IBM 64-Bit PowerPC Details

[MacRumors]

Details of IBM's new PowerPC chip to be released in late 2003 are trickling in. The official Press Release (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2002/1014_powerpc.html) is found at IBM's site, and provides little additional information on the upcoming processor.

Mr.Hey provides this article from Silicon Strategies (http://www.siliconstrategies.com/story/OEG20021014S0059) which provides more detailed information on the 32-bit/64-bit implementation of the processor:


IBM's approach to implementing a 32/64-bit architecture appears straightforward. The 970 supports full 64-bit registers and addressing. When a flag bit is sent it triggers a 32-bit mode in which the high-order words on an arithmetic logic unit and on memory addresses are ignored. In either 64- or 32-bit mode, the processor issues up to eight instructions per clock cycle.


According to the article, 32-bit PowerPC OS's simply need to support new data structures and interrupt handlers, but 32-bit PowerPC apps would run unchanged.

The Register provides (http://www.theregus.com/content/3/26650.html) details from the Microprocessor Forum conference... and reports projections of SPECint2000 and SPECfp2000 scores of 937 and 1051 respectively at the 1.8GHz speed. According to this chart (http://www.aceshardware.com/read_news.jsp?id=60000436) the 2.8GHz Pentium 4 currently has SPECint2000 and SPECfp2000 scores of 970 and 938 respectively.

[scem0]

UGGGGGGHHHHHHHH................ A year is too long. They expect me to be able to sit here on this 400 MHz AGP powermac for another year! This comp sounds to good to be true, but I still can't wait that long.

[ennerseed]

well i guess thats a projection... and i hope its low, by the time it is released the pentium will probably be higher... athough i am sure it will rock my world

[MacAztec]

The Power4 and the Intel have just about the same scores. But the thing is, that Intel is OUT, and the Power4 is not. That means the Intel will just get better and better, and surpass the Power4. Same thing with AMD

[vniow]

But Intel and AMD don't have Altivec.:)

[e-coli]

Yes, but wouldn't those benchmark scores related to the Power chip be based on 32 bit software and commands?

Those scores should go way up with 64 bit addresses.

[FattyMembrane]

the pentium beat the power4 in one test and was only a little behind in the second. this is not good news. if the best ibm can do in a year is 1.8ghz with this thing, we're screwed. intel is not going to take a year long break so that we can catch up. i really hope that apple has something else up it's sleeve.

[e-coli]

Again, you can't compare 32-bit chips to 64 bit chips. These benchmarks are most likely based on 32 bit integers and executions.

Anyone here ever used a Flame / Flint / Inferno? Well, those chips aren't even 1 GHz 64-bit processors, and those things do real time high-definition renders. they're absolutely insanely fast.

Just be patient. These chips should me much faster than benchmark scores indicate. I think these types of scores will be deceptive when compared to real world performance.

[Nipsy]

Everyone seems to be missing the fact that those are processing only numbers.

What this processor is likely to have is vast bandwidth, which means it will help enormously in memory throughput, which is a bottleneck far more often than processor.

[gbojim]

Originally posted by Nipsy
Everyone seems to be missing the fact that those are processing only numbers.

What this processor is likely to have is vast bandwidth, which means it will help enormously in memory throughput, which is a bottleneck far more often than processor.

Add to that the 2 SIMD units and 16 way SMP capability. If they do it right, system performance with this CPU will be amazing.

[vniow]

Also remember that this chip is likely going to be used in Apple computers and we all know how they like to keep secrets.
I wouldn't be suprised if this chip is used just for the low end PowerMacs, Xserves & possibly some of the 'i' line.


Initial quantities will debut at 1.4 to 1.8Ghz, with 512kb of Level two cache. In his presentation, he (Peter Sandon) described these as "conservative" estimates.


IBM's and Apple aren't stupid, they know that Intel is oing to be way above 3Ghz by the time this gets released so I wouldn't be shocked at all if they have somthing a bit quicker up their sleeve.

[Hawthorne]

I would expect to see this chip sooner than later.

But that may just be the booze talking. ;)

[solvs]

SPEC scores don't mean as much as most people think. I just want some real world performance by the time I'm ready to spend. The faster the rendering, the better.

[748s]

Originally posted by e-coli


Anyone here ever used a Flame / Flint / Inferno? Well, those chips aren't even 1 GHz 64-bit processors, and those things do real time high-definition renders. they're absolutely insanely fast.

.
i think those chips in sgi computers[that run flame etc.] just hit 500mhz. [are they 128 bit though?]. will a 64 bit mac finish off sgi?

[scem0]

Originally posted by edvniow
Also remember that this chip is likely going to be used in Apple computers and we all know how they like to keep secrets.
I wouldn't be suprised if this chip is used just for the low end PowerMacs, Xserves & possibly some of the 'i' line.





IBM's and Apple aren't stupid, they know that Intel is oing to be way above 3Ghz by the time this gets released so I wouldn't be shocked at all if they have somthing a bit quicker up their sleeve.

That is good thinking. I never considered that. And now that I do - I think you are right. We were all expecting more then 1.8 GHz, I think apple knows this and is going to suprise us. Well, we have a year to wait and see...

