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
Rumors & Facts Add On
RUMORS:
Apple could go with IBM
Apple could go with AMD
AMD Processor are RISC with CISC emulation
AMD is collaborating with IBM
AMD is entering 64/32 bit arena
Apple May use Nvidia Chipset
NeXT could run on Multiple Platforms
NeXT could run same programs on Multiple Platforms.
Apple is developing Marklar or an x86 version of OS X
FACT:
IBM is delivering a 64 bit PPC 970
AMD is delivering a 64 Bit Processor
AMD, nVidia, ATI, HP, and Apple are part of the HyperTransport consortium.
Apple has worked with all these companies except AMD.
CONCLUSION:
I don't know what to make of it, but it seems like Apple is investing time into multiple areas. It would make sense for Apple to go with IBM and AMD. Since IBM and AMD are working together, there's may be some cohesion here.
What if and this is a big what if, Apple were to bring OS X Server to the new AMD 64 bit crowd. They bring this with HyperTransport and allow people to build there own boxes while providing a list of compatible 3rd party products. Why would they do this? Well, more and more companies are moving to cheap WinLin products Apple wants people to taste OS X. Those IT guys like to tinker at home on cheap boxes. This opens the door. They could still run Linux/Windows and now OS X. Of course I'm speculating big time, but it's food for thought.
RUMORS:
Apple could go with IBM
Apple could go with AMD
AMD Processor are RISC with CISC emulation
AMD is collaborating with IBM
AMD is entering 64/32 bit arena
Apple May use Nvidia Chipset
NeXT could run on Multiple Platforms
NeXT could run same programs on Multiple Platforms.
Apple is developing Marklar or an x86 version of OS X
FACT:
IBM is delivering a 64 bit PPC 970
AMD is delivering a 64 Bit Processor
AMD, nVidia, ATI, HP, and Apple are part of the HyperTransport consortium.
Apple has worked with all these companies except AMD.
CONCLUSION:
I don't know what to make of it, but it seems like Apple is investing time into multiple areas. It would make sense for Apple to go with IBM and AMD. Since IBM and AMD are working together, there's may be some cohesion here.
What if and this is a big what if, Apple were to bring OS X Server to the new AMD 64 bit crowd. They bring this with HyperTransport and allow people to build there own boxes while providing a list of compatible 3rd party products. Why would they do this? Well, more and more companies are moving to cheap WinLin products Apple wants people to taste OS X. Those IT guys like to tinker at home on cheap boxes. This opens the door. They could still run Linux/Windows and now OS X. Of course I'm speculating big time, but it's food for thought.
Re: Blade
Apple/Steve clearly stated there is not even a chance for a processor-platform change for 3 years. Aside from that, it makes no sense to start over right after a very large and public transition to OS X. The only thing apple would gain from such a crazed action would be Ghz speed. They would lose their advanatges in marketing (differentiation from the PC market), lose advantage in power dissapation, lose altivec (which makes drastic improvements in number crunching apps), lose the ability to put it's chips in laptops, and lose ability to run any currnt software.
They'd gain nothing. Absolutely nothing. Ugh. When will people let the x86 thing go? The 970 at 2.5 Ghz, when the P4 3.x is out, will be very competitive.
Apple/Steve clearly stated there is not even a chance for a processor-platform change for 3 years. Aside from that, it makes no sense to start over right after a very large and public transition to OS X. The only thing apple would gain from such a crazed action would be Ghz speed. They would lose their advanatges in marketing (differentiation from the PC market), lose advantage in power dissapation, lose altivec (which makes drastic improvements in number crunching apps), lose the ability to put it's chips in laptops, and lose ability to run any currnt software.
They'd gain nothing. Absolutely nothing. Ugh. When will people let the x86 thing go? The 970 at 2.5 Ghz, when the P4 3.x is out, will be very competitive.
You know I thought I rememberd reading that Altivec code should run unmodified on G3's but I'll have to see if I have any docs.
