# Apple orders 40,000 970s



## mightyjlr (May 14, 2003)

According to looprumors.com

"We received word that two large shipments of Power PC 970 processors went to Foxconn in Taiwan, under a purchase order from Apple computer. Twenty thousand 1.4Ghz PPC 970's and forty thousand 1.6Ghz PPC 970's have already arrived in their hands. IBM's inventory contains fifty thousand 1.8 Ghz PPC 970's, of which forty thousand are destined for Foxconn tomorrow (Wednesday).          

IBM has listed as pending 2Ghz parts as well, which means that it will be in inventory within a month if their fab in East Fishkill produces sufficient volume of them, and from what we hear they should be in stock by mid-June. Apple has stated that they need a minimum of 40 thousand in order to make a production run, and from what we understand this is for dual processors because normally their production runs are twenty thousand units. It is not IBM's policy to comment on other vendor's unreleased products. We have also been briefed that the PPC 970 will come in 2.3 and 2.5Ghz configurations by the end of the year, and as well some preliminary specs on the upcoming 980 processor, which is a Power 5 derivative."


----------



## dlloyd (May 14, 2003)

Cool, sounds like it could be something!
I am beginning to trust LoopRumors,  they seem to be fairly accurate most of the time.


----------



## Rhino_G3 (May 14, 2003)

I have the perfect home for two of those chips...  You guys can fight over the remaining 39,998


----------



## malexgreen (May 14, 2003)

OOOh yeah... . I'm sure a 1.8GHZ 970 will outperform a 3.06GHZ Pentium4 HT.  BTW, are the 970's multi-threaded?


----------



## Rhino_G3 (May 14, 2003)

I wouldn't be do quick to claim that it'll outperform a P4 at less than 2/3's the clock.  It seems as if it will come fairly close though.

There's been great discussion of the chip at Ars Technica.  The link is in the "PPC970 at WWDC" thread.


----------



## pwharff (May 14, 2003)

It's coming...........


----------



## wtmcgee (May 14, 2003)

i don't care at this point if it beats or doesn't beat a P4 chip.

one thing's for sure though, it'll be a step up from G4 chips, and will definately help the server market.

(also, if anyone wants to get their hands on a nice 1.42 DP powermac, those prices should come tumbling down soon).


----------



## iscaro (May 14, 2003)

Well, I'm getting a DP 1.25Ghz tomorrow... my first PowerMac...

Hope not to be really mad in the near future...


----------



## Cat (May 14, 2003)

ArsTechnica has a new article on the PPC 970. Very very technical, but also very very good. Even if not closing the perfomance gap instantly and completely, Apple would be definitely gaining some ground. If the PPC 970 will scale as well as people think it will, once on 90 nm and at around 2.5 GHz it will compete head tot head with the rest of the chips out there. When we will pass on to the PPC 980 after that, there are good hopes of re-gaining the performance crown ...


----------



## Arden (May 14, 2003)

Any confirmation to this speculation?


----------



## jiomitori (May 14, 2003)

na


----------



## uoba (May 14, 2003)

Jobs could put them in the xServe first... just to wind us up even more... but I think Apple knows that people would be plenty annoyed if that was the case (since it's the PowerMac users that are truely screaming for this processor).


----------



## jiomitori (May 14, 2003)

na


----------



## Lazarus18 (May 14, 2003)

The odds of this chip going into portables right away are slim to none. I believe it runs hotter than current G4 chips. Plus chips in laptops are almost never the exact same chip as in desktops as far as I know. 

XServe, PowerMac at launch, I'd say the iMac would be, I don't know, 6 months or so behind? I think they want to squeeze some more out of the current configuration.


----------



## drustar (May 14, 2003)

It'd be great if this chip lands on the 15'' PB or the next in line of PowerMacs.

Yay!


----------



## Rhino_G3 (May 14, 2003)

Has anybody heard any power requirements for this chip yet?


----------



## Arden (May 14, 2003)

Look at the discrepency between G4 Power Macs and G4 Power Books and answer the question: "Will Apple install 970 chips in desktops and laptops simultaneously?"  You should come up with "no."

I'd project seeing Power Mac 970's and XServe 970's in the near future, if these rumors prove true.

What I want to know is how Apple is going to redesign their tower cases.  They can't keep the current design forever, even though it is stylish, functional, and easy to utilize.  Nothing ever stays the same forever (with the possible exception of architecture).


