“IBM is prepared to begin accepting customer orders for its new dual-core PowerPC 970MP (G5) microprocessors, which it will be capable of delivering in quantity very soon, says one Wall Street analyst,” Prince McLean 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 subsystem with 1MB Level 2 cache, making the chips twice as efficient as IBM’s current 970FX PowerPC G5 processors.”
“‘While declining to be specific regarding customers, IBM has confirmed that it has sampled these new chip versions and is [now] prepared to accept customer orders,’ Caris & Company analyst Mark Stahlman said in a research note released earlier this week. The analyst speculates the processors could make their Apple debut in a revision to the PowerMac G5 line at September’s Apple Expo in Paris,” McLean reports. “According to IBM, the PowerPC 970MP will be made available in speeds ranging from 1.4 to 2.5GHz.”
Full article here.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Analysts propel Apple Computer shares higher, predict new iPods, Macs at Apple Expo Paris – August 15, 2005
Apple shares surge 4.5% in heavy NASDAQ trading – August 15, 2005
Piper Jaffray selects Apple Computer as top large cap pick for rest of 2005 – August 15, 2005
RUMOR: New PowerBook G4s to debut at Apple Expo Paris in September [UPDATED] – August 11, 2005
Tech Pundit Enderle: ‘fourth quarter should be ugly for Apple’ – August 09, 2005
Steve Jobs to keynote Apple Expo Paris 2005 on September 20 – August 04, 2005
Apple expo Paris – September 20-24.
Mark your calendars.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
I sooo want one. What I would love to see is a dual core G5 Mac Mini (For those of us who can’t afford a G5 tower). I have a 12 inch powerbook and I hate to say it but I don’t want to see an update for those because it would hurt my feelings…:( lol
Introduction of Intel in PowerMacs – Sometime by mid-2007.
Mark your calendars for THAT!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
sign me up for one. And a mac mini if it goes G5.
With dual-core G5s on track for release soon why did Apple decide to switch to Intel? I do not think that IBM dropped the ball, even if 3 GHz was never reached. I mean who gives a chit about GHz ratings when rendering video is faster on the lower GHz Mac hardware? As for the laptops, Apple should have been willing to compromise on the thickness of the PowerBook to use the G5 processor in it. Talk about style over substance.
Oooooo! Could be a new PowerMac under the tree this xmas! But what about TWO dual core CPU’s?
Sol, just wait. The word on The Street is that IBM has one or two last hurrahs slated, as it gets dual core processors before Intel does, but after that Intel will shoot ahead. If you could just linearly extrapolate current trends, PowerPC would remain in the lead. But I believe the balance will tip next year.
IBM’s PPC G5 chip is still the lowest price for performance chip available, Apple has sold a ton of hardware because of this chip, especially homebrewed supercomputers.
Apple might milk the G5 chip a little while longer in the X-Serve and PowerMac line finally switching to a newer version of a Intel chip slated for the second half of 2006. Because these products can handle the G5’s heat and it’s marketed to the professional crowd.
Right now the emergency is getting a cool dual core x86 based chip into portables, iMacs etc.
This latest Win 2000 worm hit a lot of companies really hard, I’m getting reports all over the net.
OK, I work for a large corporation. Begins with ‘H’, ends with ‘well’. This worm shut down our entire building today. We had to send first shift production home. Most / all of the engineering staff was useless. Now my real point. 99% of virus problems are ordinary users doing stupid things with email/attachments. This one infected everyone who simply was connected to the building net, (which was everyone). If this virus had one minor mod where is propogated itself, say 5 times, then scrubbed the hard disk, then this would be a HUGE issue. Everyone’s computer would be toast. No one did anything wrong. This virus was merely annoying in the grand scheme of things. If this virus had wiped the harddrives of all users and building servers, then maybe this insecure M$ crap would finally get the attention it deserves at the top level IS departments. This is simply unacceptable….
Sol wrote:
“With dual-core G5s on track for release soon why did Apple decide to switch to Intel? I do not think that IBM dropped the ball, even if 3 GHz was never reached. I mean who gives a chit about GHz ratings when rendering video is faster on the lower GHz Mac hardware? As for the laptops, Apple should have been willing to compromise on the thickness of the PowerBook to use the G5 processor in it. Talk about style over substance.”
They aren’t talking about the next few months, they are considering the next few YEARS.
FACT: 3Ghz G5 STILL not available (so YES IBM did drop the ball)
FACT: Not everyone wants to render video, so who gives a shit if the G5 is better at doing that.
FACT: Some people like to own/use computers that don’t require liquid cooling
FACT: Even if Apple made their Powerbooks 2 inches thick they couldn’t use a G5. The iMac us at least two inches thick, and requires the near vertical aspect to be maintained, in order to fuly utilise the convection airflow as heat RISES from the bottom of the unit to the top and out the one LARGE slot in the rear panel of the iMac!!! As laptop users tend to use their machines in a horizontal position, this would not work. Also large slots in one panel would be impractical and down right moronic in a laptop design.
FACT: HEAT is not the ONLY factor in laptop design. In case you were unaware, POWER consumption is crucial too (and yes they ARE relared to each other). There is no use in having a laptop (i.e. MOBILE) computer if you need to plug it into a wall every 2 hours! So even if Apple could make a 2 inch thick laptop that could house a G5 without cooking the users thighs, the battery life would be so poor that it wouldn’t be a laptop. Talk about style (obsession with using a PowerPC processor) over substance (making computing products that address user needs (regardless of the porcessor in them!).
FACT: No matter how much you anti-intel mob whinge and whine, the deal is done. Intel processors will be in Apple Macs very soon. Time to let go, and GET OVER IT.
I’m glad you people aren’t running Apple. There would not be OS X (probably Mac OS 11) and Apple wouldn’t have released the iPod and they’d be bleeding to a slow and painful death.
It’s time to adopt the motto of your favourite company:
“THINK DIFFERENT”
my 2 cents
Luke
my company wasn’t affected at all by the recent virus rampage.
Of course, we have a competent IT staff.
Most sys admins don’t lock their systems… and let nasties in if they ask nicely.
LukeinOz is it that time of the month?
However, it is still not a 3GHz.
Do we expect the next intel Mac will be named i5, or iN-5?
Sol wrote:
“LukeinOz is it that time of the month?”
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
You are SOOOOOO funny. Oh please stop. No seriously – STOP!
That’s right Sol, whenever someone disagrees with YOU they are on their rags.
Yep it is that time of the month. Every month I go through this period where I’m really sensitive to stupidity – it lasts about 30 days!!!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
I am aware that Steve Jobs and Apple know more about the future roadmaps of Intel AND IBM than you or I ever will and if it was all so good at IBM, Apple would NOT put themselves through this transition just for the hell of it. You see the only logical conclusion to what you propose is that Steve Jobs and Apple have PUPOSELY chosen an inferior path in order to destroy Apple – rubbish! And if that means it must be that time of the month for me then yes, it is!
As I said get over it mate – Apple is going Intel and the reasons they are doing so are well known and documented.
The PowerPC (whilst AWESOME now) is not the FUTURE of desktop computing. Considering Apple was a driving force behind PowerPC, and its biggest proponent/customer, you’d have to say that if Apple decides it doesn’t have legs, it probably doesn’t have legs, it just runs too hot for mobile computing.
Anyway nice to see that have such insightful and well thought out points to counter what I said. Based on what you have contributed to this discussion, it is becoming clear to me now that Apple has blown it.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”rolleyes” style=”border:0;” />
Scuse me whilst I go find the mouse…
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”ohh” style=”border:0;” />
Luke
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue wink” style=”border:0;” />
LukeinOz says:
“FACT: 3Ghz G5 STILL not available (so YES IBM did drop the ball)”
Um, FACTbuster #1: Jobs was the one who made the high profile promise of a 3Ghz G5. At the time, IBM said – as did AMD – that going from the 120nm to the 90nm fabbing process should make their basic design scale to 3Ghz. Similarly, Intel claimed their Netburst based P4s would hit 4-5Ghz. Unfortunately, the whole industry found that all to be optimistic. So, if your gonna roast IBM over the coals for not getting clockspeeds ramped as high as they anticipated, then make room on the barby for everyone else who makes CPUs, Intel as well.
“FACT: Not everyone wants to render video, so who gives a shit if the G5 is better at doing that.”
FACTbuster #2: Steve Jobs wants to render video, as do most of his professional class customers, and quite a few of his consumer level buyers as well. Why the hell else would iMovie, iDVD, Final Cut, et al … be such a focal point of developmet for the company? And if you don’t think rendering video, in addition to selling it online and playing it on some form of personal device, is not a BIG part of Apple’s future … well, I suggest you check your “FACTS” again.
“FACT: Some people like to own/use computers that don’t require liquid cooling”
FACTbuster#3: Tell that to the gaming community. They’ve been doing that – as well as refrigerating their CPUs – for years.
“FACT: Even if Apple made their Powerbooks 2 inches thick they couldn’t use a G5. The iMac us at least two inches thick, and requires the near vertical aspect to be maintained, in order to fuly utilise the convection airflow as heat RISES from the bottom of the unit to the top and out the one LARGE slot in the rear panel of the iMac!!! As laptop users tend to use their machines in a horizontal position, this would not work. Also large slots in one panel would be impractical and down right moronic in a laptop design.”
FACTbuster #4: The announcement that got this thread started is for the availability of DualCore G5s, which actually use less wattage than the single core units they replace, and – as one may remember – were formally introduced at the same time as the even lower power, single core version of the 907/G5 CPU (the 970FX). So, all this talk about PB design constraints, based on what Apple’s doing with the G5 iMac now, is irrelevant. The CPUs available now are not as hot, or as power hungry as the one in the iMac. Plus, Apple will never invest the kind of money required in developing a new G5 laptop, because A] it probably won’t be on the market long enough to recoup the investment (i.e before Macintels are scheduled to arrive), and B] beause Jobs would never risk a direct comparison between a G5 PB and an x86 PB … the results would likely raise even more questions about his stated rational for abandoning PPC than the simple availability of a low power G5 already does.
“FACT: HEAT is not the ONLY factor in laptop design. In case you were unaware, POWER consumption is crucial too (and yes they ARE relared to each other). There is no use in having a laptop (i.e. MOBILE) computer if you need to plug it into a wall every 2 hours! So even if Apple could make a 2 inch thick laptop that could house a G5 …, the battery life would be so poor that it wouldn’t be a laptop.”
FACTbuster #5: The low power G5 is rated to use less wattage per unit of clockspeed than even the current G4.
“FACT: No matter how much you anti-intel mob whinge and whine, the deal is done. Intel processors will be in Apple Macs very soon. Time to let go, and GET OVER IT. I’m glad you people aren’t running Apple. There would not be OS X (probably Mac OS 11) and Apple wouldn’t have released the iPod and they’d be bleeding to a slow and painful death. It’s time to adopt the motto of your favourite company: “THINK DIFFERENT”
Luke, all your doing is ‘thinking’ – and I use the term loosely – right a long with the rest of the crowd, and exactly in the way His Steveness has ‘encouraged’ you to. You are probably right – this DRM driven Intel transistion probably is a forgone conclusion. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t a mistake.
Apple’s marketing appears to have spawned two kinds of people: Those who truly do use their heads to think, and observe what’s really happening, based on available evidence, and not being swayed by what the crowd WISHES were true, and those who simply go along with whatever the crowd says (and/or what the leader of the crowd says, in this case).
You’re clearly a member of the latter.
So, odyssey67, what do you suggest we do when the Intel Macs come out?? Pout, run in circles, scream and shout???? His Steveness is the CEO, not you. Apple IS going to put Intel chips inside their computers.
You can eitherGET OVER IT, or you can play like you can do something to stop it. One is a rational method of dealing with reality … the other is not.
There could have been a PowerPC future, except no one other than Apple (and the embedded systems market) adopted it in their PCs.
It was clearly more powerful at each technology jump early on, and had a bright future – those Power chips in IBM’s big iron’s aren’t all that slo even now.
Unfortunately, PCs based on Intel chips rule the lower end of the computer market (i.e. desktop and mobile computing), and are even creeping into the mid ranges. Apple, IBM and Motorola just couldn’t compete and maintain the R&D required to keep up.
I believe the 500Mhz G4 fiasco marked the beginning of the end for PowerPC in Macintosh’s, although of course, many of us were all in denial for many years (some still are?? ;=)
Intel stuff is great for their raw speed, but they appear to have lousy vector processing compared to PowerPCs. One can only hope that Intel does something about this and improves dramatically in this area. One could expect Apple will demand this, but who knows – if Steve’s milking the Mac for all it’s worth, we’re gonna get screwed on this point. Bad luck to those in media production and scientific communities (just about everyone else other than the home users…) if they don’t do anything. (I’m sure they will though)
You guys should really stop whining about the past and the what ifs of the PowerPC porcessor. Someone screwed up, Motorola did it before and this time it was IBM and/or Apple. Right now I’m wondering what’s the next step in all of this.
At the moment, Intel has the Pentium D dual-core chips, though I don’t believe they’re true 64bit like the G5. Considering this, Apple could use those chips in the Mac mini. I seriously doubt we’ll see a Mac mini G5. I really have no idea what Apple will do with their moble line, but they’d probably use dual-core Pentium Ms in the iBooks and next-gen Pentium M based dual-core chips for PowerBooks. I can see the iMac getting dual-core G5s as a final update. Now when we talk about PowerMacs things get interesting. Let’s say Apple does go dual dual-core G5s. There would be no way the Intel PoweMacs would be anything less than dual dual-core nextgen Pentium M based 64bit processors. Anything less would be a huge step backwards. Another thing, look at the QT 7 Windows beta. Just to view 720p you need a dual-core Xeon and you can’t view 1080p…but you can on a PowerMac dual 2GHz! That just shows the next PowerMac will need some serious specs.
Forget the past think about how amazing the Intel PowerMac will be: 2xdual-core chips (effectively 4 CPUs), 2GB per slot RAM (16GB RAM with 8 slots…Xserve already has it.), dual PCIe X16 graphics slots (imagine Motion, Photoshop, or a Core Image-based program utilizing dual nVidia 7800s or dual ATi X850s), 300MBps SATA II (twice as fast as the current iMac G5 and PowerMac), FireWire 800 (one that isn’t crap slow like on the G5), USB 2.0 (that isn’t crap slow like on all Macs).
Imagine what the future of Apple holds! It looks really bright to me.
http://www.taloussanomat.fi/etusivu/4464392.asp
This news was published 18.08.2005 09:21 Finnish time ie 02:21 New York´s time
http://www.nokia.com/nseries/index.html?loc=inside,main_n91
Finnish newspaper Talous Sanomat tell´s that Nokia will bring Apple Computer´s iTunes in their new music telephone called Nokia N91. It has 4 gigabit harddrive and it can hold 3000 songs. Nokia´s Executive Vice President and General Manager of Multimedia Anssi Vanjoki told that he already has seen the telephone. It will be in the market right for the xMas sales.
In this article Anssi Vanjoki wonders why Motorola is so slow bringing their iTunes telephone in the market. “strange thing” he says.
Nokia predicts that they will sell 760 million phones this year alone and 40 million of these will be music telephones with iTunes.
Nokia also works with Microsoft and Loudeye.
One guy from Finland
I would say Oh Joy!
I know I didn’t name all hose crazy Intel code names, but I can’t keep track of all those dumb Intel in-house names like Yonah and Mermon or whatever. So don’t go flaming me over some silly oversight.
I’m just speculating here.
I mean, I haven’t seen any meaningful article speculating on what the Intel Macs specs could be…all I’ve read is some vague stuff saying the Mac mini is most likely going to be first to go Intel and that kinda stuff.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Why-won-t-Nokia-N91-kill-iPod-1543.shtml
More news about iTunes and Nokia
I think what people will do, because a camera phone drive is so small, is to burn cd’s just of their favorite iTunes music and place those files on their camera phones.
First of a phone requires the battery to be charged as much as possible, because duh, it’s main purpose is a phone.
taking pictures and listening to music drains the power, so they are secondary use features
iPods are dedicated music players, with storing photos, and files etc secondary to the first.
with telemarketers now calling cell phones, it makes those batteries last so much less and the other features like music and picture taking take a back seat
plus you can’t just place a phone in a glove compartment and leave it hooked up to your iPod integrated car stereo.
plus phone drives are undercapacity
Observing Steve´s mercurial behavior over the years, one has to wonder if IBM would have brought these new chips out 6 or so months earlier if Steve would have made the switch to Intel….or postponed the change?????
Will Steve be offering two flavors of computers in the future – both Power PC and Intel powered????
To Odessey67
Re Factbuster #1:
I’m not roasting IBM for missing 3Ghz, I personally don’t care about the 3 Ghz, as I repeatedly stated the issue is TEMPERATURE and POWER consumption (more on that later).
Re Factbuster #2:
What is your point mate? I never mentioned anything about rendering not being important for some people. My question about who gives a shit about video rendering was related to Sol’s original question: “I mean who gives a chit (sic) about GHz ratings when rendering video is faster on the lower GHz Mac hardware?” I was simply paraphrasing his ridiculous question. Comprehend? I answered his ridiculous question – there are a lot of people who give a shit about GHz (ummmm – GAMERS, more on them later) – with an equally stupid question “Not everyone wants to render video, so who gives a shit if the G5 is better at doing that?” I am sorry of the subtle nature of the English language is beyond you.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue wink” style=”border:0;” />
Re Factbuster #3:
Again what the f%^k is your point?
I state: “FACT: Some people like to own/use computers that don’t require liquid cooling” (SOME people don’t want liquid cooled PC’s – it’s another thing that can go wrong in your system that if you can avoid it you don’t do)
And your reply to this very valid point is:
“FACTbuster#3: Tell that to the gaming community. They’ve been doing that – as well as refrigerating their CPUs – for years.”
Ahhhh – YEP, that is exactly my point. There are people who want to WORK on their PCs and others that want to get work done on their PCs, MOST people (but I only said SOME) fall into the latter category.
I think you are just trying to fact bust everything I stated (which again is pointless as my whole post was just a pisstake on the “sky is falling” crap about this whole Intel move, but lets move on…
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Re Factbuster #4 – I agree with you, Apple won’t invest in a G5 Powerbook (see I don’t need to just disagree, even to the point of disagreeing about something that wasn’t even said). But once again the anti-Intel crowd are trumping out the recent PowerPC dual core chips as proof IBM had solved the issue. So for how long? As I repeatedly have stated, why do you assume to know more about processor road maps than people that have vastly more access to this info than you do? (I’ll comment on what I think that says about you later).
My “fact” was in answer to Sol’s assertion that Apple is being pig headed by not changing the design (i.e. thickness) of the Powerbook to accommodate a G5 chip. WHY??? Why should Apple ruin excellent industrial design to accommodate a chip that is too hot for it??? Why should they when they can get another chip that can be incorporated into their design goals? Personally I don’t think a G5 Powerbook is necessary (it would be VERY nice, but not necessary). Surely you won’t be so fixed in your thinking to state that a G4 outperforms the current Pentium M architecture (the Pentium M chipset Bus speed alone blows it away!)!!! So the move to Intel (excluding any future chips from Intel) gets a massive improvement just moving from G4 to Pentium M for the Powerbooks (though I reckon they won’t be using the Pentium M)
Re Factbuster #5:
So???? Your answer to the heat problem is that Apple use low power (i.e. lower clock speed) G5 chips. Great, and my bet is the half glass empty types would be whining “I want a 2.5Ghz Powerbook!!!”
My point was that power consumption is an issue in notebook design. Is this not true? Steve noted that Power consumption WAS a factor in the decision.
cont…
cont…
You are right I do accept what I have been told about THIS issue – I am not pompous enough to assume I know more than he does about the road maps (or anyone else at Apple that has been privy to them).
So now to how each of us THINKS:
That was exactly my point, as I said if Apple listened to all the doomsayers, they SHOULDN’T have moved to PowerPC, they SHOULDN’T have moved to OS X, they SHOULDN’T invest so much energy into iPod (blah blah blah – and so it CONSTANTLY goes on).
I don’t BLINDLY accept that this decision is right, however I also don’t understand the constant whining about it. IT IS DONE – OVER – COMPLETE. No amount of negative energy about it will change it. I will focus on commenting, and feeding back to Apple what I want out of the Intel move, because I can assure you suggestions/discussions about Intel based Apple hardware will be a lot more valuable than discussions about G5 based hardware in the future.
Apple marketing hasn’t spawned anything with me. However I do accept that Steve Jobs and Apple are not doing things to make their products suck. They have more information about this issue than you, Sol or anyone else here, so yes I do not have any shame in admitting I defer to their opinion rather than yours.
My comment about suggesting to “Think Different” was about just getting OVER this issue, (again subtle nature of English) I’m sorry your fragile ego saw it as an attack on your ability to think. I also note your need to try and suggest I can’t think for myself. Yeah whatever, I can equally say that your need to disagree with Steve and Apple over this is you going with the rest of the (OTHER) crowd – touché (that’s French)
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”raspberry” style=”border:0;” />
So most of your Factbusters are actually simply another point of view – great, but they don’t really ‘bust’ anything I have stated as facts (mostly as they are totally unrelated to what I said).
Another 4 cents,
Luke
PS – If you’re read my second post in response to Sol’s cutting response, you would be able to also tell, I’m just having some fun. I just don’t see this issue as all that serious (though fun to write about). Sometimes there just isn’t a conspiracy!!!