Slashdot Mirror
IBM Officially Unveils Dual-core PowerPC Chips
PM4RK5 writes "Today at the Power Everywhere Forum in Japan, IBM officially unveiled its rumored dual-core PowerPC line of chips, the 970MP. Code-named Antares, these chips have been rumored to be under development since 2004. It is believed that Apple has been working with prototypes and is likely to use them in forthcoming updates to the PowerMac G5 line. The press release is in Japanese; as of this writing, IBM has not released an English version. Some of the slides from the presentation given by IBM are available.
The processors pack some impressive specs, ranging from 1.4 to 2.5 GHz and including 1MB L2 cache per core; the chips also include the ability to power down the extra core when it is not needed. Alongside the 970MP, IBM also announced its low-power 970FX chips, ranging from 1.2 to 1.6 GHz, with power consumption ranging from 13 to 16 Watts, respectively."
No need for intel procs in macs yet.
Low power g5 in a ws ibook, that would be so nice.
hopefully it won't fry it
Why would Apple want to waste any more time with PowerPC? I thought Intel had the most appealing "roadmap".
Now that Apple has ditched PowerPC for Intel, where is this line of chips going?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I wonder if Apple will reconsider the decision regarding the migration. I don't think it will feasible for them to support products with both the processors. According to the rumors on the web, Apple wasn't happy about the low power processor option from IBM. I wonder if this is it ?
That sounds impressive. Will there much of a market for these processors after Apple makes the conversion to Intel? I can understand upgrading the G5 line... but after that, then what?
Get some.
It would be nice if Apple would offer a machine with one (two would be even better). I know they are going to be using PowerPC for a while longer. Maybe when Apple stops using PowerPC, another company will come along and start putting these chips in desktop machines (are there any already?) In all honesty, I use a 1.25 GHz G4 Mac Mini with Debian Linux, which compiles my source fast enough with GCC, same with my x86 desktop machines. This is probably more for a server. With IBM getting away from hardware manufacturer, who will offer this CPU in their servers? Disclaimer: Right now my server is a 300 MHz x86 PC tower with FreeBSD.
Powered by caffeine and sugar; BSD
Looks like Steve Jobs is getting all the things he said he couldn't have. Dual core processors, low-power G5's for laptops, everything.
It sounds like that apple would most likely use the PowerPC for Power Macs and Power Books and xServes... while reserving Intels for the consumer line of products, iMac and iBook and Mac Mini.
As for the dual core, I believe, it may be exciting to many Apple PowerPC fans and may provide a reason to some to buy Apple machine in this transition period.
great God of numbers 2 is better than 1 and in SpecWar bigger is always better! Harrumph...
99% of MacOS X software couldn't utilize a second processor if their sales depended upon it. I own a dual G4. I know.
Dual-core...big deal.
What happened to the Freescale MPC8641D Dual Core Processor http://www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/fact_shee t/MPC8641DFACT.pdf? It was announced last November but is not shipping. Is the chip the same design? Is the IBM chip any different?
I wonder if the chief engineer was a MOO2 fan?
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
Still and all, Apple has been harping on about the superiority of PowerPC for so long that I'm even more surprised to see them switch when IBM has these things, which look like the answers to a couple of Apple's problems, coming up.
I'd be interested in seeing what Steve Jobs saw on Intel's roadmap for the next few years that convinced him...
Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
--Proverbs 9:7
Apple (Steve-boy) already mentioned that there were moreproc. updates coming, and even said there were some good updates coming down the pipeline. His big concern was not just "now" but the future road map.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
From the notes:
The dual 64-bit core PowerPC970MP(TM) (970MP) is the next evolutionary step in the PowerPC 970 family of microprocessors. The higher frequency grade versions of the 970MP consume higher amounts of power than earlier IBM microprocessors do, and that can cause temperature issues. Each 970MP processor core contains a thermal diode used to monitor its operating temperature. The thermal diode must be monitored to ensure that the maximum operating temperature of the 970MP is not exceeded.
It is in Japanese. The "?" means your browser encoding is not set right, or you don't have an appropriate font to display.
Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
I'm not much of a hardware guy but I was wondering something; what power-pc core are they using for each of these processor cores?
I ask mainly because both the PS3 and XBox 360 have (essentially) multi-core Power PC processors which, because of an old core design, are (supposedly) not all that impressive. I have suspected that it was possible that IBM was developing multi-core processors that were based off of a more advanced architecture and could potentially be more powerful that either the PS3's or 360's processors at a lower clock speed and using less cores. (Part of me was expecting that Nintendo would base their system off of a processor like this).
The press release is in Japanese; as of this writing, IBM has not released an English version.
Assembly is bad enough. I can't imagine assembly in Kanji.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Terrasoft http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/ is a company that sells IBM powerd desktops that run Linux. I wouldn't doubt they start selling this chips now that they have started selling yellowdog pre-instaled.
You know what would be the perfect smack in old Apple's face? Oh, and at the same time could beat up on old Sun with Sun's own progeny-
Imagine if there was a certain three letter computer company that built a Power architecture laptop.
Then, release the thing with AIX and Linux as available factory installed OS. Note also that there is an OpenSolaris for Power available. (all three of these exist for the Power architecthre toay [though OpenSolaris is experimental])
That three letter computer company would have a *ix-based competitor to the powerbook, and we'd have a viable alternative platform to both Apple and Sun- with no MS or Intel 'inside'. I'd order one in a heartbeat!
