RSSIBM Announces Dual-Core G5 Chip
By Ed Oswald | Published July 11, 2005, 3:03 PM
IBM has announced that it will develop a dual-core version of its PowerPC 970FX, the chip that is used in Apple's G5 Power Macs. The initial versions of the processor will run at speeds of 1.4 to 2.5 gigahertz, and are made for smaller, entry-level systems.
Each of the CPU cores will carry a dedicated 1-megabyte L2 cache.
It is unclear if the chip, which was announced last week in an event at Tokyo, will be used in Apple machines. Steve Jobs did say, however, at WWDC 2005 that Apple had several "exciting" PowerPC-based machines coming before the company switches to Intel processors in 2006 and 2007.
IBM's new chip will also have the capability to conserve energy by adjusting the frequency and voltage of either of the cores, or by going into standby and even shutting off during periods of low processor traffic.
The dual-core processors will consume 13 watts at 1.4 gigahertz, and 16 watts at 1.6 gigahertz. The low power usage could make the chip a potential processor for more powerful PowerBook laptops. However, neither Apple nor IBM would confirm or deny whether Apple was looking into using the new chip.
If someone can ring bell for me.
IBM manufactures chip for Apple so
Why does IBM's laptop come with Intel chip?
Score: 0
|I read the decision was based upon Apple feeling IBM couldn't produce enough volume to keep up with expected shipment demands. Not based upon performance limitations at all.
Score: 0
|It was proposed that that "could" be a reason due to IBM stockpiling chips for consoles.
Not confirmed though. Personally, I just think Intel threw their weight around.
Score: 0
|Really? I thought Mac was moving to Intel because the RISC-archetecture could not support dual core. So much for that theory. Then--can any Mac lovers/experts tell me why Intel is better than G5? Is RISC a dead-end archetecture? I just have very little experience with RISC-cpus.
Score: 0
|Apple is still moving to Intel. They moved to Intel because IBM simply refused to play Jobs' games anymore. Has little to do with IBM's roadmap, and almost everything to do with Jobs' attitude towards the chipmaker. (Same thing happened with Motorola)
Apple expects to get deals, and to be able to get custom chips on demand with relatively little market-share to drive such a need. They have cost Motorola and IBM more money than they ever made them.
The only reason Intel looks like a good prospect for them is because they'll be able to get exclusivity deals from intel by putting intel chips in *all* their products (iPod, Mac...etc). they want the same deals Dell is getting from Intel.
The PPC architecture is still going strong. IBM will sell billions of CPUs when the consoles (PS3/Xbox 360) are released.
Score: 0
|very helpful, thx.
Score: 0
|ps3 uses the cell processor, which is entirely seperate from the powerpc 970 line of cpus. However, nintendo's next generation system will have an ibm processor that has not been divulged and could be on the powerpc 970 line.
Score: 0
|I think the biggest hook was Intel's DRM embrace. MS bashers are going to cringe at Job's absolute, Fascist control of hardware, multimedia, software royalties/sales/resales...
Performance-wise he's given up so much by not
hooking up with AMD(not to mention the higher sales/ faster upgrade cycles of a platform that does not last as long/is not as over-clocker friendly)...and in turn by leaving IBM: i gotta believe dual-core(2mb cache) PowerPC chip would run circles around AMD's...& would've allowed adequate Windows emulation...
There was just no need to run to Intel now-- he had practically the rest of the decade to play with: between two more years for Longhorn, at least one subsequent one to work out the kinks, and at least another one after that for independent software to further adjust...
All good work he's done in his latest go-round, he's slowly throwing it out the window...see-saw life can & frequently does go in cycles, no?
Score: 0
|It will take Apple 2 years to get their Intel-based computers on the market. Longhorn comes out in only one to 1 1/2 years, and it will probably be an additional year or so to get it right. So given that the timing between a good release of Longhorn and Intel-based Apple products hitting the market in quantity will be about the same, this battle may come down to who has a better marketing campaign.
Score: 0
|Apple has had OSX running on Intel for 5 years now, it will very likely be a very stable and mature product the moment it's released to manufacturing.
Score: 0
|"MS bashers are going to cringe at Job's absolute, Fascist control of hardware, multimedia, software royalties/sales/resales..."
Really? We will? Funny, because here I've been thinking it might actually be nice to have a system that ... ya know ... works, for once. The closed hardware model seems to go a long way in that regard.
The "MS basher" welcomes our new MacTel overlords.
Score: 0
|And he forgot to add in the 6-12 months it will take for MS to release the service packs (monad/WinFS/etc..) that would make longhorn a somewhat worthwhile upgrade.
Score: 0
|