Motorola may not have plans for any desktop chips, but then, they never really made desktop chips, did they? the G4 is an embedded chip, and apple is right at home putting it on a desktop. and it really works pretty nicely, all things considered. Motorola does, i believe, have a roadmap for taking the G4 up and over 2 GHz now, so it's conceivable that Apple might stick with them at least for the rest of the year. would this be stupid? absolutely. but Apple may not want the inconvenience of an architecture change, which is inevitable, but they still might try to avoid it. i dunno about the processor price differences between the 970 and the G4, but it is conceivable that it could cost even more than the G4; it would certainly be justifiable.
but, i certainly agree that apple would really be going to the mattresses if they went with Marklar and intel/AMD x86 chips. I think that's just way out of left field.
By the time Apple releases these chips, how will they compare to what will be on the PC side for the following 6 months? How fast from the time of their announcement will people be able to own one? And how much of a premium is Apple going to charge its customers for the privalege of owning a Mac thats as fast as it should have been a year ago.
I will be asking myself these questions until it comes out.
I will be asking myself these questions until it comes out.
Re: Oh there's plenty of Altivec Optimizations
I agree! Lets not forget iTunes. I can rip an entire CD from disc into 160 bit mp3's in a matter of a couple minutes on my Mac. Most of my friends PC's will take 45 minutes to do that.
I agree! Lets not forget iTunes. I can rip an entire CD from disc into 160 bit mp3's in a matter of a couple minutes on my Mac. Most of my friends PC's will take 45 minutes to do that.
I think one thing you can count on through all of this is that apple will be vain about their hardware. they are, for sure, and they have been for as long as i can remember. you'll pay a considerable premium, but probably not much more of one than you're paying now for the G4s.
Re: Re: Oh there's plenty of Altivec Optimizations
what kinda PCs were they running? i burned CDs at 128 on my 933 MHz P3 in like 15-20 minutes. i can't imagine what it's like on a P4 at 2.5... don't get me wrong, i think that iTunes and the G4 does some really fast encoding (i do mine at 256), but i think you've just exaggerated way too excessively. i guarantee you a P4 2.5 GHz will do a full CD at 160 in under 8 minutes... probably a lot under. anyone know?
what kinda PCs were they running? i burned CDs at 128 on my 933 MHz P3 in like 15-20 minutes. i can't imagine what it's like on a P4 at 2.5... don't get me wrong, i think that iTunes and the G4 does some really fast encoding (i do mine at 256
), but i think you've just exaggerated way too excessively. i guarantee you a P4 2.5 GHz will do a full CD at 160 in under 8 minutes... probably a lot under. anyone know?We must also remember that when steve was asked about this been "the year of the laptops" he said: "we have things for desktops up our sleaves too".
1.6 G4s by years end with a 400mz fsb is not anything to brag about. Apple has to have something new comming down the line, something that will make people take notice, however, this been apple I dont see this product until next year. Perhaps then well have "the year of the desktop"
later
1.6 G4s by years end with a 400mz fsb is not anything to brag about. Apple has to have something new comming down the line, something that will make people take notice, however, this been apple I dont see this product until next year. Perhaps then well have "the year of the desktop"
later
Good news! Bad news?
Ok, instead of 1.2-1.8GHz, IBM is releasing at 1.8-2.4GHz. Let's hope Apple gets access to the same range of chips at reasonable prices. Great!
However...
We also must hope that Apple has been designing motherboard(s) for the 970. If so, do they have to scrap their current mobo's to upgrade to the new 1.8-2.4 GHz range? I hope not. Let's hope they've been working on 2.4GHz compatible motherboard(s) from the beginning. Otherwise, it could be a long wait for any 970 machines. (ouch)
Cross your fingers...
Ok, instead of 1.2-1.8GHz, IBM is releasing at 1.8-2.4GHz. Let's hope Apple gets access to the same range of chips at reasonable prices. Great!
However...
We also must hope that Apple has been designing motherboard(s) for the 970. If so, do they have to scrap their current mobo's to upgrade to the new 1.8-2.4 GHz range? I hope not. Let's hope they've been working on 2.4GHz compatible motherboard(s) from the beginning. Otherwise, it could be a long wait for any 970 machines. (ouch)
Cross your fingers...
Man, if Megahertz is your only worry about computers please go to comp usa and by a sony, hp or even an alienware. There are more things to a computer than that and if all you care is about speeds you need to take a reality pill and just get off the mac platform and quit acting like you know anything about technology.
Unless you want to run a POSIX variant like BSD or Linux on a pentium chip you have to run Windows, and sorry, I like MS for some things but their os's are just crap.
