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: Re: Re: PPC 970 for Apple... Confirmed?
It potentially could be, though...
Originally posted by macdong
Hmm, you are right.
"Twice as much information" sounds like "twice as fast", but it's not.
Just the words game business writer like to play
It potentially could be, though...
Originally posted by Bengt77
Hehe ... gonna be a '6502' soon, eh?! Congrats! I have to start increasing my post frequency too; I'm not even a 'regular' yet!
Thanks! I was wondering if people would figure it out, or ask about it. Not much longer to a 'tar...
94...
enough already!
64 bit vs 32 bit, at the very least it will be faster. I think the key point is the 970 will be coming some time soon to Apple. I doubt Apple legal would be so quick to request a correction to the article if the 970 would not be used in Apple products. It was only a few months ago when debates were going on about Apple using Motorola or IBM - we may be able to settle that rumor now. I highly doubt we will see a new G5 or "better" G4 in NEW machines. I'm sure the 'G' series chips will live on in the ibooks and maybe emacs. The 970 will be used in the newer machines.
So, this leaves the question as to WHEN will they show up? Say the new chip and OS is introduced in June, give a few months so say late August. Apple seems to be doing hardware and software introductions seperately now though. Perhaps Panther in June and the 970 in July? Ship date then might be September. These would fall in line with Apple's history of announce and ship times.
Worse case, no chip this summer. It wouldn't suprise me but Apple HAS to make some move from a business stand point. It is an economic requirement for them. Laptop sales alone will not keep them afloat. The last thing Apple needs to hear is "I would switch to OS X if the power macs were just faster!"
Knowing our luck, Apple will follow its history and pick the worst case secenario. I hope I am wrong. I won't be holding my breath in June waiting for the 970. (Ok, I will but will try not to)
64 bit vs 32 bit, at the very least it will be faster. I think the key point is the 970 will be coming some time soon to Apple. I doubt Apple legal would be so quick to request a correction to the article if the 970 would not be used in Apple products. It was only a few months ago when debates were going on about Apple using Motorola or IBM - we may be able to settle that rumor now. I highly doubt we will see a new G5 or "better" G4 in NEW machines. I'm sure the 'G' series chips will live on in the ibooks and maybe emacs. The 970 will be used in the newer machines.
So, this leaves the question as to WHEN will they show up? Say the new chip and OS is introduced in June, give a few months so say late August. Apple seems to be doing hardware and software introductions seperately now though. Perhaps Panther in June and the 970 in July? Ship date then might be September. These would fall in line with Apple's history of announce and ship times.
Worse case, no chip this summer. It wouldn't suprise me but Apple HAS to make some move from a business stand point. It is an economic requirement for them. Laptop sales alone will not keep them afloat. The last thing Apple needs to hear is "I would switch to OS X if the power macs were just faster!"
Knowing our luck, Apple will follow its history and pick the worst case secenario. I hope I am wrong. I won't be holding my breath in June waiting for the 970. (Ok, I will but will try not to)
ho hum
Ok, ok. That just about does it for me - and many other's too I thinks...I'm at 971% of the 970 saturation point. I can't take any more!
There is no smiley for this emotion, damnit! It should look like a fountian of rumors exploding from the top of the smiley. Maybe an ascii version is this:
>~~~{:0
or something.
Let's just start speculating about something else now. Just as long as it isn't MICE. 980's, anyone?!
Futile, futile I know. But I had to try.
<sigh>a.
Ok, ok. That just about does it for me - and many other's too I thinks...I'm at 971% of the 970 saturation point. I can't take any more!
There is no smiley for this emotion, damnit! It should look like a fountian of rumors exploding from the top of the smiley. Maybe an ascii version is this:
>~~~{:0
or something.
Let's just start speculating about something else now. Just as long as it isn't MICE. 980's, anyone?!
Futile, futile I know. But I had to try.
<sigh>a.
Re: ho hum
Yeah, that's about my feeling too! Let's find a new toy to play with. Let's get it over with this thread (and the PPC970 altogether) and go read a good book, or something like that. Let's all go and see The Matrix Reloaded for the sixth time. Wanna join me? I'm gonna go tonight again...
Yeah, that's about my feeling too! Let's find a new toy to play with. Let's get it over with this thread (and the PPC970 altogether) and go read a good book, or something like that. Let's all go and see The Matrix Reloaded for the sixth time. Wanna join me? I'm gonna go tonight again...
Re: Re: Woo Hoo - they get faster and faster
We're not mistaken though - we (knowingly) simplified. Besides, the seriousness surrounding this topic was stifling.
