PowerPC 970 up to 2.5GHz?

[freemidnight]

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
I'm afraid I can't quite figure out what you're saying. Could you clarify it?

Simple The announcement of new processors that are contender to the Mac platform are still in "announcement"

No g5, no 970 here. Nothing.

Yes there are alot of clues about new processors but we still talk and talk,

Hope it is not too hard to understand!

I want to have "real" and palpable thing.

I know that, from a rumor site, this is hard to understand from certain peoples but please read about the original subject of this post!

Yes I know that it could go to 2,5 Ghz, nice! but when? When for Apple? You would speculate fot one to two years about that!!! without having a single GHZ of that processor at hand!

Hope you understand my point.


You'll tell me "Hey this is a rumor site"

Well this is it!

 

[beowolf]

PPC 970 not yet announced for macs

ummmm, while you bring up a very valid and serious point, do you REALLY think that Apple would let this happen ANYTIME before Stevo announced them in new hardware? My thought on this is no. So what does that leave us with? blah blah blah blah. Why? Because Apple doesn't preannounce stuff like that. This policy is probably the single biggest reason Apple rumor sites exist, because things aren't announced ahead of time and ARE only rumor/speculation. As for how valid of rumor this is, well, I'm certain that this one will come true (either that or moto is doing one hell of a job of laying a false trail about the demise of the mythical G5...a bit less likely since where there is bread there are crumbs).

The question about it coming true is WHEN? Can this happen too soon? No. Can this happen too late? Yes. I've heard it said, and can't reference this and I apologize for it, that Steve claimed this would be the year Apple caught up with the wintel crowd in terms of speed. I hope this is true. I read today that zdnet said they had information saying that the PPC 970 would be used in Apple computers later this year. I hope this is true. I know (although I can't reference this) that Steve said this would basically be a breakout year for the mac. I hope this is true.

The bottom line is that I HOPE it is true and a fair number of people who read this thread do also (I think it has been viewed over 18k times). All Apple has ever really given us is hope and the promise that they are an amazing computer company.

Oh, and one more thing.....

 

[Stormcrow]

This is just it. When will these processors make it into a mac, if at all? Then, if they do, when will they make it into a mac I will buy? They need to make it into macs and in a hurry. Every time I use a mac, they are sooooo slow (the last time I used one was today, a dual 1.25 ghz, 1 gb of RAM). I'm not talking complicated tasks either. The simple act of launching an app seems like it takes forever. Editing a movie on iMovie seems never ending because each click seems like it takes 2 or 3 seconds to peform the task, like bringing up a clip, adding an effect, etc. Getting on the internet seems as slow as molasses, even with Safari. Even the encyclopedia is slow. Im not just perceiving this. There's no mhz myth making everything go in slow motion in my head. This is my actual experience.

Now, dont get me wrong. I'm not trying to start a flame war. I think Apple products are great. It has great software and great hardware, IMO. That's the sad part really. It would just be awesome if the speed of the chips matched the quality of the products. My main computer right now is a Gateway with a 2.2 ghz p4 with 512 mb of RAM. It is no where near the quality of a Mac with regards to both hardware and software, IMO. However, when I click or press a key to perform a task, the response is usually immediate. Like flipping on a light switch. Everything just seems so much snappier on my Gateway, from menus, to effects, to application performance.

BTW, I know some may say, who cares about having the fastest chip when you can do everything you need to do with a slower one? True, for now. I dont live in a time rift where now is forever. I want my machine to be useful for at least a few years. As time passes, applications (both mac and windows apps) get more complex and bulkier. I want the machine I get today to be able to handle those apps with good performance. I got my Gateway this time last year. The 2.2 ghz p4 had just come out. It was the fastest chip around. Now, 2.2 ghz is middle of the road in terms of performance for new computers (maybe on the slower side of middle), but still does everything I need it to do in terms of performance. I will tell you that I can notice a difference, though, when I work with a 3.06 ghz machine. The point is, I want a machine that can still perform with the passage of time.

