Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Motorola and PowerBook, iMac Delays
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Re: Re: Let me reiterate this.
The 750FX is made on a smaller process size than the 7455 chips. When Motorola produces the 7457 in the next couple of months the 750FX and the 7457 processors will both be made on the same process size. The 7457 chip will have a much higher topend performance than the 750FX because of this.
Oh, and yes I mistakingly stated 7500 series of chips instead of 7450.
The 7457 will run up to 1.8 GHz on a 130-nm process and the 750FX tops out at 900 MHz. That's twice as much frequency for the 7457 compared to the 750FX. The 750GX is scheduled for production in December and it tops out at 1.1 GHz. The 750 series of chips are simply not a match for the 7450 series from Motorola when both are made on the same process size.
IBM's 750 processors are far behind the performance of Motorola's PowerPC chips when comparing both processors on the same process size and are not likely to catch up anytime soon simply because there is very little financial incentive to make major changes to the chip architecture.
Motorola will have PowerPC processors in production soon in a state of the art fabrication facility owned by one of their chip manufacturing partners. So no, IBM will not have an advantage in this area over Motorola.
So what chip making company has the wherewithal to step in and replace Motorola for PowerPC chips? No chip manufacture is going to create a PowerPC chip architecture for Apple's exclusive at the prices that Apple would want to pay. Intel's pace of chip advancement and prices have almost completely eliminated any serious long term challengers.
Where has Motorola stated that they are getting out of the desktop processor business? For that matter where have they stated that they are even in the desktop processor business? It seems you might be basing this on rumors.
The 750FX is made on a smaller process size than the 7455 chips. When Motorola produces the 7457 in the next couple of months the 750FX and the 7457 processors will both be made on the same process size. The 7457 chip will have a much higher topend performance than the 750FX because of this.
Oh, and yes I mistakingly stated 7500 series of chips instead of 7450.
The 7457 will run up to 1.8 GHz on a 130-nm process and the 750FX tops out at 900 MHz. That's twice as much frequency for the 7457 compared to the 750FX. The 750GX is scheduled for production in December and it tops out at 1.1 GHz. The 750 series of chips are simply not a match for the 7450 series from Motorola when both are made on the same process size.
IBM's 750 processors are far behind the performance of Motorola's PowerPC chips when comparing both processors on the same process size and are not likely to catch up anytime soon simply because there is very little financial incentive to make major changes to the chip architecture.
Motorola will have PowerPC processors in production soon in a state of the art fabrication facility owned by one of their chip manufacturing partners. So no, IBM will not have an advantage in this area over Motorola.
So what chip making company has the wherewithal to step in and replace Motorola for PowerPC chips? No chip manufacture is going to create a PowerPC chip architecture for Apple's exclusive at the prices that Apple would want to pay. Intel's pace of chip advancement and prices have almost completely eliminated any serious long term challengers.
Where has Motorola stated that they are getting out of the desktop processor business? For that matter where have they stated that they are even in the desktop processor business? It seems you might be basing this on rumors.
Phil Of Mac
macrumors 68020
Re: Re: Re: Let me reiterate this.
They're not? Well, that explains why they can't produce any for Apple! 🙂
They're not? Well, that explains why they can't produce any for Apple! 🙂
Phil Of Mac
macrumors 68020
In other news, the Intel 486 processor is not nearly as fast as the AMD Opteron. Obviously, Intel is inferior.
Actually, they will. IBM's Fishkill facility redefined "state of the art" to a point where no other chip maker can reach them.
Which is why we need a chip maker that already has a line of processors that can be pressed into service as PowerPC's with slight modifications. IBM with their POWER line fit this. So does AMD.
AMD builds proprietary processors with an x86 frontend. Now either AMD is going to replace the x86 frontend with a PPC frontend, or they're going to simply change the internal architecture of all their processors to PowerPC, and continue to attach an x86 frontend.
