Slashdot Mirror
Motorola to Boost 0.13-micron PowerPCs
Anonymous Cow writes "From The Register: 'Speculation that Motorola may soon cease to be a supplier of processors to Apple may be premature. The chip maker yesterday said it had successfully implemented low-k dielectric materials in its 0.18 micron silicon-on-insulator (SOI) processors, bringing an estimated 20 per cent speed bump to the PowerPC line. Motorola expects to roll out the process on its 0.13 micron chips this month...'"
twenty percent won't do, dear mr. motorola. the new chips might a nice quick upgrade for a few apple machines, but on the long run we need state-of-the-art cpus.
Ghost Recon is playable on my G4/400. So where's the need to upgrade? ;)
slow you down?
From the article on The Register:
candidate processors include the MPC7457, which has yet to ship but is set to take Motorola's G4 family beyond 1GHz.
I don't know where they've been looking but under my desk just here is a dual 1.25GHz G4 tower... there are 1.42s out there, too...
Honestly, I don't know what I'd do with a dual 2GHz G4 at the moment... apart from the two folding@home clients I'm running, I'm using perhaps 10 - 20% of the CPU on this machine, and that's running OS X and a heap of graphics apps...
I do not think it is correct to say that the speculation was that "Motorola may soon cease to be a supplier of processors to Apple." Most Mac users (and nearly everyone else) know that the Moto G4 and maybe some upgraded G3 will be part of Apple's consumer products for some time yet. The PPC970 will be used on high-end systems only at introduction.
I don't think the Motorola is completely out of the picture. When the 970s come, Apple can use these new G4s in the iBook product line to bump up their "consumer" grade laptops.
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
Good googly!
This is what Quark has been waiting for. Now that we can zoom along at these blazingly fast new speeds, Quark will finally release the OS X version and the Mac platform will be saved.
Hurray!
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
Which 20% would Motorola be referring to? If you remember correctly, you will note that the current 1.42GHz machines user overclocked 1.25GHz parts. Underneath that large heatsink in each 1.42GHz powermac is a chip containing the numbers 125.
I doubt it will be a big jump, merely allowing a jump from 1.25GHz to 1.5GHz.
Of course, I fully expect Apple to do their overclocking again, and attempt to pull 1.7GHz out of these systems.
Low-k? Welcome to the ballgame. IBM rolled out low-k, SOI, and Cu three years ago ... on 0.13 micron. See here and here. So did Intel.
Its just the OS I want, I'll buy my own monitor etc.
It's the "monitor etc." that Apple wants to sell, not "just the OS".
Apple will never go down the intel/AMD route, and hence never let their OSX run on commodity hardware. Steve Jobs has made it clear he doesn't want Apple to compete on price. Even if Apple did use intel/AMD chips, it would be on their own custom motherboard, and so windows users wont be able to 'update' to MacOSX.
People forget Apple is a hardware company, and I feel if they are going to change chips (Which they should considering Motorola's lack of interest in maintaining good competition and providing better chips) They'd be better off going with IBM's PPC970 64-bit. All rumours already point to this.
I for one would not want MacOSX to run on commodity hardware, the beauty of OSX is that everything works as Apple has full control over the hardware.
And we all know thanks to piracy they'll never make money selling their OS to ex-windows users on commodity hardware.
Roll on the 970 and Panther.
That's my dream.
We know that, for internal development reasons, Apple has a version of Mac OSX that runs on Intel/AMD hardware. (It's been widely discussed in the past, both on Slashdot and elsewhere.)
;-)
We do? Sorry, there's a huge difference between an interesting prototype and production quality software. In any case, a popular rumor is still a rumor.
We know that the longer Apple uses the PowerPC platform, the less likely the possibility of it switching to an Intel/AMD platform becomes.
Why? They switched to PPC from 68000 after about 10 years. They could switch regardless of the length of time. You're implying that more software would be available after a longer length of time - implying a growing market.
We know that an Intel/AMD platform Apple Mac would probably cost less than a PowerPC platform Mac currently does, and run faster too.
We do? How do we know this? Just because one chip runs at 1.2 Ghz and the other runs at 2 Ghz? Because the P4 runs at 3+ Ghz? Because of bus speeds?
We know that if they could upgrade their Windows PCs to Apple Macs - say, by installing an Apple upgrade card that contained any necessary Apple ROMs, etc and then installing the new OS - millions of users would be tempted to abandon Windows and convert to the Mac OS.
Really????? Wow, that's a leap. And how much would people pay? I know I'd pay just about $0.
Might as well just have a software licensing key scheme - as Mac Plus ROMs don't go to far these days
We know that this Intel/AMD platform Apple Mac would get much better support from hardware and software manufacturers.
Really? Just because OS2 ran on Intel didn't help it.
An Apple Mac running the newest hardware would never be significantly disadvantaged performance-wise, and Apple would attract a lot of users who previously considered Macs bad value for money.
Using a particular chipset does not guarentee great performance or value.
We know that this would make Apple a force to be reckoned with once more, make Microsoft very anxious and millions of customers delighted.
