Motorola PowerPC 7457

Originally posted by Excalibur
I don't know why you don't get it. The IBM 970 is being designed for workstations not servers. So let the price thing go. Different market, different price. NEXT...

The reason Apple didn't go with G3's at 1GHZ was at teh time then G4 was at around 600MHz. I'd love to see how good chance trying to market that one. Motorola pretty much muffed that one up as well, so I don't push the blame totally at Apple for that one. We'd have a confused line of systems switching from G3 to G4 throughout the process to keep the clock rate climbing. Remember when Apple had too many lines before? They were on their death bed.

The reason I think IBM would be a better choice is as I said before. They have better R&D and interest in their CPU than Motorola so the scalabiity factor looks a hell of a lot better than Motorola could ever offer. We won't know for sure but based on current issues and history I stand by that theory.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you don't get it. First, where does it say the IBM 970 is being designed solely for workstations? Even if it is, it's going to be an expensive processor. $4000 64 bit Intel Itanium 2 anyone?

Second, Apple obviously made a mistake by adopting the G4 full force. Perhaps the G4 should have been reserved for highend workstations and servers while us desktop home PC people could enjoy 1.8 GHz G3s at a far better cost.

If you honestly believe in the IBM 970, then this is what Apple will be doing with the G4, reserving it for desktop and laptops while putting the IBM 970 in highend workstations and servers.

Third, if this is their plan, they why couldn't it have worked with the G3? The first PPC 970s are going to be around 1.2 GHz. The G4 will hopefully be around 1.8 GHz then. How good of chance are they going to have marketing the IBM 970?

Probably pretty good if you market both processors in different markets. Much like they could have with the G3 and G4.

Anyway, what you describe as the force holding the G3 back is no different than what the IBM 970 will encounter.

The biggest difference is that the cost of an IBM 970 is going to be astronomical compared to a G4.
 
1st.
Quote:
"IBM's new PowerPC 970 64-bit chip is all about bringing high-end server processing power to the desktop, low-end server and pervasive space," said Michel Mayer, general manager, IBM Microelectronics Division.

http://www.pcvsconsole.com/news/news.php?nid=1570
It's target is mainly to bring server performance to the desktop/workstation market. Hence the pricing should be in that area. Even though no price has been set.

2nd.
Who knew Motorola would stall? They had a commitment to them when the went full force and got burned. We have no idea why it took them so long to make a move. At the time they were going through an OS transition. (still are) So That's my guess but, I don't know for sure.

3rd
They had already moved everything to the G4 at that time. Applications were beign written to use Altivec as well. That was their big marketing hype then. Since the G3 didn't have that... Thats why I assume they didn't but the G3 DID have life left I agree. The G4 was at 700MHz and the G3 was already at 1GHz over a year ago. And who was it that did that?.... IBM ;-)


BTW the Itanium2 IS a server CPU designed to compete with SPARC and Power4 NOT the IBM 970. Hence the high prices on all of them.
 
IBM certainly developed the 970 with the Desktop and Workstation market in mind (and they said so). This doesn't yet mean that Apple will adopt it. The processor's power has been surpassed by Pentium 4 processors (that are already on the market), by AMD's X86-64 processor line (coming in 2003) and will be surpassed by Motorola's G4 processors (such as the MPC-7457 and its follow-up processors).

So, no, the 970 doesn't really make sense. Not because it's a bad chip, but because it's coming to the market too late in 2003.
 
All I really want is SMP. I'd take a pair of G3's any day... if they could really do it that is. Screw altivec. The major thing it did for me was speed up the UI on OS X, now we're offloading that to the graphics card. OK, so it can rip to mp3 darn fast, but that's not a huge part of my life.

I'm interested to see what comes out, but I still think we could be doing so much more in OS and software design to make the entire system insanely more usable.

As for processor future, the concept of translating instructions to execute allows for great speed using great energy, I think moto has the laptop Apple market for a long time. Embedded has similar heat dissipation concerns, and moto likes that challenge.
 
