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

IBM's Manufacturing Techniques (SSDOI and HOT)

Originally posted by cunnin61
G3 with Altivec... call it a Mobile G5. Who cares if it isn't 64-bit. Just look at Intel chips, it's all about marketing that sounds cool but means nothing.

They stuck with the Pentium name now for 4 generations, when the name was just supposed to be cooler than 586.
Click to expand...


Umm no. You start dicking with the naming conventions you are going to have some seriously pissed off switchers and buyers who are going to raise a holy stink when they find out that whaaaa? That G5 that is under the hood of their new laptop isn't the same G5 that is in the desktop. You would have people yelling false advertising in a heartbeat.
As for intel. They have several ongoing lawsuits in regards to performance of certain P4 chips that don't even beat out the speed of even the P3's.

I'm in agreement with the idea of calling it a G4[insert snappy cool designator here] Keep it all in the family. Maybe call it a iG4. Apple likes calling its stuff i ;) :p

PS- Also something to think about: at some point Apple will have a version of OS X that is optimized for the 64-bit G5. You start calling non 64-bit CPU's a G5 and someone goes to install a version of OS X that is optimized for it and get really confused as to why they don't have any type of speed increase.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sure Photo

Originally posted by Fender2112
How about a G4i (for ibm). :)
Click to expand...
I like this idea...
I think I would do the G3V For vector processing or as someone else mentioned G4M for mobile.... I like it.

Does IBM call it Vector Processing or something else?
 
hey dguisinger

upstream, I went out (have a life) and came back to see your snarky comment.

I was assuming most who come to these forums are fairly Mac knowledgeable... clearly not, or you aren't. As someone already corrected you, G3 750s HAVE Altivec which is why I posted what I did.

Not that they always have the most accurate info but macosrumors.com has a lengthy post about the 750. The Altivec G3 IBM has been known about for a while, I've been excited about it after reading it's white paper in (I think) May. In many, many ways it's better than the G4, has more life to it, that's for sure, and being IBM HOPEFULLY can actually, you know, be delivered on time?

As far as naming I could care less, call it Napolean or WicketWidget or, heck, Jobs4, as long as it's faster in specs and will advance the [Macintosh] platform bring it on. (fast)
 
How about calling it a G4M for mobile (like P4M)? At that point it would probably just be going in ibooks and maybe the 12inch, and it'll be so low power it'll be practically begging to be called a mobile chip. Or not, whatever.
 
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
Its always good to see how the chips can be made faster, even though we keep hearing about all the issues and the eventual limit being reached with the current materials.

Its only too bad that its going to be a few years before we see this - G6 or G7?
Click to expand...

Probably G7. G6 is likely too imminent to use any of this, but it's possible. I'm pegging the release of the G6 at 18 months from the G5.

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
I also think the G5 will go in the PowerBooks - although the rumors of IBM skipping 90nm and going straight to 60nm may put that off. Last I heard, 60nm was on schedule for production late next year (late Q3 to Q4) and I haven't heard about it being moved up, but it would be amazing if it was - and it could lead to the G5 being used in all Apples if enough variation in speed could be arranged to differentiate the consumer and pro lines enough.
Click to expand...

It will definitely go into a PowerBook, unless the G6 comes out fast enough to skip the G5.

If IBM is skipping 60 nm, that indicates that Apple is going to a PowerBook G5 at 120 nm anyway--which would indicate an imminent release.
 
Re: hey dguisinger

Originally posted by Photorun
upstream, I went out (have a life) and came back to see your snarky comment.

I was assuming most who come to these forums are fairly Mac knowledgeable... clearly not, or you aren't. As someone already corrected you, G3 750s HAVE Altivec which is why I posted what I did.

Not that they always have the most accurate info but macosrumors.com has a lengthy post about the 750. The Altivec G3 IBM has been known about for a while, I've been excited about it after reading it's white paper in (I think) May. In many, many ways it's better than the G4, has more life to it, that's for sure, and being IBM HOPEFULLY can actually, you know, be delivered on time?

As far as naming I could care less, call it Napolean or WicketWidget or, heck, Jobs4, as long as it's faster in specs and will advance the [Macintosh] platform bring it on. (fast)
Click to expand...

Whoa, since when do G3s (shipping ones anyway) have Altivec. I've written Altivec code and it most definitely does NOT run on G3s. Linkage to this whitepaper please?
 
Re: Re: hey dguisinger

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
Whoa, since when do G3s (shipping ones anyway) have Altivec. I've written Altivec code and it most definitely does NOT run on G3s. Linkage to this whitepaper please?
Click to expand...

I think he's referring to an upcoming release that is a 750 series update with altivec - coming after the 750GX, which could appear in the next iBook revision at 1.1 GHZ. Likely early Q2 next year.
 
Re: Re: Re: hey dguisinger

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
I think he's referring to an upcoming release that is a 750 series update with altivec - coming after the 750GX, which could appear in the next iBook revision at 1.1 GHZ. Likely early Q2 next year.
Click to expand...

OK, that's fine then. I'd still like better confirmation of it then rumors though... I can see some possible places IBM would market it (specifically if they've really decided that they want Motorola's embedded market share. A low 1.xGHz G3 with Altivec and an on-chip memory controller could handily demolish the G4+ in medium-low end embedded. The shorter pipeline and slightly less advanced architecture would be limiting for higher end stuff, but in the mid-low range...)
 
