The Sony E3 megaton is ... Apple?

A Mac computer that could play PS3 games on top of everything that Macs do today, would be more attractive proposition than Macs that we have today. It's logical and pretty simple to see that.

 

Yeah PS2 is such a beauty isn't it?

 

it certainly is. the 'tower of power' has an amazing design. and now, look at PSTwo! it is a masterpiece.

 

PSTwo looks nice because it's thin. PS2 looks hideous.

 

You forgot "in my very humble opinion" there, buddy.

 

oh btw


According to ign. The x360 connects to an ipod or any mp3 device adn you can stream your mp3s to have your own sound track on all games .


So ipod connectivity or mp3 in general wont be a big bomb drop from sony . So i think we can start looking for something else as a big bomb

 

So are those Cell work stations out there?

Or only a few selected developers have them?

 

so my in tuition wasmore than reasonable.this is Great news.cheers

imo ,the only wrong in its design is that ps2 ages very badly.you would have to polish/clean it regulary .Vertical standing.

 

Alias guys have them (I don't know how many they have..), and selected developers have Cell workstations too.

 

ps2 is fine except for the front , i really don't like the design of the front .

But its no master piece

 

I am rather fond of the PS2's design it has clean lines. It's a simple design why do more than necessary?

 

True, IBM has only given them 35% in 21 months, a far cry from the 50% in a year that they said they would. However, that's still as good as or better than Intel who have increased clocks by a measly 20 % the last 30 months, so it's not as if the grass is greener on the x86 side of the fence.
Besides, Powermacs have been dualies for ages now, and OSX and Mac apps do a pretty good job of taking advantage of multiple processors. If Apple would be ready to pay for them, IBM could simply make dual core chips. The 970fx is tiny, and it's decended from a dual core chip anyway. No, Apple may not be perfectly happy, but they don't have any better alternatives. IBM for their part have been able to leverage their Power CPU development costs into a second line of income.
I doubt Apple and IBM will close their PPC processor relationship. What is more up in the air is both where IBM will go with Power, and if Apple CPUs will still be derived from the Power cores or whether they will use something like the Cell/Xbox/Nintendo(?) core. I'm know (for a fact ) that IBM have Power customers that would prefer if single thread performance didn't suffer, i.e. that would prefer to see a continuation of the Power line. But are there enough of those willing to finance a continuing push along that branch, if there is a cheaper branch that promises much improved multi-threaded performance by virtue of greatly expanded multi-core processing? Damned if I know.

However even if IBM pushes forward with Power for the foreseeable future, that doesn't mean that Apple will continue with Power derived cores. Apple may be better served by adopting this new series of embedded cores. They might conceivably have an easier time building higher performing Mac minis, laptops, and iMacs than they do now, and at lower cost. And it would allow them to ride the wave of hype that the console companies will spread about their new consoles. Lovely irony there - Microsoft shouting to the world what a powerhouse the Apple CPUs are....

But Apple choosing to leave IBM completely? For whom? Freescale? AMD? Sun? Too little benefit for too much work unless IBM is truly ripping them off. I doubt Apple would trust Freescale to tie their own shoelaces, much less bet the computer side of the company on them. No, IBM it is. Both sides stand to gain from the relationship.

 

The Mac rumor sites speculate that IBM is trying to make dual-core processors for Apple. I would think dual-core G5s are in IBM's processor road map.

That is why you wonder about IBM's ability to produce enough triple-core CPUs at 3.2 Mhz for MS in volume.

 

Would be interesting to see where they'd decide to go...
Motorola certainly can't compete with IBM. I'm not sure if any other companies besides Intel and AMD could, and AMD is x86 only and Intel...well I doubt there would be a Mac running xscale or Itanium. Hmm, forgot about Sun, but I don't believe they even have anything remotely in the price range of what Macs would need.
They could use Cell, but wouldn't IBM be making those?

 

All I can tell you is that new versions of certain IBM software for MacOS X, relating directly to its PowerPC chips, was unexpectedly cancelled, even though they were 95% complete and released on other platforms already.

 

Still don't see why IBM couldn't continue to produce chips for Apple, unless they completely decide that it's a waste of resources to produce out of order cpus or to make lower end versions of their cpus for Apple.
Apple doesn't really 'need' IBM for their hardware, just IBM happens to be a big company capable of producing a large number of powerful enough cpus for a reasonable price, and IBM will never really compete with Apple head on, so I don't see any conflicts unless the partnership with Apple is costing IBM money

 

I'm sure this will pan out well like Sony's partnership with AOL and Netscape for PS2.

Forget this, it's all about the games!

 

Hmm.
Well, that would indicate some change of plans. But in what way?
That the particular software was 95% finished doesn't necessarily say anything about where the hardware that needed it stood in terms of development. Also, the code could (from my perspective at least) pertain to something that a shift in processor families would render irrelevant. The 970 is an architecturally different beast from the embedded core, so it could conceivably mean that Apple simply has chosen to switch processor families at an earlier than scheduled date. Or, depending on which systems you're referring to (I was guessing Power5 above), it could be that they have chosen to instead hang on to the Power derived cores for at least another generation, for instance if, having been able to run tests on real silicon, they found that single threaded performance dropped more than they were able to accept.

I guess I'm just stumped as far as good options go. Freescale has been talking about chips that might be interesting to Apple due to their low power draw, where the 970 and co-logic never really panned out satisfactorily. And that's very important to Apple with their roughly 50% portion of laptops, and their interest in form factor flexibility for desktops. But that Apple would completely dump IBM as a supplier in favour of Freescale seems unlikely. Particularly when IBM has a core available that offers low power draw and decent marketing clocks, and would "only" need revised I/O logic to fit the bill.

 

What chip is that? BTW, I don't see the partnership with IBM ending no matter what, even if they go for someone else's cpus, wouldn't they still use IBM's fabs?

 

As long as Apple pays for chips, IBM will produce them. All the people saying that they won't continue producing them are pretty ignorant of how business works. IBM already produces computers using different cores that are more powerful than the one in the G5 but yet they still make that cpu for Apple. IBM is in the business to make money, not follow the dreams of fanboys.