Remember, this isn't insane. AMD does have a lot of PPC and RISC technology in their processors already. Would it really be that hard for them to produce a PPC? Wouldn't ANY chip maker be better than Motorola, at this point?
macphoria
macrumors 6502a
There has been RUMORS about Apple and AMD working together. To what end, that is unclear and total speculation.
However, it is conceivable that Apple is seeking another supplier due to lack of desktop processor development on Motorola's part. And AMD could be an ideal candidate.
But AMD could very well be hesitant (or totally against) getting involved in Apple which holds only small portion of market share. Motorola and IBM have interests in other markets beside desktop, whereas significant part of AMD's business is devoted to desktop. It only makes sense that AMD is not interested. Although AIA (Apple-IBM-AMD) would probably make a great team and something many Mac fans would love to see materialize.
No, the 8500 series are not even host processors. You can see the 8500 chip series listed on Motorola's website.
There was a press release about it a couple of years ago and it is still listed as a product on Motorola's website.
The 970 is derived from the Power4 processors which are designed for highend servers. The 970 is not an exclusive design for Apple. It has a much higher performance than the Motorola design due to its core design being intended for the server market. IBM would not spend the money to design a chip of this caliber just for Apple's use. Whereas you expect Motorola to do just that and lose money at it trying to keep up with Intel.
The 750FX was announced in October of 2000 and it has yet to reach the stated maximum of 1 GHz. That's longer than 12 months and yet you have nothing but excuses for IBM letting down Apple by not stepping up and matching or outperforming the Motorola processors in the last few years. Clearly Motorola has created the top performing processors for Apple in the last few years and not IBM.
AMD won't do that because they are having enough trouble just trying to keep with Intel. It would be a losing proposition for AMD to make a exclusive processor for Apple and tacking a PowerPC and x86 processor together would make a chip that would be a poor compromise for both markets and more expensive to boot due the larger size of it.
Hogwash! Motorola stated in a press release announcing the 7457 that it would sample to major customers in March and would be produced in the fourth quarter of 2003. I'd expect Apple to announce products that use the chip in the next few weeks.
If IBM was so much better at making PowerPC processors than Motorola then why didn't the IBM PowerPC processors pass the Motorola processors in performance in the last few years? And why did Apple reduce the IBM processors to only the iBooks if IBM was clearly the superior manufacturer?
The IBM PowerPC processors did not move to DDR memory either.
Now why do you suppose that Apple would have continued with Motorola if the company bungled just about everything as you claim? It's obvious that IBM has had every opportunity to step up to the plate in that time and come out with a PowerPC processor that could match or beat what Motorola was delivering.
Motorola has done such a awful job of designing chips that IBM is using Altivec in the 970. It would seem that since IBM is so superior to Motorola that they could come up with something better than Altivec, now wouldn't they? Or could it be that there is so little money in designing chips exclusively for Apple that IBM had to tack on Altivec?
Actually next year the 7457RM will support DDRII, have a onboard controller and a bus speed considerably faster than 250 MHz.
The Motorola processors do not need to be as fast as the G5 since they will likely be used in low to mid range Macs.
What's hilarious about your arguments is you don't seem to have a clue to the fact that the G5 is supposed to be the top performer in Macs and Apple also needs lower cost processors for the low to mid range models also. The G5 will not likely be used throughout Apple's computer models partially due to the higher costs of the chips.
Intel stopped making 486 processors years ago. IBM has had every opportunity to pass Motorola in host PowerPC processor performance and have failed up until now.
That's hilarious. Your blind to what the other chip manufacturers are doing, which includes Intel.
AMD is as far removed from having a design based on the PowerPC instruction set as you can get. It simply would not be financially feasible for AMD to make a PowerPC design for Apple's tiny market share. The only alternative that Apple has is converting over to the X86 platform.
It would take years for AMD to come up with a chip design for Apple. The 970 was worked on for three years before it was announced.
