G3 Vs G4

[mattmack]

Allright, when I went to buy my last mac. (it was from computerware which shows you how long ago it was.) I asked the sales rep if he could explain the differences between a G3 and a G4 processor. He couldn't. In fact he said he preferred windows. So I went to another salesperson and dealt with him, but that's another story. Anyway I still have not found a very good answer to the question and was wondering if anyone here could explain it in relatively simplistic terms? :confused: I know it is not just the Altivec that makes the difference otherwise what would the big deal be about the IBM G3 with altivec on it?(Gobi?). Any way thank in advance and I know this might be unimportant come next month, but I just want to know :)

[funkywhat2]

The G3 can be scaled to 2GHz+, the G4 is dead. The G3 is made by IBM, the G4 by Motorola. The G3 also runs much cooler than the G4.

There are more, but I can't think straight today. Any help?

[mattmack]

Originally posted by funkywhat2
The G3 can be scaled to 2GHz+, the G4 is dead. The G3 is made by IBM, the G4 by Motorola. The G3 also runs much cooler than the G4.

There are more, but I can't think straight today. Any help? WOw I didn't realize it was that easy thanks:D

[MacBandit]

Okay here goes. The G3 when it first came out was an evelotionary step from the 603e processor which was an energy efficient process and had a poor FPU on it. So G3=Low energy slow FPU. Also the G3 could not be used in SMP (symettrical processing systems) computers with more then one processor.

The G4 was more of an evolutionary step of the 604e which was a chip with a very good FPU. The problem with the 604 as it appears it didn't scale to higher speeds very well though Motorola had though they had that worked out when they went to the G4. Some people believe that part of the problem with scaling the G4 was the integer processing unit they had on board (Altivec). Also the G4 is SMP compatible allowing multiproccesor systems. So G4=Higher energy consumption good FPU and SMP friendly and Altivec.

Also currently G4=Motorola and G3=IBM. IBM tends to be light years ahead of Motorola when it comes to actual production of chips. They have a fabrication process that is second to none. Also IBM does a lot of chips for high end servers and workstations which makes them aware of the need to be competitive and flexible. Motorola on the other hand builds chips fo the embeded market. Phone switches and relays etc.. This makes them blind to the need to be competitive as in there market they have a stronghold and it's unecessary for these GHz speed processors.

All in all by stepping over to IBM we should have a much better future. IBM has a good timeline set out and they have a good history of being able to deliver on it. Also with there recent advancements with the G3 into higher speeds and the stong possibility of adding an Integer processing unit they should have a good consumer chip for Apple that will be able to keep up with there higher end chip which we are all hoping with be the PPC970.

There are a lot of other finer points about the chips that I don't know if you want to go into. I just gave you the basics of the two. If you want more just go to IBM and Motorolas websites and you there are tons of stuff on them both. Also if you goggle search them both I'm sure you will get a history as written by an Apple geek somewhere.

[Steradian]

Well they do have a bunch of really nice information here at MR if you do a quick search...but I guess it boils down to the G3 being less power consuming but not as powerful in many if not all tasks tham a G4. A G4 is to me a great chip with a good arch however Moto's inability to deliever faster Procs is really hurting apple... I am not too sure that this 970 thing is for certain I wouldn't buy into it too much and be VERY dissapointed IF it dosen't happen. Hmm too sum up the G4 is better IMO but the G3 uses less power, I am not too sure that we will see 2ghz G3's maybe 750s though...

[MacBandit]

Something I left out is that the G3 in someways has caught up to the G4 in MHz to MHz speed comparrisons. When the G4 was first released I would say it was about 1.5x faster at the same MHz. In order to scale the G4 to faster MHz Motorola added pipeline stages to the chip this cuts down on the number of errors a chip produces in processing by letting different operations catch up by waiting. The G3 on the other hand has kept it's rather short pipeline. So now when you compare the two chips a G3 and a G4 are pretty competitive at the same MHz except when comparring Altivec processes.

