PowerBook 970s at WWDC?

[DrGonzo]

what what what?!?!

So i'm crossing my fingers for this to be true, as i'm sure all you are doing. Also, just because it's 64-bit doesn't mean you have to have some SCSI hard drive. Gezza, you act like there's going to be some insane system performance that warrants some good SCSI setup when infact most ide systems are adequate, and if you want faster/cheaper/larger that's comparable with SCSI go ide raid.

Also, would it be possible to sand down to the aluminum and get a nice mirror finish on it and then clear coat it a few times?

 

[StuPid QPid]

Re: wait for rev. b?

Originally posted by mxpiazza
so now it seems certain that we'll see powerbook 970's at WWDC (no, i don't have that much faith in macwhispers, but this is all the confirmation i need because i was pro-pb970's all along), here is my dilemma: i need to buy a laptop for school this year. however, i don't want all the problems associated with rev. A product. but if i get one of these price-dropped PB's that are out now, they aren't going to be optimized for 10.3 like the 970 is... so are the benifits of getting the rev. A 970 worth the problems that may come along with it, or should i take advantage of the low cost and reliability of the current g4 lineup? help meee!

I wouldn't worry about getting a revision A product. I got one of the first "Wallstreet" PowerBook G3's off the production line and (knock on wood/touch wood) it's still going strong. I'm writing this post with it...
Of course a new and better machine will eventually come along (that's the nature of the coputer business), but from my experience the update to a rev. B product is always a little longer than from rev. B to rev. C. Therefore, when you but a rev. A machine, you'll be 'top of the tree' for longest, as it were. Hopefully that makes some sort of sense - i.e. if you've got the cash, just go for it!

 

[pyrotoaster]

I think the real question is whether Apple will put 970s in the 12 and 17 inch Powerbooks, too...

 

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by Ensoniq
<snip>

There are too many things happening at once...the "planets are aligning", as they would say. Even if the majority of you reading this don't believe a single word, at least I have explained in detail my position, and there is a flow of logic to it whether you agree with the end result or not.

I'd like to see others who insist on discounting the simultanous release of new PowerMacs and PowerBooks at least attempt to be as logical and thorough as I have.

<snip>

Thank you for that very well thought-out and argued post.

Especially because it tells all of us exactly what we want to hear.

 

[jayscheuerle]

Re: Re: wait for rev. b?

Originally posted by StuPid QPid
I wouldn't worry about getting a revision A product. I got one of the first "Wallstreet" PowerBook G3's off the production line and (knock on wood/touch wood) it's still going strong. I'm writing this post with it...
Of course a new and better machine will eventually come along (that's the nature of the coputer business), but from my experience the update to a rev. B product is always a little longer than from rev. B to rev. C. Therefore, when you but a rev. A machine, you'll be 'top of the tree' for longest, as it were. Hopefully that makes some sort of sense - i.e. if you've got the cash, just go for it!

oooh, I don't know about that. Apple's quality control was a lot better back in the Wallstreet days. I think that they're implementing enough new features on this that it would be prudent to wait until the first couple of reviews start coming in. A months wait won't kill anyone and "top of the tree" is a pretty poor reason to make a rash $2000 decision, regardless if you have the cash.

Of course, the rest of us need some suckers to take these babies for test spins and light up the boards with complaints so that we can make educated decisions instead of hypnotized-by-the-reality-distortion-field decisions.

Let the Photoshop showdown begin!

 

[arn]

Originally posted by Ensoniq
Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but an informed opinion is what's best.

Multiple sources over the last few months have indicated the following without being contradicted by any reliable source:

1 - IBM has been in full scale production of the PPC 970 for a number of months.

2 - IBM's yields have been far greater than expected...both in higher speeds, and quantity of chips.

3 - A PPC 970 @ 1.2 GHz is cooler and draws less power than the 1 GHz G4 being used in PowerBooks today.

4 - IBM is able to sell the PPC 970 to Apple at a cost below what Apple pays Motorola for the G4 chips.

If someone has a source that absolutely contradicts the above, feel free to share it with us. Otherwise, no matter how much you pound the table claiming the above details are false, you're doing no more than "guessing" and have no weight to your argument.

I don't believe any of the above are facts.

The above information is NOT reliably known and while it is not contradicted by any reliable source - NOR is it actually offered as truth by a reliable source. Please cite your references.

#3 may be true, I don't know for sure... do you have a reference?

