Yeah buddy, don't know what you're smokin...but the upgrade companies don't MAKE the chips THEMSELVES. They make the boards, but the chip that goes in them they purchase from Motorola.
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah buddy, don't know what you're smokin...but the upgrade companies don't MAKE the chips THEMSELVES. They make the boards, but the chip that goes in them they purchase from Motorola.
1.42ghz Mystery
We knew that the 1.25ghz+ G4s Apple currently offers were odd, they certainly are not 7457s and are not in the Moto product summaries...I will try not to provoke people by using the 'o' word, but does anyone have any idea what they are? The best I can think of is that they are low-volume, process improved (somehow) 7455s that can just about handle speeds in excess of 1ghz, or the few chips at the fab which can handle a higher speed with heavy cooling...This is dire, Moto before had talked about a 200mhz FSB and 4mb of L3..these are irrelevant to the Mac, as in all honesty - the G4 has been. All the G4 (like the 3210 DSP in the AV Quadras) has provided is a bit of extra speed in demo-friendly areas to temporarily mask a serious price/performance gap with WinTel...
This is not a desktop chip and Moto has no incentive to compete on that level..At least the 970 will be used in servers and Linux machines and while x86 will STILL outperform it IBM cannot just ignore x86...I do not see how Apple can offer these in anything higher end than the iBook in Q4 - they would be laughed off the shop floor.
I just wish as soon as the original G4 debacle happened (450mhz max then the 18 month 500mhz stall) Apple had done something to assure a better future for the processor - taking some design in house (even a few mods), outsourcing fabbing for even slightly customised PPCs, gotten some SMP ability added to the fast, cheap G3 - SOMETHING - as at this rate, the 970 must be a very special chip indeed or 64-bit must offer something more spectacular than the massive memory addressing (and slower memory access) that it offers in order to make up for the ghz gap...better hope Prescott stalls at 3.6ghz for a while...
..Not sure x86 is an option, sadly, as economics are on its side...It will always take multiple CPUs from now on to come close to x86 performance....Why would developers develop for OS X on x86? Other than Linux, which is a special case as it is a free enthusiast OS, who can challenge Winbloz on the desktop?
We knew that the 1.25ghz+ G4s Apple currently offers were odd, they certainly are not 7457s and are not in the Moto product summaries...I will try not to provoke people by using the 'o' word, but does anyone have any idea what they are? The best I can think of is that they are low-volume, process improved (somehow) 7455s that can just about handle speeds in excess of 1ghz, or the few chips at the fab which can handle a higher speed with heavy cooling...This is dire, Moto before had talked about a 200mhz FSB and 4mb of L3..these are irrelevant to the Mac, as in all honesty - the G4 has been. All the G4 (like the 3210 DSP in the AV Quadras) has provided is a bit of extra speed in demo-friendly areas to temporarily mask a serious price/performance gap with WinTel...
This is not a desktop chip and Moto has no incentive to compete on that level..At least the 970 will be used in servers and Linux machines and while x86 will STILL outperform it IBM cannot just ignore x86...I do not see how Apple can offer these in anything higher end than the iBook in Q4 - they would be laughed off the shop floor.
I just wish as soon as the original G4 debacle happened (450mhz max then the 18 month 500mhz stall) Apple had done something to assure a better future for the processor - taking some design in house (even a few mods), outsourcing fabbing for even slightly customised PPCs, gotten some SMP ability added to the fast, cheap G3 - SOMETHING - as at this rate, the 970 must be a very special chip indeed or 64-bit must offer something more spectacular than the massive memory addressing (and slower memory access) that it offers in order to make up for the ghz gap...better hope Prescott stalls at 3.6ghz for a while...
..Not sure x86 is an option, sadly, as economics are on its side...It will always take multiple CPUs from now on to come close to x86 performance....Why would developers develop for OS X on x86? Other than Linux, which is a special case as it is a free enthusiast OS, who can challenge Winbloz on the desktop?