The 750GX (Gobi) was rumored to have "Altivec". It doesn't. Now there's talk of a 750VX (I think) with "Altivec", codename Mojave (I think). No announced IBM G3 chip has "Altivec". No produced IBM G3 chip has "altivec".

EDIT: Ok, I'm too old to be calling strangers names.

The term "Altivec" is in quotes since it's motorolla's term. Apple calls it "Velocity Engine". I don't know what IBM calls it's implementation (for the G5). Technically no IBM chip EVER made, from now until the end of time, will EVER have altivec since Altivec is a motorolla mark. IBM calls the vector unit something else.

EDIT: IBM also announced a G3 chip at 1.0Ghz...TWO YEARS AGO. http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2001/10/15/ibm/ I wonder why the FX took so long to get to market and why it hasn't improved since then? I mean, IBM was claiming they'd get to 2GHz by October 02. Ok, claims are claims...but maybe the G4 stalling at 500...and again at 1.0/1.25...maybe that held Big Blue back a touch?
 
Originally posted by panphage
The term "Altivec" is in quotes since it's motorolla's term. Apple calls it "Velocity Engine". I don't know what IBM calls it's implementation (for the G5). Technically no IBM chip EVER made, from now until the end of time, will EVER have altivec since Altivec is a motorolla mark. IBM calls the vector unit something else.
Click to expand...
IBM can and did/does refer to it as Altivec (tm): http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/newsletter/dec2002/newproductfocus2.html

It appears that they licensed it.
 
OK what to put in the Apple consumer line. Presently G3 (750) from IBM. Whats a good next move & to distance from Motorola?
- I like on cpu memory controller (keep latency to a minimum, L3 cache not required)
- Hyper Transport local bus to connect peripherals and AGP (fast)
- what the heck throw in the "Velocity Engine"
- optimize for single processor operation (Power series duals)
- change instruction ordering to match the 970 so compiler can optimize for IBM
- only a 32 bitter (for near term anyways)
- ?
 
I think this bodes very well for Apple. It's nice to see them hook up with another company that takes innovation seriously and can consistently produce new 'wow' products.

IBM has a great client in Apple because they're dealing with the only OEM in the PC biz that can command high margins and deal decent volume.
 
Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
IBM can and did/does refer to it as Altivec (tm): http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/newsletter/dec2002/newproductfocus2.html

It appears that they licensed it.
Click to expand...

Well whattayaknow. There it is in black and white (depending on your browser defaults.) Who would have thought that IBM would not only make chips with a vector unit, but go ahead and refer to it as AltiVec. I seem to remember SIMD/No SIMD being a bit of a falling out between IBM and Mot, but times change I guess. Hell, I can remember when IBM was the cruel, evil, cold, faceless corporate enemy of all things Apple and Microsoft was Apple's largest and most prolific third-party developer. Times change indeed.
 
Just a few quick thoughts on naming conventions. This is all pretty baseless and fantastic. I'm just rambling, but if you throw enough **** at the side of a barn...

I'm assuming that Apple is going to want to kill off the "G3" as soon as possible. I think a lot of people correlate the G3 branding with OS 9, and correlate the G4 and G5 with OS X. If you can remove the G3 from the equation, you're looking at a much more "unified" hardware front.

It seems, from the comments posted about IBM's tentative G3 roadmap a couple of years ago, that Moto's sluggish G4 ramping has been responsible (at least in part) for some artificial hobbling of the G3 line of machines. We can see the current uneasiness at having the prosumer iMac outperforming the fully pro TiBook. Imagine the iBook was outclocking the TiBook as well? Can't have that!

My feeling is that the "G3 with Altivec" would just be rebranded as "G4". I can't see this causing any compatibility problems, and it would satisfy Apple's abhorrance of breaking up the brand with suffixes. How many different "G4" chips have we had? And how many have been given different names?

The way I see it, this would allow these "G4"s to take over the consumer line (iBook and iMac), while the G5s would consume the pro line.

Who cares what the chip's called. It's not like there's a rule (AFAIK) that only Moto chips can be called G4. It's Apple's brand, so they can call the chips anything they damn well like!

I think they could use the release of an IBM G4 to kick Moto in the teeth a bit. They could shunt the Moto G4s into the iBooks (they've shown they can easily do this with the 12" pBook), start building the IBM G4s into the pBooks as a stopgap while awaiting the G5s.

Then, when pBooks load with the G5s, the IBM G4 slips to the iBook and... what does Moto do? G4s for the iMac? Why? G4s for the eMac? Maybe. Yeah, we'll let them make the kiddie machine. For a while ;-)

Then we'll pour some sugar in their gas tank while they're not looking...
 
Originally posted by Catfish_Man
Already got that (although Moto calls it the G4e). It'd have to be G4++, and if you increment G4, you get G5 (really lame programming joke, for those who didn't get it).
Click to expand...

Buzz. You fail the interview...

It wouldn't be a G5 until after it's used... ++G4 would be a G5 before it's used. :p

Sorry, I figure this thread is already far enough off topic...

Back on topic: I'm just psyched to see a roadmap ahead. Yeah, it'll be a while before we actually get to use anything off the new process, but at least we know there's room for improvement after each iteration. With Mot it's been a struggle just to get to 90nm and the next question is whether they'll just quit and sell their fabs...
 
They stuck with the Pentium name now for 4 generations, when the name was just supposed to be cooler than 586.
Click to expand...

I thought it had more to do with trademarks, i.e. you can't trademark a number so other chip makers could produce their own compatible chips with the same model number.
 
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