Apple orders 40,000 970s
- Thread starter mightyjlr
- Start date
Rhino_G3
Registered
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.
Da_iMac_Daddy
Not-so-Neo-DumbA$$
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.
binaryDigit
Registered
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?
binaryDigit
Registered
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).
binaryDigit
Registered
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
Registered
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
Registered
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
Registered
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.