Slashdot Mirror
PPC 970 Confirmed for Apple?
batboy78 writes "In what perhaps is the first 'official' confirmation that IBM's PowerPC 970's will be used by Apple, BusinessWeek claims that IBM has confirmed that it's developing a new set of chips for the Mac: 'IBM says the new Apple chip will be of the 64-bit variety, which means it can process twice as much information per cycle as existing 32-bit chips.'" CT The article has been updated to make the confirmation seem... well, far less comfirming.
Didn't Apple claim that to be 128-bit? Or Am I sorely mistaken, once again. FP.
-Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
PPC Confirmed for Apple -> New Mac Confirmed for KoopaTroopa
Sharpies don't just sniff themselves.
Apple sales guys must hate this kind of press.
IBM says the new Apple chip will be of the 64-bit variety, which means it can process twice as much information per cycle as existing 32-bit chips.
Argh! Head... going... to... explode...
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
Did I miss the part of the article where it said that IBM confirmed making PPC chips for Apple? I don't see a press release or any other real evidence. This is just an article about some guys speculation as to what is happening.
Ok.. I wish people would get this through thier heads. A 64 bit chip is _NOT_ inherently faster than a 32 bit chip. It is able to address more memory space and perform greater precision calculations faster. If you are just working with lots and lots of 32 bit numbers you will see some speed improvement but not close to double. Once you are into the realm of 33 bit and higher numbers which are done with mathematical trickery on 32bit processors, you will see a huge speed increase when working with a 64 bit processor.
Also, the increased memory ceiling helps.
*note: yes, I know this is not technically correct, but I'm not explaining how 32bit and 64bit processors handle thier operations. Maybe someone can reply with that.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
I hear this "64-bit is TWICE as fast as 32-bit" stuff all the time. I don't think it's true though. As far as I know, almost all PCs use at least a 64-bit memory bus already. I thought the real advantage to having a 64-bit processor was the increased address space and that things that do calculate numbers over 32-bits will be easier to handle (ever notice how there are all sorts of 32-bit limits on PC internals, like disk addressing and 2GB file sizes that need to get worked around?).
I want to hear from the computer scientists and electrical engineers out there, we know the 64-bit chips will be faster, but is it JUST because they've got 64-bit goodness, or is it because they're just newer and of 'fresher' designs?
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
http://www.macrumors.com
Had a link to the same article.
I mean come on now how many people are really surprised?
The question is... to buy stock now or wait?
I wish I had bought before the music thing, as that stock is going to go up as the 970s will sell really well I'm sure.
Whats everyone else's thoughts on the Apple Stock?
Before anyone takes issue with the following quote:
">>>IBM says the new Apple chip will be of the 64-bit variety, which means it can process twice as much information per cycle as existing 32-bit chips.
He didn't say twice as fast... he said that it could process twice as much information per clock cycle... he is correct with that statement.
I thought it was powers of two?
32bit = 2^32 = 4Gigs memory space
64bit = 2^64 = alot more than 8gigs
This would mean that it is far greater than twice as much information.
I could be WAY wrong since I suck at math.
Here a Sig There a Sig Everywhere a Sig Sig...
Does that mean my G3 isn't a supercomputer anymore?
From the article:
Although Apple won't talk about it, IBM is developing a new set of chips that Apple will likely use to replace theaging Motorola processors used in its G4 line.
How is this "official confirmation"?
I didn't read anywhere in the article that IBM confirmed Apple will be using PPC970.
Is this new news?
mr.
I think you're alluding to the problem Apple had in delivering the 500MHz G4 several years back. I really don't think the situation is in any way similar to the situation at that time. IBM is doing better now than it did for most of the 90s, when Motorola couldn't deliver the 500MHz G4s they were doing about as bad as they could be. The health of Apple's suppliers directly relates to the health of Apple.
I don't think you can point out a product released in the past five years they haven't delivered on. I'd really like for you attempt it however.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
If IBM is officially releasing this information these machines should be out soon.. As apple is probably not going to sell a lot of G4s now..
For those of us who have been thinking about purchasing an Apple for a little while now, this is just one more reason to do so. I've been trying to resist the urge, but once these systems come out, I'm sure they'll be too good to resist. For someone who used to hate Apple with a passion and mock all Apple users, that's a huge step :-)
Five Dolla Moddy-Moddy?
the article does NOT confirm the 970 chip, only that "Although Apple (AAPL ) won't talk about it, IBM (IBM ) is developing a new set of chips that Apple will likely use to replace theaging Motorola processors used in its G4 line."
