IBM to License PowerPC

[MacRumors]

News.com reports (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-984669.html?tag=fd_top) that IBM is aiming towards broader PowerPC chip licensing:

The new plan, dubbed the open PowerPC licensing program, will offer the chip to a much wider range of potential customers.

Ultimately, a successful licensing business would help IBM establish its PowerPC processor more firmly in the marketplace, boosting its position against competitors such as the ARM and MIPS chips as well as rival companies like Motorola and Intel, an IBM representative said.


This expanded licensing will only be for the PowerPC 400 series at first -- described as a "system-on-a-chip" processor.

[MrMacMan]

Well I can see that working.

[iShater]

That would be a great way to get the competition moving!

[strider42]

the more customers IBM has, the more R&D they can do on the powerpc, and the more inclination they have to make the chips better and better. I think its great that they are looking to do more than supply themselves and a few others. Indirectly this could benefit apple greatly.

[evilfunkgenius]

...just give us the g5.

[Fender2112]

Do you think if we ask nicely, they will sell mac users a licence for a 970?

[dguisinger]

Originally posted by Fender2112
Do you think if we ask nicely, they will sell mac users a licence for a 970?

Why would you want a licence? This isnt like software, its not a license to use, its a license to make our own based off their patents and designs, aka, if I were to make a chip called SuperPPC and want to sell it.

[cubist]

I'm not sure what it's a license to do, but I sure hope Apple is doing whatever it is.

This kind of announcement makes me think that IBM intends to charge a pretty high price for the 970... and Apple won't be willing or able to pay it.:(

[nickmcghie]

Originally posted by cubist
I'm not sure what it's a license to do, but I sure hope Apple is doing whatever it is.

This kind of announcement makes me think that IBM intends to charge a pretty high price for the 970... and Apple won't be willing or able to pay it.:(

why would that be?? the more chips IBM sells, the cheaper it will be for them to produce. so i seriously doubt they would raise the price cuz of this... more likely, this will lead to lower prices for the powerpc.. and as someone else also mentioned, it will definitely lead to increased R&D, which can only be a good thing for us mac users :cool:

[sedarby]

Originally posted by nickmcghie


why would that be?? the more chips IBM sells, the cheaper it will be for them to produce. so i seriously doubt they would raise the price cuz of this... more likely, this will lead to lower prices for the powerpc.. and as someone else also mentioned, it will definitely lead to increased R&D, which can only be a good thing for us mac users :cool:

Remember, this is IBM we are talking about. Otherwise known as Big Blue, Big Brother, etc. They will charge whatever the market will bear or more precisely what someone will pay. High end processors for workstations and servers which seems to be their chosen market are very expensive. So, I wouldn't count on a 970 Mac anytime soon but that is just my humble opinion.

[nickmcghie]

Originally posted by sedarby


Remember, this is IBM we are talking about. Otherwise known as Big Blue, Big Brother, etc. They will charge whatever the market will bear or more precisely what someone will pay. High end processors for workstations and servers which seems to be their chosen market are very expensive. So, I wouldn't count on a 970 Mac anytime soon but that is just my humble opinion.

puhleeze.. i haven't heard IBM called Big Brother since the 80's :rolleyes: Big Brother now is Microsoft and Intel ;)

about the 970.. you're saying that it is targetted toward the workstation and server market, so there'll be no 970 for the mac anytime soon.. that's not exactly correct.. remember, it was the POWER4 that was targetted toward the workstation and high end server market.. IBM has already made clear that the 970, while based on the POWER4 design, is not intended to be a successor to the POWER4.. in fact, they've already speficially said that the 970 is for desktop purposes.. the successor to the POWER4 will be the POWER5 (no surprises there).. therefore, i think the chances of finding a 970 in future powermacs will be very high

[dguisinger]

Originally posted by nickmcghie


puhleeze.. i haven't heard IBM called Big Brother since the 80's :rolleyes: Big Brother now is Microsoft and Intel ;)

about the 970.. you're saying that it is targetted toward the workstation and server market, so there'll be no 970 for the mac anytime soon.. that's not exactly correct.. remember, it was the POWER4 that was targetted toward the workstation and high end server market.. IBM has already made clear that the 970, while based on the POWER4 design, is not intended to be a successor to the POWER4.. in fact, they've already speficially said that the 970 is for desktop purposes.. the successor to the POWER4 will be the POWER5 (no surprises there).. therefore, i think the chances of finding a 970 in future powermacs will be very high


Exactly........not to mention IBM has said in the past that they didn't feel AltiVec was important because they do server chips. Why add it unless you have customers who want it. Cisco isn't going to use a desktop chip, they will stick with Motorola. That doesn't leave too many companies that use G4's AltiVec units.

