PPC 970 Confirmed for Apple? 450
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.
Stimulus / Response (Score:2, Funny)
PPC Confirmed for Apple -> New Mac Confirmed for KoopaTroopa
NOT confirmed (Score:5, Insightful)
Read more carefully. (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Stimulus / Response (Score:5, Informative)
No specific executives are quoted, however... so it's unclear from where the information originated.
The PowerPC 970 has been widely rumored and expected to be used in Apple's upcoming Macs, though both IBM and Apple had not made any official announcements about their use.
Now I'll wait to buy a Mac (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple sales guys must hate this kind of press.
Re:Now I'll wait to buy a Mac (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Now I'll wait to buy a Mac (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't matter which PowerBook you get: get the one that fits your needs best. They ROCK.
I haven't had this much fun with a computer in 20 years!
Re:Now I'll wait to buy a Mac (Score:5, Interesting)
I really want a 15" PowerBook, but I'm WAY too cheap to get one.
Re:Now I'll wait to buy a Mac (Score:3, Funny)
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 $30
Re:Me, Too! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm posting this on a ZX Spectrum via home-rolled TCP/IP stack. Do I win a 12" powerbook?
Re:Now I'll wait to buy a Mac (Score:5, Informative)
They do, but everyone knew about this before today--well, everyone except you, so i guess you have a point. But PowerMac sales were already abysmal anyway.
Oh, and if you want an iMac or a PowerBook, odds are against the new chips premiering in those Macs, so you may have a longer wait than you expect on your hands.
Re:Now I'll wait to buy a Mac (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be surprised if the nextgen chip landed in a portable right off the line. Apple's Power Mac line has been, well, pretty stagnant lately; a new chip is the perfect way to boost this line.
In any case, putting a brand new and untested chip into a laptop environment is risky. They'll roll 'em out in nice, big towers, where heat dissipation is easier to handle and hardware doesn't need to be custom-crafted to fit inside a hella-small space. Once they're comforatble with the quirks of the chip in Real World settings, they'll start working them into laptops.
So, in other words, don't hold your breath for a PPC 970 laptop in the next round or two of Mac hardware, for both product line freshening and technical reasons.
Re:Now I'll wait to buy a Mac (Score:3, Insightful)
Moreover, why spend time and money trying to push something consumers aren't interested in just so you can say you improved one area of your sales? It's the overall sales picture that matters, and giving consumers what they want is the best way to maximize that.
Of the handfull of people I know who are looking for a new machine right now, it's either
Re:Now I'll wait to buy a Mac (Score:5, Insightful)
No offense, but ye gads! The 12" and 17" PowerBooks aren't even half a year old, and they're still pretty much universally recognised as some of the ass-kickingest laptops ever.
Moreover, why spend time and money trying to push something consumers aren't interested in just so you can say you improved one area of your sales? It's the overall sales picture that matters, and giving consumers what they want is the best way to maximize that.
That's the beauty of marketing. If you're good at it, consumers will be interested in exactly what you want them to be interested in; if the product is actually good, then it's that much easier. Apple wins on both counts. Besides, they've been pushing laptops big time for a while now. That momentum is gonna run out at some point. Desktops need to be there to pick up the slack. (Got your iBook/PowerBook? Got your iPod? Great--now you need a Power Mac with Airport wireless to act as your home media hub!)
Of the handfull of people I know who are looking for a new machine right now, it's either for a laptop or a gaming rig, and while a new Mac is suitable for gaming, it won't make a good choice as a gaming oriented purchase. The laptop lookers I know are very open to the idea of buying a Powerbook.
Re:Now I'll wait to buy a Mac (Score:5, Insightful)
apple is NOT.
i repeat apple is NOT THAT DEVICE.
So?
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.
But they're pretty damn good at everything, and for people who are looking for a good balance (as opposed to the best in any one area), they're often perfect. That's why people get attached to them.
(And that's not even mentioning aesthetics (of both hardware and software), which is one of Apple's biggest selling points.)
Re:Now I'll wait to buy a Mac (Score:3, Informative)
(I have to point out that I was speaking only of laptops -- something that is only clear if you read the parent of my post.)
I didn't say anything to imply that any PC didn't do what it's made to do. But certainly, in the design of these machines (again, speaking of laptops), trade-offs are made. Apple seems to have a good formula worked out that has broad appeal. It's not a Mac vs. PC platform debate -- it's just design mojo that makes users h
Re:Now I'll wait to buy a Mac (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it depends on when the 1.2 V. version of the chip comes out. It used a very small amount of power - 13 W. if I recall correctly.