Call the thing the 'PowerPad' (an evolved name from that certain three letter computer company's former laptop line based on iX86)
*drool*
Speaking of Roadmaps... Why not would Apple not switch to AMD? AMD's chips run with less power consumption and way less number of transistors. When comparing the Dual core chips from AMD and Intel, AMD wins on power consumption. But I thought Jobs said Intel had the best Performance per watt? ADA4800DAA6CD (AMD Dual core 64-bit): 110W Intel® Pentium® Processor Extreme Edition: 130W These are the latest and greatest from Intel and AMD right?
From the roadmaps and rumor mill, even the Pentium EE 130 W(clocked at what, 3.8ghz?) and the AMD Athlon 110 W and too high power and not good enough on performance.
It appears Intel plans on dropping the P4 line and going to enhancing the Pentium M edition. It is expected that Apple will be going with the Pentium Ms (which apparently have dual core slated in their lineup) instead of with the Pentium EE.
In summary, Apple won't touch the Pentium EE due to high power consumption. However, they do like the Pentium M with has much better performance per watt/clock cycle and much lower power consumption.
From that I would guess that either AMD could not give Apple the same deal as Intel could. Either that or Apple expects Intel to have much better performance than AMD by that time. Also, as far as I know the Pentium Ms are much better than AMDs mobiles in power and performance.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Best performance per watt != Lowest power usage of highest-performing part.
The Pentium M family is much lower power than the Pentium 4, and has reasonably good performance. I don't think AMD really has a chip that competes with the Pentium M, even though AMD's chips are generally less power-hungry than a Pentium 4.
Right, so OS X is not written in Java? or is it .Net?
Who will be producing computers based on the PPC, except IBM for their big machines?
While this is nice, if they will effectively be unobtainable in a couple of years does it really matter that much? Or is *today* all that matters to people now?
I doubt this will wake Steve up and make him re-evaluate his move to ix86. One can hope, but i wont count on it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If these had been around a year ago we could be talking about Apple innovation etc, but the fact is the x86 market is ahead and Motorola/IBM have their eyes on high end servers and the embedded market.
:)).
But still, the power use of these chips is very impressive. Always liked Motorola but AMD64 is where I'm at now (it's close in name to CBM64 too
iBook is apple's low-end portable. Maybe in the PowerBook, though.
Now that would make a good shirt for a lass. Check out my dual processors!
And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be bannana-shaped.
... they want their 2.something GHz CPUs back.
Ummmm.... NOWHERE.
Meanwhile Intel is working on dual core as well, and they're banging the door of 4gHz...
Steve switched to Intel for a good reason...
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Its hard enough to support more then one product based on the same platform.
Could you imagine supporting multiple platforms as well?
Didnt work out too well for IBM to do that..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
an encoding issue would mean a strage mess of characters. question marks everywhere means lack of a suitable font.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
After the famous announcement from Apple it really looks like IBM has been working hard to get new contracts and to release new CPU's. I wonder if, if Apple would have stayed with IBM for a bit longer if that would have changed their decision.
Bits of News Giving you the latest bits.
They're not going to reconsider.
IBM is releasing laptop chips that fit into the lower end of the spectrum of current chips while Intel will be releasing the next generation early next year.
Yonah-core Pentium Ms include floating-point improvements (the Pentium M's current weakness), clock speed improvements, power improvements, and there will be dual-core versions in the same power envelope as current chips.
A single 1.6 ghz G5 might be welcome on PowerBooks (particularly since it replaces the archaic bus), but it's not going to stack up very well against a dual-core 2 ghz Pentium M. IBM simply is not willing to put in the kind of R&D it takes to keep up with Intel on laptop chips. IBM might be not-quite-so-behind now, but brief periods where their chips are not a crippling weakness for Apple are not enough to change the decision.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
In other news, nobody really cares because Apple is switching to x86 based hardware sooner than these will make it into the hardware stream.
Part of what makes the Mac experience what it is is that Apple doesn't try to cram legacy support into every product they make. With Apple it's out with the old and in with the new; PPC will be a dead end like 68k.
this is my sig
the Power4, which the power970 is a derivative of, was dual core. They were put into AS/400 (iSeries) and pSeries (think RISC/AIX) boxes years ago.
Apple got the plain jane 970 version, single core out of this chip from IBM. So the question that stands out is, why did it take so long to offer a 970 version that was dual core?
What I don't understand most about the switch Apple is making is that everyone harped on megahertz yet the AMD64 chips have great performance "ratings" with low megahertz. My current chip is only a 1.8G and many Power chips are just that as well, so where is the big boost for Apple except in the powerbook line? A well designed chip, and PowerPCs are very well designed, can run circles around faster chips as AMD has proven with the AMD64 series.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Alongside the 970MP, IBM also announced its low-power 970FX chips, ranging from 1.2 to 1.6 GHz, with power consumption ranging from 13 to 16 Watts, respectively.
This sounds exactly like what Apple needed for a G5 powerbook. Did Steve just get a little too impatient? Had he waited another month maybe he would have found the answer for a G5 powerbook? Did Apple threaten IBM that they would go to Intel if something didn't change soon? (and now IBM has delivered, but perhaps a bit too late)
I don't understand how some people are saying "OMG Apple switched at the wrong time oh noes!@#!!"
Does everything HONESTLY think Apple didn't know the exact release date of the 970MP BEFORE they announced their switch?