I really honestly can't beleive the naysayers. Steve Jobs said towards the end of last year that he was really excited about the roadmaps from both Motorola and IBM for this year. Now, I don't know what is exciting from Motorola, other than maybe their roadmap said "cancelled" which allowed Apple to turn to a different supplier. But, Steve couldn't be excited about a chip he's not planning on using. Further more, he definately (ok, it does NOT take a rocket scientist to figure this out) is NOT excited over any G3 compatable PPC chip from IBM for iBooks or CRT iMacs. We all know they are going to most likely ditch the G3 this year. Steve was hinting at the 970. I can't see why some people can't figure it out. Why would IBM want to sell the chip?? Maybe because thats one of IBM's core businesses and they sell almost every chip they make to 3rd parties. Better question: Other than blades and small servers, where does IBM see a market for the chip? They claim its for desktops and small servers. Name a manufacturer other than Apple who would buy in qty of 10,000 chips monthly? Thats right, you must buy in bulk when dealing with CPU manufacturers, unless you want a huge hit. The fact is, there is no one else who would use this chip in a desktop, other than maybe one or two small PPC linux companies which don't show up on IBM's radar! Its time for people to become less skepical, and look forward with a trust that Apple has most of its problems solved in 6 months time. Arguing over whether or not Apple will use it is pointless. They are already running the G4 at 1.42GHz, when it's not even going to be released at 1.33GHz until Q4 of this year. Motorola is a dead end. We know it. They know it. IBM has a chip that would do them wonders. IBM has very little use for it itself, other than a few servers. To keep those servers costs down, compared to Power4, the chip MUST be mass produced. IBM does not do enough volume on blades (5,000 last quarter) to make the chip low cost, and they do not have a market to sell PPC desktops to.....since linux will remain mostly on x86 due to its commodity pricing & availability, and without OS/2, IBM doesn't have a PPC desktop OS. So common, lets all say it: Apple PowerMacs and Xserves running on IBM 970 1.6GHz processors are due at the end of August.

[pilotgi]

Wouldn't it be cool if IBM sold the PPC 970 retail to individuals like AMD and Intel does? And a motherboard manufacturer like Shuttle or Asus could sell the motherboards for it and nVidia or SIS could make the chipsets for it.

Then us do-it-yourselfers could build our own PowerPC computers. Of course, Apple would probably never allow OSX to run on a home built machine, but there is PPC Linux.

[Sol]

Actually no, it would not be "cool" if PPC chips were sold retail. It is and never was "cool" to assemble your own computer. If you are putting together computers you are as far away from being "cool" as you can be. Not even money can make you "cool" now that you put together Windows boxes.

I do like the idea of IBM making money with the PPC from other ventures but I wonder if this would be a good thing for Apple. With the G4 Apple provided focus for the chip and so we got things like Altivec which does wonders on the desktop. If the 970 is geared towards blades, supercomputers, etc then what assurance would Apple have that it would be a suitable processor for desktop computers?

[3G4N]

Originally posted by Sol
Actually no, it would not be "cool" if PPC chips were sold retail. It is and never was "cool" to assemble your own computer. If you are putting together computers you are as far away from being "cool" as you can be. Not even money can make you "cool" now that you put together Windows boxes.

Wha?!! Yeah. The Woz is NOT cool. Screw all people who
assemble computers... What?!! Where is your hostility coming
from? Your Valentine's date go awry?

I build my own computers, and it's great. I don't claim to
be cool, but 1000's of people can't all be wrong...
... and to say that I and others are as far for cool as we can be...
Dude... Chill...

Originally posted by Sol
With the G4 Apple provided focus for the chip and so we got things like Altivec which does wonders on the desktop. If the 970 is geared towards blades, supercomputers, etc then what assurance would Apple have that it would be a suitable processor for desktop computers? [/B]

Read those last two sentences again. You wrote them.
What makes the 970 suitable for desktop? Altivec.

As my old football coach used to say...
"Don't take no Ph.D degree, knuckle-head!"

[Sol]

For the record, I was not being serious with the "cool" paragraph.

