# PPC970 at WWDC



## chevy (May 3, 2003)

MacBidouille confirms that we shall see the PPC970 based Macs at WWDC in June. They pretend that inventory will be built during May.

How many models ?
Will they directly replace the whole PowerMac line ?
May they also replace the high end iMacs ?


www.macbidouille.com (in French)


----------



## tsizKEIK (May 3, 2003)

here it is, in English .. LOL


----------



## wtmcgee (May 3, 2003)

i've been holding off on getting a powermac because of this. i wonder how much they're going to cost?

any ideas if they're going to cost roughly the same, or are they going to be more/less expensive than the current g4's to make?

i'd assume they'll be expensive at first, but once supplies get up, hopefully the prices will drop to something decent.


----------



## aaike (May 3, 2003)

Any idea about powerbook 15"s???

I'm selling my iBook to my sister and am looking for a powerbook... And as a lot around here I would prefer a screen a little bigger than the 12" and level 2 cache in there...


----------



## kendall (May 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by wtmcgee _
> *i've been holding off on getting a powermac because of this. i wonder how much they're going to cost?
> 
> any ideas if they're going to cost roughly the same, or are they going to be more/less expensive than the current g4's to make?
> ...



They will be more expensive than current G4 offerings.  They will be available for no more than the Xserve and highend PowerMac at first.  They will not be available until 10.3 is released and probably sometime after.


----------



## kendall (May 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by aaike _
> *Any idea about powerbook 15"s???
> 
> I'm selling my iBook to my sister and am looking for a powerbook... And as a lot around here I would prefer a screen a little bigger than the 12" and level 2 cache in there... *



the 970 is a hot hot processor.  i don't know why people assume it is going to find its way into Apple notebooks anytime soon.  i would guess a 970 PowerBook is more than a year away.


----------



## Rhino_G3 (May 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by wtmcgee _
> *i've been holding off on getting a powermac because of this. *



EXACTLY!  When i bought my G3 and the G4 came out 3 weeks later I swore I wasn't going to buy a computer untill the next gen came out...  Little did I know that would be 4 years.  I just about broke down a few months ago and bought a dual 1.25  I'm glad I didn't.   I can now patiently wait for my next machine, which I will preorder as soon as humanly possible.

Oh happy day


----------



## chevy (May 4, 2003)

I would wait 2-3 month before placing an order after the machine is launched. Let others do the debug !


----------



## substrate (May 4, 2003)

I've never understood the "waiting for the next new thing" concept. I can understand putting off a purchase if the release of something new is imminent, but anything beyond that and you're going to indefinately postpone your purchase. At the very least something new comes out every 6 months or so. I purchased a dual 1 gig machine in November, a few months later I could've got a dual 1.25 GHz for the same price.

Am I pissed off? No, not at all, I expected this and I needed the machine now. That's even overstating it. I decided to migrate back from linux to MacOS now that I had a chance to play with MacOS X and see how well made it really is.

I guess in my opinion there are two gating factors to purchasing a new machine: 1) Can I justify buying it and 2) Do I have the cash.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 4, 2003)

The only problem with Apple releasing the 970 at WWDC is this: To fully utilize all that a 64-bit CPU (which the 970 is) has to offer, the OS and the applications have to be tweaked. So, although Apple could release a Power Mac with the IBM 970 in it at any time they see fit, until Panther comes out (Sept. is the best estimate I've seen so far), and the developers tweak their apps to take advantage of it, any speed gains will be negligible.

The problem is a 1.4ghz IBM 970 running 10.2 and the current crop of apps isn't going to be any faster than a 1.4ghz G4 running the same OS and apps. In fact, it might even be slightly slower because without software specifically tuned for it, the 970 has to process 32-bit info in a psuedo emulated state, sort of like how the first_PPC machines ran 68K code.

So, a Power Mac with the 970, although it could hit the market in June at WWDC, wouldn't really be ready until Panther ships, since it will need the new OS to fully take advantage of it's speed.

My guess: you'll probably see an announcement of the machines at WWDC, with a launch shortly thereafter, but with the initial bunch running 10.2, with a free upgrade coupon to 10.3 when it ships in August/Sept/Oct.


----------



## MisterMe (May 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *The only problem with Apple releasing the 970 at WWDC is this: To fully utilize all that a 64-bit CPU (which the 970 is) has to offer, the OS and the applications have to be tweaked. So, although Apple could release a Power Mac with the IBM 970 in it at any time they see fit, until Panther comes out (Sept. is the best estimate I've seen so far), and the developers tweak their apps to take advantage of it, any speed gains will be negligible.
> 
> The problem is a 1.4ghz IBM 970 running 10.2 and the current crop of apps isn't going to be any faster than a 1.4ghz G4 running the same OS and apps. In fact, it might even be slightly slower because without software specifically tuned for it, the 970 has to process 32-bit info in a psuedo emulated state, sort of like how the first_PPC machines ran 68K code.
> ...


The PowerPC  began life as the single-chip version of the POWER chipset. POWER was and is 64-bit. With the PPC 970, the PowerPC is returning to its roots. It won't have to emulate anything. By your logic, the G1 through G4 emulated 32-bit.

You clearly don't understand how the original PPC emulated 680x0 code. Apple wrote a 680x0 emulator which it added to the Toolbox ROM. Until the advent of the NewWorld Macs, the 680x0 was emulated in firmware. With the advent of the NewWorld Macs and ROM in RAM, Apple replaced the Toolbox ROM with a ROM file. NewWorld Macs emulate the 680x0 in software.


----------



## Krevinek (May 4, 2003)

I have to side with MisterMe on this one...  the 970 is a 64-bit chip, implementing all of the PPC spec, including the 32-bit part of the spec. 

601, 603, 604, 750 (G3), 7400 (G4) all implemented the 32-bit portions of the PPC spec, and the G4 added a vector unit. There is no 'emulation' involved with running 32-bit code on a 64-bit PPC, and in fact, there ARE NO SPEED GAINS by using the 64-bit ops. However, if you write code to utilize the 64-bit registers for certain tight loops where you need to move massive amounts of data, or use LARGE numbers (greater than about 2-4 billion) that require integer precision, or some heavy-duty floating point precision...  you will start to notice some gains using 64-bit ops.

That said, the 970 is still a monster compared to the 7400 series. Able to be executing over 100 instructions at any one time compared to the 7400s less than 20 (IIRC), there will be speed gains... even at the same clock speed.

Plus to respond kendall, the current information on the 970 suggests that at about 1.2-1.4Ghz, it uses LESS power than the G4 at the same clock speed. Doesn't that actually make it more preferable than the G4 at that range for laptop use? Better battery life and less heat because of less power is a good thing, yes? Although it is true that the projected consumption of the 1.8Ghz chips will be pretty high compared to the G4 at 1.2-1.4Ghz.


----------



## mkwan (May 4, 2003)

so, the next major upgrade of Mac OS X (Panther) is going to be a 64 bit Operating System? can that be easily done since now OSX is unix-based OS?


----------



## monktus (May 4, 2003)

Presumably there will be 64bit native versions of BSD but I'd think it would still be quite a bit of work. I'd think some of the other guys will have more info.


----------



## mr. k (May 4, 2003)

mkwan - nobody is absolutely sure about macs being build with ppc-970 chips.  it is expected that apple will switch chip makers after motorola disappointed them with development on the g4...  and in rumor mills the ppc-970 is widely undisputed as the next chip.  before anyone knows for sure apple will have to tell them!


----------



## Rhino_G3 (May 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by substrate _
> *I've never understood the "waiting for the next new thing" concept. I can understand putting off a purchase if the release of something new is imminent, but anything beyond that and you're going to indefinately postpone your purchase. At the very least something new comes out every 6 months or so. I purchased a dual 1 gig machine in November, a few months later I could've got a dual 1.25 GHz for the same price.
> 
> Am I pissed off? No, not at all, I expected this and I needed the machine now. That's even overstating it. I decided to migrate back from linux to MacOS now that I had a chance to play with MacOS X and see how well made it really is.
> ...