Much of the above information appears to be from MacWhispers... and one report from LoopRumors... neither of which are reliable sources of information. If you propose that this information is true, then you must also believe that the PowerBooks came out in Jan/Feb, and that there is a mouse/phone combo in the works. If you selectively choose to believe what you want from these same sites - then you are doing nothing more than "guessing" like those you criticize.

arn

 

[rjstanford]

Speed

Originally posted by QCassidy352
So until Panther comes along, the 970 will be fast, but not *that* fast. 1.25 to 1.5x a similarly clocked G4 is good, but not really all that I'm hoping for.

Think about it from a laptop perspective though. The current peak processor is a 1 ghz G4. Even taking the 1.5 number (IMO 1.25 is very unrealistic, and I've been using IBM's processors for many a year now in their AIX machines), the slowest speed the 970 is aiming for is 1.2ghz. That gives an 80% speed improvement for the powerBooks right there, ignoring any thought of additional improvements because of the overall system architecture, bus speed, et cetera.

I'll take that ... in a heartbeat.

-Richard

 

[GroundLoop]

references concerning heat

Originally posted by arn
I don't believe any of the above are facts.

The above information is NOT reliably known and while it is not contradicted by any reliable source - NOR is it actually offered as truth by a reliable source. Please cite your references.

#3 may be true, I don't know for sure... do you have a reference?

arn

Here are the facts straight from the documents of their respective developers:

PPC 970:
19W @ 1.2 GHz, 1.1v

http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/...2AE087256C5200611780/$file/PPC970_MPF2002.pdf

(page 14)

MPC7455:
15W (typical) @ 1GHz
22W (Maximum) @ 1GHz

http://e-www.motorola.com/brdata/PDFDB/docs/MPC7455EC.pdf

(page 15)

I hope this settles the discussion once and for all about the power utilization of the processors.

Hickman

 

[JBracy]

Originally posted by gezzas525
Cheaper err I dont think so? Its a 64-bit chip, much higher transister count definetly not cheaper. And wheres the other 512Kb of cache? I want the FULL 1Mb!! its suppose to be a workstation chip for gods sake !!

It doesn't matter what you think. It's the truth.

It's not a Workstation chip! It's a desktop chip, the Power4 is a workstation chip.

Originally posted by gezzas525
Enough to go round thats what IBM says, maybe but not enough fot the chips to be used in both the desktops and powerbooks?

How many units do you think Apple ships?

Originally posted by gezzas525
Why use slower memory? You want to create bottlenecks DUH!!
It has 6.4Gb/s bandwidth YOU HAVE TO USE DDR 400 AND IN PAIRS FOR DUAL CHANNEL OPERATION!!!

In a laptop? YES you make compromises in order to reach the best balance of speed, heat and power management. (DUH!!!)

Originally posted by gezzas525
90nm need for lower power and feasible use in a portable platform.

The 970 @ 1.2gHz is already cooler and uses less power than the G4 @ 1.0 gHz

Originally posted by gezzas525
Sun was an example!!

A bad one

Originally posted by gezzas525
SCSI would be likely, why would you want to use IDE in a 64-bit workstation? Again your creating bottlenecks.

Again, because it's not a workstation. If you hadn't noticed Apple dropped SCSI a very long time ago.

 

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by JBracy

It doesn't matter what you think. It's the truth.

It's not a Workstation chip! It's a desktop chip, the Power4 is a workstation chip.

How many units do you think Apple ships?

In a laptop? YES you make compromises in order to reach the best balance of speed, heat and power management. (DUH!!!)

The 970 @ 1.2gHz is already cooler and uses less power than the G4 @ 1.0 gHz

A bad one

Again, because it's not a workstation. If you hadn't noticed Apple dropped SCSI a very long time ago.

Good job. Trolls piss me off, too.

[edit] sorry for the bad formatting... too lazy to include gezzas' remarks.[/edit]

 

[GroundLoop]

Originally posted by JBracy
The 970 @ 1.2gHz is already cooler and uses less power than the G4 @ 1.0 gHz
[/B]

At typical CPU utilization the PPC 970 @ 1.2 GHz uses 26.67% more power than the G4. But, the CPU isn't the only source of heat within the laptop case. Does anyone have documented proof of the total heat generated by the PowerBook line?

Hickman

 

[illumin8]

Originally posted by wwworry
so why no dual processor configurations?

It could be that they haven't implemented AMD's HyperTransport yet. The difference in complexity between a standard single-processor system board and a dual-processor system board is staggering. In order to make the product release as quickly as possible, it's quite likely that rev. A wouldn't offer dual processors.