Unless you want to run a POSIX variant like BSD or Linux on a pentium chip you have to run Windows, and sorry, I like MS for some things but their os's are just crap.
Re: Re: Re: Oh there's plenty of Altivec Optimizations
I have a Pentium 4 2.53Ghz with 512MB of memory and a Western Digital 80GB with 8MB cache. In my experirence ripping WMAs and burning CDs is limited by the speed of my Lite-On 48x CD-RW and not by the machine. I can rip and burn and still do other stuff on my PC as if nothing was going on in the background. When I have 48x capable CD-Rs, I can burn at that speed and keep the buffers nearly full.
Originally posted by Shadowfax
what kinda PCs were they running? i burned CDs at 128 on my 933 MHz P3 in like 15-20 minutes. i can't imagine what it's like on a P4 at 2.5... don't get me wrong, i think that iTunes and the G4 does some really fast encoding (i do mine at 256
I have a Pentium 4 2.53Ghz with 512MB of memory and a Western Digital 80GB with 8MB cache. In my experirence ripping WMAs and burning CDs is limited by the speed of my Lite-On 48x CD-RW and not by the machine. I can rip and burn and still do other stuff on my PC as if nothing was going on in the background. When I have 48x capable CD-Rs, I can burn at that speed and keep the buffers nearly full.
Re: good option, but ...
I don't believe that is true. I don't see other manufactureres going with just 3 choices. Besides, the machine is aimed at PRO users, who understand what their needs are and what kind of system addons they will need.
They can still offer 3 Configurations to make selecting a machine easier, however, they should allow us to customize everypart that is available to all three configs.
All manufacturers control their operations, yet they still figured out how to make true BTO, so how come Apple can't figure it out? why do I have selections available on one system and not the other?
I don't believe that is true. I don't see other manufactureres going with just 3 choices. Besides, the machine is aimed at PRO users, who understand what their needs are and what kind of system addons they will need.
They can still offer 3 Configurations to make selecting a machine easier, however, they should allow us to customize everypart that is available to all three configs.
All manufacturers control their operations, yet they still figured out how to make true BTO, so how come Apple can't figure it out? why do I have selections available on one system and not the other?
Yes I agree, but then, at least IBM has plans. After Motorola begun to lose millions and millions of dollars, they closed several plants and many pople lost their jobs. I also remember reading that they sold some of their semicoductor divisions. Motorola has alot of finanical problems. Apple invested alot on the G4 but that is a sunk cost. Apple will make a desision based on what is better for the company and thir customers. What is cheaper, what is efficient, what is doable. The 970 and the G4 are both PPC. The cost of going from G4 to 970 will be minimal.
It is not a question of the fastest CPU...
You know, I think a lot of this discussion is completely missing the point. It is not a question of who will have the fastest CPU? in their boxes.
Apple has to look at its target audience. For the PowerMacs that audience is the consumer who needs more computer than the iMac can provide and creative professionals.
Anyone who thinks that Mac OS X and the PowerMac will take the corporate world by storm is on drugs. The corporate world will continue to buy tons and tons of Windows/Intel PCs for the foreseeable future.
The gamers will not move onto Mac equipment in droves because the games are not there. The game developers will not spend the resources on the Mac because the money is not there.
The overclocker/enthusiasts will not go with Macs because Apple will never give them the hooks that Gigabyte, Abit, etc. do to build 1.7x overclocked, watercooled, glowing neon, personalized PCs.
I don't think Apple needs have the fastest CPU for its PowerMac market. I does however need to be price competitive and provide value to its customers. There seems to be a magic number of high end desktops being priced in the $2500 to $3000 range. I checked a bunch of on-line retailers and everyone (not just Apple) seems to shoot for this price range.
I think Apple needs to produce a machine that is not humilated in non-Apple benchmarks by machines that fall into this class. For example, there should be no benchmarks anywhere that show Photoshop on a $2700 Dell performing significantly better than a $2700 Apple. I do not think the G4 can claim this anymore and it certainly will not be able to claim this once Prescott arrives. However the IBM PowerPC 970 appears to be able to.
