these are my thoughts exactly. with the 980 this close to production, makes me wonder why they brought the 970 out at all. we were all used to waiting around with motorolla anyway
edit: 970 for imac maybe once the 980 is out
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.
The PowerPC 980 Roadmap
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
these are my thoughts exactly. with the 980 this close to production, makes me wonder why they brought the 970 out at all. we were all used to waiting around with motorolla anyway
edit: 970 for imac maybe once the 980 is out
there's also this, which i just saw on macminute:
so there's that..
but back OT, all these advances sound great; i just hope apple will quickly filter the G5 down the product line. they may be able to compete in speed at the high end, but they need to expand that.
I agree with what you said. I'm no chip expert, but it seems to me that the G4 and the Power4 have been around for the same amount of time, roughly.
The G5 performance is simply where the G4 performance SHOULD be.
We all knew/know the G4 was a better chip than the P3/P4, but only as far as the chip itself goes. The architecture on which the G4 resides was the crap holding back the chip.
I have a feeling that the G6 chip is really gonna smoke.
daveL:
dongmin:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/34108.html
Other than that, I think it makes a lot more sense for IBM to use the 970 design a while, since its not really outclassed yet. It seems reasonable for them to develop the "980" at a slower pace and launch it in 2005.
I might be missing something, but all I saw was rumors.
dongmin:
Well the Register has an article today that sounds pretty confident that IBM will discuss a 90nm G5 at a conference in February.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/34108.html
Other than that, I think it makes a lot more sense for IBM to use the 970 design a while, since its not really outclassed yet. It seems reasonable for them to develop the "980" at a slower pace and launch it in 2005.
I don't believe that Apple would roll out a "G6" for at least two years. The "G" series marketing campaigns are not just about the core chip, but an entire system architecture, and Apple needs to milk the G5 for a while... not in the least in order to recoup the development costs.
90nm 970 is happening.
IBM has said so
https://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031113110834.shtml
arn
IBM has said so
https://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031113110834.shtml
arn
gwuMACaddict:
Hold on a sec, as the "980" been confirmed, cause I've been under the impression that so far its just nothing but a lot of rumors. Sure IBM has something coming after the 970, but as far as I know they have provided no names, no dates, no details... nothing.
I just read at
http://www.macminute.com/
That intel is planning to hit 4Ghz in 2004. I wonder if IBM will be able to catch up.
I can't believe Intel is now going to make a 64-bit processor right after they said it was an "unecessary" technology. That's such crap. And now since Apple and AMD are selling well, Intel's going to make one.
I hope Intel is smoked next year by the 980.
I hope Intel is smoked next year by the 980.
A lesson in History!
This is the same story with the G3 and G4. In 1998 I was waiting for the G4 but it never came... So in 1999 I bought a G3 and a half year later, the first G4 came out. The G3 should have been on 500 Mhz by then, but was only at 400/450 max. The G4 should have started at 500 mhz, but started at 450 and went for a brief period to even 400 (to much problems with the 450). The G3 is still alive and kicking and can go theoretically to 1500 Mhz (production at this moment 1100 Mhz). The G4 should have stopped at 1000 Mhz and the G5 should have been available then, in 2001! Or at least, this was Moto's (road)plan.
And you know what...history repeats! Tommorrow a new lesson, now my children, do your homework and study chapters 1 and 2!
This is the same story with the G3 and G4. In 1998 I was waiting for the G4 but it never came... So in 1999 I bought a G3 and a half year later, the first G4 came out. The G3 should have been on 500 Mhz by then, but was only at 400/450 max. The G4 should have started at 500 mhz, but started at 450 and went for a brief period to even 400 (to much problems with the 450). The G3 is still alive and kicking and can go theoretically to 1500 Mhz (production at this moment 1100 Mhz). The G4 should have stopped at 1000 Mhz and the G5 should have been available then, in 2001! Or at least, this was Moto's (road)plan.
And you know what...history repeats! Tommorrow a new lesson, now my children, do your homework and study chapters 1 and 2!