G3 don't work in SMP format. So that is why the G4 was adopted. Everyone is missing my point on why I was hoping IBM will be the chip developer, if its teh 970 fine if its not fine. My point is chip development. IBM is doing that, Motorola isn't. Motorola's market is embedded chips. They can't keep up in the developement cycle, and they have proved that the last 3 years. Sure the heat issue is great, but for a desktop you need performance. This is why we are behind as it is. Intel saw this years ago and went for performance, hence they are leading the pack.

Sure a dual chip strategy I can go for. My debate is desktop performance more than laptop performance where Motorola's 'atvantages' don't really apply.
 
I hear you, and I do think IBM has a performance oriented solution for the desktop and server room with quite the future ahead of it. My point remains that people are getting all worked up about stuff that really doesn't matter. I think energy consumption is an issue. I really want a new dual G4 867MHz because I think they kick butt, and they are exceptionally cost effective in power per dollar, but I seriously can't legitimize such a purchase to replace my dual 450. I don't wait much now. Cutting in half the amount of time I spend waiting on the processor would save me like 30 seconds over the course of a day. Totally not worth it. I could save about 5 minutes / day if the Finder sucked less. I could probably cut my day-job workload in half if M$ Office sucked less. Watching software suck faster doesn't make it suck less. I don't need to suck faster consuming 80 watts, which is likely what IBM's solutions will do. I happen to like moto, but they are relegating themselves to laptops with the performance bottleneck they're failing to overcome. DDR baby, it needs to happen.

My happiest thought in all of this is that the PPC architecture at least has competition. The x86 market does too. Hardware is healthy. The Office suite market on the other hand is a hellhole. :-(
 
Originally posted by itanium
Even if its a $7000+ Xserve? Also, considering its a 64 bit processor, if Apple does adopt it, they will release a 64 bit version of OS X server. Will this 64 bit version of OS X server run 32 bit PPC apps?

It supposedly backwards compatible with 32 bit PPC apps but chances are 32 bit apps running under the IBM 970 wouldn't perform any better than under a G4.

If all you wanted to use a IBM 970 Xserve for is a desktop computer, it certainly wouldn't be worth it.
Click to expand...

Those are all arguements that I had supported in the past. Before I really understood the way that the 970 is going to perform. With the 970 pulling spec bench numbers that rivals the current P4's it will no doubt stomp the G4 at the same clock speed.

I'm sure that OS X server will be 32 bit compatable. Apple would be making a huge mistake by not doing it... especialy since the chip itself is 32 bit compatable.

I don't buy a computer for only how it performs now, I'm looking for expandability and future performance. Even if it performed on par with the G4 at that time all you have to do is wait for the next major release of the software to get a huge performance gain. I waited for Photoshop for X... I'm sure I can probably wait again. Until then I'd be running it on a 1.8 Ghz machine instead of my current 650. I'm happy either way.
 
What almost everybody seems to forget is that the MPC 7457 will be available at the BEGINNING of 2003, while the IBM 970 might be available in Apple's computers at the END of 2003. So it's not much use to compare those two chips as alternatives.

I think Apple will _naturally_ choose Mot's next G4 processor. And if Mot's successor to the MPC 7457 can achieve roughly the IBM 970's speed, why should Apple really go 64bit already? There's not much use in 64bit for desktop applications. Yes it might make some sense for server applications, but Apple must concentrate on desktop performance in 2003.
 
Well my main point isn't just this generation of processors. My point is the future of the Mac processor development from now and beyond. Motorola shows no desire for designing desktop processors for Apple, only embedded chips and cell phones. Thats what my posts were about. I'm looking at IBM as a better option overall in terms of keeping the development going being they will be using the processors for their own systems as well. So the desire to develop for it is in their best interest as well as Apple. Not have a year stuck at one clock rate (i.e. 500MHz) like Motorola because they want to design the next cell phone chip, thats all. Motorola will help us to the grave faster if we put faith in them doing stuff like that, in my opinion thats all. That stall put us in the situation we are in today. Bottom line though we have no idea what will happen. We'll just have to wait and see what they do. Knowing Apple I wouldn't be surprised if they stuck with Motorola, just hope they don't thats all. Time to move on I think.
 
Originally posted by fryke
What almost everybody seems to forget is that the MPC 7457 will be available at the BEGINNING of 2003, while the IBM 970 might be available in Apple's computers at the END of 2003. So it's not much use to compare those two chips as alternatives.

