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.
PowerPC 970 up to 2.5GHz?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In reference to Stormcrow
ah, but your comparing a 32-bit x86 chip to a 64-bit PPC chip... apples and oranges (no pun intended)
2.5 Power4 will more than likely cripple the fastest of the Pentium chips, even if Intel makes it to 4ghz next year. Since your relativly new, I'm guessing your still seeing the "Megahertz Myth".
ah, but your comparing a 32-bit x86 chip to a 64-bit PPC chip... apples and oranges (no pun intended)
2.5 Power4 will more than likely cripple the fastest of the Pentium chips, even if Intel makes it to 4ghz next year. Since your relativly new, I'm guessing your still seeing the "Megahertz Myth".
It is true that by the time IBM has the 970 ready, Intel will be shipping in the 4-5 GHz range. However, those chips from Intel will probably remain at 32 bit (at least in the desktops/notebooks) until AMD puts out their 64 bit chip and Intel faces market pressure. It is probable that if Apple uses the 970 like so many people think they will, Apple will be able to hype the 64 bit even if the clock speed is slower than what Intel is shipping. Once Intel moves to 64 bit, then Apple will have marketing problems, unless IBM has a trick up their sleeve when ramping up the clock speed of the 970.
Just my thoughts...
usersince86
macrumors 6502a
Re: When will this happen?
EXACTLY.
I've being using Macs since 1986, and we've always been behind in the MHz war.
You can't compare future, undelivered chips to ones that are currently on the market and say, "See, we're just as fast!"
We're not. Don't give me all the "MHz myth" stuff; you can spin it however you want, and even though the gap isn't as big as it looks, it's still a gap. Period.
If it wasn't for Apple's terrific engineering and true innovation, the ship would have sunk a long time ago. It's just frustrating to know the best OS and the best software don't run on the fastest chips, and it doesn't look like that will change anytime in the forseeable future.
Maybe the OSX on Intel/AMD project is for real, and not just another "Megahertz Myth". Maybe IBM will catch-up or pass Intel/AMD. Here's hoping!
EXACTLY.
I've being using Macs since 1986, and we've always been behind in the MHz war.
You can't compare future, undelivered chips to ones that are currently on the market and say, "See, we're just as fast!"
We're not. Don't give me all the "MHz myth" stuff; you can spin it however you want, and even though the gap isn't as big as it looks, it's still a gap. Period.
If it wasn't for Apple's terrific engineering and true innovation, the ship would have sunk a long time ago. It's just frustrating to know the best OS and the best software don't run on the fastest chips, and it doesn't look like that will change anytime in the forseeable future.
Maybe the OSX on Intel/AMD project is for real, and not just another "Megahertz Myth". Maybe IBM will catch-up or pass Intel/AMD. Here's hoping!
Frobozz
macrumors 65816
Re: PowerPC 970 up to 2.5GHz?
Well, this is VERY promising news. I have to say, however, that I am not surpsrised that Apple would debut at higher frequencies than IBM _orginally_ announced. If we look at what is currently shipping, Motoroloa does not mention it's chips even being capable of such frequencies or bus speeds.
Could this mean we will see a low end 1.8, a mid-range 2.2, and a top end 2.5 in the July/Aug/Sept time frame? Will they be duals?
Well, this is VERY promising news. I have to say, however, that I am not surpsrised that Apple would debut at higher frequencies than IBM _orginally_ announced. If we look at what is currently shipping, Motoroloa does not mention it's chips even being capable of such frequencies or bus speeds.
Could this mean we will see a low end 1.8, a mid-range 2.2, and a top end 2.5 in the July/Aug/Sept time frame? Will they be duals?
Dont Hurt Me
macrumors 603
For usersince86 i feel your pain. But if and the word IF is a bif IF apple announces 970 this summer at 2 gigs they will have a machine to smoke or at least match a p4 running in the low 3-3.6 gigs. Also the new process would scale the 970 up to perhaps 3 gigs or better if they are allready talking of 2.5 from the current process.This would mean the best software on the fastest machine. the current g4 just cant keep up and its time for retirement.
