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

IBM PowerPC Announcement

Originally posted by jettredmont


"Deerfield" (Q3 2003) is Intel's projected 64-bit desktop PC. Some suspect that the P5 may have 64-bit extensions akin to AMD's Hammer, but that is unconfirmed (and, if unleashed, would radically alter Intels forward-looking CPU map).

So, using many of the same techniques IBM is applying to POWER4, Intel will have an "Itanium 3 lite" out at about the same time. However, it will be running at ~1GHz, which isn't much faster than the current Itanium line (although I3 might be more efficient than I2 so you never know).

IBM 970 is not a "home run" "game winner" for Apple, but it sure puts us back in the performance game.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was my original point of the post in that Intel marketing may have some consumer education to do with a desktop Itanium debuting to the public at 1GHz. They've let the MHz myth run rampant, to their gain of course. They may have to backpedal a bit.

I agree that Yamhill would dramatically alter things. So far though, Intel has been denying any intention to use it. Guess that will depend on if Hammer puts the hurt on them.
 
Re: What if its a completely new pro product?

Originally posted by deepkid
I know that many of us have been championing for a more powerful line of powermacs, but what if this chip is destined for a completely new power product other than the powermacs or X-serve? (Assuming that sources are correct that Apple will use the new PowerPC 970 chips in the first place.)

Think about it. Apple has bought some powerful and well-respected software/companies in the last year or so, not limited to Shake, Nothing Real and Emagic.

What if they are going to create some kick ass pro solution that has nothing to do with the powermacs?

A sort of Borg of pro macs...

If that's the case, I doubt that the price tag would be within comfortable reach of the typical prosumer who buys powermacs.

I'm waiting to buy a powermac, but we could be thinking in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...

I've heard of this and this could be a very real possibility. Apple doesn't have any contenders in the super high end user market where 4Gigs of Ram is not enough.

Has anyone else thought about them marketing a computer based on the X-Serve that you can cluster. This was discussed at the latest MacWorld in France. Imagine putting 40 or more X-Serves in a server tower and having the computing power of all of them combined. Actually there is no limitation to how many except for money and space. Which for the kind of people who would need it would not be a problem for either.

Also if Apple does promote clustering what's preventing a technology that allows the buses in each computer from communicating with each other at full speed over short distances say inside a server tower. The computing power of something like this would be truly awesome approaching that of almost any SuperComputer in the world today for a lot less money.
 
Anyone who says that Apple and Motorola are overclocking the G4, obviously don't understand what the term "overclock" means, and are therefore to be thought of as idiots.

The 1.25s are 7455A chips, that SAY ON THEM 1.25 GHz. They are rated to run at 1.25 GHz, and therefore ARE NOT overclocked. Duh. The G4 has long been able to run on a 166.67 MHz FSB, Apple just hadn't implemented it yet.

If you are basing the OC'ing assumption on the fact that Moto hasn't yet updated their fact pages, you are a dumbass and have no idea how this stuff really works. Go read up some more before posting. We who actually know this stuff are tired of your idiocy and mis-use of terms.

Besides, it would be illegal for Apple to OC the G4 and not say anything. And as someone else posted, if Moto says it's a 1.25, it's a 1.25. That's how fast it was rated to run, that's how fast it runs. So shut-up, and drop it already, or you will be mercilessly made fun of (so I ended this sentence on a preposition, sue me).

Anyway, back to the rediculously long thread (at least there aren't a hundred of them). Speed is good. Clock speed doesn't mean much, but more speed is always better. IBM good, bring 'em on.
 
Originally posted by solvs
So shut-up, and drop it already, or you will be mercilessly made fun of (so I ended this sentence on a preposition, sue me).
Click to expand...

The correct english, of course, would end "or you will have fun made of you mercilessly." ...

Somehow I don't think slang was ever meant to follow conventional standard English rules ... :)
 
Originally posted by jettredmont


The correct english, of course, would end "or you will have fun made of you mercilessly." ...

Somehow I don't think slang was ever meant to follow conventional standard English rules ... :)
Click to expand...

