I did not see the sequence of characters that spell out either "970" or "Gobi." Whos to say what they are working on. Could be the next generation airport base station, or iPod, or iWalk or iPhone or or or...
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 for Apple... Confirmed?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Re: Re: PPC 970 for Apple... Confirmed?
Wow, so according to you, iTunes will encode TWICE as fast right off the bat! Photoshop will render, scale, rotate and apply filters in mear seconds!?! Wow. I'm sorry I was unware that 32 bit apps would be twice as fast on a 64 OS on a 64 bit CPU. And to beat into your head some-more, the majority of apps won't be coded to 64 bits. So I guess it won't be twice as fast after-all. Thanks for the info
Wow, so according to you, iTunes will encode TWICE as fast right off the bat! Photoshop will render, scale, rotate and apply filters in mear seconds!?! Wow. I'm sorry I was unware that 32 bit apps would be twice as fast on a 64 OS on a 64 bit CPU. And to beat into your head some-more, the majority of apps won't be coded to 64 bits. So I guess it won't be twice as fast after-all. Thanks for the info
not the ny times
uhh... i think at this point i trust what macrumors has to say WAAAY more than anything the ny times puts in its pages...
Originally posted by Escher
Regardless, coverage of PPC 970 PowerMac in a mainstream publication like Business Week is a good sign. Now we just need the New York Times or another paper of that stature to jump on board. Where are you, David Pogue?
Escher
uhh... i think at this point i trust what macrumors has to say WAAAY more than anything the ny times puts in its pages...
Re: Re: Re: Re: PPC 970 for Apple... Confirmed?
As dumb as it might be business-wise, it makes one wonder if Jobs meant something extraordinary by "year of the laptop"
As dumb as it might be business-wise, it makes one wonder if Jobs meant something extraordinary by "year of the laptop"
Re: Re: Re: PPC 970 for Apple... Confirmed?
You do know that ! means "not" right
LOL
Originally posted by Kid Red
Wow, so according to you, iTunes will encode TWICE as fast right off the bat! Photoshop will render, scale, rotate and apply filters in mear seconds!?! Wow. I'm sorry I was unware that 32 bit apps would be twice as fast on a 64 OS on a 64 bit CPU. And to beat into your head some-more, the majority of apps won't be coded to 64 bits. So I guess it won't be twice as fast after-all. Thanks for the info
You do know that ! means "not" right
LOL
kentuckyfried:
You're too optimistic. If anything is going to be extraordinary it'll probably be the pain and suffering on the PMac front. I think Steve was/is emphasising laptops because the desktops are in bad shape, not because the laptops are especially good.
You're too optimistic. If anything is going to be extraordinary it'll probably be the pain and suffering on the PMac front. I think Steve was/is emphasising laptops because the desktops are in bad shape, not because the laptops are especially good.
I sure hope so. I would love a PPC 970. I still believe it isnt how fast your computer is but what you can do with it. But sure would be nice to have the FASTEST computer around and be able to do everything you can with a mac.
Re: Re: Re: PPC 970 for Apple... Confirmed?
Slow down there, killer. He wrote 64-bit != twiceTheSpeed(32-bit).
The ! means not. Therefore, != means NOT EQUAL (found in Java, javascript, C++,etc.).
Originally posted by Kid Red
Wow, so according to you, iTunes will encode TWICE as fast right off the bat! Photoshop will render, scale, rotate and apply filters in mear seconds!?! Wow. I'm sorry I was unware that 32 bit apps would be twice as fast on a 64 OS on a 64 bit CPU. And to beat into your head some-more, the majority of apps won't be coded to 64 bits. So I guess it won't be twice as fast after-all. Thanks for the info
Slow down there, killer. He wrote 64-bit != twiceTheSpeed(32-bit).
The ! means not. Therefore, != means NOT EQUAL (found in Java, javascript, C++,etc.).
Re: not the ny times
Ha Yep, you're right
Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
uhh... i think at this point i trust what macrumors has to say WAAAY more than anything the ny times puts in its pages...
Ha
Yep, you're right
Maybe we wont have to hear anymore garbage like apple will use the g4 next year or amd is.... or marklar and intel yap yap yap.
I'm agreeing with ddtlm here. While the laptops that Apple has right now are great and I'd be happy to call one my own, they're not blowing me away (in any way besides the ridiculous size of the 17"PB). The desktops are incredibly lame right now on the other hand. How do you draw people's attention away from this? Call it the year of the laptop! Focus on the good (even if it's not unbelievably amazing) and not the bad.
Re: not the ny times
Well, if you don't trust the Times, I wonder when Matthew Rothenberg at eWeek will chime in on the PPC 970. He (and his co-author Nick Ciarelli) have been right on the money on a regular basis in the past. I'm also wondering when Think Secret will do more than simply mention the 970 at the end of an article.
Escher
Well, if you don't trust the Times, I wonder when Matthew Rothenberg at eWeek will chime in on the PPC 970. He (and his co-author Nick Ciarelli) have been right on the money on a regular basis in the past. I'm also wondering when Think Secret will do more than simply mention the 970 at the end of an article.
Escher
Re: Re: Re: PPC 970 for Apple... Confirmed?
Yeah, there's a fuzzy, technical perspective from which he is right, however the problem is that the vast majority of people see "information" and tack on "distinct".
A 64-bit processor can process twice as much information (interelated bits) as a 32-bit processor, but not twice as much distinct information (a single number is a distinct bit of information; 64-bit or 32-bit processor determines tha max/min values of that number, not how many said numbers can be calculated at once).
So, technically, the article is right sorta. Its connotation (that the machine will be twice as fast thanks to 64 vs 32) is dead wrong.
But then, "the public" generally looks at things like a faster front-side-bus and improved OOOE and pipelining and glaze over. The 970 will be twice as fast as the G4. Maybe we shouldn't burden the "public" with "why" and just let them believe what they want ...
Folks, welcome to the public misperception that will only get worse.
Yeah, there's a fuzzy, technical perspective from which he is right, however the problem is that the vast majority of people see "information" and tack on "distinct".
A 64-bit processor can process twice as much information (interelated bits) as a 32-bit processor, but not twice as much distinct information (a single number is a distinct bit of information; 64-bit or 32-bit processor determines tha max/min values of that number, not how many said numbers can be calculated at once).
So, technically, the article is right sorta. Its connotation (that the machine will be twice as fast thanks to 64 vs 32) is dead wrong.
But then, "the public" generally looks at things like a faster front-side-bus and improved OOOE and pipelining and glaze over. The 970 will be twice as fast as the G4. Maybe we shouldn't burden the "public" with "why" and just let them believe what they want ...
Folks, welcome to the public misperception that will only get worse.
Re: Re: Re: PPC 970 for Apple... Confirmed?
Don't you think that the "!=" part means a streak through the "="? Thus, "64bit != 2x32bit" means that 64bit computing is not twice as fast as 2x32bit computing.
Not exactly sure wether you got that or not. Oh well...
EDIT: Sorry, just saw that DGFan already pointed this out.
Originally posted by Kid Red
Wow, so according to you, iTunes will encode TWICE as fast right off the bat! Photoshop will render, scale, rotate and apply filters in mear seconds!?! Wow. I'm sorry I was unware that 32 bit apps would be twice as fast on a 64 OS on a 64 bit CPU. And to beat into your head some-more, the majority of apps won't be coded to 64 bits. So I guess it won't be twice as fast after-all. Thanks for the info
Don't you think that the "!=" part means a streak through the "="? Thus, "64bit != 2x32bit" means that 64bit computing is not twice as fast as 2x32bit computing.
Not exactly sure wether you got that or not. Oh well...
EDIT: Sorry, just saw that DGFan already pointed this out.
Re: Re: Re: Re: PPC 970 for Apple... Confirmed?
I think if you look a little farther into history, you'll find that history is not definitive in this matter. If you, instead, look at whether or not a particular chip is well suited to a mobile application, then it becomes clear that Apple tends to release these side-by-side (roughly) with the Power Macs based on the same chip. So, that means the question becomes simply whether or not the 970 is well suited to a mobile application (which we have some evidence to suggest that it is).
I think if you look a little farther into history, you'll find that history is not definitive in this matter. If you, instead, look at whether or not a particular chip is well suited to a mobile application, then it becomes clear that Apple tends to release these side-by-side (roughly) with the Power Macs based on the same chip. So, that means the question becomes simply whether or not the 970 is well suited to a mobile application (which we have some evidence to suggest that it is).
There is one problem with this. Is it economical for Apple to wait until the end of the year in order to get the 7457 (when we are given to understand the 7457 will be shipping), rather than update the line to the 970 now (assuming the 970 is available and is suitable for a mobile computer in its initial release version).
Now, what I see as a very likely path is that the PBs would get the 970 in their update this summer. The iBooks would inherit the G4 (thus preserving the R&D that Apple has into the G4), and would get the 7457 later this year or early next year as the next update.
This seems a quite reasonable 'economic' path for Apple to take.
Correct. The "year of the Laptop" was declared amidst multiple slides showing how Apple laptop sales weregrowing relative to desktop sales. In the original context, "the year of the laptop" meant that laptops will continue to gain ground on (Apple) desktops, and are projected to equal desktop sales sometime next year IIRC.
Of course, making laptop sales grow relative to desktop sales can be done two ways ...
What will be sad, is when they come out, people will have to buy a new machine and will not be able to upgrade their current machine.
who wants a 970 on a buss that is over 4 times slower.
we all know that the g4 in its self is memory starved... imagine a 970
who wants a 970 on a buss that is over 4 times slower.
we all know that the g4 in its self is memory starved... imagine a 970
Re: Re: PPC 970 for Apple... Confirmed?
As has been stated before many times, it seems that a lot of modern applications are bottlenecked by the front side bus of the processor, rather than the speed of the processor itself. If you can only move data in and out of the processor at the same old speed, it doesn't help much that your processor is now 7 or 8 times faster than your FSB. The 970 of course will not have this problem so much.
So, in summary, 64-bit != 2x 32-bit performance, but the article is still technically correct in that a 64-bit processor can process data in registers that are twice as large, therefore, process twice as much data at once.
The article is not technically incorrect. Processors manipulate data by using these things called registers. A numerical value is moved into a register, then some operation is performed on it, and it is moved back out of the register. 64-bit processor means you can now have 64-bit registers, so technically your processor is now operating on chunks of data that are twice as large as before.
As has been stated before many times, it seems that a lot of modern applications are bottlenecked by the front side bus of the processor, rather than the speed of the processor itself. If you can only move data in and out of the processor at the same old speed, it doesn't help much that your processor is now 7 or 8 times faster than your FSB. The 970 of course will not have this problem so much.
So, in summary, 64-bit != 2x 32-bit performance, but the article is still technically correct in that a 64-bit processor can process data in registers that are twice as large, therefore, process twice as much data at once.