I think that they WILL roll out the G6 within the year. This is because the G4 has been around for quite some time now, and with IBM as their primary partnet now, Apple has the resources to speed up their advancement in chip technology. Therefore, the G5 will soon replace the "consumer" portion of Apple's product line (such as the eMac and iMac), leaving the G4 for the iBook, and introducing the G6 as the Pro user chip, with the PowerMac and the PowerBook...and hopefully, they will introduce new hardware, maybe using a low end G6 or entering the "consumer" line with a high end G5....maybe the target market of the G4 Cube, but this time being more successful with a lower price point
I think that "fast roadmap"...quickly going from the G5 to G6 is a good thing. It keeps Apple in the news, and shows people that the age of minor speed bumps, ala Motorola, are a thing of the past, and that Apple can definitely keep up with, if not surpass X86 (which of course, WE all know they can...convincing the Intel/AMD/MS faithful is the hard part).
Keep up the good work Apple/IBM !!
Keep up the good work Apple/IBM !!
The 90nm 970 will more then likely end up in the iMac and PB's.
Apple has in the past change the name based on the fact the processor changes along with it. This also means the MB will change as well and probably the ram included.
AMD and Intel will have to shoot for 4GHz by yr end or Apple will catch up by 2005 at cited development rate. They do not want to compete head to head with IBM and Apple for sales because if they do they will start to lose market share.
The 980 is based on the Power5. IBM already has stop gap processor coming out named the Power5+ which is suppose to hold folks over until the Power6 comes out which is being designed now.
Apple will not slow down..if anything they may try to speed things up because I know Jobs wants to eat into the PC market if at all possible.
If the 980 can goto the 5GHz speed then it would suggest the
Power5+ could push to 6 to 7GHz range.
About at 7GHz the Power6 could then come into play taken it from 7GHz on up to probably 10GHz.
If IBM can put out 3 speed boost's a yr that is great!! But to really put it to Intel and AMD they need 4 speed boost's a yr.
Apple has in the past change the name based on the fact the processor changes along with it. This also means the MB will change as well and probably the ram included.
AMD and Intel will have to shoot for 4GHz by yr end or Apple will catch up by 2005 at cited development rate. They do not want to compete head to head with IBM and Apple for sales because if they do they will start to lose market share.
The 980 is based on the Power5. IBM already has stop gap processor coming out named the Power5+ which is suppose to hold folks over until the Power6 comes out which is being designed now.
Apple will not slow down..if anything they may try to speed things up because I know Jobs wants to eat into the PC market if at all possible.
If the 980 can goto the 5GHz speed then it would suggest the
Power5+ could push to 6 to 7GHz range.
About at 7GHz the Power6 could then come into play taken it from 7GHz on up to probably 10GHz.
If IBM can put out 3 speed boost's a yr that is great!! But to really put it to Intel and AMD they need 4 speed boost's a yr.
The death of Intel has been greatly exaggerated
Nope.....
http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-5110034.html?tag=nefd_top
I personally am more interested in seeing what AMD rolls out. Intel's desktop line sucks monkey dung. Their laptop CPU line is another matter.
At any rate its good to see not only some fresh blood in the PowerMac line but theres some actual circulation there as well. Unlike Moto who was DOA. Call it. Time of death for Moto: June 23, 2003 1PM EST
Nope.....
http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-5110034.html?tag=nefd_top
I personally am more interested in seeing what AMD rolls out. Intel's desktop line sucks monkey dung. Their laptop CPU line is another matter.
At any rate its good to see not only some fresh blood in the PowerMac line but theres some actual circulation there as well. Unlike Moto who was DOA. Call it. Time of death for Moto: June 23, 2003 1PM EST
on second thought....
I suppose it is possible that the new 980 chip would not be dubbed as a G6....this is simply because time after time again, rumors said that each new itteration of the G4 would be called a G5, because there were significant advances over the previous one, and "now is when the G5 will come to light." But it never did, until IBM took over and Motorola got the boot (thank god). But anyhow, here's hopping that the G6 will be here next year, and it will blow the pants off of the G5 like the G5 did the G4
I suppose it is possible that the new 980 chip would not be dubbed as a G6....this is simply because time after time again, rumors said that each new itteration of the G4 would be called a G5, because there were significant advances over the previous one, and "now is when the G5 will come to light." But it never did, until IBM took over and Motorola got the boot (thank god). But anyhow, here's hopping that the G6 will be here next year, and it will blow the pants off of the G5 like the G5 did the G4
G5 or G6? Also, Ars Technica article
I personally don't think Apple will go to a G6 brand name this quick in the game. They have invested too much marketing money into promoting the G5 brand already and it would leave current power users that just bought their dual 2.0's feeling like they have the short end of the stick.