[funkywhat2]

Okay, 2GHz soon. Who's counting? http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2086492,00.html

According to the IBM website ( http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/newsletter/oct2001/new-prod1.html ) the crrent PowerPC 750fx supports a 200 MHz Bus and uses a .13 process. I'd assume that these are the 900 MHz G3's we see in the iBooks.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by funkywhat2
Okay, 2GHz soon. Who's counting? http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2086492,00.html

According to the IBM website ( http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/newsletter/oct2001/new-prod1.html ) the crrent PowerPC 750fx supports a 200 MHz Bus and uses a .13 process. I'd assume that these are the 900 MHz G3's we see in the iBooks.

No I think that is the next wave of G3s coming. They are current but Apple isn't using them.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by MacBandit
Something I left out is that the G3 in someways has caught up to the G4 in MHz to MHz speed comparrisons. When the G4 was first released I would say it was about 1.5x faster at the same MHz. In order to scale the G4 to faster MHz Motorola added pipeline stages to the chip this cuts down on the number of errors a chip produces in processing by letting different operations catch up by waiting. The G3 on the other hand has kept it's rather short pipeline. So now when you compare the two chips a G3 and a G4 are pretty competitive at the same MHz except when comparring Altivec processes.
This is what I was really curious about. It makes sense that whn I bought a G450 (dual) it seemed so much faster than a G3 450 or 300. Thanks so much for all the input. Looking forward to investing in a new mac probably by Dec

[Mr. MacPhisto]

The next gen is going to be at .10 and pushed above 2 GHZ with SiMB (Altivec) enhancement. This will allow Apple to have a ship that competes w/ the Intel processors, especially on the low-end.

I'm not sure if the pipeline is extended on the next gen, but IBM's ability to make chips is far more advanced than anyone elses tech. AMD does a good job, but their chips run hot and their chipsets are still not the greatest. Intel has had big yield and developmental problems. They were already supposed to be at .09 and were supposed to deliver Itanium two years before its actual introduction - and failed to deliver on promises when released. IBM, in contrast, tends to run ahead of schedule and looks to be the first chipmaker that'll get to .065 - possibly as early as mid to late 2005. End rant.

[macphoria]

IBM's G3 with SIMD will blow the pants off G4 from Motorola. Can't wait to see something like that in near future, probably in iBook.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
The next gen is going to be at .10 and pushed above 2 GHZ with SiMB (Altivec) enhancement. This will allow Apple to have a ship that competes w/ the Intel processors, especially on the low-end.

I'm not sure if the pipeline is extended on the next gen, but IBM's ability to make chips is far more advanced than anyone elses tech. AMD does a good job, but their chips run hot and their chipsets are still not the greatest. Intel has had big yield and developmental problems. They were already supposed to be at .09 and were supposed to deliver Itanium two years before its actual introduction - and failed to deliver on promises when released. IBM, in contrast, tends to run ahead of schedule and looks to be the first chipmaker that'll get to .065 - possibly as early as mid to late 2005. End rant.

They might even be at .065 next year. The reports I have heard is that they have there production down to .09 already a year ahead of schedule.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by macphoria
IBM's G3 with SIMD will blow the pants off G4 from Motorola. Can't wait to see something like that in near future, probably in iBook.

Only because it will be at higher MHz. The G3 still has a poor FPU even with Altivec.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by mattmack
This is what I was really curious about. It makes sense that whn I bought a G450 (dual) it seemed so much faster than a G3 450 or 300. Thanks so much for all the input. Looking forward to investing in a new mac probably by Dec

And even faster in OSX thanks to the duals. Something I have already said but I would like to point out is that unless IBM makes a massive modification to the G3 architecture you will never see it in dual configurations.

[ddtlm]

funkywhat2:

The G3 can be scaled to 2GHz+, the G4 is dead.
No, the G3 as we know it cannot go anywhere near 2ghz on its stubby pipelines.

MacBandit:

integer processing unit they had on board (Altivec)
Perhaps you meant "vector processing unit". Integer processing units are pretty much the most basic processing unit that there is.

They have a fabrication process that is second to none.
Second it Intel. Before challenging me to back that up with some sort of fact, you should be able to list non-rumor sources of your own.