Have you heard these guys calling out for speed? The pedal's already on the floorboards as far as G4 computing is considered, and I can't see it changing when (alright - if!) the PPC970 comes along. The capabilities will be fully utilised. Having said that, Cd may be slightly less important with regard to computers, as opposed to vehicles...
Velocity is not correct for Hz either (cycles) - brain dead this time of night here though, so someone else will have to contribute...
Originally posted by Masker
I know all the people that keep talking about this are just being goofy, but this bugs me: your car can accelerate, but does that mean that it keeps getting faster the longer that it runs?
Just because the guy mispoke, doesn't mean that you guys aren't also mistaken. And, if you're going to get all physics on us, use the correct term: velocity not speed. [Edit: Hmmmm. For cps or Hz, velocity isn't exactly right, either...]
We're not mistaken though - we (knowingly) simplified. Besides, the seriousness surrounding this topic was stifling.
Have you heard these guys calling out for speed? The pedal's already on the floorboards as far as G4 computing is considered, and I can't see it changing when (alright - if!) the PPC970 comes along. The capabilities will be fully utilised. Having said that, Cd may be slightly less important with regard to computers, as opposed to vehicles...
Velocity is not correct for Hz either (cycles) - brain dead this time of night here though, so someone else will have to contribute...
How do you know? Estimating from the SPECmarks (937/1051, int/FP respectively, Altivec left out), the 1.8 GHz 970 will be about as fast as a 2.8 GHz P4 (976/947).
And these machines are available (today) in dual configurations (Xeons) for a price lower than that of a 1.42 GHz G4...
Don't get me wrong here, I'd still prefer the Mac. But I fear that many people here will be very disappointed when they figure out that Apple simply needs the 970 to be taken serious again. The snail-ads are out of place for the time being...
I have a 333 G3 at home, and it runs jaguar just fine. No installation trouble, no mods. It's a standard G3 with a USB PCI card, original 4MB Graphics card, running the first Apple LCD screen, and 512MB RAM - it's slower than my G4s yes, but fine for my mum's emailing and doing our eBay stuff every week - which means it runs Photoshop 7 and Dreamweaver MX just fine.
It's using a Mac like that that makes me like my 1.3Ghz G4 even more, but makes me desperate for the IBM chip!!!
Re: Re: Re: Woo Hoo - they get faster and faster
Wrong! The G4 still has some powers not unleashed yet. Just throw in a true DDR FSB (say 400MHz) and use corresponding (duh) DDR RAM and you'll see the (dual) G4's performance go up to quite a competitive level with today's Pentium 4s. At least, that's what I think. The G4 has never been fully utilised to it's full potential, which is a terrible shame, really.
Wrong! The G4 still has some powers not unleashed yet. Just throw in a true DDR FSB (say 400MHz) and use corresponding (duh) DDR RAM and you'll see the (dual) G4's performance go up to quite a competitive level with today's Pentium 4s. At least, that's what I think. The G4 has never been fully utilised to it's full potential, which is a terrible shame, really.
Re: Re: Re: Woo Hoo - they get faster and faster
Velocyples, Heforeemers, and Flutermizers.
ipso: Heforeemers = Velocyples/second where Velocyples = a Flutermizer/second * C.
sorted. Now let's go home.
Velocyples, Heforeemers, and Flutermizers.
ipso: Heforeemers = Velocyples/second where Velocyples = a Flutermizer/second * C.
sorted. Now let's go home.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Woo Hoo - they get faster and faster
True. Perhaps I should have said as far as Motorola G4 computing is considered
Originally posted by Bengt77
Wrong! The G4 still has some powers not unleashed yet. Just throw in a true DDR FSB (say 400MHz) and use corresponding (duh) DDR RAM and you'll see the (dual) G4's performance go up to quite a competitive level with today's Pentium 4s. At least, that's what I think. The G4 has never been fully utilised to it's full potential, which is a terrible shame, really.
True. Perhaps I should have said as far as Motorola G4 computing is considered
Re: Hmm...
Yeah, or you actually go get some work done on the Mac you own now, instead of just waiting and waiting and waiting. I don't believe in the PPC970 anymore. Of course it'll come, that part I know too, but when it'll come is just plain guessing. There are so many contradictive articles and rumours doing rounds that there's no way at all to 'tell' when they're ready for use in Apple's new Power Macs.
EDIT: When it comes, it'll probably hopelessly lag behind the performance of that moment's Pentiums and AMDs. Darn, I love my iMac, but it's no comparison to some of my friends' PCs, concerning speed. Their respective speeds really are miles apart. Will the PPC970 really bend that situation to our advantage? I don't dare to think so. Not anymore. Damn MacNet article!
