Re: NO WAY THIS YEAR... WHY ??
It would be pretty tough to be at an expo that won't exist until 2004...
It would be pretty tough to be at an expo that won't exist until 2004...
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.
PPC 970 Apple Motherboards?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Re: Re: I doubt it.
Looking for a builder and being ready to manufacture are two separate things. You can have a vendor lined up a year in advance to help meet schedules. I really don't think you will see them this year. Most likely next if they will exist at all. As for distribution channels, I am referring to a finished product. One that can be purchased from MacMall or Apple Stores. I am well aware that Apple does not manufacture the boards in-house. I simply believe that the time to have a working unit in volumes on the market to purchase by you or me will be too long to have it ready this year. Probably next. Keep your optimism though! I hope I'm wrong.
Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Rip and you would lose that bet.
Read the reports again. Apple is now looking for a builder. They've ALREADY prototyped and built test models and have them working correctly. They are now looking at who will build the MB. Odds are Apple has been working with IBM over a year on this.
What are you talking about "Distribuiting through channels" what channels? The MB are built...shipped to Apple and Apple puts the computers together. I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Let me know if you're serious about losing your money
Looking for a builder and being ready to manufacture are two separate things. You can have a vendor lined up a year in advance to help meet schedules. I really don't think you will see them this year. Most likely next if they will exist at all. As for distribution channels, I am referring to a finished product. One that can be purchased from MacMall or Apple Stores. I am well aware that Apple does not manufacture the boards in-house. I simply believe that the time to have a working unit in volumes on the market to purchase by you or me will be too long to have it ready this year. Probably next. Keep your optimism though! I hope I'm wrong.
Re: NO WAY THIS YEAR... WHY ??
First there is no Macworld Boston this year (that is next year, it's still NY till then) and second just because it is the year of the laptop doesn't mean that apple will be trying to weather the entire year selling Dual 1.42Ghz PowerMacs, they'd get laughed outta the computer industry. And unless Moto has been doing something we don't know, they won't be pumping the G4s much higher before the end of the year when the 7457s ship in volume.
And who said that that wide but narrow motherboard is for a PowerMac anyway? It could be for a PowerBook...
First there is no Macworld Boston this year (that is next year, it's still NY till then) and second just because it is the year of the laptop doesn't mean that apple will be trying to weather the entire year selling Dual 1.42Ghz PowerMacs, they'd get laughed outta the computer industry. And unless Moto has been doing something we don't know, they won't be pumping the G4s much higher before the end of the year when the 7457s ship in volume.
And who said that that wide but narrow motherboard is for a PowerMac anyway? It could be for a PowerBook...
Originally posted by rickag
Q3 may be slightly over optimistic.
Motorola Press Release
Let's see what exactly is Motorola's track record meeting expectations
Yes, the Q4 target date from Moto makes it unlikely that we will see 7457 before then.
However, to play the devil's advocate, what Moto publicly announces and what Moto gives to Apple are to very different things. For example, Moto still claims (publicly) that the 7455 does not run at over 1 Ghz. But we know that in fact they produce 7455's running at 1.25 Ghz and 1.42 Ghz, since you can buy them in a PowerMac today! Likewise, when Moto claims in that very same press release that the 7457 will (only) run at up to 1.3 Ghz, we can be almost sure that they are lying. After all the 7455 is already running at 1.42 Ghz, so at a minimum the 7457 is going to be able to beat that (1.3 < 1.42, in case that was unclear). They may only sell 1.3 Ghz 7457s to the general public, but unless Apple goes all 970 on both PowerMacs and Powerbooks this year (the latter is NOT going to happen...that is just wishful thinking), then Moto will definitely be selling 7457s running at over 1.3 Ghz to Apple.
So the moral is that you clearly can't trust everything you read. On net I would still guess a Q4 intro of the 7457 in an Apple product, but at the same time, I would not be shocked if we were to see a 7457 in an Apple product before then (e.g., Q3). Even with the Moto press releases, you just don't know what they are supplying to Apple until you see an announced Apple product.
I think the two statements are different in way that makes it hard to draw a parallel. In one, Motorola does not say anything over 1Ghz is available. In the other, Motorola says they will not be able to commence production until Q4 2003.
Just because Apple has 1.25Ghz to 1.42Ghz 7455 parts does not mean Motorola is lying. It could be that the yields are low enough that Apple has contracted to receive every > 1Ghz 7455 part Motorola can produce. That would mean Motorola could not advertise having > 1Ghz parts because they are not available to any other customers. It would be pointless to claim they have that part when it is not available to any customers other than Apple. The costs to update the documentation would be wasted.
