ISSCC 2004: IBM on PowerPC 970FX

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by PPCTech

Great things are in store for the PowerPC / Power architecture from IBM.

I have to agree. I know enough people involved with IBM to know that the stuff they work on is WAY ahead of the competition. What we are experiencing now is a calm before the storm.

I have a Quicksilver DP 1 GHz and it's serving me well. However, when the G5 hits Dual 3.0 GHz, I will buy a new one. The thought of a 2.0 GHz G5 laptop does sound fantastic though...

 

[a17inchFuture]

Please let there be new G5 powerbooks before summer!! I thinnk so many of us here are righ. The G4 is too old to try and use in a new line of Powerbooks. I think, especially with this new processor, many smart buyers (which is what most apple buyers are )won't bite if they release pb's with better G4's.

one more time: please pb G5's before summer!

 

[NusuniAdmin]

Originally posted by a17inchFuture
Please let there be new G5 powerbooks before summer!! I thinnk so many of us here are righ. The G4 is too old to try and use in a new line of Powerbooks. I think, especially with this new processor, many smart buyers (which is what most apple buyers are )won't bite if they release pb's with better G4's.

one more time: please pb G5's before summer!

Wouldn't it be so farggin funny if they upped the pb line to 1.42 ghz G4 haha

 

[PPCTech]

Re: Power5

Originally posted by daveL
I'm surprised nobody has commented on the Power5 info provided.

If you read the info released, the Power5 dissipates 160W, but considering they have 4 CPU dies, with 2 CPU's per die, along with 144MB of L3 cache, what can you expect? And based on that it will never see any life in an Apple product, because of the extreme cooling methods it needs. The POWER architecture is specifically meant for big tin machines, not consumers. It isn't implausible that Apple could create a POWER based workstation that exceeds the price of the PowerMac line for serious enterprise customers, GIS, scientific, government, and military demanding bleeding edge technology.

What you will see is Apple using IBM derivatives of the POWER architecture specifically for the PowerPC CPU's that trickle down like SMT, dual core CPU's, and integrated memory controllers.

Xgrid technology may change that, but doubtful. If you look at Apple hardware, yes it is cutting edge and generally leads the way for what you will see in PC's within a year or so, but never do they move to strictly bleeding edge technology that is unproven in the consumer market, or too cost prohibitive which would make thier margins shrink.

Apple first and foremost is a consumer based company.

-PPCTech

 

[HiRez]

Re: Re: Power5

Originally posted by PPCTech
And based on that it will never see any life in an Apple product, because of the extreme cooling methods it needs. The POWER architecture is specifically meant for big tin machines, not consumers. It isn't implausible that Apple could create a POWER based workstation that exceeds the price of the PowerMac line for serious enterprise customers, GIS, scientific, government, and military demanding bleeding edge technology.

It sounds like the perfect chip for...the PowerNode!!

Seriously, though, isn't the G6 supposed to be the Power5 derivative that you speak of, in the same way The G5 was a Power4 derivative? I never heard anyone suggest the Power5 would be used directly by Apple. I don't even think it's going to have Velocity Engine capabilities, is it? The thing about the Power5/G6 that sounds the most tantalizing to me is the dual-core nature, essentially enabling a quad-processor machine without all the tricky engineering it would take with the G5.

 

[greenstork]

Originally posted by jwhitnah
Well yeah. We do need PB but we needed them months ago. Now we need PB AND PM's! I think their product refreshment rate is way too slow. That G5 2.0 GHz machine was introduced 8 month's ago, and as fast as it is, it is starting to look stale.

I would venture to guess that you don't even need any of the power of the 2.0 GHz G5.

[mod. edit - inappropriate]

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by greenstork
I would venture to guess that you don't even need any of the power of the 2.0 GHz G5.

I hate the argument that people don't need the fastest or newest computers. Especially, when it is used to defend Apple's sometimes slow progress in releasing new hardware.
Most people don't need most of what modern PC's can do, but does that mean we should all go pull our 8088's out the dump and start working in CP/M again?

