[Socially Awkward Solo]

1 Year later and not a speed bump with the G5's to be found.

The Xserves are late by their own admission.

"IBM is working very very hard" to bring supply demand in balance for (Xserve) G5 chips, expects to catch up with demand this quarter. IBM is the only supplier that's delaying the shipment."

Should we be scared here?

[The Placid Casual]

I have more faith in IBM than Moto, because given time, they *will* sort things out.

Also, if you look at the problems Intel have had going to .90nm, delays are not to be unexpected.

IBM will get there. As for Moto, do they even have a proper DDR implementation yet?

[olePigeon]

IBM also has to make chips for Nintendo, Microsoft, and AMD. They have their plate full.

[voodoo]

Solo: Yes we should be scared. Of the unknown.

Look we don't know squat what is the problem at IBM. It could be something really difficult to solve for the best chipmaker on the face of the Earth. Or something.. we don't know. I'm confident they'll solve it - they have the manpower and knowhow. They made the G5. Better than Moto could do. By far.

[willed]

Oh God no!! I can't go through it all again!

[voodoo]

Originally posted by willed:
Oh God no!! I can't go through it all again!

K I T

Keep It Together

[djohnson]

No no no... IBM is trying to make enough G5 chips for the PowerBook G5, 3Ghz G5 PowerMac, and iMac G5. Dont you know how much initial demand there will be for these systems? Also, on Apple's financial quarter thing yesterday, Anderson said something about next quarter being higher then expected. Announcing the previous systems will allow Apple to ship many more systems, but only if they have the huge stock needed!

[The Placid Casual]

Well, I for one vote we go back to Motorola

[voodoo]

Originally posted by The Placid Casual:
Well, I for one vote we go back to Motorola

Nevah!! Nevah!!

[mitchell_pgh]

Well, we aren't out of the woods yet... Until everything is G5 (or above) we are still dealing with "somewhat" slow chips...

I can't wait until we are all using G5 + G6 with an OS that runs native 64 bit (not that the speed would do much, but the idea of 8+ Gigs of ram makes me smile)

[benb]

[chris v]

1. It hasn't been a year. There's this thing called a calendar. People use them to track the passage of time. I hear they're really catching on.

2. IBM is not in the same position as MOTO 2 years ago-- I.E. hemorrhaging money and talent out of a neglected and for-sale division. IBM has an interest in pushing the PPC 970 chips forward, and the resources and brain-trust to solve the problem. Motorola had basically no interest in faster G4s, and all the people who could have done something about it were being laid off in droves. There's a major difference.

CV

Edit: Heh. Edited for typos 1 year to the day after the original post.

[Eug Wanker]

Similar thread in Power Mac forum

Anyways, IBM is not Motorola. 90 nm is tough yes, but IBM still seems to be forging ahead with tech deals with other companies for this 90 nm, and IBM is really pushing the hype (in their own engineering type style, but without the flair of Apple) of the 970FX.

They do have some teething problems (which is not surprising for such a new process), and unfortunately Apple and those of us who want G5 Macs, the 970FX is the 90 nm CPU guinea pig. It's interesting to note that nVidia's GeForce FX 6800 is 130 nm, as are IBM's own next-gen POWER5 chips. 90 nm is an immature process and there are some hurdles to overcome. FWIW, in the chip speed race, IBM's only significant 90 nm rival is having the same problems.

I for one in fact believe Apple's statement that this quarter will see the end of most of the G5s supply problems. The fact that single Xserves have been shipping for a while, and the fact that dual Xserves are beginning to ship too, it does seem that IBM is now able to trickle in the chips, and I expect ramping to increase dramatically over the next few months. Indeed, I fully expect a dual 2.5 GHz G5 sooner rather than later, and would not all be surprised if we see it before WWDC.

[mitchell_pgh]

This is a MAJOR win for IBM. They get to sell yesterdays high end server chips today at a premium so they can afford to make newer, higher end chips. The current G5 is basically yesterdays Power4 chip. These are amazing chips, don't get me wrong.

[Hollywood]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Solo: Yes we should be scared. Of the unknown.

Look we don't know squat what is the problem at IBM. It could be something really difficult to solve for the best chipmaker on the face of the Earth. Or something.. we don't know. I'm confident they'll solve it - they have the manpower and knowhow. They made the G5. Better than Moto could do. By far.

The machines (type A412) to built these IC's are made by ASM Europe, where I worked as project-manager during the period they made these machines. The process IBM uses for its production was at that moment the most high-tech procedure that other producers couldn't even think about. Because of the high precision they have to work with, can also cause problems during preparation of a complete batch. To restart such a machine can cost days.
Nevertheless, IBM is still state of the art. The problem will not be at IBM, but the developper of the machines, ASM Europe / International

[Socially Awkward Solo]

"In 1999 Apple complained that its chip supplier wasn't able to supply enough CPUs, forcing it to delay the introduction of a 500MHz Power Mac G4. Then, the supplier in question was Motorola.

Yesterday, Apple made much the same complaint about its other chip supplier, IBM, claiming that its decision to delay the introduction of its third-generation iMac was made because Big Blue can's supply it with sufficient PowerPC 970 - aka G5 - CPUs.

The irony is that Apple began working with IBM again precisely because of the problems Motorola was having punching out G4s. Apple persuaded IBM to license Motorola's G4 design - a design, incidentally, that IBM had itself earlier rejected, leading to cooling of the relationship between the PowerPC partners - and produce the chip on Apple's behalf."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07..._cpu_grumbles/

[goMac]

You guys DO realize Motorola is preparing to ship 3.2 ghz 64 bit PowerPC's?

http://appleturns.com/scene/?id=4666

[GoGoReggieXPowars]

Every chip maker is having troubles with 90nm process, not just IBM. The monkeys are running scared for no reason.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Another question. If 90nm was supposed to use less power and produce less heat then why is it necessary to already fan AND liquid cool these processors? If this is the beginning of the product cycle and it is already having major heat problems can you imagine when they hit 3.5 GHz!

Now I understand why the iMac is delayed and they can't get it in a laptop.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
Now I understand why the iMac is delayed and they can't get it in a laptop.

From what I hear, that isn't why the iMac was delayed.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by benb:

[Synotic]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
Another question. If 90nm was supposed to use less power and produce less heat then why is it necessary to already fan AND liquid cool these processors?

From what I heard, it isn't. The current speed update doesn't require liquid cooling. It seems as if Apple is just forward-looking.

As for the iMac, if you listen to financial call, the question continually came up and it was continually answered that the problem was in securing enough processors.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
Another question. If 90nm was supposed to use less power and produce less heat then why is it necessary to already fan AND liquid cool these processors? If this is the beginning of the product cycle and it is already having major heat problems can you imagine when they hit 3.5 GHz!

Now I understand why the iMac is delayed and they can't get it in a laptop.

We've already explained this to you in other threads.

The 90 nm parts DO use much less power at the same GHz. ie. A G5 2.0 970FX uses roughly HALF the power that a G5 1.8 970 uses, and a G5 2.5 970FX uses no more power than that G5 1.8 970. ie. A G5 2.0 970 likely puts out more heat than a G5 2.5 970FX.

The issue however, is heat density. That amount of heat is generated in a smaller die area in the 90 nm chips. IOW, it's more concentrated, even though it's less overall. Liquid cooling helps suck that heat out of those small areas, but it's not necessary for slower clocked chips (like would be found in next-gen iMac G5s, which Apple already said it will be announcing very soon).

And BTW, I betcha at 3.5 GHz, it won't even be a G5 970FX at all. We'll probably have some new chip by then.

[bleuvixen]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
From what I hear, that isn't why the iMac was delayed.

What I hear:

"Apple revealed that the new iMac will feature a G5 processor and said its delay (as well as constraints on the new Power Mac G5) were due to IBM's inability to deliver sufficient quantities of the G5."

But the iMac was WAY over due, so getting it properly cooled in a decent size enclosure might have been a challenge, but with no chips, no products ship.

Also, wasn't Motorola's problem getting the chips stable at 500Mhz? NOT getting yields, If i remember the 350 and 400Mhz yields ramped up fine...

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
Another question. If 90nm was supposed to use less power and produce less heat then why is it necessary to already fan AND liquid cool these processors? If this is the beginning of the product cycle and it is already having major heat problems can you imagine when they hit 3.5 GHz!

It was expected to produce less heat, but it doesn't. Both Intel and IBM have run into some serious problems in the switch to 90nm. The problem is that when they went to the smaller die, more energy is escaping from the smaller copper and silicon wiring. 130nm might not have been possible either if it wasn't for IBM's Silicon on Insulator. Actually, IBM is doing a lot better than Intel in terms of percentages of usable processors per batch. IBM also stated that they're working out the more serious bugs in the system and that they're going to be on track by late 2004.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
It was expected to produce less heat, but it doesn't.

As I explained above, actually it does produce less heat, unless IBM is lying in their published specs.

As you said IBM doesn't have Intel's heat problems, but it has yield problems, which is a very different thing.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally posted by Synotic:
From what I heard, it isn't. The current speed update doesn't require liquid cooling. It seems as if Apple is just forward-looking.

Ya, that is what they said about 9 fans and it seems they can't even handle 2.5GHz. Also if that is true why does only the 2.5GHz have liquid cooling.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
Ya, that is what they said about 9 fans and it seems they can't even handle 2.5GHz. Also if that is true why does only the 2.5GHz have liquid cooling.

Hmmm... I believe we just covered this a few messages ago...

Anyways, I should point out that the same 9 fans are there in the 2.5. The liquid cooling's heat dissipation is dependent on the fans. IOW, those 9 fans are sufficient for the 2.5. It was the heatsinks that were replaced by the liquid cooling, not the fans.

[thunderous_funker]

Let's be clear about the G5's cooling design.

9 fans isn't necessary for cooling--its necessary for cooling *quietly*.

Lots of fans in key areas spinning only as fast as they need to rather than very big fans blowing hard all day long generating a lot of noice.

I suspect the liquid cooling is overkill from a cooling standpoint but then again, maybe it was a question of which method was more quite and more reliable.

Besides, they had to design a liquid cooling system sooner or later anyway so why not sooner?

How else do you think they are going to squeeze a G5 in a powerbook?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
How else do you think they are going to squeeze a G5 in a powerbook?

Well, it's not to be anything like the liquid cooling in the G5 Power Mac. The Power Mac has a motorized pump with hoses and clamps, and a radiator.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Well, it's not to be anything like the liquid cooling in the G5 Power Mac. The Power Mac has a motorized pump with hoses and clamps, and a radiator.

Those will be conveneiently located in a napsack that the PowerBook user wears.

"Look! Only one hose for the cooling system!"[/steve jobs]

[Landos Mustache]

"For the second straight quarter, Apple Computer Inc. used its earnings conference call to testify to IBM's inability to deliver enough PowerPC 970FX processors to meet demand. Due to chip supply problems, Apple was forced to delay the introduction of a new iMac system until September, months after Apple had hoped to have the system available and too late for the important back-to-school shopping season.

Earlier supply problems with the PowerPC 970FX chip forced Apple to delay shipments of new XServe servers and the new Power Mac G5 systems, the company said in April.

The launches of Intel Corp.'s first 90-nanometer desktop and notebook chips were delayed a few months, but the company appears to have ironed out its transition issues. Intel is actually yielding more 90-nanometer Prescott desktop processors than it had expected, forcing the company to cut back on production, it said last week.

Advanced Micro Devices Inc.'s 90-nanometer Opteron processors are expected in the third quarter. Company executives claim they have not seen any problems with the move to 90-nanometer technology, attributing the smoothness of the transition to its use of silicon on insulator (SOI) technology in its manufacturing processes.

Apple was forced to use a liquid cooling system to deal with the heat generated by the 2.5GHz PowerPC 970FX introduced this year. The 2.5GHz G5 processor, Apple's name for the 970FX chip, consumes about as much power as its slower predecessor but it is much smaller, according to Apple product managers. This means the heat arising from the processor is more concentrated, and a more sophisticated system was needed to control that heat, Apple said when launching the new Power Mac systems.

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/...=1090405778000

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Landos Mustache:
"For the second straight quarter, Apple Computer Inc. used its earnings conference call to testify to IBM's inability to deliver enough PowerPC 970FX processors to meet demand. Due to chip supply problems, Apple was forced to delay the introduction of a new iMac system until September, months after Apple had hoped to have the system available and too late for the important back-to-school shopping season.

Earlier supply problems with the PowerPC 970FX chip forced Apple to delay shipments of new XServe servers and the new Power Mac G5 systems, the company said in April.

The launches of Intel Corp.'s first 90-nanometer desktop and notebook chips were delayed a few months, but the company appears to have ironed out its transition issues. Intel is actually yielding more 90-nanometer Prescott desktop processors than it had expected, forcing the company to cut back on production, it said last week.

Advanced Micro Devices Inc.'s 90-nanometer Opteron processors are expected in the third quarter. Company executives claim they have not seen any problems with the move to 90-nanometer technology, attributing the smoothness of the transition to its use of silicon on insulator (SOI) technology in its manufacturing processes.

Apple was forced to use a liquid cooling system to deal with the heat generated by the 2.5GHz PowerPC 970FX introduced this year. The 2.5GHz G5 processor, Apple's name for the 970FX chip, consumes about as much power as its slower predecessor but it is much smaller, according to Apple product managers. This means the heat arising from the processor is more concentrated, and a more sophisticated system was needed to control that heat, Apple said when launching the new Power Mac systems.

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/...=1090405778000

Welcome to several weeks ago. Apple already said the issue was heat density of the chip (and not overall heat). My thoughts on the subject are here, if you're interested.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Welcome to several weeks ago.

You can welcome MacCentral. The published that today.

Interesting how AMD had no such problems and Intel seems to have worked them out why the saviors IBM will still have problems till the end of the year.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Landos Mustache:
You can welcome MacCentral. The published that today.

Interesting how AMD had no such problems and Intel seems to have worked them out why the saviors IBM will still have problems till the end of the year.

You can blame IBM's automated design perhaps. Intel's designs are much more hand-tuned than IBM's, and it's rumoured that they added space in the design simply to address the heat density issue. OTOH, Intel has higher power leakage issues than IBM does, so Intel's chips generally run hotter than IBM's do, at the same level of performance (at least for the desktop/server class chips).

As for AMD, they don't have any shipping 90 nm CPUs yet.

[goMac]

Ummmmm.... IBM is the one fabricating AMD's chips...

:-\

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by goMac:
Ummmmm.... IBM is the one fabricating AMD's chips...

No they aren't. IBM helped AMD out with process technology, but AMD has its own fabs. I think AMD may have the option in their deal to contract to IBM for fabbing if necessary though, but I'm not sure.

[Landos Mustache]

IBM hasn't been the saviour that everyone thought they would be so far:

"Continued problems with IBM's "G5" processor delivery sharply constrained shipments of both Power Mac G5 and iMac G5 models during the quarter, leading to substantial backlogs. Supplies have improved over the past three months, however, and Apple hopes that supply will meet demand for the current quarter, except perhaps for the 2.5-GHz Power G5 model. (Apple's server sales for the past quarter didn't exceed supply, however.)"

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
No they aren't. IBM helped AMD out with process technology, but AMD has its own fabs. I think AMD may have the option in their deal to contract to IBM for fabbing if necessary though, but I'm not sure.

AMD is also using IBM's fabrication installations. They just inked a deal so AMD would share some CPU technology with IBM in exchange for using IBM's new plants for anticipation to the move to .09�.

[nforcer]

Apple ought to spend some of that 5 billion in cash and make a plant of its own. If IBM cannot supply the 3% of the market they have now, how do they expect to supply 10% by 2010, or whatever their goal is?

[turtle777]

Originally posted by benb:

-t

[yukon]

3ghz G5s never materialized, I was concerned. After all, it was a statement meant to reassure those who didn't want to buy into another dead-end (so to speak). With Freescale apparently ramping up development, rumors of faste CPUs and dual cores....I'm at least finding it interesting since I'm still on an upgradable G4.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by yukon:
3ghz G5s never materialized, I was concerned. After all, it was a statement meant to reassure those who didn't want to buy into another dead-end (so to speak). With Freescale apparently ramping up development, rumors of faste CPUs and dual cores....I'm at least finding it interesting since I'm still on an upgradable G4.

I'm interested in IBM's Scale processeor jointly developed by IBM, Toshiba, and Sony. It's gonna be used in the Playstation 3. Supposedly, when you bunch 'em all together, they're 10x more efficient than current processors (they claim 10x, but I dunno about that.) While only at 300MHz to 500MHz, the whole point is to bunch 'em together and make super efficient mini-clusters.

That's the idea behind the Playstation 3, is that if you're connected over a network, everyone will share their unused CPU cycles with everyone else.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

IBM still can't cut it a year and a half later?

Apple Computer has returned its eMac G4 line of computers to production, despite indications earlier this Fall that the company was clearing inventory in favor of manufacturing new models.

Sources close to the computer maker told AppleInsider this month that Apple had anticipated releasing a major revision to the education-centric all-in-one desktop before the end of the year. The new eMac was to include a G5 processor and a significant internal component reorganization.

Instead of making its debut in the latter half of 2004, the eMac G5 was reportedly placed on hold, while eMac G4 production was restarted in order to keep up with demand. At the root of the problem appears to be IBM's PowerPC 970 G5 processor.

Reminiscent of the recent iMac G5 fiasco, yet not nearly as dramatic, sources claim a less than ample supply of G5 processors is to blame for the minor delay. And while the new eMac was to rely on the slowest available G5 processors, currently a 1.6GHz variant, inventory of these chips are being used to reduce demand for Apple's new low-end iMac G5.

This is not the first time a lack of faster PowerPC processors has reportedly slowed the evolution of Apple's eMac. In the Fall of 2003, the dearth of PowerPC G4 processors in excess of 1GHz resulted in October price cuts for the eMac line, rather than faster models.

Last month, sources noted inventory dumps and a decline in orders for eMacs at Apple's manufacturing facility, indicating that new models could be around the corner. According to sources, Apple now plans to introduce an eMac revision in early 2005. Additional details will be published when they become available.

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=760

[Eug Wanker]

Well, the good news is that the iMac G5 is selling like mad. It's the #1 selling computer at the US Apple Store, in 10th place after a whole bunch of iPod stuff. The next highest is the iBook in 15th place.

At the Canadian Apple Store, the iMac G5 is the #2 selling computer in 4th place, after the iBook in 3rd (after the iPod and iPod mini).

Thus, it seems likely that Apple will sell well over 200000 units of the iMac G5 this quarter. That means in this quarter, individual G5 chip shipments are probably something like 60% more than the last quarter.

That's a lot of G5s.

And they still need to have extra G5s if not now then soon for production of the G5 eMac... and maybe even for the PowerBook G5 too.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Isn't the 3GHZ G5 a year late now?

[CD Hanks]

sometimes i fall down

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
Isn't the 3GHZ G5 a year late now?

No. 10 mos late.

[Lancer409]

Originally Posted by benb

this made me burst into laughter ... damn .. i was just reading a childrens story book on chicken little (a updated and twisted version)

i work in the children's room from time to time at the library here in SF. get over it

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

No. 10 mos late.

According to Appleinsider it is only going to be 2.7 GHz.

Either way now you have to admit it is already looking like a Motorola. And don't bring up vaporware.