# PowerPC 970 Info Thread



## fryke (Feb 28, 2003)

It's been all over news & rumour sites: The PowerPC 970 by IBM will be out in the second half of 2003 (some say early, some say late) at speeds _starting_ at 1.8 GHz. IBM will present Server Blades based on the chip at CeBIT in Germany, which is about to start soon.

So, will we see 2.5 GHz PowerMacs in Autumn?

On another forum I've also read a very interesting point: As long as IBM is selling their own machines with the newest PPC 970 processors, Apple can't only deliver slower CPU speeds, because we all SEE that higher levels can be achieved. (In comparison to the G3, which is at 800 MHz at Apple, while IBM has long ago presented 1 GHz chips of the PowerPC 750FX, but hasn't sold any computers with them on their own. This will change with the PowerPC 970...)


----------



## mr. k (Feb 28, 2003)

Now I have seen a lot of information supporting the apple adopting ppc 970 rumors, and personally would love to see a dual 2.5 ghz powermac, but these are just rumors!  The most compelling thing that I have seen aginst the ppc 970 being adopted by apple is Steve Jobs saying something to the extent of 'I like to have lots of options...'
I am sure apple is prototyping new processors now, the g4 is just so old apple would be crazy to not have a new plan in place.  But how do we know it will be the ppc? We don't.  I bet Steve and other apple big guys are up in their office now laughing up the fact that practically the whole mac community thinks that ppc 970's are gonna be in new macs.  Or mabye they are up there discussing plans for releasing the dual 2 ghz powermacs...  The funny thing is that nobody knows


----------



## mightyjlr (Feb 28, 2003)

well if Steve is up there laughing at everyone thing the PPC 970 is going to be in the new macs, he'll be crying in 6 months when it isn't, and hes shipping 1.5 Ghz G4s and Intel has 3.5 Ghz chips shipping.


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 1, 2003)

What I haven't seen though is anyone put forth a valid reason why Apple *WOULDN'T* use the 970?  Even if they were going to drop a bombshell late this year, early next, they could still shore up their marketshare by introducing a more powerful cpu.  The 970 is still a PowerPC, so the amount of work would be minimal, and unless Motorola has something up their sleeve with a G5, it's Apple's best bang for the buck.


----------



## fryke (Mar 1, 2003)

Yes, please try and keep the thread on the PowerPC 970. There _are_ other options for Apple (and Steve said that _before_ IBM announced the 970), but this thread is basically about _that_ processor and whether Apple should be using it.

For PowerMacs, there doesn't seem to be a better option, though.

It's binary compatible with the G4. Fully. Plus it _adds_ quite a bit of ooomph and is a 64bit processor which lends a hand to going 64bit computing in the OS (which Apple doesn't _have_ to do, as the 970 is also a good 32bit compatible processor as far as we've heard).


----------



## substrate (Mar 1, 2003)

What's the cost per processor with respect to a Motorola G4? If it's an order of magnitude higher (which is possible - price a Power 4 some time) then I think you'd be visiting him with torches and pickforks.


----------



## fryke (Mar 1, 2003)

Nope. IBM is aiming this at desktop workstations. While it _might_ be pricier than the G4 processor, it will certainly not compare to the Power4 series.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 1, 2003)

One of the things Apple has done to cut the cost of systems is to drop L3 cache. The POWER4 could have up to 32 MB of cache as I recall which helped push it past all the other processors on the market, but also put it out of most people's price range.

The 970 should come with 512 k of on chip cache (at speed I believe), which means the additional L3 cache would be nice, but not a requirement for performance. As production increases at IBM (bringing down the cost per chip) Apple could start adding L3 cache again to the higher end models. I believe the 970 supports up to at least 4 MB of L3 cache (though it may actually be higher).

Also I don't think Apple is going to be going after the fastest of the earlier 970s produced (which it looks like IBM has set aside for it's lower end servers). I'm sure Apple it looking at performance vs price to see where they are going to start out at (I would expect the 1.8 GHz version myself in the early models)


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *
> Also I don't think Apple is going to be going after the fastest of the earlier 970s produced (which it looks like IBM has set aside for it's lower end servers). I'm sure Apple it looking at performance vs price to see where they are going to start out at (I would expect the 1.8 GHz version myself in the early models) *



I would disagree here.  To get beat up as much as they do about clock rates and then to suddenly become conservative once they finally get their hands on something that performs would be a major error.  I assume what they'll do is to go ahead and produce using the fastest 970 they can get their mitts on.  However, they will have lower speed models and the fastest one will have a very significant price tag associated with it.  People will still buy it however.  I would suspect the models will break down something like:

2.5ghz w L3 cache
1.8ghz w L3 cache
1.8ghz w/o L3 cache

What would be sweet is if they still manage to sell DP models.  I don't know what the price of the 970 will be, but if it's at a point that they can throw a couple in the same box for a reasonable cost, the thing would rock big time.


----------



## fryke (Mar 1, 2003)

I'm pretty sure there won't only be 1.8 and 2.5 GHz models.