----------



## Lazarus18 (May 14, 2003)

That's a good point. With the XServe we have the purely functional box. The Minitower for the G3/G4 desktops is getting rather long in the tooth. For awhile everything was clear pastic and colored plastic, usually graphite (Cube, G4, first iBook). But now the consumer line is white plastic (iBook, iMac, iPod) and the pro line in laptops is all about metals, the brushed metal in the OS is supposed to play a larger role in 10.3, and the Xserve already uses it. I wouldn't be surprised to see this show up in a new tower at some point soon.


----------



## Koelling (May 14, 2003)

I really thought I've read somewhere that the power/heat consumption of the 970 was less than the G4. If that's true then it would be optimum for powerbooks.

I tend to pass that off as some pipe dream influenced by the mad rumor craze happening lately. And even if it was cooler, Apple would probably put it in powermacs first.


----------



## symphonix (May 14, 2003)

I'd have expected it would appear in the XServe and PowerMac configurations simultaneously, but the article implies that they have ordered enough for a production run of only one type of product... I wonder which it will be?

If and when Apple chooses to implement it on the PowerMac, they will be able to claim the crown of having the first 64-bit desktop, which would be excellent publicity if nothing else.

Since I'll probably be looking for a new desktop at the end of this year, this looks like good news to me. I will just have to hold out until after the January MacWorld.


----------



## Rhino_G3 (May 14, 2003)

I was fairly positive that the 970 was a hotter chip than the G4, but I could be wrong.  I would love to find the actual watts this thing requires...

*/goes back to searching for cold, hard facts


----------



## Rhino_G3 (May 15, 2003)

here we go... 

http://arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc970-1.html

The 970@ 1.8 GHz uses 42 Watts
The G4e@ 1 GHz uses 30 Watts

From the article...


> As you can see from the table, the 970 at 1.8 GHz is much closer to the G4e than to the P4 2.8 GHz in terms of power dissipation. _This means that Apple will be able to use this chip in the kinds of innovative enclosure designs that make their hardware continually appealing, regardless of how it performs. _Furthermore, a 1U, 970-based version of the XServe is not out of the question. And if you consider the fact that _*the 970's power consumption at 1.2GHz is a mere 19W*_, it's almost certain that we'll see a future notebook from Apple based on the new chip.



It appears that I was wrong  

It will be a hotter chip at current speeds than the G4 currently is, but that's a side effect of the higher clock, not the chip design.

MHz for MHz the 970 is cooler, although it will be a little more of a challenge for cooling because of it's speed.


----------



## Lazarus18 (May 15, 2003)

I will take that trade-off any day. Heck, if it were twice as hot and twice as fast I'd take that. We're so far behind as far as clock speeds on the desktop go that I'd take a desktop only chip (you can always find a way to cool it, albeit a loud way) and let them go back to the drawing board to find a way to upgrade the laptops. But this sounds like a great chip. Hope all the rumors are true. It sure is the most logical step to take for Apple.


----------



## magi.sys (May 15, 2003)

> If and when Apple chooses to implement it on the PowerMac, they will be able to claim the crown of having the first 64-bit desktop, which would be excellent publicity if nothing else.



Even though I am looking forward to this new chip I don't think Apple can claim to have the first 64bit desktop.  Ever heard of Compaq/True64 , Sun/Solaris , and Sgi/Irix?


----------



## monktus (May 15, 2003)

Obviously SGI etc have had 64bit machines for ages but you can't buy them in PC World.


----------



## Da_iMac_Daddy (May 15, 2003)

> Ever heard of Compaq/True64 , Sun/Solaris , and Sgi/Irix?



Aren't those all workstations? like for offices? what I think he meant was that this would be the first 64bit desktop that everyone could use.


----------



## Rhino_G3 (May 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Da_iMac_Daddy _
> *Aren't those all workstations? like for offices? what I think he meant was that this would be the first 64bit desktop that everyone could use. *



That's correct.  These are all labeled workstations, not desktops.

Besides...  Motorola beat all these guys to the punch as well.  There were previous 64 bit motorola chips used in a few desktops (albeit a small number)


----------



## binaryDigit (May 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Rhino_G3 _
> *That's correct.  These are all labeled workstations, not desktops.
> 
> Besides...  Motorola beat all these guys to the punch as well.  There were previous 64 bit motorola chips used in a few desktops (albeit a small number) *



Really, JOOC what processors were they based on and who produced them?  Both 060 and 88k were 32bit right?  Are you referring to PPC 620?


----------



## Rhino_G3 (May 15, 2003)

Yes, you're right on that. I was speaking about the 620.  If I'm not mistaken the 620 was used in a few desktop boxes.

