Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Is Buyer of New 64-Bit IBM Chips

Posted by Hemos on from the makin'-the-move-with-powerpc dept.

ohmygod2 wrote to us with a story from SF Gate that Apple, unsurprisingly, is going to be one of the purchasers of IBM's PowerPC 970. At this time, though, it's unclear where Apple is going to actually *use* said chip.Update: 10/14 15:53 GMT by H : Follow-up to Tim's story.

9 of 401 comments (clear)

  1. Good news roundup by mgaiman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Google News of course has pretty much all the acticles. They are all based upon the same IBM press release, but many make slightly different predictions.

  2. Re:+1 insightful by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Both the Power4 and Itanium are tremendously powerful processors. See this page, ironically intending to promote the Itanium2 (which is a tremendously powerful chip), to see how a 1.3Ghz Power4 compares with a P4.

  3. Another Source for information.... by BlameFate · · Score: 5, Informative
    Wired.com has this article:

    http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,55722,00.html

    This is being discussed all over (here, Ars, Macworld) but the Wired article takes a much more "done-deal" tone than any of the other commentary I have seen yet. It suggests the possibility of Macs with 4TB of ram too :-)

    --

    --is not to be confused with user #672982 - Bame Flait

  4. Wait... by aengblom · · Score: 5, Informative
    But wait...

    Slashdot:
    "Apple: Apple Is Buyer of New 64-Bit IBM Chips"
    SF Gate:
    "Apple, IBM and Motorola declined to comment on the switch, which has been rumored as the processors in Macintosh computers have trailed Windows-based counterparts in clock speed."
    Wake me when one of the companies comments please. They will, but be patient before yelling CONFIRMED!

    Thanks

    --


    So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
  5. Re:How does this relate to the G5? by gerardrj · · Score: 5, Informative

    The 'G5' will be whatever chip Apple slaps on their next 'big' processor upgrade. The G3, G4, G5 designations have nothing to do with the chips themselves or their model numbers. They're just spin that Apple uses to compete with the Pentium 3, Pentium 4, etc lineup. Apple could decide to throw AMD Hammers in their next generation systems and would still call the chip the 'G5'.
    Ignorant consumers are unlikely to percieve any performace improvements in models unless there is some underlying technology that gets a new name or a new version number. It's like model years in cars, the 2002 has a higher number than the 2001 model, so it MUST be better, and people drool over it.

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  6. Re:Typical Intel PR blather... by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 5, Informative
    oh-by-the-way here's our specs for ATA/66 and USB 2.0 (for which the detailed specs hadn't been finalized, and which didn't start hitting mainstream systems until some 2 years later).

    Disclaimer: I used to work for Intel's server motherboard division. I don't think I'm biased, but wanted to get that out of the way.


    1. USB 2.0 still isn't in 'mainstream' systems. I'd give it another 6 months.
    2. It has been more than two years since FireWire came out. The first FireWire Mac was the 'Blue and White' G3 in January 1999, and FireWire cards were an option even before that.
    3. Intel is a member of the IEEE1394 working group, and early in FireWire's life, Intel supported it, only to distance themselves when USB 2.0 was announced.
    4. Intel has Intel-branded motherboards with FireWire onboard.
    5. ATA/66 has nothing to do with FireWire or USB at all... Intel doesn't even dictate ATA standards, although I'm sure they have a lot of clout. (Heck, Maxtor got their 'FastDrives', a.k.a. ATA/133 accepted by the ATA standards board, against Intel's objections...)
    --
    Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
    The purpose of that site was not known.
  7. Should compete with Pentium 4. Even at 1.8GHz. by wazzzup · · Score: 5, Informative

    Despite the fact that the PPC 970 will be introduced at 1.8 GHz while the P4 is expected to be around 3GHz, the 970 will execute 8 instructions per cycle. I can't recall how many instructions per cycle the P4 executes but I believe it is far fewer than 8. Of the handful of articles I read about it, somebody said that the 970 would effectivly compete with a 4-6 GHz P4 as a result of the instructions per cycle efficiency of the chip.

    Plus, it's gotta run cooler than a 6GHz P4 would. As a laptop owner, ignoring the superior performance potential of this chip, the cooling and power requirements alone would make me choose a 970 architecture over a Pentium.

  8. Re:How does this relate to the G5? by pi+radians · · Score: 5, Informative

    The fabled G5 is the next generation chip from Motorola, Apple's current supplier of G3 and G4 chips.

    Sorry, but you're wrong. IBM currently supplies Apple with the G3s (for the iBook). Motorola only supplies Apple with the G4s.

    The Gn style of naming is Apple's doing. Motorola and IBM use names like PPC 750 or PPC 7440.

    If Apple uses this chip in their future you can bet it will be called G5s (if they decide to keep with that naming convention).

    --

    sin(6cos(r)+5A)
  9. from the horse's mouth by Hadlock · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2002/1014_powerpc. html

    --
    moox. for a new generation.