But I agree that I don't think Apple will introduce a 'high-end' machine that _doesn't_ make use of the best PowerPC 970 available, IF Apple's going to use the PowerPC 970.

However, we still don't know what chips exactly IBM will be able to bring to market and when. Let's wait a bit. CeBIT isn't that far away.


----------



## Pengu (Mar 1, 2003)

Uh. Can someone inform this little black duck as to what exactly CeBIT is??


----------



## fryke (Mar 1, 2003)

One of the largest computer shows in the world. Hosted in Germany. IBM's gonna present their PowerPC 970 based Blade Servers there. And I'm sure we'll also hear more interesting stuff, although not necessarily Macintosh related.

-> http://www.cebit.de (also in English)


----------



## Cat (Mar 3, 2003)

I found some specifications that could enhance the speculations:



> The 970's bus ratio is fixed at 1/4 the CPU clock speed, and its clock is doubled. So a 2.5GHz 970 will have a bus that runs at an (effective) clock speed of 1.25GHz.
> For those wondering, that's 10GB/s theoretical bandwidth, or about 8.8GB/s observed, assuming that the percentage lost to packet overhead is constant.
> 
> Going from .13 micron to .09 micron gives another increase, figure 30%. So 2.3 - 3.25 GHz.
> ...



Mostly taken from the fora of Appleinsider.com
but I found the very same specs also posted elsewhere.
Of course all this has to be taken _cum grano salis_. It's highly theoretical but interesting nevertheless. 

When the PPC 970 will be available in mass production later this year, it would constitute a very enticing alternative for the G4, even for a dual 1.5 GHz G4 ... The main reason I can see for Apple to adopt the 970, is that there appears to be no drawback of any kind: the 970 is faster, fully 32 bit compatible, has AltiVec, runs relatively cooler, has a much faster FSB, is expected to be more scalable to much higher speeds than the G4+, has great potentialities as 64 bit processor, etc., etc., ... Chi piú ne ha, piú ne metta...


----------



## fryke (Mar 3, 2003)

Cat wrote:


> the 970 is faster, fully 32 bit compatible, has AltiVec?


I believe that when I see the results of Photoshop tests, though. 
No, just kidding. Of course the 970 will be faster. Whether it'll be faster at the _same_ clock speed, ... Dunno. I'm really interested in Macintosh based tests.


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *Cat wrote:
> 
> I believe that when I see the results of Photoshop tests, though.
> No, just kidding. Of course the 970 will be faster. Whether it'll be faster at the _same_ clock speed, ... Dunno. I'm really interested in Macintosh based tests. *



But if you are able to ramp the clockrate up at a much faster pace than the G4, does it really matter?  The P4 is the ultimate example of going a bit backwards to performance to be able to go forwards.  From what I've read of the architecture, this is NOT the case, but I think that from a marketing standpoint, it's better to join them than to spend lots of money to fight them (in regards to clock rates).


----------



## doublejoint (Mar 3, 2003)

So, since all of the speculation about these chips has started I've been wondering how hard or easy it will be for apple to make the transition.  Will they have to have 2 different versions of OSX for people with the new chips and people with the old ones?  Or will they just make a hybrid kind of version of OSX that would take advantage of the 970's speed, but might not take advantage of the 64bit stuff right away.  Isn't it impossible to have an OS that runs 64bit and 32?  As you can see I have know idea what I'm talking about, but I'm just wondering how smoothly the future switch might be.  I'd hate to do an OS9 to OSX type of battle all over again.


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 3, 2003)

Unless Apple has been working on a 64bit port of OSX for a while, it would seem to make sense that they would just run in 32bit mode on the 970.  They could come out with a 64bit version of OSX and the OS installer would just choose the appropriate one depending on hardware.  Sun does this already with Solaris.  You can run 32bit apps on a 64bit OS but usually not the other way around.


----------



## doublejoint (Mar 3, 2003)

ah, so in other words, then all of these software companies would then have to make yet another version of their software that would take advantage of the 64bit OS, if they wanted too anyway.  Hopefully companies would be excited about doing this so that their software could run even better.  On the other hand it might be kind of a pain, since they just had to port over to OSX.  I'm sure apple's got all of this figured out though.  And I guess everyone has to understand that in the computer world, things are always advancing and changing.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *I'm really interested in Macintosh based tests. *



I would really like to see this chip running in  an IBM workstation. It is nice that they are running it in a server, but I want to see it running side by side with POWER3-II and PPC604e systems running the same software. If it can run 32-bit apps designed to run on those processors at speeds close to what it is able to run benchmark tests compiled as 64-bit apps, then I would be completely convinced.

(  not that I'm not now of course)


----------



## Stridder44 (Mar 3, 2003)

Well, its practically spring already, so we will most likely find out soon enough (in the comming months). Personally, I would be excited about Apple taking up the PPC970. But I would also be interested in Apple going to x86...but thats a whole 'nother topic.


----------



## Cat (Mar 4, 2003)

Fryke posted:


> Whether it'll be faster at the _same_ clock speed, ... Dunno.