 

[nspeds]

Someone here said that making a business decision based on rumors is bad.

I remember the most fundamental principle that I learned in AP Ecomomics (in regards to the stock market, of course) was that you should always buy on rumors and sell on facts.

Of course it isn't applicable to the situation since you can't physically buy the 970 powerbook because there's a rumor about it. But what you can do is... WAIT.

And of course, don't sell that new powerbook 970 (g5 or whatever) on the fact, but ah never mind, you get the point

 

[illumin8]

Originally posted by gezzas525
THERE IS NO PORTABLE DDR400 MEMORY CHIPS !!!! WITH REGISTERED/ECC DDR400 IS CURRENTLY PENDING APPROVAL BY JEDEC.

You might try turning the Caps Lock key off once in a while

Couldn't they use PC2700 (DDR 333) instead of DDR 400? If I recall correctly, the PPC 970 processor's FSB is exactly half of it's clock speed, so while a 1.8 ghz. PPC 970 has a 900 mhz. FSB, the 1.2 ghz. (which is rumored to be in Powerbooks, due to it's lower power consumption), should only have a 600 mhz. FSB, which could be fed really nicely by two sticks of DDR 333 operating in a dual bank configuration.

In addition, I fully expect the new PPC 970 PowerBooks to utilize a variable speed FSB, similar to the new Intel Pentium-M architecture. During periods of low CPU activity the FSB speed is turned down in 1 mhz. increments, which conserves battery power.

So imagine how great this would be:

• 15.4" AlBook
• PPC 970 clocked at 1.2 ghz
• Dual Channel 512MB PC2700 DDR 333 memory
• 600 mhz. variable FSB
• $2499

I know I would buy one right away... Now, if it is actually released, I will be one happy man.

 

[illumin8]

Originally posted by gezzas525
And wheres the other 512Kb of cache? I want the FULL 1Mb!! its suppose to be a workstation chip for gods sake !!

I just want to point out here that 1MB of L3 cache was really just a hack to get around the pitiful clock speeds of the G4 processor. Most modern consumer processors only have 512k of cache, take for example the Athlon XP (Barton core) and the Pentium IV-C.

And please don't forget that even though the computer it's in might be called a PowerMac, the 970 is most definitely a consumer version of the high-end Power4 processor. Apple is a consumer computer company, as much as they would like to sell high end Unix workstations (the profit margins are excellent in that market segment), they haven't really captured any of that market yet.

 

[solvs]

Please don't feed the trolls. Although thank you all for posting the truth (at least what we know of it so far) without ripping in to gezzas525 too bad. Even if he is wrong. And you are wrong. I'm sure we can all be wrong sometimes, but please gezzas525 check your facts before making posts like that.

A big DUH!!! right back at you.

 

[porovaara]

Power draw.

You guys aren't getting it, when I state nothing is known on the 970s power cabilities I mean power saving modes. There is but a brief mention in one doc on the ability to slow power to parts of the CPU. It doesn't matter if the proc draws less power at the same mhz versus a g4, if there are no provisions for drastic reductions in power then it will eat batteries for lunch.

Also, just because something isn't refuted does not make it a fact.

 

[illumin8]

Originally posted by Postal
Oh, and as for the SCSI thing: if you go to the Apple Store online, notice how Apple doesn't actually offer any PowerMacs with SCSI hard disks at the moment; you just have the option of a SCSI card, and this is even true on the Xserve (which is supposed to be the server-class system). Apple is most likely going to choose ATA133 or Serial ATA for storage.

You know, I didn't believe it until I saw it, but I just got one of those new 120 GB 7200 RPM, 8MB on-disk cache hard drives with an ATA133 controller, and it performs nearly as fast as a 36GB 10K RPM SCSI Ultra160 drive! With seek times at 8.5 ms this thing really rocks and I can see why people aren't buying SCSI any more. For 5 or 10 times the price, getting an extra 5 % increase on performance is not worth it...

Serial ATA will only make it better, as you can now buy 10K RPM Serial ATA drives.

But seriously, who would ever put SCSI in a laptop? Talk about overkill. We are lucky to get a 5400 RPM hard drive in a laptop.

 

[Y_ME_Y]

On November 10, 1997, Apple released the NEW G3 processor in the PowerBook and the Power Mac at the same time. So to the people who are no believers – it already happen once – why not again.

Some people may say “the G4 was out more then a year before they put it in a notebook” – that a good point except the G3 was not too far behind in MHz.