Maybe these were more workstation class as well.


----------



## binaryDigit (May 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Rhino_G3 _
> *Yes, you're right on that. I was speaking about the 620.  If I'm not mistaken the 620 was used in a few desktop boxes.
> 
> Maybe these were more workstation class as well. *



I don't think any machines ever shipped with the 620.  If they did, they most likely would have been AIX based (i.e. not "desktop" or pc (generic)).

If 10.3 is 64bit, then the Mac would be the first pc to be fully 64bit (OS and cpu) geared towards the mass market (and certainly the consumer market).


----------



## Koelling (May 15, 2003)

heck, most of windows isn't fully 32bit yet. PCs are so mired in backwards compatibility that it's surprising there's any speed left for the programs that need to run.


----------



## MDLarson (May 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Rhino_G3 _
> *These are all labeled workstations, not desktops.*


OK, what's the difference, exactly?  Performance?  Maybe like...

Servers (most powerful)
Workstations
Desktops
Laptops


----------



## binaryDigit (May 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *OK, what's the difference, exactly?  Performance?  Maybe like...
> 
> Servers (most powerful)
> ...



Generally that's sorta how it goes.  But there is no hard and fast definition.  Take the video card out of a high end machine and voila, you have a server.  Is a maxed out PC with a $1000 OpenGL acclerated video card still a pc or is it a workstation?  The difference is more in the marketing (how it's presented and how it's priced).  In the old days you could say "it runs *nix, it's a workstation".  Of course nowdays with OSX and Linux, you can't make that generalization any more.  And not even in performance.  A file/web server needs fast io (disk and network) but not necessarily the hottest cpu.  So even with slower cpu's, a "server" with a nice raid and intelligent ethernet adaptors could kill a higher end machine with "only" a single 7200 rpm ata-100 drive in disk i/o.  However that same higher end machine would destroy that server in raw cpu performance.  Web servers have vastly different performance needs than a database server, etc, etc, etc.

So the answer is that there is no specific answer.  It's mainly in the interpretation.


----------



## binaryDigit (May 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Koelling _
> *heck, most of windows isn't fully 32bit yet. PCs are so mired in backwards compatibility that it's surprising there's any speed left for the programs that need to run. *



That's not true for the NT branch of the family (NT, Win2k, etc).  There is a bunch of 16bit code, but that code is there to specifically support 16bit apps.  A 32bit app should never see any 16bit code while executing.  Now it may be true for the "consumer" Windoze versions (95, 98, ME, etc), but I don't know for sure.

Very true about Wintel in general having mucho baggage due to it's heritage (hardware and software).


----------



## kendall (May 15, 2003)

According to LoopRumors, G4 iBooks are to be released this month. 

http://www.looprumors.com/FebArchives.html

LoopRumors are friggin idiots.  Go through there archives and see that they're DEAD WRONG 80% of the time.


----------



## boneske (May 15, 2003)

I totally agree with binary here.  The only time NT lets anything access the 16-bit code is if it's 16-bit software or hardware(believe it or not people still use old ISA cards).

As for Win9x it is not fully 32-bit because it still practiclly runs ontop of DOS since it still depends on IO.sys, MSDOS.sys, and command.com to bootup(NT depends on NTLDR).

boneske


----------



## magi.sys (May 15, 2003)

hrmmm... but what really divides the line between a workstation and a desktop?  

I see the high-end Power Macs as workstation plus I used to use a Solaris box as my main desktop.  And now that AMD has the Opteron out they have been popping out here and there for desktop use.  My point is, Apple is not the first.  But let's just hope they will be the first 'successful' widely used 64bit desktop


----------



## Rhino_G3 (May 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *I don't think any machines ever shipped with the 620.  If they did, they most likely would have been AIX based (i.e. not "desktop" or pc (generic)).
> 
> If 10.3 is 64bit, then the Mac would be the first pc to be fully 64bit (OS and cpu) geared towards the mass market (and certainly the consumer market). *



That could very well be true.  I believe it was an IBM box that the 620 shipped in, although I could be way off base.

You're completely correct about the 970 and 10.3 being the first geared toward the end user.


----------



## fryke (May 16, 2003)

I don't know of any machine ever using the PPC 620. The plan was to have X86 compatibility. Full compatibility. However, I think, the chip was too big, too hot and too slow (in X86) at the time. Apple chose to use a PCI card with an X86 compatible chip for their 'PC Compatible' Macs at the time (PowerMacintosh 6100 DOS for example).