I also want Apple to do well. We need Apple as a competitor. Plus I think Apple makes better products. I want a mac. I just might wait a little longer to get one in hopes that they get faster. No, Im not waiting for the PPC 970, I'm just waiting for macs to get faster, no matter what chips they use. Just my thoughts.


'

 

[Stormcrow]

Re: PPC 970 not yet announced for macs

Originally posted by beowolf
ummmm, while you bring up a very valid and serious point, do you REALLY think that Apple would let this happen ANYTIME before Stevo announced them in new hardware? My thought on this is no. So what does that leave us with? blah blah blah blah. Why? Because Apple doesn't preannounce stuff like that. This policy is probably the single biggest reason Apple rumor sites exist, because things aren't announced ahead of time and ARE only rumor/speculation. As for how valid of rumor this is, well, I'm certain that this one will come true (either that or moto is doing one hell of a job of laying a false trail about the demise of the mythical G5...a bit less likely since where there is bread there are crumbs).

The question about it coming true is WHEN? Can this happen too soon? No. Can this happen too late? Yes. I've heard it said, and can't reference this and I apologize for it, that Steve claimed this would be the year Apple caught up with the wintel crowd in terms of speed. I hope this is true. I read today that zdnet said they had information saying that the PPC 970 would be used in Apple computers later this year. I hope this is true. I know (although I can't reference this) that Steve said this would basically be a breakout year for the mac. I hope this is true.

The bottom line is that I HOPE it is true and a fair number of people who read this thread do also (I think it has been viewed over 18k times). All Apple has ever really given us is hope and the promise that they are an amazing computer company.

Oh, and one more thing.....

I hope this is true to, beowolf. But still, even later this year seems like a very long time. Additionally, if Apple uses the 970, I'm concerned that it will start with slower chips than it can get. I am concerned that Apple will make it's predictable 200 mhz jump, and of course, the upgrade will not be across the board. I'm afraid that we will see the 970 in one, maybe two top of the line powermacs. Everything else will probably get speed bumped g4s. I dont want it to happen this way, but I'm afraid that it will happen something like I just described. Could you imagine if Apple put a 2 ghz 970 in an iMac or Powerbook within the next few months? I thing a lot of people, including me, would be stumbling all over themselves to buy one. This wont happen even if Apple does use the chip because both computers were recently updated. For all its effort in keeping its new products secret, Apple is sure beginning to be very predictable. Just my thoughts.

 

[phampton81]

Every time I use a mac, they are sooooo slow (the last time I used one was today, a dual 1.25 ghz, 1 gb of RAM). I'm not talking complicated tasks either. The simple act of launching an app seems like it takes forever.

I dont mean to argue or say that you are flat out wrong, but I work day to day on a 700mhz g4 and each app lauchees just as fast as my AMD, and as far as newer macs go, with my experience they are blazing, my ONE experience with a 1.25 powermac was awesome. All apps launched nearly immediately and responsiveness was instantaneous. Now, do I think Macs could be faster.....yes, there is always room for improvement, but when you say that the newest macs are 'soooooo slow' then I just have to step in and say "NO".

 

[Stormcrow]

Originally posted by phampton81
I dont mean to argue or say that you are flat out wrong, but I work day to day on a 700mhz g4 and each app lauchees just as fast as my AMD, and as far as newer macs go, with my experience they are blazing, my ONE experience with a 1.25 powermac was awesome. All apps launched nearly immediately and responsiveness was instantaneous. Now, do I think Macs could be faster.....yes, there is always room for improvement, but when you say that the newest macs are 'soooooo slow' then I just have to step in and say "NO".

Ok. Fair enough. I acknowledge the fact that people will have different experiences, and I am actually glad to hear that your experience has been different. I WANT to be proven wrong. I have no axe to grind.

The only question I would ask is have you used a PC at 2 ghz or above to compare your experience? My thought here is that for those mac users who DO NOT use PCs at all or that much, they have no real point of comparison. So, a 700 mhz g4 will certainly be much faster that an equivalent g3 or slower g4. A 1.25 mhz g4 will be faster than a 700 mhz g4 and so on. To the mac user each increase will generally make everything you do faster, and the user will seem to blaze compared to slower macs. I think you get my point.

If you or someone else who reads this post uses PCs and can say, "I use PCs and my ___ mhz mac is just as snappy and fast as the ___ mhz PC that I use or have used, I say GREAT!! Let me know about it. Like I said before, I WANT to be proven wrong. Take it easy.

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Stormcrow
Ok. Fair enough. I acknowledge the fact that people will have different experiences, and I am actually glad to hear that your experience has been different. I WANT to be proven wrong. I have no axe to grind.

The only question I would ask is have you used a PC at 2 ghz or above to compare your experience? My thought here is that for those mac users who DO NOT use PCs at all or that much, they have no real point of comparison. So, a 700 mhz g4 will certainly be much faster that an equivalent g3 or slower g4. A 1.25 mhz g4 will be faster than a 700 mhz g4 and so on. To the mac user each increase will generally make everything you do faster, and the user will seem to blaze compared to slower macs. I think you get my point.

If you or someone else who reads this post uses PCs and can say, "I use PCs and my ___ mhz mac is just as snappy and fast as the ___ mhz PC that I use or have used, I say GREAT!! Let me know about it. Like I said before, I WANT to be proven wrong. Take it easy.

My question is simple. How can an app open faster then instantaneous?

 

[Stormcrow]

Originally posted by MacBandit
My question is simple. How can an app open faster then instantaneous?

I guess the meaning of "instantaneous" could be debated, but the short answer to your question is that it cant open any faster. I guess some of this would depend on how many other apps you have open and what other processes you're doing at the same time. That is where I have really noticed a speed difference.

Anywho, I am glad your experience has been better than mine. But, if I am going to purchase a mac, I have to go by my own experience, not by what others say. Additionally, the main thing I'm trying to illustrate is that I believe I represent a number of Windows users who would break down the doors to buy a mac, if they had faster processors. You also have to remember that many Windows users experiences with a mac are at CompUSA, and the macs at all the CompUSA stores are as slow as Christmas. Happily, I have used macs more extensively than just a few minutes at CompUSA, and I know they aren't that slow. However, many windows users have not used macs more than the few minutes they tinker with them at CompUSA. The perception of slowness that this few minutes inculcates and confirms in the mind of Windows users is hard to overcome.

But I digress. IMO, there is no denying that if Apple put a 1.5-2.0 ghz 970 chip (or higher) in their powerbooks, the same in their iMacs, and 2.0-2.5 ghz (or higher) in their powermacs, they would get a flood of customers. I know that there are many permutations of how this move would eat sales, and how they just updated everything, blah, blah, blah... But, such a move would be surprising and noticeable. I think it would have at least two very good effects. First, people would think that apple has some fast machines, check them out and some would actually buy the machines. Second, it would tell people that Apple is moving fast to give customers what they want--Apple wants to give us the best and fastest products it can as soon as it can. No more disappointing 200 mhz increases every now and again. I guess a third, related effect is that it would throw everyone off. People would not expect it. Apple would be able to bolster its mystique. It would be good stuff.

 

[Stormcrow]

Originally posted by Stormcrow
You also have to remember that many Windows users experiences with a mac are at CompUSA, and the macs at all the CompUSA stores are as slow as Christmas.

I meant to say that the macs at all the CompUSA stores I have been to are as slow as Christmas.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

If apple really wants to turn heads and sell computers then stormcrows post about a 970 imac and across the line is correct. If tomorrow they announced we are now selling 970 cpu's in every model they would be flooded with buyers. I would be scrambling as fast as i could to get my 970 imac. But if all we get are motobumps well then ill take my time and get a motobump upgrade for my powermac and apple looses another sale. If they are to go from 3% to 5% this year the only answer i see is the 970's everywhere except for emac or ibook.

 

[os10geek]

???????????????????????????????????

And how is something slower than Christmas? And is my birthday any faster?

 

[DavPeanut]

People keep saying that they would not update to 970s accross the board because everything was updated recently. That's true now, but it won't be true in July.

 

[nuckinfutz]

If you think 970's are going to hit the iMac soon you're severely mistaken.

I would be scrambling as fast as i could to get my 970 imac. But if all we get are motobumps well then ill take my time and get a motobump upgrade for my powermac and apple looses another sale. If they are to go from 3% to 5% this year the only answer i see is the 970's everywhere except for emac or ibook.

This is thinking like a Consumer. You know what Apple is thinking. They're thinking that they already KNOW you want a 970 in an iMac but they're going to put it in the Powermacs only. Do they care that you won't buy....no really. There is a finite amount of 970 CPU's that they will have and they're looking to ensure that they profit as much as they can from these chips. The G4 still has life and it's a know quantity. I'd take a 1.2Ghz G4 imac for $1299 in a heartbeat.

I think I'm reading too many expectations of Apple that will only cause you to be pissed off when reality hits. Even PC users have their reality. You don't buy Xeon based PC's for the price of a Consumer PC.

Folks the PPC 970 IS a Xeon Class processor. Thoughts of it in an iMac are far too premature.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

I hear you nuckinfutz on the 1.2 imac i have thought of it also. But I dont expect to see a 1.2 ghz imac for $1299, maybe a 1 giger 15" this fall. The 970 was actually made to be a consumer entry of the power4. Just turns out that it can outperform the power 4 due to many factors and is a lot cheaper to make. But if you are going to mac from 3%market to 5% you are going to have to do something very big. Just using the 970 in the powermac line alone to me wont make that happen. It will take more

 

[nuckinfutz]

Ahhhh what the hell do I know

I'm hoping Apple gets aggressive DHM.

Hell my "hopes" tell me to think 970 everywhere but my sensibilitis won't let me get too giddy.

Here's hoping for the best which is 970's wherever they fit!

 

[wms121]

...suppose this....

someone asked me (this is my first MacRumors post..thankyou..thankyou)...could IBM make the 970/POWER4 series...the "Book F" ppc processor..and insert it into the Motorola
architecture for the current 8540/8560 series?

Hmm..maybe..but the bus speed might be prohibitive. And...

the 8540/8560 is set up for Rapid IO busses..NOT the Infiniband
bus fabric switch which definitely Apple may need post 2005 for its server series...any MOto engineers out there who want to defend the current "7550,7540..and 7560 64-bit series" for Rapid IO..please speak up now..or wait till Steve formally strangles you.

<--embedded developer in Texas

(check this out...next stupid question I was asked.."Could IBM
produce a 'teraFlop chip' out of the 970 series..?" ) Hmm..possibly
IF a) they did a second dual-mode version i.e. 4 code cores per
cross buss
b) they also planned to upgrade to 256 bit floating
point...with 1024 bit internal busses (like TransMeta did)
c) this new chip clocked in above 5.5 GHz


~2.307 TeraFlops ( 14.4GFlops x 4 x 16 x 2.5 ) in 32/64 bit apps

yes..please check my math..this may be too slow..

 

[DavPeanut]

Who needs a teraflop? Ok, don't answer that. Pixar would need ten of them. Anyway, what kind of prices would these machines go for? The processors are not too expensive, I know, but that about everything else? Would they have SATA and PCI-X and that kind of stuff?

 

[whooleytoo]

Just a few points:

- Will Apple use this processor? 99.9% certainly yes! The fact that IBM have gone to such effort to add a SIMD unit, plus the fact that it's labelled Altivec virtually guarantee it was created with Apple's needs in mind. (Plus, the fact that Apple's alternatives aren't really compelling!)

- Does 64 bit mean faster? Quite apart from the extended memory abilities, it should also give a performance boost, though mostly in very compute-intensive work. (As IBM states in the pdf above..)

- Why do Motorola "suck"? Dunno, but it might have something to do with the major rift between them and Apple when Apple pulled the cloning licenses after Motorola had invested a lot in it's Mac clone development!

Mike.

 

[phampton81]

plus the fact that it's labelled Altivec virtually guarantee it was created with Apple's needs in mind.

I do agree that the use of the term Altivec says a lot, and that if IBM was not planning on selling this CPU to Apple then there would be no reason to even use that term. So with that in mind, I am confident we will see this proc. in macs as soon as Apple (and IBM of course) is ready.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Still no one has answered my market share question. can a 970 alone in the powermac line this summer move 3% to 5%? i dont see it. I think they would need more. The question becomes where will they use it and when. powermacs this summer only just wont make up to 5% marketshare in my opinion. to make up for lower and lower marketshare i think they would have to get aggressive about this.

 

[MrMacMan]

Um... I'm sorry if this was posted but I want to look at the IBM press release not someone telling me what it was.

I clicked on the link when arn posted it but I didn't download it.

If anyone has it please post it.

 

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by whooley
Just a few points:

One more point

- Do we need a faster Mac? Yes. YES. YESSS!! I want to play all my games at higher resolutions, with more complex graphics, at a higher framerate.

I want realtime iMovie effects, not 10 to 20 second delays. I want to be able to rip a CD in seconds, not minutes. I want more CPU cycles to devote to worthy projects like Folding@Home.
I want some kind of parity between Mac and PC speeds such that porting from PC to Mac (especially for games) isn't a tough choice.

But mostly, I want a faster Mac for all the applications that haven't been written yet because it wasn't thought to be possible on a destkop machine!

Mike.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by whooley
One more point

- Do we need a faster Mac? Yes. YES. YESSS!! I want to play all my games at higher resolutions, with more complex graphics, at a higher framerate.

I want realtime iMovie effects, not 10 to 20 second delays. I want to be able to rip a CD in seconds, not minutes. I want more CPU cycles to devote to worthy projects like Folding@Home.
I want some kind of parity between Mac and PC speeds such that porting from PC to Mac (especially for games) isn't a tough choice.

But mostly, I want a faster Mac for all the applications that haven't been written yet because it wasn't thought to be possible on a destkop machine!

Mike.

There are a lot of us that feel this way,over 22 thousand views now tell me apple is it time to replace the g4? I think its a big YES!

 

[beowolf]

I know one thing for sure though, if Apple were to update across the board like was mentioned here, I think that EVERYBODY would be surprised, even if it were a rumor most wouldn't believe it because it would seem too good and impossible to be true. Although how they would keep up with demand would be amazing...IBM's new fishkill, ny plant might go a long ways towards taking care of that problem. Maybe if they used this chip in enough puters the price would come down noticibly (esp since it is expected to be easier to make than the G4 and have higher yields)?

 

[beowolf]

about the bus speed

I recall reading a little while back somebody saying that the bus speed of 900mhz was not based on 1/2 the processor speed. To correct them (with a reference none the less!) this page http://www.arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/3q02/powerpc.html
has this

"One of the most important and least-discussed features of the PowerPC 970 is its 900MHz DDR frontside bus. This bus physically runs at 450MHz, but it's double-pumped. Its architecture is interesting in that the bus actually consists of two, 32-bit unidirectional point-to-point links. David Wang described it in a post to comp.arch as follows:

It's two 32 bit links: one from CPU to "companion chip" [the northbridge], and one back from that chip to the CPU. Each link runs at 900 MHz (1.8 GHz CPU core. the interface link runs at integer fraction of the CPU core, in this case 1/2)

So 4 bytes to, 4 bytes from, at 900 MHz that's 3.6 GB/s raw BW each way. The link multiplexes command and address info over the same pins, so it's some sort of packet based protocol. The math gets you 7.2 GB/s of raw bandwidth, but after subtracting out command and address overhead, raw peak data bandwidth is supposed to be about 6.4 GB of that 7.2 GB/s.

This high-bandwidth link to the northbridge is one of the elements that's going to make this chip as a media machine; it's exactly what Apple's current bandwidth-starved G4 systems lack, and it's going to be a major selling point for systems based on the PPC 970. When coupled with the right memory in an SMP configuration, the 970 should do quite well in bandwidth-intensive applications."

So it appears that the bus speed is 1/2 the processor speed (which makes me wonder about motherboard design issues with the bus speed being different for each processor. Does anybody know something about this?).