Apple doesn't have much choice at this point. There are very few chip manufacturers that design chips for computers. There is Sun, IBM, Intel, AMD, Fujitsu. Motorola has designs that are not exclusive to computers. Both Sun and AMD are losing buckets full of money and have a shaky future as chip designers or manufacturers. So, that leaves Fujitsu, Intel, Motorola or IBM. Since Fujitsu makes processors based on Sun's Ultrasparc, then it's doubtful Fujitsu has a big future in computer processors. Realistically it's either Motorola or IBM for PowerPC processors and Intel would be the obvious choice if Apple cannot increase market share significantly in the increasingly commodity based personal computers.
Snowy_River
macrumors 68030
Re: Re: Re: Let me reiterate this.
Gee, this is getting to be fun... 😀
No, wait, it's getting to be mundane, too... 😉
Well, not according to the PPC roadmap that they published... in '99 if memory serves. I don't have a copy of it any more, and I know it's long since been pulled from their website (like back in 2000). But I do recall that they showed the PPC8500 "G5" projected release in 2001.
Okay, now I've offered an explanation to this before, but you've never bothered to say anything in response. Apple didn't want a faster G3 because they didn't have faster G4s! Now, I've heard that IBM has, over time, been working on their equivalent of Altivec, and trying to build it into the 750 line, but that's not a trivial task. Until they could do that, Apple wouldn't buy faster processors, so IBM wouldn't produce them. Now IBM has a chip with an Altivec equivalent, and Apple is moving to it quickly.
I, for one, never said that Moto wasn't any good at designing chips. They used to have a top flight PPC design team. But they've fired most of them. Many of them have even been hired by Apple. Now, Apple has made a substantial investment in Altivec, and would suffer greatly if they didn't maintain Altivec support in whatever chip they chose to use, both in PR and in performance. So, it's no great mystery as to why IBM is working with an Altivec equivalent vector unit.
Ah, more vapor-ware. Weren't you the one who was putting people down for basing their opinions on rumors?
Okay, so by your own argument, Apple doesn't have a whole lot of choices here. Therefore, if it is Apple's judgement that Moto is a high-risk supplier, they will be forced to rely on IBM for their PPC chips. And, if IBM falls through, there's always the Marklar project as a 'Plan B'.
Gee, this is getting to be fun... 😀
No, wait, it's getting to be mundane, too... 😉
Well, not according to the PPC roadmap that they published... in '99 if memory serves. I don't have a copy of it any more, and I know it's long since been pulled from their website (like back in 2000). But I do recall that they showed the PPC8500 "G5" projected release in 2001.
Okay, now I've offered an explanation to this before, but you've never bothered to say anything in response. Apple didn't want a faster G3 because they didn't have faster G4s! Now, I've heard that IBM has, over time, been working on their equivalent of Altivec, and trying to build it into the 750 line, but that's not a trivial task. Until they could do that, Apple wouldn't buy faster processors, so IBM wouldn't produce them. Now IBM has a chip with an Altivec equivalent, and Apple is moving to it quickly.
I, for one, never said that Moto wasn't any good at designing chips. They used to have a top flight PPC design team. But they've fired most of them. Many of them have even been hired by Apple. Now, Apple has made a substantial investment in Altivec, and would suffer greatly if they didn't maintain Altivec support in whatever chip they chose to use, both in PR and in performance. So, it's no great mystery as to why IBM is working with an Altivec equivalent vector unit.
Ah, more vapor-ware. Weren't you the one who was putting people down for basing their opinions on rumors?
Okay, so by your own argument, Apple doesn't have a whole lot of choices here. Therefore, if it is Apple's judgement that Moto is a high-risk supplier, they will be forced to rely on IBM for their PPC chips. And, if IBM falls through, there's always the Marklar project as a 'Plan B'.
Snowy_River
macrumors 68030
Last words...
If what information we have at our disposal is to be believed, then the G5 is cheaper than the G4, and, therefore, your argument is fundamentally flawed.
You know, Phinius, I don't know why you're such a Motorola fan, but that's fine. We clearly have some areas where we disagree. I think that it's time to leave it at that. I'm tired of trading jabs with you. As I said in my previous post, it's gotten mundane. Until we meet in another thread to trade jabs there, it's been real! 😉
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let me reiterate this.