Apple knew when and where this was going to be released, and they know when and where Intel will release their next series. They switched because they wanted to, this isn't a surprise to them.
The fact that this might make people continue to buy current G5 powermacs is PRECISELY the reason this product was announced. Years from now, when some unrelated litigation forces discovery of IBM internal emails, we'll find out that Apple spearheaded this initiative as a stopgap between announcing their move to Intel and actual production of those machines. In the meantime, they still have to sell Macs and nobody is going to buy into a new G5 without at least some HOPE of upgradability. Cheers,
Technology group VP Tom Reeves told the conference that he expects Power will command half the game machine market by 2008.
According to Reeves, "The POWER now is anywhere. It is loaded onto many equipment. It means this without being, 'directing in future, vision' state (is already unevenly distributed) having become there here."
I am personally appalled that an IBM executive has such poor command of the English language.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
I don't know why they don't just call it a day and make the G (exponent) 4 with all the available processors in one box. I'm getting a little tired of this lagging 2-architecture roadmap.
This makes it seem unlikely, very unlikely.
A while back I ran into this micro-atx form factor motherboard which uses PowerPC:
PegasosPPC
If you run linux, I imagine you could make the transition easily..
-metric
Why would Apple want to waste any more time with PowerPC? I thought Intel had the most appealing "roadmap".
The high end desktops are not going Intel until 2007'ish. The more modest systems and the laptops are going first in 2006'ish. Until then Apple can save some money, well hypothetically, by shipping one dual core CPU as opposed to the current dual CPUs.
Basically the OS has to apportion the threads nicely or it's so what. It's hard enough for most people to do proper multi-threading apps, never mind detecting and assigning processors.
If it does... big win.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?relea se_id=90376
"I wonder if Apple will reconsider the decision regarding the migration."
After the WWDC and the trauma it inflicted on some devs, I find it highly unlikely that Apple is going to suddenly decide tomorrow that they've made a bad move and are going to stick with the PPC path in the future. Apple knew this G5 development was coming, hence the comment that has been repeated numerous times that the next 2 years are going to produce some interesting developments in the PPC platform, but by 2007, things will be at a point where Intel will overtake them and that the PPC roadmap does not offer anything that can keep up with the pace of Intel. Jumping hardware platforms is hard enough as it is, jumping back would work to obliterate the confidence that Steve Jobs has tried to instill in those who support the Mac. He and his fellow execs are trying very, very hard to appear as if this is really worth it and that they have a solid plan that will not leave 3rd parties burned.
Nobody wants to have another Amiga situation, where every week there is a new roadmap to follow, dramatically different than the one before. That is the perfect way to scare off the community that keeps a platform going.
Imagine if there was a certain three letter computer company that built a Power architecture laptop.
Mod that sick bastard up!
Even if it cost $6,000- to have that class of machine available my office would buy six on the day of release- and we'd be porting our slug solaris/sparc apps over and bidding a fond adeu to that dismal failure of an architecture- the sparc.
How much will they cost?
Or for that matter, what do G5 processors cost to buy?
I don't mean buying in bulk, just to buy one or a few processors. Can a person buy them from IBM directly, or even from a reseller?
Apple was making a big deal about some sort of announcement that was going to happen "on or before Thursday, July 7th," right? Everyone thought it had something to do with the iPods, but since they just shuffled (ha ha) the line around with the Podcasting release, this must be the big announcement they were promising. So Apple machines, by that logic, are a near certainty.
because they have two boobs. funny.
They are answering Apple's problems - just a year or two late.
If you look at currently published Intel roadmaps, there are dual core laptop chips running at 2GHz+ promised for Q1 2006.
IBM is at least 2 years behind in that area. So IBM is almost keeping up with the x86 world when it comes to desktops and years behind on laptops. And unwilling to put its own money into developing low power G5s.
You don't need to be a Nostradamus to see why switching is Apple's only reasonable option.
Glad to see someone else still kicking on the other side of the silicon curtain. MIPS, Alpha, HP-UX, Ultrasparc, m68k, Itanium are all more or less dead. The only players in the 32-bit/64-bit arena are x86(x64), PPC and ARM. ARM just isnt aiming for the same market, which really leaves PPC and x86/x64 for the Desktop AND the server market. Its amazing so many architectures are now powered by the same chips (mac, AS400, RS6000, game consoles, industrial VME cards) by PPC and everything else by x86/x64.
Personally I'd be glad to see x64-only chips with the 32-baggage dropped, and a BIOS standard that allows booting straight into 64-bit. That will really split the x64 from the x86, and give us cheaper and lighter chips. As for the PPC, I'm glad its still there. The price/performance ratio may be bad (relative to the Athlon64), but for one the base architecture is good, and diversity, which pushed semiconductors in general so far during the 90s is good for the industry.
Software for which source code is available (free or otherwise) is the only thing that can diversify the CPU market. People are stuck with a single CPU and operating system, both ill-designed, simply because their closed-source software will only run on that combination. Some awesome technologies like the Alpha chip, the Ultrasparc, the IRIX OS etc have died simply for that reason.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Then lets make the last PPC boxes out the door at Apple really kick ass!
I mean really fast!
So that have people in 15 years will talk nostalgically about having a last generation PPC machine like they do when someone talks about having an old Hemi car.
If a duel/duel core 3.1 Ghz holds up like my dual 533 mhz has, you will have my money... again.
IBM has since released an English press release, available here.
This should be significantly more informative than the earlier available Japanese documents.