I wasn't mad at all that I didn't get the G4.  I got the G3 at a great price.   I normaly bought a new computer aprox every 2 years.  That two years was up when I bought my current machine.  My G3 has done everything that I've wanted it to do since I purchased it.  If I had the need for more horsepower I would have purchased one a long time ago. Frankly, I don't feel that I should buy a new machine that I don't need.  When I first started looking around again for a new machine, it was when I felt that the next gen was never going to be released. Soon after the PPC970 rumors started flying hot and heavy.  From the first mention of it I decided that if it was comming out I would buy one as soon as it became available.  
Sure, I was glad that I did get the revision B G3 but I haven't heard of too many hardware bugs after the revision A.

So all in all... I don't truthfully NEED a new machine.  I've just wanted one.  If my current Mac is meeting my needs I'm sure I'd be happy with just about any G4.  I promised myself a long time ago that I'd skip the G4, and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## Rhino_G3 (May 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *The only problem with Apple releasing the 970 at WWDC is this: To fully utilize all that a 64-bit CPU (which the 970 is) has to offer, the OS and the applications have to be tweaked. So, although Apple could release a Power Mac with the IBM 970 in it at any time they see fit, until Panther comes out (Sept. is the best estimate I've seen so far), and the developers tweak their apps to take advantage of it, any speed gains will be negligible.
> 
> The problem is a 1.4ghz IBM 970 running 10.2 and the current crop of apps isn't going to be any faster than a 1.4ghz G4 running the same OS and apps. In fact, it might even be slightly slower because without software specifically tuned for it, the 970 has to process 32-bit info in a psuedo emulated state, sort of like how the first_PPC machines ran 68K code.
> ...



Since the majority of us aren't running on the latest and greatest hardware, we'll see a noticable improvement over our current machines.  This is even if the OS and apps aren't 64 bit native yet.

If it boots, I'll buy it.   I'll get a big speed boost when I get the machine and a another when I get 10.3.  2 for the price of one!


----------



## wtmcgee (May 4, 2003)

i have the 17" iMac right now (the 800mhz one).... so that's why i said before that i'm "waiting for this". i already have a very good machine IMO, one that can last me until later this year without feeling like i'm "behind" anything.

i'm waiting for something that really makes upgrading to a powermac worth it, and a new processor / OS is just what i need.


----------



## chevy (May 4, 2003)

I agree with you wtmcgee... my 1 GHz will be enough for 2 years, or so...


----------



## Cat (May 4, 2003)

There is a very respectable thread at ArsTechnica regarding what the PPC 970 can and can't do and how.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 4, 2003)

> The PowerPC  began life as the single-chip version of the POWER chipset. POWER was and is 64-bit. With the PPC 970, the PowerPC is returning to its roots. It won't have to emulate anything. By your logic, the G1 through G4 emulated 32-bit.



Yes, emulation is not necessary... But without any specific recoding to take advantage of the new 64-bit chip, the OS/software won't benefit from the new improved CPU. In some cases, it might actually run a bit slower. Of course, if Apple makes use of the new Hypertransport bus as expected, this would probably offset any temporary speed deficits due to not having 64-bit clean OS/software.



> You clearly don't understand how the original PPC emulated 680x0 code. Apple wrote a 680x0 emulator which it added to the Toolbox ROM. Until the advent of the NewWorld Macs, the 680x0 was emulated in firmware. With the advent of the NewWorld Macs and ROM in RAM, Apple replaced the Toolbox ROM with a ROM file. NewWorld Macs emulate the 680x0 in software.



You clearly don't understand the expression "sort-of". The comparison wasn't a technical one of specifics, but of generalities.

When Apple first moved to PPC, none of the software or the OS was optimized for it. All of the 68K code had to be processed through an emulator, which was transparently included in the OS.  The first generation high end PPC Mac (8100), while a fast machine, initially was hobbled by these lack of optimizations. When compared to the Quadra840AV which the 8100 replaced, the 8100 usually came out slower in most tests (Photoshop especially). Once more of the OS and the applications dumped the 68K code and replaced it with PPC code, the situation was reversed - the 8100 ending up besting the 840AV in most tests. Unfortunately, it took Adobe over a year to update Photoshop to take advantage of PPC, and it took Apple even longer to remove all the 68K code from the OS (System 9 was the first version to be almost 68K code free).