What do you mean exactly? A single 970 is faster than a single P4 (even with Hyperthreading) at the same clockspeed according to these estimates:

Dhrystone 
970 ... 1.8GHz ... 5220 
P 4 .... 1.8GHz ... 4119 
P 4 .... 3.066GHz 7724 (Hyperthreaded)
........................ 7009 (without HT) 

SPECint2000 
970 ... 1.8GHz .... 937 
P 4 .... 1.8GHz .... 612 
P 4 .... 3.066GHz 1130 

SPECfp2000 
970 ... 1.8GHz ... 1051 
P 4 .... 1.8GHz .... 678
P 4 .... 3.066GHz 1103


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *Fryke posted:
> 
> What do you mean exactly? A single 970 is faster than a single P4 (even with Hyperthreading) at the same clockspeed according to these estimates:*



Heck, I think a 486 is faster for a given clock speed than a P4.  I think he was referring to the G4 (or G3 or even 604e).

*
Dhrystone 
970 ... 1.8GHz ... 5220 
P 4 .... 1.8GHz ... 4119 
P 4 .... 3.066GHz 7724 (Hyperthreaded)
........................ 7009 (without HT) 
*

Hey, when I originally read your post, I saw some numbers for the Athlon, where'd they go (or is the caffiene wearing off?)  Anyway, IIRC the 1.8ghz Athlon had about the same Dhrystone value as the 1.8ghz 970!?!


----------



## Stridder44 (Mar 4, 2003)

Its that whole pipline thing huh


----------



## Cat (Mar 5, 2003)

> Hey, when I originally read your post, I saw some numbers for the Athlon, where'd they go (or is the caffiene wearing off?) Anyway, IIRC the 1.8ghz Athlon had about the same Dhrystone value as the 1.8ghz 970!?!



Yeah, sorry. I edited them out while trying to get all the numbers nicely aligned 

These were the the numbers for the Athlons:

Dhrystone 
PPC970 1.8GHz ................. 5220 
Athlon XP 2800+ (2.25GHz) . 6406 
Athlon XP 2200+ (1.8 GHz) .. 5125 

SPECint2000 
PPC970 1.8GHz .... 937 
Athlon XP 2800+ .. 933 
Athlon XP 2200+ .. 765 

SPECfp2000 
PPC970 1.8GHz .... 1051 
Athlon XP 2800+ ... 843 
Athlon XP 2200+ ... 671


----------



## Stridder44 (Mar 8, 2003)

Ya know...many rumors say that the PPC970 will come about some time later this year (2003). Many rumors also say that 10.3 (Panther) will also  come about the same time...later this year. Maybe Apple is already optimizing their next upgrade (10.3) to work best with the next generation processor. What I'm saying is that 10.3 might be released around the time (or after) the next processor is announced. September was the time about when 10.3 is supposed to come about (i think). So i bet thats when we can expect the next processor come about as well. Then again...Im probably wrong...lol...


----------



## ksv (Mar 8, 2003)

I want tech docs


----------



## fryke (Mar 8, 2003)

I'm pretty sure that _if_ the PPC970 comes in a PowerMacintosh computer this year, the operating system will come in a separate version with the machines. I think Panther will be released this Summer whether the PPC970 is ready or not, the latter being more probable.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Mar 8, 2003)

Is fryke some kind of super human, possessing PPC 970 powers? Can he will the macintosh line to upgrade? Who takes over when he is asleep, does he sleep?
tune in next time for fryke man!


----------



## fryke (Mar 9, 2003)

hmm. okay. -> mum.


----------



## hulkaros (Mar 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *hmm. okay. -> mum. *



Oh! Ooh! Look up in the Sky!

It's a bird!

It's a plane!

IT'S...
.
.
.
.
FrykeMan...


----------



## fryke (Mar 9, 2003)

Okay, a little contest. Design me a little comic figure of FrykeMan. The best entry will be my new avatar on here for at least a month.


----------



## Rhino_G3 (Mar 9, 2003)

On another note... macwhispers has a story of two new Motherboard designs that are currently out on bid from an apple partner.  From the previous timelines this should be out in 3 to 4 months.  New Powermacs on the way with "completely new" motherboards?

Link 



> Late Thursday, MacWhispers learned that an Apple OEM assembly partner has placed a new motherboard design out for bid with at least two Taiwanese circuit board contractors. Our source within one of these contractors has been surprisingly forthcoming in his report.
> What we have been told is that a set of CAD files detailing what "appears to be a final design for a pair of completely new motherboards" was given to at least two contractors this week for review and production price bidding. The deadline for bid responses is said to be March 28th.
> Our source states that these designs "are obviously for new PowerMacs," and that "the architecture of the boards looks to be totally different" from existing models. We were told that this price bidding activity typically indicates a finalized product being readied for production, and that this point in the process usually precedes actual production by 3 to 4 months.


----------



## Jason (Mar 9, 2003)




----------



## fryke (Mar 9, 2003)

ooookay. 

on an unrelated note, i've written an article on http://macnews.net.tc on what we know and what i think about the PowerPC 970.