I think Apple has already achieved that. Throwing a couple "ROMs" into an Intel box just doesn't fit the big picture.
Apple will most likely use this as an oppurtunity to drop the G3. Finally Apple will have Altivec across the board. You have to take into account that the manufacturing process also reduces heat and well ... size ... making this sound more and more like a processor for an iBook.
I also beleive Apple will use this as an oppurtunity to make everything above 1Ghz this year. We will most also likely see quad G4 Xserves because of this (moto producing better G4s)
The 970 is a great chip. It's benchmarks at the Microprocessor Forum VERY HANDILY beat EVERY processor put up against it - even the AMD 64 bit!
Apple shouldn't move to x86 as suggested in the redundant Apple naysayers. (hey you "apple is dead people": how about looking in my journal?) I rather like the RISC processor anf the PPC - there is MUCH less code overhead and easier "addon" capability (cache, media functionality, i/o) - Motorola has been the hold up in it's development and needed someone like IBM to step in and lend a hand, they have done so.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
The thing is, Apple really does fill a niche. If you don't use a Mac, it's because you don't fit within the niche of users that want the system Apple offers. Trust me, you don't plunk down that kind of cash for a slick chassis. It's about the philosophy Apple espouses and implements in their hardware and software design.
It's all about image combined with the comfortable environment that Macs are famous for. If Microsoft or Linux managed to successfully offer the same thing, you'd probably sneer at that, too. It's just your personal preference.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
When was the last time that a speedbump to the lineup significantly raised the prices of any of Apples computers? It basically always just replaces the last top-of-the-line with a faster cpu, but basically the same configuration and price.
Try coming back when you have a clue, instead of just FUD.
motorola processor
otorola processor - m
torola processor - mo
trola processor - moo
tola processor - moor
tola procssor - moore
tola procsor - moores
tola pocsor - moores r
tola pocor - moores rs
tol pocor - moores rsa
tol ocor - moores rsa p
tol oco - moores rsa pr
tol co - moores rsa pro
ol co - moores rsa prot
l co - moores rsa proto
l o - moores rsa protoc
l - moores rsa protoco
moores rsa protocol
Weird indeed... especially when condiering this one (search for RSA in the document)
We know that if they could upgrade their Windows PCs to Apple Macs - say, by installing an Apple upgrade card that contained any necessary Apple ROMs, etc and then installing the new OS - millions of users would be tempted to abandon Windows and convert to the Mac OS. (Obviously, whether allowing non-Apple customers to convert their machines in this way is something that Apple may or may not want to put into practice, for competitive reasons. Remember, one of the first things that Steve Jobs did on his return to Apple was kill off the authorised Apple clones businesses.)
Or, as has been pointed out many times before, Apple doesn't want the toruble of supporting god-knows-what hardware is going to be in the masses' PCs. One of, if not the major, reasons Apple is able to make the OS play so nice most of the time is their control of the underlying hardware - sure, you can get most any peripheral you want (as long as it comes with a Mac driver), but the basic computer is always consistent.
I suppose Apple could just tweak the G4 mobos and replace the processors with P4s, or replace the internals completely, but I doubt that's where the costs of the machine lie, plus the homebrew crowd would scream bloody murder. It makes me shiver to think what OS X would be like if it had to support every piece of x86 hardware under the sun...
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
We know that the longer Apple uses the PowerPC platform, the less likely the possibility of it switching to an Intel/AMD platform becomes.
What would they go to? IA-32 is a poor choice when processors are starting to move to 64 bit with X86-64 and Itanium. Going Athlon-64 would be ahead of time, it's not even out yet (and if Intel managed to get their 64 bit solution pushed through, X86-64 would fade into a niche) and if they went IA32, by the time they're done it'd be time to change again.
We know that an Intel/AMD platform Apple Mac would probably cost less than a PowerPC platform Mac currently does, and run faster too.
Code designed for X86: Yes.
Code designed for PPC, compiled for X86: Maybe
Code compiled for PPC, emulated on X86: Hell no
Nevermind that Apple has, and always will have a high mark-up to cover the costs of developing their software.
We know that if they could upgrade their Windows PCs to Apple Macs - say, by installing an Apple upgrade card that contained any necessary Apple ROMs, etc and then installing the new OS - millions of users would be tempted to abandon Windows and convert to the Mac OS.
Apple's business plan is to be a cathedral where PCs are the bazaar. They wish to deliver a _solution_, where they control the hardware and the software, that will "just work". They do not want to get into the driver and compatibility problems of PCs, because then they would lose their greatest advantage. And there's a price tag involved, of course. Which is also why getting dinner served (the solution) is more expensive than buying the ingredients and cooking it up yourself (hardware+drivers+OS+applications+utilities).
To me, who likes to mix and match and create my own "dish", that is probably not of that great a value. But it is of value to some, and those are Apple's customers. And it sounds like a viable business plan to me. The rest will say it's too expensive, of course.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Just because Motorola has developed a faster PowerPC, it does not automatically mean that Apple will be using it. PowerPCs are used in other systems, particuarly embedded applications where a majority of PPCs end up.