My brain hurts from reading all these rumors – but I just can’t get enough.

 

[jwdawso]

Originally posted by Ensoniq

I'd like to see others who insist on discounting the simultanous release of new PowerMacs and PowerBooks at least attempt to be as logical and thorough as I have.

-- Ensoniq

Logical! I'm hoping it's true. One thing I would add is that I believe Moto let down Apple one last time with the 7447/57. This was the processor to be in the 12/15/17 PBs last January. Now the 7445/55 is the last Moto in a PB. I also believe that if you are at WWDC and have a high enough limit on your credit card, you can sport a new PB970 or PM970 on June 23. The rest of us will have to get in line.

 

[PaisanoMan]

Originally posted by QCassidy352
1.25 to 1.5x a similarly clocked G4 is good, but not really all that I'm hoping for.

I think it's fine, but that means we need a clock speed boost (and we need to keep getting them).

I don't think it's really feasible for a chip like this to be something like 3x more powerful than a predecessor at the same clock speed ... not even close.

 

[NeXTDev]

Originally posted by illumin8
I just want to point out here that 1MB of L3 cache was really just a hack to get around the pitiful clock speeds of the G4 processor. Most modern consumer processors only have 512k of cache, take for example the Athlon XP (Barton core) and the Pentium IV-C.

You can take any design and call certain things "hacks." It's all a matter of perspective. Obviously you're not an engineer of any sort.

Who says a consumer processor can only have 512k of cache? The Intel Pentium M has 1mb of L2 cache on die. So is that a hack?

And please don't forget that even though the computer it's in might be called a PowerMac, the 970 is most definitely a consumer version of the high-end Power4 processor. Apple is a consumer computer company, as much as they would like to sell high end Unix workstations (the profit margins are excellent in that market segment), they haven't really captured any of that market yet.

The Power4 is high end, sure. But it is designed for server use, not for workstation use. Your depiction of consumer is inaccurate at best, a troll at worst. What market are you really talking about anyways? Apple already has a significant if not dominant marketshare of video, music, and publishing workstations. And the sales of Maya for Mac OS X are pretty healthy. Sure, there are market segments that Apple isn't in or isn't doing well in, but Apple isn't big enough to be all things to all people. And it doesn't need to be to have a profitable, successful, and rewarding platform.

 

[gezzas525]

There will be no POWERBOOK 970's at WWDC PERIOD!!!

TRUST ME

 

[dongmin]

Re: references concerning heat

Originally posted by Brian Hickman
Here are the facts straight from the documents of their respective developers:

PPC 970:
19W @ 1.2 GHz, 1.1v

http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/...2AE087256C5200611780/$file/PPC970_MPF2002.pdf

(page 14)

MPC7455:
15W (typical) @ 1GHz
22W (Maximum) @ 1GHz

http://e-www.motorola.com/brdata/PDFDB/docs/MPC7455EC.pdf

(page 15)

You should clarify that the 970 number is for typical @ 1.2 ghz. And it's only an estimate at this point. So, to make a more direct comparison:

PPC970:
16W (typical) @ 1.0 ghz (1.1v)

MPC7455:
15W (typical) @ 1.0 ghz (1.3v)

Also for reference:

MPC7457:
7.5W (typical) @ 1.0 ghz (1.0v)
16.6W (typical) @ 1.3 ghz (1.3v)

Personally, I'm doubting that the 970s will make it into the PBs this round for various reasons. I think we're more likely to see 7457s in short time; they're much better suited for laptops.

MacWhispers, as Arn has noted, has gotten basically one rumor right (dual ipod cables) and pretty much everything else wrong. It hasn't been around that long so the jury is still out. MacBidouille also has a mixed record but, to my memory, has gotten more things right.

Pretty much everything is rumors at this point, including the stuff about IBM being ahead of and 970s costing less than 7455s. Also, it seems pointless to debate the cost of the CPU since that's only a small part of the total cost. The 970 motherboard will most certainly cost more, especially if it has all these new goodies like AGP 8x, Hypertransport, DDR400, etc. as they've been rumored.

 

[Trekkie]

I Highly, Highly doubt it.

Let's see. release the top end processor in your midpoint laptop?

No way. These will be in a PowerMac first, and only for a while. They need to better differentiate the PowerMac from the iMac. They need to let the iMac speed up a bit and they can't kill the 12" and 17" sales by putting a cpu 600MHz and 32bits wider than the surrounding systems.