If the 970 debuts before Panther does, you can expect it to be comparitively hobbled by an OS (10.2) that is not tuned for a 64-bit CPU, and even more so from applications that are not as well.

The situation is similar in that Apple will have released next generation hardware before it could get the next generation software out the door.


----------



## MisterMe (May 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *....
> 
> You clearly don't understand the expression "sort-of". The comparison wasn't a technical one of specifics, but of generalities.
> ...


You need to reread my post. The reason that Photoshop and other applications were slower when run on the PowerMac 8100 was that they were still running 680x0 code. Native PPC applications execute much faster than 680x0 applications executed by the 680x0 emulator. Emulation versus native code is a completely different issue than generic code versus optimized code. Optimization refers to maximizing the performance of an application for the particular processor being used. Just because code is native to a processor does not mean it is optimized for that processor.


----------



## profx (May 5, 2003)

I think apple would be stupid to release a new processor with out having at least a couple of high end apps (adobe possibly - and apps like shake, final cut pro) that support the new processor.  

When they release it it will be the first 64bit processor for the 'consumer' market (if we can afford it) and it will need to have huge performance gains.  Releasing a new chip - the latest and greatest - that appears to run 'only' as fast as the 'old' G4 would be a PR disaster. This beast needs to be impressive.


and on a completely random tangent:

I think apple should make a dual processor powerbook and find a way to make it run on one processor when under battery power (to conserve battery).  I imagine this would be really useful to people doing things like mobile digital video (news media/doco makers etc...) who need a portable computer but one that can go as hard as a top end desktop when plugged in.

just my 2 cents


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 5, 2003)

> You need to reread my post. The reason that Photoshop and other applications were slower when run on the PowerMac 8100 was that they were still running 680x0 code. Native PPC applications execute much faster than 680x0 applications executed by the 680x0 emulator. Emulation versus native code is a completely different issue than generic code versus optimized code. Optimization refers to maximizing the performance of an application for the particular processor being used. Just because code is native to a processor does not mean it is optimized for that processor.



Yes, but the end result was that the newer 8100 was temporarily hobbled by the OS and applications that were not ready for the new architecture. This could also be the end result of the 970 being released before Panther. 

While the 970 should handle OS 10.2 and the current releases of pro apps fine, neither will be specifically tuned for  the chip. Since there are no prototypes to test, nobody really knows how well IBMs claim of full 32-bit support will pan out. Plus we still don't know at what speeds it will debut. Initial reports said up to 1.8ghz. Then there were reports that the chip had hit 2.5ghz in initial production. Then those reports we debunked, and the original 1.8ghz report stood as the best guess. So, outside of IBM and Apple, nobody really knows how fast this chip will be at launch.

Obviously, if we get the 1.8ghz chips at launch, those systems should be much faster than what we currently have.

But if Apple is only able to initially procure 1.4ghz 970's, I wouldn't expect a huge speed increase over the 1.43ghz G4, uless of course, the rest of system is upgraded too (hypertransport 900mhz FSB? GForce FX? USB 2? - hopefully all of the above...)


----------



## hulkaros (May 5, 2003)

...a possible G970 will offer anyways  a speed boost at the same speed of a G4 proc, even for current apps, simply because:
-It will offer a MUCH better data BUS solution
-It will use current AND faster DDR RAM solutions even better
-When running 32 bit apps actually is like running 64 bit apps or if you prefer a little bit of emulation will going on
-It will be able to scale even better with not only Dual configs but Quad and above as well
-It will have more L1&L2 Cache
-Its "Altivec" capabilities are enhanced

All in all, the new CPUs combined with the new OS X.3 (aka Panther) will make a formidable opponent even when running current 32 bits apps and "only" at 1.4GHz simply because they will be able to interact with all the other hardware a lot better than G4 currently does...