Chances are the chips are a g5, but for the record the 970 is never mentioned.
If you get an error, type "OVERRIDE" or "SECURITY OVERRIDE" and then try the optimize command again.
OK, let's review. First off, this is not the regular "Byte of the Apple" columnist. Second, if I had a comment like that in my back pocket, I'd make damn sure that readers knew where I got it, who said it (if possible) and get as much detail as I could. This sounds too offhand to be authentic, and, really, the comment doesn't necessarily indicate that IBM will be building chips for the Apple. The author could simply be referring to a comment made at the Microprocessor Forum--where IBM and Moto executives deliberately avoid the A-word.
What we've got is not a smoking gun, but a shadowy silhouette of an unknown object that might be a gun and seems to be emitting some sort of vapor. If Business Week had something definite, this would be a news story and not something buried in a column.
(Pardon the troll: why does Business Week actually have a dedicated Apple columnist, anyway? They cover business: why not a column on Ford, or Charles Schwab, or Genentech? hell, it's not like it paid off for them--Apple gave the iMac story to Time.)
The article doesn't actually say that IBM has confirmed its new chip is for the Mac. This is just one pundit's opinions.
You must have been asleep for most of the 90s when the PPC was kicking x86 butt.
"Apple will never be ahead of the PC platform in terms of speed" [ roll eyes ]
/me wonders why IBM was hiring people to write drivers for the 64bit p-series architecture...
Dammit... should have taken job... But a bit confused at the time =P
That seems like a dumb thing to say to me. Remember that apple were the first to market with a usable home computer. Slow vs non existent? Score one to apple. Although they may be behind at the moment, it doesn't mean that in the future it won't happen. And in closing, virtually all the apps for mac are now available for OS X, and it can't have been 2 years ago that it came out.
Can we please limit the Apple ads to the banner? Thank you. The Opteron (which exists, and which is a relatively high-volume CPU) has had less coverage on /. than this PPC970 vaporware which, even if it's adopted by 100% of Mac users, still represents only about 2% of the market. This is free (or perhaps not so free) advertising. This is not stuff that matters.
The Earth is Round & Microsoft is Evil!
Film at 11...
Here is what the article actually says:
"Although Apple (AAPL ) won't talk about it, IBM (IBM ) is developing a new set of chips that Apple will likely use to replace the aging Motorola processors used in its G4 line."
TO REPEAT: "...CHIPS THAT APPLE WILL LIKELY USE..."
In other words, THIS IS JUST MORE FACT-FREE SPECULATION.
It's easy to make up & spread cool- and credible-sounding stuff. Finding & checking hard facts is hard work.
The past has shown this to be untrue. Apple held the CPU speed crown with the G3s when they first came out. Motorola has been screwing Apple for dropping the clones (and cost Moto big $$$), and because there is no incentive in their embedded market for fast FSB. Mark my words! This is just the beginning. IBM has the most advance fabs in the world. And they just made a deal with AMD to share process techniques. The POWER 5 (and its PPC 980 derivitive) are a hell of a lot closer then you think. Oh, you want benchmarks? http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date= 2003-05-05#5440
This article is the fluffiest piece of fluff ever to fluff the internet.
The only tidbit of info is that the article claims that IBM confirmed the chip was made for Apple. Other then that it's all fluff.
No news, you've read it all before if you know anything about it, then you already know this. 64-bits does not equals twice the computing power, PPCs do not divide up tasks in parallel better then intel chips, nor are better suited for multimedia.
Also, I doubt that this chip will even put the mac platform far enough on top to warrent more then a meh from current PC users. Intel is already ahead in bandwidth again, and unless the 970 scales into at least 2.5 ghz, intel's chips will be faster.
Not to say that it won't help the ailing macs. The G4 is much too slow by todays standards to warrent the cost. They are useful in laptops because of their low power consumption, but other then that not so great.
Also, he has no information about when or if Quark will come out. And even if it came out today, most shops wouldn't switch right away unless it was faster then the current version on the new hardware.
PPC970 Benchmarks
Quite impressive, I'm eager to see them in action.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
Oh, you want benchmarks? http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date= 2003-05-05#5440
Those aren't even real!
I was more intrigued by the "1.8 GHZ per second" claim.
1.8 Billion instructions per second per second. It's about time that somebody made an accelerating chip - way to go, IBM!
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
With the Itanium it was very much a newer and 'fresher' design. AMD's 40h-bit extensions. They are adding a few more registers, which will help, but not much. If anything wiring more address pins may slow things down, but that would be minor. Overall it's really a matter of using the move as an excuse to switch things around and make everything faster.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
I'd bet money you won't see the PowerPC 970 in anything other than the PowerMac at least at first.