[vniow]

Originally posted by scem0


That is good thinking. I never considered that. And now that I do - I think you are right. We were all expecting more then 1.8 GHz, I think apple knows this and is going to suprise us. Well, we have a year to wait and see...


But also remember that Apple is a customer of IBM and they don't usually lie about these sort of things to stockholders and analysts, but I suspect that at Apple's request, IBM is keeping at least some secrets about this chip.:)

[bidge]

The exciting wait begins, I am too happy

[DaveGee]

If you wanna look at SPEC and I'm really not sure it's a good thing to do because benchmarks like SPEC don't usually tell too much but that being said.

Lets use SPEC number from CPUs we can wrap our minds around.

SPECint_base2000
=================
242 G4 800Mhz
259 G4 867Mhz
306 G4 1000Mhz
937 GPUL 1800Mhz
=================

SPECfp_base
=================
147 G4 800Mhz
153 G4 867Mhz
187 G4 1000Mhz
1051 GPUL 1800Mhz
=================

Sure looks good to me!

Dave

[dricci]

Here we go... People basing their entire lives and decisions on one stupid benchmark that doesn't even include the processor we're talking about, only it's big brother. Why are we putting down a processor that isn't even out yet? Screw SPEC, let's wait to see some real world performance when these things come out next year.

[ddtlm]

dricci:

How doesn't SPEC include the PPC-970? It includes all processors.

If you want to know how fast a computer can crank RC5, you run RC5. For Photoshop, you run Photoshop. For performance in general, you run SPEC.

Depite your refusal to accept it, SPEC remains the dominant cross-platform benchmark. Within SPEC, a whole lot of different algorithms are run that stress many different things. No company conrolls SPEC, and SPEC is not written for any particular processor.

[Telomar]

It does 18M key/second in RC5 I believe and that is with code that wouldn't be optimised for the chip.

Keep in mind that that is a conservative starting point. I believe early overclockers will find a lot more performance and more importantly it should scale considerably better than the G4 has.

Finally early expectations for the Itanium 2's SPEC results were significantly below the actual numbers that were seen upon release.

[etoiles]

Originally posted by edvniow
IBM's and Apple aren't stupid, they know that Intel is oing to be way above 3Ghz by the time this gets released so I wouldn't be shocked at all if they have somthing a bit quicker up their sleeve. [/B]

they might not be stupid, BUT: Apple manages to sell 'slow' computers now, and apparently they are among the few companies making profit in those difficult times.

so hold your breath, because they might just be 'lazy', meaning they lack incentives to really get their act together on the processor front. People buy them anyway, apparently for other reasons than raw speed.

I secretly hope to be proven wrong in the next couple of months...

;)

[RogueLdr]

Originally posted by scem0
UGGGGGGHHHHHHHH................ A year is too long. They expect me to be able to sit here on this 400 MHz AGP powermac for another year! This comp sounds to good to be true, but I still can't wait that long.

They probably expect you to buy a current PowerMac now. ;)
Although I agree that it would be incredibly frustrating to purchase a G4 based machine now, and have your doors blown off in a year's time. It's too long to wait for me too (400MHz Gigabit Enet), so I got a PowerLogix 800MHz upgrade as a stop gap. It's amazing how most of my complaints about OS X performance went away when I moved to a current processor!

RL

[3G4N]

Originally posted by ddtlm
How doesn't SPEC include the PPC-970? It includes all processors.


Ummm, Maybe because... uuhhh..
THE PPC-970 DOESN'T FRIGGIN EXIST YET!! Jeezus.
Where *didn't* you read the chip won't go into production
until late 2003??? Does IQ need to become part of the
registration here?

Originally posted by 748s
i think those chips in sgi computers[that run flme etc.] just hit 500mhz.
[are they 128 bit though?]. will a 64 bit mac finish off sgi?


Current IRIX-based SGI's (O2's, Octantes, etc.) use 64-bit MIPS
R14000A processors. And yes, they go up to 600mhz, with 4mb of L2 cache.
They whoopass and I would love one, fully loaded. SGI knows hardware,
and Apple could take some design cues from them (or friggin buy them out!)
It's just AMAZING what you can LEARN by going to http://www.sgi.com/

Thanks DaveGee for putting this processor in perspective.
I'm sooo damn tired of people whining about this. Go buy a P4 and jump off
a bridge if you're so damn upset. And I really wish people on these forums
would take just 2 minutes to research a topic before waxing and whining
ad nauseum, going off on crap that they don't know what they are talking
about. The product of American education.

Yeah, it'll be close to a year until this PPC970 is in your little hands.
Be patient!! Pull up a chair, a cold beer, and a bucket, and start yer droolin.

End rant.
Boy, do I need a job!

[moki]

Originally posted by MacAztec
The Power4 and the Intel have just about the same scores. But the thing is, that Intel is OUT, and the Power4 is not. That means the Intel will just get better and better, and surpass the Power4. Same thing with AMD

You're right! They should stick with the G4!