Still, I would like Apple to give us a similar PowerMac line which I think is logical too!?:
-Single G5/1.4 ~ Fast
-Single G5/1.8 ~ Faster
-Dual G5/1.4 ~ Fastest
-Dual G5/1.8 ~ Ultimate


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 5, 2003)

> Still, I would like Apple to give us a similar PowerMac line which I think is logical too!?:
> -Single G5/1.4 ~ Fast
> -Single G5/1.8 ~ Faster
> -Dual G5/1.4 ~ Fastest
> -Dual G5/1.8 ~ Ultimate



I wouldn't bank on Apple marketing the new IBM 970 Macs as the "G5". First of all, Motorola has produced a "G5" chip, and it's currently in mass production for embedded systems. The desktop version of the G5 was a total disaster for Moto, and the product has been scrapped. 

Apple really needs to convey that this chip isn't just a minor evolution from the G4, but the start of a completely new architecture (if they do use Hypertransport, which they probably will). 

How about "Power Mac 64"? Sounds a little too reminiscent of the "Commodore 64", though, doesn't it? 

Personally, I like "Power Mac 970".


----------



## Rhino_G3 (May 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by profx _
> *I think apple would be stupid to release a new processor with out having at least a couple of high end apps (adobe possibly - and apps like shake, final cut pro) that support the new processor.
> 
> When they release it it will be the first 64bit processor for the 'consumer' market (if we can afford it) and it will need to have huge performance gains.  Releasing a new chip - the latest and greatest - that appears to run 'only' as fast as the 'old' G4 would be a PR disaster. This beast needs to be impressive.
> *



Apple has been lagging performance wise (on hardware) for quite some time.  Imagine if we had waited for Quark Express before we got OS X.  Most of us would still be hobling along in OS 9.

Apple needs to get their fastest out there as soon as possible.  Once people see what the new chip will do they will come running to it.


----------



## chevy (May 5, 2003)

Let's imagine iTunes visuals on 970


----------



## mindbend (May 5, 2003)

When the first G4 came out (450 I think), I immediately bought one based on the Altivec hype. After running a battery of tests on multiple machines, I quickly realized that Altivec and the G4 wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

The G4 has scaled reasonably well and is now decent on a DP system. 

My point is simply that Apple are masters of hype. I consider myself to be a high end Mac user. I need every ounce of performance. Apple, don't give me any more stupid Photoshop filter tests. Don't talk about BS Altivec and its miracle advantages. Just give me a fast processor with a modern architecture. Don't put DDS RAM in the thing if the system can't even take advantage of it! 

As others have said. This cannot be a speed bump. This needs to be a whole new CPU experience. If you can, read page 45 in the April issue of Videosystems magazine. It's enough to make you want to give up and go crawl in a cave.

My last five Macs were purchased without any in-store testing or even waiting for reviews. I simply bought because it was the latest Mac. I have been mildly disappointed each time. Not because they weren't good machines, but just because the BS hype was a little over the top. Misleading, if you will.

I'm due for a new box come January 2004. This time I will be going to the local Apple store just to test. By then, plenty of reviews will have come and gone. There may even a small speed bump of the new chip by then. either way...Apple, impress me. You've got the best OS in the world, how about providing the best hardware?


----------



## Cat (May 5, 2003)

Check out the benchmarks on MacBidouille. Totally awesome! The PPC 970 literally blows away every other processor on 32bit programs & OS. Performance seems to double with duals. If all this is true (and there is a fair chanche) the next PowerMacs are weel worth waiting for!


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 5, 2003)

I would be (and I am) skeptical of MacBidouille...Their track record is pretty shoddy...

About the only rumor site I might even think of believing is ThinkSecret. Their track record, while not perfect, has been pretty good. 

Either way - mindbend brings up another point about cart/horse with Altivec. Apple heavily hyped it, and although some applications made good use of it (Photoshop, Blast!, iDVD), others did not (AE, Lightwave, iMovie), and it wasn't the feature it was hyped to be (in fairness, though - that usually was due to the developer not implementing, no fault of Apples).