Also with there recent advancements with the G3 into higher speeds and the stong possibility of adding an Integer processing unit they should have a good consumer chip for Apple that will be able to keep up with there higher end chip which we are all hoping with be the PPC970.
Rumored recent advancements. Rumored advancements which will do nothing but make an IBM G4... if IBM makes a chip like a 7457 is it automatically good? This seems like Motophopia.

macphoria:

IBM's G3 with SIMD will blow the pants off G4 from Motorola. Can't wait to see something like that in near future, probably in iBook.
This is speculation on your part. However, by comparing Moto's original "stubby" G4 that peaked out at 533mhz to the newer G4's, we see that clockspeed won the day by time 800mhz (or so) rolled around. I see no reason why IBM will find anything different. The IBM G3 as it stands cannot scale anywhere near as far as the 745x processors and so even with AltiVec it really cannot be much of a performance threat unless IBM can maintain a constant, significant production technology edge. (And even then, I wonder why IBM would bother to try so hard.)

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by ddtlm
...............MacBandit:


Perhaps you meant "vector processing unit". Integer processing units are pretty much the most basic processing unit that there is.

Thank you, yes, I did mean vector processing unit.



Second it Intel. Before challenging me to back that up with some sort of fact, you should be able to list non-rumor sources of your own.

This is of course my own oppinion as based on IBM's development of silicon on insulator and other processes developed in the recent years that Intel has chosen to copy.



Rumored recent advancements. Rumored advancements which will do nothing but make an IBM G4... if IBM makes a chip like a 7457 is it automatically good? This seems like Motophopia.


There is little doubt of the existence of the 750GX as it is a documented chip with white that is in there timeline. Also we both know that a G3 with Altivec does not equal a G4 as it is still not SMP compatible and still have a lowsy FPU unit.



macphoria:


This is speculation on your part. However, by comparing Moto's original "stubby" G4 that peaked out at 533mhz to the newer G4's, we see that clockspeed won the day by time 800mhz (or so) rolled around. I see no reason why IBM will find anything different. The IBM G3 as it stands cannot scale anywhere near as far as the 745x processors and so even with AltiVec it really cannot be much of a performance threat unless IBM can maintain a constant, significant production technology edge. (And even then, I wonder why IBM would bother to try so hard.)

As it stands the IBM G3 with it's stubby pipeline has already scaled into the realm of the 7455. The 7455 barely achieved 1 GHz and was in fact only supposed to acheive that but thanks to some miracle on Motorolas side in there production was able to be approved at a slightly higher speed. The G3 without doubt and without rumor has achieved 1 GHz and it's no one but Apple preventing it from hitting the production laptops.

I don't have the information anymore (I know it's convenient) but IBM announced like 2 years ago that they had gotten the G3 to run stable at 2GHz in the lab. I know that they go to great lengths in those lab tests to eek every last bit of speed out of a chip through cooling and what have you. Though those lab tests usually show what a chip could do in the future with minor revissions and a smaller die.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

IBM has got them running at 2 GHZ and ready to go into production using a .10 micron process. They are not currently producing them because Apple doesn't want them yet, but the 750 series will see a ramping up of speed as soon as Apple cuts ties with Moto.

When it comes to processors over the past two years, IBM has ALWAYS been ahead of their own timetable. Their manufacturing and R&D is second-to-none. And IBM's name just speaks reliability. IF Apple lets everyone know they are working with IBM now (and IBM begins using OS X on some servers and workstations - which is in the works), the Apple has greater legitimacy than it has ever had. I can almost guarantee that Intel is not thrilled with IBM getting into the desktop chip market because they know IBM can run circles around them. With Intel's manufcaturing and development problems, it wouldn't surprise me if PCs are forced to migrate over to PowerPC chips 5-6 years from now. If you compare roadmaps, you'll see IBM will be so far ahead of Intel it won't even be funny.

