The 5GHz "G6" CPU...

[Lord Blackadder]

...That might have been; IBM released some info (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061019-8034.html) on the POWER6 CPU this week. These days Intel is adding cores to increase performance, but IBM has instead doubled the clockspeed over the 970 CPUs...kind of. Not quite 5GHz but well over four according to the article.

I'm actually very happy with the Intel transition - Intel is much better prepared to serve the PC market, whereas the POWER architecture was a server chip first and a Mac CPU second. Apple made the right choice by going with x86. Still, it's interesting to follow Apple's former chip supplier. The POWER architecture is still far from dead.

[SpaceMagic]

You're right. It is interesting. A lot of money goes into the development of these chips... but do IBM make as much money from them? Is the POWER server market big? If so, which sector (government?).

[Chundles]

Isn't the 970 (G5) based on the POWER4 processor?

The the "G6" was going to come from the POWER5, the POWER6 was a long way off.

What happened to the POWER5?

[Benjamin]

Isn't the 970 (G5) based on the POWER4 processor?

The the "G6" was going to come from the POWER5, the POWER6 was a long way off.

What happened to the POWER5?

Yes, yep, and it seems to be in their p servers and some of the intellistations (POWER5 and POWER5+).

[Lord Blackadder]

I know that "G5" chip production overlapped with POWER5, even though the "G5" was originally based on the POWER4. But the POWER5 was dual core. I think the dual-core 970GX "G5" is a POWER5 chip. But don't quote me there. ;)

[dmw007]

A 5GHz PowerPC G6 **drool** :eek: :D

[Me1000]

everyone is talking more speed, but did you ever wonder why intel moved just about everything over to dual core?

2 1GHZ processors, are faster the 1 2GHZ processor, because they can multitask better!

Not to mention, a lot of your speed is from the speed of your HDD!

IBM needs to work on the heat issues, and start moving over to multi (core)processors, not more speed!

[dmw007]

IBM needs to work on the heat issues, and start moving over to multi (core)processors, not more speed!


The last version of the Power Mac G5 used dual-core chips. :)

[ribbonthecat]

5GHz powerbook G6 next Tuezday!!!!

[ReanimationLP]

5GHz powerbook G6 next Tuezday!!!!

*Slaps* >:O

[FF_productions]

How much cooling would be required in a 5 ghz G6?

How is it possible that they suddenly have jumped up to such a high clock speed when they couldn't deliver 3 ghz only a year or 2 ago?

[dmw007]

How much cooling would be required in a 5 ghz G6?


Liquid nitrogen me thinks. ;) :D



How is it possible that they suddenly have jumped up to such a high clock speed when they couldn't deliver 3 ghz only a year or 2 ago?

Good question, I would imagine that it would have something to do with the Power6's architecture- much like how the architecture of the Core 2 Duo allows it to run much cooler than say the Pentium D. :)

[Eric5h5]

2 1GHZ processors, are faster the 1 2GHZ processor, because they can multitask better!

Er, no. A single 2GHz processor is typically quite a bit faster than 2 1GHz processors. Multi-threading is complex and outside of specialized benchmarks you almost never get anything like the full potential of both CPUs at once. (e.g., when Blender went multi-threaded, its performance went up 50%, not 100%.) The overhead for multitasking doesn't amount to much, and adding more CPU cores doesn't do a thing to alleviate that anyway.

The primary reason for going multiple cores is because of hitting a wall on increasing speed. That's what Apple did when G4s weren't getting any faster back in the day. That's what Intel is doing too. The significantly increased complexity of multi-threading compared to the smaller gains you get by doing so, not to mention greater expense, means that it's a less desirable path than simply increasing the speed of a single core.

However, the laws of physics being what they are (immutable ;) ), you do what you have to when you reach the point of not being able to pump up the MHz any more (at least without serious downsides like massive amounts of heat). Let's not try spinning that into something "better" though.


Not to mention, a lot of your speed is from the speed of your HDD!