Once that happens, then Apple can start using their software strength to show that a $2700 PowerMac is a far better machine than a $2700 Dell or HP. Comparing Mac OS X to Windows XP does not cut it. Creative professionals use an application to do their work and not an OS. Besides AppleScript being superior to VBScript, can anyone who uses Adobe Photoshop a lot really say there is much difference between it under either a Mac or a PC?
In my opinion, Apple needs to provide a price competitive high end desktop (not necessarily the fastest CPU) and then leverage its strengths in software such as being easier to make DVDs, being easier to create movies (in either iMovie or FCP), easier workflow from raw camera images to 16-bit TIFFs in Photoshop, etc.
You know, I think a lot of this discussion is completely missing the point. It is not a question of who will have the fastest CPU? in their boxes.
Apple has to look at its target audience. For the PowerMacs that audience is the consumer who needs more computer than the iMac can provide and creative professionals.
Anyone who thinks that Mac OS X and the PowerMac will take the corporate world by storm is on drugs. The corporate world will continue to buy tons and tons of Windows/Intel PCs for the foreseeable future.
The gamers will not move onto Mac equipment in droves because the games are not there. The game developers will not spend the resources on the Mac because the money is not there.
The overclocker/enthusiasts will not go with Macs because Apple will never give them the hooks that Gigabyte, Abit, etc. do to build 1.7x overclocked, watercooled, glowing neon, personalized PCs.
I don't think Apple needs have the fastest CPU for its PowerMac market. I does however need to be price competitive and provide value to its customers. There seems to be a magic number of high end desktops being priced in the $2500 to $3000 range. I checked a bunch of on-line retailers and everyone (not just Apple) seems to shoot for this price range.
I think Apple needs to produce a machine that is not humilated in non-Apple benchmarks by machines that fall into this class. For example, there should be no benchmarks anywhere that show Photoshop on a $2700 Dell performing significantly better than a $2700 Apple. I do not think the G4 can claim this anymore and it certainly will not be able to claim this once Prescott arrives. However the IBM PowerPC 970 appears to be able to.
Once that happens, then Apple can start using their software strength to show that a $2700 PowerMac is a far better machine than a $2700 Dell or HP. Comparing Mac OS X to Windows XP does not cut it. Creative professionals use an application to do their work and not an OS. Besides AppleScript being superior to VBScript, can anyone who uses Adobe Photoshop a lot really say there is much difference between it under either a Mac or a PC?
In my opinion, Apple needs to provide a price competitive high end desktop (not necessarily the fastest CPU) and then leverage its strengths in software such as being easier to make DVDs, being easier to create movies (in either iMovie or FCP), easier workflow from raw camera images to 16-bit TIFFs in Photoshop, etc.
Re: Blade
MY GOD. have you seen that disgusting site?
and the blade server looks like something found
at a garage sale....hahaha did you see those cheapo handles on the side. oh man...how can ibm let themselves be identified with such crap. god their website is so sad. anyway. looking forward to the 970
MY GOD. have you seen that disgusting site?
and the blade server looks like something found
at a garage sale....hahaha did you see those cheapo handles on the side. oh man...how can ibm let themselves be identified with such crap. god their website is so sad. anyway. looking forward to the 970
Business
From a business standpoint, do you really think Apple is going to release new Towers in 4 months and say "Here is the new Apple Tower ruinning @ 2.5GHz, and all this for the same price as curent towers. The new Dual 2.5Ghz is 400% faster than the previous model."
Well the simple answer is HELLLL NO!!! What they will most likely do is start at somewhere around the current 1.4 Ghz speed, and just come out with updates at a faster rate. That will keep demand up. When the G4 came out it was at 350Mhz, while the G3 was at 400 (correct me if I am wrong there)
It has been rumored(sorry proven) that the G3 has been at 1Ghz for what a year and a half, well where is the chip? Its being used, but not by Apple. The goal is to give speed bumps that are JUST ENOUGH to keep you customers happy ENOUGH, and keep demand up for each new update.
If they had 2.5Ghz towers, who would buy a PowerBook or an IMac, (or any ofther computer in the line up) I sure wouldnt, because I would be expecting (demanding) such a big update to the respective line that it would make NO sense to buy before the update. Hopefully all of you agree Apple couldnt survive long with only strong Tower sales, or Ford selling only mustangs, while everything else is sitting around.
When the G4 came out, it was faster than the G3, but not "mind boggling" fast.
I want Apple to have faster machines just like the rest of all of you do, but something I want more is for Apple as a company to survive, and as a company, they must fallow the simple rules of supply and demand.
From a business standpoint, do you really think Apple is going to release new Towers in 4 months and say "Here is the new Apple Tower ruinning @ 2.5GHz, and all this for the same price as curent towers. The new Dual 2.5Ghz is 400% faster than the previous model."
Well the simple answer is HELLLL NO!!! What they will most likely do is start at somewhere around the current 1.4 Ghz speed, and just come out with updates at a faster rate. That will keep demand up. When the G4 came out it was at 350Mhz, while the G3 was at 400 (correct me if I am wrong there)
It has been rumored(sorry proven) that the G3 has been at 1Ghz for what a year and a half, well where is the chip? Its being used, but not by Apple. The goal is to give speed bumps that are JUST ENOUGH to keep you customers happy ENOUGH, and keep demand up for each new update.
If they had 2.5Ghz towers, who would buy a PowerBook or an IMac, (or any ofther computer in the line up) I sure wouldnt, because I would be expecting (demanding) such a big update to the respective line that it would make NO sense to buy before the update. Hopefully all of you agree Apple couldnt survive long with only strong Tower sales, or Ford selling only mustangs, while everything else is sitting around.
When the G4 came out, it was faster than the G3, but not "mind boggling" fast.
I want Apple to have faster machines just like the rest of all of you do, but something I want more is for Apple as a company to survive, and as a company, they must fallow the simple rules of supply and demand.
Costs
The cost of the actualy chip should not be much higher than a G4.
The PPC 970 won't require expensive L3 Cache to maximize perfromance
However Apple will have to redesign their motherboards of course. There's been rumors of Apple creating a Proc to memory controller codenamed ApplePi.
The retooling necessary to test and deliver supporting chipsets is going to be more expensive. We'll see if Apple decides to go for margin or volume once they announce.
My guess is they stick to initial price points and perhaps go Dual proc on the Top system.
The cost of the actualy chip should not be much higher than a G4.
The PPC 970 won't require expensive L3 Cache to maximize perfromance
However Apple will have to redesign their motherboards of course. There's been rumors of Apple creating a Proc to memory controller codenamed ApplePi.
The retooling necessary to test and deliver supporting chipsets is going to be more expensive. We'll see if Apple decides to go for margin or volume once they announce.
My guess is they stick to initial price points and perhaps go Dual proc on the Top system.
Re: Re: good option, but ...
My understanding is that you have to have high volumes in order to make money at BTO systems. Even now, it is not clear from the quarterly earnings reports that anyone other than Dell can make money this way.
It would not suprise me in the least that Apple has looked at store.apple.com and determined that its volume through that channel simply will not profitably support a BTO model like Dell's. I don't think Apple has any other channel where BTO could be an option.
My understanding is that you have to have high volumes in order to make money at BTO systems. Even now, it is not clear from the quarterly earnings reports that anyone other than Dell can make money this way.
It would not suprise me in the least that Apple has looked at store.apple.com and determined that its volume through that channel simply will not profitably support a BTO model like Dell's. I don't think Apple has any other channel where BTO could be an option.
Well, the fact of the matter is that IBM manufacturers the majority of the G3-series processors on the market these days.
If Apple still uses the current series of G4 processors (PPC 7xxx) -- which Moto exclusively holds the right to manufacture (b/c they hold the patents to AltiVec) -- after the shift to a new processor type, I highly doubt Moto will effectively sever a profitable relatioinship. I mean, it's not like they're run by their own Mercurial iCEO(tm).
Anyway, Moto has been looking to restructure their CPU division to focus more on embedded products for a while, and their new PPC series (8xxx) is aimed solely at that market. I would guess that Moto would be happy to not have Steve Jobs on their back.
For a change Apple should abandon it's obsessively secretive ways and pre-announce that the PPC 970 will ship in systems on ...(insert date)..... Use a little FUD which M$FT is so good at ! By pre-announcing they would be CONSERVING sales as it would stop the exodus of pro users migrating to the DARK side....it wouldn't affect current sales all that much in that people aren't exactly breaking Apple's doors to buy their current relatively slow Powermacs. And that's all I have to say about that !