“Announced yesterday (a gargantuan five months after AMD and Intel) and a month after Apple announced it had officially kicked IBM to the curb in favour of its new girlfriend Intel, the PowerPC line has eventually gone dual core. Cue little fanfare for the 970MP, the expected upgrade to the single core 970FX, more commonly known to Apple owners as the G5 processor,” Gordon Kelly writes for TrustedReviews.
“It will be available in speed increments of 1.4GHz to 2.5GHz and has 1MB of L2 cache. Power consumption is said to be roughly 13W when trundling along at the bottom end of the scale, so it seems the company has finally gotten over the well documented problems it has had in this area. Clearly moving to a 90nm fabrication process has helped no end,” Kelly writes. “And yet with the metallic rumblings still heard in the distance from the Apple/Intel wedding car and the confetti yet to settle who will buy these long overdue processors?”
Full article here.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
IBM introduces dual-core PowerPC G5 chips up to 2.5GHz, could be used in Apple Power Mac G5 – July 07, 2005
IBM exec: we could have made a mobile G5 for Apple PowerBooks – June 30, 2005
Apple to use Intel microprocessors beginning in 2006, all Macs to be Intel-based by end of 2007 – June 06, 2005
noone
that simple?
Well if IBM doesn’t care enough to compete for Apple’s business (while they were hitched) then they won’t mind Apple’s absence, right?
Seriously.. As cliché as it is to say “Steve made a smart move” the switch away from IBM looks very wise here..
Ummm, wake up people, Apple is no match for Sony.
I bet Apple was making too many demands and IBM said screw it.
The Cell Processor is going into the PS3, you do the math. Obviously it will outsell the Mac in terms of quantity and $$$.
…if they will make money for Apple between now and the Intel models.
I doubt it, but maybe so.
The only bad thing about the Tntel move is no Cell switch in the future, or at least not for a very long time. However, if Cell proves to be usefull in the desktop/server space, the architecture can mature, and maybe in 10 years or so we’ll see Apple and IBM reuinte and introduce Cell based Macs.
Right up until the day the Intel switch was announced, all you Apple zealots and Mac trade press were all talking about the superiority of the IBM chip. They’ll never change, blah, blah blah.
Now, less than a month after the announcement, IBM are suddenly “gargantuan amounts” behind AMD and Intel? Guess what, they were behind the day before the announcement as well.
I’m a long time “un-blinded” Mac user and have known for awhile that we were behind, AMD at least. Especially in the notebook sector. AMD have had a mobile 64bit chip in “shipping” notebooks for sometime. Intel are still behind AMD. I hope we see an Athlon64 based Mac in the future.
I sure would like to hear from all of you “I can’t wait for my quad cell G6” PowerMac people now…
Ignoring Jerry T,
I can’t wait to see how a dual core, dual processor PowerMac blows the sh1t out of anything available in the wintel world. Intel may be our future but we still need IBM to motivate them to make chips worthy of our beloved operating system.
Egarc,
Why ignore me? I only say the truth…almost everyone on MDN were saying the Intel switch wouldn’t happen because IBM are terrific and have a great product line and roadmap. “The PPC is far more scalable and just beginning, x86 is dead”.
Now less than a month later IBM are wankers and behind AMD and Intel by “gargantuan amounts”. How could they fall so far behind in 3 weeks? Fair weather friends is all I can say.
Jerry T,
I think you need to cool it a bit on us “zealots”. We have rightfully lambasted x86 for its failure to lead (albeit a small lead by IBM). You don’t even know what Apple intends on putting in the new Macs, no one does.
Until it’s a plain vanilla Intel processor like all the other trash boxes out there (in which case I’ll be thoroughly disappointed and will apologize), we can still call the Dells and HPs out there “x86 TRASH”.
Jerry T. I see your take on the situation as a bit pessemistic, but I am in that boat with you. The Intel and AMD processors both pulled away from the 970FX by a good measure. Many people don’t want to admit it, but as it is now the direction we are heading will be great with the upcoming hardware from Intel. As for AMD, there are reasons Apple didn’t go with them even though they have a lead on the market at the moment. Apple can get motherboards and processors both from Intel, not so with AMD, therefore giving Apple an easier time with components and pricing on said components. Intel’s processor line seems to scale from PDA to Itanium powered scientific data clusters, giving Apple numerous options to expand it’s line of offerings at a price that no other company can beat (Intel really does offer better bulk pricing to their buyers than AMD can because they are so huge)
Don’t forget the new multi-core offerings forthcoming from Intel. Many are saying that if AMD doesn’t change it’s current lineup significantly, the upcoming Intel multicores will steamroller them in performance. I don’t like to say such things about products that we as the consumer haven’t seen on the market yet but in this case the information is NOT scarce.
I’m rambling, my point is that while I was okay with Apple using IBM even though it was obvious that the 970 line was being put to sleep by the new stuff on the other side of the fence, I am also okay with Apple making this change. I didn’t expect it by any measure, it was completely a surprise to me; The thing is that it WILL give Apple a brighter future if everything rolls right. To be frank, as much as I didn’t want the change, if it boosts Apple and gives us better offerings (possibly at better prices since Intel CAN offer great bulk sales) then I’m all for it. The architecture we had was good, it served it’s purpose. I say we move on to what’s next, and this seems to be it. Lets not dwell on the past here, in computing terms there is no such thing as the past. Computing is foundationally new better faster cheaper cooler and that’s the way it always will be. Time for Apple to keep up!
Jerry, stop using my last name. You are embarassing me with your un-blindedness. It has been a common lament for the last couple of years that Apple has no successor to the G4 in laptops, IBMs roadmap hasn’t panned out like it promised Apple several years ago. If IBM could have kept up with its roadmap, we’d singing the praises of IBM in the T family.
You’re the white sheep of the family. Go away.
Ye gods. will this story never go away and rest in peace…
Did Apple really make unreasonable demands of IBM? Or – to continue the surreal prom date metaphor – did IBM promise much (3GHz by Summer 04, anyone?) and then fail to put out?
Personally, my guess is the latter – I know that the games console market is a bigger market than Apple could ever hope to deliver, but there is such a thing as honouring your commitments or, at the very least, being seen to try to honour those commitments without suddenly reshuffling priorities to suit your new best friends like Sony, Toshiba and Microsoft.
In an ideal world, IBM should have remembered that – whilst it couldn’t make a decision over which chip architecture to use – Apple continually flew the flag for PPC in the mainstream IT universe. Additionally, it should also have remembered that Microsoft screwed it once in the mid-80s and, like the frog with the scorpion on its back, there is more than an even money chance that it will do it again at some point in the future.
As things stand, we will – in two years time – get to see some things that are, quite unusually, interesting in both a practical and an academic sense: firstly, is Mac OS X running on an Apple designed Intel platform faster than Windows whatever running on an Intel-referenced, commodity built Dell? And then, even more interestingly, is Windows whatever running on a Apple box quicker than the same platform running on a Dell?
Now I fully expect the former to be true, so I can only be disappointed in the result; but if the latter is true as well, Apple has the potential to become the pre-eminient supplier of the only hardware capable of acting as a universal OS X/Windows/Linux client. The big question after that is whether that potential has any commercial worth in the marketplace.
I have to agree with Jerry T we apple users have for a long time been very one eyed – lets face it people none here knows what jobs/intel plan for apple it could be a processor it could be the same crap thats out now – through remember the main hobbler to the x86 is windoze – they do perform a lot nicer under redhat or any linux favour. Lets just wait and see what the plans are before jumping on the wagon
Speaking of being “un-blinded”, I think all of us are blind to what drove Steve to make the decision he did. So until we know what he knows, I think any blasting of one chip platform or the other is unwarranted.
That being said, Steve has demonstrated good use of the information he does have to bring us great products in the past (as opposed to other CEOs in Apple’s past) and I for one am willing to bet my money on the choices and products he offers us. Like others have stated, I’d rather have OS X running on any fast hardware than Windows on anything at all.
It seems to me that there are not enough new products to talk about.
This used to be the time of year that Macworld announcements would create a tizzy of rumours and speculation then there were weeks of discussions about it followed by a few more anxiously awaiting the shipping product. I miss those days.
there is a difference between “superior architecture” and “superior performance”
no one with intelligence regarding which is better – the clean, smooth, and scaleable PPC or the decrepit, ancient, and utterly convoluted x86 architecture – would argue that the PPC is a superior architecture.
this is – finally, despite all previous analogies – the next VHS vs. Beta. Beta was technically superior, and had a architecture that would have allowed much better performance over the long haul.
But the maker didn’t deliver, was woefully behind in their commitements, didn’t allow widespread manufacturing from 3rd parties, and simply didn’t perform as well as the poorer architected format.
While IBM can claim all this carp all they want, they never got us the chips, they never showed us that they would continue to scale at a reasonably priced level, and simply weren’t up to the task of chasing Intel and AMD across at least 3 processor groups – but more like 5.
Intel, for all it has to contend with its crappy chip history, is making faster, more powerful chips, and has far superior power control in their laptops at performance levels that make our current products seem Model-T in comparison.
Have no fear that if IBM actually decides it wants to keep us, i’m 1 mea culpa away from letting the world know that we’ll keep the PPC on he high-end/server-end.
but with IBM having suitors that make us irrelevant (today), they will probably come to regret their decision to slow roll and over price PPC chips to us. that was their call to make.
Why ignore me? I only say the truth…almost everyone on MDN were saying the Intel switch wouldn’t happen because IBM are terrific and have a great product line and roadmap. “The PPC is far more scalable and just beginning, x86 is dead”.
—–
God you’re so ignorant.. no one here was privy to the IBM or Intel roadmaps before the announcement.. Still to this day, SJ likes IBM’s current offerings. Where’s the double standard?
For WinXPers…
PPC
Current Stuff = Good
Future Stuff = Weak
Intel
Current Stuff = So so
Future Stuff = Great
The only double standard is when you get into this stupid “You’re supposed to stick with one supplier until the end of time” crowd. This is not the first time Apple has been through changes like this. Hence, the ‘OS X double life’
I’ve read all these comments and agree with both sides. I only feel stupid because I just spent $3,760.oo on a G5 2.7 w/ 3.5 gig ram and feel maybe I made a mistake and should have waited until next year. But a year seemed a long time to do without one and my G4 450 is too slow.
I guess I’m saying that NO ONE TOLD ME. This all came about as a shock.
DID I make a mistake?
“…who will buy these long overdue processors?”
Me!
I’m going to continue to upgrade, buying the newest/latest/greatest Apple PPC-based computers until they finally discontinue PPC, and then I will discontinue buying new Apple computers. I hope that day will never come.
you clowns were cryin’ about how intel sucked just a few months ago.
now you’re sittin’ on Intel’s d!ck, spinnin’ round and round…
funny how fickle we mac fans are…
as for me, I’ll be buying a dual processor-dual core PowerPC mac in a nano-second if they release one. screw intel. I’m not waitin two years…
Would it not be safe to say that we can’t really know where x86 or other Intel offerings can go when released from the yokes of Microsoft’s heavy, lumbering operating systems? I mean, most of the world only knows what in Intel processor does through the use of Windows. And Intel has designed their processors primarily for use with Windows. Could there be more there than we’ve been let in on?
VM don’t despair, you made the right choice, your machine is amazing and will be for years to come. Apple is still using IBM chips and will be for two more years. Frankly be glad you didn’t wait for the Mactels, remember OSX 10.0 and 10.1 were pretty flakey, as will the new machines be until the transitional bugs are worked out.
Darn, now I have G5 envy I want one to replace my G4 400, on second thought you should get rid of your G5, can I make you an offer… ; )
I don’t see why Apple got into business with IBM in the first place. IBM has always been about the Big Machine – mainframes, supercomputers and the like. I guess Apple didn’t do a good enough job of convincing Big Blue to make small, cold chips, or IBM was just too inflexible to be able to accomidate such a request. I guess that’s why IBM is expanding into the consulting arena?
I wonder when these will be available in Powermacs. I just got my 2.7 GHz one and can already see the handwriting on the wall. Oh well, the river of technology is always flowing and you gotta jump in sometime. I think these will sell fine.
Oh and even if they come out with a G5 Powerbook now, I don’t think I will ever own one. I am waiting for the Intel Mac Powerbooks and the possibility of a dual boot syste (AND the possibility I can talk my company into footing the bill because it is dual boot)