Er, no. That's only an issue for launching programs or if you're running out of memory and are constantly swapping to the HDD.

--Eric

[thunng8]

You're right. It is interesting. A lot of money goes into the development of these chips... but do IBM make as much money from them? Is the POWER server market big? If so, which sector (government?).

Here is your answer: http://search400.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid3_gci1131804,00.html

A bit old, but still fairly new. Total unix revenue was $4.2bn for Q2/05 with IBM taking 31% of that. So in terms of IBM Hardware UNIX revenues (PSeries), it was $1.3bn/qtr. It would be higher this year since IBM just announced a 10% increase in their pSeries line sales compared to last year.

IBM also uses POWER chips in some of their Linux servers as well as their Entire AS/400 nee iSeries servers (and storage servers as well).

All told, I would estimate approx $7-8bn sales from IBM Power based servers per year, just for hardware. Of course, there's also the related consulting and software IBM makes associated with these sales ..

[thunng8]

I know that "G5" chip production overlapped with POWER5, even though the "G5" was originally based on the POWER4. But the POWER5 was dual core. I think the dual-core 970GX "G5" is a POWER5 chip. But don't quote me there. ;)

Nope, the dual core 970 (970MP) is not a POWER5 chip.

Main changes from Power4 -> 5 was:
- Reduced memory latency through use of on-die memory controller
- Increased memory and cache bandwidths
- Introduction of SMT (this did actually increase performance by ~30%, unlike Intel's Hyperthreading).

The 970MP does not have any of these features

[iAlan]

How much cooling would be required in a 5 ghz G6?

The new enclosure is a refrigerator...

[thunng8]

The new enclosure is a refrigerator...

All IBM pSeries servers and IntelliStation POWER workstations use conventional air cooling ...

[comictimes]

How much cooling would be required in a 5 ghz G6?

How is it possible that they suddenly have jumped up to such a high clock speed when they couldn't deliver 3 ghz only a year or 2 ago?

That's my thought... wasn't the main issue with the G5 that it required massive amounts of cooling, and that's why they never got it into a laptop. So if you double its clockspeed, won't that require far more cooling than even the original G5?

[thunng8]

That's my thought... wasn't the main issue with the G5 that it required massive amounts of cooling, and that's why they never got it into a laptop. So if you double its clockspeed, won't that require far more cooling than even the original G5?

The article mentions Power6 will be in the same thermal envelope as Power5+ devices (not G5), despite doubling the clock speed.

[dextertangocci]

How much cooling would be required in a 5 ghz G6?

How is it possible that they suddenly have jumped up to such a high clock speed when they couldn't deliver 3 ghz only a year or 2 ago?

IBM recently clocked a processor to something like 500Ghz, but that was at around -270 degrees celcius:eek:

[psychofreak]

Here is your answer: http://search400.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid3_gci1131804,00.html

A bit old, but still fairly new.

Like all recent tech news...how I love rumour-mongering

[bearbo]

2 1GHZ processors, are faster the 1 2GHZ processor, because they can multitask better!

the last time i checked, that statement is false, please someone correct me if i'm wrong and post a link

2 of 1 GHz processors is much slower than 1 of 2GHz processor, 2 of 1GHz processors have speed of maybe 1.6~1.7 of 1GHz processor... which means assuming a 2GHz processor is 2 times faster than the a 1GHz processor, 2 of 1GHz processors is about .8 of a 2GHz processor

and that is provided a given application can utilize more than 1 processor. most apps cannot do that.

the only reason people go for more than 1 processor is because achieving higher clock speed is more difficult than adding another core
but 2 GHz processor does produce more than 2x of than 1GHz processor under similar condition

EDIT: i guess i'm a bit late :D

[RedTomato]

How is it possible that they suddenly have jumped up to such a high clock speed when they couldn't deliver 3 ghz only a year or 2 ago?

I'm still looking for an intelligent detailed answer to this.

My wild guess is that it does much less work per clock (shorter pipelines) and less branch prediction (creating wasted work/ heat like the P4) than the G5.

But then I'm not a chip expert.

EDIT: Wikipedia is your friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER7

Seems I was right on the pipeline thing, at least for the POWER5.

Can anyone else interpret more from the links?

[sycho]

IBM recently clocked a processor to something like 500Ghz, but that was at around -270 degrees celcius:eek:
Umm, no, that was a single transisitor. They would need to add a few hundred million more to make it a processor

[blitzkrieg79]

People tend to forget that IBM also has the CELL processor. And no, it's not a specialized processor, and no it's not only for consoles.

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2006/Jul/CellProcessorPotential.pdf
http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cell/Cell0_v2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)

Cell is very power efficient compared to the performance it can generate, it does require a whoel new approach to programming but we are moving into multicore direction anyway so it won't be such a problem in the near future. Also of interesting note is the article I found (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2379&p=12) about how Intel will produce a Cell-like processor in .... 2010-2012. Again, advanced/superior technology ahead of it's time that will probably get swallowed by the marketing power of Intel.

[Farside161]

apperently IBM was able to double the clock speed without increesing power dissipation more at the link...

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061019-8034.html

[thunng8]

Seems I was right on the pipeline thing, at least for the POWER5.

No, you are wrong. POWER5 has the same pipeline as POWER4. POWER5 does more work per cycle compared to POWER4 since it has:
- Lower memory latency due to ondie memory controller
- Higher cache and memory bandwidth
- Much faster in multithreaded code due to the addition of SMT

[RedTomato]

No, you are wrong. POWER5 has the same pipeline as POWER4. POWER5 does more work per cycle compared to POWER4 since it has:
- Lower memory latency due to ondie memory controller
- Higher cache and memory bandwidth
- Much faster in multithreaded code due to the addition of SMT

You are right and I made a mistake.

I was actually referring to the POWER6 as compared with the POWER5 as Wiki says the POWER6 has a short 2-stage pipeline.

I'm not 100% sure if that's indeed shorter than the POWER5.

[MacNut]

Ok hypothetically speaking, could something like that ever end up in a home computer.

[dmw007]

Ok hypothetically speaking, could something like that ever end up in a home computer.

Probably not, Apple is unlikely to go back to PowerPC at this point in time.

[MacNut]

Probably not, Apple is unlikely to go back to PowerPC at this point in time.Im talking more in general, how feasible is it that these chips could wind up in a personal computer of any kind.

[Sun Baked]

No, you are wrong. POWER5 has the same pipeline as POWER4. POWER5 does more work per cycle compared to POWER4 since it has:
- Lower memory latency due to ondie memory controller
- Higher cache and memory bandwidth
- Much faster in multithreaded code due to the addition of SMTDon't forget the advance power & thermal management of the Power5.

Which besides the process improvements, what the G-ified chip needed besides all the other stuff that came along with the next "Power" chip to make it into the notebooks.

Ok hypothetically speaking, could something like that ever end up in a home computer.Only if you want to pay IBM 150-250 million for your next Amiga, or Mac clone. This is basically what IBM told Apple, if you want the CPUs -- pay for them.

IBM's stance of the future of the desktop CPUs was clear, that it was a bomb in the marketplace, failed to replace any G4s, so IBM canceled development of future Power-based desktop CPUs.

[srf4real]

A 5GHz PowerPC G6 **drool** :eek: :D

yeah, still hoping Apple turns back before it's too late and we're all working on pc s*^#!:rolleyes:

[MacNut]

So who would use these chips? server farms?

[Sun Baked]

So who would use these chips? server farms?IBMs old big iron, and their workstations.

[thunng8]

IBMs old big iron, and their workstations.

To be more precise:

- IBM Sytem P servers (entire UNIX range running AIX and which can optionally run Linux).
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/p/
Currently from 1U 1-4 core servers to large 64 core servers.