I think the G4 will have a fairly lengthy run in the tiBook line, with the 970 at the high end.
Re:Now I'll wait to buy a Mac (Score:5, Informative)
For example, right now they recommend purchasing a LCD, XServe, iBook, iPod, or eMac. They're neutral on iMacs, Powerbooks, and Power Macs.
There's no way you'll see a PowerPC 970 in a 12" Powerbook, so don't wait if you want one of those. The iMac is tricky...my guess is that it'll see faster G4's for a while before it eventually gets a processor upgrade. I'd only wait for sure if you want a Power Mac.
PowerPC 970 Powerbook or iMac (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re:PowerPC 970 Powerbook or iMac (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Now I'll wait to buy a Mac (Score:4, Insightful)
The 970 will most probably premier in the high-end machines, like PowerMac and XServe. It's highly unlikely that 17" iMac or 12" powerbook will get the new chip in the close future. Apple usually tends to differentiate its product line even by means of effectively cripplling its low end machines - like deliberate blocking of non-mirroring external video on the iBooks (technically possible for Radeon, but crippled by Apple on iBooks) or the lack of L3 cache on the 12" powerbook.
So if the machines that interest you are the iMac and 12" powerbook, you are safe to buy them now. No serious upgrade is likely for them to happen in next half year (maybe some minor speed bumps, like the recent one for iBooks). The ones that are likely to see major changes are Powermacs, and indeed I would recommend holding with purchases in their case.
I think the likely scenario is that the G3-based iBooks will be eventually ditched (there is hardly any development of this product line since more than half year), and the 12" powerbook G4 will become the new low-end of the Apple portable line; the high-end being some Mucho Macho Seventeen Incher With The Brand New Chip.
Re:Now I'll wait to buy a Mac (Score:5, Informative)
All new ibooks have twice as much video memory and probably wouldn't suffer from the QE disabling, so
BTW, I'm typing this screen spanned onto a Sony 19" that has a USB hub in the base. I have a cheap as chips USB keyboard (windows key maps to apple/command, alt to option and ctrl to ctrl) and a standard PC optical mouse hooked into that and when I arrive in the morning I just hook in the usb and monitor connectors and we're away. The ibook's touchpad and keyboard remain active - the only thing that isn't completely duplicated is that I still only have one mouse pointer. It's really *really* cool, and I'm very impressed.
Dave
Re:Now I'll wait to buy a Mac (Score:4, Insightful)
- PowerMacs and XServes will most likely feature multiple power 970 CPUs, placing them well ahead of a single CPU powerbook in performance.
- The target market for powerbooks is really not the same market as xserves and powermacs. The true competition for powerbooks is PC notebooks. The true competition for desktops is PC desktops. There is little risk that 970 equipped powebooks will cut deeply into Apple's server and PowerMac sales.
- In the year of the notebook, where Steve Jobs has claimed more than half the macs sold will be notebooks, he can't really afford to push desktop systems over powerbooks.
- The 970 requires less power and gives off less heat than a G4. It's a perfect notebook CPU.
I'm looking forward to pickign up a 970 Powerbook before Christmas.
Re:Now I'll wait to buy a Mac (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and it gets worse. In a few months when you finally get what you think you want right now, there will be more heartbreaking news: new computers will come out some day. They will be even faster. You wasted your money on obsolete junk, fool.
Some day the 970 will be an ancient joke like the Opteron and the abacus. "You still use a PowerPC 970? Can you still get replacement beads if they fall off?" Ultra320 RAID arrays will be laughingly referred to in the same breath as 1541 floppy drives and people will speculate that they work by means of a turtle on a treadmill. "Grandpa, is it true that your display devices only projected a two-dimensional image and didn't have smell synthesizers?"
It's almost like there's a pattern or something.
Re:Now I'll wait to buy a Mac (Score:3, Interesting)
Secondly, the chips will be much too hot for PowerBooks for quite a while. Even if Apple wanted to update the PowerBooks with a newer IBM chip, they couldn't keep power usage and heat output low enough. Don't expect these chips to move beyond the desktop market in the near future.
Re:Now I'll wait to buy a Mac (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Now I'll wait to buy a Mac (Score:5, Informative)
Don't say that these use more power or produce more heat without the facts to back up your position.
