Slashdot Mirror


Apple Is Buyer of New 64-Bit IBM Chips

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.

14 of 401 comments (clear)

  1. my favorite line by linuxpng · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Critics -- notably Intel -- argue that most desktop users have no need for 64-bit processing.

    then to be redundant, Intel should face up to the fact that most users have no need for 2.8 Ghz processors.

  2. Re:Apple becomming much larger... by garcia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    sure they could but it is unlikely that masses of people are going to move to the 64bit platform. Apple still lacks the software base that MS has (unfortunatly I suppose) and the hardware will be out of the price range that most people will be looking to spend (I just purchased a second PC for $500 including monitor, I have no desire to pay as much as the PPC platform will cost).

    Dreams in this case will most likely remain just that (no matter how bad I want them to come true :)

    Just my worthless .02

  3. Re:Power 4, here we come by LeapingGnomeArs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The 970 is a derivative of the Power 4 chip (with what I assume to be the Altivec extensions) Altivec is just the Motorola marketing name for a set of SIMD extensions, Apple markets it under the name "Velocity Engine". IBM's chip will supposedly contain similar extensions to take advantage of the same thing, Apple could simply just swap them and still retain the Velocity Engine moniker. BTW, from what I read, OSX's underpinnings were designed with 64bit in mind, doesn't sound like it would be too big of a development job to convert over.

  4. Still not confirmation! by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay, actually read the stories. "According to industry sources..." is what it says. Nowhere is there confirmation from Apple or IBM that Apple has comitted to purchasing them. This is not new, this is just the same news as the last story, only centered on one specific rumor, instead of the main story.

    As soon as Apple or IBM officially states that Apple has committed to purchasing these processors, don't title the story 'Apple is Buyer...' since we still aren't sure.

    Yeah, I'll admit, I've been expecting it since IBM announced the chip, and I fully expect that Apple will be the main customer. BUT, my belief (or the belief of any 'industry source', without hard proof) doesn't make it a fact.

    I'm not asking that you not to rumormonger on it, I'm just asking that it not be presented as fact when it is still just rumor.

    (Bah, and now I've forfietted three of my moderator points by posting in a thread I moderated in... :-( It just got me pissed off when I finally noticed that there still isn't any proof.)

    --
    Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
    The purpose of that site was not known.
  5. Re:good this processor is excellent by Genady · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ummm no, actually PowerPC is a subset of POWER, not an extention. PowerPC code would run on a POWER, not nessessarily vice versa.

    --


    What if it is just turtles all the way down?
  6. Arg? by mistermoonlight · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "In its marketing, Apple has stressed the megahertz and gigahertz is not necessarily indicative of a machine's performance. Still, the fastest Motorola processor for the Mac, the G4, runs at 1.25 gigahertz; Intel Corp.'s fastest Pentium 4 chip runs at 2.8 gigahertz."


    It's like he never even thought about what he wrote. Someone conveys the thought that marketing hype may be costing you money, but let's ignore that and perpetuate the marketing hype.


    On the other hand, the "Megahertz Myth" is marketing hype aimed at opposed marketing hype, so who really cares what either Apple or Intel offer as the "fastest"?


    My PowerBook G3 runs just fine, my Pentium III runs just fine. If you need the power, go for it, but if you don't, go refurbished.

    Just my opinion.

  7. Re:Well... by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they put it into one of those sexy Titanium Powerbooks, they got themselves a convert. Woot! I would love to be able to afford one

    More likely they will start in the Xserve. The server crowd is much more likely to be able to use 64-bit and much more likely to be able to afford the new chip.