SPECint_base2000
=================
242 G4 800Mhz
259 G4 867Mhz
306 G4 1000Mhz
937 GPUL 1800Mhz
=================

SPECfp_base
=================
147 G4 800Mhz
153 G4 867Mhz
187 G4 1000Mhz
1051 GPUL 1800Mhz
=================

[beatle888]

Originally posted by Hawthorne
I would expect to see this chip sooner than later.

But that may just be the booze talking. ;)

LOL well let us know what you think in
the morning. :p

[beatle888]

Originally posted by ddtlm
dricci:

How doesn't SPEC include the PPC-970? It includes all processors.

If you want to know how fast a computer can crank RC5, you run RC5. For Photoshop, you run Photoshop. For performance in general, you run SPEC.

Depite your refusal to accept it, SPEC remains the dominant cross-platform benchmark. Within SPEC, a whole lot of different algorithms are run that stress many different things. No company conrolls SPEC, and SPEC is not written for any particular processor.


i think he means the last test that everybody
is talking about didn't include the 970...for
obvious reasons.

[beatle888]

Originally posted by 3G4N


Ummm, Maybe because... uuhhh..
THE PPC-970 DOESN'T FRIGGIN EXIST YET!! Jeezus.
Where *didn't* you read the chip won't go into production
until late 2003??? Does IQ need to become part of the
registration here?



Current IRIX-based SGI's (O2's, Octantes, etc.) use 64-bit MIPS
R14000A processors. And yes, they go up to 600mhz, with 4mb of L2 cache.
They whoopass and I would love one, fully loaded. SGI knows hardware,
and Apple could take some design cues from them (or friggin buy them out!)
It's just AMAZING what you can LEARN by going to http://www.sgi.com/

Thanks DaveGee for putting this processor in perspective.
I'm sooo damn tired of people whining about this. Go buy a P4 and jump off
a bridge if you're so damn upset. And I really wish people on these forums
would take just 2 minutes to research a topic before waxing and whining
ad nauseum, going off on crap that they don't know what they are talking
about. The product of American education.

Yeah, it'll be close to a year until this PPC970 is in your little hands.
Be patient!! Pull up a chair, a cold beer, and a bucket, and start yer droolin.

End rant.
Boy, do I need a job!


^ example of a conservative..."and it would
mean so much to me...if you would only be
like me...cause im a conservative...i really am"
- iggy pop

[gotohamish]

Is it not possible that all this talk of the Power4 NEXT YEAR isn't actually true. I'm (hoping and) thinking that it's a case of a deal between IBM and Apple.

Think about it, look how long it took all the upgrade chips to appear for speeds over 550 G4 - when Apple had had them for well over a year. This makes sense, Apple won't want too many 'upgraders' as they want people to buy new machines.

Well, no one can purchase Power4 Lites until a year from now, except Apple who is already stocking up on Power4's now, so that perhaps the next PMs will be using them (no OS9 boot), and a year from now they'll be available to OTHERS like upgrade companies etc.

God, I'm being positive this morining. Here's to it!

[kenohki]

Originally posted by DaveGee
If you wanna look at SPEC and I'm really not sure it's a good thing to do because benchmarks like SPEC don't usually tell too much but that being said.

Lets use SPEC number from CPUs we can wrap our minds around.

SPECint_base2000
=================
242 G4 800Mhz
259 G4 867Mhz
306 G4 1000Mhz
937 GPUL 1800Mhz
=================

SPECfp_base
=================
147 G4 800Mhz
153 G4 867Mhz
187 G4 1000Mhz
1051 GPUL 1800Mhz
=================

Sure looks good to me!

Dave

Anyone know if these numbers are sans the 2 SIMD units?

[jayscheuerle]

What are you people doing that current machines do not provide enough horsepower for (other than running OSX)? ;-)

Are you running renderfarms? The reason that megahertz doesn't matter is that a 450mHz G4 is fast enough for 95% of the applications out there (excluding games perhaps) if you have enough RAM.

Seems to me that most people just want to open up a can of WHUPASS on some PC weenies....

[Falleron]

Look at this info I found:



At 1.8GHz, the PowerPC 970 will consume 1.3-volts and dissipate 42-Watts. At 1.2 GHz, the PowerPC 970 will consume 1.1-volts and dissipate only 19-Watts. For comparison, a 1GHz G4 consumes 1.6-volts and dissipates 21.3-Watts.



Looks like this chip will fit into the Powerbook ok.

[Cappy]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
What are you people doing that current machines do not provide enough horsepower for (other than running OSX)? ;-)

Are you running renderfarms? The reason that megahertz doesn't matter is that a 450mHz G4 is fast enough for 95% of the applications out there (excluding games perhaps) if you have enough RAM.

Seems to me that most people just want to open up a can of WHUPASS on some PC weenies....

Or it's ***** envy. ;)

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by Cappy


Or it's ***** envy. ;)

Not the "p" word!

[DaveGee]

Originally posted by Falleron
Look at this info I found:

Looks like this chip will fit into the Powerbook ok.