[Cubeboy]

IBM is indeed a very formidable threat to Intel, especially their manufacturing which introduced the market to silicon on insulator (SOI), Of course, fourth quarter this year, Intel will be the first to have .09 nm micron process cpus and strained silicon technology with the launch Pentium 5. I can definitely assure you that Intel is not thrilled to have IBM working with Apple, especially now that IBM and AMD are working together and sharing resources and technogies to create even faster cpus. With motorola out of the powermac picture, things are looking up.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Cubeboy
IBM is indeed a very formidable threat to Intel, especially their manufacturing which introduced the market to silicon on insulator (SOI), Of course, fourth quarter this year, Intel will be the first to have .09 nm micron process cpus and strained silicon technology with the launch Pentium 5. I can definitely assure you that Intel is not thrilled to have IBM working with Apple, especially now that IBM and AMD are working together and sharing resources and technogies to create even faster cpus. With motorola out of the powermac picture, things are looking up.

It looks to me that Intel has been beat out as the latest news out of IBM is that they have succeeded in their 9nm production.

[Cubeboy]

Originally posted by MacBandit
It looks to me that Intel has been beat out as the latest news out of IBM is that they have succeeded in their 9nm production.

And when exactly are we going to see .09 micron process PPC970s and G3's?

[ddtlm]

Cubeboy:

I can definitely assure you that Intel is not thrilled to have IBM working with Apple, especially now that IBM and AMD are working together and sharing resources and technogies to create even faster cpus.
Poor Intel, they keep having to work for their money. :)

Mr. MacPhisto:

IBM has got them running at 2 GHZ and ready to go into production using a .10 micron process. They are not currently producing them because Apple doesn't want them yet, but the 750 series will see a ramping up of speed as soon as Apple cuts ties with Moto.
I definately still think this is all very far-fetched, but tell you what, I'll give up argueing about that and we'll just wait and see.

MacBandit:

As it stands the IBM G3 with it's stubby pipeline has already scaled into the realm of the 7455.
I'll agree the 750fx has done well, but it remains to be seen how a G3 will be able to overtake Moto, since Moto is a moving target. At best I only think the 750gx will be on par with the 7457, so I'm not sure how this makes the 750gx an exciting new chip. For one thing, if IBM adds vector units then they will be paying the heat and size penalty and be reducing their advantage over the 7457 in that area.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

I'll believe Intel is at .09 when I see it. As I've said, they've had a great number of manufacturing and development problems as of late and have not been getting products out on time. The continuous scaling of the P4 indicates to me that the P5 will be delayed and Intel may be the last of the IBM/AMD/Intel triumvirate to actually get to .09. IBM should be delivering chips @ .09 by the end of the year in bulk. Methinks we'll see Apple clockspeeds and performance scaling rapidly soon enough.

And as to the 2GHZ 750, I understand skepticism. But those familiar with chips will have no doubt about IBM's supremacy if they deliver an energy efficient Altivec chip with a stubby pipeline. A 750 series chip at 2 GHZ with Altivec should be able to fly by any other currently released consumer chip by Moto, Intel, or AMD if it is using a high speed bus with equivalent DDR RAM.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Cubeboy
And when exactly are we going to see .09 micron process PPC970s and G3's?

I think this process was for another chip I'm not sure. I am sure that it was an announcement by IBM though now.

[Cubeboy]

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
I'll believe Intel is at .09 when I see it. As I've said, they've had a great number of manufacturing and development problems as of late and have not been getting products out on time. The continuous scaling of the P4 indicates to me that the P5 will be delayed and Intel may be the last of the IBM/AMD/Intel triumvirate to actually get to .09. IBM should be delivering chips @ .09 by the end of the year in bulk. Methinks we'll see Apple clockspeeds and performance scaling rapidly soon enough.


Read this article (http://www.e-insite.net/semiconductor/index.asp?layout=article&stt=000&articleid=CA293954&pubdate=5%2F1%2F03) done by Silicon International a very respected professional publication on computer tecnology, it is quite widely accepted that Intel's Fab11X is the most advanced fabrication plant in the world and well known that it is the first plant to transition to 300mm wafers as well as being already capable of manufacturing 90nm processors.

Intel has already released detailed technical drawings of the Prescott and this was a while ago. What it proves is that the prescott core was already largely finished at the time of the drawings. It doesn't take much to come to the conclusion that by now, Intel has pretty much finished with the Prescott design. The Prescott motherboard has already been out for a while as has the dual channel DDR400 memory.