WWDC? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:PPC won't be the "fastest" CPU. Not now, not th (Score:5, Interesting)
This statement proves your total ignorance on the matter. The 970 has an eight way superscalar design, meaning it can execute 8 instructions per clock cycle (the Pentium can execute at most 2). With the SIMD unit it can apply those 8 to multiple data sets, (compared with the still most common single piece of data on Pentiums). In short, a 1.8 Ghz 970 chip is capable of far better performance than a 3 Ghz P4, (SPEC 2000 results have already shown this.) Not to mention the fact that Apple will most likely release them in dual processor configurations, thus providing close to 3.5 Ghz of combined performance for properly tuned apps.
Re:PPC won't be the "fastest" CPU. Not now, not th (Score:4, Informative)
Really? Ya know, I've done a google search for these kinds of numbers, and all I've found were estimated [pcvsconsole.com] values for 970 SPEC 2000 results. Nothing published - because IBM hasn't shipped any systems with the 970 chip (and no, don't even bring up Power4 systems - there is waayyy too much difference for the results to be compariable). But it's easy to find published [spec.org] SPEC 2k results for the P4 (including a 3.06 GHz model)
The estimates for 1.8 GHz 970: SPEC 2000 int 937, SPEC 2000 fp 1051.
The actual values for 3.06 GHz P4: 1085 SPEC 200 fp 972 (depending on which manufacturer/motherboard you pick).
I wouldn't call it a blowout by the 970 under any circumstance.
Re:PPC won't be the "fastest" CPU. Not now, not th (Score:3, Interesting)
sorry for the lame double reply (Score:3, Interesting)
1.8 GHz 970: 42 W (from Ars [arstechnica.com]
~3 GHz P4: 68 W (from Tom's Hardware. [tomshardware.com], although I have also seen a 81.8 W thermal output number from PC World New Zealand).
About 50-100% greater power consumption for the P4. It adds up, sure, but it's no G4 (~30 W). Nor is that chip designed for mobile use.
Re:sorry for the lame double reply (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me be honest with you: I don't even OWN an apple product, so you can guess what the original intent of my post was. Granted, I like OS X and am actually going to buy a Powerbook soon, and it will nice to see Apple regain some sort of parity with the x86 world (and if they stick with SMP, they may even "regain" the crown until the beige box manufacturers start commoditizing x86 machines.. MS would love that (imagine all those XP PRO licenses they could flo
Re:PPC won't be the "fastest" CPU. Not now, not th (Score:3, Informative)
Re:PPC won't be the "fastest" CPU. Not now, not th (Score:3, Informative)
Re:PPC won't be the "fastest" CPU. Not now, not th (Score:4, Insightful)
CPU's have been fast enough for a couple of years now, and it's time to focus on other bottlenecks in the system, and improving the user experience (whatever that actually means). Apple seems to be doing this. My department has some 500MHz G4s and some 1.5GHz athlons (some running Win2K, some running Linux). When I have to use one of their machines I choose the Mac, because it is just much nicer to use.
64bit (Score:5, Funny)
Argh! Head... going... to... explode...
Re:64bit (Score:3, Informative)
Re:64bit (Score:4, Informative)
While you are right, if you are only processing 32 bit data, then yes, there is only one benefit, and that is 64 bit memory addressing. But if you are processing 64 bit data, then yes, the article is both technically correct, and just correct in general.
Re:64bit (Score:5, Insightful)
"Argh! Head... going... to... explode..."
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.
Re:64bit (Score:3, Insightful)
twice as much is twice as good! (Score:3, Funny)
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? ;)
Re:64bit (Score:5, Informative)
Generally a CPU can compute faster than it can fetch or store, because on-chip memory is faster than off-chip memory. Tricks like caches help to speed things up. Tricks like having wider registers can also help quite a bit, depending on what you're doing.
If you are doing a lot of integer math on 32-bit integers, 64-bit registers aren't going to make any difference. If you are bitblitting images, they can make a difference. If you are doing double-precision floating point operations, they can make a big difference.
You can get similar performance wins by having a wide memory bus, long pipelines and a high clock rate, but the problem with long pipelines is that unless your code is amenable to long pipelines, you wind up doing a lot of pipeline stalls, and all the memory cycles you spend loading the pipeline are wasted, and you don't get much benefit from your faster clock rate. This is a big problem on the Pentium IV, which has a really long pipeline, and is one reason why P-IV performance has been disappointing for a lot of geeks looking for general-purpose performance. P-IV does well with video because video compression and decompression algorithms work nicely with long pipelines.
The bottom line is that there is no one thing that can double your performance, and certainly going from 32-bit registers to 64-bit registers can't double performance in all cases, but it can make a significant difference in some cases. If those cases are cases that Apple's customers care about, then Apple wins.
Re:64bit (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. But this is the sort of stuff that you can expect from the popular press. Hey, if the number is twice as big, it must be twice as fast. Right?