Falleron,

Maybe so... I'm not up on the real tech details but it sure looks good. Oh and remember this CPU will be moving from the current 130nm process to the 90nm process in a pretty quick time frame... From what I know about that kinda move... Very little to be honest but one thing I do know is smaller IS better. =)

- More speed
- Less heat

Even if the 1st round of 970s don't make it the 2nd round sure seems like a lock! Somehow I don't think the same thing can be said for a 4Ghz Intel cpu. :D

Dave

[OSeXy!]

Originally posted by Falleron
Look at this info I found:



Looks like this chip will fit into the Powerbook ok.
Wow. That's amazing.

How often can Intel say, "we'll give you a massive perfomance boost with less heat and power consumption?"

Next gen Apple laptops are going to be amazing!

ps. where are those stats from?

[Falleron]

The article is from :

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0210/16.ibm.php

The bit about power consumption is near the bottom of the article.

[mcrain]

Forgive me for asking what may be a dumb question, but has anyone heard any speculation on the number of 'cores(?)' on each chip? (Is that even the right term?)

[e-coli]

Single core chips. I read it somewhere, not sure where. It was a reputable magazine, though.

The quote was something like "unlike it's big brother in the server market, the GPUL will sport a single core 64-bit architecture".

[dongmin]

From the MacCentral article (http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0210/16.ibm.php):

[Peter] Sandon [senior PowerPC architect at IBM] said that the SIMD unit on the PowerPC 970 uses the same set of 162 instructions that Motorola's AltiVec uses. This means that applications optimized for AltiVec will perform normally on the PowerPC 970. Halfhill added that all applications optimized for AltiVec on the Macintosh should see performance boosts on the PowerPC 970, if it indeed is used by Apple.

"From my analysis," Halfhill said, "it (IBM's SIMD) is virtually compatible (with AltiVec). Why would IBM add this if it wasn't for Apple?"

I couldn't have agreed more. The facts are out there. And everyone seems certain this processor is slated for Macs. Apple might as well come out and say it.

Sandon said the IBM lab has PowerPC 970 samples today. He expects the PowerPC 970 to sample to customers by the second quarter of 2003, with the processor expected to enter production in the second half of 2003.

What's the typical lag between when samples go to customers and when the chips make their way into actual machines that are shipping? Six months? Nine months? My guess is the new machines will debut at MWSF 2004. Unless of course, IBM is on an accelerated timetable with Apple, but I doubt it.

[pilotgi]

Originally posted by DaveGee:
remember this CPU will be moving from the current 130nm process to the 90nm process in a pretty quick time frame

Also remember this: Motorola claimed they would be manufacturing chips on the 90nm process 6 months before anyone else.

I don't know if this means any of these chips will be powerpcs for Apple desktops, but I remember Moto making the claim about the 90nm process.

[beatle888]

didnt someone post about motorola saying they
were going to be supplying apple with a new
chip as well...and not to count them out?

[barkmonster]

SPECint_base2000
=================
242 G4 800Mhz
259 G4 867Mhz
306 G4 1000Mhz
937 GPUL 1800Mhz
=================

SPECfp_base
=================
147 G4 800Mhz
153 G4 867Mhz
187 G4 1000Mhz
1051 GPUL 1800Mhz
=================

Sure looks good to me!

Till you read this :

SPECint_base2000
=================
970 Pentium4 2.8Ghz
1212 Pentium4 3.5 Ghz
1385 Pentium4 4 Ghz
1628 Pentium4 4.7Ghz
804 Power4 1.3 GHz
=================

SPECfp_base
=================
938 Pentium4 2.8Ghz
1172 Pentium4 3.5 Ghz
1340 Pentium4 4 Ghz
1574 Pentium4 4.7Ghz
1202 Power4 1.3 GHz
=================

Estimates I made with a calculator

Of course in realworld terms a 1.8Ghz GPUL could be faster than a 4Ghz Pentium 4 in all areas. The memory throughput on the GPUL is half the clockspeed speed at 1.8Ghz (1800MHz with 900-MHz RAM) compared with almost a quarter of the throughput on a 4Ghz Pentium 4 (4000Mhz with 1066Mhz RAM). That should make it more efficient to start with, especially seeing as it's 8 way superscaler compared with 4 way on the Pentium 4 and G4. Infact given that in realworld tests the pentium 4 has an IPC of about 1.8 and a G4 has an IPC of 2.3, a GPUL could be something like 4.6 - 5 IPC in the realworld. Can't wait!

[iN8]

I'm a little green on this stuff, so bear with me.

If Apple got of its butt and actually brought up the rest of the system components around this new chip, especially the memory bus, couldn't it compete with SGI workstations on some levels.

I'm not quite sure why SGI machines are so powerful. Do they have some kind of proprietary system architecture. They are in the lower MHz ratings and nobody complains about them, yet they kick everyones butts.

In a nutshell, what would need to be done to get the SGI performance on a Mac, seeing that MHz really doesn't matter?

[jadam]

Originally posted by kenohki


Anyone know if these numbers are sans the 2 SIMD units?

no, its only SPECint_base and SPECfp_base.
these chips will rock with there 6.4gb/sec of bandwith and 900mhz bus!!


SGI uses Many Many CPUS in its systems.

and this is going to be one sweet processor, ohh yeah, they say there going ot sample 2ndq uarter of 2003 and systems will be released in 2nd half of 2003, well, apple does have MacWorld Boston, and remember the latest 1.25ghz powermacs came in the 2nd half of 2003 sooooooo!!!!

[Shrek]

Originally posted by scem0
UGGGGGGHHHHHHHH................ A year is too long. They expect me to be able to sit here on this 400 MHz AGP powermac for another year! This comp sounds to good to be true, but I still can't wait that long.

I find your lack of patience a bit unmanly. :p :D

[barkmonster]

The main question is.

Do you even care what apple bring out in the meantime if these monsters cpus are on the horizon ?

[3G4N]

Originally posted by Shrek

I find your lack of patience a bit unmanly. :p :D

? is this an allusion to:
Originally posted by James Earl Jones
I find your lack of faith disturbing. (http://www.bastcastle.cc/sounds/disturbi.wav)
-Darth Vader


one of my fav lines.

[Hawthorne]

Originally posted by barkmonster
The main question is.

Do you even care what apple bring out in the meantime if these monsters cpus are on the horizon ?

That's the reason why Apple is going to wait to announce they're going to use this chip until we hear Steve say "Oh, and one more thing...".

Apple doesn't want to kill all their sales in the time between now and when this chip is used by them. If a dualie G4 is what you need now, buy it. The best computer for anyone is the one they use efficiently and well, not the one they "might" be getting.

Now, that being said, I'm waiting to get an iMac until the situation with the 15" version settles itself out. ;) :D

[theranch]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
What are you people doing that current machines do not provide enough horsepower for (other than running OSX)? ;-)

Are you running renderfarms? The reason that megahertz doesn't matter is that a 450mHz G4 is fast enough for 95% of the applications out there (excluding games perhaps) if you have enough RAM.

Seems to me that most people just want to open up a can of WHUPASS on some PC weenies....
Rendering takes time.... time is money. The faster the Mac the faster I can get paid. Waiting sucks.

[ddtlm]

barkmonster:

One simply cannot expect the P4 performance to scale linearly with increasing clock speed (as you showed in your theoretical numbers) because the memory system is not scaling that fast. Not to mention, I seriously doubt we'll see a 4.7ghz P4 available before the PPC-970 is available. Right now I don't think we'll see more than 4.0ghz before that time.

[beatle888]

Wow, I actually have something fairly significant
to point out :)

Ok this was taken from an article and it raises
the question....even if the P4 can go to 5ghz by
next year so what....the 970 will have better
architecture all around and will smack the A$$ of
the P4 5ghz (hypotheticaly 5ghz) because of all
it's advanced memory and front side bus capabilities.

"The 900MHz frontside bus

One of the most important and least-discussed features of the PowerPC 970 is its 900MHz DDR frontside bus. This bus physically runs at 450MHz, but it's double-pumped. Its architecture is interesting in that the bus actually consists of two, 32-bit unidirectional point-to-point links. David Wang described it in a post to comp.arch as follows:

It's two 32 bit links: one from CPU to "companion chip" [the northbridge], and one back from that chip to the CPU. Each link runs at 900 MHz (1.8 GHz CPU core. the interface link runs at integer fraction of the CPU core, in this case 1/2)

So 4 bytes to, 4 bytes from, at 900 MHz that's 3.6 GB/s raw BW each way. The link multiplexes command and address info over the same pins, so it's some sort of packet based protocol. The math gets you 7.2 GB/s of raw bandwidth, but after subtracting out command and address overhead, raw peak data bandwidth is supposed to be about 6.4 GB of that 7.2 GB/s.

This high-bandwidth link to the northbridge is one of the elements that's going to make this chip as a media machine; it's exactly what Apple's current bandwidth-starved G4 systems lack, and it's going to be a major selling point for systems based on the PPC 970. When coupled with the right memory in an SMP configuration, the 970 should do quite well in bandwidth-intensive applications."

Link picked up from MacCoaster's thread (he's a member here) (http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/3q02/powerpc.html)

See? so it doesn't matter that the Putter4 (P4)
will be cranking so fast in mhz like a fiend on
cocain cause it still won't be able to fly with all
it's bottlenecks.

[nickgold]

This chip is going to go down in history as a Big Thing for us Mac-lovin' folks, I reckon. Seriously workstation-grade ****, if ya know what I mean. I can't believe people are even comparing this to the future P4... Gimme a break! This thing is a totally groundbreaking architecture... How can you compare that to pumping the MHz of the P4? Please.

Just imagine the power of a rack of Xserves sporting 970s a year and half or so from now. That would be a seriously bada$$ setup, and totally achievable for a pretty large segment of the computer-buying masses (small businesses, etc.) Even a desktop dualie or quad would be sick. From what I understand, the power sonsumption is pretty decent, right? Can it make it into a laptop? Now that would be something else...

All I know is, I am going to get a serious Apple Loan when these puppies come out... :D

[nickgold]

I'm surprised that more people aren't talking about what moving to 64-bit will really mean for Macintosh users. Do any of us really know? Apple may very well be the first to market a 64-bit chip to the masses. What will people do with this power? What kind of totally new applications will be available, that to a degree were not previously possible (at least on the desktop level). What will individuals DO with pretty much literal super-computers at their disposal? I, for one, am psyched. But I don't quite know exactly why.