PowerMac = Highest Performer, iMac = Mid teir and eMac = cheapy.
PowerPC 970 isn't going to be a laptop PC unless you want to cook eggs. Can't see that nice chip being in a book just now.
(Speaking as a recent Powerbook 12" Owner too)
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
My 800Mhz G4 "Supercomputer" takes more than a minute to bring up Photoshop Elements on my 512MB iMac. I bought an iMac because I knew it wouldn't break my wallet (leaving cash for a G5 I figured would be available two years later). On the other hand.. Oh! Photoshop came up. Gotta go...
But come on! We all know that bandwidth scales with clock speed! And clock speed is a true and unfailing measure of a computer's performance.
You haven't been listening to your marketing department, have you? ;)
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Jeez... did any one read the article? it is just repeating the rumor. It does NOT say that IBM is confiming its making the chip for macs. go back to work and clean the jism off your screen.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Will apple users have to purchase all new software (again..ala OS X) to get a speed increase? Also, will the processor run in native or emulation 32bit mode?
The G4 really was a supercomputer at launch... but only by the letter of the law. The G4, capable of over 1GFlop, came in north of the Federal definition of a Supercomputer (in relation to the export of arms). So.. you couldn't ship the Macs to any 'enemy' country like Libya... or even to France... at least not right after they were released.
;-) A dual 2.5 GHz machine would be capable of up to 40GFlops (max theoretical) by Apple's calculations. ;-) hehe.
The US Govt. quickly revised the rules. I believe supercomputers are just north of 50GFlops now.... so Apple could get real close again with an SMP 970... if you go by Altivec performance again.
I'm not feeling witty so bite me
Quick everybody dump Intel and AMD stock! Their 64bit roadmaps demonstrate that they're pushing useless processors.
64 bits are coming and Apple's wise decision years ago to go to PPC mean that today it has the easiest roadmap. Itanium requires lots of rewritten software code (not just recompiled) and a lot of people think AMD's solution won't last too long. In contrast, The Power ISA has always allowed 32bit code to run on 64bit processors with little speed penalty. You *can* recompile your application code but the only program that *has* to do it is the Operating System, and even then not all of it has to be recompiled.
Apple's product roadmap seems to involve tighter and tighter coordination with IBM and their Power Series which serve many large Fortune 1000 businesses and are likely to continue to do so with 64 bit Power (and now PPC) technology.
Any 8th grader will tell you that 64!=(2*32)63!, not (2*32).
My other sig is extremely clever...
I don't see anything in the article which cites any sources more reliable than, say, /.
As much as I am a devoted Machead, sometimes the Byte of the Apple columns lay it on a little too thick and syruppy. Objective journalism, anyone? When Windbloze columns use the same style of reporting, I get upset. However, the author is reiterating for a broader audience the same thing that we on /. are all certain will happen anyways: the PPC 970 is targetted to be shipped in Power Macs by the end of summer.
Well, all of us except maybe the diehards who are certain that this PPC 970 stuff is all a ruse, and Steve Jobs secretly wants to use the AMD X86-64 instead.
"Smart is sexy." -- D. Scully ("War of the Coprophages")
subject says it all.
And, really, an incorrect edit should be familiar around here.
The quote that is getting so much attention:
IBM says the new Apple chip will be of the 64-bit variety, which means it can process twice as much information per cycle as existing 32-bit chips.
What it should have said:
IBM says the new chip, which rumors say Apple will use, will be of the 64-bit variety, which means it can process twice as much information per cycle as existing 32-bit chips.
Makes a lot more sense this way, doesn't it? Well, aside from having too many commas in one sentence...
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
Since I can't edit my own post, I'll just reply to myself.
As said elsewhere, this actually has no facts in it whatsoever. Not even the tidbit about the 970.
Gee, I'm also using a 12" PowerBook, and AOL!
Dropping the clone thing was only the latest in a long line of things that pissed off Motorola. I was unfortunatly in the middle of several of these while I was with SPS and again ( with the clone thing) when I was with MPC. What a nightmare. Apple never was a big enough revenue generator to justify the grief they caused. When they started demanding things that would gepardize the imbeded market, Motorola probably told them to get bent. I sure would have. What is hurting Motorola right now has nothing to do with Apple. It is that George Fisher and his idiot cronies read and BusinessWeek, etc, and follow its advice. Motorola is a perfect example of what happens to a company that is micro-managed by a boar of director who are more interested in stock performance then buisness performance. I also worked for Agilent. It is dieing from the same illness, except Agilent has a MS VP on its board that is trying to make over the company to benifit MS. That is why Agilent has layed off almost all of its UNIX expertice. Bitter? Naw, I'm not bitter.