Yeah, or you actually go get some work done on the Mac you own now, instead of just waiting and waiting and waiting. I don't believe in the PPC970 anymore. Of course it'll come, that part I know too, but when it'll come is just plain guessing. There are so many contradictive articles and rumours doing rounds that there's no way at all to 'tell' when they're ready for use in Apple's new Power Macs.
EDIT: When it comes, it'll probably hopelessly lag behind the performance of that moment's Pentiums and AMDs. Darn, I love my iMac, but it's no comparison to some of my friends' PCs, concerning speed. Their respective speeds really are miles apart. Will the PPC970 really bend that situation to our advantage? I don't dare to think so. Not anymore. Damn MacNet article!
Re: 970 News is a Joke
Getting pretty old? Well if it is so old, why don't you make your own 970 clone? Apple has not released one machine yet utilizing the 970 for Apple, and neither has anyone else. If the news is old, then you might want to be the first one to make one. Naturally you couldn't. So stop saying news is old when it still is suggesting something that won't happen until some point in the future.
Getting pretty old? Well if it is so old, why don't you make your own 970 clone? Apple has not released one machine yet utilizing the 970 for Apple, and neither has anyone else. If the news is old, then you might want to be the first one to make one. Naturally you couldn't. So stop saying news is old when it still is suggesting something that won't happen until some point in the future.
I think the G4 with true DDR FSB we have been waiting for will materialize for the portables and iMacs - but it will be the IBM G3 750GX (the rumored G3 + AltiVec). And the 970 will be reserved to the PowerMac's and XServes. (Maybe even just the high end ones)
The 750GX and 970 could even turn into the PowerPC equivelent of the P4 and Xeon in the Intel camp.
When is the 750GX rumored to be available?
The 750GX and 970 could even turn into the PowerPC equivelent of the P4 and Xeon in the Intel camp.
When is the 750GX rumored to be available?
Re: Re: Hmm...
I am writing this on an AMD 2400+ PC running XP. Is it faster than my dual 1.25 machine at work? No, why because tonight for an hour, instead of doing stuff on my PC, I figured out how to get my SCSI card to stop crashing the computer and how to uninstall a tax package so I could reinstall it (gave up in the end and may have to rebuild, again).
At work we have about 1000 PCs and 12 Macs. The PCs run NT 4 and they all suck. There are exactly 12 happy people at any one time on computers. People are using their serial Zip disks and watching the bar move for 10 minutes while they transfer 50 Meg files. They look at a USB flash drive likes its from Mars. Whenever I even dare to "bitch" about speed of computers I get screamed at. I love it that when we decide to get a new Mac, we have all of 3 choices, good, better and best not obsolete, slow and barely useable that we get for PCs... We are only ordering new macs now because people love the OS, hardware and software once they see it next to the competition.
The best part, our IT dept dont get Macs at all so they leave us alone...
My 2c worth
EDIT: When it comes, it'll probably hopelessly lag behind the performance of that moment's Pentiums and AMDs. Darn, I love my iMac, but it's no comparison to some of my friends' PCs, concerning speed. Their respective speeds really are miles apart. Will the PPC970 really bend that situation to our advantage? I don't dare to think so. Not anymore. Damn MacNet article!
I am writing this on an AMD 2400+ PC running XP. Is it faster than my dual 1.25 machine at work? No, why because tonight for an hour, instead of doing stuff on my PC, I figured out how to get my SCSI card to stop crashing the computer and how to uninstall a tax package so I could reinstall it (gave up in the end and may have to rebuild, again).
At work we have about 1000 PCs and 12 Macs. The PCs run NT 4 and they all suck. There are exactly 12 happy people at any one time on computers. People are using their serial Zip disks and watching the bar move for 10 minutes while they transfer 50 Meg files. They look at a USB flash drive likes its from Mars. Whenever I even dare to "bitch" about speed of computers I get screamed at. I love it that when we decide to get a new Mac, we have all of 3 choices, good, better and best not obsolete, slow and barely useable that we get for PCs... We are only ordering new macs now because people love the OS, hardware and software once they see it next to the competition.
The best part, our IT dept dont get Macs at all so they leave us alone...
My 2c worth
Re: Re: AltiVec
Actually, there have to be at least 4 spatial dimensions plus the time dimension. Space is curved as can be seen clearly by the bending of light rays coming from distant stars. That curve has to occur in a different spatial dimension than the 3 we experience with our senses. As for string theory, most of my physics friends use unix boxes. They haven't gotten the Mac bug yet.