:eek:

[beatle888]

well right off the top of my head i would expect
multi tasking to be one benefit. I know we can
already do this but i think with 64bit maybe the
processor can handle more tasks at once without
a major cpu hit.

[ddtlm]

nickgold:

Wowa, calm down. AMD's Hammer will be out first with 64-bit for the desktop, although M$ won't be supporting it in Windows for a while (maybe not till 2005?). People using Linux will have all 64 bits though, and that means servers and renderfarms.

64 bits is generally not important. It mainly helps with the max amount of RAM a single process can easily use, and it does not mean twice the performance. 64-bitness is not a very big deal, but it's still a good thing.

[ddtlm]

beatle888:

i would expect multi tasking to be one benefit. I know we can already do this but i think with 64bit maybe the processor can handle more tasks at once without a major cpu hit.
NO. Not to single you out, but for the benefit of everyone let me say very clearly that 64-bitness does not mean higher performance. For the vast mahority of the things we do, 32 bits is fine. End of story. 64-bitness is not important unless you are trying to give more than 4GB of RAM to a single task, or doing things with 64-bit integers (not a common thing).

Current 64-bits chips (well, those that are fast anyway) are fast per clock cycle for reasons other than the 64-bitness.

[Telomar]

Originally posted by nickgold
I'm surprised that more people aren't talking about what moving to 64-bit will really mean for Macintosh users. Do any of us really know? Apple may very well be the first to market a 64-bit chip to the masses. What will people do with this power? What kind of totally new applications will be available, that to a degree were not previously possible (at least on the desktop level). What will individuals DO with pretty much literal super-computers at their disposal? I, for one, am psyched. But I don't quite know exactly why.

:eek: The main benefactors will be the graphics community, anyone that requires over 4GB of RAM, some server/database apps and most importantly from my point of view the scientific/engineering community.

I used to do a lot of work using spaces that called on very high levels of precision. As a result a 64 bit workstation was a permanent figure on my desk. The ability to integrate that to my main working computer would have been a big plus.

[beatle888]

so what about the eight instructions per cycle?
or the front side bus...or the memory bottleneck
we're experencing now? wouldnt that increase
speeds of say mp3 ripping for an example of
something not graphics related.

ddtml you dont need to respond to this...i know
you've been over all this before.

[ddtlm]

beatle888:

Assuming that Apple puts some equally fast RAM (dual channel DDR or so) on their system controller, then the FSB will be absolutely great for encoding things like mp3s and movies. The PPC-970 should really dominate that. Certain things that are highly AltiVec optimized and deal with huge files should go like stink... at rates never before seen on any machine.

The 8 instructions per cycle is a peak number, and as such you will essentially never reach it. In fact, there is another peak number that gets in the way: the number of instructions that can be "retired" per cycle: 5. And one of those 5 must be a branch, plus some other restrictions. 8 is really not a number you are going to ever see. However, those are specs for the main scalar core... the AltiVec unit will probably be able to go at full speed along side without interference. Or so I am guessing.

The PPC-970 should be extra strong in all the places the G4 is now, and pretty good in the places the G4 is just lame. Overall I'd say a nice chip. I plan on getting a system with them ASAP.

[beatle888]

Originally posted by ddtlm
beatle888:
at rates never before seen on any machine.


wow that does sound super (pun intended) :)
sorta sounds like your describing super heroes.

well thank you for explaining it ddtml. im not a
very knowledgable guy when it comes to how
computers REALLY work. seems like all we have
to do now is be patient and see what this chip
can really do once it's released. i can't wait it
should be a blast from all that i've read here.
2003/2004 should be a wonderful time for mac
enthusiasts.

[ddtlm]

beatle888:

Just doing my part for the knowledge of the Mac community in general. :)

Not trying to start a hype-fest by saying "at rates never before seen" either... that is simply a logical conclusion based on the theoretical rate at which AltiVec can much masses of numbers, and based on the theoretical rate at which those numbers will be carried to and from the AltiVec units.

Seems to me that S Jobs will be able to greatly widen the number of filters he uses for the Photoshop bakeoffs when the PPC-970 ships. :)

The PPC-970 will not be the best chip at all things... but it will be a top-notch chip for things Macs tend to do.

[beatle888]

ddtml, i must agree, it sounds great, .
i don't really care if the mac is the fastest
computer, as long as they can be competive
which i think will benefit PC and Mac users.
im actually very happy with my 667 tibook and
512mb of ram. i mostly work in photoshop and
sometimes this system tends to slow me down.
However im using the internal 4200rpm hard
drive...so i have some room to improve this
system. I think that with a gig of ram and an
external firewire drive for a scratch disk my
photoshop work will be very efficient. AND if
i really needed the performance...hell i could
even get a RAID system...so i think where
all in pretty good shape however I know there
are some out there that need more power than
the current systems.

[nickgold]

Originally posted by ddtlm
64 bits is generally not important. It mainly helps with the max amount of RAM a single process can easily use, and it does not mean twice the performance. 64-bitness is not a very big deal, but it's still a good thing.

Yes yes, the max amount of RAM a single process can easily use, yada yada. You didn't really address my question: What will it allow us to do? For instance, I imagine that the sort of apps creative professionals, which tend to push lots of data at once (3D and video rendering, multichannel digital audio, etc.) will benefit greatly. I know that now, it is a pain to manipulate files that are larger than 4GB or so. In video work this becomes a pain very quickly, when 5 minutes of DV footage is a gig. 64-bit should affect this dramatically, I'd imagine.

That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Heck, wouldn't even something as "banal" as a FPS benefit from this sort of leap? That is lots of data being processed at one time. Doesn't something akin to William Gibson's view of a VR-based "cyberspace" become more of a reality? That would require the processing of enormously large amounts of data at one time.

Use your imagination here, kids! There have been HUGE leaps in the computing paradigm between 8-bit, 16-bit, and 32-bit. Now, obviously the bit-depth of the processors over the years has been but one aspect of the shift in computing applications. So, let's think about what this chip represents on a more symbolic level. Between it being 64-bit, and having a 900MHz frontside bus (YOWZA), etc. Face it: THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO RAGE! Now what will we be doing with them that we can't be doing now? There has gotta be SOMETHIN', or else we wouldn't be sweatin' 'em so much! ;)

[ddtlm]

nickgold,

No, you are still exaggerating the benefits of 64-bitness. Yes going from 16 bits to 32 was great, but thats because the biggest number you can store in 16 bits is 65536 or something, whereas with 32 bits its 4 billion, and in 64 bits its 4 billion squared. Yep, something like 16 with 18 zeros. Now tell me, who needs a number that big? Not many people. Who needs a number bigger than 32 bits? Not many people.

64 bit does not mean that data is processed twice as fast. It means that the same data takes up twice the space. It means that instead of storing the value "389723" in 32 bits, it is now in 64 bits, of which well over 32 are zero. As in blank. As in, useless.

Most programs do not need 64 bits, and so by not using 64 bits they will be more compact and therefore faster. Yes, you heard me right, 32 bits is generally faster. The only time 64 bits is faster is if 4 billion isn't a big enough number for you. (I should note that double precision floating point are already 64 bit, and the G4 supports exactly the same "doubles" as the PPC-970.) Litterally, there are two things where 64 bits can make you go faster: if you need mroe than 4 gigs of RAM in a single app, and if you need an integer bigger than 4 billion (or +/- 2 billion for signed integers).

Lets also draw a line between the 128-bit AltiVec registers and a 64-bit processor. AltiVec goes fast because it manipulates 4 32 bit chunks (or 8 16's, or 16 8's)... not because it manipulates 128 bits at once. A 64-bit processor cannot do 2 32-bit ops at once instead of one 64-bit op. It just does not work that way.

I know that now, it is a pain to manipulate files that are larger than 4GB or so. In video work this becomes a pain very quickly, when 5 minutes of DV footage is a gig. 64-bit should affect this dramatically, I'd imagine.
Sadly this is not the case. The 4gig files will still take forever to read off of the hard disk. 32 bit processors can handle massive hard disk files fine, just not more than 4 gigs of RAM dedicated to a single program.

[solvs]

Originally posted by 3G4N
Ummm, Maybe because... uuhhh..
THE PPC-970 DOESN'T FRIGGIN EXIST YET!! Jeezus.
Where *didn't* you read the chip won't go into production
until late 2003??? Does IQ need to become part of the
registration here?

End rant.
Boy, do I need a job!

Exactly, the Spec marks are estimates. We don't know what they will really be yet, or even if they will be in the next PowerMacs. I still say don't trust the Spec scores for much. AMD was just saying how the scores seemed to be biased towards certain types of CPUs. They scored well in Spec2000 and 2001, but were slaughtered in 2002. Benchmarks, shmenkmarks, I just want REAL WORLD PERFORMANCE.

IQ tests are the same way. Numbers don't say much. I can say that because I have a VERY high IQ. I just do a lot of really stupid things.

I need one of those job thingies too.

[ddtlm]

solvs:

The tests that AMD was bitching about were not SPEC... go to Anandtech sometime and witness the huge number of tests that PC sites run. In the case of the evil benchmark of doom, Intel essentially ran the damn thing and has changed it many times... each time the Athlon started beating Intel's best the rules changed. Note, that is NOT how SPEC operates... no one company controls SPEC.

[Shrek]

Originally posted by 3G4N


? is this an allusion to:


one of my fav lines.

Absolutely! :D

[solvs]

Originally posted by ddtlm
solvs:

The tests that AMD was bitching about were not SPEC... go to Anandtech sometime and witness the huge number of tests that PC sites run. In the case of the evil benchmark of doom, Intel essentially ran the damn thing and has changed it many times... each time the Athlon started beating Intel's best the rules changed. Note, that is NOT how SPEC operates... no one company controls SPEC.

My mistake, it was SYSMark, not SPEC. I still don't trust benchmarks as an "end-all-be-all" but I guess they can give you an idea, or at least a rough approximation, of raw speed.