Those benchmarks are widely believed to be fake. Among other problems, Bryce doesn't support multiprocessing, so the alleged speedup on the dual 1.8 machine is extremely unlikely.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Does anybody really even care about Quark anymore? At the firm I work for no one uses Quark and no one really did. Even for brochures, newseltters, etc. Illustrator is used for everything. We have one copy that is not even currently installed (well it might actually be on all the computers) that we keep for those rare instances when we end up with a Quark file to work on, but I have not actually heard of one person who is really waitng for Quark. For anything that we would have possibly used Quark for we've switched to InDesign which is quite capable and readily available for OS X. And even those people that are waiting for it, I hardly see Quark as being the thing that helps bring Apple's profits up. -peel
Just this year:
12" PowerBook
17" PowerBook
Dual 1.42 GHz PowerMac
Last year:
iMac
There are others.. it seems to be nearly 50% of Apple's products (not including iPod) are announced one month, and start shipping at least the following month, or even longer.
Then you have the other "fact" rumors, ala the G5...
The rumors game is fun, as long as you are not invested (emotionally or financially) in them.
The article now states: "IBM (IBM ) is developing a new set of chips that Apple could use to replace the aging Motorola processors used in its G4 line. (IBM did not confirm it was building a chip specifically for Apple, but it does say its new PowerPC chip will work on Apple platforms.)
The parentheticals, as well as the "Apple could use..." are new to me. The first time I read it, it sounded like a definite.
That's not funny, that's flamebait
Blah blah blah, this is in no way an 'official' confirmation. Yeah, we all "know" that Apple will be using the chip, but you're not going to get any kind of authoritative confirmation any time soon.
Just think about Apple for a minute, and you'll realize that the first 'official' confirmation will come straight out of Steve Jobs' mouth, while a giant projected image of a sleek new PowerMac comes up behind him, and everybody claps. That's just how Apple operates.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
As in, it'll be announced that Quark is available, but only on the new 64-bit power macs, driving the sales of both.
I can't remember the last time I read an article about Apple that didn't predict it's doom.. and now they're suddenly talking about 'The Summer of Mac'. Excellent :)
:).
I don't own a Mac yet, but I've been playing with the thought of buying an iBook.. ever since MacOS X I've started to take a liking to Apple (like 90% of the non-Apple-owning-but-Unix-savvy Slashdot crowd
1.8 GHz/sec. Let's see now ... heat production is a function of frequency ... assuming the power supply is designed to keep up with a machine uptime of at least a few days (very conservative design) ... then THE WORLD IS GOING TO EXPLODE INTO A CLOUD OF GAS FROM THE HEAT!!!!
Anyone know enough physics to calculate how long it would take a 1.8 GHz/sec. chip to destroy the world?
-- Holy Heat-sinking Hellfire, Batman!!
According to the people who did the benchmarks they where done using a beta of Bryce which does support multiprocessing.
I ordered the last OS9 booting G4 because I need a new computer now, not next week or next month. I need OS9 booting for QuarkXPress and for OS9 multitrack audio applications that I use.
If a rumour about new computers is putting you off buying you probably don't need a new computer anyway. If you make money with it who cares what's in the pipeline? If you need a new machine and it's going to make you money you buy it.
I'll worry about buying a Mac with a 970 processor when it's actually shipping and the software I use has been rewritten to take advantage of 64 bit processors.
"Clean up the air and treat the animals fair" - Captain Beefheart
Sorry I said WILL never, not HAVE never. And not in all cases.
So, if I understand this correctly, the reason OS X is currently limited to 32-bit audio (theoretically; in practice 24-bit has only recently become standard) is because current chips are limited to 32-bit addressing?
:)
Does a 64-bit bus automatically imply that audio can now be processed at 64-bit resolution, or is audio handled entirely differently, with no relation to pipeline width?
Sorry about the n00b question, I'm not really firm on the implications of processor design - but curious.
Here is the Apple advertising blurb on audio in OS X, btw.
It only mentions 24-bit (at 96kHz), but I'm pretty sure I've read that the system can theoretically scale to 32 bits.
-spheric*
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/05/20030521131 738.shtml
c'mon - at least you could paraphrase it yourself!