At any rate, the reporting for this article is shoddy at best. For example: While I would absolutely love to believe this has been verified by a source at IBM, the reporting is a little suspect and I would suppose that this is based upon rumor and nothing else. For instance, this rumor has been making the rounds for some time and if you look at the other big rumor the author is speculating on Yet, help may be on the way. Quark is signaling that it might soon release an OS X version. No guarantees and no dates, to be sure. You will find that Quark has hidden nothing about this. In fact, in the latest Macworld there is a whole expose on Quark coming to OS X.
Re:64bit (Score:5, 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.
Re:64bit (Score:3, Informative)
Parent may seem like a joke, but as a long-time Quark customer, I can assure anyone who asks that this is sadly very true.
I've never witnessed another software company that has so much contempt for their customers.
I'd addend that statement by adding:
A: Never. And we don't care if you don't like it
Re:64bit (Score:3, Informative)
64-bit means that each instruction can be 64 bits long, allowing for the native computation of larger numbers. Concurrently, it can process 2 32-bit instructions, but they would have to be instructions such that neither relies on the result of the other.
To sum up: 64-bit is not equal to 2x32-bit, but is much better than 32-bit.
An online Starcraft RPG? Only at [netnexus.com]
In soviet russia, all your us are belong to base!
Karma: Re
Re:64bit (Score:5, Informative)
Re:64bit (Score:3, Informative)
Re:64bit (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a good thing the article didn't say that.. in fact.. I will quote it here:
"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"
There. It says it can process twice as much information per cycle. Which is exactly what the benefit of 64 bit computing is. (along with 64 bit instructions[read: more general purpose register
Re:64bit (Score:4, Funny)
1.8 GHz per second (Score:5, Funny)
1.8 Billion instructions per second per second. It's about time that somebody made an accelerating chip - way to go, IBM!
Re:1.8 GHz per second (Score:3, Funny)
Re:1.8 GHz per second (Score:4, Funny)
Re:1.8 GHz per second (Score:3, Informative)
1.8 Billion instructions per second per second. It's about time that somebody made an accelerating chip - way to go, IBM!
If you'll be picky about other people's stuff, you might as well proof-read your own posts.
GHz != Billion instructions per second. GHz is the frequency the clock runs at, and that's all. Depending on the architecture, a single instruction may take several clock cycles. IIRC, Motorola 68HC12 has a few 7 cycle instructions.
-bm
Re:1.8 GHz per second (Score:3, Funny)
Unfortunately, they're only making one of this chip and selling off the clock cycles with distributed computing apps. So no 970 for us.
Confirmation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Confirmation? (Score:4, Funny)
64 != (2*32) (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:64 != (2*32) (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but how many libraries of congress can it fit in a volkswagen?
Re:64 != (2*32) (Score:5, Funny)
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...
Re:64 != (2*32) (Score:3, Funny)
Re:64 != (2*32) (Score:3, Funny)
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:64 != (2*32) (Score:3, Insightful)
Process generally means WORK on it, which means the dat
'Twice as fast' true or false? (Score:2)
I want to hear from th
Re:'Twice as fast' true or false? (Score:3, Informative)
Link [hp.com]
benefits of 64-bit computing
increased scalability
The main benefit of 64-bit computing is increased scalability of your computer and applications. Some applications simply do not fit into a 32-bit computing model. For example, limitations on file size in a 32-bit environment may require database systems to use multiple files to represent a single file. Applications requiring large files, a large number of files, or a large number of users will benefit from 64-bit computing.
increased perfo
Twice as much? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
So... (Score:5, Funny)
The G4 actually was a supercomputer... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:So... (Score:3, Funny)
We need a new standard of excellence.
What would be the performance characteristics of a superdupercomputer in gigaflops?
Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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"?
Confirmation? Speculation (Score:3, Redundant)
I didn't read anywhere in the article that IBM confirmed Apple will be using PPC970.
Is this new news?
mr.
This Means soon (Score:3, Insightful)
Getting out my wallet... (Score:2, Interesting)
Contrary to the Slashdot headline (Score:2)
Chances are the chips are a g5, but for the record the 970 is never mentioned.
This smells suspiciously of bull (Score:5, Interesting)
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.)
Re:This smells suspiciously of bull (Score:5, Insightful)
Another reason is that lots of Mac people probably read just about anything Mac related. So, page hits and ad revenue.
explains a lot (Score:2)
Dammit... should have taken job... But a bit confused at the time =P
IBM DID NOT CONFIRM -Slashdot Story 100% Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
Doesn't 40h bit sound better? (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe, but not necessarily this summer... (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally I love OS X in and of itself, and don't need Apple's stock or marketshare to increase. As long as they continue to do what they've been doing recently I'll be happy.