Any speed test can be manipulated to make anything look faster or slower. And whenever a CPU looks slower, somebody has to cry foul. Sometimes they're right, sometimes it's just sour grapes.

If the new 970 is used in the next BIG Mac upgrade, and it performs fast (estimates and benchmarks be darned), I'll be happy.

[scem0]

Everyone here is talking about speed and benchmarks, etc. BUt what I am more concerned about is price. Will we be getting a computer that is actually a good deal? I really hope so.

[shadowfax0]

Originally posted by 3G4N

Pull up a chair, a cold beer, and a bucket, and start yer droolin.


I'll drink to that! :D

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by ddtlm
nickgold:

Wowa, calm down. AMD's Hammer will be out first with 64-bit for the desktop, although M$ won't be supporting it in Windows for a while (maybe not till 2005?). People using Linux will have all 64 bits though, and that means servers and renderfarms.

64 bits is generally not important. It mainly helps with the max amount of RAM a single process can easily use, and it does not mean twice the performance. 64-bitness is not a very big deal, but it's still a good thing.
2005? Really? I doubt it will be that late because, *gasp*, Microsoft already has Windows XP 64-bit running on the Hammer architecture. I would think they'd release it as Hammer is released.

[shadowfax0]

So what makes these:
http://www.sgi.com/workstations/comparison.html
so great? I'm dead serious, WHY ARE THESE WORKSTATIONS $20,000?? :confused:

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by shadowfax0
So what makes these:
http://www.sgi.com/workstations/comparison.html
so great? I'm dead serious, WHY ARE THESE WORKSTATIONS $20,000?? :confused: ...I realize they're a ton faster than they look, but NONE of those numbers are any good. It seems like the sole redeeming feature of that machine is the support for 4 gigs of ram. Obviously I'm missing something.

[maxvamp]

I guess I am what you would call a switcher. I was an OS/2 to Windows NT to LINUX/UNIX to MacOSX ( better UNIX ) switcher. I now only use OSX and Windows 98 ( and then, only for 1 application )

Having said that, I have to say that this has been a fun discussion to watch. I want to put the memory concerns of this new processor to rest by simply saying that I would be shocked if Apple didn't user DDR 2 ( see http://www.commsdesign.com/design_center/broadband/news/OEG20021016S0038 ). This would satisfy the memory bandwidth needs of this new chip.

Second, as for the no performance gain, coupled with the faster P4 mantra, I have to say that there are some mis-informed people here. I suggest that we start a new thread and have everyone list the top 5 apps they use on the mac. This is what would clearly define any performance gain a user would or wouldn't see.

The reason I suggest this is that many high performance app developers on the window side ( and I am sure Mac too ) have been working with 64 bits for a while in their 32-bit applications. Even MS in several of their APIs will divide their values returned from objects in two 32bit chunks that must be reassembled into the original 64 bit values. I myself have seen this in file system operations in the Win32 writing I have done.

Since such operations described above require two ticks of the proc to process, I would take a slower 64 bit AMD or PPC processor in a heart beat over a much faster p4 for hard core applications. So a 5 GHz p4 at best on these types of apps still only keeps up with a 64 bit at half it's speed. An OS optimised for 64-bits make this more so.

Now, will every app see a difference? No.

If my average apps I use often are only Quicken, Mail, IExplorer, iChat, Word, etc. then a 2.4 GHz P4 will be snappier than a 1.8 PPC or AMD. If your average apps are DVD Studio, Final Cut Pro, Maya, Cinema4D, etc. then a 64 system will be an improvement. I won't even go into databases, except to say that in the future, more and more apps will start using them. Need proof ? iPhoto and iTunes both are primitive apps that use a crude database to track your data. Overtime, more and more apps with get more advanced in this idea, and you may see OSs come out with master Databases built into them that iApps, as well as other apps can use natively.

So, with all of this said, What are the apps you use on a daily basis?

Let the flames begin,
Max.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by shadowfax0
So what makes these:
http://www.sgi.com/workstations/comparison.html
so great? I'm dead serious, WHY ARE THESE WORKSTATIONS $20,000?? :confused:
There are a few reasons:

1) They are aimed only at highly specialized markets
2) They offer a few specialized graphics capabilities that PC game cards don't have yet like 48-bit RGBA and stereo output
3) Large caches and large memory support
4) Binary compatibility with higher-end SGI computers like the Onyxes, Origins & Challenges
5) They support some specialized hardware add-ons that aren't available for anything else
6) They support some software that isn't available for anything else

None of these reasons alone really justifies the price. The reason they're so expensive is because their customers can afford to pay what they do, and because SGI has little in the way of competition in its niche markets. They're also low-volume machines which means they cost more per unit to build.

[3G4N]

Apple, with the 970, pushing its niche right up into
SGI's lower end. Gradually working more toward the
education/visualization market. (I suspect that the
970 workstations might cost a grand+ more than their
counterpart G4 workstations.) Then, hopefully, bidding
their time, Apple will edge SGI out, then, hopefully buy
them out, or hire them out. As much as I love SGI, they
are barely hanging on. If only I had a ton of cash...
ah, if only...

finally, I can really call my (future) PowerMac a "workstation".