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
You've bought the "64-bit myth"
Since OS X is 32-bit, and all your applications are 32-bit - what difference would it make that the 970 has a 64-bit mode?
The budding "64-bit Myth" is even sillier than the MHz Myth. All chips today have wide internal busses (both the P4 and the G4 use up to 256-bit wide internal datapaths), they all support 64-bit double float natively, etc, etc.
Unless your individual programs need more than 2GB of RAM each, it's really unlikely that you'll see any benefit to 64-bit. Sorry 'bout that....
(The 970 will be a big improvement (if Apple uses it) because it will be so much faster than the G4 -- but it's faster because it's faster, not because it has 64-bit addressing.)
Since OS X is 32-bit, and all your applications are 32-bit - what difference would it make that the 970 has a 64-bit mode?
The budding "64-bit Myth" is even sillier than the MHz Myth. All chips today have wide internal busses (both the P4 and the G4 use up to 256-bit wide internal datapaths), they all support 64-bit double float natively, etc, etc.
Unless your individual programs need more than 2GB of RAM each, it's really unlikely that you'll see any benefit to 64-bit. Sorry 'bout that....
(The 970 will be a big improvement (if Apple uses it) because it will be so much faster than the G4 -- but it's faster because it's faster, not because it has 64-bit addressing.)
Re: what if....
I totally agree with your above statement - there just is no proof about the 970 actually ending up in a PM. But if I were apple at this point, I would know that my customer base was expecting this chip in the newer machines - so I would have made a statement denying the 970's use in PM- just to drive current PM sales [sic]. SO I hope that I am wrong.
One more thing, please remember people - 64 bit DOES NOT make a processor twice as fast as a 32 bit processor! This has got to be understood.
I totally agree with your above statement - there just is no proof about the 970 actually ending up in a PM. But if I were apple at this point, I would know that my customer base was expecting this chip in the newer machines - so I would have made a statement denying the 970's use in PM- just to drive current PM sales [sic]. SO I hope that I am wrong.
One more thing, please remember people - 64 bit DOES NOT make a processor twice as fast as a 32 bit processor! This has got to be understood.
In all fairness to Motorola (even though they don't really deserve it) they are shipping G4s, unlike IBM with their 970.
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
Jobs will be burned if he tries
Fine, as long as it's against a dual 3.8 GHz Xeon with HyperThreading!
Enough with the "our dual matches your single" nonsense - compare duals to duals (or quads to quads, or octos to octos, or hexas to hexas).
Ooops, sorry - Apple doesn't make any 16-way systems to test against 16-way Intel boxes! Guess the testing has to stop at duals.
Fine, as long as it's against a dual 3.8 GHz Xeon with HyperThreading!
Enough with the "our dual matches your single" nonsense - compare duals to duals (or quads to quads, or octos to octos, or hexas to hexas).
Ooops, sorry - Apple doesn't make any 16-way systems to test against 16-way Intel boxes! Guess the testing has to stop at duals.
Re: Jobs will be burned if he tries
Technically you have a point on the comparisons but from a market standpoint you're not as close. Remember that everything comes down to markets and sales. Price out a dual xeon system that might be used against a dual mac and you might find that for the money the Mac might hold up pretty well. There's advantages to both platforms but what Apple has done in their comparisons are tackle the more common P4 which cannot be placed in a dual config. Technically it's an apples to oranges comparison but for their market there's nothing wrong with comparing like so.
Technically you have a point on the comparisons but from a market standpoint you're not as close. Remember that everything comes down to markets and sales. Price out a dual xeon system that might be used against a dual mac and you might find that for the money the Mac might hold up pretty well. There's advantages to both platforms but what Apple has done in their comparisons are tackle the more common P4 which cannot be placed in a dual config. Technically it's an apples to oranges comparison but for their market there's nothing wrong with comparing like so.
Re: Re: When will this happen?
Obviously you have a short memory. Remember the snail ads during the mid-90's mocking the Pentium 3? Really it hasn't been until the last 5 years or so when Intel/AMD ramped up their Mhz speeds and left Macs in the dust (you don't need to explain the Mhz myth to me, I understand it).
Moving on though, I agree that the 970 rumors have been hyped through the roof. Yes, I want one, but if something doesn't turn out right, we we all be disappointed because of rumors. Case in point, people already are dissatisfied on the clock speeds announced, or aren't happy with only 1 chip on a non-existent machine. I want dual, quad, etc. First to add more chips it would be more expensive, and if you're like me, every dollar counts. I don't care if it is a single cpu, I'm on a 450 Mhz G4, and if a 970 came out (any 970) I would be overwhelmed by the speed that I wouldn't care about anything else. <sarcasm>Forget Photoshop tests, just think how fast my email will be.</sarcasm>
Obviously you have a short memory. Remember the snail ads during the mid-90's mocking the Pentium 3? Really it hasn't been until the last 5 years or so when Intel/AMD ramped up their Mhz speeds and left Macs in the dust (you don't need to explain the Mhz myth to me, I understand it).
Moving on though, I agree that the 970 rumors have been hyped through the roof. Yes, I want one, but if something doesn't turn out right, we we all be disappointed because of rumors. Case in point, people already are dissatisfied on the clock speeds announced, or aren't happy with only 1 chip on a non-existent machine. I want dual, quad, etc. First to add more chips it would be more expensive, and if you're like me, every dollar counts. I don't care if it is a single cpu, I'm on a 450 Mhz G4, and if a 970 came out (any 970) I would be overwhelmed by the speed that I wouldn't care about anything else. <sarcasm>Forget Photoshop tests, just think how fast my email will be.</sarcasm>
I hope people remember that Apple has not officially announced that they're going with the 970. Many seem to have forgotten already how lots of folks including the media thought that Apple was going to select the BeOS for their next OS. You've probably figured out by now that they went with NeXT. Apple could still do the same with the cpu and choose something else. I've yet to see a clear win in going to the 970 over an Intel or AMD cpu. All of them have clear advantages over the other.
BTW, a conspiracy theory is forming that despite the fact that many have believed that MS is only interested in VirtualPC for server consolidation, it is being thought that MS can adapt and integrate the code in a similar fashion to what Apple did and use that layer for backward compatibility in a new 64bit version of their OS. This could potentially be a greater advantage for MS in dealing with the different directions Intel and AMD are going. Essentially leveling the playing field which will likely keep Intel in control of the market. Rumor is that Intel might even be pumping money into MS for this to happen.
In other words don't count anyone out and Apple in just because on the surface Intel looks like they're shooting themselves in the foot.
BTW, a conspiracy theory is forming that despite the fact that many have believed that MS is only interested in VirtualPC for server consolidation, it is being thought that MS can adapt and integrate the code in a similar fashion to what Apple did and use that layer for backward compatibility in a new 64bit version of their OS. This could potentially be a greater advantage for MS in dealing with the different directions Intel and AMD are going. Essentially leveling the playing field which will likely keep Intel in control of the market. Rumor is that Intel might even be pumping money into MS for this to happen.
In other words don't count anyone out and Apple in just because on the surface Intel looks like they're shooting themselves in the foot.
Gus
macrumors 65816
Re: Re: When will this happen?
While, I get your point, this is not true. Before the "Year of 500Mhz", we actually still had the speed advantage over Intel and AMD. That year was and is the reason we are still behind.
AidenShaw, you are starting to sound belligerent. Are you here to support Macs/educate posters/troll or what?
Regards,
Gus
While, I get your point, this is not true. Before the "Year of 500Mhz", we actually still had the speed advantage over Intel and AMD. That year was and is the reason we are still behind.
AidenShaw, you are starting to sound belligerent. Are you here to support Macs/educate posters/troll or what?
Regards,
Gus
drastik
macrumors 6502a
I think these sound like perfectly fine speeds.