On the other hand, Motorola said that production would not start until Q4 2003. It did not say (according to quotes) that the part would not be generally available until Q4 2003. If the quotes are correct, that would mean Apple could not get anything but samples until Q4 2003.
the title of the press release:
"Motorola Delivers Gigahertz-Class Performance for Power-Sensitive Embedded Applications". MOT will never ever ever ever never ever never ever make another desktop cpu. the 7457 is for embedded use only. PPC970 you are our only hope.
MacWhispers is pure Entertianment nothing more
This information can currently be found on the MacInTouch site about Jack Campbell, the operator of MacWhispers. I like the MacWhispers site but Jack has had a very colorful past to say the least. He also has posted articles on SpyMac that have had little accuracy. The following are blurbs taken from the MacInTouch report:
"I found that Jack Campbell (of MacTable fame) is now rumor mongering with his new website at www.macwhispers.com. The website redirects to a server which is his company Envestco.com: http://www.envestco2.com/macwhispers.
Jack Campbell of MacTable.com and DVFortge is back again. For his third business startup in six months he's started macmice.com.
MacMice sells a $20 mouse for $40. When I saw the colorful copy I got suspicious. I checked the DNS/whois for the domain and found it to be a private record. A moment of hunting on one of the Mac rumor sites and I found that "DangerousDan" had already uncovered Jack's trail. Good work DD.
Just thought you'd like to know something regarding a new firm calling itself DVForge; news outlets today announced a new product from dvforge.com called DVBase.
Some simple surface checking reveals that, while the domain name is registered to "Dale Sanders" of "Sanders Tool & Mould" out of Hendersonville, TN., the domain and its current content are being hosted by none other than Jack Campbell (also of Henderson) of the recent MacTable.com debacle.
The reason why I continue caution with this man is that I tried to set up an appointment to view in person one of the 'MacTables', of which on SpyMac forums JC variably claims no resale models were produced to having more than 45 "left over", but I never received one reply to email inquires and received the runaround on the phone. I don't think they exist, nor did they ever.
Jack Campbell (as PowerJack) claims in a "spy report" over on SpyMac that after, "...working several months to engineer a company...", he's, "...joined the management team of a terrific start-up...", and is giving a "two-week advance sneak peak'' of DVForge; but given that it's hosted as yet another company under the "Envestco" flag, I would be wary that it's possibly another shell game "
This information can currently be found on the MacInTouch site about Jack Campbell, the operator of MacWhispers. I like the MacWhispers site but Jack has had a very colorful past to say the least. He also has posted articles on SpyMac that have had little accuracy. The following are blurbs taken from the MacInTouch report:
"I found that Jack Campbell (of MacTable fame) is now rumor mongering with his new website at www.macwhispers.com. The website redirects to a server which is his company Envestco.com: http://www.envestco2.com/macwhispers.
Jack Campbell of MacTable.com and DVFortge is back again. For his third business startup in six months he's started macmice.com.
MacMice sells a $20 mouse for $40. When I saw the colorful copy I got suspicious. I checked the DNS/whois for the domain and found it to be a private record. A moment of hunting on one of the Mac rumor sites and I found that "DangerousDan" had already uncovered Jack's trail. Good work DD.
Just thought you'd like to know something regarding a new firm calling itself DVForge; news outlets today announced a new product from dvforge.com called DVBase.
Some simple surface checking reveals that, while the domain name is registered to "Dale Sanders" of "Sanders Tool & Mould" out of Hendersonville, TN., the domain and its current content are being hosted by none other than Jack Campbell (also of Henderson) of the recent MacTable.com debacle.
The reason why I continue caution with this man is that I tried to set up an appointment to view in person one of the 'MacTables', of which on SpyMac forums JC variably claims no resale models were produced to having more than 45 "left over", but I never received one reply to email inquires and received the runaround on the phone. I don't think they exist, nor did they ever.
Jack Campbell (as PowerJack) claims in a "spy report" over on SpyMac that after, "...working several months to engineer a company...", he's, "...joined the management team of a terrific start-up...", and is giving a "two-week advance sneak peak'' of DVForge; but given that it's hosted as yet another company under the "Envestco" flag, I would be wary that it's possibly another shell game "
NeXT Cube Revisited?
I just posted this over at AppleInsider and would also like to hear MacRumors' tech heads' opinion:
As I recall, Jobs really liked his NeXT cube, which he temporarily revisited with the Mac Cube. However, it was too small, too difficult to upgrade, too expensive...a dead end. Now, we have an upcoming powerhouse of a CPU, with a strong upgrade path, backed by industry technology leader IBM.