My way sounded better anyway. Proper English be darned. :D

But I think I made my point (ha, I did it again. Started a sentence with BUT. And I started the last sentence without saying I. And these 2 with AND. I can't be stopped with my bad English).

This thread is just gonna get longer and longer isn't it?
 
Re: Re: What if its a completely new pro product?

Originally posted by MacBandit
I've heard of this and this could be a very real possibility. Apple doesn't have any contenders in the super high end user market where 4Gigs of Ram is not enough.
Click to expand...

...SGI...IBM...Linux...
Has anyone else thought about them marketing a computer based on the X-Serve that you can cluster.
Click to expand...

A computer based on the Xserve that you can cluster... sounds good! They could call it the Xserve. (Clustering is a capability that's coming in OS X Server which will require no new hardware)
Also if Apple does promote clustering what's preventing a technology that allows the buses in each computer from communicating with each other at full speed over short distances say inside a server tower. The computing power of something like this would be truly awesome approaching that of almost any SuperComputer in the world today for a lot less money.
Click to expand...
Interesting, although not as interesting as it would be if you knew what you were talking about. "Our computer's got lotsa buses! Let's link 'em up! Blip, bleep, bloop, done! If it was a supercomputer before, it's a super-duper computer now!"
 
Re: What if its a completely new pro product?

Originally posted by deepkid
I know that many of us have been championing for a more powerful line of powermacs, but what if this chip is destined for a completely new power product other than the powermacs or X-serve? (Assuming that sources are correct that Apple will use the new PowerPC 970 chips in the first place.)
Click to expand...

I don't believe an ultra-high-end Apple computer is in the cards for several reasons:

- If this chip were going in a new, high-end Apple product, the Power Mac and Xserve without any new chip of their own would shrivel up and die. Apple needs a faster CPU in these products more than they need a high-high-end computer.
- The demands of the markets in which Apple is trying to establish itself would, for the most part, rather have the flexibility and scalability that a clustering-capable solution like the Xserve provides (or will provide in future releases of OS X Server) than have to fork over a huge sum for a relatively non-upgradeable machine.
- A quad-processor Xserve or other 4-CPU rackmount computer would have little advantage over the dual-CPU Xserve if it wouldn't fit in a 1U form factor. And fitting 4 CPUs inside a 1U form factor would be a trick, to say the least.
- This new CPU will be suited to the Power Macs and Xserve. Small die size, probably cheap to manufacture, probably not a ton of cache. This is a CPU for desktop computers, workstations, and low-end servers, as IBM itself states.
- Steve Jobs has historically favored simplified product lines, and has never catered to the highest of high end customers.
Think about it. Apple has bought some powerful and well-respected software/companies in the last year or so, not limited to Shake, Nothing Real and Emagic.

What if they are going to create some kick ass pro solution that has nothing to do with the powermacs?
Click to expand...

Why not just make the Power Mac the kick ass solution?
 
Originally posted by jettredmont


The correct english, of course, would end "or you will have fun made of you mercilessly." ...

Somehow I don't think slang was ever meant to follow conventional standard English rules ... :)
Click to expand...
As long as we're being picky, it would have been "you will be the one of whom fun will mercilessly be made," or something. :D
 
Re: Re: What if its a completely new pro product?

Originally posted by MacBandit

Also if Apple does promote clustering what's preventing a technology that allows the buses in each computer from communicating with each other at full speed over short distances say inside a server tower. The computing power of something like this would be truly awesome approaching that of almost any SuperComputer in the world today for a lot less money.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the SGI Origin 3000. http://www.sgi.com/origin/3000/ Just as a side note you may want to check it out. They use what SGI calls NUMAflex. They use separate components called bricks which are connected together in a cabinet to create a nice customized solution. There are processor bricks, i/o bricks, storage bricks, etc. The processors are all connected via switches (much more efficient than busses). Of course, it's a ccNUMA architecture (cache coherent Non Uniform Memory Access) which makes memory management for local memory to each processor a bit easier to deal with. Anyway, maybe give it a look. Sounds similar to what you're talking about.
 
Re: Re: Re: What if its a completely new pro product?