I think Apple will _naturally_ choose Mot's next G4 processor. And if Mot's successor to the MPC 7457 can achieve roughly the IBM 970's speed, why should Apple really go 64bit already? There's not much use in 64bit for desktop applications. Yes it might make some sense for server applications, but Apple must concentrate on desktop performance in 2003.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for everybody else but I don' t think they're forgetting. Personaly, I just don't care. I don't want the G4. If it comes down to it, and I HAVE to buy a new computer I really have no choice.

"if Mot's successor to the MPC 7457 can achieve roughly the IBM 970's speed, why should Apple really go 64bit already?"

There's two things I'd like to address with that. The If at the start of that sentence is a huge if. You can already see Moto's turn toward their new business model focusing on embedded markets. Maybe there aren't too many reasons for the typical desktop user to go 64 bit, but that is the exact thing the professional Mac workstation is needing right now. The Powermac is aimed toward the top of the desktop market, many apps on this front could really benefit from being 64 bit. Namely apps that make use of enormous files and huge amounts of memory. (3d animation and video editing come to mind)

Apple really needs to work on pleasing their high end customers... or soon there won't be any. I've seen many long time apple supporters start to hedge when needing to buy new hardware. The performance gap between Macs and PC's is getting larger and larger. Unfortunately, so is the price difference between the two. It is becomming increasingly economicaly infeasible to use apple products.

I think a better question is why shouldn't apple jump to 64 bit as soon as
possible? Especialy if there is no degradation in the 32 bit compatability. The only downside I could possibly see is price. But we don't even know remote pricing for either of these chips yet.
 
Motorola 7457 is a straight successor to the 7455 in use now. It'll arrive in early 2003 and be priced like the G4 before. So expect Apple to use the chip in comparably priced PowerMacs.

The PowerPC 970 from IBM will arrive _late_ in 2003. And yes, we don't know its price tag yet.

I just don't think the comparison is necessary, you see? They're not competing against each other.

Motorola is apparently developing the G4. The roadmap and the 7457 shows this. Motorola has *always* had a focus on embedded systems. This made powerful and power-sensitive notebooks from Apple possible.
 
Other than speed, what advantages does the 7457 G4 have over the 7455 G4?

I'm guessing very little so why does Apple continue to milk this processor?

Shouldn't we be concerned that Apple is falling behind with their processors by not only speed but technology as well.

I mean, Intel could have probably kept the P2 up to a GHz and the P3 up to 2 GHz but obviously the saw the importance of advancing their technology. IBM, Sun and SGI have as well.

Are we going to be running the same old G4 with more L3 cache into 2004? Maybe we'll be up to L4 cache by then. :p

The G4 is getting old, three years old actually. I think its time for something new. I feel OS X doesn't perform to its maximum capabilities and I think the G4 is hindering it.

Cmon Apple. You waged war against the PC, now its time to get your act together. Right now its like they've showed up to a gun fight with a sword. Something needs to change and quickly.
 
The reason why Intel advances technology is simply because it has a vicious competition with AMD.

After the athlon was released and shocked the Intel engineers, since then, speed of x86 processors have skyrocketed very quickly. Apple left behind in performance, and frankly because apple is like Microsoft but with the addition of controlling mac hardware. Why should apple advanced its technology at a fast pace? It has no competition in it's brand, there are no other companies making Macs. You guys are pretty much under the knees of apple.

Steve can charge anything he wants for its new macs, and you guys have no choice to accept. This is restricting customers and ripping them off quite alot.

That is why, I say no to apple.
 
...I don't smoke the thing which most of you seem to enjoy smoking!

I have seen ANYTHING that the Dark Side has to offer up to 2.6 GHz (Intel/Amd) and dual rigs up to 2.2 GHz (Intel/Amd)...

BUT, also I have seen ANYTHING that the Apple Side offers (Dual 1.25 GHz)...

And guess what? With the Apple box I can do MOST stuff at the same time... Or in the majority of apps the Apple performs if not faster than the PCs at least is very close to that (including the dual PC systems).

Where the Mac CANNOT touch the PC is the gaming... The PCs have more frames when it is time to play but then again the XBox beats 99% of PCs out there when it is game time!