Wha you have to ask yourself: does my Mac do what I want it too as quickly as I need it done? The answer, for most people is yes. I want everyone to own a Mac so they can experience it, but its just fantasy. If you have a render farm, you're going to use wintell boxes clustered up. Everything has its proper use, and in the average to prosumer desktop market, a Mac will work better and more reliable no matter what the speed. Everyone complains about the pices, but no one considers the specs. Sure, you can get a $600 PC, but it has SDRAM not DDr, no firewire, CD-ROM instead of superdrive, etc, etc. It could go to 10ghz, the $600 machine is still an email station for all the good it dos you for pro work. Not to mention the clunky applications that drag the processor speeds dawn anyway.
Some of you out there have this wierd thing about being faster, bigger, better all the time. I don't know if you're 14 or you just have a complex, but please relax. If your mac does what you want and allows you to be more efficient, who cares how fast the clock is?
And the most important part: enjoying use. If you like using a Mac, (very important if you actually have to use one all day everyday, so that you and your ffamily can eat. If the Mac makes all of that easier, and dare I say it, fun, who cares about speed?
Wha you have to ask yourself: does my Mac do what I want it too as quickly as I need it done? The answer, for most people is yes. I want everyone to own a Mac so they can experience it, but its just fantasy. If you have a render farm, you're going to use wintell boxes clustered up. Everything has its proper use, and in the average to prosumer desktop market, a Mac will work better and more reliable no matter what the speed. Everyone complains about the pices, but no one considers the specs. Sure, you can get a $600 PC, but it has SDRAM not DDr, no firewire, CD-ROM instead of superdrive, etc, etc. It could go to 10ghz, the $600 machine is still an email station for all the good it dos you for pro work. Not to mention the clunky applications that drag the processor speeds dawn anyway.
Some of you out there have this wierd thing about being faster, bigger, better all the time. I don't know if you're 14 or you just have a complex, but please relax. If your mac does what you want and allows you to be more efficient, who cares how fast the clock is?
And the most important part: enjoying use. If you like using a Mac, (very important if you actually have to use one all day everyday, so that you and your ffamily can eat. If the Mac makes all of that easier, and dare I say it, fun, who cares about speed?
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
Re: Re: Re: When will this happen?
Gus,
Sorry to come off as "belligerent" - I try to keep things brief and concise, sometimes that's too close to "curt", then "belligerent".
I'm here to learn about Macs, and to share my experience with high performance computing, storage, networking and 64-bit computing.
I'll usually just read, but when I see things that IMO are wrong or misleading I'll make an entry. In particular, since I have a lot of experience in x86 and 64-bit systems I'll often respond there.
The comments that you can't compare a 32-bit x86 with the rumours of a 64-bit 970 are such triggers. Maybe these folks didn't see the story that Pixar was abandoning the 64-bit SPARC systems in favor of 32-bit Xeons.... Yes, they can be compared! And yes, sometimes the 32-bit system is better and faster!
Gus,
Sorry to come off as "belligerent" - I try to keep things brief and concise, sometimes that's too close to "curt", then "belligerent".
I'm here to learn about Macs, and to share my experience with high performance computing, storage, networking and 64-bit computing.
I'll usually just read, but when I see things that IMO are wrong or misleading I'll make an entry. In particular, since I have a lot of experience in x86 and 64-bit systems I'll often respond there.
The comments that you can't compare a 32-bit x86 with the rumours of a 64-bit 970 are such triggers. Maybe these folks didn't see the story that Pixar was abandoning the 64-bit SPARC systems in favor of 32-bit Xeons.... Yes, they can be compared! And yes, sometimes the 32-bit system is better and faster!
Frobozz
macrumors 65816
One Word: AltiVec
True. But let's look at the VERY CONVINCING arguements for it:
1) It has AltiVec. IBM decided not to do AltiVec before because it was Motorola's baby. AltiVec won't do much in a server environment. The 970 has AltiVec and it marks a big step for IBM if it were not being prodded by Apple.