Well, to some extent, I care. This means one of two things:
1) The 970 is *it* on the PPC side. If apple isn't going with it for high to midrange stuff, and soon, game over. If they do, then wahoo, IBM to the rescue.
2) Apple really, truly, after all this, is fscked. Moto isn't (can't, won't) producing desktop CPUs. Laptops will hold out for a bit, but expect desktop presence to shrink to nothing and, soon enough, laptops will follow. (Centrino is looking like it will give Sony the platform they need to field powerbook competitors.)
Personally, I'm an optimist, as much as I rag on apple at times. 970's in the powermac by July!
Rah,
prat
Uh..Centrino?
I agree Apple is in big trouble if they dont move quickly on the processors...Im sure there are thousands of people just waiting with cash in pocket for this area of their products to pick up (no evidence of course) including myself.
Id hate to have to go to Intel but I love Apple too much for them to just wither and die....IBM help....!!!!
Over and out.
I agree Apple is in big trouble if they dont move quickly on the processors...Im sure there are thousands of people just waiting with cash in pocket for this area of their products to pick up (no evidence of course) including myself.
Id hate to have to go to Intel but I love Apple too much for them to just wither and die....IBM help....!!!!
Over and out.
Yea, centrino. Google is your friend:
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20030108corp.htm
Basically, it is intels new mobile solution/strategy. 802.11b built into the motherboard, plus a new energy efficient motherboard and the Banias processor (Relabled Pentium-M as of late):
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=3883
The platform is more a response to Transmeta than to Apple. Intel realized that there was a market for small, heat efficient, ultra mobile computers, and that Transmeta was going after it. So, in about 2 years, they created a whole platform dedicated to it. And transmeta is screwed. Gotta hand it to Intel, they are impressive when they put their minds to something.
As far as Apple is concerned, I would be worried that Sony might take this new platform and run with it. Dell will continue to make crappy looking laptops, but Sony has good designers and a home market that rewards clever and ultra-compact design.
Not rosy for Apple, but then, what else is new?
Cheers,
prat
Re: 1.42ghz Mystery
We're lucky Winbloz still sucks! If you use the Mac to make your living, having stability is more important than having the latest processor. I do find it hard to believe apples pricing though.
Macs are the best deal that they have ever been but are still too much at the top end. I think apple charging $2500 for a machine that will run os9 and X is cutting their own throat.
I love Macs and will not use winbloz but I can live with a used Mac until apple gets their schiznit together
daniel
We're lucky Winbloz still sucks! If you use the Mac to make your living, having stability is more important than having the latest processor. I do find it hard to believe apples pricing though.
Macs are the best deal that they have ever been but are still too much at the top end. I think apple charging $2500 for a machine that will run os9 and X is cutting their own throat.
I love Macs and will not use winbloz but I can live with a used Mac until apple gets their schiznit together
daniel
1.0 Ghz @ 10W IS amazing!
So given how amazing the power dissipation is, and that it is suited for fan free designs in small devices (like routers, PDA's and iVid's).
I wonder what Apple might use them for?
We KNOW they are not for high end desktops. Too low Ghz rating for marketing no matter what tech issues might offset that.
Not alot of L3 access or FSB speed or memory addressing which is a mistake IMHO, given those are serious overall system bottlenecks right now and are all critical to embedded media processors (iTivo).
So, what then? A super iPod? An iVid? An Apple PDA despite the negative rumors? A kiosk or pizza box?
The Apple stores have POS toys so perhaps there are some vertical market accessories heading down the pike.
We know this. Motorola has let speed slide in favor of very low power targets. Something that Intel and AMD and even IBM only wish they had. Motorola does not make end user products so somebody demanded this for something. What?
So given how amazing the power dissipation is, and that it is suited for fan free designs in small devices (like routers, PDA's and iVid's).
I wonder what Apple might use them for?
We KNOW they are not for high end desktops. Too low Ghz rating for marketing no matter what tech issues might offset that.
Not alot of L3 access or FSB speed or memory addressing which is a mistake IMHO, given those are serious overall system bottlenecks right now and are all critical to embedded media processors (iTivo).
