“Presenting at the Power Everywhere Forum 2005 in Japan, IBM today formally introduced a dual-core version of its PowerPC 970 (G5) processor, which could find its way into Apple Power Macs in the coming months,” Katie Marsal reports for AppleInsider. “The 64-bit chips, code-named Antares, contain two processing units per chip, each with their own execution core and Level 1 cache. Additionally, each core includes a storage subsystems with 1MB Level 2 cache, making the chips twice as efficient as IBM’s current 970FX PowerPC G5 processors.”
“According to IBM, the 970MP will be made available in speeds ranging from 1.4 to 2.5GHz. It’s believed that Apple has been working with prototypes of the chips since 2004 and could use them in a forthcoming update to its Power Mac G5 desktops,” Marsal reports.
More info, including details about the new family of low-power IBM PowerPC 970FX chips, in the full article here.
So, how much more powerful are these things supposed to be than the single-core chips? If Apple comes out with a dual processor dual core Powermac, will it be noticeably faster than their current dual processor, single core machines?
hairbo,
From the full AppleInsider article:
“The 64-bit chips, code-named Antares, contain two processing units per chip, each with their own execution core and Level 1 cache. Additionally, each core includes a storage subsystems with 1MB Level 2 cache, making the chips twice as efficient as IBM’s current 970FX PowerPC G5 processors.”
Damn it…I was going to buy a PowerMac this week. Now, more waiting.
Makes you wonder just what’s up Intels sleeve, too. If Apples been playing with this for a while now then Intel must be planning a trump worthy of changing platforms.
More evidence that JOBS made a big big big mistake.
The G5 is arguably already the fastest chip on the market
and is in itself a good reason to switch to Mac–
This dual core is no “roadmap”—its here now–
This chip is as good as anything Intel is still dreaming of.
theres nothing technically stopping me from making future high-end macs with these chips and other macs with low-powered intel chips for the conceivable future other than a “we wanted to give you this…” speeches explaining why i retreated from my all -intel position.
if intel doesn’t come up with the goods, there’s nothing technically stopping us at all from using two of these dual-core chips in XServes for the future at all.
yeah, this chip sounds good … but will it fit in a PowerBook ?
</sarcasm>
Personally, any time to buy a G5 is a good time. My dual 1.8 bought from over a year and a half ago is already fast (I’m only running 2.5 GB of ram, would like to bump it up to 6 GB). I’ve just installed the latest version of FCP production suite and it flies! Any G5 is a modern miracle.
This chip is useless to Apple. The only machines it would make any sense in are the PowerMac and the iMac. The iMac is basically fast enough, and the PowerMac is an increasingly minority product line.
For the strategically-crucial portables, as well as the mini, the Pentium-M today blows away anything from IBM. It’s not that this chip is not fast, or that Intel has something revolutionary in the pipeline. It’s just that people want portables more than desktops now, and when they want desktops they want small, cheap ones. IBM’s chips are in the wrong place for that.
IBM, isn’t this somewhat late?
i want nothing more than IBM to roll out 3.5GHZ+ dual core G5s ASAP.
PPC > x86 pure and simple, it will be a sad day when Apple makes a Intel box.
PPC is a better processor than the intel alternatives. However the intel change is the right choice:
1. Better low power processors for notebooks
2. Ability to dual boot windows or have effective VirtualPC. We may hate windows, but we have to use windows some time – until the mac share increases to achieve program selection parity with windows.
3. Easier to sell switchers – It is a lot easier to get them to take the plunge if they can run their existing apps (with wine or dual boot). And can go back to windowss if they are not happy with OS X (they don’t know they will be happy yet!)
4. Having multiple processoer forces deelopers to write code that is endian-safe for either processor which in turn provides for:
5. Apple can choose the processor that makes sense in the future. Envision a line where the low end systems are intel and the high end are PPC, or even POWER4/POWER5
Even if apple goes solid intel in the future they can keep the door open for future processors.
Who seas that Jobs made a mistake?
He said to us devolopers that we have to make code that is UNIVERSAL.
That means that it can be used both in PowerPC and Intel processors.
That is what Jobs said.
So, does that *really* mean that a 2.5 Ghz dual-core, dual processor G5 will be twice as fast as a dual processor single core G5? Because I just don’t buy that for a second.
Sorry IBM, but you’re a day late and a dollar short…
Give me an Amiga II with that please
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
So now we have a G5 processor that can keep the PM line selling until Mactel versions are released. All fine and good, but IBM is a day late and a dollar short – the decision to shift to Intel has probably been developing for at least a year and you know how well IBM has done over the past 12 months.
So the real question is: will IBM be able to deliver these dual core chips in quantities, starting from the projected release date, or will we see more backorders while Apple waits for IBM to deliver?
Not necessarily faster, but can handle more tasks at the same time.
It will not be twice as fast, but OS X scales pretty well. Look at how a dual processor mac does, this is basicall y 2 processors on a single chip. The PowerMac will now show 4 processors. Type ps -aux, and think about making that list 1/2 (or 1/4) as long – it will be substansially faster.
No big deal, we knew Apple couldn’t go an entire year without a hardware update of some kind. Apple is in a great position right now. They can take any of the best chips from IBM or Intel and build a computer around it.
man my dual 2ghz is just so satisfying it will take a lot for me to feel any need to upgrade.
=]
lisa = troll
==============
Steve Jobs said there would be more PPC-based machines. Unfortunately, even this one is too hot for a laptop. Steve’s grand plan takes shapre more clearly by the day.
Lisa,
How do you know what Intel are dreaming of? And it isn’t here now. Can you go to the store and buy one? Steve has seen Intel’s and IBM’s roadmap, I presume you haven’t. But if you have then I apologize.
And to all the “it will show as 4 processors” people, only if Apple continues to use 2 of them, and don’t decide to move to a single dual-core system to get the same output of today’s PM but at a better price. Do we even know the price of these?
Zupchuck, don’t worry about it. Apple got rid of their Lisa a long time ago.
As for the G5 — dual core or not — game console makers are going to be crowding to get 970s, which probably would have added to the already short production runs.
If you read the article, the last paragraph talks about a low power G5 (consuming less than 16 watts) which could be used in PowerBooks – could be good news for the PowerBook and iBook lines. Though as someone about mentioned, how long until they are able to delivery these in quantity?