AMD has approximately 20% of the PC Processor market.
Apple has 3% of the PC Market.
3% of the PC market is 15% of AMD's market.
AMD's market is normally capped not by distribution but rather by production. If AMD won the Apple contract, they would EITHER need to increase their production by 15% (not historically AMD's strong suit), or increase prices to the PC market...
If AMD picks up the Apple contract and CANNOT increase production...
Then AMD has to reduce their PC market-share by 15% of their production, which means increasing prices.
Either way, Apple would be a HUGE account for AMD, and would require a substantial portion of AMD's manufacturing resources.
Alex
Slightly bored.. my Japanese ain't the greatest but no other translation was seen:
... HCL Technologies, Ltd. (a multifaceted company)...xilinx (a software design company). These three companies joined the power.org alliance.
...
Today, IBM started the "Power Everywhere Forum 2005" by unveiling new goods to those in its partnership iniatives, continuning the Power PC line unveiling a new processor to the world.
Power.org New Members:
This time IBM added: Denali Software inc, an engineering services group
Power.org works with consumers, electronics, networking, storage, data transmission (guess on that one) to provide a standard platform for development and usage. We welcome these new companies to the community
[there's more i'm just lazy]
Please :-)
If you're selling 1,000 CD's a year, you're not making a living out of selling CD's; you're either making a living out of playing live, you're making music as a hobby, or you're trying to hit the big time. If you're trying to hit the big time, or making a living out of playing live, getting your music heard by as many people as possible, and therefore turning up to gigs, is the goal. Revenue from the demo CD you recorded at home is neither here nor there. If you're making music as a hobby, who really cares whether people pirate your stuff or not?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Long before today Apple knew about the low watt and dual core roadmaps. Long before that announcement.
This wasn't a 'whip the line in shape, we are losing to intel'.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I'm not an expert, but I don't think that Apple will give up on the PowerPC processors for a long time. It seems that Apple is pushing the move towards Universal Binarys, not Intel. While IBM Powers are electricity sucking monsters, they are still tops when it comes to performance in servers and applications that require lots of vector processing (the multi-media creation tools that has kept Apple alive in the content industry). Universal Binaries gives Apple the choice of using a processor that meets the machines requirements, for laptops they could choose a Pentium M, for the iMac they could use a Pentium D (does dual cores mean SMP, or does it use an Intel proprietary technology like a sort of HyperThreading to schedule tasks?), for xServes and PowerMacs they could stick to the PowerPC.
AMD today produces processors from expensive Opterons, Athlon FX and X2 dual cores all the way down to low end Semprons. While the high end stuff has big margins, they don't sell many of them because the market for the expensive high end stuff is relatively small. The low end stuff has tiny margins, but they sell lots of them. If they got a deal from Apple that caused them to become capacity constrained, they'd just produce fewer Semprons and use that capacity to satisfy Apple's need for mid to high end CPUs that have a much higher profit margin than the few million Semprons they wouldn't sell.
It is logical to assume that Apple would have at least talked to AMD. Given that AMD is suing Intel for unfair trade practices, if there was any dirty dealing involved in Apple apparently signing an exclusive deal with Intel, it will likely become part of the suit at some point.
Either way, Apple would be a HUGE account for AMD, and would require a substantial portion of AMD's manufacturing resources.
How would 15% of thier total production correlate to a substantial portion of their manufacturing resources? What the hell is the other 85%? A super duper substantial amount? I'd assume 15% of the production would require 15% of the manufacturing resources. Wouldn't you?
On a side note....
I think everyone underestimates the amount of growth AMD has had in the last year. Apple would appaer to be a drop in the bucket compared to the others that have started using AMD chips.
Here are some quotes from various sources:
Partners sure seem to be betting on AMD's chips. IBM, HP and Fujitsu-Siemens began selling AMD64 processor-based systems in the fourth quarter and Sun Microsystems will deliver AMD Opteron processor-based enterprise servers in the first half of this year.
Customers are also asking for more AMD Athlon 64 and AMD Opteron processors, the company said. AMD said in the last three months it gained new global customers such as Daimler Chrysler, QUALCOMM, Pirelli and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Another one from the AMD Q1 2005 Earnings Conference Call Notes:
Processor business not just growing, it is accelerating.
CPU revenue up 31% year on year, AMD64 CPU sales doubled from a year ago
growth rate higher than overall CPU rate in 2004
believe we have grown faster than then total market in Q1
Sun launched 2nd gen v20z and v40z servers featuring 252 and 852.
HP added new proliant models including servers, blades, and workstations
Adding new enterprise customers including Met life of Mexico and Lucasfilm
50% fortune 500 our customers
63 of CPUs are AMD64, by end of 05 100%
90nm is ahead of schedule with better than expected yields which results in more capacity for demand
production planned for Fab 36 first half of 2006
dual core systems on existing Sun cray and HP workstations and servers
we are ahead of schedule on dual core, have been shipping to partners since january
Athlon 64 dual core for desktops and notebooks
we are expanding enterprise footprint with turion 64 for thin and light notebooks
xp pro 64 bit announcement has thrilled us. believe it to be outstanding and robust. like to thank microsoft.
In short (and long), Apple wants to, iGuess, own all the possible words which, I iMagine, they think they oughta - but iThink they don't have the Power to do it anymore, and maybe not even the iNtel-ligence ...