So, what then? A super iPod? An iVid? An Apple PDA despite the negative rumors? A kiosk or pizza box?
The Apple stores have POS toys so perhaps there are some vertical market accessories heading down the pike.
We know this. Motorola has let speed slide in favor of very low power targets. Something that Intel and AMD and even IBM only wish they had. Motorola does not make end user products so somebody demanded this for something. What?
Rocketman:
And not only that, the smallest chip uses the least power. And not only that, but the biggest uses the most. And holy cow, the middle chip uses a middlling amount of power.
No, really, this is very much not amazing. It is more than half the usage of a PPC-970 at that clock speed and probably 25% more than a 750fx at that speed. Oooo, so it landed between two other 130nm PPC chips.
And not only that, the smallest chip uses the least power. And not only that, but the biggest uses the most. And holy cow, the middle chip uses a middlling amount of power.So you ignored the posts above that mentioned how much lower the power dissipation of a 750fx is?
I agree with you about Moto and their involvement with Desktops. They won't produce G4's for PC at all sooner or later. For everybody who says that when the 970 goes into the Powermac and Powerbook lines, and that the iMac and iBook would keep the G4, well, I disagree. Apple has probably been told by Motorola of their future plans of not making cpu's for PC's anymore, and have probably already planned around this notion. Apple will use the 970 and G3's, both by IBM. Moto is gone. Its inevitable.
And by the way, if a 1Ghz 7457 only use 10W, then aren't these chips primed for overclocking? They won't get too hot if they WERE to be overclocked, right? Sorry, I don't know much about overclocking.
Abstract:
There is no difference between a G4 for a Mac and one for a router (or any other device).
Low-end Macs will be perfectly suited to G4's. I expect low-end Macs to use G4's for some time, at least until some version of the PPC-970 comes out at 90nm, and perhaps longer.
am i the only person who would rather apple go to amd than ibm, no offense, but ibm really doesn't update the processors that often, when they do it's big, but if we go to the 970, at the end of this year or next year, it will be still waaaaaaaaaay behind x86, and so really, what was the point? if we want to stay behind intel and amd, why not just keep moto, the 970s will be more expensive as well, gee, that's what i want, a more expensive mac, sounds great....
no, i would really like to build a custom mac, alot of techies would and alot of people are building their own machines today, so why not apple mac a profit off it. why would osx sell? cause it's the greatest os ever, and developers will make stuff as long as their is a market, and unfortunatly, mac's market is dieing out.
the 970 to me seems the wrong way to go, considering that spec scores show it got it's ass handed to it by several other processors, many of which were cheaper. i'll stop complaining once unreal 2k3 is officially out, mmmmmmmmm unreal.
no, i would really like to build a custom mac, alot of techies would and alot of people are building their own machines today, so why not apple mac a profit off it. why would osx sell? cause it's the greatest os ever, and developers will make stuff as long as their is a market, and unfortunatly, mac's market is dieing out.
the 970 to me seems the wrong way to go, considering that spec scores show it got it's ass handed to it by several other processors, many of which were cheaper. i'll stop complaining once unreal 2k3 is officially out, mmmmmmmmm unreal.
AMD vs IBM
While the Apple Marklar project will run MacOS X on an x86 processor, EVERY Mac commercial application would have to be rewritten to run in that environment. Remember, our current apps were written for the PPC instruction set.
Who would do that? Vendors would simply say, buy a PC. They don't care about Windows, but they do care about their bottom line. I doubt any vendor would rewrite their app to run on MacOS X on an X86 chip without a strong incentive. Less than 5% of the market doesn't seem to cut it, especially when they already have sunk this cost in the PPC app.
While the Apple Marklar project will run MacOS X on an x86 processor, EVERY Mac commercial application would have to be rewritten to run in that environment. Remember, our current apps were written for the PPC instruction set.