Sitting on or near my desk are a 800MHz Athlon (running a Linux 2.4.x kernel), an 800MHz G4 Titanium (MacOSX 10.2.x), and a 1.8GHz P4 laptop (Linux 2.4.x). The Titanium was bought for me by my employer, since many of the people here use them, and I do application and hardware support, as well as Astrophysical research.
I have benchmarked my applications on these three platforms (and the best benchmarks are, of course, your own applications, aren't they?). The G4 is slower, by about 20%, than the 800MHz Athlon. Arguably, if my applications were made 'Altivec-aware' they'd run significantly faster on the G4, but if I were to use SSE2 extensions on the Athlon or P4, they'd run faster on those platforms, too.
Although I kinda like MacOSX (and abhorred MacOS9), and think Apple wins top marks for esthetics, their hardware is way too slow for a 20% improvement in processor speed to give them the boost they need.
The best move for Apple will probably be to go with the new IBM chips.
My 0.02CDN.
#include "cunning_plan.h"
Guess how much Apple would charge for an X86 based Mac? The same as they do for their current Macs. Apple enjoys the highest margins of any major computer maker. One reason they do this is because they have a major research/development department. What was the last major innovation that came out of Dell or Gateway or Compaq?
I drank what? -- Socrates
This is actually bad news. The MPC7457 still doesn't make full use of the bandwidth available in the DDR400 RAM the Macs are currently using. The MPC7470 does, but we're still not getting that chip - for whatever reason - I assume its a manufacturing & design issue. It's been a very long delay.
Motorola looks pretty amateurish with this feeble boost. This is a manufacturing tweak that intel and IBM have made months ago in their primary foundries. The MPC7457 likely isn't going to get used in any serious Macintoshes - perhaps it will go into the iBook and iMacs eventually.
So perhaps Motorola has given up on the MPC7470, and conceded that market to IBM's 970 and 980 chips. Let's hope so; I would like to buy a new workstation pretty soon. ;-)
Anyone seen my low uid? last seen 10 years ago while panning the #@$# out of Taco's 'web based discussion system'
Motorola has been driving themselves very very deep into the embedded market. They're making the Motorola PowerPC into a chip for cars, phones, handhelds, refridgerators, etcetera, ad nausium
IBM is moving in the other direction, which is frankly the direction that apple NEEDS to go if they want to compete and keep this architecture.
They're planning on keeping this architecture.
Buttsex.
No you wouldn't, as the chances of all your hardware working would be miniscule.
You would have to repurchase all your software as well, unless you're going to dual boot every five minutes. How much value is in the software you have? I'm assuming you didn't just warez it all of course. MS Office alone is several hundred dollars.
There would be few games. Dual boot for them too? Use a console? Dunno.
Not to mention that it would cost way, way more than what Windows does - Apple can't lose the money from hardware sales, so the only option for a separate release would be high prices and to hope people would buy it.
We know that this Intel/AMD platform Apple Mac would get much better support from hardware and software manufacturers. An Apple Mac running the newest hardware would never be significantly disadvantaged performance-wise, and Apple would attract a lot of users who previously considered Macs bad value for money.
I'm still trying to contain my laughter.
Supporting Macintosh hardware has little to do with hardware and much to do with drivers. Just because a Macintosh has an Intel chip in it doesn't mean a thing.
BeOS, OS/2 and Solaris all run on Intel hardware too... it doesn't mean that the drivers are a quick and easy transition from the Windows world... if that were the case, Solaris wouldn't be so damned choosy about hardware on x86.
So... no, we don't all know that...
bash-3.00$ uname -a
SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
The big customer is everyone who's buying PowerQuicc's and putting them in embedded spaces. PowerQuicc's with RapidIO connections, PowerQuicc's four-on-a-board, lots and lots of PowerPC chips going in lots and lots of embedded spaces.
I was recently at the Global Signal Processing Expo and it was amazing how many people were doing tasks involving heavy signal processing -- where you would expect DSPs and FPGAs -- on PowerPC chips. The interesting thing was that raw number-crunching power wasn't always the most important thing -- many times it is bandwith (what kind of interconnect you have to your processor makes a huge difference when you are trying to process gigabytes of information a second). Sometimes it is programmability that is the reason (use of familiar tools is a big plus). Sometimes you just want to use the same chip to do your signal processing as your network I/O.
Companies like Sky Computers are selling more PowerPCs than companies like Apple Computers.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
"Our goal is to stay with a frequency doubling every 18 months or so, and get into the 2GHz range for PowerPC, but at very low power consumption of, say, 20W," said Dirk Wristers, director of device/integration for Motorola's MOS-13 wafer fab, according to an EE Times report. "The frequency could be higher if we were at higher power." This statement indicates why they have been slower than Intel/AMD. They basically designing to meet notebook specification. Notebook processor always lags behind desktop counterparts because of power consumption. In fact, the centrinos only top out at 1.6 Ghz which is basically in the ballpark of Motorola current G4 at 1.25. Considering they primarily sell to embedded application hardware such as switches where low power consumption is a needed, they will never be able to keep pace with Intel/AMD in terms of desktop processors. This may be why Jobs is pushing the sale of notebooks.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one