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

yeah really like people are going to lay down big money for stale hardware. these are the same type of clowns that thought G4s could sell forever. Greenstork is clueless to each persons need. Its like Apple telling the consumer through the consumer line you dont need speed you dont need a good video card and you dont need the monitor you are using. Ignore the Greenstorks because they are blind. maybe Greenstork should go find a used G3 for sale. Amazing that people think you can go on forever with no progress. Hos that pjkelnholfer

 

[greenstork]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
I hate the argument that people don't need the fastest or newest computers. Especially, when it is used to defend Apple's sometimes slow progress in releasing new hardware.
Most people don't need most of what modern PC's can do, but does that mean we should all go pull our 8088's out the dump and start working in CP/M again?

All I'm saying is that the Dual G5 2.0 GHz is a sweet machine. Yes, Apple should continue to innovate but I don't need anything more powerful than a Dual 2.0 and I do heavy graphic design work and gaming. Therefore, I would never buy anything more powerful until software 3-4 years from now necessitates it.

Should Apple stop innovation because 99% of all users don't need more power - NO. However, the Dual G5 is far from "stale," as the poster I responded to claimed. I hate the argument that people need faster machines in the era of the G5. With G4 stagnation, I understood, but now we have very fast computers and people just don't need that extra power. When these people complain, it just sounds silly.

And yes, to respond to your suggestion, I don't think people should buy new computers when they don't need the power. It's wasteful and bad for the environment. Obviously, the 8088 you mentioned wouldn't run Panther, but if a system did run the software you wanted, at the speed you wanted, why would you buy a new computer?

 

[Golem]

Originally posted by a17inchFuture
Is it just me, or do PM updates seem like a really dumb idea?(EDIT: a slight exaggeration) If one takes into account the fact that they updated literally a few months ago, I think it is ridiculous for Apple users to be griping for new ones. I mean come on, i get chided for asking for new powerbook revisions on this forum.

Being the line of apple's that has been most recently updated, i sincerely hope they don't update again before powerbooks. Its a bit ridiculous, really, that people are so demanding as well. Sure, the uppermost model wasn't changed, but everything else was.

The powermac's are nowhere in need of updating as much as the PB's.

They still have G4's, remember?

Sure PM's are easier to update than PB's, but with apple, its one product every few months, and personally, I will be disappointed if we are made to wait so 200 mhz can be added to the top of the line.

Seems less worthy to me.

If they have 2.5 Ghz G5's why not use them? They certainly arent going to put them into a Powerbook any time soon and I doubt the work involved in going from a 2.0-> 2.5 pmac is mor e than 1/10 of the work that will need to be done to get a G5 pbook out their.

Not that it affects me much. I have been saying wait for Speed bumps since December and finally got over ruled so we picked up 2 more G5's yesterday so no chance of updating mine for 6mnths to a year now.

 

[greenstork]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
yeah really like people are going to lay down big money for stale hardware. these are the same type of clowns that thought G4s could sell forever. Greenstork is clueless to each persons need. Its like Apple telling the consumer through the consumer line you dont need speed you dont a good video card and you dont need the monitor you are using. Ignore the Greenstorks because they are blind. maybe Greenstork should go find a used G3 for sale. Amazing that people think you can go on forever with no progress. Hos that pjkelnholfer

We're not talking about G3's or G4's, we're talking about the fastest G5's. If these are stale and old, you're just spoiled rotten.

edit: As for not knowing people needs, I do know this. The ONLY people that need anything faster than a 2.0 GHz G5 are exclusively executing processor intensive tasks like heavy graphic work and video rendering (gaming relies more on the video card and the 2.0 GHz G5 is more than up to the task already for every single game available). Most other software doesn't need that processor power. We are in a time in computing in which hardware improvements have outpaced software demands.

edit 2: I never said stop innovating or no progress, RTF post. Stop jumping to conclusions about what you think I was saying.

 

[jacobslateralus]

Originally posted by numediaman
I don't know whether the problem is iMovie itself, or the interface with iDVD...But the problems have been dominating the Apple discussion boards since their introduction...Threads with names like "IMovie 4 - worst update ever" are not encouraging...One of the best "work arounds" I've heard is not exporting your iMovie to iDVD, but instead sharing using the DV Stream settings -- then bring that new file into iDVD...At this point, I'm sure I will need to buy both DVD StudioPro and Final Cut Express if I want to successfully burn DVDs

I use imovie 4 and idvd 4 all the time so I just thought I'd share my experience with them.

