PPC 970 Confirmed for Apple?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by pudge on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @08:48AM from the i-want-one-in-my-ipod dept.

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.

31 of 379 comments (clear)

Stimulus / Response by KoopaTroopa · 2003-05-21 08:50 · Score: 2, Funny

PPC Confirmed for Apple -> New Mac Confirmed for KoopaTroopa

--
Sharpies don't just sniff themselves.
64bit by labratuk · 2003-05-21 08:51 · Score: 4, Funny

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.
1. Re:64bit by MyHair · 2003-05-21 09:00 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  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...
  Damn, I had my $8 all ready; What a disappointment to see that I was mislead.
2. Re:64bit by cpeterso · 2003-05-21 09:37 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  By the time Quark finally releases QuarkXPress for Mac OS X, Apple will have released the 64-bit Mac OS X on the PPC970.
  
  Q: How long will it take for Quark to make QuarkXPress' code 64-bit ready?
  
  A: Never.
  
  --
  cpeterso
So... by tinrobot · 2003-05-21 08:57 · Score: 4, Funny

Does that mean my G3 isn't a supercomputer anymore?
1. Re:So... by dbrutus · 2003-05-21 09:41 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  No, it just means that a supercomputer isn't as super as it used to be.
  
  We need a new standard of excellence.
  
  What would be the performance characteristics of a superdupercomputer in gigaflops?
2. Re:So... by Puu · 2003-05-22 00:02 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  "Ubercomputer"?
Re:64 != (2*32) by infinite9 · 2003-05-21 09:00 · Score: 4, Funny

Ok.. I wish people would get this through thier heads. A 64 bit chip is _NOT_ inherently faster than a 32 bit chip

Yeah, but how many libraries of congress can it fit in a volkswagen?

--
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
...in other news... by Tumbleweed · 2003-05-21 09:02 · Score: 1, Funny

The Earth is Round & Microsoft is Evil!

Film at 11...
Re:64 != (2*32) by Tumbleweed · 2003-05-21 09:10 · Score: 5, Funny

No, no, son, the standard is "on the head of a pin", not "in a Volkswagen"! :)

Volkswagens are units of measurements for sizes of asteroids that are about to impact Earth.

Other measurements in this system:

% of the width of a human hair
Length of a football field
Length of an Olympic-sized swimming pool
Equivalent # of bowls to 1 bowl of Colon Blow (or Super Colon Blow) cereal

And you thought _metric_ was cool... :)
1.8 GHz per second by tm2b · 2003-05-21 09:12 · Score: 5, Funny

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
1. Re:1.8 GHz per second by kalidasa · 2003-05-21 09:26 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Yeah, imagine what THAT would do for protein folding, SETI, and all those other number crunching projects.
2. Re:1.8 GHz per second by cK-Gunslinger · 2003-05-21 09:34 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  1.8 Billion instructions per second per second. It's about time that somebody made an accelerating chip - way to go, IBM
  Yes, now I can reach those 365-day+ uptimes in mere minutes! Either that or blue-screen before the login prompt ;)
3. Re:1.8 GHz per second by cachapa · 2003-05-21 09:52 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Actually that would be
  1.8 Billion instructions /sec/sec
  or 1.8 Billion instructions.
  
  Use them wisely ;)
4. Re:1.8 GHz per second by Vegan+Pagan · 2003-05-21 14:35 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  "1.8 Billion instructions per second per second. It's about time that somebody made an accelerating chip - way to go, IBM!"
  
  Unfortunately, they're only making one of this chip and selling off the clock cycles with distributed computing apps. So no 970 for us.
twice as much is twice as good! by siskbc · 2003-05-21 09:21 · Score: 2, Funny

Actually not really. It can process instructions that are twice as long as 32 bit per clock cycle.
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
Re:IBM DID NOT CONFIRM -Slashdot Story 100% Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 09:28 · Score: 1, Funny

Some people would call it slashdot product placement.
Re:64 != (2*32) by iomud · 2003-05-21 09:32 · Score: 2, Funny

You forgot rods to the hogshead.
Re:Confirmation? by Rosyna · 2003-05-21 09:44 · Score: 4, Funny

Confirmation could be the IBM logo stamped on the 601 PPC chip in the first power macs.
Re:64 != (2*32) by Dastardly · 2003-05-21 09:48 · Score: 2, Funny

Length of an Olympic-sized swimming pool

Which is a really weird one to use since most people have never seen an Olympic sized swimming pool except on TV. At least based on the number of people I hear say, "Is that an Olympic sized pool?" when walking up to a 25 yard pool.

Dastardly
Re:Now I'll wait to buy a Mac by DroppedPacket · 2003-05-21 10:08 · Score: 2, Funny

Please wash those hands before you return to serving those french fries. :-)

--
I am not a resource! I am a free man!
Nice tie in, quark and this 64 bit chip... by weave · 2003-05-21 10:09 · Score: 4, Funny

Maybe the new chip will be used to explain away why Quark took so long. Perhaps they skipped development for 32 bit OS X and concentrate on the 64 bit processor, etc, etc...
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 like this article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 10:14 · Score: 1, Funny

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 :).
A new Al-Qaeda Weapon? by mgh02114 · 2003-05-21 10:19 · Score: 2, Funny

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!!
I expect more from /. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 11:19 · Score: 1, Funny

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.
Re:Zilch by TheRaven64 · 2003-05-21 12:13 · Score: 1, Funny

Zero Content. No News here.
In other words, it was posted on /.
I'm sorry, was your post supposed to contain any information?

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
no-longer beleagured? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 12:17 · Score: 2, Funny

I don't believe a word the article says as it doesn't put the requisite "beleagured" before "Apple Computer".
Most Productivest by macmurph · 2003-05-21 14:11 · Score: 2, Funny

Apples machines are the most productivest.
Re:Now I'll wait to buy a Mac by b_pretender · 2003-05-21 14:12 · Score: 2, Funny

They ROCK.
I haven't had this much fun with a computer in 20 years!
Sure, it's all fun and games until you decide to get cute and use OS X's built in DVORAK support. You pull off all of hte keys, put them back in the DVORAK arrangement and realize that you have to strain your head just to type this slashdot comment. It hurts my head to think so hard. Now I want my QWERTY back, but I broke my 'I' and 'G' key setting up DVORAK so I'm afraid to switch the keys back. I don't want to break any more keys on my $3000 laptop!!
HELP!! please send advice.
Re:Me, Too! by grahamlee · 2003-05-21 19:38 · Score: 4, Funny

I'm posting this on a ZX Spectrum via home-rolled TCP/IP stack. Do I win a 12" powerbook?
Re:PowerPC 970 Powerbook or iMac by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 19:44 · Score: 2, Funny

After the barbequed sausage incident, I think people will be wary before they cook their eggs too!