Who would do that? Vendors would simply say, buy a PC. They don't care about Windows, but they do care about their bottom line. I doubt any vendor would rewrite their app to run on MacOS X on an X86 chip without a strong incentive. Less than 5% of the market doesn't seem to cut it, especially when they already have sunk this cost in the PPC app.
Re: Re: waaaaay OT! but worth it...
LOL. Just how many NYC cops have you met? Don't be shocked if the word "baggie" WAS in the legal document.
Originally posted by liloconf
Um did anyone read the complaint filed on this website, I'm sorry but "Baggie" is not a word, I really don't think that a cop would use it on a legal document...unless that cop smoked the evidence
LOL. Just how many NYC cops have you met? Don't be shocked if the word "baggie" WAS in the legal document.
Unfortunately you're not the only person that thinks that. However, imo, Sun would be a better choice than AMD (and switching to Sun would be ***Dumb*** for Apple). AMD is tiny, they don't own their fabs, they have to bet the whole company on each new chip revision, they're losing money, they make x86 chips, they're behind Intel on performance, and their chips draw ~80 watts of power.
yes, you are.
I, for one, know that the best thing Apple could do is change the preferred architecture that OS X runs on. I mean developers will LOVE to learn how to optimize their code for X86, 3dNow, 3dNowPro, MMX, MMX2, and SSE. They will throw LOTS of extra resouces into developing software for the 4% market of the Mac so they can have their code run fast on two different architectures. Apple won't short change PPC development for the new Architecture either. They will dump tons of R&D to support the Billions of dollars of legacy hardware and software that Mac users have invested in PPC machines.
And the users... they will flock to the new x86 OS with the pretty buttons and no applications. Grandmothers will jump on the bandwagon because they like recompiling open source code so that the unix-ported-to-PPC-OSX projects will run on their new x86 boxes. And the developers will see this huge influx of new app-less users and they will roll the applications out lickety split.
<--- I'm being sarcastic of course
Waaaaay behind? what are you smoking? IBM has announced pre-production SPECfp at over 1050 for a 1.8GHz part and they said that this was conservative and that it would go up.
That score is slightly behind the reported SPEC of the Athlon64 at 1.8 GHz... it's is slightly under the 3GHz P4 and it is way ahead of the AthlonXP 2800+. Even the mighty 1 GHz Itanium 2 which sells for what? $4000 per processor module?... only rates about 20%-40% greater performance than the 970's preliminary SPEC.
The Athlon appears to be stalled, Tom's Hardware is saying that AMD needs to move on.
The P4 STILL shares registers between FP and SSE2. Altivec is far superior to SSE2 (and AMD doesn't even do SSE2 yet).
Now consider that IBM will have a robust .09 micron production line up at Fishkill long before the 970 is released, and that IBM is already hinting that they may debut over 1.8 GHz. I think the 970 will do just fine against x86 offerings, especially since it will run nicely as a dual rig with those power consumption rates.
Also, consider that the Athlon64 appears to have been pushed back until the 3rd quarter, and Intel has a history of only releasing chips that are slightly faster than AMDs. Intel won't release a 3.6GHz P4 if AMD is only shipping 3200+ chips this summer... they have no reason to because their yeilds are higher when the clock range is lower. They are happy just being faster, and it appears they will remain faster until the Athlon64 begins to ramp up speed.
gee, everyone I know steals MS Windows. M$ makes their money from OEM licensing on their 95% marketshare, not from home builders. BYO Powermacs would reduce OS X sales, not increase them.. as fewer Mac/OS bundles would be sold.
Now I know you are smokin... The 970 hasn't gotten it's ass handed to it by any processor. The estimated specs are impressive and they dont take Altivec into account. Not only that, but they will go up before the Chip hits market.
What I'm really curious about is how you think the chips that apparently beat the 970 were cheaper? How much does a 970 cost? You don't know because NO ONE KNOWS. Duh. From what I've seen, it doesn't look all that big. If IBM gets good yields (and their process is generally very good) the chip won't be expensive.
Do a little research before you start posting crap.