AMD processors are made at the TSMC fab which isn't going to even begin to update it's plants for .09 micron process until next year. Intel on the other hand can already manufacture .09 micron process cpus with their Fab11X plant. I really wonder how you come up with this stuff when so much of it is false.

As far as I know, IBM is has yet to release any 130 nm PPC970 and G3 processors publicly, I've yet to see a single 130 nm PPC970 in a blade server or powermac, until a considerable amount of time passes after the 130 nm PPC970s launch so they can actually have a chance to be sold, we won't have any 90 nm PPC970s.

[Cubeboy]

Originally posted by MacBandit
I think this process was for another chip I'm not sure. I am sure that it was an announcement by IBM though now.

Yes, I've read about those, their Xilinx Field Programmable Gate Arrays, likely engineering samples. These are relatively simple chips, not nearly as complicated as a Pentium 4 or Athlon. I doubt IBM has the capacity right now to produce something as complicated as a PPC970 in .09 micron process.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

That article tells me that Intel's Fab11X is the top plant for .13 process chips. It is speculation if they're pressing at .09.

And a recent major delay would be Itanium - delayed by two years and then not delivering the promised good when released.

IBM is fabbing 970s at .13 as we speak. 750s will be taken to a .10 process and 970s will be at .09 by the end of the year.

Other delays at Intel - their copper technology that IBM developed over 5 years ago. They can't seem to mass produce it. Some sources say their yields are way under 60% on the current P4 line. Most people in the industry I talk to just say Intel is tops because they have no really good, really big name competition. I'll do some digging, but almost everywhere I've read people saying how far advanced IBM is. Intel does have the best tech for a PC desktop manufacturing plant, but that will change. Wait for their 2004 issue when both IBM and AMD have passed Intel by. Their chips are built on archaic tech (my bro is in the industry and he and several others with advanced engineering degrees all see serious flaws) outside of Itanium. Problem is, Itanium was delayed and because of that delay we have the Power4 and Power5. Trust me, in five years Intel will be struggling or out of the CPU business entirely - especially with IBM assisting AMD on its design and manufacturing process.

As for secret plants, that is very much how IBM works. No one in the public sphere can say exactly what is done at all of their plants. IBM develops so much stuff and makes so much that they prefer as much secrecy as possible.

[ddtlm]

Mr. MacPhisto:

That article tells me that Intel's Fab11X is the top plant for .13 process chips. It is speculation if they're pressing at .09.
Speculation is only acceptable when it favors IBM and Apple? Keep that question in mind for a few minutes...

And a recent major delay would be Itanium - delayed by two years and then not delivering the promised good when released.
Not related to process technology.

750s will be taken to a .10 process and 970s will be at .09 by the end of the year.
Speculation.

Other delays at Intel - their copper technology that IBM developed over 5 years ago.
Please demonstrate that they have tried to use it, and if so, that they are behind scedule.

Some sources say their yields are way under 60% on the current P4 line.
Please provide even one reputable source with this cllaim.

Intel does have the best tech for a PC desktop manufacturing plant, but that will change.
Speculation.

Wait for their 2004 issue when both IBM and AMD have passed Intel by.
Speculation.

Their chips are built on archaic tech (my bro is in the industry and he and several others with advanced engineering degrees all see serious flaws) outside of Itanium.
This appears to be a (classic, worn out) assault on x86. However I can only wonder how, if your claims are true, that Intel and AMD continue to field top-performing x86 processors. Where are the "superior" processors? What an embarrasment to the makers of chips based on "superior" ISA's.

Trust me, in five years Intel will be struggling or out of the CPU business entirely - especially with IBM assisting AMD on its design and manufacturing process.
Speculation.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Mr. MacPhisto:



Speculation.



Speculation.


Speculation.