----------



## binaryDigit (May 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *I don't know of any machine ever using the PPC 620. The plan was to have X86 compatibility. Full compatibility. However, I think, the chip was too big, too hot and too slow (in X86) at the time. Apple chose to use a PCI card with an X86 compatible chip for their 'PC Compatible' Macs at the time (PowerMacintosh 6100 DOS for example). *



I think your confusing the 620 with the 615.  The 620 was supposed to be basically what the 970 is today, a 64bit SMP friendly monster.  The 615 was supposed to be a 604 (or 603) with built in x86 emulation.  Neither chip made it outside of Somerset afaik.


----------



## fryke (May 16, 2003)

You're right, I'm wrong. It's quite long ago...


----------



## gwynarion (May 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> *What I want to know is how Apple is going to redesign their tower cases.*


From what I've heard the new motherboard designs cannot physically fit into the current case designs, which has made a new design necessary.  I remember reading a few rumours about it (the design) a month or so back, but nothing very specific or very reliable.  At any rate, the shape/fit of the motherboards seems to be reasonably accurate.  Of course this could just lead them to stretch the current design "up" or "back"...


----------



## gwynarion (May 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *OK, what's the difference, exactly?  Performance?  Maybe like...
> 
> Servers (most powerful)
> ...


Well two of those types do or can have pretty significant physical differences.  The most obvious is that laptops have an attached monitor and fold up into a flat package that is easy to carry (plus all the other stuff about battery power and different architecture that deals differently with heat, power, etc).

The other is servers.  Many servers are designed to be rack mounted and include such features as hot swappable drives and redundant power supplies.  Many are also designed--all the way down to the cpu--to be much more reliable and resistant to crashes, which can often contribute to slightly slower clock speeds because of physical limits.  From a software perspective servers also usually run a different operating system that is easier to maintain remotely.

Looking at the final two categories you could think of them as being partly differentiated by hardware and partly by purpose.  Workstations generally have faster hardware and are intended for more intensive tasks.  Desktops typically are not quite as fast or as robust.  This is the hardware difference.  The purpose difference is where you see Compaq supplying one level of computers to CompUSA and another to business resellers (like the company I work for).  A desktop would be a computer for SoHo users while a workstation would be found in a business/corporate environment.  Looking at the Apple lineup you could say that the eMac and iMac are desktops while the Powermac is a workstation.  This isn't completely accurate, but it points the way, I think.  This is all just my interpretation, though, and may be not entirely valid.


----------



## Vyper (May 16, 2003)

So do you think the PPC970 chips will be out by Septempber?


----------



## Arden (May 16, 2003)

Wait for the WWDC and Macworld Expo and we will see.


----------



## mr. k (May 16, 2003)

i think if apple shows the ppc-970 at wwdc they better be shipping by CREATE of whatever the hell its called today - if these rumors are true then apple should have plenty of machines to ship off, and they would still be in pretty heavy production.  all this is kinda exciting!


----------



## gwynarion (May 16, 2003)

Regardless of what they show off at WWDC I have a hard time believing that they would ship the actual machines before Panther was ready to ship as well, and nothing I have heard leads me to believe that will be before August-September.


----------



## Darkshadow (May 17, 2003)

That's most likely true.  I doubt Apple would make an interim 10.2.x release just to take advantage of the new chip.


----------



## drustar (May 17, 2003)

so what would be the demise of the machines prior ppc-970? they'll sell as refurbished or somewhere along the lines?

of course prices will go down but how much of a price difference you think?


----------



## Ugg (May 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by drustar _
> *so what would be the demise of the machines prior ppc-970? they'll sell as refurbished or somewhere along the lines?
> 
> of course prices will go down but how much of a price difference you think? *



My question exactly, I'm holding out for price reductions on the current powerbook.


----------



## Lazarus18 (May 18, 2003)

I don't think you'll get much of a price break on the PB, as discussed earlier I expect they'll use the G4 chip for quite some time. Aside from the specifics of the 970 in laptops, just think back to the G4. How long were Powerbooks still using G3s after the G4 was introduced in desktops? Off the top of my head I'd say it was at least a year.


----------



## chevy (May 18, 2003)

Apple may start by selling to developpers only...


----------



## fryke (May 18, 2003)

And the message to the public would be: "Become an ADC Select or Premier member and buy a PowerMacintosh G5 computer at a reduced introductory price."

Wow, suddenly all graphics shops around the world would turn out to be interested in ADC membership. ;-)


----------

