PowerPC 970 up to 2.5GHz?

[mustang_dvs]

Re: Costs

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
The cost of the actualy chip should not be much higher than a G4...

Actually, due to the small die size of the 970 and the resultingly-high per-wafer yield, the projected unit cost of a 970 is expected to be cheaper than the current G4 (PPC 7xxx), which has significant production difficulties. The 970 is pegged, conservatively, somewhere in the sub-$400 range, according to current estimates that I've seen.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Re: Re: Blade

Originally posted by beatle888
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

It goes in a server room, who cares.

 

[nuckinfutz]

Re: Re: Costs

Originally posted by mustang_dvs
Actually, due to the small die size of the 970 and the resultingly-high per-wafer yield, the projected unit cost of a 970 is expected to be cheaper than the current G4 (PPC 7xxx), which has significant production difficulties. The 970 is pegged, conservatively, somewhere in the sub-$400 range, according to current estimates that I've seen.

OMG I'm sooooo dense. I just realized that IBM's specing the 2.5Ghz at .13 Micron!!!

I imagine they easily hit 3Ghz at .09 Micron and have better yields. I hear they're be fabbing on 200mm wafers initially and them move to 300mm.

Methinks you are correct. The PPC 970 will be cheaper for Apple. They need to go for broke if they can get enough chips from IBM. Price the systems to move and eventually the chips costs will drop and profits will rise.

8 Billion in revenue is going to take getting systems out the warehouses and into our greedy grubby little hands!

 

[law guy]

Re: Business

Originally posted by ryme4reson
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)

What I find discouraging is that I just called the Apple store in Tysons Corner, VA and they tell me at least four (4) weeks until they begin to get 1.42 inventory. So, we won't even be seeing the 1.42 G4 machines until April!! This I find particularly sad as in a different thread I mention that I'm debating a Dell precision workstation vs. a 1.42 G4... I'm leaning towards the apple, but one could have a dual 3.06 Xeon machine in 9 business days. It's that kind of currently available PC hardware vs. dreams of new macs (or even announced macs) that is something of a letdown. I'm cheerleading for apple here, but lets say we see an announcement in Sept. and new machines in stores by Christmas... how long until software that's optimized for the chip, esp. the OS?

 

[applejilted]

Re: Re: Business

Originally posted by law guy ... I'm leaning towards the apple, but one could have a dual 3.06 Xeon machine in 9 business days. It's that kind of currently available PC hardware vs. dreams of new macs (or even announced macs) that is something of a letdown. I'm cheerleading for apple here, but lets say we see an announcement in Sept. and new machines in stores by Christmas... how long until software that's optimized for the chip, esp. the OS? [/B]

Precisely !!!! Read my post on previous page....Apple is losing lots of sales by NOT pre-announcing .....people can make do with current systems if the promise of a blazingly new fast system is just around the corner. I for one would even thank Apple as I wouldn't buy a slow system now, but I wouldn't abandon ship either...

 

[nuckinfutz]

When you're CFO says they want to increase Marketshare by %66
I think it's safe to assume that they plan on moving alot of Hardware.

People that purchase G4's now NEED them and cannot wait. I'm sure Apple is preparing for the onslaught that's coming.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
the G3 is an IBM processor.

Actually I have read before that at one time the G3 was actually a Motorolla and IBM built processor, back when the first ones were released. IBM took over as Apple's G3 supplier when the introduced the "copper" G3 in 1999. Later versions including the 750 "copper", 750cx, and 750fx have all been IBM chips. My iMac DV and iBook are both running on IBM chips.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Re: Oh there's plenty of Altivec Optimizations

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Photoshop BTW is not a PC port. It was born on the Mac.

Altivec is going to take some time for developers to master like any tool.

There are plenty of apps that show Altivecs power.

Photoshop
iDVD
Altiverb
Blast

Just wait until the Altivec isn't starved by slow bus throughput. You're seeing the crippling effects of a bus that cannot let Altivec shine.

I see a nice 2004 with the fastest G4's going into iBooks and iMacs and PPC 970's in the Pro Series. Just like it's supposed to be.

I hope not, get rid of the g4 and give me a low end 970. I'd be happy with a 1.2 ghz 970 in the imac. this would make it simple if all lines had the 970. Apple could buy these chips in large volumes since all the machines would be using them! I noticed no answers on wether the current architecture is set up for the 970. Xserve,powermac,powerbook, and now imac 1 giger. would the current structure and system controler accept the 970 as is in these models?

 

[PretendPCuser]

Re: Re: Re: Re: When will this happen?

Originally posted by AidenShaw
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! [/B]

Hi. I've found your posts to be educational and often going against the tide of some of the mac faithful here, but i have a serious question for you Aiden regarding the Pixar comparison. Since i have no interest in buying a machine for 3d rendering, and i don't feel like doing the leg work (i know you'd give accurate price comparisons), what is the price difference between comparable 64-bit SPARC systems and 32-bit Xeon system? What about the processors themselves?

 

[applejilted]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When will this happen?

Originally posted by PretendPCuser
Hi. I've found your posts to be educational and often going against the tide of some of the mac faithful here, but i have a serious question for you Aiden regarding the Pixar comparison. Since i have no interest in buying a machine for 3d rendering, and i don't feel like doing the leg work (i know you'd give accurate price comparisons), what is the price difference between comparable 64-bit SPARC systems and 32-bit Xeon system? What about the processors themselves?

Intel rightly considers that 64 bit computing will not take off in consumer systems until at least 2008 and the reason for that is that 4 gb of RAM is prohibitively expensive. Studies show that high end PCs will only ship with 1gb of RAM by 2005. The primary advantage that 64 bit computing gives you is accessing over 4 gb of RAM....apart from huge data bases and perhaps video that require huge amount of RAM there is no compelling reason to go to 64 bit...Say what you want about Intel but nobody ever accused them of being stupid

 

[Frobozz]

Re: Re: One Word: AltiVec

Originally posted by law guy
Frobozz, the PC Magazine feb. 4 issue with the processor roadmap stated that Motorola would have a new processor in Q3 aimed at being the G4's successor and competing with the 970 for that role. Has Motorola cancelled their (what must be very far along) development?

I never saw that, but it's interesting. In my experience, though, Motorola says one thing and does another. IBM says something and does it.

Either way I suppose that would be good news for Apple, since they would FINALLY have competition for the chips they put in their machines. I would see this as a very positive turn of events.

 

[pseudobrit]

Re: When will they be in the machines you think?

Originally posted by littlerich
I am looking to get a new PowerBook in about 2 - 3 months, obviously these processors or any fast processors will not be in the powerbooks but would you say it is better to wait a while. Until something better/cheaper comes out? Like I said it will be 3 months from now so??

The newer processors usually hit the PowerMacs first. I would wager it would take about 10 - 18 months to get the 970 in a PowerBook, along with a total redesign.

 

[Frobozz]

Re: Re: Re: Oh there's plenty of Altivec Optimizations

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), 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?

I wasn't exaggerating... I had to wait that long. Seriously. Either way my friends would never pay for a P4 2.5.... but I see your point. I don't know what a more robust system would do. I would expect that, in any case, the Mac is seriously faster. Perhaps 2 or 3 times as fast.

 

[BenRoethig]

Motorola MPC 7xxx series: Embedded processor. Low power usage is the main concern. Beating Intel/AMD processors is not really a concern since they are not a direct competitor in the embedded market.

IBM PPC970: Designed first and foremost as a desktop/ server chip. Must be able to compete with the Xeon on a price and performance level. Benefits from a company that knows exactly what they're up against.

 

[arn]

Re: Blade

Originally posted by yzedf
JTo Arn:

Regarding your "clear win" statement, the BSD base for OS X makes the OS, as well as the programs that run on the OS very portable. x86, x86-64, PPC, are just as easy to do, for the most part. PPC kinda sucks due to Altivec, same as P4 with HT.

That still doesn't change the fact that the PowerPC 970 will have 100% Mac Application binary compatability while the x86 will have 0%.

People don't care how "portable" apps are... people care what will run.

arn

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

For applejilted there is a reason to go 64 bit and here it is. with the ability to use ram galore you could have a solid state hard drive(memory bank) no more waiting for the hard drive to go find something. I could see hard drives being obsolete in the next few years. thats if memory can be made larger and cheaper. Please anyone tell me if the newer architecture will support the 970 as is?

 

[Frohickey]

zoetropeuk

Originally posted by zoetropeuk
Apple needs to forget this stupid G3, G4 set-up and just move everything across to ONE platform. Apple also needs a department that will optimise all major software releases for any new CPU and system that it chooses the implement.
Otherwise we are going to see the same old crappy slow applications that we do now.

Pie in the sky.

When developers start handing out source code like candy to end users, then you will have the Apple-Software-Optimizing-Department that does what the label says it does... otherwise, that ASOD will just be full of blood-sucking lawyers arguing about terms of use, intellectual property and the size of their company's patent pool.

 

[Catfish_Man]

One advantage of the 970 is that it will handle poorly optimized code better (because of its extensive out of order execution capabilities). I would say that a 2.5GHz 970 is going to be AT LEAST on a par with Intel's Prescott when it's released. I would guess it'll have a SPECfp of 1300-1400 (IBM announced that a 1.8GHz 970 should hit at least 1050 SPECfp) which will beat AMD's Athlon64 (the current 3.06GHz P4 gets about 1100, the Athlon64 is said to get about 1200-1250, the G4 gets about 300-500). SPECint should be about on a par with a 3ish GHz Pentium 4 (just over 1000). If IBM really can deliver it at a lower price than the G4 (which I doubt), and vends a nice memory controller along with it, then I think Apple's got a winner. Even if it's a bit more expensive, that might be countered out by not doing dual processors yet.

 

[GeneR]

Just bring it on, already!

Just bring it on! The 2.5GHz really sounds great. "Sounds" great. "Sounds"... sounds...

hmmm...

 

[hacurio1]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When will this happen?

Originally posted by applejilted
Intel rightly considers that 64 bit computing will not take off in consumer systems until at least 2008 and the reason for that is that 4 gb of RAM is prohibitively expensive. Studies show that high end PCs will only ship with 1gb of RAM by 2005. The primary advantage that 64 bit computing gives you is accessing over 4 gb of RAM....apart from huge data bases and perhaps video that require huge amount of RAM there is no compelling reason to go to 64 bit...Say what you want about Intel but nobody ever accused them of being stupid

Funny!!! I still remember studies saying that the transition from 16 to 32 bits would take longer of what it actually took. People use to say, "there is no need for 32 bits yet, 16 is fine." and here we are!! The truth is that there will always be the need for more. When 16 bits was mainstream there was no need for 32 because the programs were small and people weren’t interested on editing videos nor had 30gb music libraries on their computers. What would be out in a year from now? Two years from now? Probably something that will benefit from 64 bits? The problem with studies is that they assume programs and uses for computes constant. When I bought a Power Mac 9600 in 1997 I was called crazy many times. I spent more than 5 grand on that computer and people use to say that it was such a machine that there is no way that I could use all its power. Today, that computer can’t even run OSX. I’m writing from the first dual processor Power Mac G4 with 2GB of RAM. So far so good, but sometimes I feel I need more RAM. The 500Mhz G4 is no big deal today either, but 4 years ago some of you might of asked, why do you need so much power?

 

[szark]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Please anyone tell me if the newer architecture will support the 970 as is?

It is extremely unlikely that Apple could have built any kind of support for the 970 in the current machines. The 970 has a completely different bus, which would require more signal lines between the processor and chipset. That would almost certainly require a new daughterboard connector.

 

[DavPeanut]

How fast are the buses for the 970's supposed to be?

 

[applejilted]

Don't look mow but MacCentral is trying to steal this awesome site's thunder....they just posted this story. And I thought that MacCentral never delved into rumoors or unannounced Apple products...will Apple now be withdrawing their MacWorld credentials ?

All I can say is that Macrumors wrox !!!! Keep up the great work Arn !

 

[nuckinfutz]

Originally posted by DavPeanut
How fast are the buses for the 970's supposed to be?

We'll have bragging rights. The 970 bus runs at half the core frequency. PPC 1.8Ghz has a 900Mhz FSB. 100Mhz faster than Prescott

 

[DavPeanut]

Arn, where do you actually get all this stuff? How do you find it? Do you go through everything about a product on Google or something?