I read all your whining for Macs NOT being fast enough or that they are TOO slow compared to the PC and I laugh with your whining... Why? Because I am sure that the majority of you JUST read about fast machines and NOT using them... Because ANYONE who used the dual Macs know the truth: Macs are TOO fast if not faster than the top PCs out there but Macs can do MORE stuff at the same time without resorting to instability, slow performance, REALLY slow interaction with it's user wishes and many other bad things that occur when you use a PC for many things at the same time... Encode a DVD on a PC while burning a CD, while listening to the music, while playing a DVD, while downloading from the internet, while doing MANY other things on a PC? Yeah, sure: Make me laugh some more...

And if you can do the majority of the above stuff at the same time, it is because you bought a PC which costs the same if not more than a modern Mac!!!

Go ahead and whine ALL you want: Macs ARE fast! Faster then PC? Yes and No! Hell, BMWs are NOT faster than Golfs (VW) but at least I prefer a slow BMW than ANY Golf VW out there!
 
So pure hardware power is one thing. What to make of it is another thing. When I read hulkaros post I thought that the typical peecee OS does not use the full power of todays modern hardware. Have you guys ever used BeOS? Some years ago a friend of mine showed me BeOS on a dual celeron (2x 400 MHz). I can tell you I was blown away! It was unbelievable! Everything was just so fluid and responsive! We installed Win2K on the same hardware as well. And you know what? It simply sucked compared to BeOS.
So what I want to say is: pure raw CPU power meens NOTHING for the daily work. The system must be optimized for get the full potential out of the box. This is why I like Apple. I mean have you ever heared Bill saying: "Ok folks, we have optimized WinXXX to get more speed"? No! Why? I guess Intel wouldn't be very happy about it =)
From a technical point of view current PC hardware IS better. It features better integer and floating point units, much faster frontside bus, much faster RAM and so on. But whenever I get my hands on the newest Dell workstations I see the hole system freezing when the machine is under load ...
My QS 733 on the other hand performs so nice! Ok, windows resizing could be faster but all in all OS X feels much better ...
 
Okay, let's not get this totally out of hand. The whole PC vs. Mac debate shouldn't be in this thread, too. We all know that PC hardware nowadays has certain numbers that make the newest Macs fade away. Yet they don't, and the reason is not only simplicity and ease of use, but also that I get a solution that works when I buy a Mac instead of a PC.

The thread is about the Motorola 7457 processor. It will arrive in early 2003. It's going to be in PowerMacs and probably in iMacs, too.

1.833 GHz sounds good to me. It's a big jump from the 1.25 GHz machines we can get now.

Now it seems that all of you don't want to talk about tomorrow (ca. MWSF), but rather about the next steps after the next steps.

I don't think it would be a bad move to go 64bit. I don't think the PowerPC 970 from IBM is a bad processor.

But there are two main reasons NOT to go IBM with the PowerPC 970.

1.) The PowerPC 970 at 1.8 GHz will arrive at the end of 2003. Its specs show that while it's much faster than current G4s at 1.25 GHz, it won't beat the P4 of late 2003 and it won't beat AMD's X86-64 offerings. It will not even keep up.

2.) Motorola has a path here. The G4 - under much pressure from Apple - is finally scaling well. From Motorola's roadmap we can see that they ARE in fact putting out faster and better G4 processors. And they're also thinking about the notebooks. (While Ars Technica claims the 970 would be a viable solution for notebooks, this is not really the case, as only the lowest end 970 at 1.2 GHz would have power consumption *near* notebook use. And by the end of 2003, Motorola will have 7447 processors that exceed 2 GHz and *can* be used in notebooks.)

I'm all for competition, and if IBM's products are better than Motorola's at the end of 2003, it makes sense to use them. But Apple shouldn't be caught in yet ANOTHER dead end street. Let Motorola and IBM *both* develop the best desktop and notebook PowerPC processors they can. And let Apple choose what they need.
 
What makes me really angry is the fact that Apple shows no roadmap to the customer, doesn't say a word about what they have planned. I doubt that Apple is in the position to let their customers fumble in the dark. Have you heared about Australia? Apple looses customers daily!
Thanks to my job I know a _lot_ of people who are thinking about switching to the PC loudly :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top