Speculation.
This is an opinion and rumors site. If you don't agree with an opinion that is fine, but I don't think he was stating anything outragous or out of bounds. The x86 processor is a fine processor, but any one who thins that intel is still at the top of their game might consider looking a little more critically. Also he did say that AMD as well as IBM was going to give Intel a run for their money with competative chips :)

[ddtlm]

mattmack:

Hey he called some pro-Intel stuff speculation, so he opened up his whole speculative outlook to attack. ;)

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Originally posted by ddtlm
mattmack:

Hey he called some pro-Intel stuff speculation, so he opened up his whole speculative outlook to attack. ;)

Not really. I have inside-IBM info and it is not speculation, but it is unsubstantiated at the moment because of the sensitivity of my sources. However, please do note that Intel's plant won the big award this year before IBM's own 300mm plant opened in East Fishkill, NY. This is FACT and public as is the 90nm process and the FACT that IBM will be the first to press at 90nm:http://www-916.ibm.com/press/prnews.nsf/printwc/BE30E0C347D45AD285256C91005458D6

Yes, it is not the 970 or 750, but that data will be forthcoming. IBM at .09 is not speculative.

Copper is actually in most current Intel chips, although the process does not produce the efficiency results of IBM's tech.


Why do Intel and AMD make performance processors based on x86? Because much of the world is on the x86 architecture. The difficulty of migration means that they can't force one, especially with competition in their own market. There are many, many who feel the PPC architecture is superior for the long run. It has been misused in Moto's hands, but IBM will show its true potential. By the end of 2005 we'll see a .065 chip at 8GHZ, hyperthreaded and dual core. Methinks Intel will have problems matching that.

[ddtlm]

Mr. MacPhisto:

Well your claims still strike me as way out there, but I don't see either of us changing our positions anytime soon, so I'll try to leave it at this.

[Cubeboy]

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
That article tells me that Intel's Fab11X is the top plant for .13 process chips. It is speculation if they're pressing at .09.

It explicitly stated that Fab11X will transition to .09 micron process in the beginning of the second half of 2003.

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
And a recent major delay would be Itanium - delayed by two years and then not delivering the promised good when released.

No I'm afraid this is not recent, Itanium 2 has already been out for a while and the next Itanium (Madison) is set to be released this month. We're nearing three versions of the Itanium, so far their have only been four Pentiums.

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
IBM is fabbing 970s at .13 as we speak. 750s will be taken to a .10 process and 970s will be at .09 by the end of the year.
Which goes with my statement, until IBM sells the majority of it's .13 micron 970s, it won't even begin to put .09 on the market. If IBM isn't even done producing .13 nm 970s, than we won't see .09 nm 970s in quite a while. Simple business logic

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
Other delays at Intel - their copper technology that IBM developed over 5 years ago. They can't seem to mass produce it. Some sources say their yields are way under 60% on the current P4 line. Most people in the industry I talk to just say Intel is tops because they have no really good, really big name competition. I'll do some digging, but almost everywhere I've read people saying how far advanced IBM is. Intel does have the best tech for a PC desktop manufacturing plant, but that will change. Wait for their 2004 issue when both IBM and AMD have passed Intel by. Their chips are built on archaic tech (my bro is in the industry and he and several others with advanced engineering degrees all see serious flaws) outside of Itanium. Problem is, Itanium was delayed and because of that delay we have the Power4 and Power5. Trust me, in five years Intel will be struggling or out of the CPU business entirely - especially with IBM assisting AMD on its design and manufacturing process.
Let's see, the Pentium 4 3.00 is the fastest desktop processor out today, the dual Xeons is the fastest workstation processor, and until quite recently the Power4, despite being a huge and enormously expensive dual core processor, has been largely behind Itanium 2 and Alpha for most of it's existence. Intel has all but one of the original Alpha team working for it, nearly all of the veteran HP team responsible for HP PA-RISC server chips, a large part of the Motorola team responsible for the original G4 (which was quite good at the beginning), and quite a few of the MIPS team responsible for the venerated MIPS server chips. Since before the arrival of the original Athlon, I don't think it's been in a better shape.

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
As for secret plants, that is very much how IBM works. No one in the public sphere can say exactly what is done at all of their plants. IBM develops so much stuff and makes so much that they prefer as much secrecy as possible.
Purely speculation as DDLTM put it. We'll have to wait and see.