That said, I don't see any reason to believe that 64-bit (or 1.8ghz) Macs or Quark 6 will ship this summer. As much as I wish for it, history is not encouraging in this regard. The music thing on the other hand, could offer the kind of revenue growth stock buyers are looking for, or it could fizzle out (although admittedly it looks good so far).
The bottom line is I see Apple in a great position for long-term stability, but I don't see that pushing the stock up any time soon. I'm not sure whether the kind of innovation Apple does will ever be able to transform it into a large growth company, and frankly I'm not sure that I would want it to. The challenges of focusing on growth tend to eclipse everything else, and I think innovation often falls into that category. Once you start attracting employees on the basis of being a big money maker like Microsoft, you don't get as many of the creative geniuses that allow Apple to do what it does best and a destructive downward spiral begins.
I know analysts are paid to analyze, but frankly I think that kind of scrutiny misses the point of Apple entirely. Mac OS X is not the operating system of choice for stock brokers.
Re:Maybe, but not necessarily this summer... (Score:4, Insightful)
The history regarding processors is largely due to Motorola's failures. By all accounts IBM is much more capable, so I remain cautiously optimistic.
Macworld: (Score:5, Funny)
Not confirmed...likely (Score:3, Informative)
Again, that's likely, not definitely.
There's absolutely nothing in that article that says confirmed. Like all things Apple, the big news will be announced by Jobs himself. This would be really big news for us true believers. I think we're so excited about the prospect, having a major publication like Business Week write an article about it makes us jump the line. I'm sorry, but I'm not holding my breath on this one.
PRESS RELEASE--Dave Hurley Announces 970 G5 (Score:5, Funny)
Although by no means an expert, Hurley also feels strongly that there may be additional news on Apple's strategy presented at the upcoming Apple WWDC (which he will not be attending as he is not a developer).
Hurley, who incorrectly predicted a QuickTime video-equipped iPod late last year also indicated that the new G5 tower case design will "be significantly different in appearance from the current mirrored door line."
The trade press may contact Mr. Hurley via the above web address.
Nice tie in, quark and this 64 bit chip... (Score:5, Funny)
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 ordered a new G4 yesterday... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Update: PPC970 *NOT* Confirmed for Apple's Use (Score:3, Informative)
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.
The article is goofy from top to bottom. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Your reply is also a bit goofy (Score:3)
Re:G4 Vector Engine then? (Score:3, Informative)
32-bit and 64-bitness of a processor generally means how much memory it can address and the size of the registers.
Re:G4 Vector Engine then? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:G4 Vector Engine then? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Available when...? (Score:2)
I don't think you can point out a product released in the past five years they haven't delivered on. I'd
Re:Apple CPU speed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Apple CPU speed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Apple CPU speed (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:The Bit Myth!! (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sorry, how can you not own a Mac but use a Mac? Are you on somebody else's Mac? Are you at work or something? Doesn't it suck to use a Mac when you don't own one of your own? I did for a long time. I finally sold my car and broke up with my chick to get the cabbage to buy one. I was that desparate! Now I have the 17 inch PB that I can use while in the car...but now I ha
Re:IBM PPC to be produced by Samsung on 0.18 proce (Score:5, Interesting)
According to this story, in digitimes, the IBM PPC will be produced by Samsung using 0.18 micron process on 8 inch wafer. Not sure, this includes PPC970 also, but is surely a little outdated given that Intel and AMD are already using 0.13 on 12 inch wafer and are moving to 0.09 process.
Given the fact that the article continues to say this:
IBM is increasingly moving into mobile phones and home-use consumer products. In February, it announced that it would adopt its PowerPC architecture to mobile systems such as handsets, PDAs and telematics that combine computing and communications functions - dubbed as "pervasive computing" - which it believes will be the fastest-growing part of the semiconductor industry.
I suspect that it's talking about PPC for mobile systems, rather than the PPC970. And I'd say that my guess on that is confirmed by this [macworld.com]:
According to IBM, the PowerPC 970 also offers full symmetrical multiprocessing, has a high reliability (with parity L1, ECC L2 and parity checked system bus), is manufactured in the latest 0.13 micrometer Copper/SOI CMOS technology, has an onchip 512 KB L2 cache, and an Altivec Vector/SIMD unit.
Re:Just what we need (Score:3, Informative)
Step away from the panic button...