----------



## binaryDigit (May 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by mindbend _
> *When the first G4 came out (450 I think), I immediately bought one based on the Altivec hype. After running a battery of tests on multiple machines, I quickly realized that Altivec and the G4 wasn't all it was cracked up to be.
> *



Just out of curiosity, what do you mean about Altivec not being everything it was hyped up to be?  Did you find that apps that were built to take advantage of Altivec were not performing better than those that weren't?  Did the speed increase not warrant the price differential?


----------



## mindbend (May 5, 2003)

My tests were done using a G3, a G4 and a PIII at similar clock speeds. When possible, I used identical applications.

I ran a bunch of Photoshop filters, transferred files, opened/saved files, ripped MP3, rendered video, rendered 3D objects and more.

I am here to tell you that, pound for pound, the G4 did not deliver in most cases across the board. There were/are a few exceptions where the performance really is way beyond the pure CPU expectation, but 99% of the time the determiner of speed was simply the CPU speed.

To answer binarydigit's question specifically...Altivec did NOT deliver on its speed promise, even in the case of supposedly optimized apps. My numbers show that Altivec typically gets you a measly 5-10% gain (again, there are a few exceptions, but they are rare). Even the Photoshoip tests were a joke, maybe pushing 30% gains on the optimized filters (from what I remember-I don't have the spreadsheet in front of me).


----------



## Rhino_G3 (May 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by mindbend _
> *My point is simply that Apple are masters of hype. I consider myself to be a high end Mac user. I need every ounce of performance. Apple, don't give me any more stupid Photoshop filter tests. Don't talk about BS Altivec and its miracle advantages. Just give me a fast processor with a modern architecture. Don't put DDS RAM in the thing if the system can't even take advantage of it!
> 
> As others have said. This cannot be a speed bump. This needs to be a whole new CPU experience. If you can, read page 45 in the April issue of Videosystems magazine. It's enough to make you want to give up and go crawl in a cave.
> ...



This is widely known as Jobs' "Reality Distortion Field"  No matter what he says at a keynote, everybody eats it up and is drooling for more.  If nothing else, he is an excelent public speaker.

As far as the 970 being an entirely new experience... I think apple has been listening to everybody complaining about the performance of their machines.  Up to this point they just frankly couldn't do anything about it.  They had to tout every little advancement as the next great thing because they didn't have the resources to create a truly great advancement.


This new proccesor really needs to go hard or go home.  If it doesn't live up to expectations I'm not sure what Mac users will have to look forward to.  The next generation chip is probably WAY down the line.


----------



## Cat (May 5, 2003)

If MacBidouille's benchmarks are even vaguely accurate, the new processors are really going hard. I don't think the benches are outright fake and made up. First, they have no reason to do that, they would get a peak of traffic now, and next to none when proven wrong. 
Second, you don't simply conjure benchmarks out of thin air. They know they are serving a techie crowd, and all the numbers except the 970 can be tested independently. So they will have made sure of not claiming something impossible, which makes the numbers credible and even probably next to true. Since there probably are going to be several changes in the hardware setup and the OS (they allegedly used and alpha build of Panther), they can be wrong, but not far off IMHO.


----------



## Rhino_G3 (May 5, 2003)

The PPC970 info from IBM has been impressive, I must admit.  IBM has also been one to show it how it is, not to inflate benchmarks.  
The only problem is that these benches are not of the production processor.  these are pre production models that could undergo drastic changes before they're released.  

Believe me, I'm pushing for these numbers to be true more than most people on this board.  I've been disapointed in the past.  I'm just trying to keep from getting my hopes up


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 5, 2003)

> If MacBidouille's benchmarks are even vaguely accurate, the new processors are really going hard. I don't think the benches are outright fake and made up. First, they have no reason to do that, they would get a peak of traffic now, and next to none when proven wrong.



They've made similiarly preposterous claims before and they still seem to get a good big of traffic, so I don't think they are too concerned about their track record...

I doubt these benchmarks, mostly due to MacBids geographics. The only place in the world right now that a fully operational IBM 970 Mac would be running is in Cupertino. The simple fact that MacBid is a French based rumor site gives me pause. Sure, they could have moles from within Apple, but I seriously doubt it judging from their past rumor history.