I don't even know where to start with this one. The bit length has more to do with the operand length than the instruction length. And absolutely zero, zip, nada to do with how many instructions can be executed at once. The other respondents have pretty much got the rest covered.
Hz=1/s
Hz per second == 1/s/s == 1
So we have have a clockless 1.8 Giga CPU -- Cool!
There are others.. it seems to be nearly 50% of Apple's products (not including iPod) are announced one month, and start shipping at least the following month, or even longer.
People will always find something to complain about. If Apple didn't announce in advance, people would bitch that the PowerBook they just bought is obsolete and be pissed about that instead when the new ones come out.
The original Firewire (IEEE1394) would've been a much stronger interface platform had Apple introduced it throughout the entire product platform from its inception. But Apple took 2 years to get Firewire on all Macs from the PowerMac line down to the iMacs. That was a big mistake. Apple saved the USB standard by introducing it on all Macs when the iMac debuted. Now we have Macs that have chipsets capable of USB 2.0 (because the chips cost the same whether they are USB 1.1 or 2.0) but Apple is not advertising this or natively supporting it because of it weakening the need for Firewire (400, iLink, IEEE1394a, etc.). But if Joe Blow wants a decent scanner for a new computer purchase and doesn't want to spend $400 for a Canon Firewire based scanner, he/she/it has to settle for USB 1.1 speeds (without software driver hacks) on a new $100 USB 2.0 enabled scanner. If anything, Apple should have iPods with Firewire800 support on them to further their advantage over all the other MP3 players (yes yes, iTunes store monopoly). It would also make sense for Apple to use internal Firewire connections for the CD/DVD/Superdrives instead of relying on the ATA standard. Apple now has a great operating system, but it really needs to polish its hardware to attract more geeks with cash to switch platforms. The Apple platform holds so much promise!
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
If Apple would upgrade its graphics card to something more professional rather than a consumber ATI card to something much more powerful to take processing away from the chip to the card then it could help its graphic benchmarks. The article 2 days ago on Slashdot about the new video cards was very interesting about their ability to do more than process graphics. The General processors on most chips are not that great for graphics. Since apple uses simd so much then why not use a some affordable chip and a KILLER Graphics Card that can handle some of the math too. just a thought.
The MacRumors article has been updated with the following:
Update: The article has been edited with the following correction/retraction:
"IBM did not confirm it was building a chip specifically for Apple, but it does say its new PowerPC
chip will work on Apple platforms"
Not exactly a "Never Mind" but the air of mystery continues.
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Hz per second == 1/s/s == 1/s^2
So, we therefore have a chip that accelerates by 1.8e9 cycles per second.
Remember your calc I and physics? Repeat after me: "The derivative of position with respect to time is velocity, and the derivative of velocity with respect to time is acceleration."
Same damn effect.
In the past every Apple article would have at least one thread about Apple's one button mouse and some reply about how this makes Apple's even better since their OS is simpler.
Now really people, where is the good old fashoned slashdot apple/Windows argument?
yiesh.
A Beowulf Cluster of These
The 'desktop' variant of the chip dissipates 19W at 1.2GHz, which is not out of the realms of possibility for a laptop (many Intel laptop chips dissipate more than this) and the 1.2V version is expected to make do with only 13W. It is entirely possible that the PowerBooks will move to this chip quickly, and the iBook will start to use G4s.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
From the article:
"IBM did not confirm it was building a chip specifically for Apple, but it does say its new PowerPC chip will work on Apple platforms."
So IBM has confirmed that the new chip will work in Apple Machines, something they heretofore had not said.
can I find PowerPC 970 tech docs?
I realize IBM is making hardware for apple and that has very little to do with their software, but could IBM be attemptting to use the Mac as an enterprise platform? All of their stuff is written for Linux, which would port easily to BSD, and apple had by far the best opportunity to take out Microsoft in the Desktop space. Could IBM be attempting to Bring Apple to the Enterprise?
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
...not "Colon Blow."
In other words, it was posted on /.
I'm sorry, was your post supposed to contain any information?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The article doesn't confirm that IBM is developing the chips for Apple or anything such.
The closest it gets to that is saying that the chips it IS developing would work on the Apple platform.
That is a far cry from IBM confirming development of chip for next generation of Macs.
I looked it up. Google is your friend.
I don't believe a word the article says as it doesn't put the requisite "beleagured" before "Apple Computer".
While Apple has always charged a premium for its products. Quite understandably too since its the only way to pay for support, R&D, OS design, etc.