----------



## Jason (Mar 9, 2003)

you asked for it my friend


----------



## drash (Mar 14, 2003)

My probable conclusions about the 970 and a new version of Mac OS X is the 10.3 version will more than likely be a 32-bit version revamped just for the 970.  Why?  Because the biggest drawback to creating a 64-bit version of OS X is drivers.  All of your hardware drivers would have to be redesigned for the new kernel.  Living through the 64-bit changeover in the Solaris world it was mostly a big non-event.  ALL of my 32-bit software worked fine even big database products like Informix.  In fact I noticed a little pick up in speed, especially I/O.  But drivers needed updating for anything directly connected.  Sun controlled most of it and these were already done.


----------



## fryke (Mar 14, 2003)

Just imagining an installer that asks: "Do you want to break compatibility with your printer and scanner to gain 64bit support?" 

But... Up until now, Apple has always broke most drivers with the big updates. So: No news. We will be waiting for HP, Brother, Canon and consorts, anyway... Sure, we hope that it'll not be the case... But I'd wait for beta testers' reviews before upgrading to 10.3, anyway, even on our 'old' 32bit hardware.


----------



## jocknerd (Mar 14, 2003)

Even if the the 970 is shipped this fall in new Power Macs, the real question is whether anyone will be able to afford it. Knowing Apples track record, I'd be surprised if you could get one for under $3000.


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jocknerd _
> *Even if the the 970 is shipped this fall in new Power Macs, the real question is whether anyone will be able to afford it. Knowing Apples track record, I'd be surprised if you could get one for under $3000. *



Well that's hardly surprising since Apple usually prices their "top of the line" right around the $3000 mark.  One would really have to be smokin some good stuff to imagine that Apple would come out with systems more powerful than the current ones but yet undercut the current prices by any substantial margin.  Instead they will do what they (and everybody else) always does.  The 970 based machines will slot in at the top, the current high end will get pushed down.  So though you may not be able to afford that 2.4ghz DP 970, you can suddenly afford the 1.4ghz DP G4.  Then in another year 1/2 to two years (after the first 970), the first iMacs will start shipping with them and they will go "mainstream".

Does anyone have any reason to believe that the G4 -> 970 transition will occur any different than the G3 -> G4?


----------



## chevy (Mar 14, 2003)

It's not the same processor.


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chevy _
> *It's not the same processor. *



Who/what are you replying to?


----------



## chevy (Mar 15, 2003)

G4 is just and evolution of G3. Same processor with new capabilities.
970 is a 64 bits MCU. That's quite different. Unless it includes a G4 for compatibility, G3-G4 software will need a good layer of software emulation to operate on the 970.


----------



## ksv (Mar 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chevy _
> *G4 is just and evolution of G3. Same processor with new capabilities.
> 970 is a 64 bits MCU. That's quite different. Unless it includes a G4 for compatibility, G3-G4 software will need a good layer of software emulation to operate on the 970. *



I've heard the PPC 970 is 100% backwards compatible with the G4. We won't know anything for sure until they've released tech docs, though.


----------



## chevy (Mar 15, 2003)

Wait and see.

Will the CPU be completely compatible ?
Will the OS that exploits the CPU new capabilities be completely compatible ?

Wait and see.


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chevy _
> *G4 is just and evolution of G3. Same processor with new capabilities.
> 970 is a 64 bits MCU. That's quite different. Unless it includes a G4 for compatibility, G3-G4 software will need a good layer of software emulation to operate on the 970. *



No, they both implement the PowerPC ISA, which means that at a fundamental level they'll be exactly the same.  No different than the relationship between the 8086 (16bit) and the 80386 (32bit).  Don't know about AltiVec though, I don't believe its officially part of the PPC ISA.  Though the 970 is supposed to have extended floating point capabilities, which sounds a lot like another way of saying AltiVec (is AltiVec tm Motorola?).

Anyway, this particular discussion is moot.  That the 970 could be an all new beast is meaningless with regards to pricing.  Apple is not coming out with a $5000 pc that is only marginally faster than a $2000 pc, that would be stupid and nobody will buy it.  I still contend that their pricing structure will stay pretty much as is, they have no choice.


----------



## Jack Hammer (Mar 16, 2003)

i agree on the pricing structure

the economy is close to a recession and the US is about to be in war as well. I would think that Apple has to negotiate a way to get 970s at the same prices as a G4. which is possible - apple helps with R&D costs or mass quantity discounts or some sort of contract deal.

i think we'll see something of the same we see now:

3000+ fastest
2500+ faster
1700+ fast


----------



## sheepguy42 (Mar 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *...Though the 970 is supposed to have extended floating point capabilities, which sounds a lot like another way of saying AltiVec (is AltiVec tm Motorola?)...*


Yes, AltiVec is tm Motorola, which is why Apple calls it Velovity Engine, and according to IBM, the 970's "extended floating point caapabilities" are fully AltiVec compatible, meaning that software compiled to take advantage of AltiVec will also get a boost on the 970.


----------



## Ripcord (Mar 16, 2003)

"close to" a recession?