The thought occurs to me that this might be a good opportunity to revisit the cube design. The odd shape of the reported two new motherboards gave me this thought. What if these new mother(?)boards were designed to plug into a backplane, alá the old NeXT cube design? The basic case shell would contain the backplane, all the usual port/connectors on the back with power supply and hard/DVD/CDROM drives; USB, FW, headphone jacks on the front. With such a modular design, true power users could add additional boards, perhaps up to four, while the basic box would only come with one board (either single or dual CPU version).
Such a modular construction could handle the entire Mac desktop lineup. Low end consumer boxes would be outfitted with the single CPU board, and perhaps even a backplane that didn't allow for more than one or two boards in a smaller case design, while the PowerMac lineup would come with the larger cube and be configured with from one through four single/dual CPU boards.
Such a design would allow true performance users the opportunity to throw money at the box and load it up with eight CPUs, while mere mortals could satisfy themselves with a simpler configuration. Of course, Apple would have to select several standard configurations to simplify the purchasing decision of regular users.
Now I'd like to hear from the true tech heads on this forum as to whether such a modular design would really be viable. Are such backplanes horrendously expensive? Would the firmware to handle multiple boards plugged into a single plane be prohibitively difficult to create or expensive to implement? Remember, the entry level box has to remain in the low $1500 range.
This just seemed such a logical approach. Apple has the opportunity to begin moving ahead and once again set the hardware standard. Since they have to completely redesign the electronics of the Mac to accommodate the new CPU, why not create an architecture that'll support rapidly upscaling the Mac's performance over the next few years?
I just posted this over at AppleInsider and would also like to hear MacRumors' tech heads' opinion:
As I recall, Jobs really liked his NeXT cube, which he temporarily revisited with the Mac Cube. However, it was too small, too difficult to upgrade, too expensive...a dead end. Now, we have an upcoming powerhouse of a CPU, with a strong upgrade path, backed by industry technology leader IBM.
The thought occurs to me that this might be a good opportunity to revisit the cube design. The odd shape of the reported two new motherboards gave me this thought. What if these new mother(?)boards were designed to plug into a backplane, alá the old NeXT cube design? The basic case shell would contain the backplane, all the usual port/connectors on the back with power supply and hard/DVD/CDROM drives; USB, FW, headphone jacks on the front. With such a modular design, true power users could add additional boards, perhaps up to four, while the basic box would only come with one board (either single or dual CPU version).
Such a modular construction could handle the entire Mac desktop lineup. Low end consumer boxes would be outfitted with the single CPU board, and perhaps even a backplane that didn't allow for more than one or two boards in a smaller case design, while the PowerMac lineup would come with the larger cube and be configured with from one through four single/dual CPU boards.
Such a design would allow true performance users the opportunity to throw money at the box and load it up with eight CPUs, while mere mortals could satisfy themselves with a simpler configuration. Of course, Apple would have to select several standard configurations to simplify the purchasing decision of regular users.
Now I'd like to hear from the true tech heads on this forum as to whether such a modular design would really be viable. Are such backplanes horrendously expensive? Would the firmware to handle multiple boards plugged into a single plane be prohibitively difficult to create or expensive to implement? Remember, the entry level box has to remain in the low $1500 range.
This just seemed such a logical approach. Apple has the opportunity to begin moving ahead and once again set the hardware standard. Since they have to completely redesign the electronics of the Mac to accommodate the new CPU, why not create an architecture that'll support rapidly upscaling the Mac's performance over the next few years?
Re: Re: Re: Both do have positives
Ok, as far as windows machines getting bloated over time, I can give you a solution that helps out the wazzoo. I am a student IT Admin at my highschool, and trust me, there are way too many keys floating around in this building. unauthorized users download everything from smut to games, and every last one bit of it can screw your machine. the likely cause: adware/spyware. not on your machine you may say... but trust me, I have resurrected machines I would have had to reformat by getting all the adware/spyware crap off. first of all, if you have any of the follwing programs on your PC, uninstall them ASAP:
Gator, Gain, and Offer comapnion
Comet Cursor, Precision time, etc.
these programs screw your machine more than you will believe, and they don't die when uninstalled. uninstall them anyways, and the install and run ad-aware with reghance. it is free and can be downloaded at Lavasoft also, I suggest checking the amount of space available for your offline webcache, and emptying out and deleting ALL cookies and ALL temporary internet files at least once a week. do this for a few days, and if your system still is bogged down, then you should run the system information utility, and check/repair the registry, and religiously scan for viruses. also, a firewall may be of use. hope this helps you windows users ~Danny
Originally posted by squatch
It is the eternal mystery of Windows OS. Every one has been like that pretty much since Win95. They keep getting bigger and more bloated with each release. That is why I had to format my laptop after having Win2K on it for about a year cause it just seemed to slowly deteriorate over time. Plus my HD was only about 4 GB in size. I was constantly uninstalling and deleting files to keep free space available. Defragmenting and Scandisk never seemed to work.
