patseguin Global Moderator Posted June 20, 2003 Global Moderator Share Posted June 20, 2003 Salter - We bought our PM's at the same time and almost the same config. I just sold mine on eBay for $2600. I paid $2699 for it (plus tax or course). I'd try and offload it if you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilsbury Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Hm... wouldn't IBMs chip be more open (is it PowerPC architechture?) than Motorola's, allowing perhaps... emulation of Mac software (OS X) on an x86 chip? x86 being a 32bit CISC processor would have a hard time emulating a PowerPC processor - note that anyone trying to make a PPC emulator has given up.. There was a PowerPC designed (apparently) that could run both PPC and x86 code natively. I don't think OS X will ever be released on anything other than PPC hardware... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 In case anyone needs more confirmation.... http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=2266 "IBM has scheduled analyst briefings on the chip to begin after Apple Chairman and Chief Executive Steve Jobs gives his keynote address. A group of IBM engineers has come to Apple's Cupertino headquarters for last-minute preparations. And Apple's close partners say significantly faster Apple machines should arrive before the end of the year." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the evn show Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Hm... wouldn't IBMs chip be more open (is it PowerPC architechture?) than Motorola's, allowing perhaps... emulation of Mac software (OS X) on an x86 chip? Everything you need to know to emulate just about any chip you can think of is available in technical publications, programmer guides, etc. The problem isn't that the G4 is a mysterious black box it's that the box contains a lot of tiny pieces - so many that they can't fit into the size of "box" in your computer Here's just two reasons: When you're emulating one processor on another two things you have to do are register mapping and instruction translation. Mapping registers would be saying "GP Register A on chip 1" will hold the data from "GP Register X on the emulated chip". "GP Register B on chip 1" will hold the data from "GP Register Y on the emulated chip". Registers have to be used because they are (for our purposes) infinitely faster than memory. The x86 architecture provides 8 GP registers (plus 4 extra rename registers for each of those - but we can't access those). The 970 (and G4e) has 32 GP registers (plus 8 rename registers each - but those are no good to us either). The same is true for the the other kinds of registers (ie: floating point) - PPC chips have 4 times more. Lets also not forget that the PPC registers are twice as big as the x86 ones so (unless you're using opteron/itanium2) you'll need 2 x86 registers to hold the value of one PPC register. Altivec is also much more complex than than SSE/SSE2/MMX, many of altivec functions aren't easily mapped to SSE instructions (not to mention sse cannibalizes the FP registers) so you're forced using standard memory/registers to emulate the altivec registers. Altivec registers are 128bit (much like sse2 ones) - I'm sure you can figure out where this goes... Now for instructions - I'll make this quick. x86 has complex instructions: "Add x to y, divide by z" PPC instructions are very simple: "Add x to y, store it in z". "multiply a by b". It's easy to break down x86 instructions to 3 or 4 PPC instructions, but it's not always easy (in an emulator) to build up 3 or four consecutive PPC instructions into a single x86 instruction you'll need to know the outcome of each instruction and how it effects all the other registers/memory before you can "combine them". Because x86 instructions take more cycles to execute a lot of the impressive power of x86 machines is wasted on lots of tiny instructions which take a long time to execute rather than on a few large instructions that take a long time to complete. Unfortunately for the x86 folk the PPC architecture isn't getting any easier to emulate, and the 970 adds a higher level of complexity to the whole mess (the extra altivec unit, bigger registers) Hope that clears things up, if my spelling/grammar suck it's because I'm tired and I'm not proof reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cerbero Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Wonder what I could get for my eMac..? If they price is right for the new PM's (without a monitor), I might just save up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwanders Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 crap**is thinking of selling his mac** and you only bought it a few weeks ago. I'm gonna feel the same way about my powerbook if they put these G5's in them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocks1985 Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 (edited) I read a Business Week article that stated that by 2005, these chips could be running between 4 and 5 gigahertz! Here's a snippet: "Meanwhile, Needham's Wolf said in his report that 'the 970 could reach a 2.5GHz speed by mid-2004 and 4.0GHz to 5.0GHz speeds by 2005.' The current top-of-the-line Power Mac has dual 1.42GHz G4 processors." Edited June 20, 2003 by rocks1985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristotle-dude Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 I might sell my eMac or I might give it to my mom. :) I would not be cruel and give my mom my PC, that would be cruel. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bararum Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 holy **** i just heard this. There is only one thing that can describe this properly. :bounce: well..ok or this: :uberhump: -Amen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Well I have to admit I really didn't think we'd see these machines this year. And up until this bit of info came about, I was still pretty skeptical. But now I buleeeeve!!!!! So much so that I've already unloaded my PowerMac on ebay. I got $100 more than what I bought it for. These machines better be available immediately after wwdc or I'll be upset at myself for selling. Dazzla...I too am hoping for a "low end" 1.6gig for around 1500. And maybe the 1.8 for around 1700? And the dual 2 gig...probably pushing 2300+. Course these estimates are purely guesses. The 970 is a little cheaper than the G4 (20-40% i think), so prices should be lower. But IBM has to pay for all the R&D they did, so I'm afraid initial pricing might be higher to make up for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzla Veteran Posted June 20, 2003 Veteran Share Posted June 20, 2003 Well I have to admit I really didn't think we'd see these machines this year. And up until this bit of info came about, I was still pretty skeptical. But now I buleeeeve!!!!! So much so that I've already unloaded my PowerMac on ebay. I got $100 more than what I bought it for. These machines better be available immediately after wwdc or I'll be upset at myself for selling. Damn it, and there's me about to sell a PC on eBay and lose hundreds... Dazzla...I too am hoping for a "low end" 1.6gig for around 1500. And maybe the 1.8 for around 1700? And the dual 2 gig...probably pushing 2300+. Course these estimates are purely guesses. The 970 is a little cheaper than the G4 (20-40% i think), so prices should be lower. But IBM has to pay for all the R&D they did, so I'm afraid initial pricing might be higher to make up for that. Ya, but think how sweet that 1.6GHz 970 will be with that sweet 800Mhz bus and a crap load of DDR running Panther :happy: :happy: :happy: :happy: :happy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diata Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 theres an 8GB ram capacity, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Damn it, and there's me about to sell a PC on eBay and lose hundreds...Ya, but think how sweet that 1.6GHz 970 will be with that sweet 800Mhz bus and a crap load of DDR running Panther :happy: :happy: :happy: :happy: :happy: Oh man, I'd definately be content with the 1.6gig AlMac. Just looking at some of the benchmarks (mostly sparc), and how it compares to a 3gig P4....if the real marks are anything like those, I'll definately be more than happy with the 1.6. Roughly equal to a P4 3.06gig...I can't imagine how sweet that would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilsbury Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 theres an 8GB ram capacity, correct? I had read rumors that the logic board had 8 DIMM slots, so I'd guess that would be 8 x 1GB DIMMs... Quote from macrumors MacBidouille posts some details about prototype motherboards for the PowerPC 970. As reported before, they indicate that the motherboards are more rectangular than square and have 8 RAM connectors -- 4 of which were covered by a Do Not Use sticker. They speculate on the reasons why this might be the case, but have no definitive information. Meanwhile, LoopRumors posts what they claim to be shipment information to Foxconn. They report that Foxconn has already received 20,000 1.4GHz 970s and 40,000 1.6GHz 970s. 40,000 1.8GHz 970s are reportly due tommorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diata Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 what about the 2.0 GHzs? im thinkin of spoiling myself for the school year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salterbomb Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 crap**is thinking of selling his mac** and you only bought it a few weeks ago. I'm gonna feel the same way about my powerbook if they put these G5's in them... no kidding. arrrrrrgggghhhhh, i don't know what to do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diata Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 crap**is thinking of selling his mac** and you only bought it a few weeks ago. I'm gonna feel the same way about my powerbook if they put these G5's in them... no kidding. arrrrrrgggghhhhh, i don't know what to do! if you wanna sell, think fast becuase you wont get as much after G5s come out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilsbury Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 what about the 2.0 GHzs? im thinkin of spoiling myself for the school year Well, that report was a rumor. There seems to be some truth in it, but as with all rumors, they may be some inaccuracies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diata Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Well, that report was a rumor. There seems to be some truth in it, but as with all rumors, they may be some inaccuracies... it was on the apple site though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the evn show Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Post formatted decutively so you can get the information and ignore supporting evidence for your convience. Conclusion: even if "G5" chips are cost $100 (~30%) less than than G4e's you'll still eat up that savings other places. We (mac owners) have always payed a premium for our systems but in exchange we get the newest features: USB, Firewire, DVD-R, 802.11, bluetooth - all of these were available on the powermacs before they were common place everywhere else. Powermac systems currently sell for less than ever before. I paid more for my 667 mhz powerbook 9 months ago (the slowest - least featured one at the time) than what apple chargers today for a fully optioned 17" powerbook. Powermac desktops have also dropped thousands over the last few years. $2700 for the fastest desktop system ever?! That's an amazing deal. Reasoning: The chips are cheaper but in Apple quality hardware (ie: not bottom of the barrel sub-$500 PCs) the price of processors play little in the overall cost of a machine. Assuming these specs are accurate then we have to consider the other costs which will go up. Prices from pricewatch.com - they're all slightly lower when sold in bulk to someone like Apple: SATA HDD: 120gb = $130. 