Steve Jobs is killing off the PowerPC line because he couldn't get IBM to come up with a 3 GHz chip for their laptops, and for the DRM Intel has embedded in their new processor/chipset. Steve Jobs has "bought" hook-line-and-sinker the Intel marketing bullhockey about clock speed being "everything". That, and Apple's adoption of Intel's latest DRM roadmap will help keep OSX on Apple hardware, as well as please the MPAA and RIAA evil twins. A new Mac Mini using Intel's processor/chipset and built-in video could lower prices enough for Apple to compete with Dell and HP in the consumer market, even though the low end of the market has horrible margins.
Personally, I would rather have a dual core G5 laptop running at 2 or 2.5 GHz instead of an Intel-based Apple laptop running at 3 or 3.4 GHz. A fast disk drive and 2 GB of memory would more than make up for a bit lower clock speed, epsecially with todays *nix OSes. As far as desktop or server computers are concerned, I would rather have dual core SMP systems instead of single CPU speed demons. But then, I am one who would rather play games on a game console unstead of my working computer(s). I have been using SMP Intel-based computers for a decade, and even with cludgy MS OSes, two processors smooth out usability far better than a maxxed-out processor clock.
I predict that Apple shareholders will not be happy with Steve Jobs decision to switch from PowerPC to Intel three years from now. Being a niche player (with great margins) in the computer marketplace is a better prospect than gaining 10% marketshare with paper-thin margins. Why even try to compete with the low-ball pricing dreggs from Dell and HP, anyway?
IBM is infamous for not making deadlines. Apple has no reaso to not go intel. Don't forget that they used to supply the DEC Digital Alphas, Silicon Graphics and Sun with chips. Intel does do other things than the x86 family and pentiums/
It's a shame that the 970MP's two 1MB caches are not shared like the power4+'s cache is. A shared cache is great for single threaded performance and for sharing variables between threads (threads running on different cores).
Is shared cache a premium feature, maybe similar to power4+'s external L3 cache?
So?!?
Seriously.. aren't they a bit late? AMD and Intel came out with the dual cores months ago!
All that is going to happen is another round of overpriced hardware.
Now, you Mac fanboys (Yes, all three of you, including that one guy who claims he has tried it), don't get in a huff.
Admit it. Apple's hardware is way overpriced. I don't want to go along with the bashing, I'm just saying.
I don't like the OS that comes with the hardware either. I use (K)Ubuntu Live CD on a Mac first thing.
I'm not saying its the worst (heaven knows its atleast a little more secure than Windows) but the GUI is just that: Too Graphical!
Me? Why so mad? I'm just sick that the Ipod has the market. It doesn't have an easy to access format, and tries to lock your music to you. Everyone knows the disadvantage of an Ipod by now, so I don't think I need to go on.
AMD operates their own CPU fab in Dresden, Germany. AFAIK IBM has no direct role in the fabrication of K8-based processors.
AMD and IBM do work together on developing fabrication technology. But AMD is not fabless nor totally dependent on IBM for manufacturing.
Two words: Project LaGrande.
Why are you trying to push this meme? It's patently wrong from many directions.
First of all, try actually reading that LaGrande link. It's more about protecting programs from affecting each other than any kind of DRM.
Secondly, it does not in any way fit with the direction Apple has chosen for DRM, which is that it exists only when it does not inconvienince the user.
Lastly, you have the basic problem that it makes no sense to have any DRm at all in the context of the apps you mention which allow me to create my own content. Why would I want to lock it? Simply put I would not; so such apps will not be supporting LaGrande.
Your claptrap posted later about Apple using LaGrande to prop up the current media moguls as "gateways of media" is simply a paranoid theory that has no basis in what they have done, what would be healthy for them as a company to do, or even what Jobs himself would like to do. Jobs has no love for the current media industry which he considers to be idiots, and in fact is cheerfully undermining them by allowing many indies equal access to iTunes.
Apple may use LaGrande for some sort of process security, but there's simply no reason to think it will be incorperated in any DRm scheme - expecially since it would not be supported by the majority of macs (PPC) in the market for years to come!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
does exactly what Apple is after - controlled access to media
Why is Apple after that? They've never been before, have shown no inetrest in doing so, and in fact have been the biggest proponent of user created media around. That simply makes no sense. As much as you would like to believe all companies are "out t get you" it's smply not so. Some companies realize that treating customers with ameasure of respect actually helps drive sales.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
just when i buy my new dual 2.7 Ghz... maybe i should read more thinksecret?
Remenber Amiga OS 4 runs on PPC too. Once they finish the product, this will be huge.
It is common to analyze the revenue that IBM lost with the apple x86 switch. But don't forget about the huge market that was recently announced by Microsoft and Sony. The game console market is a super-tanker compared to the bathtub-toy macintosh market, and just as Intel is more hurt by the xbox 360 going to IBM, IBM has gained more. IBM is running a revenue surplus in recent PowerPC commitments.
-1 taking a sarcastic post literally
g5 is to g4 as p4 was to p3 better overall IPC, less picky about memory latency, less power, basically a great thing to quad core if you're looking for perf/watt
I refuse to believe that the 28- and 31-stage Pentium 4 pipelines are a better thing than the 10-stage pipeline in the Pentium III, particularly when we're talking about IPC. Do you remember the fuss made about P4 being slower at the same clock speed than the PIII? That's proof it has worse IPC rate.
Neither the P4 or the G5 are lower-power than their predecessors and they fail to provide better performance/watt, in any configuration. This is why the P3 architecture has been adopted into the Pentium M line for low power use and the G4 processors remain the chips used at the core of Apple's iBooks and PowerBooks.
The great thing to do with the Pentium 4 architecture would be to put in on good Strained Silicon and SoI processes to push it above the 4.0GHz clockrate at which it is believed to be a very strong chip.
The differences between the G4 and G5 chips are what happens when you move from a desktop computer chip to a cut-down Big Iron chip (IBM's POWER4, IIRC). The G5's are inherently 64-bit capable in a way that the first three generations (Willamette, Northwood and Prescott) of the Pentium 4 are not, although there exist Prescott-based Pentium 4 processors with Intel's EM64T implementation.
BTW: http://arstechnica.com/ is your friend. Hannibal has done a good job of talking through the history of the Pentium chip family (1 & 2) and the PowerPC family (1 & 2, part 3 hasn't yet arrived) up to the G4's. There's discussion of the IBM POWER5 architecture too, and some commentary on pipelines in processor design (1 & 2). I learned a lot from these, and value their information. But I'm going to stop telling Granny to suck eggs now.
You've entirely missed my point. The decision isn't up to Apple, its up to the media companies they're going to have to intersect with in order to be successful with their new hardware ventures.
As much as you would like to believe that I'm your typical Slashdot troll spewing unfounded nonsense, its simply not so. I don't care if "companies are out to get" anyone, because I don't use anything that is produced by a "a company" in this capacity, so it doesn't affect me.
It was called APL.
Did anyone quote the Apple execs?
Perhaps there are to many ways to spell "D'oh!"
We have dual testicles!!!!
Geez,
Who cares if they make dual core turtles?
If they could just peak it up to 3.0 GHz, a Dual-Core powered,
Dual CPU Apple G5 Power Mac would be Sweet!
I don't know, who says you can't convey sarcasm in written form?
Oh! That wasn't a joke.
A 1.6 GHz Pentium M is comparable to a 2.6 GHz P4, though with far lower power consumption. The Pentium M's performance is more than "reasonably good." It makes a better case for the "megahertz myth" than the Motorola G4.
And no, none of AMD's Athlon Mobile chips compare to Pentium M. The Dothan core is the most efficient part Intel's developed in the past 10 years.
systems don't boot to os 9 anymore..and your mini doesn't even come with it installed. you have to isntall it and boot classic to run old apps.
"it's just a G4" with a ton of hardware that has no os 9 support. they didn't really have to do anything to make the new machines not work in os 9..they just don't write any new drivers.
here already. I subscribe to InfoWorld, and this article discusses available systems from IBM using the dual-core Power5.
antipaucity
I have been making this case for some time. I actually believe that Apple intends to permanently support fat binaries because it provides them with a mechanism to drift not just between x86 and PPC but to other more advanced architectures as they debut.
So the real question is not why they don't, because for the next 5 years (2 years to complete switch + 3 more years to support PPC products), they clearly will, but the question becomes why they aren't making a big deal out of being processor independent? The answer is clearly negotiation power.
Apple used the switch to negotiate a sweet deal with intel, I am certain of it. When they close in on the final switch-over date, they will be able to use that threat (and their market share should be higher by then) to negotiate a sweet deal with IBM to keep producing some PPC based macs.
Never underestimate Steve Job's ability to negotiate. You should also realize that there is a possibility that they worked this strategy out with IBM - by producing x86 boxes, the drive to marketshare may be significant enough that even the PPC business would benefit, assuming Apple still delivers PPC workstations or whatnot.
The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
" Well, for starters, you cannot currently run Mac OS X on a Pentium M"
According to Steve Jobs, that part is done. The bulk of the conversion will be in new hardware and convincing ISV's to code for X86.
But OS X on Intel? That's last week's news.
this ?
This is a Mac Mini with expandibility right now, but a G5 would make it more attractive.
The AMD Turion is already up to 2.2Ghz and down to 25W...oh, and unlike Intels offerings, it is already 64bit capable.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
As much as I (and many other people) would love to see a PPC 970FX based PowerBook there is one glaring reason why we will never see one - the G5 is 64-bit and the Pentium M is not.
Every document and every piece of information that Apple has provided about the Intel transition is for moving to IA32, there isn't so much as a mention of any 64-bit future on the Intel platform. I was at WWDC and I tried as best I could to get any information about the future of 64-bit computing with Intel chips and not a single Apple engineer or representative would give anyone any information at all about it. It is clear then that the first Intel Macs will use a 32-bit processor. That's not to say that we'll never see 64-bit Intel-based Macs, Apple will need to have them to replace the G5. But it definitely means that the first Intel-based products Apple introduces will be 32-bit and not 64-bit. (If anyone would like I can go into more detail regarding why Apple hasn't announced their 64-bit plans for Mactel.)
For this reason Apple cannot put a 64-bit G5 into a PowerBook now and then offer a down-graded 32-bit Intel version in a year or two. It would be marketing suicide and customers would virtually rise up in arms. If the transition to Intel means anything with regards to future PowerBooks it means that we will never see a G5 PowerBook no matter how cool IBM can make the G5 run.
Of course I'd love to be wrong. I'm one of those that believe that Apple will stick with PPC as long as it performs better than whatever Intel has. I can see a scenario where Apple continues to sell G5/G6-based PowerMacs indefinitely since PPC will probably continue to beat x86 on the desktop for many years to come. If that is the case then Apple may never drop PPC entirely and we'll end up with PPC and Intel Macs living together. In this scenario I could see Apple selling a G5 PowerBook as the High-end and Pentium M PowerBooks/iBooks as the mid-range to low-end.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
Another reason Apple may not want to use AMD is Hector de Ruiz, AMD CEO was boss of the Motorola Microprocessor division back then when they had the G4 fiasco. Uncle Steve never forgets. ;)
(adding to Formz' point, not contradicting it)
Notice the fastest versions of this chip available are slower than the current dual-chip offerings from Apple. So how does this show how Apple was foolish to switch from PowerPC? In fact, I would say the contrary. Wouldn't hearing that your next big thing from your supplier was going to be slower than your current offerings spur you to switch?
There was a 10Ghz Pentium 4 on Intels roadmap.
This guy are sick.
You've entirely missed my point. The decision isn't up to Apple, its up to the media companies they're going to have to intersect with in order to be successful with their new hardware ventures.
Then how did Apple to get the terms they ALREADY have in place? You seem to ignore what has already been.
The fact is that only Apple has been able to create a successful music store. If the store grows large enough, they dictate the terms - not the media companies. The aspect of media companies you fail to understand fully is that they are addicted to money. Would any one now really willingly cut itself from the stream of money that is ITMS? Only if Apple went crazy and demanded something they were not willing to give. But Apple has shown it can play hardball with these groups and create terms more favorable to users than would otherwise be accepted by the labels while reaching some level of compromise acceptable to them.
An example of this is the proposed price increase for songs (to $2, if I remember right). Apple said no, and it died off. If the music companies had any power at this point they would have withdrawn then in protest - but as I noted they simply cannot ignore such a lucrative stream of effortless (for them) recurring revenue.
I don't believe you are a troll. I just think your idea does not hold water based on historical precident and even based on Jobs ultimate goals. You should try reading the book iCon some time, I think it gives real insight into the phsycology of Jobs the person and thus what Apple will do in the future. When you have a personality driven company like Apple not all business discisions are rational so it's a lot more important to understand how the leader thinks.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The main problem with the PowerBooks right now isn't the G4 chip or even its clock speed so much as its slow bus speed of 167Mhz. The bus speed hasn't been raise in a long time and seems to be the biggest factor that slow the PowerBook line down. I would be all for a PB G4 if they could get a significantly faster bus on the motherbord.
I keep hearing about these ultra low wattage CPUs from IBM, but obviously, nobody bothered to tell Apple about them, I am sure a G5 Powerbook could be developed taking advantage of them. Is a PowerBook that far off from the G5 iMac? The prime fact is a PowerBook is all metal, it's basically a big heatsink, and provided you can channel that heat away from your lap, I can't see why Apple has had difficulties or is relucant to use low power G5's in their PowerBook lineup.
If the new dual core CPUs from IBM are cheaper then 2 G5 processors, then pehaps Apple may adopt them quickly, but this will be a marketing fiasco for Apple. They keep flip-flopping between offering an ALL DUAL PowerMac systems, to adding a single CPU version. Are Apple users savey enough to understand that despite having ONE CPU, it is actually TWO cores. It may be best from a marketing perspective to keep offering dual CPU systems, rather then keep renegging on marketing hype.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
In no way was I being sarcistic, I was using logic, though I guess some here don't know what that is.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I visited the page but didn't do more than scan it quickly, just looking at it hurt my eyes.
FalconShould there be a Law?
IBM's "typical" power ratings can in no way be directly compared against Intel's TDP. Intel's TDP represents an effective power maximum in real-life usage.
IBM's "typical" represents moderate usage. Maximum real-life usage is MUCH hotter than IBM's "typical". Indeed, my guesstimate is that max can reach up to around 1.8X that of "typical" (extrapolating on what seems to be the case for its desktop chips).
What this means is that IBM's 1.6 GHz 970FX is likely hotter than Intel's 2.0 GHz Pentium M Dothan. Even if the power dissipation were close, clock-for-clock Pentium M is overall faster than a 1.6 GHz 970FX.
IOW, no matter how you slice it, Pentium M Dothan has better performance/Watt overall than the low power 970FX.
Furthermore, a 1.6 GHz G5 offers no integer or Altivec performance advantage in most situations over a G4 7447A 1.67 GHz. (IBM's forte is FP.) Unfortunately for IBM, the G4 1.67 is already in PowerBooks, with the G4 7448 on the way. The G4 7448 has 1 MB of L2 cache (twice the G5 970FX's and twice the G4 7447A's), and will be produced with a 90 nm process, so I wouldn't be surprised if it debuted at 1.8 GHz, with decent (laptoppable) power specs.
A 1.8 GHz chip would be required just to make an update seem worthwhile over current PowerBooks. While I think IBM could release a laptoppable 1.8 GHz G5 at slightly above 30 Watts max, it's not clear if Apple would ever release this, since it might just be simpler to release a 1.8 GHz G4 PowerBook instead. The G4 7448 is basically a drop-in replacement for the 7447A in current PowerBooks. Why release a whole new G5 design if they can just release the G4 for one more iteration using the same PowerBook design, and then release a whole new dual-core Pentium M Yonah PowerBook in 2006?
It's about preventing the 'owner' of the system from accessing the keys. Intel et al. absolutely refuse to budge on that point, and there's only one reason for such a design. Intel have been the most coy about motivation (Bill Gates, for example, has stated outright that Microsoft's closely related Palladium/NGSCB project came out of efforts to restrict music), but they've had their moments. Bottom line (literally): the user is a threat, but only if they can mount an expensive, illegal "Sophisticated local HW attack".