2) Steve Jobs mentioned late last year that 2003 would be the biggest year ever for Apple. In that same statement he said Apple's options were open for new processors in 2003. He also said there would NOT be a move to x86. What does that leave? Either Motorola or IBM producing the "G5" or whatever you want to call it... which brings me to my next point...
3) Motorloa has no plans for a G5 desktop chip. IBM seems to with the 970. Why make a desktop version of a multi-core server chip without guarateed sales? You could make the arguement for their low end UNIX servers and Blade servers (see press release), but that is NO WHERE near the volume needed to recoup R&D. Apple will be.
True. But let's look at the VERY CONVINCING arguements for it:
1) It has AltiVec. IBM decided not to do AltiVec before because it was Motorola's baby. AltiVec won't do much in a server environment. The 970 has AltiVec and it marks a big step for IBM if it were not being prodded by Apple.
2) Steve Jobs mentioned late last year that 2003 would be the biggest year ever for Apple. In that same statement he said Apple's options were open for new processors in 2003. He also said there would NOT be a move to x86. What does that leave? Either Motorola or IBM producing the "G5" or whatever you want to call it... which brings me to my next point...
3) Motorloa has no plans for a G5 desktop chip. IBM seems to with the 970. Why make a desktop version of a multi-core server chip without guarateed sales? You could make the arguement for their low end UNIX servers and Blade servers (see press release), but that is NO WHERE near the volume needed to recoup R&D. Apple will be.
Dont Hurt Me
macrumors 603
Thats true but the 970 is a all new cpu so give IBM a break. Also they have been shipping g3's to mac for years and have probably sold more g3's to apple then motorola sold g4's.
I just ordered my 17" Powerbook a few days ago, and according to my order it'll be shipped on or before 4/8/03. Here's to hoping! 😀 I know if I were one of the folks that ordered during MacWorld, I'd be pretty bent about the lag between announcement and shipping product.
iAlan
macrumors 65816
Firstly, I luv Apple. I always have. I have been using Macs since 1990. Back then they were so much better. However, Windows has closed the gap since. You cannot just say that MS 'stole' their OS from Apple, I think they did, but they did the right thing from the start and allowed other companies to install it on their machines. Great leaders have also said that if you see a great idea, steal it. MS did. Apple screwed up with their licensing to Power Computing, et al. Too little too late. Apple will however always innovate, pushing other companies to do the same - even if this means Apples's ideas are copied or stolen.
Now to the 970. Apple could also screw the pooch with this if they do not clearly let the world know their development pipeline. Apple too often keep everything quiet until the very last minute. This usually means we all hype up what we think is going to happen, and then feel let down when we don't get what we want. Well Apple, let us know you are going to use the new IBM chips. Fine, don't tell us which speed, single or duel, new product design, etc...but keeping quiet is only making things worse. To my knowledge, no one waits and speculates on any other computer company like they do with Apple. It might make for a good MW Wherever Keynote by King Steve, but most pro-users need to budget ahead of time and cannot budget based on rumors or speculation.
Sory for the long post, but wouldn't it be funny if Apple were in fact going to go with Intel or AMD and IBM is just sticking it to us all - if so, no wonder Apple is being quiet.
Now to the 970. Apple could also screw the pooch with this if they do not clearly let the world know their development pipeline. Apple too often keep everything quiet until the very last minute. This usually means we all hype up what we think is going to happen, and then feel let down when we don't get what we want. Well Apple, let us know you are going to use the new IBM chips. Fine, don't tell us which speed, single or duel, new product design, etc...but keeping quiet is only making things worse. To my knowledge, no one waits and speculates on any other computer company like they do with Apple. It might make for a good MW Wherever Keynote by King Steve, but most pro-users need to budget ahead of time and cannot budget based on rumors or speculation.
Sory for the long post, but wouldn't it be funny if Apple were in fact going to go with Intel or AMD and IBM is just sticking it to us all - if so, no wonder Apple is being quiet.
