do a bunch more for normal non altivec enhanced code.


but i could be wrong about all of it
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.