Altivec is all well and good but a processor made to be in a 16X configuration may not be as good on its own compared to a processor made to be in 1X configurations. I am concerned that IBM may not prioratise Apple as being the focus of this processor.

[nickmcghie]

Originally posted by Sol
I do like the idea of IBM making money with the PPC from other ventures but I wonder if this would be a good thing for Apple. With the G4 Apple provided focus for the chip and so we got things like Altivec which does wonders on the desktop. If the 970 is geared towards blades, supercomputers, etc then what assurance would Apple have that it would be a suitable processor for desktop computers?

as i already mentioned above, the 970 is geared toward desktop use.. in fact, IBM said so themselves.. yes, it's true that it's also geared towards blade servers.. but that does not include supercomputers and high-end servers.. that market is still reserved for the Power4/5 processors

[Telomar]

Originally posted by cubist
I'm not sure what it's a license to do, but I sure hope Apple is doing whatever it is.

This kind of announcement makes me think that IBM intends to charge a pretty high price for the 970... and Apple won't be willing or able to pay it.:( Basically they are just saying they will do what ARM has done forever and that's sell the rights to chip designs to other companies. Some may add something like multimedia extensions or make architectural adjustments to suit their market but the base design will be an IBM PPC processor.

Read up on ARM's business model and you will understand. This won't inherently make certain chips cheaper or more expensive but it will build up extra business for IBM.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by strider42
the more customers IBM has, the more R&D they can do on the powerpc, and the more inclination they have to make the chips better and better. I think its great that they are looking to do more than supply themselves and a few others. Indirectly this could benefit apple greatly.

i hope you are right, because the rest of the IT/IS world sees apple either as a has been, a company on its last legs, or just a straight ahead small boutique company (which i think it is and am quite happy to be one of its longtime customers..:p

[dongmin]

This could only be a good thing, in my opinion, as it opens the possibility for more suppliers for Apple. If for some reason IBM hits a snag in their manufacturing processes and can't produce sufficient yields, other manufacturers can potentially step in and fill the demand, unlike the case with Moto and the G4.

And more competition in the supplier market will most likely lead to lower prices.

[zach]

Originally posted by dongmin
And more competition in the supplier market will most likely lead to lower prices.

Yes, a iMac for less than 1000 dollars would be nice......

[sedarby]

Originally posted by nickmcghie


puhleeze.. i haven't heard IBM called Big Brother since the 80's :rolleyes: Big Brother now is Microsoft and Intel ;)

about the 970.. you're saying that it is targetted toward the workstation and server market, so there'll be no 970 for the mac anytime soon.. that's not exactly correct.. remember, it was the POWER4 that was targetted toward the workstation and high end server market.. IBM has already made clear that the 970, while based on the POWER4 design, is not intended to be a successor to the POWER4.. in fact, they've already speficially said that the 970 is for desktop purposes.. the successor to the POWER4 will be the POWER5 (no surprises there).. therefore, i think the chances of finding a 970 in future powermacs will be very high

I believe when all is said and done that IBM from the very beginning intended the 970 for their Linux machines and blade servers. Holding out for a 970 is like holding out for the colonization of Mars. It may happen but who know when.

[sedarby]

What it really boils down to is how much Apple will have to pay for this chip.

First off chips are usually very expensive and could be prohibitive for Apple at this time given the price point of their machines.

I hope I am wrong because I would love to see Apple push the performance envelope. Our next cue should come in May at the WWDC.

Any thoughts?

[dguisinger]

Originally posted by sedarby


I believe when all is said and done that IBM from the very beginning intended the 970 for their Linux machines and blade servers. Holding out for a 970 is like holding out for the colonization of Mars. It may happen but who know when.

Thats absolute BS. Linux machines? Thats a tiny market for desktop computers with PPC processors. Blades? They only sold 5000 last quarter. At that rate, the chips would cost more than the Power4. They obviously arent running Windows or OS/2. That only leaves one desktop OS, and wow, what a surprise, they added the vector instructions that OS already uses.

[dguisinger]

Originally posted by sedarby
What it really boils down to is how much Apple will have to pay for this chip.

First off chips are usually very expensive and could be prohibitive for Apple at this time given the price point of their machines.

I hope I am wrong because I would love to see Apple push the performance envelope. Our next cue should come in May at the WWDC.

Any thoughts?

Hey, you are probably right about WWDC. I totally forgot about that. It would make sense that Apple gives some direction a few months in advance, they tend to do that with enterprise level stuff (Xserve, OS X plans, etc).

If they are going with the 970, which I am 95% sure they are, then its a question of will 10.3 have 64-bit memory extensions? I am sure they would be proud to brag about that.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by dguisinger


Hey, you are probably right about WWDC. I totally forgot about that. It would make sense that Apple gives some direction a few months in advance, they tend to do that with enterprise level stuff (Xserve, OS X plans, etc).

If they are going with the 970, which I am 95% sure they are, then its a question of will 10.3 have 64-bit memory extensions? I am sure they would be proud to brag about that.

IBM has said that the PPC970 is coming out after WWDC, so the best we could get is Apple breaking their traditional secrecy and preannouncing it. As for 10.3, 10.2 may already support the 970. IBM has said that only very minor changes are required for a 32 bit OS to support it (and Apple's had plenty of advance notice to make those changes).

In response to the posts above, the 970 is definitely a desktop chip. Who's desktops is still unknown, but Apple is really the only volume PPC desktop manufacturer (A few others make them, but they're essentially irrelevant to a company of IBM's size). I would guess that IBM told Apple about the 970 and Apple said "Great! Does it have Altivec?", and IBM decided that it was worth a slight increase in die size to get Apple as a customer (I would imagine they've been planning on using it in blades and Linux workstations all along, but those aren't that high volume compared to something like an iMac, or even a PowerMac).

[nickgold]

Folks... Altivec/vector processing is useful for scientific applications, as well as desktop multimedia. So Altivec is not only good for Apple, say, but also NIH and other large organizations that may end up using the 970 (from what I understand, NIH is already into Macs).

[MacQuest]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


I hope you are right, because the rest of the IT/IS world sees apple either as a has been, a company on its last legs...

Being a member of the IT/IS world myself, I would beg to differ.

We network admin's here at Xerox are putting together a proposal to junk our Windows NT server by 4th quarter of this year and replace it with an Xserve solution.

I do believe we are not alone:

?Just six months after the shipping of the first Xserve... Xserve is already in use at over 100 Fortune 500 companies and hundreds of universities and schools across the country". [Feb 10]

Granted Apple's got a long way to go, but I love being part of this uphill battle.:D

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by sedarby


I believe when all is said and done that IBM from the very beginning intended the 970 for their Linux machines and blade servers. Holding out for a 970 is like holding out for the colonization of Mars. It may happen but who know when.

LOL. I've been watching rumor boards for 3 years and have become very good at predicting what will come out of apple. The 970 is a CERTAIN thing. You will see it in desktop Macs. Apple has consistantly produced rumor-restant hardware and software, for sure. The end result is that they have really produced some incredible stuff recently, and Jobs practically pointed at IBM and said "gimme, gimme, gimme" when asked about Apple's future CPU plans. He said 2003 would be the biggest year EVER for Apple. This means software and hardware, but it also means a "g5" or whatever else you want to call it.

Make no mistake, Motorola is out of the Mac Pro Desktop line come July/Aug/Sept. IBM is in. I see the G4 in low power designs moving to all the portables up to 1.4 GHz, while the Desktops will have 1st gen. 970's at 1.6 or 1.8. New architectrues to match the chips, too. The 970 will scale FAST, and I would not be suprised to see 2.2 GHz or faster 970's by early 2004.

Hardly anything in the past 2 years has been telegraphed so well by Apple... it's a matter of when, not IF.

[strider42]

Originally posted by Frobozz

Hardly anything in the past 2 years has been telegraphed so well by Apple... it's a matter of when, not IF.

While I actually agree that the 970 will almost certainly become the high end chip for apple, I wonder what apple has done to telegraph that it will happen. As far as I know, everything about the 970 coming to macs has been pure speculation based around the fect that its a desktop PPC chip with altivec instruction. All the info has come from IBM, not a single thing from apple. The only statement I'm aware of when jobs said he was excited about what both IBM and Moto were going to have this year. To me, it just seems logical, but there has been essentially no actual evidence that I'm aware of.

[Sol]

Don't IBM make the G3 chips? The fact that G3s are still used today is a good indication of IBM's future in Apple. Besides, it is not like Windows will ever run on the 970 chip so Apple can depend on IBM for a processor better-suited to OS X.

I wonder though why no-one ever mentions Transmetta CPUs for Apple hardware. I imagine that it would be easier to port OS X for Transmetta processors than it would be for Pentiums. These processors are said to have the lowest temperatures and are ideal for laptops.

Whatever choice Apple makes, I am looking forward to their next generation of hardware. Now if only they would start this new generation with a video iPod...

[jefhatfield]

transmeta would be cool and help laptop battery life

and we are already ahead of the pc crowd in hours and minutes usage time on laptops

[GeneR]

I'm wondering what a Power4 does and what a 970 would do, and what the difference is between these types of chips and why Power4's aren't for desktops.

If someone could enlighten me on that, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

:)

[GeneR]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
transmeta would be cool and help laptop battery life

and we are already ahead of the pc crowd in hours and minutes usage time on laptops

I thought Transmeta's big problem was the fact that they still couldn't get their chips as fast as the competition even though their energy consumption is way lower than Intel and AMD. I thought that's why their marketing strategy is still to play up the battery life and not the speed.

[jefhatfield]

for laptops, speed has not been the issue for ages...the big thing is battery time, then other things like weight, price, features, etc

speed, for laptops, is low on the list

if you want speed, get a desktop

also, i have seen some laptops with two optical drives...and even though that is nice, it is not high on anyone's laptop priority list

again, if you want two optical drives, then get a desktop

there is not a 128 mb video card for laptops that i know of and if you want that much vram, then get a desktop

the transmeta concept is key for those that want good battery times for a laptop

[Dave Marsh]

The Power4 is IBM's PowerPC server chip. The 970 is a mini-Power4 with only one core (vice two), much less L2 cache, no provision for L3 cache, and IBM's "AltiVec" instruction set built-in. Basically, it's designed specifically for desktop and low-end servers. It's a much smaller chip, so should be much cheaper to produce at higher yields. IBM has indicated its desire to use the chip in Linux workstations. Observers in the industry believe the fact IBM added the SIMD (single instruction multiple data) "AltiVec" instructions means that it has been in collaboration with Apple in the design of this chip, and hence why we all believe this will be incorporated into the next generation PowerMacs this summer/fall.

Personally, I believe Apple will put these in its PowerMacs first, probably at 1.4/1.6GHz to start, with the 1.2GHz version to be rolled into the 17" PowerBook. I then believe Apple will probably put the faster G4s (7457s) in the other PowerBooks, with faster G3s or 7447 (no L3 cache) G4s in the iBooks. The iMacs will then be free to have better G4s (7457), as well. As IBM gets 970 production rolling and moves to 90nm and the speed ramps up, we'll then start seeing 970s in all PowerXXX models, with probably only the iBooks retaining the G4s in the end.

[jefhatfield]

...then i wonder if the g3 will be retired

[Dave Marsh]

I agree completely that battery life is probably the most important feature of a laptop. It's great to plop down on the sofa, or in bed in the evening, and not give a thought to plugging in the power. In fact, with WiFi, I've NOTHING plugged in, for up to 4+ hours at a time.

That said, I would expect the chips with the best battery life to be used in the laptops. For the iBooks, that's currently the G3. With the release of the 7447(no L3)/7457(L3) G4s, and the upcoming 19W 1.2GHz 970, their use in laptops is very likely. While the 600MHz G3 in my iBook has been perfectly acceptable, I do envy the smoother scrolling of my spouse's 700MHz PIII VAIO, although certainly not the OS. That means, for customers like me, a G4 or better is rapidly becoming more important to me in a future laptop. While the 970's 19W is definitely better than the 60W(??) of the P4 laptop, it will probably require some of that unused space in the new huge case to be filled with a larger battery to keep the usage period reasonable.

Yes, I think the G3 is rapidly approaching EOL, probably within the next year, unless IBM adds SIMD instructions and ups the speed substantially.

[macphoria]

-----unless IBM adds SIMD instructions and ups the speed substantially.

Isn't G3 with SIMD a G4? Would IBM adding SIMD to their own G3 be different than G4 from Motorola?

[Dave Marsh]

Many people suggest they'd be similar, but the key difference is that the new chip would be from a manufacturer who can actually reliably produce enough chips to sell.;)

Also, I don't believe I've seen any G3s with L3 cache, but since Apple seems loathe to put L3 cache in low-end Macs anyway that's probably not a issue.

In the end, however, I'm not sure it would be cost effective for IBM to produce a new generation G3 for such a small market. I think that decision would have to be based on the versions of the new 970 and Motorola's continuing production of the 7447/7457 G4s.

[macphoria]

That makes sense. If Apple decides to move from G3, it would be easier to use G4 from Motorola than have IBM G3 incorporate SIMD.