Hasn't it been a recession for 3 years?  A pretty deep one?


----------



## RacerX (Mar 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ripcord _
> *"close to" a recession?
> 
> Hasn't it been a recession for 3 years?  A pretty deep one? *



I'm sure it was a typo, the correct word would be _depression_. As these things are usually called about 6 to 9 months after the fact, you could pretty much figure that you could remove the _close to_ part.


----------



## Jack Hammer (Mar 16, 2003)

i'm not a economic geni-ass, didn't want to officially declare it anything

but yes, a recession and a depression if you say so 


which means - cutting costs (like they did to the PM line last time) and they have no reason to raise it until they know demand is up


----------



## chevy (Mar 17, 2003)

BTW, the latest Pentium CPU are also lower clock speed. Officialy for lower power, you can bet it is also for lower cost !


----------



## GulGnu (Mar 17, 2003)

"i'm not a economic geni-ass, didn't want to officially declare it anything

but yes, a recession and a depression if you say so"

Recession, maybe - depending on what definition you use. According to the most common one - two quarters of falling GDP in a row, it's not a recession. Using Actual / Potential GDP, it might be, but then it's kind of mild. 

Depression? No way - not even close.

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!


----------



## hulkaros (Mar 18, 2003)

...will surprise us, be it a posotive or a negative surprise, when they will unveil their PowerMac line... This fall, perharps, if not at the end of this summer?  

I can't wait for those 970(?) based PowerMacs!


----------



## drash (Mar 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *Just imagining an installer that asks: "Do you want to break compatibility with your printer and scanner to gain 64bit support?"
> 
> But... Up until now, Apple has always broke most drivers with the big updates. So: No news. We will be waiting for HP, Brother, Canon and consorts, anyway... Sure, we hope that it'll not be the case... But I'd wait for beta testers' reviews before upgrading to 10.3, anyway, even on our 'old' 32bit hardware. *



The way an IBM engineer emphasized and defended the PowerPC 970 about being able to run a 32-bit OS on it is what caught my eye and why I think 10.3 will still be 32-bit.  My best guess is that Apple will do what Sun did for a while, give you a choice between 64-bit or 32-bit.  With the full knowledge that they don't yet have everything at 64-bit and running a 64-bit OS takes up a little more room than 32-bits.  So late August we'll see 10.3 and the new 970 based Mac and because the 1.4GHz version of the 970 only uses 10 watts, you might even see a high end powerbook in Sept.  I believe the "true" 64-bit version of OS X will be 10.4 and it will probably be released in January, along with new Xserves.  I don't believe the 970 will be as expensive as everyone thinks, since it'll be about the size of the current G4 chip but on a 300mm wafer being built in a new fab line right here in NY.


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 24, 2003)

Just an "update".  There is an amusing (hey, its the Register) article correlating Apple *moving* wwdc and the 970.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/29898.html


----------



## gwynarion (Mar 26, 2003)

MacWhispers had an interesting rumour recently...


> A source inside one of the three OEM manufacturing companies now preparing bids on producing the two next generation PowerMac motherboards offered additional information about the new boards late Thursday.
> 
> According to our source, the new motherboards are designed around the IBM PPC 970 processor, with one board being a single processor design, and the other running two processors. This source states that he has seen and inspected pre-production board samples populated with the PPC 970 chips. Additionally, the bid deadline for constructing these boards was reaffirmed as March 28th, only one-week from today.


I hope they are right.


----------



## cfleck (Mar 26, 2003)

so what are the odds that these new processors will be put to use in a powerbook at the onset?  does anyone know how long after the g4 was introduced that they stuck one in a powerbook?


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by cf25 _
> *so what are the odds that these new processors will be put to use in a powerbook at the onset?  does anyone know how long after the g4 was introduced that they stuck one in a powerbook? *



It was about a year and a half.  Since cpu oomph isn't as important on the laptop front (i.e. they seem to be pushing them out the door just fine right now) so I would doubt that they would put a 970 in one right away.  I assume that most of the r&d is going into sprucing up the towers since they are suffering the most because of the whole performance issue (that and everyone is sitting around waiting for these new machines to come out).


----------



## chevy (Mar 26, 2003)

If speed is related to faster and parallel memory, room will be a challenge. Therefore it may be ok in a 17" PB, but not in a 12" !


----------



## mindbend (Mar 26, 2003)

Macworld.com is talking about IBM manufacturing Nvidia chips soon. I was wondering if there might be some tie-in with the IBM 970 and future Nvidia chips that would benefit us Mac users.

I'm just optimistically thinking maybe IBM would develop some kind of integrated CPU/graphics chip or tandem cooperative thing that would be extra-optimized. I don't know what I'm talking about, just tossing it out there as something of minor interest.


----------



## fryke (Mar 26, 2003)

This would more or less only get interesting if Apple would cooperate closely with IBM for the motherboard design. But we don't really want onboard graphics again, do we? I want to be able to replace a graphics card after a year without exchanging the whole motherboard or some processor/graphics board...