60gb = $104 EIDE HDD: 120gb = $91. 60gb = $61 DDR 400: 2gb = $1175! 1gb = $175 (damn that's cheap). 512mb = $68 DDR 333: 2gb = n/a 1gb = $155. 512mb = $56 The soundcard (with optical connections) makes me assume it's at least slightly higher-end than what we currently have and so will cost a little more. PCI-X - controller chips etc aren't being produced on the same scale as standard PCI controllers, so there is a good chance they'll cost a little more (these chips typically cost less than $10 though) USB controller/connector price should remain unchanged because the current powermacs already have usb2 hardware on them, apple just limits it to 1.0/1.1 spec, and the video card options haven't changed. -- WARNING: Ranting about the state of x86 hardware -- Also remember that Powermacs today sell for thousands less than they ever have. Even if pricing stays exactly the same I don't think we have any reason to complain about $2700 or even $3800 for the fastest desktop machine on earth. SATA and DDR 400 aren't even available on 99% of the PC hardware available today, and those that can find it aren't going to be paying a whole lot less than we are. This is high-end, brand-new, extremely fast hardware. Oh, and Dual 2.0 G5's should slaughter any P4/AMD based system from the big manufactures currently on the market. Intel's fastest P4 runs 1099/1077 on specint and specfp resepectively. The 1.8 Ghz PPC970 scores 1075 and 931. If we extrapolate scores for a single 2.0 PPC970 it scores on about the same as the P4 (just at 15% to the numbers because the 2.0 has a 15% higher clock than the 1.8 and assume linear performance scalling). Even considering AMD-64bit chips: the opterons are scoring high 1100/low 1200 scores, these are server grade chips - nobody expects the desktop versions to be that fast when they eventually ship IN SEPTEMBER. (opteron chips are only clocked 100-200mhz faster than the 970s). Itanium2 based workstations that run Windows are available from HP - they also cost about $4200. If you need a 64bit desktop system running a "consumer" desktop OS then Apple is cheaper, faster, and available sooner than any other product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAcOdIn Veteran Posted June 20, 2003 Veteran Share Posted June 20, 2003 Well first I wanna say to my Mac bretheren that I'm happy you guys will be back at the top again. For how long you'll be there I dunno, but nice to see the competition. And yeah, when these launch they should be faster than anything we've got. But the Athlon64 is supposed to be FASTER than the opteron. It won't be hindered by ECC memory, has a much better chipset(which the opteron will also get Nforce3, new Via chipset), and will be able to use faster memory. But ya'll should still beat us for awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilsbury Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 But the Athlon64 is supposed to be FASTER than the opteron. I know this doesn't relate to the Mac, but.... I don't understand how the Athlon64 can be quicker than the Opteron - as far as I have read, the Athlon64 is a cut down version of the Opteron... And back to the topic :D The G5 should get the Mac back on the high performance track.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebaz Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Athlon64 is not faster than the opteron im sure of this i went to the AMD tech tour and they talk about it...think of the Opteron as the MP and Athlon64 as the Xp..back on topic..i wish they launched the 15in pbooks with a G5 inside Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the evn show Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Don't forget Apple ships dual processor systems as standard hardware for desktop use. The major PC vendors still follow the "one is enough" mentality for almost all of their systems. Gateway has one listed as a server, Dell has a dual Xeon workstation, HP ships dual Itanium workstations - All with $4,000-$32,000 price tags. None are desktop systems. For the time being (6 months) I imagine the dual processor powermacs will hold the desktop performance crown. How they scale up will be interesting - if IBM ramps up as fast as they say they can then Apple could hold on for a long time. On the other hand if IBM pulls a Motorola we won't see 6 Ghz until 2010. The current plan IIRC is to have 2.5 ghz by the end of the year, and 4Ghz by the end of next year. Not that any of that matters with the speeds we have today - most of us have little use for massive amounts of system power. It's nice, but 4ghz systems with 8gb of ram aren't going to make safari run any better. Not that it won't be nice, but just like today, the majority of a processors time will be spent idle: waiting for the next big render/compile/etc to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaph47 Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Geek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts