Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Assuming that the G4 as we know it is somewhat faster than an equivalently-clocked Athlon or P4 (which should generally be true), and the hints have been that the single-core PPC 970 may be about twice as quick as a G4... that's fast. :)

For reference, I believe the first 64-bit Athlons are expected to launch at 1.6 GHz (or a 3400+ rating - the 800 MHz part was an early sample), so assuming IBM matched the performance ratio exactly - and they may well come close or exceed it - the PPC 970 would be rated as the equivalent of an "Athlon 3800+" chip.

Depending on the actual specs the chip may be useful more to keep Apple genuinely competitive (rather than the dramatic gap we see now), but for many Mac users or potential converts, that's enough!
 
Originally posted by robguz
Don't give me benchmarks on a totally different chip running a totally different OS.

The OS doesn't really matter in the SPEC benchmarks - what matters is the processor in question and the compiler.
Can OSX even run on this unannounced chip? Who knows. Maybe it will take Apple another year to accomplish that.

Apple needing a year to get OS X to run on this new chip would be like Microsoft needing a year to get Windows 95 running on anything faster than a 486. This 970 will be PPC-compatible; it will probably necessitate an OS upgrade, but I would consider that more or less a triviality.
It took them 6 years to get a usable version of OSX out the door even though there were already PowerPC builds of the NextStep before Apple purchased Next.

We both know that moving a highly portable OS to a CPU that is more or less binary compatible with existing PowerPCs cannot be compared to re-engineering and programming major portions of a brand new operating system.
I read the thread. Basically the same as every other thread in the past 5 years, e.g. new chip is coming and it will be great/we'll blow away Wintel/naysayers like me who say I'll believe it when I see it and if Apple's past history is any iindication, don't hold your breath.
I understand how you feel, but we (Mac users) should be happy to hear that finally we have some real, solid evidence of a way out of this long, dark tunnel, and don't have to believe in vaporous Motorola G5 conspiracies any longer.

Alex
 
alex_ant:

The OS doesn't really matter in the SPEC benchmarks - what matters is the processor in question and the compiler.
That is actually not true... OSX has a high system overhead because of the microkernel. I would expect Linux on a Mac to deliver better SPEC scores than OSX on a Mac.
 
Originally posted by Postal
Assuming that the G4 as we know it is somewhat faster than an equivalently-clocked Athlon or P4 (which should generally be true)

If you don't take AltiVec into account, the G4 is on par with a Pentium III clock-for-clock in SPEC, and somewhat slower (within 100 points give or take, depending on the particular model of processor) than both the Athlon and the P4 clock-for-clock. I think the notion that the G4 is more efficient than competing x86 chips is a popular misconception. The G4 has architecturally never been significantly updated except to make way for higher clock speed.

I agree with your conclusion though, that this new chip looks nice and that it will be way faster than the G4.
 
Originally posted by ddtlm
alex_ant:

That is actually not true... OSX has a high system overhead because of the microkernel. I would expect Linux on a Mac to deliver better SPEC scores than OSX on a Mac.
I thought what OS X had was a cross between a microkernel and a monolithic kernel. You would know better than I, though.

I would expect Linux on a Mac to deliver better scores than OS X on a Mac in ANYTHING. :)
 
alex_ant:

I thought what OS X had was a cross between a microkernel and a monolithic kernel.
Whatever it is, I don't like it as much as the Linux kernel.

If you don't take AltiVec into account, the G4 is on par with a Pentium III clock-for-clock in SPEC
This appears to only be true for integer SPEC. The G4 appears to be well behind per-clock in float SPEC, when not using AltiVec (I do not have any idea how much AltiVec will help, because it is the nature of SPEC that all such things must be done by the compiler and not by hand).

Anyway, I once thought the G4 had a nice IPC advantage but I no longer believe that. I was especially dissapointed when I first realized that the G4 is an in-order-execution CPU, whereas Athlons and P4s can execute instructions out of order. (And so can the Power4.) AFAIK, the most powerful in-order CPU in the Sun UltraSparc, which was listed in those SPEC results I've linked. Note that it was not esecially good. Note also that the other SPARC CPU was by Fujitsu, and it does out-of-order execution and is much more powerful overall.
 
Originally posted by alex_ant
I would expect Linux on a Mac to deliver better scores than OS X on a Mac in ANYTHING. :)

i take issue with that!

i would expect OS X to deliver better scores in usability and style
:)

i_b_joshua
 
Originally posted by alex_ant

If you don't take AltiVec into account, the G4 is on par with a Pentium III clock-for-clock in SPEC, and somewhat slower (within 100 points give or take, depending on the particular model of processor) than both the Athlon and the P4 clock-for-clock. [/B]

The PIV, clock for clock, is slower than then the PIII, so how could a G4 be on par with the PIII, and slower than the slower than PIII PIV?
 
wait so everything's going 64 bit? I don't get this...apple's going to have two gigantic changes in less than..what 5 years? isn't the jump to a 64 bit platform going to be equal to, if not greater, than the jump from OS9 to OSX?
 
Originally posted by Choppaface
wait so everything's going 64 bit? I don't get this...apple's going to have two gigantic changes in less than..what 5 years? isn't the jump to a 64 bit platform going to be equal to, if not greater, than the jump from OS9 to OSX?

Nope. If not for Apple Marketing, you might even miss it.
 
Originally posted by ddtlm
robguz:


Haha! Not only did I list the IPC as an assumption which clearly means I am aware that it was one, but I didn't say a damn thing about OS's or about Apple. Woot! You lose! :)

Actually, you did implicitly by relying on Spec benchmarks. And of course you're igoring the other assumptions you made. Woot? Shouldn't you be going back to your 4th grade classroom now?
 
Ok, so I missed this this weekend, but this morning trying to read the article all I got was a bunch of ads and no article - anyone else with this problem?
 
Originally posted by dukestreet
Ok, so I missed this this weekend, but this morning trying to read the article all I got was a bunch of ads and no article - anyone else with this problem?

Still works for me and I'm not sure if this is somewhere earlier in the thread but here is the article just for you.

IBM server chip seen slimmed down for Apple Macs
Reuters, 10.13.02, 3:49 PM ET

(TRANSMISSION EMBARGO UNTIL 12:01 am EDT/0401 GMT)

ARMONK, N.Y. (Reuters) - International Business Machines Corp. Monday announced a microchip for personal computers that will crunch data in chunks twice as big as the current standard and is expected by industry watchers to be used by Apple Computer Inc.

Apple was not available to comment, and IBM declined to comment on which PC makers would use the chip, but its plans would mark a change for the industry, which has emphasized the importance of the speed of a chip rather than its ability to handle heavy workloads.

IBM said its new PowerPC chip would go into production late next year and process 64 bits of data at a time at 1.8 Gigahertz, or 1.8 billion cycles per second.

The microchip is the brain of a computer, although personal computer chips now come only in 32-bit flavors, which are tuned to do light workloads fast but cannot handle heavy duty server chores.

Chekib Akrout, vice president of IBM microprocessor development, said big databases and the Internet challenged PCs: "This is the time to introduce a 64-bit machine capable of being used on a desktop," he said in a telephone interview.

An industry source said Cupertino, California-based Apple would use the chip in its Macintosh computers.

That could catapult Apple, long dogged by the belief its chips are slower than those produced by Intel Corp., to the technological head of the class and put to rest speculation it was considering moving soon to the Intel platform.

The fastest of the current generation of PowerPC chips in Macintosh computers runs at 1.25 Gigahertz, while the top Intel Pentium is 2.8 Gigahertz. Apple says its machines are already more efficient than Intel-based ones.

Advanced Micro Devices Inc., the main competitor to Intel, is also developing a 64-bit chip code-named Hammer that is expected early next year, although it is planned primarily for servers rather than personal computers.


SERVER LITE

IBM said the new PowerPC 970 microchip is a "lite" version of its Power4 chip, which it launched last fall in its sophisticated computer server, code-named "Regatta."

The PowerPC can run 32-bit applications as well as 64-bit ones and is tuned for graphics, like some Intel chips, IBM said. However, it is not designed to run programs written for Intel chips.

The PowerPC has the same energy-saving attributes as the Power4 but uses only one central processing unit, not two.

The chip will be available in the second half of 2003 and be built in IBM's East Fishkill, New York, chip plant, a new facility that is currently doing test-runs and aims to ramp up into production on other chips later this year.

One analyst said the chip's attributes mean it would work well in the professional publishing sector, for high-end graphics and other media-intense tasks.

"This processor would be a great processor for a Macintosh," said Tom Halfhill, an analyst with San Jose, California-based In-Stat/MDR.

IBM, the world's largest computer company, has seen revenue from its microelectronics division dwindle in recent quarters as the semiconductor sector has been hit by a sharp downturn in demand. It has restructured the unit, selling off some assets.

IBM announced earlier this week more details on its new microelectronics design unit, where it will design chips and other electronics for customers, including Sony Corp.

Copyright 2002, Reuters News Service
 
Originally posted by Nipsy
The PIV, clock for clock, is slower than then the PIII, so how could a G4 be on par with the PIII, and slower than the slower than PIII PIV?
I lied (oops), and the G4 is also slower than the PIII clock-for-clock (AltiVec aside), at least according to the SPEC results available which used GCC 2.whatever for the tests. So the G4 (my guess) is probably a bit behind the PIII in integer, and still way behind in fp.
 
You Morons need to listen to Arn. You can't compare the chips processors speeds. It's all in archetecture, component speeds, system arch, OS, and what the machine is doing.

A) I am running OS X 10.2 on a g3 400 with 256 ram and it is running very damn smooth. Try running XP on a 400 p3 with 256 and see how nice it is.

B) It's not all about megahertz. It's about system optimization, pipes, channels all of that are major factors.

C) Arn is absolutely correct. You can't compare it at all, and you haven't even sat at a mchine using it. I beleive even if you did you would still whine about the megahertz. If you are so worried about megahertz envy jump platforms. I don't care. I am happy with apples equipment.