----------



## chevy (Mar 26, 2003)

IBM has a fab with advanced technolgies (like Intel, TI, TSMC and others). They use the fab for their own products (like PPC), and for others products (like Motorola PPC, and why not Nvidia). Nothing to do with a design collaboration.


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by mindbend _
> *Macworld.com is talking about IBM manufacturing Nvidia chips soon. I was wondering if there might be some tie-in with the IBM 970 and future Nvidia chips that would benefit us Mac users.
> ...*



Everyone needs to remember that one of IBM's major businesses is semiconductor manufacturing.  This is a business onto itself and activities that they engage in don't necessarily have any bearing at all on what other units in the company do.  This is ESP. true when they are simply signing on as second sourcers OR when companies need to take advantage of some advanced semi con manufacturing process (e.g. SOI, copper interconnects, etc).

If the article said that IBM would simply be manufacturing, then this is most likely all that it is.  Now if they mention that IBM is helping in the logical design of the chip, then that's a different story altogether.


----------



## sheepguy42 (Mar 26, 2003)

That reminds me of the impossible to upgrade PC's companies like Packard Bell and Compaq used to make- one card would be the sound card, graphics, and modem, and stuff like that. The problem is that you would try to add a good sound card, and the crappy one built in to the modem card or whatever would still take over the sound output. It is much better to separate these components out, IMHO.


----------



## Aeronyth (Mar 26, 2003)

For us under-informed people.../ non  mac users

Who makes the G4 processor and why can't it keep up with the current clock speeds?


----------



## fryke (Mar 26, 2003)

Motorola makes the G4 processor. Clock speed is not everything. And Motorola had some problems. There are enough resources on the web about it, though. 

To sheepguy42: You only had to disable the onboard graphics and/or sound to work with the AGP/PCI cards. Not really a problem.

However, the PC boards with onboard graphics and sound pose a problem to the iMacs over here in Europe. If you need a 'cheap' computer for word processing, E-Mail and surfing the 'net, you can choose between an Athlon XP 2200+ machine with a 15" LCD for, say 599$ and an iMac for around 1399$ (yes, they're a bit more expensive over here). The eMac is disqualified for more than one reason. Let's just name the CRT monitor that is definitely sub-par. So: Those onboard stuff machines really made the PCs very, very inexpensive. And the fact that you can upgrade them the way you want (processor, graphics card, audio card, video recording cards etc.) make the customer feel more powerful (and they tend to forget that they also pay more if they buy more).

Apple definitely has a problem in the consumer market over here because of that, but it seems that Apple likes to sell us quality, and I think that's okay. It's only strange that the iBook is about the cheapest notebook you can get AT ALL in Switzerland.  I hope it stays that way, but I also hope that Apple does something about the iMac's price over here.


----------



## hulkaros (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *Apple definitely has a problem in the consumer market over here because of that, but it seems that Apple likes to sell us quality, and I think that's okay. It's only strange that the iBook is about the cheapest notebook you can get AT ALL in Switzerland.  I hope it stays that way, but I also hope that Apple does something about the iMac's price over here. *



Everything Apple is much more expensive than anywhere else around the world  

The company here, Rainbow Computers (the closest thing to Apple here), keeps 2 prices: The European ones (which of course seems to be cheap) and the Greek ones... The European prices are 99% plasmatic because one cannot actually buy at that price level and the real world (the Greek ones) are too much for one to pay: 1350$ for base model of eMac


----------



## fryke (Mar 27, 2003)

What do you mean... they make EUR prices but you can't actually pay in EUR? Wouldn't that be like... fraud?


----------



## hulkaros (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *What do you mean... they make EUR prices but you can't actually pay in EUR? Wouldn't that be like... fraud? *



If you INSIST on buying in european prices you DO NOT get greek support  AND you get your Mac from anything between a month and up to 3 months  and this is before we start to actually speak of new models  

On the other hand with the greek prices you get all the above plus 1 or 2 "extras" like greek letters on the keyboard and a greek troubleshooting manual of 20-30 pages  

And of course not even the advanced users prefer the NO-GREEK support models for obvious reasons  

The only solution to this mess is if and when Apple and other Mac companies go full Cocoa support where one can have Greek support AND buy from online Mac stores around the world... Or and this is a big OR, Rainbow Computers starts to play fair (yeah, right) 

Here is the biggest "Apple" store here in Greece with the lowest prices:
http://netgr.com/applepiraeus/appleg4imac.html

And here is the "official" Rainbow Computers "online" store:
http://www.applestore.gr/cgi-bin/We...fLIjURlClmmxlM/2.0.5.17.5.4.1.0.1.1.0.1.1.1.1

The prices are in Euros and DO NOT include 18% VAT...

I'm saying "online" store about RC because you cannot actually buy online except if you go first in their actual store in the center of Athens in order for them to give you a code which enables you to buy from their "online" store


----------



## fryke (Mar 27, 2003)

Okay. Got you. 