Even though I recently reloaded Win98 back on it (which isn't any better by any stretch) to save space, it does what I need when I have to use Windows. Much faster than VPC IMHO.
Ok, as far as windows machines getting bloated over time, I can give you a solution that helps out the wazzoo. I am a student IT Admin at my highschool, and trust me, there are way too many keys floating around in this building. unauthorized users download everything from smut to games, and every last one bit of it can screw your machine. the likely cause: adware/spyware. not on your machine you may say... but trust me, I have resurrected machines I would have had to reformat by getting all the adware/spyware crap off. first of all, if you have any of the follwing programs on your PC, uninstall them ASAP:
Gator, Gain, and Offer comapnion
Comet Cursor, Precision time, etc.
these programs screw your machine more than you will believe, and they don't die when uninstalled. uninstall them anyways, and the install and run ad-aware with reghance. it is free and can be downloaded at Lavasoft also, I suggest checking the amount of space available for your offline webcache, and emptying out and deleting ALL cookies and ALL temporary internet files at least once a week. do this for a few days, and if your system still is bogged down, then you should run the system information utility, and check/repair the registry, and religiously scan for viruses. also, a firewall may be of use. hope this helps you windows users ~Danny
Single chip is enough for me
I don't think I would need the power of dual 970s, seeing as a single chip runs par with the power of a P4 2.8-3.0. I would only consider duals if the lack of multithreading caused a huge speed decrease, when compared to an HT P4 chip, and if the price was around $2,000. Otherwise, a single chip will do just fine.
I don't think I would need the power of dual 970s, seeing as a single chip runs par with the power of a P4 2.8-3.0. I would only consider duals if the lack of multithreading caused a huge speed decrease, when compared to an HT P4 chip, and if the price was around $2,000. Otherwise, a single chip will do just fine.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Both do have positives
Yes, I am all too familiar with ad/spyware clogging up a system. I worked as a DSL tech last summer and the number 1 complaint was that they could not connect because their computer was running so dang slow. After cleaning out temp IE files and cookies and a few other tweaks...I always inevitably ended up in the msconfig utility unchecking programs like Gator and others that "uninstall" didn't take care of.
This 9 out of 10 always fixed the problem. I couldn't suggest downloading third party software to them, but I would make "hints" at software like adaware.
I usually format my PC at least once a year to keep it running clean and smooth. Thank God I don't have to do this with my Mac!
Yes, I am all too familiar with ad/spyware clogging up a system. I worked as a DSL tech last summer and the number 1 complaint was that they could not connect because their computer was running so dang slow. After cleaning out temp IE files and cookies and a few other tweaks...I always inevitably ended up in the msconfig utility unchecking programs like Gator and others that "uninstall" didn't take care of.
This 9 out of 10 always fixed the problem. I couldn't suggest downloading third party software to them, but I would make "hints" at software like adaware.
I usually format my PC at least once a year to keep it running clean and smooth. Thank God I don't have to do this with my Mac!
Dave Marsh:
The backplane-oriented computer you describe is in fact far too expensive a thing for Apple to produce for consumers. In this day and age makers of low-end computers try to ship with few or no add-in cards at all, because even simple things like PCI cards add $15 at least over an integrated equivelent. In the PC world, even slot-1 and slot-A processors were abandoned because of the cost differential between that and socketed processors. It was worth Intel's and AMD's time to design and roll out entire new connectors and packaging rather than keep making slot-connecting processors (the cards were needed while PC's had high-speed off-die L2's).
The backplane-oriented computer you describe is in fact far too expensive a thing for Apple to produce for consumers. In this day and age makers of low-end computers try to ship with few or no add-in cards at all, because even simple things like PCI cards add $15 at least over an integrated equivelent. In the PC world, even slot-1 and slot-A processors were abandoned because of the cost differential between that and socketed processors. It was worth Intel's and AMD's time to design and roll out entire new connectors and packaging rather than keep making slot-connecting processors (the cards were needed while PC's had high-speed off-die L2's).
The current bus is 166MHz and 64bit wide. The new bus is comprised of two, one way, 32bit busses.