[Cubeboy]

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
Not really. I have inside-IBM info and it is not speculation, but it is unsubstantiated at the moment because of the sensitivity of my sources. However, please do note that Intel's plant won the big award this year before IBM's own 300mm plant opened in East Fishkill, NY. This is FACT and public as is the 90nm process and the FACT that IBM will be the first to press at 90nm:http://www-916.ibm.com/press/prnews.nsf/printwc/BE30E0C347D45AD285256C91005458D6

Yes, it is not the 970 or 750, but that data will be forthcoming. IBM at .09 is not speculative.

Copper is actually in most current Intel chips, although the process does not produce the efficiency results of IBM's tech.

Why do Intel and AMD make performance processors based on x86? Because much of the world is on the x86 architecture. The difficulty of migration means that they can't force one, especially with competition in their own market. There are many, many who feel the PPC architecture is superior for the long run. It has been misused in Moto's hands, but IBM will show its true potential. By the end of 2005 we'll see a .065 chip at 8GHZ, hyperthreaded and dual core. Methinks Intel will have problems matching that.

As I've said in one of my previous post those are FPGA chips, no where near as complex as a modern desktop processor. It'll be a while before we see 90nm PPC970s from IBM. In fact we've yet to see the announcement launching 130 nm PPC970s much less 90 nm PPC970s.

The first X86 processor was made by Intel in 1978, since then we've had the same group of people predicting that it is obsolete it will die "any time now". It's been 25 years since then, I've yet to see single sign of x86s death or any sign of weakening. Right now, the current line of Pentium 4s and Athlons are actually superior to most of the expensive risc "new instruction" server chips. Did you notice the Opteron launch? It outperformed nearly every server chip in multiple server areas such as high performance computations and transactions/minute and it was several times cheaper than any of the "new" server chips. Please, I've heard this a couple hundred times now, I've yet to see one person prove himself right.

[ddtlm]

Cubeboy:

You have so much more patience than me. :D

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Cubeboy
As I've said in one of my previous post those are FPGA chips, no where near as complex as a modern desktop processor. It'll be a while before we see 90nm PPC970s from IBM. In fact we've yet to see the announcement launching 130 nm PPC970s much less 90 nm PPC970s.

The first X86 processor was made by Intel in 1978, since then we've had the same group of people predicting that it is obsolete it will die "any time now". It's been 25 years since then, I've yet to see single sign of x86s death or any sign of weakening. Right now, the current line of Pentium 4s and Athlons are actually superior to most of the expensive risc "new instruction" server chips. Did you notice the Opteron launch? It outperformed nearly every server chip in multiple server areas such as high performance computations and transactions/minute and it was several times cheaper than any of the "new" server chips. Please, I've heard this a couple hundred times now, I've yet to see one person prove himself right.


Ah, but in the latest revissions of the AMD chips they more closely resemble a RISC processor (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) then they do a CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer). CISC being X86. So in fact AMD has amitted the failings of the X86 and has gone to RISC and is emulating an X86.

[ZeeOwl]

Getting back to the subject of the thread, here's some interesting field info...

I just ran some tests on my two computers (a 350Mhz Blue & White G3, and a 700Mhz iMac G4) using CineBench 2003 R8.1. I ran the speed tests both with the L2 cache enabled and disabled on both machines. Here are the results.

G3 350 with cache: 738.4 seconds.
G3 350 without cache: 901.0 seconds.
G4 700 with cache: 432.9 seconds.
G4 700 without cache: 632.1 seconds.

Now the two machines have some architectural similarities and differences.
Similiarities: 1 GiB CL2 RAM, 100 MHz FSB.
Differences: G3 - 512 kiB cache @ 233 Mhz, G4 - 256 kiB cache @ 700 Mhz.

