IBM PPC => No Altivec?

DaveGee

macrumors 6502a
Jul 25, 2001
677
2
Originally posted by bertinman
Umm, why don't people see the "marklar" thing as a joke... as it should be.
Bzzzzt... sorry but thanks for playing. :D

Do you know where X came from? (X as in 'OS X') - Hint: NeXT/OpenStep
Do you know what CPU that code base was written for? Hint: Not PPC
Do you know why it took so long for X to debut? Hint: New CPU Needed to be supported aka PPC

If you knew the roots of X you wouldn't think 'Marklar' was such a joke. In fact if Apple didn't take time to keep X working on x86 I'd be really shocked since as of 18 months ago X was running on x86.

AltiVec is far from required... iBooks and (older) iMacs are all the proof you need on that.

Dave
 

Postal

macrumors regular
Jun 22, 2002
124
0
Ottawa, ON, Canada
What die-size is Motorola's G4 currently being manufactured on? Isn't it 0.18-micron? If so, then moving to 0.13 or 0.09 would let them do a LOT with the clock speed and/or adding features. It'd be nice if we could return to the "high-end-becomes-the-low-end" scheme again. 1.25 GHz low-end chips with 1.6 GHz for the high end? That might happen...
 

TyleRomeo

macrumors 6502a
Mar 22, 2002
888
0
New York
Originally posted by LethalWolfe



Hollywood has been using Mac hardware (running Avid software)for years and years and years. Apple is now trying to take over post production on the software side of things too (and they are making a good run at it). I've seen post houses "make the switch" but that was from Avid to FCP. I've never seen a post house edit using a PC. Apple hardware has always been a staple in post production (and will be for a long time) and they are now trying to make their software equally as popular.


Lethal
lethal is right on, everyone thats a prosumer and in any form of creative industry (film/graphics/photo/animation/ ect..) works on a mac. If you use a PC you either get laughed at or weird stares. So anyone here that says apple is a consumer company can keep on saying that. Let consumers that want to use a simple OS for using word, IE, and light digital work with apples digital hub iProducts. It doesnt matter how fast PCs are, they are unstabble, you can never edit successfully on a PC. Actually a lot of film editors use 533MHZ G4s to edit along with AVIDs hardware becuase they are very stable. So MHZ or GHZ only matter to those apple people who want the fast GHZ numbers just for the plain fact of having them.

So if want the GHZ go to the dark side if you want ease and comfort go with a MAC. MACs are like lexury cars rather then muscle cars. I'm actually happy about that.

Kamil
 

synergy

macrumors regular
Jun 12, 2002
248
0
Originally posted by TyleRomeo




So if want the GHZ go to the dark side if you want ease and comfort go with a MAC. MACs are like lexury cars rather then muscle cars. I'm actually happy about that.

Kamil
Sure Macs are like Luxury cars. Then there are car makers like BMW who makes the M3 as a sport luxury car. Which is what I want. Both from BMW and from Apple. Fast and comfortable, thats not asking too much.
 

alex_ant

macrumors 68020
Feb 5, 2002
2,473
0
All up in your bidness
Taking it literally

Let's assume this news is true:
After the briefing, I asked the presenter (a chief engineering manager from IBM) about the Power4 derivative for desktops and low end servers to be announced in October. You may recall that there has been speculation that this CPU would find its way into PowerMacs in the future. Well, it sounds like this CPU is not in Apple's future -- the "over 160" vector instructions are not AltiVec (even though AltiVec has 162 instructions), and there are technical issues that would prevent AltiVec from ever marrying with Power4 or its successors.

AltiVec is a Motorola trademark that IBM would not be able to use even if it designed its own fully-AltiVec-compatible vector processor. The fact that the VPU on this Power4 derivative is not called AltiVec means nothing. For all anyone knows, it could be a fully AltiVec-compatible vector unit called PoopyVec. Note that Apple never uses the name "AltiVec" either - it uses the term "Velocity Engine." The "technical issues" mentioned, I'm guessing, are a misinterpretation of what the IBM guy said. This chip could well have a VPU that is not "AltiVec," but that would still run vectorized code designed for AltiVec. I can't imagine two incompatible vector units on two different chips in the same processor family.
Furthermore, the guy came right out and said that they have pitched the desktop Power4 to Apple, but Apple was not interested.

I'll turn conspiracy theory mode on for a second and say that if Apple was interested in this chip, it wouldn't be surprising to hear a middle manager at IBM say otherwise. Apple exhibits complete mastery at keeping secrets, and what's the best way to keep secrets? To tell them only to those who need to know them. Does this IBM guy need to know? If not, then he probably doesn't, or has been misinformed by his superiors in order to prevent speculation. I realize this sounds very elaborate and unlikely, but this is how Apple works. I'm sure IBM is quite used to it.

In my opinion, these Power4 derivatives still look like likely candidates for future Macs - if not the next revision of Power Macs, then the revision after that.

Alex
 

bertinman

macrumors 6502
Jul 24, 2002
272
0
Davis, CA
Originally posted by DaveGee


Bzzzzt... sorry but thanks for playing. :D

Do you know where X came from? (X as in 'OS X') - Hint: NeXT/OpenStep
Do you know what CPU that code base was written for? Hint: Not PPC
Do you know why it took so long for X to debut? Hint: New CPU Needed to be supported aka PPC

If you knew the roots of X you wouldn't think 'Marklar' was such a joke. In fact if Apple didn't take time to keep X working on x86 I'd be really shocked since as of 18 months ago X was running on x86.

AltiVec is far from required... iBooks and (older) iMacs are all the proof you need on that.

Dave
OUCH. I'll keep my mouth shut on that one.:eek:

But, NeXT was on the mac type cpu... 68k, there is a NeXt Cube down the hall (yes, Im blessed with almost every type of computer). This stupidity on my part comes from a hectic day... grouped all macs as one for a moment there.

I still feel that intel based osx is not the best idea none-the-less, because it would ruin Apple's control of hardware which is why Apple's systems are so great--They work together.

*puts on flame retardent suit* ok ready for the flames that will undoubtily come soon...

(btw... I do know the roots... my "idiot gear" just kicked in today)

-- bert :cool:
 

chubakka

macrumors regular
Feb 27, 2002
123
0
NYC
my eyes!

Apple has us so in the dark we need a flashlight!

They've gotta have something in the works...
and none of us have a clue as to what it is.

I think it's pretty amusing. I guess I'm an optimist.
 

Mr. Anderson

Moderator emeritus
Nov 1, 2001
22,561
0
VA
I'm just going to take a wait and see approach to all this. We still have the IBM announcement in October - who knows what they might say.

I just hope what ever happens with the next gen chip for Apple is that it can go head to head with anything else out there.

D
 

bertinman

macrumors 6502
Jul 24, 2002
272
0
Davis, CA
Re: my eyes!

Originally posted by chubakka
Apple has us so in the dark we need a flashlight!

They've gotta have something in the works...
and none of us have a clue as to what it is.

I think it's pretty amusing. I guess I'm an optimist.
Exactly, I think people should be more happy than mad about all the secrets.

Which would you rather have, lots of secrets or not? If we didn't we would all be bored... just like the Wintel fanatics (they are rare, but when I do run into them they're usually not too happy in general), or we could be... mad because we don't know whats happening. Or, amused at the bored people, mad people, and even the secret holders because we've got a great soup opera to watch :D. I like the secrets.

wow, I had a pocket of pennies today... and a few buttons too(eh, DaveGee and Kelesis? ;)).

ding! 2 cents!


-- bert :cool:
 

DakotaGuy

macrumors 601
Jan 14, 2002
4,011
3,171
South Dakota, USA
What would happen if you could put the Alti-Vec technology on the 750fx processor from IBM. Am I right or wrong in saying that the 750fx (current G3 in the iBook) is actually, less Alti-Vec, a far superior CPU compared to the G4? Doesn't IBM claim soon they will have this processor running at 2GHz. Doesn't it have less pipeline stages then the G4 from Motorola, and am I right or wrong in the fact that it is built at a .13 compared to .18 on the G4.

I would think a 750fx with Alti-Vec and true DDR would out perform any current G4 on the market even at the same clock speed. Is this a possibility?
 

AmigaMac

macrumors member
Jul 18, 2002
43
0
No 'Intel Inside' for me!

Apple better not even think 'Intel Inside' or I'm outta here! AMD might be tolerable!
 

eirik

macrumors regular
Mar 17, 2002
155
0
Leesburg, VA
No IBM may be good news too

I think the report is very credible. In another forum, a poster familiar with the individual that reported his encounter with the IBM dude says that the he has a good track record.

The IBM guy would be insane to lie. He is faced with two options that would not cost him dearly: 1) say nothing or 2) say the truth, knowing that your superiors would back you up.

So, assume for a moment that Apple truly is not interested in Junior, would Apple do so if it did not have a better option? Not likely.

Someone made a good point about a non-compatible implementation of VMX by IBM. Most likely, a few tweaks and a simple re-compile would do the trick. Once one has gone to the trouble of programming with vector/matrix operations, the hard part is done.

This leaves the other possibility, there's an equivalent or better CPU out there. I say equivalent because time to market is an important factor too.

So, maybe IBM has another CPU. I doubt it. Most likely, I'd say Motorola has soemthing else to offer. So, is it a Book E chips w/AltiVec and maybe 64 bit...? Or, is it something like the speculated 7470?

I think the latter most likely, though the former I'd prefer. Even so, a 7470, as speculated, would be great. We'd have native DDR!!! If they'd add one more feature to it I'd be thrilled. How about an onboard RIO component? Yeah baby, yeah! (Oh yeah, MERSI too!)

For memory intensive apps, all those Gigaflops of CPU capability are untapped when there's a bottleneck in front of the CPU. A single 7455 at 1 Gig easily saturates the bus on big jobs. With a good implementation of RIO and MERSI, Apple could just keep adding CPU's.

I don't have great interest in a chip that is faster than what we have today where small jobs are concerned. But for big jobs that are memory intensive, two or four CPU's, with the right architecture, would KICK ASS.

So, I think the 74XX still has a lot of life to it. Would I like something with twice the superscalar capability and a true 64 bit arch? Sure.

The superscalar enhancement would help ALL applications but greatly increase the relative size and power draw. The 64 bit arch, well, I doubt I could afford to buy that much DDR RAM anyway. I don't see myself with more than 2 GB anytime soon. Besides, there are other ways to address more memory.

Eirik

PS I wouldn't hold your breath about one of Apple's CPU's being produced in the first 3 to 6 months on the 90 nm facilities. More likely, we'll see static RAM and high-end cell phone chips first. Plus, Motorola's announcement says they'll BEGIN to ramp up in 4Q02. That too indicates low volume for a while. We're stuck with the bottleneck for quite some time.
 

Thresher

macrumors member
Aug 30, 2002
53
88
We can sit here an argue what type of CPU will be in the next generation Macs all day, but it's pointless.

I can't imagine that the top leadership is not aware of the speed problem. Even if Steve's RDF is on overload, Apple is a publicly traded company, if the stock starts taking a nose-dive because the market share decreases even further as a result of the speed issue, something will be done.

Personally, I think the new Powermacs are a stopgap until some really kickass hardware comes out. My bet is on the IBM chips. My reasoning is that since IBM didn't have the new Power4 chip ready, Apple had to do something and soon. Motorola doesn't even seem to have anything in the pipeline as a replacement for the current G4, so it would seem they would be out for the next revision. I suspect we'll see a new Powermac sooner than most people believe. I suspect it will be sometime in January. It's a hunch, but there you go.

Still, I'd love to see OS X on a proprietary version of the X86-64 platform. It will probably never happen, but it would make Thresher a very happy boy. You get the speed of the AMD platform and Apple doesn't have to sell it's soul to intel.

A couple of notes:

Altivec is not the end all, be all. Most apps don't even use it. AMD has licensed SSE and SSE2 for their next platform. Although they are not as comprehensive, they would do a lot of the things that Apple needs.

BSD and Mach are portable and can be recompiled for any platform to take advantage of the hardware.

Lastly, a die shrink down to .13 or .09 doesn't necessarily translate into faster speeds. It does mean less power consumption and heat. It CAN mean faster speeds, but not automatically, if the reduced heat is enough to let them increase the clock speed.
 

Choppaface

macrumors 65816
Jan 22, 2002
1,187
0
SFBA
well i hope apple gets its act together somehow....jobs said that he envisioned catching up with intel in late 2003, so he's got a year to do it....
 

Catfish_Man

macrumors 68030
Sep 13, 2001
2,579
1
Portland, OR
Ummmmm...

...if Apple isn't using this IBM chip because it doesn't have Altivec, then they definitely aren't using an x86 chip. Sure x86 has SSE/MMX/etc... but this IBM chip also has a vector unit of some sort (IBM said so). Therefore, if Apple ditched this chip because it doesn't have Altivec, they are planning on using one that does have Altivec. That means Motorola. Before people start bashing Motorola some more, I'd like to point something out: To the best of my knowledge, IBM has never made a faster desktop chip than Motorola. Motorola isn't doing so great now, but they do have a better track record than IBM.

Note: I still hope this guy's wrong. That IBM chip sounds awesome.
 

e-coli

macrumors 68000
Jul 27, 2002
1,841
802
Originally posted by TyleRomeo


lethal is right on, everyone thats a prosumer and in any form of creative industry (film/graphics/photo/animation/ ect..) works on a mac.
This is most certainly untrue. Avid boxes that run uncompressed video only run on NT systems. they're crazy stable, and you're hard-pressed to crash them. This is the system most huge post houses are using. If they're using anything else, it's a flint / flame / inferno on an sgi station. But none of the major post houses are running stations with compression.
 

alex_ant

macrumors 68020
Feb 5, 2002
2,473
0
All up in your bidness
Re: Ummmmm...

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
Before people start bashing Motorola some more, I'd like to point something out: To the best of my knowledge, IBM has never made a faster desktop chip than Motorola.
Hmm... that's not saying a whole lot, is it. :)
 

TyleRomeo

macrumors 6502a
Mar 22, 2002
888
0
New York
Originally posted by e-coli


This is most certainly untrue. Avid boxes that run uncompressed video only run on NT systems. they're crazy stable, and you're hard-pressed to crash them. This is the system most huge post houses are using. If they're using anything else, it's a flint / flame / inferno on an sgi station. But none of the major post houses are running stations with compression.
no silly, I worked for a post house this summer, where MTV did rock and jock 2002 and the blue crush surfer special and not to mention comedy centrals Project Search light. AND THEY ALL USED MAC BASES AVID UNITY EDITING MACHINES. Ohh wait we did get two rented IBM and Compaq Avids and they froze and had so many bugs in with them. The clients said they would always stick with MACs and forget PC editing machines.

With AVID the mac just keeps the other hardware and software happy. The $10,000 Genie PCI cards do most of the work.

AND for home prosumer editing, people use FCP, which only runs on a mac. Don't tell me that Premeire is better than FCP on a PC.

Basically when it comes to editing the work is done on a Mac and not on a PC. End of story.

Tyler
 

dongmin

macrumors 68000
Jan 3, 2002
1,708
0
Originally posted by Thresher

Altivec is not the end all, be all. Most apps don't even use it. AMD has licensed SSE and SSE2 for their next platform. Although they are not as comprehensive, they would do a lot of the things that Apple needs.
You may not think it's that great but Steve Jobs apparent does. Remember the quote: "The roadmap on the PowerPC actually looks pretty good and there are some advantages to it. As an example, the PowerPC has something in it called AltiVec, we call the Velocity Engine -- it's a vector engine -- it dramatically accelerates media, much better than, as an example, the Intel processors or the AMD processors... so we actually eke out a fair amount of performance from these things when all is said and done"

Apple is committed to Altivec. It may not be universally exploited by developers, but Apple definitely makes use of it in OS X. It's about the only thing that keeps the G4 remotely on the radar.

Of course, it's possible that IBM's vector unit is comparable or better in which case it makes sense for Apple to consider switching. But then, what about the development costs? For now, Altivec is a major part of the Apple cpu strategy.
 

lenz

macrumors newbie
Sep 6, 2002
5
0
Re: Ummmmm...

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
...if Apple isn't using this IBM chip because it doesn't have Altivec, then they definitely aren't using an x86 chip. Sure x86 has SSE/MMX/etc... but this IBM chip also has a vector unit of some sort (IBM said so). Therefore, if Apple ditched this chip because it doesn't have Altivec, they are planning on using one that does have Altivec. That means Motorola. Before people start bashing Motorola some more, I'd like to point something out: To the best of my knowledge, IBM has never made a faster desktop chip than Motorola. Motorola isn't doing so great now, but they do have a better track record than IBM
Ummm....No?

What would you say about G3s? When both apple and moto were making them who was producing the higher clocking chips? I hope Apple does use IBM's chip because we all know the amount of power big blue has. Moto is barely staying on it's feet and doesn't really bring in too much profit from selling desktop chips. IBM has always been ahead of the game.
 

Cappy

macrumors 6502
May 29, 2002
386
2
Originally posted by dongmin


You may not think it's that great but Steve Jobs apparent does. Remember the quote: "The roadmap on the PowerPC actually looks pretty good and there are some advantages to it. As an example, the PowerPC has something in it called AltiVec, we call the Velocity Engine -- it's a vector engine -- it dramatically accelerates media, much better than, as an example, the Intel processors or the AMD processors... so we actually eke out a fair amount of performance from these things when all is said and done"

Apple is committed to Altivec. It may not be universally exploited by developers, but Apple definitely makes use of it in OS X. It's about the only thing that keeps the G4 remotely on the radar.

Of course, it's possible that IBM's vector unit is comparable or better in which case it makes sense for Apple to consider switching. But then, what about the development costs? For now, Altivec is a major part of the Apple cpu strategy.
Jobs' statement means nothing. It was he who declared the death of crts and then a few months later the eMac was introduced and has become a more prominent item in their product line. In addition what else is he to say that wouldn't have stockholders and potential customers totally altering their plans.

People have a hard time accepting this but if Apple announced x86 support tomorrow, their stock would likely take a nasty beating. I actually want to see x86 support for the most part but I don't feel Apple is in any position to pull that off at the moment. Maybe 2-3 years. They've got to keep MS onboard with Office long enough to create a version that would run on x86 as well as PPC. That alone could sell copies of Mac OS X and Office X to businesses out the whazoo. They don't have to throw out their hardware investment then.
 

e-coli

macrumors 68000
Jul 27, 2002
1,841
802
Originally posted by TyleRomeo


no silly, I worked for a post house this summer, where MTV did rock and jock 2002 and the blue crush surfer special and not to mention comedy centrals Project Search light. AND THEY ALL USED MAC BASES AVID UNITY EDITING MACHINES. Ohh wait we did get two rented IBM and Compaq Avids and they froze and had so many bugs in with them. The clients said they would always stick with MACs and forget PC editing machines.

With AVID the mac just keeps the other hardware and software happy. The $10,000 Genie PCI cards do most of the work.

AND for home prosumer editing, people use FCP, which only runs on a mac. Don't tell me that Premeire is better than FCP on a PC.

Basically when it comes to editing the work is done on a Mac and not on a PC. End of story.

Tyler

Funny. I've been doing the Audi spots for years, and they're all done on NT based Avids.

When we bought our uncompressed stations, a decent Mac version wasn't available yet.

Different strokes for different houses, I guess. But you can't make the assumption that ALL high-end editing and finishing is done on Macs, because it isn't. That was the point of my original post. You missed it.

BTW, Unity isn't an editing system. It's a media management tool. :rolleyes:

...and just FYI, MTV is famous for not using uncompressed high-end editing. As a matter of fact, they frequently use the DV or DVC codec. Hardly high-end. ;)
 

sentinal

macrumors newbie
Jul 27, 2002
7
0
lethal is right on, everyone thats a prosumer and in any form of creative
industry (film/graphics/photo/animation/ ect..) works on a mac.
If you use a PC you either get laughed at or weird stares.
this is not the case. Film and animation businesses are mac-friendly, but in any seat where performance is important, you'll find PC's running win2k or linux.


So anyone here that says apple is a consumer company can keep on saying
that. Let consumers that want to use a simple OS for using word, IE, and
light digital work with apples digital hub iProducts. It doesnt matter how
fast PCs are, they are unstabble, you can never edit successfully on a PC.
Actually a lot of film editors use 533MHZ G4s to edit along with AVIDs
hardware becuase they are very stable. So MHZ or GHZ only matter to
those apple people who want the fast GHZ numbers just for the plain fact
of having them.
film editing is not the same thing as film and tv visual effects. animators and compositors and render farms need every ounce of performance available. the stability and smoothness of osx is worth a lot, but without raw performance its not enough
 

DaveGee

macrumors 6502a
Jul 25, 2001
677
2
Originally posted by bertinman
I still feel that intel based osx is not the best idea none-the-less, because it would ruin Apple's control of hardware which is why Apple's systems are so great--They work together.

*puts on flame retardent suit* ok ready for the flames that will undoubtily come soon...

(btw... I do know the roots... my "idiot gear" just kicked in today)

-- bert :cool:
Bert,

Didn't mean to sound harsh sometimes my typing gets a sound of it's own... And as far as X running on x86 yea I'm sure it's true but I also agree with you... I'm not too sure it's a good idea either. :cool:

D