The only problem I've had with imovie 4 is not being able to crop an audio track (like an imported song)...the roll edit feature works great, but if the song is at the end of you movie and is say 2 min. longer at the end....I allways get stuck with 2 min. of black screen at the end of the movie (on imovie 3.x you could crop the audio and fix this....now this option is grayed out).

The only problem I've had with idvd 4 is the freakishly long render times. Once all of your movies are finally encoded (using background encoding) you still have to wait litterally over night for it to render the menus and burn the disc!

As far as having problems exporting from imovie to idvd....who knows? I never use that feature. All you have to do is open your imovie project folder and drag the reference movie into idvd.

sorry to get so off topic....
here's hoping we get both powermac updates and g5 powerbooks next month!

 

[digitalbiker]

Hardware comes first!

The problem with waiting on software that motivates hardware development is that hardware always has to come first.

First hardware innovation.
2nd compiler optimization.
3rd OS optimization
4rd software optimization.

So therefore stagnant hardware leads to stagnant programming enviroment which leads to stagnant software.

Innovative new software will come once the hardware is built that will run the software.

Now granted this isn't entirely true but in general it pretty much holds to this paradigm.

In other words, "Build it, and they will come!"

 

[MadMan]

Re: Re: ISSCC 2004: IBM on PowerPC 970FX

Originally posted by spankalee
Or does Apple automatically upgrade all XServe orders to 2.5Ghz?

I think that might happen. PowerMacs will be announced and XServes will ship on the same day, and the big suprise will be that all XServe orders are upgraded to 2.5Ghz.

hmmm.....

That would be cool

Then I would look for all this to be announced around 3/10, because that's the ship date I currently have for my new xServe dual 2(.5) Ghz!

YEA!



MM

 

[greenstork]

Re: Hardware comes first!

Originally posted by digitalbiker
The problem with waiting on software that motivates hardware development is that hardware always has to come first.

First hardware innovation.
2nd compiler optimization.
3rd OS optimization
4rd software optimization.

So therefore stagnant hardware leads to stagnant programming enviroment which leads to stagnant software.

Innovative new software will come once the hardware is built that will run the software.

Now granted this isn't entirely true but in general it pretty much holds to this paradigm.

In other words, "Build it, and they will come!"

I'm not questioning you but I simply don't understand how this holds true to OS X, which started development in the days of the G3, on which it is ill-suited to run effectively, or do OS' adhere to different rules?

edit: The same could be said for the first Windows, which ran horribly slow on the hardware at the time it was released.

 

[Chomolungma]

Originally posted by greenstork
edit: As for not knowing people needs, I do know this. The ONLY people that need anything faster than a 2.0 GHz G5 are exclusively executing processor intensive tasks like heavy graphic work and video rendering (gaming relies more on the video card and the 2.0 GHz G5 is more than up to the task already for every single game available).

Apparently you have not heard of science in particular bioscience. Ever try to do Baysian analysis on 30 individuals and ~500 bp each (DNA)? Can the Dual 2.0 Ghz do this in a week, instead of the 28 days that my PM G4 takes. Renting supercomputer time is not an option (optimization, money, among others)

-Chomo

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

saw your later posts greenstork, much clearer, yeah i agree if you have a new g5 I concur. how many of us have one? the whole line up has been running G3s with altivec= G4 I get the feeling the current G5s were kind of a rush job because of G4 stagnation. Powerline sales had become dismal. I dont think we will see higher clocks on the 130mm process. So since Apple plays so many games between models this can only mean a faster Powermac before any other models due to their own game.

 

[numediaman]

Originally posted by jacobslateralus
I use imovie 4 and idvd 4 all the time so I just thought I'd share my experience with them.

The only problem I've had with imovie 4 is not being able to crop an audio track (like an imported song)...the roll edit feature works great, but if the song is at the end of you movie and is say 2 min. longer at the end....I allways get stuck with 2 min. of black screen at the end of the movie (on imovie 3.x you could crop the audio and fix this....now this option is grayed out).