As far as the 980/Power5 goes though, I think there's a good chance we could also gain multiple cores on it. The Power5 has dual cores, so a dual processor Power5 actually appears to the OS as if it were a quad processor machine. I read this article at Ars Technica today and he speculates on this:
You can read the entire article here: http://arstechnica.com/cpu/003/mpf-2003/mpf-2003-1.html
I personally don't think Apple will go to a G6 brand name this quick in the game. They have invested too much marketing money into promoting the G5 brand already and it would leave current power users that just bought their dual 2.0's feeling like they have the short end of the stick.
As far as the 980/Power5 goes though, I think there's a good chance we could also gain multiple cores on it. The Power5 has dual cores, so a dual processor Power5 actually appears to the OS as if it were a quad processor machine. I read this article at Ars Technica today and he speculates on this:
You can read the entire article here: http://arstechnica.com/cpu/003/mpf-2003/mpf-2003-1.html
Good idea, I'm waiting too.
A G6 this soon is not likely for Apple. Wasn't the G4 out for a couple of years before the G5?
I will probably purchase my next computer (Mac, of course) once the Rev. B PowerBook G5 gets released in a 12" or maybe 15" format. I love my 12", but I needs to run cooler, have DV out, and have a lighted keyboard.
12" PowerBook G5.....[[shiver]].
anyone hear anything about a speed bump from moto? are we going to see another revision of g4 powerbooks before mwsf04?
i think apple will stick with moto for now, as they need low power chips for ibooks, which just got the G4.
mebbe the new spunoff moto will intro the '7460' 1.8 Ghz G4.. that way, the ibook can compete with the Pentium M 1.8
i think apple will stick with moto for now, as they need low power chips for ibooks, which just got the G4.
mebbe the new spunoff moto will intro the '7460' 1.8 Ghz G4.. that way, the ibook can compete with the Pentium M 1.8
Oh, and what if Apple doesn't release the G6 until we get to 990? That's always a possibility, they could milk the G5 for all it's worth.
that is a pretty clever idea. if they do that, they will not have to make the proformance of the iMac and emac suffer, the was they did when using the G4 in the powerline, and consumer line. this way they could have g5 imacs, at 2.5 ghz, and powermacs with g6, and like 3.2 or whatever, instead of using the same chip for high and low end, making cut backs to lthe low end, so that the high end doesn't lose sells. for example currently they cannot upgrade the imac to g5, because it wil compete to much with the powermac, but leaving it with a g4, all it is competing with is some crappy dell with a celereon, and even that is "ify" given that intel has the celeron at 2.5 ghz now, and as much of a mac obsessed person i am, i do not believe that a 1.25 ghz imac, could compete with a 2.5 ghz celeron, which the average person will see as faster, and about 1000+ cheaper...
aethier
(sorry for poor spelling)
The next chip that Apple will use is the Power 980. There, I said it. This sudden rush of MacRumors posting on the 980 seems to only confirm that the chips after the 970's will be 980's for the Mac. I still think the 980 will be branded G5 until there's something more significant than Power 9x0's, IMHO.
But remember Moto was same processor with just slight speed tweaks.
It would be awsome if Apple could get it's processors within 500MHz of Intel and AMD processors because then they would be in direct competition with the PC market. If they can match or surpass the Intel or AMD processors I expect alot folks switching over because at that point speed would no longer be a reason to say a PC is better then a Mac.
It would be awsome if Apple could get it's processors within 500MHz of Intel and AMD processors because then they would be in direct competition with the PC market. If they can match or surpass the Intel or AMD processors I expect alot folks switching over because at that point speed would no longer be a reason to say a PC is better then a Mac.
Re: on second thought....
Other than speed there were never significant advances from one G4 to another. Cache doesn't count either, companies change the cache sizes between revisions all the time.
But, say you are adding a second AltiVec unit...or a 3rd, or doubling the pipelines. Now you have a new processor. Development tools must be re-engineered to take advantage of new optimizations. You can't say optimized for G5 revision 2. Thats when a processor name changes.
Other than speed there were never significant advances from one G4 to another. Cache doesn't count either, companies change the cache sizes between revisions all the time.
But, say you are adding a second AltiVec unit...or a 3rd, or doubling the pipelines. Now you have a new processor. Development tools must be re-engineered to take advantage of new optimizations. You can't say optimized for G5 revision 2. Thats when a processor name changes.