Originally posted by alex_ant

...SGI...IBM...Linux...
[/b]
A computer based on the Xserve that you can cluster... sounds good! They could call it the Xserve. (Clustering is a capability that's coming in OS X Server which will require no new hardware)

Interesting, although not as interesting as it would be if you knew what you were talking about. "Our computer's got lotsa buses! Let's link 'em up! Blip, bleep, bloop, done! If it was a supercomputer before, it's a super-duper computer now!" [/B]
Click to expand...

Okay what I meant about competitors is that Apple doesn't compete in that market just poor wording.

OSX server does not allow clustering currently but it's been mentioned that it may be added next year at some point.

What I was refering to with the buses was the main system bus allowing each cpu maximum throuput as if they were each in the same case on the same board.
 
Re: Re: What if its a completely new pro product?

Originally posted by alex_ant

I don't believe an ultra-high-end Apple computer is in the cards for several reasons:

- If this chip were going in a new, high-end Apple product, the Power Mac and Xserve without any new chip of their own would shrivel up and die. Apple needs a faster CPU in these products more than they need a high-high-end computer.
- The demands of the markets in which Apple is trying to establish itself would, for the most part, rather have the flexibility and scalability that a clustering-capable solution like the Xserve provides (or will provide in future releases of OS X Server) than have to fork over a huge sum for a relatively non-upgradeable machine.
- A quad-processor Xserve or other 4-CPU rackmount computer would have little advantage over the dual-CPU Xserve if it wouldn't fit in a 1U form factor. And fitting 4 CPUs inside a 1U form factor would be a trick, to say the least.
- This new CPU will be suited to the Power Macs and Xserve. Small die size, probably cheap to manufacture, probably not a ton of cache. This is a CPU for desktop computers, workstations, and low-end servers, as IBM itself states.
- Steve Jobs has historically favored simplified product lines, and has never catered to the highest of high end customers.
[/b]
Why not just make the Power Mac the kick ass solution? [/B]
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that this chip is good for the XServe. There's a reason why x86 1Us are still using P3s. The PPC970 is NOT being designed for low power consumption (according to anything I've heard), so for now it's only going to be useful in the PowerMacs. A little later when they transition it to .09 micron... we might start seeing TiBooks or XServes with it (they're pretty similar, actually, and have pretty similar requirements).
 
Re: Re: Re: What if its a completely new pro product?

Originally posted by Catfish_Man


I'm not so sure that this chip is good for the XServe. There's a reason why x86 1Us are still using P3s. The PPC970 is NOT being designed for low power consumption (according to anything I've heard), so for now it's only going to be useful in the PowerMacs. A little later when they transition it to .09 micron... we might start seeing TiBooks or XServes with it (they're pretty similar, actually, and have pretty similar requirements).
Click to expand...
You're assuming Apple has no plans to release different servers. Not every rack mountable server comes in a 1U format.
 
Re: Great, 3 years too late

Originally posted by robguz
Whoopee, the mac world will finally have 1.8Ghz by 2004 (c'mon we all know that late 2003 means 2004 at the earliest-otherwise we'd all be using the real Apollo chips running at 1.6Ghz for the past 6 months). Meanwhile the Wintel world will be at 4Ghz plus. In 2004 we'll get to party like it's 2000!
Click to expand...

Actually, no. If you assume that the Wintel world will be moving over to the Itanium, it might interest you to know that the current speed of the Itanium 2 -- which scores quite well on the benchmarks, btw -- is a palty 1ghz.

The people in the Wintel world who have been using ghz ratings as a measure of their ***** size are going to be in for a rude awakening when the Itanium is pushed as mainstream. They very well may be forced to admit that there is something to this whole "mhz myth" after all.

One other thing to keep in mind is that the GP-UL is not just a stripped down, single-core POWER4 processor -- it isn't valid to assume that the GP-UL will simply be a scaled down POWER4 from earlier this year, with no enhancements whatsoever.

Wait until you see the benchmarks from this processor; I think you may be quite impressed.
 
Re: Re: Great, 3 years too late

Originally posted by moki
One other thing to keep in mind is that the GP-UL is not just a stripped down, single-core POWER4 processor -- it isn't valid to assume that the GP-UL will simply be a scaled down POWER4 from earlier this year, with no enhancements whatsoever.

Wait until you see the benchmarks from this processor; I think you may be quite impressed.
Click to expand...

I also think it would be a big assumption to think that the PowerPC970 is any more then simply losely based on the Power4. I think it's basic architecture might be the same but the overal features will be quite different.
 
Mybe it's a wishful thinking. Just maybe. But the way yhe things show out makes me thinking that Power 4 is just an replacement for G4 that Apple will throw in to the low-end machines while high-end machines will be using Moto's G5.
 
ipiloot
Mybe it's a wishful thinking. Just maybe. But the way yhe things show out makes me thinking that Power 4 is just an replacement for G4 that Apple will throw in to the low-end machines while high-end machines will be using Moto's G5.
Click to expand...

What Moto G5??? Next you are probably going to tell me that they’re more than 12 people working on the G4 at Moto, at least that is how it seems like it w/ how slow they are bringing faster chips.
Give me some references that are better than anything that we have for the Power4 GPUL. I would be amazed if Apple didn't use the Power4 in its high-end machines.

My question is this: Assuming that the rumors are true, that Apple is planning on using this chip, and the rumor OS X has already shown that it can boot on this proccesser, and if it can run well;
Given that, w/ all this hoopla (TV, web) over the possible outcome of such a chip, could IBM up the production for a sooner unveiling of a computer running this? Maybe by MWSF? Apple could toss this into an Xserve, the perfect whipping boy for a bringing out of new 64-bit proccesser for low-end servers and desktops.
The late 2003 might just mean that is when they are planning to go into full production, possibly when Apple decides to bring the Power Macs to 64, w/ a small market outcropping of delivering the Xserve to the high-end of Apple’s market, this could surprise all the nay-sayers enough to consider Apple’s even more
 
Originally posted by pretentious
Given that, w/ all this hoopla (TV, web) over the possible outcome of such a chip, could IBM up the production for a sooner unveiling of a computer running this? Maybe by MWSF? Apple could toss this into an Xserve, the perfect whipping boy for a bringing out of new 64-bit proccesser for low-end servers and desktops.
The late 2003 might just mean that is when they are planning to go into full production, possibly when Apple decides to bring the Power Macs to 64, w/ a small market outcropping of delivering the Xserve to the high-end of Apple’s market, this could surprise all the nay-sayers enough to consider Apple’s even more
Click to expand...
you been sniffing petrol (gasoline) again?

;)

i_b_joshua
 
Originally posted by mangis
1.8 x dual = 3.6

very near the P4 in a year's time.

Sounds good to me
Click to expand...

I love Dual Processors. After owning a dual system (I have three, not all mac, but three duals), I will never go back to a single cpu system. However, I take very much offense to this idea that you all the sudden have twice the performance if you double the CPUs. THIS IS NOT HOW IT WORKS! ALL A DUAL DOES IS WORKS ON TWO THREADS AT ONCE, IT DOES NOT DOUBLE THE WORK SPEED ON ONE THREAD!

Now that that is done, 2x1.8 is just 1.8. You can't put just a "number" on a SMP system. It is something you have to experience to really enjoy.

And anyway, in case you have forgotten, the P4 can go dual (with the Xeon version), and right now that stands at 2x2.6, so with your math it's 5.2. But, that is not correct, and if you truly do not agree with the megahertz myth, then you won't use this nomeclature. It only promotes the myth that SMP systems are 2x faster (they aren't). SMP systems do promote much smoother multitasking.
 
Originally posted by kenohki


Intel has said Itanium is their next generation platform for the next decade or some catchy buzzphrase like that. Eventually (though not in the next year or two, but eventually) Intel is going to get consumers onto IA-64. They've implicitly stated x86 is done by their actions. It's a drain to have to maintain two desktop/server architectures as far as R&D goes. Besides, they just charge that much because they CAN. Put the economies of scale of the x86 line to the Itanium and they'll come down in price. It's just a matter of time to allow adoption. (HP sure is betting on it.)
Click to expand...

I think they generally refer to it as their next generation *server* platform for now... <shrug> I can't see IA64 making a break for consumer space any time soon. There is a lot of resistance to the instruction set in the developer community since it not only requires different instructions, but a whole different "kind" of programming. The IA64 ISA is a brute force method to processing, to quote one analyst "Smart Compiler, Dumb Processor".

Additionally, I wouldn't look to see IA64 go anywhere outside of the high-end (for Intel) server market ever. There are confirmed rumors of a project at Intel called "Yamhill" which seeks to produce a 64-bit extensions to the IA32 ISA, similar to the approach that AMD is taking. Intel, ever conflicted about goals beyond pocketbook padding, has stated that AMD's approach (64-bit CPUs that are backward compatible to 32-bit apps) is undesirable since you don't gain 100% of the benefits of 64-bit addressing. However, they can see that software vendor resistance to *completely* rewrite their code (there is no simple "porting" in the Itanic world) may eventually cause them to change their minds.

I would take Intel's anti-crossover rhetoric (while maintaining a project to produce a crossover CPU) as a sign that they've made a bad business decision fomented in the throes of the DotBoom. Now that we're in the DotBomb, IT budgets are slashed, new enterprises are few, and there's little need for a new 64-bit platform when Sun, IBM, and HP all have strong platforms with development history.

Add to this that Sun, IBM, and HP platforms are all RISC based, a programming style familiar to all developers. Given that some computer scientists are estimating an entire *generation* of programmers will be lost when confronted with EPIC (IA64), I don't see IA64 as a threat to apple directly.

Binky
 
Originally posted by DharvaBinky


I think they generally refer to it as their next generation *server* platform for now... <shrug> I can't see IA64 making a break for consumer space any time soon. There is a lot of resistance to the instruction set in the developer community since it not only requires different instructions, but a whole different "kind" of programming. The IA64 ISA is a brute force method to processing, to quote one analyst "Smart Compiler, Dumb Processor".

Additionally, I wouldn't look to see IA64 go anywhere outside of the high-end (for Intel) server market ever. There are confirmed rumors of a project at Intel called "Yamhill" which seeks to produce a 64-bit extensions to the IA32 ISA, similar to the approach that AMD is taking. Intel, ever conflicted about goals beyond pocketbook padding, has stated that AMD's approach (64-bit CPUs that are backward compatible to 32-bit apps) is undesirable since you don't gain 100% of the benefits of 64-bit addressing. However, they can see that software vendor resistance to *completely* rewrite their code (there is no simple "porting" in the Itanic world) may eventually cause them to change their minds.

I would take Intel's anti-crossover rhetoric (while maintaining a project to produce a crossover CPU) as a sign that they've made a bad business decision fomented in the throes of the DotBoom. Now that we're in the DotBomb, IT budgets are slashed, new enterprises are few, and there's little need for a new 64-bit platform when Sun, IBM, and HP all have strong platforms with development history.

Add to this that Sun, IBM, and HP platforms are all RISC based, a programming style familiar to all developers. Given that some computer scientists are estimating an entire *generation* of programmers will be lost when confronted with EPIC (IA64), I don't see IA64 as a threat to apple directly.

Binky
Click to expand...

Why would you totally need to rewrite your code? If you're working in a high level language and using the Win32 APIs or writing portable *nix code, seems to me that you'd just need tweaking, optimization, rewriting any assembler (which you'd need to do with any architecture change) and a recompile, not *completely* rewriting your code. Add in the .Net framework and you're further abstracted. The Win32 API set was meant to be portable from the start. Thus the versions for Alpha, MIPS, and PowerPC. And Windows exists on IA64 as does Linux and Monterrey. So seems to me like the majority of the hard work has already been done.

Also, I think Intel has themselves backed into a corner. They've invested billions of dollars in IA64. They're not going to jeopardize that with Yamhill unless Itanium is a *complete* failure and AMD puts the hurt on with x86-64. For Intel to give enterprise an option that maintains their investment in their current architecture would seriously hinder adoption and pretty much mean the death of IA64. It would also be a huge financial blunder (investing all that money in IA64) on Intel's part.
 
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