  8. altivec repurcussions? by nocomment · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm wondering though.
    I remember part of the reason apple went with motorla G4's was for the altivec engine. Back when Motorala and IBM split they forked the powerpc chip (the then G3), when this happened the definition for the chips changed slightly.
    Motorola's definition of the G4 was a faster chip with the altivec engine. This is what allows for superfast processing during high floating point calculations (similar to MMX only phatter). This was also the part Apple was talking about when they used to advertise "twice as fast as pentium pc" because during those moments of super-intense number crunching, they were. IBM's definition of the G4 was a chip made with copper, shorter pipelines things like that. How is the switch to an IBM chip going to affect altivec? Since it's motorola technology I think it's safe to assume it won't be on the IBM chip. Will the IBM chip suffer at all during those slowdowns? Or will the extra 32 bit data path, in conjunction with copper, etc... be more than enough to make up the difference?

    --
    /* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
    /* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */
  9. Need? by RatBastard · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Critics -- notably Intel -- argue that most desktop users have no need for 64-bit processing

    And IBM said no one needed the power of the 80386. Then Compaq released their 386 monster and IBM stopped mattering in the PC world.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    1. Re:Need? by dutky · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The difference is that we have had plenty of 64 bit processors aimed at the lower end and they just don't work. It is too expensive to bring in 64 bits from RAM to cache when the average variable has less than 8 significant bits. Hence the packed words of VLIW Itanium.

      Back when my job description included developing code for the Alpha and the Pentium, just paging in the larger 64 bit code killed the speed advantage of the Alpha chip.


      What a load of bullshit!

      First, what's this crap about 64-bit processors not working? There are plenty of MIPS, Alpha, Sparc and PowerPC based 64-bit systems that work just fine. Aren't the current crop of Nintendo game consoles powered by a 64-bit MIPS? How much more low-end do you need to go?

      Second, what's this crap about most variables having less than 8 significant bits? Most variables have a minimum of 8 significant bits. The average length of a character string is in the 8-12 byte range (64-96 bits!) and integers and pointers are all (at least) 32-bits wide in modern systems (Windows, MacOS, and all unices).

      Third, what's this crap about it being "too expensive" to transfer 64-bits of data in from RAM? All modern processors have 64-bit wide data busses and transfer data in 4-beat blocks (meaning 4*64-bits, or 256-bits at a time). This is true for the Pentium as well, at least since the Pentium II!

      Finally, what's this crap about "paging in 64 bit code"? Just because Alpha (or Sparc, MIPS, or PowerPC) have 64-bit wide data registers doesn't make the code any bigger! Both the 32-bit and 64-bit variants of Sparc, MIPS, PowerPC and PA-RISC use the same size instruction words (32-bits), so there is no difference in code size.

      Whatever your job description might have said, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

  10. Re:How does this relate to the G5? by mrnick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The people that are spouting about the G5 being Motorola have forgotten or never realized that the G3 is an IBM chip. Apple could call this G5 or anything else they wanted.

    --

    Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
  11. Intel didn't believe in the 8008 either. by crovira · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And IBM didn't see a world-wide demand for more than a dozen mainframes.

    By the time you factor in biometric security, voice recognition and Christ's own gaming engines, VR generation, desk-top video editing and so on, 64 bits gets chewed up pretty fast even if you offload some processing to custom chips (and anyway who wants to build boxen with more ASICs that cost more money?)

    64-=bitrs on the desktop? In five years it may be the majority of new box builds are 64-bits and 32-bit will be for poor for folks stuck on Windows without a migration path.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  12. Re:Should compete with Pentium 4. Even at 1.8GHz. by Lord+Ender · · Score: 3, Insightful

    " 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."

    The IBM processors are RISC processors. The Intel ones are CISC. RISC do less per instruction, therefore, it is stupid compare the way you do.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  13. Re:urr by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Sometime in the future...

    Headline: Apple employees seen putting new IBM chips into new computer cases
    It is still unclear whether Apple is going to sell these computers, or switch to Intel at the last second for no good reason.

    Give it up people! Apple is stuck with PowerPC chips whether they like it or not. What are they going to do, release OS X for Intel and realize suddenly that there are *no* applications or drivers available for it? It would take a while for the application base to build up again, and some older applications would never be recompiled. Then would new applications continue to be released both in Intel and PowerPC versions? If there's something Apple cannot afford, it is to lose market share due to a messy transition.

    --
    main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}