The only problem I've had with idvd 4 is the freakishly long render times. Once all of your movies are finally encoded (using background encoding) you still have to wait litterally over night for it to render the menus and burn the disc!

As far as having problems exporting from imovie to idvd....who knows? I never use that feature. All you have to do is open your imovie project folder and drag the reference movie into idvd.

sorry to get so off topic....
here's hoping we get both powermac updates and g5 powerbooks next month!

Actually, you're not off topic at all. A lot of people here are wondering why it is taking Apple so long to update the G5s. I feel it is because Apple still has some work ahead of them. For instance, getting their software to work on the G5s!

The problems is exactly exporting from iMovie to iDVD -- which is why you have not experienced this problem. Also, encoding times for iDVD -- which you have. I'm not saying these new versions are without merit -- many have said they are very happy with the quality of the final products with iDVD. But if you are going to shell out close to three grand for a new G5 you expect the pre-installed software to work, right?

Once a few of these issues are fixed, I expect G5 updates. The longer we have to wait, of course, the closer we will be to IBM being able to deliver 3.0. But I'll settle for 2.5.

If Greenstork thinks the G5 is great as it is that's great. But if you have ever encoded a two hour movie and burned it to DVD, you know you need as much firepower as possible. And this is exactly what Steve Jobs promised everyone at MWSF.

 

[digitalbiker]

Build it and they will come

I'm not questioning you but I simply don't understand how this holds true to OS X, which started development in the days of the G3

Well like I said it doesn't hold true 100 percent of the time. However I am not sure if OS X breaks the mold or not.

OSX essentially came from Unix (FreeBSD). The Aqua GUI interface and Darwin subsystem were not really optimized until the new GCC compiler was optimized for the G4. They ran but they ran like crap too. Most people would probably argue that OSX wasn't really a viable alternative until Jaguar which was definitely post G4 hardware.

Also Apple probably already had G4 prototype machines and the technical specs long before they spec'd out Aqua and Darwin to take advantage of those hardware updates.

I guess the real question is would OS X be possible if it was still required to run on say a 68020 moto chip. with 10 meg harddrives.

 

[stingerman]

Re: Re: ISSCC 2004: IBM on PowerPC 970FX

Originally posted by spankalee
Seeing IBM mention 2.5Ghz chips makes me wonder about why the XServe only goes to 2Ghz and what Apple's plans are.

Is it possible the the extra cooling in the Xserve still isn't enough to cool the 970fx @ 2.5Ghz? Or is it that the 2.5 parts won't be shipping in volume for w while yet?

It could be pre-production yields, but it most likely is that Apple was not going to release a 2.5GHz Xserve till only after it releases a 2.5GHz PM G5. If they had, most of us who are ready to buy would put on hold our purchase and kill Apple's sales for the Quarter. By releasing it at 2GHz, Apple is sending out the signal that we will not see a faster G5 this quarter so go ahead and buy the G5 at 2GHz. It makes sense and I think it is a smart decision as IBM only recently said that they are starting higher production runs soon. So IBM was not ready to go full production till middle of February, which gives Apple a one month lead.

This is after all not just a speed bump but a new process altogether and with new PowerTune technology. After the 970FX is in full production it will scale much faster and we should see 3GHz+ by this August. Let's be reasonable people. This isn't just a speed bump, look at it as yet another whole new processor change. So a March release would be awesome. And if IBM is saying 2.5, maybe we'll get 2.6.

 

[daveL]

Re: Re: Power5

Originally posted by PPCTech
If you read the info released, the Power5 dissipates 160W, but considering they have 4 CPU dies, with 2 CPU's per die, along with 144MB of L3 cache, what can you expect? And based on that it will never see any life in an Apple product, because of the extreme cooling methods it needs. The POWER architecture is specifically meant for big tin machines, not consumers. It isn't implausible that Apple could create a POWER based workstation that exceeds the price of the PowerMac line for serious enterprise customers, GIS, scientific, government, and military demanding bleeding edge technology.