Now, of course, the G4 is running at 7x the FSB, and the G3 only 3.5x. But even then, the cache-dependency of the G4 seems to be much higher than the G3's. Especially since the G3's cache is twice the size of the G4's (albeit, running at a slower speed). That would tend to indicate that the G3 is a superior, more efficient design than the G4. Makes the proposed IBM 750GX+AltiVec even more exciting, for Apple's consumer line. :D

I just recieved a Powerlogix 800 MHz G3 upgrade for my G3, and wanted to try it at 700 Mhz to compare G3 vs. G4 performance (the upgrade has a 512 kiB cache running at full processor speed). Theoretically then, the G3 should have slightly outperformed the G4, having a larger cache, and all other things being equal. But unfortunately my upgrade card was DOA. So I'll have to get back to you on that test.

[ddtlm]

MacBandit:

This RISC core in x86 clothes thing has been going on since the days of the Pentium Pro! And yet the x86 bashers march blindly on...

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by ddtlm
MacBandit:

This RISC core in x86 clothes thing has been going on since the days of the Pentium Pro! And yet the x86 bashers march blindly on...

How do you mean? Are you saying the current Pentiums are RISC with X86 emulation?

[ddtlm]

MacBandit:

How do you mean? Are you saying the current Pentiums are RISC with X86 emulation?
Yes. :) All of them, since and including the Pentium Pro. I think the AMD K6 was too but I don't intend to check. When reading (in-depth technical) articles on the modern x86 chips you'll a lot of talk about instruction decoding, which is the translation stage. Yeah, they knew a pure CISC processor was a bad idea some time ago. ;)

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by ddtlm
MacBandit:


Yes. :) All of them, since and including the Pentium Pro. I think the AMD K6 was too but I don't intend to check. When reading (in-depth technical) articles on the modern x86 chips you'll a lot of talk about instruction decoding, which is the translation stage. Yeah, they knew a pure CISC processor was a bad idea some time ago. ;)

So why the argument over RISC and why does Microsoft continue to right code for CISC when they could do RISC and Intel and AMD could drop the emulation?

Sounds to me like CISC is dead and the only thing keeping it is Windows.

[ddtlm]

MacBandit:

The RISC vs CISC thing is, in my opinion, just not important anymore. In fact, the instruction set which encodes my programs is almost irrelevant as well. All that matters is that programs run fast on a lot of computers. With ever higher-level (and therefore more wasteful) langauges like VB and Java being used to code more and more things, noone is going to notice the small performance hit that the x86 ISA probably takes.

I think that all anyone needs to know about PPC vs x86 is that they are different.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by ddtlm
MacBandit:

The RISC vs CISC thing is, in my opinion, just not important anymore. In fact, the instruction set which encodes my programs is almost irrelevant as well. All that matters is that programs run fast on a lot of computers. With ever higher-level (and therefore more wasteful) langauges like VB and Java being used to code more and more things, noone is going to notice the small performance hit that the x86 ISA probably takes.

I think that all anyone needs to know about PPC vs x86 is that they are different.


Sounds like anymore they are different but the same.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by ddtlm
mattmack:

Hey he called some pro-Intel stuff speculation, so he opened up his whole speculative outlook to attack. ;) True I just don't want this to turn into a flame war so I was just trying to be reasonable. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and those are the hardest things to convince people to change. I am all for respect of whatever opinion one holds and thank both of you for letting this remain a friendly discussion:)

[Cubeboy]

Originally posted by MacBandit
Ah, but in the latest revissions of the AMD chips they more closely resemble a RISC processor (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) then they do a CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer). CISC being X86. So in fact AMD has amitted the failings of the X86 and has gone to RISC and is emulating an X86.

And can you tell me exactly how much revision was done to the latest AMD chips as to call it a RISC chip. The fact is, as ddtlm stated that the CISC have gone through a very evolutionary change. The current x86 cpus are to some degree RISC processors but the external layer is still CISC, their still isn't any parallel pipelining in any of the current AMD and Intel processors, an current x86 instruction is on average 1.5 micro-ops which is still larger than the average RISC instruction and most importantly that they still have significantly larger instruction sets than any RISC processor with the instructions varying in length, hence they are still refered to largely as CISC processors. It's not abandoning as you put, but integration, today RISC chips support as many instructions as previous CISC chips certainly alot more than their predecessors, likewise, today's CISC chips use many techniques formerly associated with RISC chips.