[gate]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Where are you getting this from? Sounds like somebody's wishful thinking.
Huh?

Sorry, I kept the article but not the link:

"Correcting some misunderstandings about the PowerPC 980: Early in the development of post-970 PowerPCs under the renewed Apple-IBM alliance, thePOWER5-based follow-on to the 970/970FX was grouped under the "PPC 980" heading.

Much coverage was given to this version of the roadmap, which projected very little beyond this single-core, POWER5-based chip. Late last year, Rumors brought our readers exclusive access to a more updated version of the IBM PowerPC 9xx Roadmap...

...but of course, considering that we (still) lack proper archives, readers can hardly be blamed for following a large segment of the Mac community in calling the POWER5-based G5 a "PowerPC 980."

In fact, the chip in question is now dubbed the PowerPC 975 by IBM, and will ship this fall at 2.8-3GHz+ with a major clock-for-clock performance advantage over previous G5s. In addition, the 975 will run much cooler and offer huge power savings due to its advanced power management features.

In mid-2005, the dual-core POWER6-based PPC 976 will bring the Mac and the IBM PowerPC platforms to new heights. In 2006, the true POWER7-based PowerPC 980 will follow. Details are scarce, but it is planned to run at 6GHz and beyond with up to four cores per chip.

The IBM PowerPC 9xx architecture has much to offer, and we'll be detailing this more in future updates; we just thought it was high time this common misconception was put to rest."

[Lateralus]

*Sniff*

*Sniff*

Is that... MOSR I smell?

[Eug Wanker]

Hmmmm... It definitely stinks like MOSR. gate, I know you're a n00b here, but please don't waste our time with that drivel.

Just for future reference, MOSR continually writes "articles" with no basis in fact whatsoever. Even as a rumour site it is useless, because it does not understand the facts that are already available, and thus cannot even provide reasonable extrapolations about pending Apple products. Instead, MOSR chooses just to make things up completely.

[gate]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
*Sniff*

*Sniff*

Is that... MOSR I smell?

It is a possibility. But the content seems very probable and in line with most of the things I read in the past weeks.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by gate:
It is a possibility. But the content seems very probable and in line with most of the things I read in the past weeks.

Then you're probably reading garbage like MOSR.

There is essentially NOTHING in your quote of the article (below) that is accurate. Perhaps you should start reading IBM documents and articles from respected online tech journals etc. for information on the POWER architecture.

"Correcting some misunderstandings about the PowerPC 980: Early in the development of post-970 PowerPCs under the renewed Apple-IBM alliance, thePOWER5-based follow-on to the 970/970FX was grouped under the "PPC 980" heading.

Much coverage was given to this version of the roadmap, which projected very little beyond this single-core, POWER5-based chip. Late last year, Rumors brought our readers exclusive access to a more updated version of the IBM PowerPC 9xx Roadmap...

...but of course, considering that we (still) lack proper archives, readers can hardly be blamed for following a large segment of the Mac community in calling the POWER5-based G5 a "PowerPC 980."

In fact, the chip in question is now dubbed the PowerPC 975 by IBM, and will ship this fall at 2.8-3GHz+ with a major clock-for-clock performance advantage over previous G5s. In addition, the 975 will run much cooler and offer huge power savings due to its advanced power management features.

In mid-2005, the dual-core POWER6-based PPC 976 will bring the Mac and the IBM PowerPC platforms to new heights. In 2006, the true POWER7-based PowerPC 980 will follow. Details are scarce, but it is planned to run at 6GHz and beyond with up to four cores per chip.

The IBM PowerPC 9xx architecture has much to offer, and we'll be detailing this more in future updates; we just thought it was high time this common misconception was put to rest."

To get your started, this is what IBM itself has to say:

# POWER4
Released in 2001: 174 million transistors per processor
A gigaprocessor incorporating 0.18-micron copper and SoI (Silicon-on-Insulator) technology, the POWER4 is the single most powerful chip on the market today. It inherited all of the characteristics of the POWER3 -- including compatibility with the PowerPC instruction set -- but reinvented itself with a completely new design. Each processor has two 64-bit 1Ghz+ PowerPC cores, making it the first server processor with a multicore design on a single die (also known as "CMP on a chip," or "server on a chip"). Each processor can execute as many as 200 instructions simultaneously. The POWER4 supersedes the Star family of processors and is the power behind the IBM Regatta servers as well as being the father of the PowerPC 970 processor (also known as the Apple G5). The POWER4+� (also known as POWER4-II) does the same, but at higher frequencies and with less power consumption.

# POWER5�
Due out in 2004
Like the POWER3 and POWER4, the POWER5 unifies the POWER and PowerPC architectures. It will feature communications acceleration, chip multiprocessing, and simultaneous multithreading (SMT), for a reported performance gain of between 50 and 100 percent over the POWER4. It will make its appearance in a new line of servers that are code-named "Squadron" and in the teraflop ASCI Purple computer scheduled to be delivered to Lawrence Livermore in the second half of 2004.

# POWER6�
Due out in 2006
Under wraps.

[gate]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Then you're probably reading garbage like MOSR.

There is essentially NOTHING in your quote of the article (below) that is accurate. Perhaps you should start reading IBM documents and articles from respected online tech journals etc. for information on the POWER architecture.
To get your started, this is what IBM itself has to say:

So you're telling me that it won't "run much cooler and offer huge power savings due to its advanced power management features".

I thought it was a well-known fact!

P.S. Is there a war between MacNN and MOSR?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by gate:
So you're telling me that it won't "run much cooler and offer huge power savings due to its advanced power management features".

I thought it was a well-known fact!

There have been no announcements by IBM whatsoever about a 2.8 GHz part, much less benchmark speeds. Yes, "advanced power management features" were introduced in the PowerPC 970FX. This chip represents the second generation of the G5, shipping in the Xserve at 2.0 GHz, and has been announced up to 2.5 GHz by IBM. It's likely that IBM will release these quite a bit higher, say up to 3.0 GHz or so, but IBM has not yet made any such announcement, and it's likely to be basically the same chip design anyway, and it isn't called a 975. Now, that "article" seems to suggest a POWER5 based chip coming soon at those speeds. However, that chip has never been announced, and thus wouldn't have a name either.

Also, while the 970FX has better power management than the 970, judging by released specs, it is not clock-for-clock faster than the 970. If he's talking about a POWER5 based chip being clock-for-clock faster, again, I'll point out that such a chip has never been announced.

In other words, right now there is no such thing as a 975 or a 980. The only thing we have real information on is the 970 and the 970FX. And it's not as if MOSR would be a site to get info on future releases. Anyone in the know would not bother wasting their time talking to MOSR.

P.S. Is there a war between MacNN and MOSR?

No. That would imply respect from MacNN. If you look around the net, you'll see that just about everyone hates MOSR. Like I said, MOSR simply publishes unsubstantiated garbage.

[gate]

"If you look around the net, you'll see that just about everyone hates MOSR. Like I said, MOSR simply publishes unsubstantiated garbage."

I didn't know that about MOSR. What about "MacRumors.com" and "MacOSXRumors.com"?

I'll be more careful about what we can find on MOSR in the future.

Thanks.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by gate:
I didn't know that about MOSR. What about "MacRumors.com" and "MacOSXRumors.com"?

MacRumors seems to like to act like a summary site for rumours around the net. It does not seem any more accurate than some of that other sites out there for its own rumours (although it's way better than MOSR). The most accurate seems to be ThinkSecret. I don't know anything about MacOSXRumors.

[gate]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
MacRumors seems to like to act like a summary site for rumours around the net. It does not seem any more accurate than some of that other sites out there for its own rumours (although it's way better than MOSR). The most accurate seems to be ThinkSecret. I don't know anything about MacOSXRumors.

Thanks.

[gate]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
If that isn't a contradictory statement, I don't know what is...

Oops ... "PCI video card"

[DeathToWindows]

now I'm just waiting until June...

[Truepop]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Then you're probably reading garbage like MOSR.

There is essentially NOTHING in your quote of the article (below) that is accurate. Perhaps you should start reading IBM documents and articles from respected online tech journals etc. for information on the POWER architecture.
To get your started, this is what IBM itself has to say:

I like that Feedback section on the IBM site at the bottom. I didn't picture them saying a rating of 5 as "Killer!" and a rating of 1 as "Lame!"

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Link:
2.2-2.6 would be a ****ing lame hardware update.

Thank you for your input, oh wise one.

[GoGoReggieXPowars]

Originally posted by MOSR:
...but of course, considering that we (still) lack proper archives, readers can hardly be blamed for following a large segment of the Mac community in calling the POWER5-based G5 a "PowerPC 980."

Ryan keeps getting funnier and funnier! Geez, Meader, so much for your so-called "sources" when you can't even back your site up regularly!

[DeathToWindows]

I smell the privy pit. Get the @#^%$%^$&^% gong farmer out of the thread!

[jcadam]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Thank you for your input, oh wise one.

Is that a dude or a chick in that picture?

[milhouse]

Originally posted by jcadam:
Is that a dude or a chick in that picture?

Looks rather "dudish" to me.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by jcadam:
Is that a dude or a chick in that picture?

A dude, I believe.

[Lateralus]

Naw.

A dude would come in here and tell the people making fun of him to **** off.

[CIA]

Is it me, or am I having Moto flashbacks from when the original G4 was announced? Stuck @ 500Mhz for 18 months? Maybe we are stuck @ 2Ghz for another year! Apple may be forced to announce quad 2Ghz based machines just to stay competitive....
So much for Moores law....

[Judge_Fire]

Originally posted by CIA:
Is it me, or am I having Moto flashbacks from when the original G4 was announced? Stuck @ 500Mhz for 18 months? Maybe we are stuck @ 2Ghz for another year! Apple may be forced to announce quad 2Ghz based machines just to stay competitive....
So much for Moores law....

It seems Apple has to learn/relearn about a number of stuff. The G5 brought a number of new variables into the design process, like increased heat, new components etc. so perhaps this delay is just an initial one.

J

[Riemann Zeta]

Why does everyone hate the ATI Radeon 9800XT--I think it's a ****ing powerful card. True, the just released NVIDIA 6800U is faster, but it also requires a 480W power supply, two separate power connectors, and has 222M transistors. ATI's cards are neat because they are often scalable in power consumption--case in point, the amazing 9700 Mobility.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Riemann Zeta:
Why does everyone hate the ATI Radeon 9800XT--I think it's a ****ing powerful card. True, the just released NVIDIA 6800U is faster, but it also requires a 480W power supply, two separate power connectors, and has 222M transistors. ATI's cards are neat because they are often scalable in power consumption--case in point, the amazing 9700 Mobility.

The Power Mac G5 dual has a 600 W power supply.

nVidia's cards are power hungry, but then again if you want a gaming card that's the shiznit. Well, either that or the Radeon X800 series coming out soon. Personally, I'd be happy with a Radeon 9600 Pro 128 MB since I don't game, but alas, the card doesn't exist. The Mac versions have 64 MB.