----------



## binaryDigit (May 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *...
> I doubt these benchmarks, mostly due to MacBids geographics. The only place in the world right now that a fully operational IBM 970 Mac would be running is in Cupertino. The simple fact that MacBid is a French based rumor site gives me pause.
> ...*



If the rumours are correct and the systems are supposed to ship wwdc timeframe, there had better be systems out there other than in Cupertino.  At a minimum there would have been developer systems out there for months.  Any systems reaching peoples hands right now should be based on actually production runs.


----------



## Rhino_G3 (May 5, 2003)

I don't think that they'll be shipping anytime around WWDC. I think they'll be introduced then.  THey could have as much as a 3 to 4 month lead in time before you see any of these machines in the hands of end users.


----------



## Jack Hammer (May 5, 2003)

no way they are available  at wwdc


the g4 powermacs for gosh sakes need 3 months lead time much less a new processor. it does seem like WWDC is a logical place to say something about a new processor though. developers need to know these things.


----------



## Cat (May 6, 2003)

MacBidouille posted some more information on their data.



> Contacted about the too great similarity of the benchs which we received and those published by Barefeats, our source said to us that APPLE had taken the figures of the P IV and the dual 1,42 on the site of Barefeats and used their protocol of test.  For Bryce, this is the explanation that we obtained:  "I would have to tell you, the benchmarks bryce... are made with a beta of the next version of bryce, which will arrive in July or August of this year.  Version 6 will support multi- processors configurations ... This beta version of Bryce 6 is available on some P2P sites, notably hotline.  The true file is Corel Bryce 6 Beta.sit, and it's about 91.2 MB."



They also reiterated that they clearly stated these benchmarks to be a rumor, not a truth.
In the Fora it was repeated that the originating source deserves credibility. So MacBidouille itself is in good faith here, and does not try to hype anything.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 6, 2003)

> They also reiterated that they clearly stated these benchmarks to be a rumor, not a truth.



Why bother posting rumors (*aka hypothetical benchmarks passed on by dubious sources with no means to verify*) if you don't trust your source? 

It sounds like they're waffling, and doing the back peddle two step.

As I've said, most likely the only 970 Macs are in Cupertino. Developers do get test machines from time to time, but it's becoming increasingly rare under the reign of Steve. Apple can test all the current software in house, and there would be little reason to risk letting the cat out of the bag... Especially if WWDC will only be the announcement of the 970 Mac, not the release, which will probably come 4-6 weeks later.


----------



## cybergoober (May 6, 2003)

--


----------



## Randman (May 6, 2003)

> They also reiterated that they clearly stated these benchmarks to be a rumor, not a truth


 What are you talking about? Wha are they are what are these?


----------



## ksv (May 6, 2003)

_**just a note - serpicolugnut posted his reply as a new thread by mistake, and I merged it with this thread. sorry for the confusion _


----------



## Cat (May 6, 2003)

The point is a lot of people are bithching about tiny differences in the results, not doubting them as a whole. The benchmarks of MacBidouille are in line with common expectations and earlier projected performance values. MacBidouille received an e-mail with these banches and posted it as a rumor, reliable but not absolutely reliable, since they didn't test the machines themselves. People across the net have reacted as if MacBidouille had revealde the ultimate truth about the PPC 970, while they just posted some benchmarks, made in march, on not-final machines with an alpha OS. Of course the data is not 100% accurate, but people keep whining about it. 

Moreover they are not the only ones that are both outside the US and have info about the 970. A lot of sites and fora are reporting on alleged inside information, and not all of them are physically located anywhere near Infinite Loop. Remember one of the first live rumors on the PPC 970 came from Germany, from CeBit, where the IBM blades were to be presented. And it was IBM Europe which posted the press release that was pulled later with more specs. 

MacBidouille's results are in line with earlier specs found e.g. in the AppleInsider Fora and are partially corroborated byu reports in MacWhispers and now also on Macnews.net.tc So why do they have to "backpedal"?