I don't remember ever seeing a thread on any forum that read something like: "The new Macs are too fast and my electric bill is too high... can Moto please do something about this?" WTF is the point? Seriously, who cares? What is moto doing, developing a chip at lower speeds with lower consumption.. and then handing it to Apple and saying "Here, find some use for this... we dunno either."
I have to believe that there's a reason for this chip. Dual Powerbooks, Quad PowerMacs, iTablet.. love of god something, PLEASE!
I have to believe that there's a reason for this chip. Dual Powerbooks, Quad PowerMacs, iTablet.. love of god something, PLEASE!
And one more thing...
AMD is not in the best shape financially. Someone at IBM even made some type of statement that implied in 5 years or so IBM and Intel will be the only major players left. If Apple needs the backing of a corporation that has resources the best choice is IBM or Intel. I don't know about you, but I would personally hate to have that little "Intel Inside" sticker on my Mac and that "Intel Chime" at the end of every Apple commercial.
My iMac and iBook both have IBM processors (750 Copper and 750cx) and as they are older and not that fast, they have been bullet-proof and perform well for their age.
Look how Moto had to increase pipeline stages in the G4 to increase Mhz. IBM is still building the G3 as a 4 pipeline stage processer and it is running at 800Mhz in the iBook and probably could be running at 1Ghz easily if Apple did not have to cap it. IBM can and will make quality processors in the future. I think they would be a wise choice and Apple would be best served for the future to stay with PowerPC. I think with some decent investment, PowerPC can rock again.
970 good, but intel not sitting still either
pcmag has the P5 (Prescot) released in Q3 with SSE3, a 667-MHz system bus and 1 MB of L2 cache. It's interesting that while they're updating their Itanium in Q3 as well, they're introducing a new budget 64-bit chip at the same time (DeerField). The 970 will still have the shorter pipeline and faster bus.
I'll be interested to see if Apple wraps up the new stds., e.g. USB 2, PCI-X and 8X AGP in its PowerMacs, with its next generation release. By that time the powermacs should be shipping with the ATI 9700 card which is an 8X design in the current PC version - but that card is sold as a desktop gaming card for PCs. With the introduction of the 970, I'll be even more interested to see if Apple tries to create more of a workstation model, offering the higher-end graphics cards like ATI's FIRE series, and 4 to 8 gigs of ram. How about internal FW 800 drives provide a better alternative to IDE for real-time video folks and leave the SCSI option back on the backside of my old IIsi 3/40 (which still runs fine today as a donated computer in a schooldistrict... )... far afield of topic -
Bringing it back around to the Pixar purchase (on that other thread) - I did see that the New Zeland shop that did the Two Towers purchased a farm of Xeons as well, used in conjunction with dual Xeon IBM workstations (which actually look very cool - something the Empire would have in the first Star Wars Film - matte black with red LEDs, but have a noise rating of 50 dbs from their substation size power supplies, yikes [although its not clear if IBM's number is right next to the supply or at user position of 1m]). There's a set of product films on the intel xeon page from that studio (Weta... not the public television station) and Los Alamos that are interesting for propoganda. http://www.intel.com/ebusiness/prod...024301.htm?iid=ipp_srvr_proc_xeon+rinfo_read&
pcmag has the P5 (Prescot) released in Q3 with SSE3, a 667-MHz system bus and 1 MB of L2 cache. It's interesting that while they're updating their Itanium in Q3 as well, they're introducing a new budget 64-bit chip at the same time (DeerField). The 970 will still have the shorter pipeline and faster bus.
