Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

The PowerPC 980 Roadmap

Are you sure because as far as I can see AMD 64 is still using PR ratings meaning it has lower clockspeed but can compete at that rating.

Also AMD 64 is just a licensed MIPS 64 architecture from it's RISC processors that are currently in SGI machines.
AMD is great but if not for the MIPS 64 license they would not be competing now with Intel. Intel on the other hand makes everything in-house.
 
All right!!!

PowerBook G5 = <yawn>

PowerBook G6 = Rocks!!!


(but since I may be waiting a few days, maybe I'll upgrade from my Ti to an Al) ; )
 
A G6 in the middle next yr would be great because it could be used in only Pro user line and then consumer computers can then get the G5. Because like someone already stated they can not do it now due to the fact it would compete directly with the PM's.

a 90nm 970 also pretty much says G5 PB or does it? If the 980 comes out in 90nm form why not then just use them in the PB's and send the G5's to the ibooks which then could compete more so with the dell and gateway craptops.
 
Apple will use the latest and greatest processor it can for its Pro line.

Apple will not want to repeat the G4 adventure again - i.e., an image of a slow and outdated processor.

The 980 is the way to go - G6 is its Pro line, with suitable processor speeds to keep consumers happy. G5s will be the consumer line.

I wouldn't be happy to see the G5s being milked for a year in the Pro line, when there is the G6 available and waiting. It doesn't make sense. Apple have competition and have to keep up with processor speeds.

Apple are out to make and sell computers, they need the fastest processors they have in their machines - especially the Pro lines.
 
Originally posted by yoman
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.
Click to expand...

Okay, for one thing Intel is speculating, I guess so are we with the 970/980. I'd like to shut the yaps of the MHz mhthsters on the peecee side as the next guy. A bigger point is Intel's honcho was referring not to a 64 bit chip but a 32 bit one, so who cares? If we get more 64 bit coding including Apple's next OS next year and have a dual 3.0, we'd still smoke their 4.0 GHz chip, even if they had two of them.
 
I believe that that the confirmed 90NM 970 with PowerTune is for the next generation Powerbooks and iMacs. Apple needs to move beyond the Pentium-M and quickly if it is to maintain its pricing justification against the Pentium-M. The iBook needs to move into the current Powerbooks performance area and be comparable to the Pentium-M's.

The iMac needs to move to the G5 as well and the 90NM 970 would be right for it and its cooling needs.

When Apple moves to the 980, they can then have a clear differentiation between their consumer, SMB and professional lines.

I see an iMac G5, a single processor headless G5 and a dual processor G5/G6 as Apple's key mac desktop product lines. With the eMac for education and low-end sales.
 
Originally posted by Photorun
Okay, for one thing Intel is speculating, I guess so are we with the 970/980. I'd like to shut the yaps of the MHz mhthsters on the peecee side as the next guy. A bigger point is Intel's honcho was referring not to a 64 bit chip but a 32 bit one, so who cares? If we get more 64 bit coding including Apple's next OS next year and have a dual 3.0, we'd still smoke their 4.0 GHz chip, even if they had two of them.
Click to expand...

I like the idea of smoking Intel. It brings warm feelings to my heart. :D
 
Originally posted by ITR 81
Also AMD 64 is just a licensed MIPS 64 architecture from it's RISC processors that are currently in SGI machines.
AMD is great but if not for the MIPS 64 license they would not be competing now with Intel. Intel on the other hand makes everything in-house.
Click to expand...

AMD has been making very good RISC cores since long before they got into the ia32 ISA compatible game (though hardly anyone seems to remember). The AMD64 ISA has no relation to MIPS64 ISA that I can see; I think you are mixing and matching a bit. AMD cores tend to be extremely efficient, often more so than the RISC cores they compete against (realizing that the AMD cores are RISC, and always have been). AMD64 cores are among the most efficient general purpose cores currently in production and they have a lot of room to grow. Intel, on the other hand, has a lot of problems with their core designs.

The AMD cores are very well engineered and are also somewhat more "general purpose" in design than PPC cores, which tend to have an emphasis on numerical codes that makes them less optimal for many tasks than the AMD core. AMD will have no problem keeping up with IBM, both in terms of clock-per-clock and absolute performance for the foreseeable future, and may lead a bit. Intel is in trouble though. Their core isn't remotely as good as AMDs, and they are having trouble making it scale.

The battles in the future will be between AMD64 and PPC. Intel will be a sideshow.
 
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
this reminds me so much of g3 and g4 when they came out.
Click to expand...

Without a doubt--There hasn't been so much buzz & excitement in the Mac community since the early days of the g3 and g4. Everything seemed so promising back then...

I hope that the road of the G5 does not lead to the eventual stagnation and disappointment that the G4 did. In a sense, though, the G5 is more like the G3, in that it "ushered in a new era." In that case, I hope that the G6 doesn't stagnate...Or the G7, or the G8, or the G9, or the GX (pronounced 'ten'!).
 
Originally posted by tortoise
AMD has been making very good RISC cores since long before they got into the ia32 ISA compatible game (though hardly anyone seems to remember). The AMD64 ISA has no relation to MIPS64 ISA that I can see; I think you are mixing and matching a bit. AMD cores tend to be extremely efficient, often more so than the RISC cores they compete against (realizing that the AMD cores are RISC, and always have been). AMD64 cores are among the most efficient general purpose cores currently in production and they have a lot of room to grow. Intel, on the other hand, has a lot of problems with their core designs.

The AMD cores are very well engineered and are also somewhat more "general purpose" in design than PPC cores, which tend to have an emphasis on numerical codes that makes them less optimal for many tasks than the AMD core. AMD will have no problem keeping up with IBM, both in terms of clock-per-clock and absolute performance for the foreseeable future, and may lead a bit. Intel is in trouble though. Their core isn't remotely as good as AMDs, and they are having trouble making it scale.
Click to expand...

Nope I'm not mistaken AMD also licensed the MIPS 32 arch. from them as well. AMD got the license around 2 yrs ago. MIPS showed on there site back then AMD buying the license and AMD also showed a white paper at the time of how they were going to use the new technology license. AMDZone also covered it as well.

I know alot about AMD since I've watched and used them since there old K5 and K6 processors. I still have thunderbird around here somewhere. All of AMD's new 64 processors are based on technology license they bought from MIPS around 2 yrs ago. So I doubt you will be able to find similarities between the new AMD and MIPS because MIPS has change it arch. some since then.
 
We'll have G5 for a bit yet.

I don't see any reason why Apple won't market their top chip as a G5 for at least another year and a half. Remember the G3 went through a number of revisions (and even a case change) before being relegated to a consumer only chip. Now if that chip is a 970, 980, or some other derived chip is a moot point. There have been 5 major revisions of the G4 and even more than that of the G3. The G5 will likely still be used as a marketing moniker in 3 or 4 years time, and certainly won't be referencing a 970.

I would expect the 970 and at least two of the revisions after that to be called G5. But who knows what else will come along during that time :D .
 
Instead of calling the 980 the G6, so quickley after they introduced the G5 they should calling it the G5 Extreme.

:D :D :D
 
Originally posted by lind0834
Instead of calling the 980 the G6, so quickley after they introduced the G5 they should calling it the G5 Extreme.

:D :D :D
Click to expand...

UGH! No extreme anything please... unless it's "Michael Dell and Bill Gates experienced an extreme and painful death followed by an extreme plummet of their respective companies from the face of the Earth."
 
Apple may also want to change the name because of all the bad publicity it drew in the UK with the G5 campaign.
 
All these posts about Apple "milking" the G5 are ridiculous.

Apple didn't invest hardly anything in the G5. Sure some posters here and stuff, but really small potatoes in the grand scheme.

It's not like as if they invested in a brand name that they would be tossing away. I think most people would understand G6>G5 rather than thinking, "I know what the G5 was, but G6...gee, I don't know".

Apple did do some investment into the PowerMac G5 design, but it could be changed over to a PowerMac G6 design fairly easily. Remember the switch from a B&W G3 to a PowerMac G4 was mostly the processor and a few minor design tweaks.

The basic design of the PP601 based PowerMac 7100 was tweaked for the 7500 but then kept basically the same for the 7200, 7300, 7600 and the desktop G3.

Of course the G4 branded processor represented several significant changes such that Apple could've (should've) branded it as a G5 at several points but waited for the major change in case and processor for the G5.

I'd really like to see a BIGGER case for the G6. One of the reasons why I've kept my Dual 1.42 is because I like having 4 internal hard drives and two internal DVD burners. If the G6 was just a little taller than the G5, it could accommodate the extra drives. This would be an easy way to distinguish the design between the two without developing a whole new case.