However, Apple has not really lowered the cost of the chips to match their "age". The G4s are almost the same price - per CPU - as they were when they first came out to market several years ago. The bleeding edge Intel and AMD processors start @ about $500 - $600 and drop to almost half in 6 months. New bus speeds, memory, etc come out ever year or so. Apple - with still inflated costs - has DDR 266 Ram and a 200 Mhz FSB.
With new processors coming out this year, I might forsee and be able to budget a new computer - which I plan on buying anyways - next summer with a Power 4 in it. I'm on an Windows/FreeBSD box right now but OSX is too appealing. Any OSX lag should be gone. Yea!
Which is a really weird one to use since most people have never seen an Olympic sized swimming pool except on TV.
When's the last time you saw a Volkswagon?
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
Buy low. Sell high.
If you are prepared to gamble on the new chip, buy now. Apple stock has already made gains with the music thing, and if the 970 delivers as expected, you can expect to make gains.
OTOH, $18 is still pretty high compared to some other players, and you could do far better far quicker with other securities. Sun (also has new chip technology coming) RedHat, and others are good to look at.
If you want to make money, look for the gain, not the absolute value. Eg IBM may be safe and worth lots, but percentage-wise you'll probably do better buying some $10 stock and timing things right.
To answer you're question however, buy now.
You need to lay down your crack pipe. I got my 12" Powerbook a few weeks, from an Apple Store no less, after they were announced. The first couple rounds of web orders began arriving that week as well. The BTO orders obviously took longer to deliver because of a customs issue with the AirPort Extreme cards out of Taiwan. I wouldn't call that failing to deliver, BTO items always have a variable delivery date. The 17" Powerbooks have been out for a while now and delivered when they were supposed to have been delivered. The 1.42GHz PowerMacs also delivered on time. In fact most companies make announcements for products that they will be delivering months after the announcement date. This benefits Apple more than it detriments them in a majority of cases.
The PowerBooks and PowerMac are hardly rumors. I don't think that word means what you think it means. As for the G5, Apple's never made a G5 announcement ever. The only talk of the G5 has come from industry press rags commenting on Motorola's slide shows. Apple "failing to deliver" the G5 is as ridiculous as Ford failing to deliver flying cars. If you want to bitch about something pick something from the realm of reality, not your imagination.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
I'm a bit worried about the lack of 64 bit applications. Converting an application to run well on a 64 bit CPU is no small task I suspect, so Mac users might have to deal with sub-G4 performance with 32 bit software for quite a while as software developers scramble to advance.
I wonder how the Athlon64's (aka "Clawhammer") 32 bit performance will compare to the PPC970. With x86-64 extensions I'd expect it to be significantly faster, though I wouldn't be surprised if its 64 bit performance was slower.
How do you handle overflows? There are modes that trigger roll over, and there are cases when you don't care. If you add two 32 bit numbers at the same time, the result of one, can and will affect the result of the other. What about bit shifting and such? You can't exactly bit shift two 32 bit numbers at the same time, using the logic you describe.
Next, the article cites the "timing". Assuming these chips haven't been sampled yet, Apple has no chance to get these things out in time to compete with Athlon 64. Users are already doing the things he lists as high-performance tasks, and have been doing it on PowerMacs for some time (let alone Wintel PCs, though arguably it is easier to edit down your home movies onto DVDs using a mac, based on the included software.) Also, digital music is not at all a processor-intensive task; Digital recording can be if you're worried about being realtime, which I assume most people are. Realtime digital audio manipulation (though not synthesis) is generally CPU-intensive, but most people won't be doing this. Video is about a zillion times more intensive, and people are doing it NOW, but he cites "digital photography and digital music" as the reasons people need CPU? PLEASE.
As for "WATCH OUT, SUN" -- Sun is in no danger whatsoever from Apple. It's in far more danger from AMD, and in even more trouble than that since it's under fire from itanic, which is about to get another revision, right? Ultrasparc processors simply don't have the go-get'em any more, the only advantage of Sun machines is that they have the "big iron" systems and an OS to run on them. As itanic systems become more multiprocessor, Sun will be in more trouble. As Opteron/Sledgehammer systems become more multiprocessor (I believe 32 processor systems have been announced?) then Sun will be in even more trouble because of the price-performance ratio. I CAN see a day when Sun will stop making Ultrasparc-based workstations, but it won't be because of Apple.
As for a 64 bit chip processing twice as much data per cycle, you still have to do loads and stores, and Apple has traditionally had the slowest-of-class memory and system bus. I understand the new processor has a 400MHz DDR (800MHz equivalent) bus, so perhaps Apple will match it with DDR400 SDRAM, and then it will do them some good.
I guess the Quark upgrade for MacOSX could push some shops to upgrade, but can't they run Quark for MacOS9 on MacOSX just fine? Unless there are meaningful new features on the new version... Which seems unlikely.
Face it, this chip will not "breathe new life" into Apple. It will only allow it to keep fighting the "good fight" against other platforms which are going or have gone 64 bit.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I am sorry, I guess I missed the Apple announcement regarding the 970...
Apples machines are the most productivest.
When I switched to using Dvorak, many years ago, I printed out the Key Caps showing where the layout, and left the physical keys alone.
Just another way of being a better touch typist. I don't actually have to look at the keys...
Have you actually called Apple and asked what they'll charge you for a few key-caps? That'd be step no. one for me...
I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there. -- Richard Feynman
You *can* recompile your application code but the only program that *has* to do it is the Operating System
But you will have to recompile/rewrite all of your Windows and x86 code in general.
1.8billion instr/sec/sec =
(1.8billion instr/sec)/(sec/1) =
1.8billion instr/sec * 1/sec =
1.8billion instr/sec^2
But jeez, it's a basic high-school level concept. :\
Well that makes it definite in Apple land - a retraction's been made.
..k
The Mothership
I have had some thoughts on this.
: :0)-Jes
On Mac.
And how it is going to take the world by storm - both the desktop and the Enterprise.
Feel free to browse my random musings here and let me know what you think
http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=aJester
I would imagine that with a brand new chip that the binaries would not be compatible. Does this mean that ports of existing software has to be created to run on this new platform? If so, what about the people with G4s will they be out in the cold when new software is created?
Nick Powers
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
Ok, here's my question. Why does everyone spend so much time comparing PPC to x86? Ok, so I'm a recent switcher, I purchased a 12' PB. I love it. So it only has a 867 MHz G4, its way fast enough for 90% of what I do with it. So I hear this new PPC 970 is on its way. GREAT! Anything faster then what I have now is better. Right? I have a mac, I'm not trying to run Windows on it. If OS X and the software I run on it work fine, then I'm happy. All I'm getting at is that faster processors for Apple is a good thing. Just because they are not as fast as the x86 flavor doesn't bother me.
If IBM were to license OS X, things would get interesting, wouldn't they? Both Apple and IBM would clean up.
After the barbequed sausage incident, I think people will be wary before they cook their eggs too!
You're making up an Apple announcement regarding the 970. Apple's said nothing about the processor. Like Motorola's G5 the only words being tossed about regarding the processor are from industry rags.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
yu dumb head - quark did not take so long cause OSX aint ready for a professional page layout program yet. remember they dont have cooltype so they gotta wait till apple get their font shit together and their print drivers.
Quark would be stupid to release yet - they should wait - they have a conservative market and need to be rock solid when released - no repeat of version 4 please.
First, the issue about how IBM said that the chips would work with Apple's platform. I doubt they said that, because they won't work with Apple's "platform" in that they aren't pin-compatible with the existing PowerPC offerings. At least so I presume, since going 64 bit generally means a wider data bus and a wider address bus. I guess I could be wrong about this part. :P If you mean, the instruction set is compatible, I'm not sure I'd believe that either, but I'm willing to reserve judgement until I look at the user's manual for the new processor.
They didn't put that very well. I'm pretty sure that they wanted to say that Apple can use the 970 in a new Mac which will work with existing software. You wouldn't have that with x86 processors. Not that I believe that IBM has said anything to Businessweek, the story is lacking hard data and reeks of rumormonging to increase page-views (succesful with the help of slashdot).
Assuming these chips haven't been sampled yet, Apple has no chance to get these things out in time to compete with Athlon 64.
IBM's original roadmap was sampling in 2Q03 with production in 2H03. So they should be sampling already. IBM is known to be very conservative in its estimates, so we might see full production very soon. I've heard rumors that things are going well at IBM.
Video is about a zillion times more intensive, and people are doing it NOW, but he cites "digital photography and digital music" as the reasons people need CPU? PLEASE.
I'm not an expert on digital audio, but I do know that photoshop artist are always looking for more speed. Complex operations on 100+MB images still take too long. The same might be true for sound editing.
As for "WATCH OUT, SUN" -- Sun is in no danger whatsoever from Apple.
A 1U XServe 970 will certainly compete with Suns low end. The current XServe is already doing fairly well in that market and a fast 64 bit offering will only do better. x86-64 is a bigger threat to Sun, but a new XServe will probably be another nail in their coffin.
I understand the new processor has a 400MHz DDR (800MHz equivalent) bus, so perhaps Apple will match it with DDR400 SDRAM, and then it will do them some good.
The bus is half the speed of the CPU, the announced high-end chip (1.8 Ghz) will have a 900Mhz (equivalent) bus.
Face it, this chip will not "breathe new life" into Apple. It will only allow it to keep fighting the "good fight" against other platforms which are going or have gone 64 bit.
This chip will address Apple's main weakness, a (very) slow CPU (and bus + RAM, but those are all tied to the CPU). There are many, many people waiting for faster PowerMacs, I forsee an enormous sales surge. As for "breathing new life" into Apple, they have done so already. The enormous succes of the iPod and the iTunes Music Store is changing them into much more than 'just' a computer company.
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
you ring?
One of the major advantages of the 970 *IS* the reasonable watts. From what I have read (as much as I can find) the 970 delivers more power per heat than anything else out there.
/. quoting that fact. Its not hard to find that info. While the 970 is designed from the ground up for SMP, its performance as a single cpu has EXCEEDED expectations, from all stories I have read.
I found dozens and dozens of articles referenced here on
Since the laptop is the most profitable, and fastest growing segment in computing, I can easily see them putting the 970 into a laptop as soon as reasonably possible, as a desktop replacement. Personally, I can't wait to buy a non-Apple 970 4x smp box to run Linux on. Or maybe apple will be the first with a dual cpu laptop (wishful thinking). THAT would get me to pull out the wallet.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
From the link:
"Ever wondered why your new iBook (16MB VRAM) can't display an extended desktop on an external screen even though it has a Radeon chip that does support this feature?
Well, for some reason Apple decided to lock this function."
This kind of crap was what turned me off to "think[ing] Apple".
This is the best thing apple has done,If it works like we really want it to
The memory bus IS 64-bit on most machines (including current Macs) but the ADDRESSING is handled in 32-bits (by a 32-bit CPU). Theoretically all you need to put 16GB RAM on a machine is more slots, but it would be pointless because the CPU and memory contoller would still only be addressing the memory with 32-bits, limiting you to 4GB total physical RAM.
I assure you, all PC SDRAMS -ARE- 64-bit wide memory devices, they're just being handled from above in a 32-bit world.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
In other words, advantage Apple and with it on the upswing a portion will rewrite for cross-platform and improve mac availability.
I'm not a Mac person, but IIRC, part of the problem has been Motorola lacking motivation to keep up. IBM has the motivation. It's all interconnected. More Apple desktops = less M$ desktops. That means a lot of good things. More people using Unix, who would be looking for Unix servers (Read IBM GNU/Linux servers), Java technolgies (Read Websphere), etc. Also, taking away a share of M$'s cash cow (the desktop) takes away from the cash they have to work on their other software packages.
Even if IBM doesn't make a profit on the chip directly, I think they'll play plenty of attention to it.
Side note for those of us who use GNU: Darwin will have to have support for this new chip. Darwin is open source. We can quickly port other kernels with that kind of documentation...
-T
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
FPS in quake iii. I wonder how many FPS would be a supercomputer? 500?
Nice of you to re-state my original post in fewer words. Thanks :-P
Here:p owerpc. html/ ppc970- 1.html
http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2002/1014_
and here:
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970
Quite informative. See you in 64-bit land. No affiliation to Disneyland. But you never know?
Although Apple won't talk about it, IBM is developing a new set of three-button mice that Apple will likely use to replace the aging one-button mice used in its Macintosh line.
lucklurst (or something of the sort) twice in a row!
God made the natural numbers; all else is the work of man - Kronecker
No, in other words not having to recompile many things is kinda moot for those of us not already running Apple hardware.
Even more so since both of the x86 sucessors can run existing 32-bit code, although much less efficiently in the case of ia64.
Apple doesn't sell "-est" machines. Not the fastest, not the thinnest, not the lightest, not the most durable, not the most reliable, not the longest battery life, not the cheapest -- they're not really the best at anything.
Apple sells the "lightest value laptop" -- according to none other than PC Magazine!
And of course they sell the "lightest full-featured notebook that burns DVDs."
And the "best looking" notebook, according to The Register.
And the "world's lightest full-featured notebook."
And the biggest display on a laptop.
Hmm... I've found quite a few "-est" attributes.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
> IBM says the new Apple chip will be of the 64-bit variety, which means it can process twice as much information per cycle as existing 32-bit chips.
He's highly qualified all right - a highly qualified MORON.