IBM to License PowerPC

[Catfish_Man]

Re: Re: Boiling time

Originally posted by dguisinger


Hey, you are probably right about WWDC. I totally forgot about that. It would make sense that Apple gives some direction a few months in advance, they tend to do that with enterprise level stuff (Xserve, OS X plans, etc).

If they are going with the 970, which I am 95% sure they are, then its a question of will 10.3 have 64-bit memory extensions? I am sure they would be proud to brag about that.

IBM has said that the PPC970 is coming out after WWDC, so the best we could get is Apple breaking their traditional secrecy and preannouncing it. As for 10.3, 10.2 may already support the 970. IBM has said that only very minor changes are required for a 32 bit OS to support it (and Apple's had plenty of advance notice to make those changes).

In response to the posts above, the 970 is definitely a desktop chip. Who's desktops is still unknown, but Apple is really the only volume PPC desktop manufacturer (A few others make them, but they're essentially irrelevant to a company of IBM's size). I would guess that IBM told Apple about the 970 and Apple said "Great! Does it have Altivec?", and IBM decided that it was worth a slight increase in die size to get Apple as a customer (I would imagine they've been planning on using it in blades and Linux workstations all along, but those aren't that high volume compared to something like an iMac, or even a PowerMac).

 

[nickgold]

Folks... Altivec/vector processing is useful for scientific applications, as well as desktop multimedia. So Altivec is not only good for Apple, say, but also NIH and other large organizations that may end up using the 970 (from what I understand, NIH is already into Macs).

 

[MacQuest]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


I hope you are right, because the rest of the IT/IS world sees apple either as a has been, a company on its last legs...

Being a member of the IT/IS world myself, I would beg to differ.

We network admin's here at Xerox are putting together a proposal to junk our Windows NT server by 4th quarter of this year and replace it with an Xserve solution.

I do believe we are not alone:

?Just six months after the shipping of the first Xserve... Xserve is already in use at over 100 Fortune 500 companies and hundreds of universities and schools across the country". [Feb 10]

Granted Apple's got a long way to go, but I love being part of this uphill battle.

 

[Frobozz]

yes, the 970.

Originally posted by sedarby


I believe when all is said and done that IBM from the very beginning intended the 970 for their Linux machines and blade servers. Holding out for a 970 is like holding out for the colonization of Mars. It may happen but who know when.

LOL. I've been watching rumor boards for 3 years and have become very good at predicting what will come out of apple. The 970 is a CERTAIN thing. You will see it in desktop Macs. Apple has consistantly produced rumor-restant hardware and software, for sure. The end result is that they have really produced some incredible stuff recently, and Jobs practically pointed at IBM and said "gimme, gimme, gimme" when asked about Apple's future CPU plans. He said 2003 would be the biggest year EVER for Apple. This means software and hardware, but it also means a "g5" or whatever else you want to call it.

Make no mistake, Motorola is out of the Mac Pro Desktop line come July/Aug/Sept. IBM is in. I see the G4 in low power designs moving to all the portables up to 1.4 GHz, while the Desktops will have 1st gen. 970's at 1.6 or 1.8. New architectrues to match the chips, too. The 970 will scale FAST, and I would not be suprised to see 2.2 GHz or faster 970's by early 2004.

Hardly anything in the past 2 years has been telegraphed so well by Apple... it's a matter of when, not IF.

 

[strider42]

Re: yes, the 970.

Originally posted by Frobozz

Hardly anything in the past 2 years has been telegraphed so well by Apple... it's a matter of when, not IF.

While I actually agree that the 970 will almost certainly become the high end chip for apple, I wonder what apple has done to telegraph that it will happen. As far as I know, everything about the 970 coming to macs has been pure speculation based around the fect that its a desktop PPC chip with altivec instruction. All the info has come from IBM, not a single thing from apple. The only statement I'm aware of when jobs said he was excited about what both IBM and Moto were going to have this year. To me, it just seems logical, but there has been essentially no actual evidence that I'm aware of.

 

[Sol]

Don't IBM make the G3 chips? The fact that G3s are still used today is a good indication of IBM's future in Apple. Besides, it is not like Windows will ever run on the 970 chip so Apple can depend on IBM for a processor better-suited to OS X.

I wonder though why no-one ever mentions Transmetta CPUs for Apple hardware. I imagine that it would be easier to port OS X for Transmetta processors than it would be for Pentiums. These processors are said to have the lowest temperatures and are ideal for laptops.

Whatever choice Apple makes, I am looking forward to their next generation of hardware. Now if only they would start this new generation with a video iPod...

 

[jefhatfield]

transmeta would be cool and help laptop battery life

and we are already ahead of the pc crowd in hours and minutes usage time on laptops

 

[GeneR]

What's the difference between a Power4 and a 970?

I'm wondering what a Power4 does and what a 970 would do, and what the difference is between these types of chips and why Power4's aren't for desktops.

If someone could enlighten me on that, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

 

[GeneR]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
transmeta would be cool and help laptop battery life

and we are already ahead of the pc crowd in hours and minutes usage time on laptops

I thought Transmeta's big problem was the fact that they still couldn't get their chips as fast as the competition even though their energy consumption is way lower than Intel and AMD. I thought that's why their marketing strategy is still to play up the battery life and not the speed.

 

[jefhatfield]

for laptops, speed has not been the issue for ages...the big thing is battery time, then other things like weight, price, features, etc

speed, for laptops, is low on the list

if you want speed, get a desktop

also, i have seen some laptops with two optical drives...and even though that is nice, it is not high on anyone's laptop priority list

again, if you want two optical drives, then get a desktop

there is not a 128 mb video card for laptops that i know of and if you want that much vram, then get a desktop

the transmeta concept is key for those that want good battery times for a laptop

 

[Dave Marsh]

Power4 vs 970

The Power4 is IBM's PowerPC server chip. The 970 is a mini-Power4 with only one core (vice two), much less L2 cache, no provision for L3 cache, and IBM's "AltiVec" instruction set built-in. Basically, it's designed specifically for desktop and low-end servers. It's a much smaller chip, so should be much cheaper to produce at higher yields. IBM has indicated its desire to use the chip in Linux workstations. Observers in the industry believe the fact IBM added the SIMD (single instruction multiple data) "AltiVec" instructions means that it has been in collaboration with Apple in the design of this chip, and hence why we all believe this will be incorporated into the next generation PowerMacs this summer/fall.

Personally, I believe Apple will put these in its PowerMacs first, probably at 1.4/1.6GHz to start, with the 1.2GHz version to be rolled into the 17" PowerBook. I then believe Apple will probably put the faster G4s (7457s) in the other PowerBooks, with faster G3s or 7447 (no L3 cache) G4s in the iBooks. The iMacs will then be free to have better G4s (7457), as well. As IBM gets 970 production rolling and moves to 90nm and the speed ramps up, we'll then start seeing 970s in all PowerXXX models, with probably only the iBooks retaining the G4s in the end.

 

[jefhatfield]

...then i wonder if the g3 will be retired

 

[Dave Marsh]

Laptops & G3

I agree completely that battery life is probably the most important feature of a laptop. It's great to plop down on the sofa, or in bed in the evening, and not give a thought to plugging in the power. In fact, with WiFi, I've NOTHING plugged in, for up to 4+ hours at a time.

That said, I would expect the chips with the best battery life to be used in the laptops. For the iBooks, that's currently the G3. With the release of the 7447(no L3)/7457(L3) G4s, and the upcoming 19W 1.2GHz 970, their use in laptops is very likely. While the 600MHz G3 in my iBook has been perfectly acceptable, I do envy the smoother scrolling of my spouse's 700MHz PIII VAIO, although certainly not the OS. That means, for customers like me, a G4 or better is rapidly becoming more important to me in a future laptop. While the 970's 19W is definitely better than the 60W(??) of the P4 laptop, it will probably require some of that unused space in the new huge case to be filled with a larger battery to keep the usage period reasonable.

Yes, I think the G3 is rapidly approaching EOL, probably within the next year, unless IBM adds SIMD instructions and ups the speed substantially.

 

[macphoria]

-----unless IBM adds SIMD instructions and ups the speed substantially.

Isn't G3 with SIMD a G4? Would IBM adding SIMD to their own G3 be different than G4 from Motorola?

 

[Dave Marsh]

G3 vs. G4

Many people suggest they'd be similar, but the key difference is that the new chip would be from a manufacturer who can actually reliably produce enough chips to sell.

Also, I don't believe I've seen any G3s with L3 cache, but since Apple seems loathe to put L3 cache in low-end Macs anyway that's probably not a issue.

In the end, however, I'm not sure it would be cost effective for IBM to produce a new generation G3 for such a small market. I think that decision would have to be based on the versions of the new 970 and Motorola's continuing production of the 7447/7457 G4s.

 

[macphoria]

That makes sense. If Apple decides to move from G3, it would be easier to use G4 from Motorola than have IBM G3 incorporate SIMD.