Talk:PowerPC 970

message: A user posted information about Apple's recent transition to Intel. Is that really realevent to the article? Personaly, I don't. I will revert the edit. --CoolFox 19:22, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
do not enter  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.149.40 (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intel edit? 

message: -power consumation
-unit(activec alu...)
-etc...
i also am interested in the TDP of the different G5 models... Plonk420 00:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  what about the processor itself 

message: IBM "outed" the 970GX in some documentation, and it has been seen on a couple of roadmaps in the past.. but AFAIK, it's missing in action.. IBM does not list it as an available part and I haven't seen it in the wild. --  Henriok 14:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  970GX missing in action 

message: I belive, that like all of the other apple-used proccessors, this article should be named PowerPC G5, like all of the others. I will move it, and if anyone dissagress, please feel free to move it back. 71.225.248.188 21:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gaaah :( This article should REALLY be named in the way that it was PowerPC 970. It is the OTHER articles that shoud be renamed to better reflect what the actual names are, ie PowerPC 750 and PowerPC 7400. Using codenames (G3) and Apple's marketing (G4 and G5) shouldn't really be a base of which we should name these articles. The names _are_ PowerPC 970, PowerPc 750 and PowerPC 7400, and the names of the respective articles should reflect this. Really.. this is a no brainer. I can't believe that the other articles have kept their names for so long. Rederections from Apple's names are appropriate though. -- Henriok 22:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: Seems to be used in the Terra Soft Powerstation. is this worth adding. http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/products/powerstation/ --87.127.117.246 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  terra soft powerstation 

message: Hello, I'm currently trying to add a source to the 32/64 GB G5 rumor, but it tells me sources are unavailable whenever I try to add one.
The pages I want to add are these two: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/g5-quad-32gb-possible.1126338/ & https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/1y5pvx/32gb_ram_powermac_g5_quad/
As stated before though, these are just rumors and no ones bothered to do a proper investigation on them. Still, I think the info should be preserved, someone may investigate this eventually. 70.170.67.244 (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the links, but they won't do as sources for Wikipedia. I do like them being here in the Talk page though! -- Henriok (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  64 GB in PowerMac G5 

message: Reverted anonymous edits claiming the existence of a “PowerPC 970GX” variant.  Over the years the “970GX” seems to have become something of a self-perpetuating myth.  A Google search suggests that at some point early on a secondhand press release from IBM mentioned the chip would ship, but despite my best efforts I have not ever been able to find any hard evidence that a “970GX” ever made it to tape-out, much less ever got manufactured, much less ever shipped.  If this were an actual, real product, it should be super-easy to find at the very least a data sheet or any archived IBM page mentioning the product.  (P. S.:  If anyone can find a datasheet for the 970GX and link to it here, I will happily be the first to document that in this Wikipedia article.)  IBM seems to have tacitly admitted the product was vaporware when they retracted all mentions of the “970GX” from their own Web sites shortly after the secondhand press release started circulating in the media at the time.
Also, IMHO, all the artist’s renderings of the PowerPC 970 chips in the article should be removed and replaced by actual die photos in an article that purports to be encyclopedic (compare this with Wikipedia articles on Intel CPUs, which use actual photos of real Intel chips).  I have not gone so far as taking this step because I am sure whoever put all the effort into these artist’s renderings (which I admit are pretty) is emotionally invested and would not take this well, so I’ll let that go.
I think it’s important to remember that at that time the PowerPC 970 was the basis of Apple’s fastest, top-of-the-line Macs, and like many Apple products, it seems that these rumors and speculation were amplified in an enthusiastic feedback loop among Apple fans and aficionados, but after all these years I have never been able to find any hard, independently verifiable evidence of the “970GX” ever having existed as a real, actual product.  It does seem to resurface time to time on Apple fan sites, so I don’t expect the myth to die.  Full disclosure:  I run or have developed on Power Mac G5s and Xserve G5s based on Power PC 970, 970FX, and 970MP CPUs, so believe me, no one wishes there were such a fantastical chip as the 970GX more than me.  Sadly, however, this seems to be more a case of wishful thinking among Apple fan and rumor sites.  —PowerPCG5 (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: “PowerPC 970GX”

message: According to https://arstechnica.com/features/2003/05/ppc970-0/ and https://flylib.com/books/en/3.126.1.34/1/ both the 970 and the 970FX have the same pipeline lengths, so I removed the talk about the difference between them.  The confusion seems to come from the 9 fetch and decode stages. Admock (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: 970 to 970FX Pipeline Length Change