- IBM System i servers
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/i/
Again a huge range from semi small to large servers

- Intellistation POWER workstations (running AIX)
http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/intellistation/power/
Currently a 970MP based workstation and a POWER5+ model

- POWER based blades
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/bladecenter/power-based.html
Currently has 970MPs running at up to 2.7Ghz, but later will likely change to a Power6Lite processor

- IBM Storage servers
http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/storage/disk/
I think the latest models have POWER5+ processors

[dmw007]

yeah, still hoping Apple turns back before it's too late and we're all working on pc s*^#!:rolleyes:


As much as I enjoyed PowerPC based Macs, I think that the switch to Intel has many benefits. But the bottom line is the OS, as long as I have Mac OS X to use, I don't care if it is running on a G5 or a Core 2 Duo. :)

[PerfectlyFlawed]

thats pretty damn fast

[dmw007]

thats pretty damn fast


It most certainly is. Intel has yet to break the 4GHz barrier (the Pentium 4 topped out at 3.8GHz). :)

[Lord Blackadder]

IBM's stance of the future of the desktop CPUs was clear, that it was a bomb in the marketplace, failed to replace any G4s, so IBM canceled development of future Power-based desktop CPUs.

True, Apple had some help from IBM in deciding to make the switch to Intel.

[Catfish_Man]

IBM has determined that there is a niche they can fill that won't be eaten alive by the attack of the low end processors (x86, in this case). That niche is one in which they use exotic chip packaging (and cooling systems) and extremely high bandwidth system interconnects to stay ahead of the mainstream performance. POWER5 has 2313 signalling pins. Desktop CPUs have only recently approached 1000 total pins (signalling + power).

If you detach the POWER5 from it's remarkable cache+memory hierarchy, it suddenly looks a lot less interesting. If you don't detach it, you end up having to pay the rather huge costs of routing and connecting all those high speed busses. POWER6 will continue this with no fewer than 9 distinct bi-directional interconnects totaling 300GB/sec of bandwidth when running at 5GHz. While this is likely to once again bring them to the front of the markets they're targeting, there's no way a desktop motherboard vendor could hope to support it.

As for CELL... wait for the PS3 to be released, and watch the benchmarks of linux apps on it. I predict you'll see a few of them go blazingly fast, and the rest be around the level of the G4. Current programming paradigms are simply unable to handle CELL's low per-thread performance, asymmetric design, and exotic memory management requirements.

[Lord Blackadder]

It just goes to show you how much hardware and software must cooperate to get the best performance.

[®îçhå®?]

That would have been a good chip. How good would that chip have been though?? The transition to intel at the same clock speed on the imac made it 2.5 times faster so this wouldnt even be much better than the intel core duo.

[thunng8]

That would have been a good chip. How good would that chip have been though?? The transition to intel at the same clock speed on the imac made it 2.5 times faster so this wouldnt even be much better than the intel core duo.

The quoted 2.5x faster is due to the Core Duo having 2 cores and running multithreaded apps.

The 2X faster is for POWER6 vs POWER5, not the G5. The POWER5 is much faster than the G5.

[Abstract]

Probably not, Apple is unlikely to go back to PowerPC at this point in time.

You're right, but since new apps are "universal binary" it means Apple really could switch back at any time, or use a mixture of both in their lineup if they want. ;)

[GFLPraxis]

everyone is talking more speed, but did you ever wonder why intel moved just about everything over to dual core?

2 1GHZ processors, are faster the 1 2GHZ processor, because they can multitask better!

Not really true; 2 1GHz processors are slower, because of SMP overheads. You'll never get 100% performance, usually you'll get the equivilant of a single 1.5 GHz processor on multithreaded apps.

However, from an engineering standpoint it is much easier to get a dual 3 GHz processor than a single 6 GHz one.

[emotion]

IBM has determined that there is a niche they can fill that won't be eaten alive by the attack of the low end processors (x86, in this case). That niche is one in which they use exotic chip packaging (and cooling systems) and extremely high bandwidth system interconnects to stay ahead of the mainstream performance. POWER5 has 2313 signalling pins. Desktop CPUs have only recently approached 1000 total pins (signalling + power).