Sounds terrible. Well, I guess if I were you I'd buy a naked PowerMac or something from outside Greece and then just replace the keyboard. Support may or may not be a problem (if you keep all the original stuff, you could still bring it for repair outside your country, sounds dumb, but why not...)... Or is the Mac OS X version you get when you buy at RC a specialised Greek version that you can't get elsewhere?


----------



## hulkaros (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *Or is the Mac OS X version you get when you buy at RC a specialised Greek version that you can't get elsewhere? *



With that specialized version of OS X you get the ability to write and read in Carbon apps as well as the Cocoa ones and you get in some areas greek menus (Finder), apps (TextEdit), etc. However, you still DON´T get greek Help and MANY other stuff but people over here prefer this not-even-half-baked greek solution because in the end this is what people here in Greece like: Computer which enable them to read and write greek AND other languages and not the other way around...


----------



## lif1975 (Mar 31, 2003)

Hmm..

Is change of date for the WWDC so important that the message remains on www.apple.com for weeks?


----------



## sheepguy42 (Mar 31, 2003)

The change might not be, but Apple may simply be trying to promote the event. Mentioning the date change is probably just them using every opportunity the get to inform people. Kind of a "keep all bases covered" sort of thing.


----------



## chevy (Mar 31, 2003)

Apple simply has nothing more important right now.


----------



## Jack Hammer (Mar 31, 2003)

well well


what are the ramifications if Apple chooses to do nothing?

i think we should all go here:
http://www.apple.com/contact/feedback.html

and let them know that you think that Apple should be offering a better computer


----------



## fryke (Mar 31, 2003)

What do you mean 'chooses to do nothing'? You mean if they stop improving the Macintosh? They die, of course. But the last time they stopped developing a computer (The Apple II), something new had already taken the place (The Macintosh).


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jack Hammer _
> *well well
> 
> 
> ...



Then they lose market share and eventually fade away like the Amiga (another superior computer with a superior OS) or Silicon Graphics.  As many times as Apple has "died" before, things are getting more serious now as they are starting to lose their grip on their core ISV's (Adbobe being a major one).  Can Apple really survive being it's own only major ISV?  Their relationship with M$ has cooled and their starting to make their other ISV's upset because of the tools their releasing.  These are interesting times indeed, the internet and subsequently the iMac has helped to revive the company, can they keep it going is the big question.  One thing that having a bigger boost at the top end does is to allow cheaper computers on the bottom end.   If your high end and low end are only separated by .4 ghz, then it's hard to either charge enough for the high end (because it's hard to justify the price) or low enough for the low end (because it really isn't that cheap for you to produce).  If Apple had access to a 3ghz G4 right now, just think how cheaply they could sell a 1ghz machine.


----------



## fryke (Apr 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *If Apple had access to a 3ghz G4 right now, just think how cheaply they could sell a 1ghz machine. *


Yep, and just think how they wouldn't, though, because they're Apple.


----------



## Cat (Apr 1, 2003)

I must say that with the last update the price/performance ratio has increased considerably ... Let's hope the trend will go on!


----------



## Jack Hammer (Apr 1, 2003)

by nothing i mean, use the g4 for another 5 yrs.

i know for a fact i will not buy anything


----------



## jazzyjim (Apr 4, 2003)

Its interesting from IBM's perspective that their chip is more or less directly compatible with OS X. _I hear that IBM are planning to offer blade servers using this chip, what if Apple licenced OS X Server for use in these blade servers as well as using the chip in their own machines?

Apple suddenly gets a decent foot hold in the server market with the marketing clout and support of IBM.  Apple also gets some leverage in the corporate desktop market (similar to how Microsoft ties windows clients to windows servers using Active Directory, SMB, etc) because IBM is shifting large numbers of OS X servers.

Drawbacks are that Apple's own Xserve server market may be decimated (but could equally be increased if their servers were complimentry to IBMs rather than competitive i.e. low-end, small business).

Its pretty certain that IBM could find a way to sell OS X servers since it would be effectively selling easy to use Unix (an attractive proposition to any large organisation).  And since IBM already offer servers in various flavours of Unix (Linux, etc) its not out of line with their current market strategy.

These are just my thought and I have no information to support this, but I think its an interesting idea thats not totally out of the question.

Cheers,

James.


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jazzyjim _
> *... _I hear that IBM are planning to offer blade servers using this chip, what if Apple licenced OS X Server for use in these blade servers as well as using the chip in their own machines?
> 
> ...
> ...



Not going to happen.  IBM _already_ has two Unix flavours that they push, AIX and Linux.  They have absolutely no need, and more importantly, their customers are not asking for another solution.  Trying to differentiate THREE unix flavours would not gain them anything in the marketplace, as anyone seriously considering AIX would NEVER consider OSX and Linux still has a strong foothold in the Web space.

IBM had an opportunity to jump on the Mac bandwagon, and they declined, it's hard to imagine them jumping in now.

Now if you want to sink your teeth into something, how about IBM simply purchasing Apple, getting rid of their pc clones (except for the ThinkPads) and focusing on Macs for their low end offering.  Effectively eliminating any x86 based units (again except TP).  They could then make Jobs the head of this new Personal Computing unit and give him a lot of autonomy, but with the engineering might of IBM.