I'll be interested to see if Apple wraps up the new stds., e.g. USB 2, PCI-X and 8X AGP in its PowerMacs, with its next generation release. By that time the powermacs should be shipping with the ATI 9700 card which is an 8X design in the current PC version - but that card is sold as a desktop gaming card for PCs. With the introduction of the 970, I'll be even more interested to see if Apple tries to create more of a workstation model, offering the higher-end graphics cards like ATI's FIRE series, and 4 to 8 gigs of ram. How about internal FW 800 drives provide a better alternative to IDE for real-time video folks and leave the SCSI option back on the backside of my old IIsi 3/40 (which still runs fine today as a donated computer in a schooldistrict... )... far afield of topic -
Bringing it back around to the Pixar purchase (on that other thread) - I did see that the New Zeland shop that did the Two Towers purchased a farm of Xeons as well, used in conjunction with dual Xeon IBM workstations (which actually look very cool - something the Empire would have in the first Star Wars Film - matte black with red LEDs, but have a noise rating of 50 dbs from their substation size power supplies, yikes [although its not clear if IBM's number is right next to the supply or at user position of 1m]). There's a set of product films on the intel xeon page from that studio (Weta... not the public television station) and Los Alamos that are interesting for propoganda. http://www.intel.com/ebusiness/prod...024301.htm?iid=ipp_srvr_proc_xeon+rinfo_read&
The POWER4 has lower spec scores than the current Itanium 2 or PIV for that matter but I can tell you when you match a 2 way, 4 way system or an 8 way system of each or virtually any multiple you feel like the POWER4 considerably outperforms the others in most applications. SPECint and SPECTfp really aren't the greatest benchmarks to be perfectly blunt.
Re: 970 good, but intel not sitting still either
I think you are mixing rumors up...
The Prescott rumors seem to lead back to a recent piece on Ace's Hardware. I didn't see the 667MHz bus bit on Ace's but that would be pretty dissapointing since the next revision of the P4 will sport an 800MHz bus (quad pumped 200mhz).
BTW,... Prescott is a P4, not a P5.
Prescott info is all rumor at this point. probably the only think known for sure is that it will be Intel's first desktop processor on a .09 micron process. IBM is ramping up .09 micron at FishKill right now... the same place that will produce the 970.
I think this sums up the Prescott:
Itanium is up for a revision late this year and there are two new products proposed. The second to be released will be Deerfield,... a smaller, less complex Itanium. It should be noted, however, that Deerfield is still anything but a desktop processor. It will be a smaller 'big honking chip' that still puts out a lot of power. Itanium is not going to be a desktop chip for a LONG time so it isn't really appropriate to discuss in relation to processors like Athlon, P4, 970, or even Athlon 64 (though I make comparisons myself).
It seems like ship dates are slipping a bit on the Itanium again though. I think Intel will be very lucky to get Deerfield out this year.
This isn't to say that Itanium (as of Itanium 2) isn't an impressive processor. The SPEC speak for themselves. Unfortunately, when your processors cost $3-4000 dollars, you might want them to perform more than 30% faster than your $600 desktop processor. ;-)
I think you are mixing rumors up...
The Prescott rumors seem to lead back to a recent piece on Ace's Hardware. I didn't see the 667MHz bus bit on Ace's but that would be pretty dissapointing since the next revision of the P4 will sport an 800MHz bus (quad pumped 200mhz).
BTW,... Prescott is a P4, not a P5.
Prescott info is all rumor at this point. probably the only think known for sure is that it will be Intel's first desktop processor on a .09 micron process. IBM is ramping up .09 micron at FishKill right now... the same place that will produce the 970.
I think this sums up the Prescott:
Itanium is up for a revision late this year and there are two new products proposed. The second to be released will be Deerfield,... a smaller, less complex Itanium. It should be noted, however, that Deerfield is still anything but a desktop processor. It will be a smaller 'big honking chip' that still puts out a lot of power. Itanium is not going to be a desktop chip for a LONG time so it isn't really appropriate to discuss in relation to processors like Athlon, P4, 970, or even Athlon 64 (though I make comparisons myself).
It seems like ship dates are slipping a bit on the Itanium again though. I think Intel will be very lucky to get Deerfield out this year.
This isn't to say that Itanium (as of Itanium 2) isn't an impressive processor. The SPEC speak for themselves. Unfortunately, when your processors cost $3-4000 dollars, you might want them to perform more than 30% faster than your $600 desktop processor. ;-)