What you will see is Apple using IBM derivatives of the POWER architecture specifically for the PowerPC CPU's that trickle down like SMT, dual core CPU's, and integrated memory controllers.

Xgrid technology may change that, but doubtful. If you look at Apple hardware, yes it is cutting edge and generally leads the way for what you will see in PC's within a year or so, but never do they move to strictly bleeding edge technology that is unproven in the consumer market, or too cost prohibitive which would make thier margins shrink.

Apple first and foremost is a consumer based company.

-PPCTech

Well, I see you're a newbie, so first I'll say check the archives. The current G5 (970) is a derivative of the Power4 processor, with one core, but Altivec added on. In parallel to IBM developing the Power5, they have been developing the 975 (sometimes called the 980 or G6), which is a derivative of the Power5, again with Altivec added.

BTW, I never said anything about Apple building a Power5-based machine. I said the Power5 news was of interest to us. It's of interest to us because of the 975 derivative that will follow on its heels and that will be used by Apple before the end of this year, it appears.

 

[jwhitnah]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
please dont use moores law and G4 in the same sentence. G4 hasnt kept up with or even got close to moores law. G4 is a joke. G4 is the worst decision Apple ever made in the past 5 years. debut at 500 and 5years later we are at 1.33? Yes i have a G4 and can tell you they suck! Pathetic P.O.S. frozen again for a year. excuse me why i puke!

Sad but true. Apple was screwed by Moto! Remember how they pulled the 500 because of poor yields for like a year. That was the begining of the end. Let us never use the G4 as the standard.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

you think about it a G4 is a G3 with altivec. now i'm really Hurting.

 

[wizard]

Re: Re: Re: Power5

If the thought of quad G5 towers turn you on, consider this. Those CPU's may be multithreaded so you could potentially see 8 logical cpu's in a G5 Tower. This would be the same machine many of us have and others lust for.

Now all we have to do is hope that if Apple/IBM does decide to deliver a multithread processor that they are able to support it correctly. All thse CPU's will do no one any good if the OS can't drive them properly.

thanks
Dave

Originally posted by HiRez
It sounds like the perfect chip for...the PowerNode!!

Seriously, though, isn't the G6 supposed to be the Power5 derivative that you speak of, in the same way The G5 was a Power4 derivative? I never heard anyone suggest the Power5 would be used directly by Apple. I don't even think it's going to have Velocity Engine capabilities, is it? The thing about the Power5/G6 that sounds the most tantalizing to me is the dual-core nature, essentially enabling a quad-processor machine without all the tricky engineering it would take with the G5.

 

[wizard]

You seem to have a few ideas completely wrong here.

First the G5 is a good chip and is a powerhouse at floationg point but it can hardly be called leading edge in integer calculations. The truth is that it is barely competitive with much of the i86 world. The G5 is stale in the sense, that being a first release, we have not seen a speed bump in a long time. This is a problem when the competition is steadly releasing new hardware.

Your statement about gaming are so far off base that one has to wonder if they where made as some sort of joke. If a video card was the only requirement for good gaming why did G4 perform so poorly with gaming software relative to any of the i86 machines it was sold agianst? Excellent CPU performance is a requirement for progress in gaming and to allow good interaction with contemporary software. Just look at the machines that gamers buy, they always strive for top shelf CPU's - there is a reason for that.

Forgetting the gamers though there are a whole host of applications out there looking for a hiehg performance machine to run on. Many of these applications are used by individuals in an interactive environment. Software responsiveness is an absolute requirement.

Dave

Originally posted by greenstork
We're not talking about G3's or G4's, we're talking about the fastest G5's. If these are stale and old, you're just spoiled rotten.

edit: As for not knowing people needs, I do know this. The ONLY people that need anything faster than a 2.0 GHz G5 are exclusively executing processor intensive tasks like heavy graphic work and video rendering (gaming relies more on the video card and the 2.0 GHz G5 is more than up to the task already for every single game available). Most other software doesn't need that processor power. We are in a time in computing in which hardware improvements have outpaced software demands.

edit 2: I never said stop innovating or no progress, RTF post. Stop jumping to conclusions about what you think I was saying.