You need to check Motorola's website. The 8500 PowerPC series are not host proessors.
These are some of the most lame arguments I have ever heard. Motorola was doing a terrible job, but yet Apple didn't want IBM to pass the performance of the G4 chips. Geez...now that makes a lot of sense. Do you realize how incredibly stupid that argument is.
The 970 has Altivec tacked onto to it. It is not a IBM design. That got it from Motorola.
Perhaps IBM is using Altivec because they were unwilling or unable to come up with something better.
Motorola is coming out with a dual-core G4 chip and Apple will use it, period. There are no other major markets that would want a dual-core chip that uses a lot of watts.
Apple will not go with only one supplier. This is just what happened when Motorola supplied the G4 and it will occur again with the use of IBM's G5
You need to check Motorola's website. The 8500 PowerPC series are not host proessors.
These are some of the most lame arguments I have ever heard. Motorola was doing a terrible job, but yet Apple didn't want IBM to pass the performance of the G4 chips. Geez...now that makes a lot of sense. Do you realize how incredibly stupid that argument is.
The 970 has Altivec tacked onto to it. It is not a IBM design. That got it from Motorola.
Perhaps IBM is using Altivec because they were unwilling or unable to come up with something better.
Motorola is coming out with a dual-core G4 chip and Apple will use it, period. There are no other major markets that would want a dual-core chip that uses a lot of watts.
Apple will not go with only one supplier. This is just what happened when Motorola supplied the G4 and it will occur again with the use of IBM's G5
macphoria
macrumors 6502a
There was a speculation at one point.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/21692.html
Many believe IBM's 750FX G3 is already capable of running at 1GHz. People speculate the reason for it not appearing in Apple's product, iBook which is only Apple product with G3, is because they don't want iBook cannibalizing PowerBook sales which runs at 1Ghz also. Apple constantly made sure none of iBook's clock speed topped PowerBook's, although there were some instances like iBook G3 700Mhz vs PowerBook G4 667 or current iBook 900Mhz vs PowerBook G4 867.
AltiVec is Motorola's version of SIMD (Single Instruction Multiple Data). 970 uses its own version of SIMD.
IBM never approved of AltiVec.
http://www.macworld.com/2001/08/bc/buzzstandbycpu/
If and when it does, Apple will probably use it. But their constant delay is not going to make anyone happy. Apple is trying hard to catch up to PC's in performance. G5 narrowed the gap. Other Apple products need to catch up as well, especially ones using G4.
They probably won't go with single supplier, for having only one option is a dangerous game to play. But you have to wonder how happy Apple is with Motorola and whether Apple is looking for other suppliers which unfortunately is none at the moment.
Motorola vs IBM
Back in 1998 and 1999, Motorola had roadmap that clearly showed G3 (750 series), G4 (7400 series), and G5 (7500) series. On that roadmap, the G5 was supposed to have a multi-core architecture, 64bit processing, multiple Altivec units, and Book E specs. Later on in late 1999 to early 2000, Motorola changed that roadmap by calling the G5 the 8500 with still the same specs and features previously listed for 7500 (G5). In 2002, the 8500 became listed as a non-host processors and became known as embedded processors for routers and such. We were also supposed to see 7460, 7470's and etc......and we still haven't. Motorola removed the references to 7460 and 7470. Now they have the 7457 as new high speed processor. From 1998-2002, all the talk was about the 7500 later changed to 8500 series G5's that would be able to go as fast as 5+ Ghz. As we got closer to 2002, the talk quickly changed to idea that either Apple or Motorola scrapped the G5 project.....the truth of which is unknown.