Locking users into QuickTime and iPod inconveniences them. Requiring them to waste perfectly good CDs and even better time on a burn-rip cycle to unlock tracks inconveniences them. Forcing a choice between larger files and lower fidelity after unlocking inconveniences them. Changing the burning permissions, removing the ability to stream over the Internet, limiting library access to five users per day--these inconvenience users. Apple's ability to add new inconveniences at their whim inconveniences users. Maybe Apple's restrictions haven't inconvenienced you yet; there are a lot of people they haven't. Maybe it won't inconvenience you ever. There isn't any noble principle behind it, though.
Neither of the grandparent's posts to this story imply that Apple have any interest in sustaining the current distribution cartel, nor do either contain the phrase you 'quoted'. Apple want to replace them, but in order to get the big publishers to sign on, Apple need digital restrictions. (The largest publishers and the largest distributors are currently few and the same, but they really don't care who handles the distribution as long as they get their terms and their cut.)
Let's put that to the same test you applied to your strawman. It's consistent with Apple's categorical refusal to allow other distributors to sell iTunes/iPod-compatible restricted tracks, which they wouldn't do if they just cared about selling iPods or promoting QuickTime. If "healthy for them as a company" is a circumlocution for 'profitable', iTMS is that--not much, but increasing. On the final criterion, Jobs obviously doesn't have a problem with being a distributor for these 'idiots'.
The grandparent's claim about Apple locking all works created with Apple tools is a bit of a stretch, I agree. The "current media moguls" have floated the idea on occasion, but it doesn't seem in sync with even the new Apple. It would be wise to recognize, however, that Apple's loyalties do not lie solely with their customers.
I think my words never went near "frontside bus" (The HyperTransport bus used in the Opteron is the same thing used in the G5 Macs and XServes. Both AMD and Apple are in the HyperTransport Consortium.). Am I too lax in using the term 'bus' to refer to a chip interconnect?
Anyway, thank you for helping me better understand where Hypertransport fits in both AMD's 64-bit chips and Apple's G5's. But your claim about my comment was wrong too. So ner.
Locking users into QuickTime and iPod inconveniences them.
iPod possibly, but howso with Quicktime? Quicktime runs on the PC and the Mac. I have never been inconvienienced by something being in Quicktime; I have however had instances of video I wanted to see being in a Windows only codec.
Requiring them to waste perfectly good CDs and even better time on a burn-rip cycle to unlock tracks inconveniences them.
Project Hymn circumvents that issue and others; the "make a real CD" option is a viable out as well as much as you harp on the negatives.
limiting library access to five users per day--these inconvenience users.
I choose to look at the glass being half full in that the player supports sharing at all, which most other players do not. Since you have an agenda it would seem you just choose to look at this in the most negative light. If the sharing is really such an issue for them, then why do they still leave that feature in at all?
Apple's ability to add new inconveniences at their whim inconveniences users. Maybe Apple's restrictions haven't inconvenienced you yet; there are a lot of people they haven't. Maybe it won't inconvenience you ever. There isn't any noble principle behind it, though.
Now here you cleverly use misdirection to steer people away from the real problem with your argument. You argue that restrictions imposed have no noble principal. You ignore restrictions avoided (like no CD burning at all, or a DRM that supports track exiration) that do indicate at least some kind of guiding principal at work. I am not saying Apple can do no wrong. I am merely acknowledging the good they have done by drawing a line in the sand, and not letting media companies step over it. I am saying that at the very least, if Apple is not wholly on the side of the consumer they are not really on the side of media cartels in the way the grandparent proposed.
I am saying that the paranoid theories I responded to make no sense in the context of what they have said, and especailly actions they have taken. To paraphase, those who ignore history are doomed to make really bad predicitons.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Man you people railing against Apple cannot harp against Apple reduceing the sharing from iTunes to five users. Yet what other player even lets you share at all? You are complaining about a feature that still exists in diminished form while others do not have it at all? Talk about seeing the glass half empty. Your argument about leaving it open is meaningless; yes it would be nice but it is thier choice to make and you seem pretty ungrateful lambasting them for just making the number smaller.
So if Hymn meets the definition for a cirumvention device, why does it still exist? Just because something is in a questionable status does not mean it does not exist. Thus it is viable as much as you'd like to pretend it is not. Legalities are not at issue here; instead I am dealing in what is or is not really possible. Otherwise all formats are equally open given enough time to crack the DRM.
You argue for the only principal being profit - but that is all you can see, you obviously cannot see beyond that. You are one of the sorry lot that cannot fathom a company doing anything not for profit. Yet companies do this all them time, for good or evil; companies are run my humans, and humans do not always act rationally. Thus it is in fact an obvious statement to say that not everything done by even the largest of corperations is done for profit. Sometimes it's a whm of an owner that flies in the face of profit. The music business looked like a loosing proposition when Apple entered it, it made no sense to open a store. yet they went ahead anyway. So where is the "profit" motive? It's all to easy to cry "profiteer" now while staunchly ignoring history!
Apple does not have to cooperate with any cartels to do what they wish; they do have to convince said cartels to go along - at least for a little while until they become non-entities, as is slowly happening with music.
Apple's statements are indeed useful in predicting what they may or may not do; Those who do not think so are simply blind and refuse to ascribe some motive beyond profit to a company.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley