IBM Unveils 64-bit PowerPC Chip

[Joe Matt]

From MacMinute:

IBM 64-bit PowerPC to be unveiled tomorrow
October 13 - 21:15 EDT$@#$@# IBM on Monday will announce its new 64-bit PowerPC processor with speeds starting at 1.8GHz, reports Reuters. The new chip is based on the company's Power4 design, and will be able to run both 32-bit and 64-bit applications. The processor will be available in the second half of 2003 and will be built in IBM's East Fishkill, New York plant. IBM declined to comment on which PC makers would use the chip, but Apple is widely expected to adopt it.

[MattK]

Wow, starting at 1.8ghz thats awsome. That should do away with most of the "Macs are slower, they only run at 1ghz" shiz. I HATE PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT!

[Joe Matt]

Originally posted by MattK
Wow, starting at 1.8ghz thats awsome. That should do away with most of the "Macs are slower, they only run at 1ghz" shiz. I HATE PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT!

Amen, also more rumors suggets that 3 ghz will be broken with the chip before the end of 2003.

[MattK]

Originally posted by JosephM


Amen, also more rumors suggets that 3 ghz will be broken with the chip before the end of 2003.

Wow a mac with a 3ghz chip, thats one powerfull machine!


P.s. Does Mac OSX Support a 64 bit processor.

I think what apple is going to do (if OSX doesnt support 64 bit) is work on OS X till it does, then release a whole new line of Mac's (not Imacs or Emacs or Powerbooks...) something completely new.

At least, I hope

[Kyle Fenton]

This has been a rumor for a long time. It has just recently just poped it to the general public. This is however just speculation, but I do agree this is the chip that Macs will use in the next generation.

This chip will beat the pants of even if Intel can break the 4 Ghz Barrier by 2003.

But it will be difficult marketing this because most people believe that MHz are everything. When you are talking about 32-Bit and 64-bit the measurment gets really complicated. MHz is like the RPM meter on your car, more cycles usually means more revs per minute. But when you get into the archutecture of processors there are various things that make it produce results. This chip even at 1.8 GHz will be about 4 times faster (or I think) than a 2 Ghz 32-Bit Processor.
In 4 cycles a 32-bit processor computes 128 bits of information.
In 4 cycles of a 64-bit processor computes 256 bits of information.
Times those about a million a second and you can see really how far apart they are.

Anyways, however exciting this is for Mac users, it will not give them a leading edge, because AMD is slated to release "Hammer" its own 64-bit desktop processor, with simular speeds.

But still it may give Macs a significant boost that it seriously needs.

[MattK]

Originally posted by Kyle Fenton
This has been a rumor for a long time. It has just recently just poped it to the general public. This is however just speculation, but I do agree this is the chip that Macs will use in the next generation.

This chip will beat the pants of even if Intel can break the 4 Ghz Barrier by 2003.

But it will be difficult marketing this because most people believe that MHz are everything. When you are talking about 32-Bit and 64-bit the measurment gets really complicated. MHz is like the RPM meter on your car, more cycles usually means more revs per minute. But when you get into the archutecture of processors there are various things that make it produce results. This chip even at 1.8 GHz will be about 4 times faster (or I think) than a 2 Ghz 32-Bit Processor.
In 4 cycles a 32-bit processor computes 128 bits of information.
In 4 cycles of a 64-bit processor computes 256 bits of information.
Times those about a million a second and you can see really how far apart they are.

Anyways, however exciting this is for Mac users, it will not give them a leading edge, because AMD is slated to release "Hammer" its own 64-bit desktop processor, with simular speeds.

But still it may give Macs a significant boost that it seriously needs.

True with AMD brining out the Hammer Chip, its going to be hard again to show people macs are more powerfull. Although I hope that Windows wont be able to support 64bit for some time, and if OSX supports it... Wow thats basicly a non-crashable computer.

[Don]

Um.... does this even mean anything significant in the consumer market? Is this even intended for regular consumers? 64-bit word processing and internet browsing sounds like a bit of overkill.

[MattK]

Originally posted by Don
Um.... does this even mean anything significant in the consumer market? Is this even intended for regular consumers? 64-bit word processing and internet browsing sounds like a bit of overkill.

But dont you think people where saying that a Ghz chip was like that when they were running 486's.

Originally posted by MattK


But dont you think people where saying that a Ghz chip was like that when they were running 486's.

yes, when talking about macs...


A computer looking nice doesnt mean anything when it cant perform...


Mac is trash.. enough said

[Kyle Fenton]

Originally posted by Don
Um.... does this even mean anything significant in the consumer market? Is this even intended for regular consumers? 64-bit word processing and internet browsing sounds like a bit of overkill.

Most likely this processor will start in the pro market where speed is needed. Things like video compressions, CAD, 3d applications, database, and especially the sever market.

For the consumer market yeah, I can see that it has little or no purpose right now. But when Video teleconferencing comes to prime time, when consumers will embrace it, they will have to have fast computers. Also I think that new applications on the horizon will emerge when 64-bit processing makes it in desktop.

Originally posted by D.J. Fluck

yes, when talking about macs...


A computer looking nice doesn’t mean anything when it cant perform...

No DJ! A mac can perform just as well or better than PC. Macs can run nearly any application, and most of the big title games. Your comment does not come from anything scientific, but rather from your own ignorance to try something different. Anyways I didn't want to start another debate where we know people stand. This thread is for the Power 4, and the Power 4 only.

Im a Mac/PC Tech at school for the publication/english dept and I hate the darn macs..I think ive seen windows PC's crash less...

[Moshingkow]

I am a proud owner of a g4 867, and my mac has only crashed once since I bought it in october 2001, and that was due to my own stupidity. The only thing that windows has over mac, is marketing. Windows is trash, *nix is king, and guess what macosx is based on.... FREEBSD!!!

just my 2¢
tenkai

[Brandon Martus]

Anyways I didn't want to start another debate where we know people stand. This thread is for the Power 4, and the Power 4 only.

yeah. lets keep this a 64-bit discussion.

not a 'my computer is better than yours because i said so' yelling match.

go to one of the countless mac vs pc threads if you wanna get into that yelling match.

[FotoPlasma]

I read about this just earlier today in the San Jose Mercury News...

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercuryne...ss/4280761.htm

I love this part: "The PowerPC 970 chip will run at a speed of 1.8 gigahertz and also comes with a high-speed data freeway known as a bus." Oh Emm Gee...

I am very cool with PPC hardware, it's just Apple's OS(es) that I take issue with. After seeing (and getting a rather extended lecture about) the 6"x6" CPU for IBM's z900, I have a lot of respect for IBM and their hardware.

If we're talking about 64bit stuff, how about x86-64 (AMD's Hammer series) vs. IA-64 (Intel's Itanium)? I know Joe Ross hates the thought of x86-64, and I hate the thought of an Intel specific arch (I don't write asm, in any way shape or form), but what about everyone else?

[Joe Matt]

Originally posted by FotoPlasma
I read about this just earlier today in the San Jose Mercury News...

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercuryne...ss/4280761.htm

I love this part: "The PowerPC 970 chip will run at a speed of 1.8 gigahertz and also comes with a high-speed data freeway known as a bus." Oh Emm Gee...

LOL

anyway...

The current speculations (notice: not rumors) for the 64 PowerPC is to intergrate it into the XServers, then PowerMacs. A few years down the line, when there cheeper, cooler, and smaller, they'll be in the PowerBook. From what I hear, iMac will stay G4 untill the next revision, and iBook will go to a G4 soon.