Also contrary to what some have posted, Apple will (and should) always choose to provide faster and better hardware for people to upgrade to. If the upgrades are significant leaps, people will praise the advance.
 
Originally posted by ITR 81
Nope I'm not mistaken AMD also licensed the MIPS 32 arch. from them as well. AMD got the license around 2 yrs ago. MIPS showed on there site back then AMD buying the license and AMD also showed a white paper at the time of how they were going to use the new technology license. AMDZone also covered it as well.
Click to expand...

Actually, you ARE mistaken. While they licensed the MIPS ISAs (not core designs), it was for their other processor lines and unrelated to their desktop computer business. AMD has been making high-performance embedded RISC CPUs for far longer than they have been dabbling in the x86 market, and for a number of different popular ISAs and some original ones (like the AMD 29k RISC processors). High performance embedded systems CPUs based on other ISAs is still a major line of business for them. MIPS32 and MIPS64 are popular embedded target ISAs, and licensing those ISAs supports their embedded CPU business.

Their earlier x86 processors were an IA32 ISA on an AMD core. The Opteron (and related) are an AMD64 ISA on an AMD core, with support for the IA32 ISA. There is no MIPS technology in their consumer CPU line. AMD has a lot of experience designing cores and designing ISAs, with the added experience of making many different popular ISAs run on their cores. AMD CPU cores have a long history that predates their x86 offerings and which were designed by AMD. The only thing special about the AMD64 is that this may be the first time they have marketed their own ISA design since the 29k-series of embedded processors.

You may have K5, a K6, an Opteron, and whatnot. But they all use the x86 (or derivative) ISAs, so they obviously can't be using a MIPS ISA. They make chips with the MIPS ISA, but the aren't for the consumer market and they don't run x86 by definition. It seems that you are confused as to the terminology. An ISA is not a processor design.
 
The G4 is dead please let it rest in peace. The G5 is good now but will be just okay by next August. The 980 will most likely be branded as a G6 and start in the tower. The G5 will rapidly trickle down into the PB and consumer line. Apple will probably keep G5s and G6s around for a while while IBM makes some improvements to both.

The Fishkill plant was built with the plan to produce processors at 130nm, 90nm, and 65nm. IBM has stated that intial tests for 65nm are going well and that 90nm will be ready for full production very soon. IBM has a strong financial incentive to move the process down to 65nm as soon as possible. I believe that both the 970 and 980 will eventually reach 65nm. That means that the clock speeds for both chips can continue to increase and the G5 should have no trouble replacing the G4 in the consumer line.
 
Originally posted by ICEBERG
Is this mean they will change the new Style of the machines? I like the idea of the new G6 and a new Style of the Towers.:cool:
Click to expand...

A new case style would be nice. A 3rd hard drive bay would be great. I like the idea of giving the outside of the case a semi-heatsink look to it with tiny vertical fins. Sort of a corduroy aluminum texture.
 
They can't release a G6, I don't even have a G4 yet! :(

Actually, I'm planning to get one in about a week. And my copy of Panther arrived yesterday, so that'll keep me happy for a while :)

But I'm sure you're more interested in the 980 than what I've got here at home.
 
Let me say it so we can beat it out of ourselves before it gets too big...

The G7 will be Intel based. :p

Ok, now that we have all the Intel fans covered, lets talk Mac.

I personally think it's a waste to call it a G6, but I think that seeing a 970 hit 3ghz is a very real possability right now.

I have to go now guys, my pants are soilded from my excitement! :D
 
Originally posted by ITR 81
A G6 in the middle next yr would be great because it could be used in only Pro user line and then consumer computers can then get the G5. Because like someone already stated they can not do it now due to the fact it would compete directly with the PM's.

a 90nm 970 also pretty much says G5 PB or does it? If the 980 comes out in 90nm form why not then just use them in the PB's and send the G5's to the ibooks which then could compete more so with the dell and gateway craptops.
Click to expand...


O'h if this were true. Happy Dance. And I expect all of the above except the G5 ibook. Me'Thinks Gobi, or something else, due to the melted plastic smell.
 
:yawn:

Wake me up when they get a Better name like...

The G-006

To lead up to the G-007!

Mwhahaha.

;)

Processor improvements are good.

Faster Bus?
Faster Clock speed?

Ohh yeah!!

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back