Back in 1998 and 1999, Motorola had roadmap that clearly showed G3 (750 series), G4 (7400 series), and G5 (7500) series. On that roadmap, the G5 was supposed to have a multi-core architecture, 64bit processing, multiple Altivec units, and Book E specs. Later on in late 1999 to early 2000, Motorola changed that roadmap by calling the G5 the 8500 with still the same specs and features previously listed for 7500 (G5). In 2002, the 8500 became listed as a non-host processors and became known as embedded processors for routers and such. We were also supposed to see 7460, 7470's and etc......and we still haven't. Motorola removed the references to 7460 and 7470. Now they have the 7457 as new high speed processor. From 1998-2002, all the talk was about the 7500 later changed to 8500 series G5's that would be able to go as fast as 5+ Ghz. As we got closer to 2002, the talk quickly changed to idea that either Apple or Motorola scrapped the G5 project.....the truth of which is unknown.
daveL
macrumors 68020
Snowy_River
macrumors 68030
Re: Re: Motorola vs IBM
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one with a memory of what Moto has said in the past. Of some note:
Now, I don't know that I'd believe some of the SPEC numbers that that site quotes, but then again, they were coming from rumor sites not of the highest repute. (According to those numbers, the 8500 would have been faster per cycle and at higher clock speeds two years ago than the 970 is now. Seems like a bit of an exageration to me.)
However, the fact that the 8500 was going to be a host processor, and likely the base for the Power Mac G5, before that branch of development was cancelled, is remembered by more people than just me.
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one with a memory of what Moto has said in the past. Of some note:
Now, I don't know that I'd believe some of the SPEC numbers that that site quotes, but then again, they were coming from rumor sites not of the highest repute. (According to those numbers, the 8500 would have been faster per cycle and at higher clock speeds two years ago than the 970 is now. Seems like a bit of an exageration to me.)
However, the fact that the 8500 was going to be a host processor, and likely the base for the Power Mac G5, before that branch of development was cancelled, is remembered by more people than just me.
Re: Re: Re: Motorola vs IBM
Yeah, Same feeling here. In fact I remember Motorola saying the 7500 aka G5 would have 4 cores as the above mentioned multicore support. This thing was supposed to kick everybodies rear and make intel people wet their pants. Too bad it went by the way side. MacOS Rumors, the Register, and many others talked about this processor. There was posts in forums all over the place. It would have been funny to see intel people wet their pants though!
Yeah, Same feeling here. In fact I remember Motorola saying the 7500 aka G5 would have 4 cores as the above mentioned multicore support. This thing was supposed to kick everybodies rear and make intel people wet their pants. Too bad it went by the way side. MacOS Rumors, the Register, and many others talked about this processor. There was posts in forums all over the place. It would have been funny to see intel people wet their pants though!
Originally posted by Snowy_River
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one with a memory of what Moto has said in the past. Of some note:
Now, I don't know that I'd believe some of the SPEC numbers that that site quotes, but then again, they were coming from rumor sites not of the highest repute. (According to those numbers, the 8500 would have been faster per cycle and at higher clock speeds two years ago than the 970 is now. Seems like a bit of an exageration to me.)
However, the fact that the 8500 was going to be a host processor, and likely the base for the Power Mac G5, before that branch of development was cancelled, is remembered by more people than just me.
Phil Of Mac
macrumors 68020
Apple spent a good deal of time and money moving to Altivec. Moving back to the G3 wouldn't work, especially if they had the 970 to wait for.
IBM didn't produce G3's faster than Motorola's G4's because Apple didn't want them to. You don't bother producing a product no one's going to buy, especially when you're already working on the 970.
An AMD PPC would be a variant of the procesors they're already developing. AMD chip design allows that flexibility. Remember, AMD processors now are an AMD processor with an x86 frontend tacked on. If that AMD processor was a PowerPC, or if they replaced the x86 frontend with a PPC frontend or something, it would be very feasible.
Uh, that's what the 970 is, chief.
The 970 did.
Once again, they did. It's called the 970.
Motorola developed AltiVec in the 90's and didn't do much since. If we're going by that criteria, then I guess IBM is superior because they invented the PowerPC in the early 90's 🙂
Are they really that much more expensive? Bought in the bulk quantities Apple's buying them? Have you even read about the Fishkill facility? IBM can mass produce the 970 or any other processor on the cheap, domestically. No foreign outsourcing. In fact, other chip makers are starting to outsource to IBM!
The 970 costs whatever IBM and Apple agree on. If they need to produce them in the millions to go into all product lines, they will.
Phil Of Mac
macrumors 68020
No one ever wanted to make a G3 that was faster than a G4. Even though it's been done at similar clock speeds, the G3 was never supposed to be faster than the G4, and Apple never ordered a G3 that was faster than the G4. They asked IBM for a G5 instead. And that's what they got.
Apple wasn't about to go back and lose Altivec.
I don't doubt other chip makers will want to develop facilities similar to or better than Fishkill. But they haven't yet.
It would be a whole lot more feasible than relying on Motorola.
Perhaps they've already started. They already have a lot of PPC technology. It wouldn't be that unfeasible.
Motorola has shafted Apple more than enough times already. They are unreliable. So mark them off the list.
Sun wants nothing to do with Apple because of past history. AMD, however, might see Apple as a source of turnaround.
There is another option. Apple itself reportedly has many ex-Motorola chip designers. I don't consider it totally unfeasible that Apple themselves could design processors for IBM to manufacture at Fishkill.
Who needs to increase market share? You don't see Mercedes-Benz fretting about their infinestimal market share.
Phil Of Mac
macrumors 68020
They didn't want a non-Altivec chip that was faster than an Altivec chip. They chose instead for IBM to design an Altivec chip that was faster. The 970.
It is Altivec compatible. But then again, Motorola has been using PowerPC designs ever since 1994. That they got from IBM.
IBM is using an Altivec-compatible SIMD unit. It is not the same as Altivec.
Vaporware.
The reason it happened with Motorola is because Motorola couldn't produce enough G4's to fill the entire product line. IBM has no problem producing enough chips at Fishkill.
Snowy_River
macrumors 68030
Agreed
Yeah Isn't it! Sort of a off-shoot of the Minister of Misinformation of Iraq...hee hee!....opps I forgot....He wasn't misinforming......oh no .......he was telling the truth.....he swears by Allah!
Yeah Isn't it! Sort of a off-shoot of the Minister of Misinformation of Iraq...hee hee!....opps I forgot....He wasn't misinforming......oh no .......he was telling the truth.....he swears by Allah!
This is not quite true. Looking at Apple's description of FishKill, I should note that all 300mm fabs are fully robotic and all chips with copper interconnects use the damascene process, and the AMD chips already use 9-layers, which, is not an inherent advantage.
For instance, on another thread someone pointed out to me that Intel has a 300mm fab in New Mexico. Of course, most people conveniently forget to mention that this fab has yet to ship a single Pentium out the door. 🙂
Companies like Intel, Texas Instruments and Motorola (yes, even them) have 300mm fabs in the works. If the market stays this bad, we may be waiting some time before they go on line.
RAM manufacturers have been producing on 90nm which is a step above what the G5 is fabbed at (The Intel Prescott and IBM 980 are rumored to using this process). The problem is it is much easier to make a work out lithography issues for a component with a lot of repeatability like RAM vs. something like a CPU or ASIC.
As for IBM taking on other clients (like Apple), that was the stated idea behind the building of Fishkill and was used to justify costs--they'd have been poorly put out if Fishkill didn't have other customers. Stealing away nVidia from some Taiwanese company, was a major coup and does speak volumes as to how well done Fishkill is.
I won't comment on your other points made against the Motorola Information Minister. 🙂
Whoa! The only reason IBM's SIMD unit isn't "Altivec" is because "Altivec" is a trademark of Motorola--just like VMX is of IBM and "Velocity Engine" is for Apple--three names for the same thing. The actual implementation may be slightly different, of course, but the instruction set is the same.