As long as Steve Jobs himself doesn't say "Look here we have the new PPC 970 Macs" we don't know anything for sure. The PPC 970 is however the best processor in the market right now and that's not a secret. Of course there are a lot of test samples around the world! How do you think developers are going to code for a processor they've never seen before? Or test their programs? No-one get's a full featured production-ready PowerMac, but they get a working system with the processor in it. Hence they can run benchmarks and compare them to other benchmarks: where's the miracle? The surprise in ony in the actual values they get, not in the fact that they have ways of obtaining them.


----------



## Krevinek (May 11, 2003)

Hmm, I would like to point out something:

Someone mentioned earlier about not knowing what the 32-bit performance on the 970 will be. Well, here is the performance hit for running 32-bit versus 64-bit: 0%.

Granted, this does not take into account optimizing for the wide-n-deep pipeline of the 970, but to state again what others have also said: the PPC specification is a 64-bit one, with the ability to allow for 32-bit sub-specifications. Plus, there have been 16-bit and 8-bit instructions on PPC chips since their conception as well. All a 64-bit PPC chip does is widen the registers to 64 bits, and add the instructions to utilize all 64 bits in the registers. 

Now here is the performance gain for using 64-bit ops where you use 32-bit ops: 0%. Yep, nothing.

Now the real gem that makes the 970 a good chip is the design of the pipeline. This sucker wants a deep pipeline like the P4 to be able to reach high clock speeds, but also wants a wide pipeline to ensure MANY instructions are on the chip at the same time. Ars stated that the 970 could hold ~160 instructions on-chip at one time. The P4 can only hold ~20-40.

What this means in real terms is: the CPU is grinding away at a lot of code at once, running one massive engine. This, coupled with IBM's work on the POWER4 chip which this is derived from means that the 970 will be a solid, solid chip.

The exact figures will never be known until we see boxes with 970s in them though.

Edit: I said a couple things, but only covered one... whee.


----------



## Rhino_G3 (May 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Krevinek _
> *
> 
> Now the real gem that makes the 970 a good chip is the design of the pipeline. This sucker wants a deep pipeline like the P4 to be able to reach high clock speeds, but also wants a wide pipeline to ensure MANY instructions are on the chip at the same time. Ars stated that the 970 could hold ~160 instructions on-chip at one time. The P4 can only hold ~20-40.
> ...



What happens when the processor is sent an interupt?  Would all of the ~160 need to be dropped?


----------



## fryke (May 11, 2003)

Wasn't the number 160 in Ars Technica's article referring to AltiVec?


----------



## Krevinek (May 12, 2003)

to Rhino_G3: No, since interrupts merely 'pause' current execution and return. In a multithreaded environment, you can change the stack/code being used... although that doesn't take effect until the interrupt returns.

The only time the big pipe needs to be cleaned is if it makes a wrong prediction for a branch.

To fryke: Altivec is about 160 instructions, yes.... although I was a bit off on my numbers. From the article itself:


> the 970 can have a whopping 200 instructions on-chip in various stages of execution, a number that dwarfs not only the G4e's 16-instruction window but also the P4's 126-instruction one.


----------



## Rhino_G3 (May 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Krevinek _
> *to Rhino_G3: No, since interrupts merely 'pause' current execution and return. In a multithreaded environment, you can change the stack/code being used... although that doesn't take effect until the interrupt returns.
> *



Ahh yes, you're correct. 
It's been quite a while since my PC Architecture class.


----------



## Krevinek (May 13, 2003)

Yeah, it is fresh in my mind since I am doing some embedded work which requires me to write code using interrupts  extensively... whee.


----------



## mac_evangelist (May 13, 2003)

my mate is thinking of buying a new 970 when they come out he currently has an eMac 800 and an iBook 600 i think the low end g4 will get a speed boost but the high end will be getting new 970's installed and a higher cache, DDR ram, and higher capacity and speed boosted HDD's. I think apple will start to sell bundles such as iPod and iMac bundles. et al


----------



## tsizKEIK (May 14, 2003)

Inside the PowerPC 970 

if that author is correct... im really excited


----------