The most data you can move in or out of the 970 is about 3.2 GB/sec EACH WAY (6.4 GB of total bandwidth after overhead is taken into account.. for a 900MHz bus)
The most data you can move in or out of a current G4 is is around 1.3 GB/sec EACH WAY (about 1.3 GB/sec of total bandwidth)
In either direction, the 970 will have around 2.5 more bandwidth than the G4. It will have around 5x the total available bandwidth.
ffakr:
The G4 bus only transfers one way at a time, not both ways at once. That 1.3GB/sec is shared upload and download, whereas the PPC-970 has dediced 3.2GB/sec up and 3.2GB/sec down. Its not quite clear from your comment wether or not you already know this.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Both do have positives
One weird thing is that when I look at how much size taken up by all my files are that are in my drive I see only2.7Gb used out of my 4Gb HD. Out of curiosity I faked installing a dual boot, and windows tells me I have the extra 1.5Gb needed to install XP (which I won't touch with a ten foot pole)
Translation: Bill Gates can kiss my ass.
If he wants to work on an real OS he should put in an application to work for Apple; tough economy though.... he may not make the cut.
Originally posted by squatch
Yes, I am all too familiar with ad/spyware clogging up a system. I worked as a DSL tech last summer and the number 1 complaint was that they could not connect because their computer was running so dang slow. After cleaning out temp IE files and cookies and a few other tweaks...I always inevitably ended up in the msconfig utility unchecking programs like Gator and others that "uninstall" didn't take care of.
This 9 out of 10 always fixed the problem. I couldn't suggest downloading third party software to them, but I would make "hints" at software like adaware.
I usually format my PC at least once a year to keep it running clean and smooth. Thank God I don't have to do this with my Mac!
One weird thing is that when I look at how much size taken up by all my files are that are in my drive I see only2.7Gb used out of my 4Gb HD. Out of curiosity I faked installing a dual boot, and windows tells me I have the extra 1.5Gb needed to install XP (which I won't touch with a ten foot pole)Translation: Bill Gates can kiss my ass.
If he wants to work on an real OS he should put in an application to work for Apple; tough economy though.... he may not make the cut.
Re: Production Ramp Up
I wouldnt count on PCI-X as it is just not needed. Very few boards are actually capable of utilizing it, even in the PC world. PCI-X was nothing more then a Band-Aid to the bus problem. It is a temporary solution until the next generation I/O is here. As soon as it is here, PCI-X will fade away quite rapidly while PCI will survive. I would tend to believe that Apple would move to the multiple 64-bit 66MHz buses. If you had four PCI slots and two buses, each pair of PCI slots would have a maximum throughput of 528MBps. That is enough to sustain the system for sometime to come. They may even through a third one in for the ATA, FEW, USB, Bluetooth, etc. equipment. I doubt they will get away from AGP for the video card; there are just too many video card options to use anything else. As for 8X, while nothing can utilize it, implementing it is not that much harder then implementing 4X, especially on a totally new design. It will be the same case for Serial ATA over ATA. Why implement an older technology when you can use a better one?
Originally posted by Dave Marsh
That said, I agree with others, the real excitement here is the technology that Apple is building into the motherboard to take advantage of this CPU. I'd be really surprised to see USB 2, however. I don't think it provides any value added from Apple's viewpoint, and undermines Firewire. USB 1 works fine for routine peripherals. If USB 2 support is included, I think it'll only be for political reasons, to hedge against having to modify the motherboard later to accommodate it if FW dies. I think FW2, Bluetooth, and AE are a given. It would be nice to see PCI-X, but if they include that wouldn't AGP 8X become redundant/legacy technology (even though nothing currently takes advantage of it)?
Exciting times...
I wouldnt count on PCI-X as it is just not needed. Very few boards are actually capable of utilizing it, even in the PC world. PCI-X was nothing more then a Band-Aid to the bus problem. It is a temporary solution until the next generation I/O is here. As soon as it is here, PCI-X will fade away quite rapidly while PCI will survive. I would tend to believe that Apple would move to the multiple 64-bit 66MHz buses. If you had four PCI slots and two buses, each pair of PCI slots would have a maximum throughput of 528MBps. That is enough to sustain the system for sometime to come. They may even through a third one in for the ATA, FEW, USB, Bluetooth, etc. equipment. I doubt they will get away from AGP for the video card; there are just too many video card options to use anything else. As for 8X, while nothing can utilize it, implementing it is not that much harder then implementing 4X, especially on a totally new design. It will be the same case for Serial ATA over ATA. Why implement an older technology when you can use a better one?
Re: What are we talking...