I seem to remember that Altivec technology was developed at the joint development center by all three companies together (IBM was later to pull out but I think this was after the work was done). Rumor has it that IBM and Apple pressured a reluctant Motorola to put it in the G4 because IBM was moving out of the desktop processor market into servers and Apple wanted it for their PowerMacintosh line. Not sure if this is true.
Phil Of Mac
macrumors 68020
Motorola's Altivec and IBM's Altivec are still slightly different. The instruction counts, at least, are different. Minor difference, though.
So Intel has a fully automated facility as well. I think Fishkill has other advantages--producing chips from a larger wafer size, for instance. But the fact is, IBM already has the facility, Motorola doesn't yet. And if Motorola builds production facilities the same way they build processors, it won't be here for awhile 🙂
So Intel has a fully automated facility as well. I think Fishkill has other advantages--producing chips from a larger wafer size, for instance. But the fact is, IBM already has the facility, Motorola doesn't yet. And if Motorola builds production facilities the same way they build processors, it won't be here for awhile 🙂
Motorola has a PowerPC roadmap, dated 11/30/2001, that clearly mentions the G5 as a 85XX processor. If you look at the bottom of the roadmap there is an explanation of each processor number. Motorola states that the 85XX (G5) is a 'integrated processor targeting the communication and consumer markets'. The 7XXX (G4) processor is a 'high performance microprocessor targeting computing and high-end embedded'. The processors that Apple uses are not integrated processors and so therefore the G5 on the roadmap is not intended for Apple's use in computers.
If you then look at the PowerPC processors products listed on Motorola's website you will see a category for 8XXX integrated host processors and 85XX integrated communications and 82XX processors.
The 8500 series of G5 chips was never intended for Apple's market. A 8500 processor for Apple is based on wild assed speculation and rumors that are completely unfounded.
Although much of the features on the G5 roadmap will be brought over to the 7457RM G4 processors in 2004.
Do you realize that both the eMac and iMac use a G4 processor that runs at 1 GHz? The idea that IBM didn't release a G3 running at 1 GHz because of having to keep it below the frequency of the G4 is ludicrous. The G4 would obviously have a higher performance than than G3 when both are running at the same frequency due to the G4 having Altivec and also the availability of a L3 cache for the G4.
The 970 has Altivec.
Really! Well, Altivec is used on the 970. So much for IBM disapproving of it. Seems Motorola just came up with a feature that was better than what IBM had to offer.
How about the G3 iBooks catching up with the PC in performance. Or is it too much to ask for IBM to do the same thing with the G3 that is expected of Motorola's G4?
Apple has fallen behind in performance compared to PCs due to a falling market share. If you believe that is mainly due to Motorola, then ask yourself why is it that Apple's CFO Fred Anderson stated in the last fiscal quarterly report with analysts (webcast available on Apple's website) that he did not believe the G5 PowerMacs would ever obtain the peak quarterly sales rate of the G4 Power Mac. In fact he stated that it would probably be over 200,000 units per quarter and never reach 300,000 (G4 Power Mac sales reached 370,000 units in one quarter).
If Apple goes with a single supplier it will more than likely be Intel. AMD is mentioned as a possible savior for Apple, but AMD has had months of delays getting Opteron out and the company has been running deeply into the red for several quarters.
It is very unlikely that IBM would be Apple's sole supplier with 9XX processors anytime soon because to do that IBM would have to be willing to sell some 9XX processors to Apple for less than $100 apiece in order for Apple to compete against the Celeron processors. IBM is undoubtedly selling Apple the 970s for several hundred dollars each at this time. In order for Apple to compete in the sub $1,000 computer market the company needs low priced processors and the G4 is likely to be one of those choices. Or do you believe that Apple should abandon the sub $1,000 computer market and simply have a much smaller market share with only elite performing computers?
The G3 seems destined to still be used by Apple at least through the first 6 months of 2004 with the 750GX just recently announced. What product the 750GX will be used in is difficult to tell since it would be a long dry spell for the iBooks to be bumped up to 1.1 GHz in January 2004 and the current top speed of the iBooks tops out at 900 MHz.
- Status