Originally posted by Snowy_River
Okay, I'm getting confused. We live in a 3+1 dimensional universe (as far as we can tell, no string theorists please - oh wait, they don't like Macs...
98...
Actually, there have to be at least 4 spatial dimensions plus the time dimension. Space is curved as can be seen clearly by the bending of light rays coming from distant stars. That curve has to occur in a different spatial dimension than the 3 we experience with our senses. As for string theory, most of my physics friends use unix boxes. They haven't gotten the Mac bug yet.
Re: Re: Re: AltiVec
I don't think so...it may seem this way but the fact that we can represent the bending of light using relativistic 4-vectors shows that all you need is 3 spatial and 1 time. If 4 were necessary, 4 would have been made when the results from these experiments were seen.
I don't think so...it may seem this way but the fact that we can represent the bending of light using relativistic 4-vectors shows that all you need is 3 spatial and 1 time. If 4 were necessary, 4 would have been made when the results from these experiments were seen.
Re: Re: AltiVec
Unlike you, I actually know string theorists and they like Macs. Real scientists like to get their work done, not futz around with computers. As for the term velocity, there is really only one relevant dimension in computation, the line between the beginning and end of the job. In that respect, velocity would denote the rate at which you are moving forward or backward. Since your computer task can't move backward even on a Windows machine, speed is the more appropriate term.Originally posted by Snowy_River
Okay, I'm getting confused. We live in a 3+1 dimensional universe (as far as we can tell, no string theorists please - oh wait, they don't like Macs...
98...
Ohhh, blah, blah, blah, BLAHHHH
who cares what this bitter on Apple maroon has to say?
John Manzione is a big, fat idiot.
Speed...
In some tasks, PCs are indeed faster. However in normal use, my Athlon XP 2.2 (266 bus) is (a) four times faster at Distributed Folding, (b) twice as fast at Internet Explorer, and (c) the same speed at GoLive and Photoshop...as my blue and white G3-upgraded-to-G4, at 400 MHz. The B&W is from 1998...so I wonder how a dual 1 GHz machine would fare.
To be fair (fare), my PC cost as much as a blue and white G3 plus a G4 upgrade. But it requires a lot more maintenance.
At least peripherals are the same price now for Macs and PCs, remember when you had to pay $100 more for printers and scanners and stuff? But I do wish the computers were closer to parity, I also remember when a Mac and PC were close in price. With the cheapest tower at $1,600 I can't buy a new Mac. When the 970 comes out, MAYBE. Or maybe I'll try to grab a used dual-G4.
In some tasks, PCs are indeed faster. However in normal use, my Athlon XP 2.2 (266 bus) is (a) four times faster at Distributed Folding, (b) twice as fast at Internet Explorer, and (c) the same speed at GoLive and Photoshop...as my blue and white G3-upgraded-to-G4, at 400 MHz. The B&W is from 1998...so I wonder how a dual 1 GHz machine would fare.
To be fair (fare), my PC cost as much as a blue and white G3 plus a G4 upgrade. But it requires a lot more maintenance.
At least peripherals are the same price now for Macs and PCs, remember when you had to pay $100 more for printers and scanners and stuff? But I do wish the computers were closer to parity, I also remember when a Mac and PC were close in price. With the cheapest tower at $1,600 I can't buy a new Mac. When the 970 comes out, MAYBE. Or maybe I'll try to grab a used dual-G4.
Re: Re: Re: AltiVec
Excuse me, but how do you know who I know and who I don't?
The fact of the matter is that there are a couple of string theorist in our physics department, and I've met several others when they've come through and given colloquia. None of them have been Mac users. None of them have been Windows users, either. All of them have been Linux users, and are proud of it, based on what conversations I've had with them on the topic. Those that I did talk to were fairly quick to put down both Mac and Windows operating systems.
That you know string theorists that like Macs is great. I had never even heard of one, and certainly never met one, despite the fairly large number of string theorists I've met, before now.
As far as real scientists liking to get work done (i.e. liking Macs), I couldn't agree more. That why I like my Mac.
84...
Excuse me, but how do you know who I know and who I don't?
The fact of the matter is that there are a couple of string theorist in our physics department, and I've met several others when they've come through and given colloquia. None of them have been Mac users. None of them have been Windows users, either. All of them have been Linux users, and are proud of it, based on what conversations I've had with them on the topic. Those that I did talk to were fairly quick to put down both Mac and Windows operating systems.
That you know string theorists that like Macs is great. I had never even heard of one, and certainly never met one, despite the fairly large number of string theorists I've met, before now.
As far as real scientists liking to get work done (i.e. liking Macs), I couldn't agree more. That why I like my Mac.
84...