If you detach the POWER5 from it's remarkable cache+memory hierarchy, it suddenly looks a lot less interesting. If you don't detach it, you end up having to pay the rather huge costs of routing and connecting all those high speed busses. POWER6 will continue this with no fewer than 9 distinct bi-directional interconnects totaling 300GB/sec of bandwidth when running at 5GHz. While this is likely to once again bring them to the front of the markets they're targeting, there's no way a desktop motherboard vendor could hope to support it.

As for CELL... wait for the PS3 to be released, and watch the benchmarks of linux apps on it. I predict you'll see a few of them go blazingly fast, and the rest be around the level of the G4. Current programming paradigms are simply unable to handle CELL's low per-thread performance, asymmetric design, and exotic memory management requirements.

Good post. Someone who knows of what they speak!

[killmoms]

[A POST wherein Catfish_Man displays intelligence and informed thinking.]
Just wanted to point out that you win the Internets, sir. I'm tired of people going around saying Cell is some amazing performance panacea and worlds faster than anything else at everything. No, it's quite good at some things, but the requirements to GET it there are heady indeed.

[®îçhå®?]

Ok hypothetically speaking, could something like that ever end up in a home computer.
Potentially in 10 years, we could all be running 5GHz laptops, there just need to make transistors small enough

[Rocksaurus]

I guess they released it today. 4.7 GHz.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7384

[RedTomato]

I guess they released it today. 4.7 GHz.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7384

From the article:

IBM boasts that its processor has so much bandwidth that the POWER6 chip could download the entire iTunes catalog in about 60 seconds.

That's the sound of 5000 scientists smacking their foreheads in unison.

Particularly baffling considering that the target audience and purchasers for this system are so focussed on their work that they probably won't even know what iTunes is.

[longofest]

I'll try to reply to a bunch of questions that I've seen.

POWER != PowerPC, although they are related. As others have said, the PowerPC 970 family (aka G5) was a derivative of the POWER4 processor. PowerPC in general is a derivative of POWER, although now POWER is borrowing some things back from PowerPC (like Altivec, which is being incorporated into POWER6).

POWER processors are very expensive compared to their lighter PowerPC-branded counterparts, mainly because they have a different purpose in mind. POWER processors are used in IBM's mid to high-end servers, like their 'p' and 'i' series. These servers are used in big corporations, banking institutions, governments, and in research fields.

To give you a sense of how POWER is different from PowerPC, the cache size on a POWER processor is typically 36 MB or greater, whereas a PowerPC processor maxes out at 2 MB.

While IBM is hoping to strip the POWER6 down into a light version to be able to use in blades, don't expect this chip to end up in your average PC, even if Apple was still interested in it.

Some more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_POWER#PowerPC

[dmw007]

While IBM is hoping to strip the POWER6 down into a light version to be able to use in blades, don't expect this chip to end up in your average PC, even if Apple was still interested in it.


Well, it is still nice to dream... ;) :D :cool:

[Shadow]

don't expect this chip to end up in your average PC, even if Apple was still interested in it.


It probably won't even be in the average server, we're talking $10,000 as a minimum here. Serious stuff. :cool:

[Zwhaler]

All IBM pSeries servers and IntelliStation POWER workstations use conventional air cooling ...

Notice the word IntelliStation the servers are probably the size of a refrigerator lol

[thunng8]

Notice the word IntelliStation the servers are probably the size of a refrigerator lol

No. IBM sell servers from 1U (quad core) to size of a refrigerator. POWER6 will also go into blades.

[MacNut]

So this is the real reason for the iPhone delay. So what if you need to wear a backpack when you use the phone.:rolleyes:

[Shadow]

So this is the real reason for the iPhone delay. So what if you need to wear a backpack when you use the phone.:rolleyes:

iPhone G7 on Tuesday!!! :D