----------



## Androo (Apr 4, 2003)

So, how fast will this 970 be? If they put it in a powerbook right now, how  many ghz do you think....?


----------



## jazzyjim (Apr 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *Not going to happen.  IBM _already_ has two Unix flavours that they push, AIX and Linux.  They have absolutely no need, and more importantly, their customers are not asking for another solution.  Trying to differentiate THREE unix flavours would not gain them anything in the marketplace, as anyone seriously considering AIX would NEVER consider OSX and Linux still has a strong foothold in the Web space.
> 
> Now if you want to sink your teeth into something, how about IBM simply purchasing Apple, getting rid of their pc clones (except for the ThinkPads) and focusing on Macs for their low end offering.  Effectively eliminating any x86 based units (again except TP).  They could then make Jobs the head of this new Personal Computing unit and give him a lot of autonomy, but with the engineering might of IBM. *



binaryDigit,

As to your first argument, how is this different from say Microsoft offering Win2K, WinXP home, WinXP pro, WinXP server, etc, etc....

You are missing the point that IBM would be getting an advanced product that they could actively influence the future development of (without spending loads on development themselves) and through negotiation of chip supplies with apple they could get at a very low cost.  They also get an operating system which plays nice with both Unix and Windows (without needing years of Unix experience to configure) which will make a good integration box and have a lot of other value add which you dont get out of the box with Linux.

As for the AIX vs OSX argument, I'm not convinced.  Yes AIX is enterprise class and a lot more robust, etc, etc, but that really hasnt stopped a lot or oganisations from ripping out enterprise Unix's like AIX, etc in favour of Linux or worse, NT.  Where I work we replaced a number of Solaris boxes with Linux on x86 because the cost benefit model was so much better.

I'm not saying its going to happen or that its even likely but the benefits for apple would be immense and IBM would get a chance to piss Microsoft off by producing yet another significant competing OS to NT 

IBM are principly into making chips, selling servers and providing end to end enterprise solutions, they are not into desktops and the only desktop product that they make any real money out of is the Thinkpad line.  I dont think IBM will buy apple anytime soon for exactly this reason 

As for the new chip.  I think any increase in OSX performance will come from the greater memory bandwidth available to the processor rather than the actual clock speed, that why its important that this chip has such a quick bus speed (900Mhz I read somewhere). It has to be able to work with large screen textures in memory very quickly because of the way that quartz works (alpha channels/blending) 

See ya.


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jazzyjim _
> *binaryDigit,
> 
> As to your first argument, how is this different from say Microsoft offering Win2K, WinXP home, WinXP pro, WinXP server, etc, etc....*



Uh, how about night and day.  The pro/server/enterprise/home variants are just that, variants.  It is the same code with certain features en/disabled and slight configuration differences.  XP is the successor to 2K and and both are based on related code bases.

AIX/Linux/OSX are entirely different code bases  and entirely different OS's.  You can't compare them, at least not in the same sense as the WinXXX family.  



> *You are missing the point that IBM would be getting an advanced product that they could actively influence the future development of (without spending loads on development themselves) and through negotiation of chip supplies with apple they could get at a very low cost.  They also get an operating system which plays nice with both Unix and Windows (without needing years of Unix experience to configure) which will make a good integration box and have a lot of other value add which you dont get out of the box with Linux.
> *



Actually you are missing my point.  My response was WHY would they want that?  Sure you mentioned some benefits, but so what, if it doesn't fit into their big picture, then the "advantages" are irrelevant.  They don't NEED those advantages that you mentioned.



> *
> As for the AIX vs OSX argument, I'm not convinced.  Yes AIX is enterprise class and a lot more robust, etc, etc, but that really hasnt stopped a lot or oganisations from ripping out enterprise Unix's like AIX, etc in favour of Linux or worse, NT.  Where I work we replaced a number of Solaris boxes with Linux on x86 because the cost benefit model was so much better.*



True, IBM wouldn't be offering Linux solutions if their customers weren't asking for them instead of AIX solutions.  Many customers don't need the "enterprise" features that AIX offers (or dont feel like paying for them), so Linux becomes that alternative (that and the cult of personality that has grown up around Linux esp. in the web space).



> *
> I'm not saying its going to happen or that its even likely but the benefits for apple would be immense and IBM would get a chance to piss Microsoft off by producing yet another significant competing OS to NT *



But I think that the chance to "piss off Microsoft" is hardly a reason to start selling OSX based hardware.  Plus, M$ frankly wouldn't care.  M$ is FAR more worried about the Linux camp then they are about OSX.  As a matter of fact, they'd probably love to have IBM try to sell OSX boxen, then they can say "see, IBM is not as gung ho about Linux as they claim to be", ESP. if they offer OSX as yet another server platform.



> *
> IBM are principly into making chips, selling servers and providing end to end enterprise solutions, they are not into desktops and the only desktop product that they make any real money out of is the Thinkpad line.  I dont think IBM will buy apple anytime soon for exactly this reason *



Actually I was just kidding


----------