Besides the fact that the x86 design is 25 years old and has some serious limitations? Look at a PC, you have the BIOS, which has serious problems/limitations, the system architecture is pieced together, it has an IRQ subsystem that causes problems. While the clock speeds keep climbing, performance per clock cycle is actually decreasing with every recent iteration. Per clock cycle, the PIII beats the P4. The reason being is that Intel want to be king on the GHz and designed a chip that would give that. Intel and AMD are both using MHz to get work done instead of designing chips that are more suited to task completion with lower cycles. Look at the power requirements for their chips; it is enormous. They generate way too much heat. Companies like Sun and IBM make processors that generate less heat and do more with every clock cycle with less MHz. While x86 processors have some good performance numbers in some categories, in others they are absolutely pathetic. While some say that the Intel processors have twice the performance of say a SPARC processor from Sun, there is more to it then that. In some benchmarks and real world scenarios, the SPARC can be up to 20% faster with less then half the MHz. The same holds true for the G4 and other processors. No one make a processor that is good at everything. Each chip is designed for specific needs. Back to the X86, you have several manufacturers, mainly Intel and AMD. A few years ago, a test was done on two systems. Both had the same setup, just one had an Intel processor and the other an AMD. The OS was the same, the memory config was the same, etc. The only difference was the MB and the processor. As expected, one could complete the Adobe Photoshop test faster then the other. The real surprise was that the size of the file was also different. So the x86 arena is not even truly compatible with themselves. So the real advantage of the 970 over any x86 design is that you dont have to worry about compatibility problems. In general, the system is better designed then what the PC world has, not to mention the OS. Most of the time, the CPU is waiting for something to work on, and real performance gains can be made by reducing that, then making a faster processor. This is the game that companies like Sun and IBM excel in. Its a safe bet to say that IBM was very deeply involved in the system design for their chip. Not only just for Apple, but for their own systems as well. The better they can make their own systems perform better, the more they can sell and compete against Sun and keep the Itanium from getting any type of footing at all. Plus, the better the Apple runs, the more they can sell and thus make more on selling chips and beat Intel on another front. Where do you think the money feeding the Itanic is coming from?
Besides the fact that the x86 design is 25 years old and has some serious limitations? Look at a PC, you have the BIOS, which has serious problems/limitations, the system architecture is pieced together, it has an IRQ subsystem that causes problems. While the clock speeds keep climbing, performance per clock cycle is actually decreasing with every recent iteration. Per clock cycle, the PIII beats the P4. The reason being is that Intel want to be king on the GHz and designed a chip that would give that. Intel and AMD are both using MHz to get work done instead of designing chips that are more suited to task completion with lower cycles. Look at the power requirements for their chips; it is enormous. They generate way too much heat. Companies like Sun and IBM make processors that generate less heat and do more with every clock cycle with less MHz. While x86 processors have some good performance numbers in some categories, in others they are absolutely pathetic. While some say that the Intel processors have twice the performance of say a SPARC processor from Sun, there is more to it then that. In some benchmarks and real world scenarios, the SPARC can be up to 20% faster with less then half the MHz. The same holds true for the G4 and other processors. No one make a processor that is good at everything. Each chip is designed for specific needs. Back to the X86, you have several manufacturers, mainly Intel and AMD. A few years ago, a test was done on two systems. Both had the same setup, just one had an Intel processor and the other an AMD. The OS was the same, the memory config was the same, etc. The only difference was the MB and the processor. As expected, one could complete the Adobe Photoshop test faster then the other. The real surprise was that the size of the file was also different. So the x86 arena is not even truly compatible with themselves. So the real advantage of the 970 over any x86 design is that you dont have to worry about compatibility problems. In general, the system is better designed then what the PC world has, not to mention the OS. Most of the time, the CPU is waiting for something to work on, and real performance gains can be made by reducing that, then making a faster processor. This is the game that companies like Sun and IBM excel in. Its a safe bet to say that IBM was very deeply involved in the system design for their chip. Not only just for Apple, but for their own systems as well. The better they can make their own systems perform better, the more they can sell and compete against Sun and keep the Itanium from getting any type of footing at all. Plus, the better the Apple runs, the more they can sell and thus make more on selling chips and beat Intel on another front. Where do you think the money feeding the Itanic is coming from?
Re: NeXT Cube Revisited?
Just another thing about the NeXT Cube. It wasn't really a typical backplane like you would see in high end machines (like Sun's Gigaplane). It really was just a NeXTbus (read: NuBus) plane if IIRC. It provided power and connectors and the like, but you could only have one system board per system.
(Well, unless you hacked your backplane and then you could have an 030 board and an 040 board in the same cube but you had to NetBoot the second board off of the first over ethernet and they didn't do any sort of parallel processing or peripheral/storage sharing. They were just two separate machines running in the same box.)
Plus, the NeXTdimension graphics board (the one with the Intel i860) was large enough to resemble another motherboard. Maybe that caused some confusion too.
Just another thing about the NeXT Cube. It wasn't really a typical backplane like you would see in high end machines (like Sun's Gigaplane). It really was just a NeXTbus (read: NuBus) plane if IIRC. It provided power and connectors and the like, but you could only have one system board per system.
(Well, unless you hacked your backplane and then you could have an 030 board and an 040 board in the same cube but you had to NetBoot the second board off of the first over ethernet and they didn't do any sort of parallel processing or peripheral/storage sharing. They were just two separate machines running in the same box.)
Plus, the NeXTdimension graphics board (the one with the Intel i860) was large enough to resemble another motherboard. Maybe that caused some confusion too.
Re: Two Motherboard Prototypes
Sun uses the same board in their workstation as they do in their servers. It saves money, speed development and can yield better performance. Apple will probably adopt the same setup.
Originally posted by Dave Marsh
No one's mentioned this, so I'll raise the question. The rumor is stating that two new motherboards have gone out for bids, one for the XServe and one for the PowerMacs (that's new speculation I first noticed above). If this is the case, and since the original rumor stated that one of these boards was for a dual processor and one for a single processor configuration, doesn't that suggest that the dual is for the XServe and the single is for the PowerMac? Or, can the PowerMac use the XServe's motherboard in a dual CPU setup? If it can't, that means only single CPUs for the new PowerMacs.
Sun uses the same board in their workstation as they do in their servers. It saves money, speed development and can yield better performance. Apple will probably adopt the same setup.
AppleExpo 2003 Paris (France) 16-20 September, could be another opportunity to introduce new Powermacs.
Steve used to deliver the opening keynote of the AppleExpo these last years.
Re: MacWhispers is pure Entertianment nothing more
I'm always amazed that a mix of lies and innuendo, cloaked in the guise of consumer advocacy is accepted behavior on the internet... but that, seemingly, working one's rear end off running three demanding businesses, plus an industry rumor/news site is something to be ashamed of?
Both DVForge and MacMice will be exhibiting at MacWorld NY 2003. Whoever you are, you are welcome to come by for a visit.
Sorry to everyone else here for continuing an off-topic diversion.
As for the new motherboards even being produced for a PPC970, there is no word... repeat, none... from either of the two assembly bidders confirming such an idea. And, again, this entire idea, now propogated by several other web sites, started with my conversation with a sales engineer who had briefly seen the RFP for the motherboards, and was knowledgeable about the timetable involved.
While the speculation here is logical based on some known facts, it would be just as logical to speculate that the new boards are for an earlier than expected 7457, or even for an Intel Itanium deployment. And, there is nothing at all available contradicting the idea that these boards are not the ONLY PowerMac boards slated for year's end. These could well be only a high-end or low-end variant.
All that is known with some certainty, today, is that there are two variants of new PowerMac boards finalized for production, and on short-deadline for production bids with (at least) two potential assembly contractors. Given the normal pacing of such events, this indicates any production machines using these boards would be released in the July-September period... given no cause for intermediate delay in the process.
Yes, IBM is sampling the PPC970. Motorola is sampling 7457's. And, Intel has supplies of Itaniums available for OEM development.
Throw an Apple dart among the three.
Originally posted by Mr T
This information can currently be found on the MacInTouch site about Jack Campbell... I would be wary that it's possibly another shell game "
I'm always amazed that a mix of lies and innuendo, cloaked in the guise of consumer advocacy is accepted behavior on the internet... but that, seemingly, working one's rear end off running three demanding businesses, plus an industry rumor/news site is something to be ashamed of?
Both DVForge and MacMice will be exhibiting at MacWorld NY 2003. Whoever you are, you are welcome to come by for a visit.
Sorry to everyone else here for continuing an off-topic diversion.
As for the new motherboards even being produced for a PPC970, there is no word... repeat, none... from either of the two assembly bidders confirming such an idea. And, again, this entire idea, now propogated by several other web sites, started with my conversation with a sales engineer who had briefly seen the RFP for the motherboards, and was knowledgeable about the timetable involved.
While the speculation here is logical based on some known facts, it would be just as logical to speculate that the new boards are for an earlier than expected 7457, or even for an Intel Itanium deployment. And, there is nothing at all available contradicting the idea that these boards are not the ONLY PowerMac boards slated for year's end. These could well be only a high-end or low-end variant.
All that is known with some certainty, today, is that there are two variants of new PowerMac boards finalized for production, and on short-deadline for production bids with (at least) two potential assembly contractors. Given the normal pacing of such events, this indicates any production machines using these boards would be released in the July-September period... given no cause for intermediate delay in the process.
Yes, IBM is sampling the PPC970. Motorola is sampling 7457's. And, Intel has supplies of Itaniums available for OEM development.
Throw an Apple dart among the three.
Re: Re: MacWhispers is pure Entertianment nothing more
Isn't the 7457 supposed to be pin to pin compatible with the 7455 and therefore not require a new motherboard?
The Itanium is not a desktop processor, it whould be like sticking a POWER4 in a Mac, without proper integer and SIMD (AltiVec like) capaciticies Photoshop and FCP users whould not be pleased with such an underdog.
Isn't the 7457 supposed to be pin to pin compatible with the 7455 and therefore not require a new motherboard?
The Itanium is not a desktop processor, it whould be like sticking a POWER4 in a Mac, without proper integer and SIMD (AltiVec like) capaciticies Photoshop and FCP users whould not be pleased with such an underdog.
Lanbrown:
No it really doesn't have any real "limitations" as you allude to, and the fact that it is 25 years old is a good thing because that means it has 25 years of compatible software.
More ignorance! The BIOS system works well enough and in any case is much easier to use than Apple's open firmware. All sorts of things are accessable through BIOS that are found in obscure firmware commands in Apple land, if they are to be found at all.
Hand-wavy nonesense.
Not very many problems on newer OS's and hardware. I haven't messed with IRQ's in the entire 5 years that I have been using PCs, and I have had my hands on plenty of hardware during that time.
No! The only recent example of this is the P4. The Athlon is more powerful per clock than either a P3 or a K6, and the Hammer series are more powerfull still. The Pentium M's are another example of new chips that are more powerful per clock than their predecessors.
AMD's Opteron is going to have a work-per-cycle number right up there with the PPC-970, and (apparently) slightly higher clockspeeds as well. In any case, how the work gets done is not so important as how fast it gets done, and x86 is delivering the speed in quantity.
So now your trying to drag in server processors against x86 desktop chips? In that case, lets also consider the Itanium2, with the highest work-per-clock and highest overall performance of any processor anywhere.
Ah hah. Why don't you demonstate these things you claim?
The G4 is pathetic. Give up already.
WTF? This whole section of your post is borderline irrational.
Why don't you tell me about some compatibility problems with x86?
Re: What are we talking...
Advantages (970 vs. Intel x86):
1) Low power (19-42 watts)
2) Competetive performance (a 1.8GHz 970 probably isn't going to beat a 3.2GHz Prescott P4, but it'll put up a good fight, and win on vector code)
3) Runs existing PowerPC code (BIG advantage)
Disadvantages (970 vs. Intel x86):
1) Probably a more expensive
2) Probably a bit slower (although this is comparing the .13 micron 970 to the .09 micron Prescott. At .09 microns the 970 should do better)
3) Lower clock frequency is bad for marketing
Advantages (970 vs. G4 [7457])
1) SPEED (higher clock frequency, faster bus, more instructions at once, bigger L1 and L2 caches, better out of order execution, dual floating point units, etc...). The 970 will be MUCH faster than the G4 on almost all code.
2) Handles poorly optimized code better (because of improved out of order execution)
3) Future. Motorola isn't interested in desktop chips. The 970 signals that IBM is. IBM also has a great manufacturing process
4) Ability to address more memory (because of being 64 bit)
5) Better multiprocessing (although harder and more expensive to do)
Disadvantages (970 vs. 7457):
1) Price. I would expect the 970 to be at least somewhat more expensive
2) Altivec dispatch. The 970 uses the older 7400/7410 Altivec scheme.
3) No L3 cache
4) Cheaper, easier multiprocessing (but really crappy)
Advantages (970 vs. Intel x86):
1) Low power (19-42 watts)
2) Competetive performance (a 1.8GHz 970 probably isn't going to beat a 3.2GHz Prescott P4, but it'll put up a good fight, and win on vector code)
3) Runs existing PowerPC code (BIG advantage)
Disadvantages (970 vs. Intel x86):
1) Probably a more expensive
2) Probably a bit slower (although this is comparing the .13 micron 970 to the .09 micron Prescott. At .09 microns the 970 should do better)
3) Lower clock frequency is bad for marketing
Advantages (970 vs. G4 [7457])
1) SPEED (higher clock frequency, faster bus, more instructions at once, bigger L1 and L2 caches, better out of order execution, dual floating point units, etc...). The 970 will be MUCH faster than the G4 on almost all code.
2) Handles poorly optimized code better (because of improved out of order execution)
3) Future. Motorola isn't interested in desktop chips. The 970 signals that IBM is. IBM also has a great manufacturing process
4) Ability to address more memory (because of being 64 bit)
5) Better multiprocessing (although harder and more expensive to do)
Disadvantages (970 vs. 7457):
1) Price. I would expect the 970 to be at least somewhat more expensive
2) Altivec dispatch. The 970 uses the older 7400/7410 Altivec scheme.
3) No L3 cache
4) Cheaper, easier multiprocessing (but really crappy)