D) Just shut up your whining. Sheesh. Apple is looking to be the first true 64 bit OS + System out there. and you guys still whine. Even intel and MS are having problems entering the market. The Itanium was horrible, the itanium 2 looks to be flat on it's face since you can get Power4's and sparcs at a fraction of the price....

GPT
 
Sun's premier workstation is running a 1 GHz 64 bit UltraSparc processor. It is not slow compared to a Pentium either. So, if Apple releases a machine with this processor, you have to ask yourself (in Clint Eastwood accent) will Windows be running on 64 bit processors on the everymans desktop? Will it?

I don't think so. Mac OS X will be 64 bit ready far before windows will be. I would like to see a dual or quad processor server with this cpu.

Oh, another thing to look at, Intel's new server is really awesome. It is like a mainframe in 8 rack units (with two servers linked together), the x series 440 .

You can have 16 processors linked together and actually segment it into multiple servers with redundant failover CPUs, 16 mem slots and you can mirror the memory. It takes up to 64 GB of memory in a single 4U chassis.

This is a market I want to see apple enter.
 
I think the whole MHz (GHz) issue could have a shake-out in the next year.

If the Power4-lite performs as we hope (pray!) it will, it could be that excessive clock speeds will then be seen as a problem rather than a virtue. Who wants a current-hungry, battery-draining, noisy, crash-prone 4GHz chip, when a better designed one at half the speed can do more work more reliably?

Marketing is key here: If a better benchmarking system ever becomes popular, people will know to respect the chip which achieves the highest power at the lowest clockrate.

In general, I hope apple sticks to building its machines around the most efficient chips - not the fastest clockrates. Particularly as the markets for servers, on the one hand, and laptops, on the other, continue to increase...
 
Sun's premier workstation is running a 1 GHz 64 bit UltraSparc processor.
Now now, it's 1050MHz so that's actually 1.05GHz for the UltraSPARC III Cu. ;) Sorry, everyone else was being so damn nit-pickey that I had to have a little fun. Seriously though, it's a nice chip and they're working with TI to have it at 1.2 GHz soon.


I thought what OS X had was a cross between a microkernel and a monolithic kernel.
Yes, Apple has done some work to make it more monolithic in design than a true MACH microkernel. It cuts down on some of the message passing between traditional kernel functions that are split off into "user level" processes in MACH. Because we're working with small system images for the Macintosh, MACH tends to be a little too chatty.


Okay, so now for my 2 cents worth...

One thing I think people are overlooking in this discussion is that this processor will have a SIMD unit. We don't know how that is going to affect performance. IBM stated that this processor is 8-way superscalar. Does that include instructions for the VMX unit or no? Do you basically get a POWER4 core plus VMX?! (Imagine the performance coming off that with Apple's Velocity Engine optimizations along with keeping VMX fed with a 6.4GB/s bus.) I don't think we'll really know the answers to some of these questions until the microprocessor forum but even so, the chip should be very impressive.
 
Originally posted by Nipsy


The PIV, clock for clock, is slower than then the PIII, so how could a G4 be on par with the PIII, and slower than the slower than PIII PIV?

That's not quite true anymore, at the time the P4 was released the current PIII did out run it, but now it depends on the model. Of my three PCs generally slowest to fastest clock for clock are PIII Coppermine (the ~733s to 1ghz), P4 northwood 533mhz bus, PIII Tualatin (newer PIII server or mobile processors in the 1.0 to 1.4 ghz range). So you see they can be faster and slower, depends on the model and/or what task your currently working on.
 
Well...

Ok, IBM is set to announce this chip today, and the "real" media (Reuters, AP) have published articles speculating that Apple will use this chip and as such, AAPL stock is up .50 this morning. What kind of a drop do you think we'll see if it is revealed that Apple will NOT use this chip. I think the stock will drop back down into the low $13 range. I hate how Wall Street works. Great company+Great products+pretty consistent profit=downgrade in stock every quarter?

Gus
 
Re: 'Official' announcement

Originally posted by chibianh
well, in case anyone is interested, IBM's press release of the chip.

http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2002/1014_powerpc.html
This is what I like from the announcement:

The chip incorporates an innovative communications link, or "bus," specially developed to speed information between the processor and memory. Running at a speed of up to 900 megahertz, the bus can deliver information to the processor at up to 6.4 gigabytes per second, to help ensure that the high-performance processor is fed data at sufficient speeds.

The problem of slower buses are painfully evident in the Mac and are also felt in your everyday PC. One of the reasons "true" workstations form a company like Sun feel so fast is due to the incredible amount of data their buses can move between the processor and memory.
 
"The chip incorporates an innovative communications link, or "bus," specially developed to speed information between the processor and memory. Running at a speed of up to 900 megahertz, the bus can deliver information to the processor at up to 6.4 gigabytes per second, to help ensure that the high-performance processor is fed data at sufficient speeds."

THAT sounds promising!

Gus
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.