IBM's Manufacturing Techniques (SSDOI and HOT) [Archive]

MacRumors

Sep 9, 2003, 05:46 PM

The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/32722.html) delves a bit into some details of two new manufacturing techniques that IBM has developed.

The two new technologies, 'Strained Silicon Directly on Insulatar' (SSDOI) and Hybrid Orientation Technique (HOT), allow IBM to increase performance (by 40-65%) and decrease power requirements of future chips.

The techniques are being presented at the Internaltion Electron Devices Meeting in December of this year, and is expected to be commercially implemented in the next few years.

IBM manufactures the PowerPC 970 (G5) for Apple's PowerMac line as well as the G3 processor, currently used in the iBook.

mvc

Sep 9, 2003, 05:49 PM

And for their next trick - diamond semiconductors!

Sep 9, 2003, 05:53 PM

this sounds like powerbooks ... the next generation ... not the next revision :)
.a

Fender2112

Sep 9, 2003, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Macrumors
... IBM manufactures the PowerPC 970 (G5) for Apple's PowerMac line as well as the G3 processor, currently used in the iBook.

In case you didn't know already. :rolleyes:

MrMacMan

Sep 9, 2003, 06:06 PM

Good to know.

Keep the new stuff coming IBM!

:D

robotrenegade

Sep 9, 2003, 06:08 PM

Not real news.

iomar

Sep 9, 2003, 06:09 PM

The future looks good for Apple. I can't wait to see the future Macs!

Mr. Anderson

Sep 9, 2003, 06:12 PM

Its always good to see how the chips can be made faster, even though we keep hearing about all the issues and the eventual limit being reached with the current materials.

Its only too bad that its going to be a few years before we see this - G6 or G7?

D

Photorun

Sep 9, 2003, 06:35 PM

Now if only Apple could slap the new G3 in the Powerbooks, Apple could just say their G5s, and sell them to shut up all these whining "where's my G5 Powerbook WWAAAAHHH" types.

davidc2182

Sep 9, 2003, 06:56 PM

so what happens when they try to run an altivec optimized app? apple goes oops?

york2600

Sep 9, 2003, 07:00 PM

Sounds great and all, but anyone remember how long SOI technology took to get to market. It's not like we're going to see this in 6-12 months. Long time from now, but this is still good news.

Freg3000

Sep 9, 2003, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by davidc2182
so what happens when they try to run an altivec optimized app? apple goes oops?

The new G3 is going to have Alitvec. :)

Keep on chuggin' along iBM.

dguisinger

Sep 9, 2003, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by Freg3000
The new G3 is going to have Alitvec. :)

Keep on chuggin' along iBM.

Sometimes you guys are.......well I dont know, I dont like to call names.....but sometimes you really are morons.

Seriously.....lets all call it a G3....because its based on the G3 and has AltiVec. You know what? If thats the case, Apple already sells G3 PowerBooks.

Thats right, the only large improvement in the G4 is AltiVec. If IBM slapped AltiVec on a G3 core, it WOULD BE CALLED A G4.

Infact, IBM's would be more advanced most likely in the core design over Motorola's, making it much more worthy of the G4 designator.

Macmaniac

Sep 9, 2003, 07:40 PM

Whoa we actually get progress out of IBM in regular intervals!! All we ever heard from Moto was oops delays:eek:

Mr. MacPhisto

Sep 9, 2003, 07:42 PM

A modded G3 from IBM w/ Altivec might as well be called a G4 - as others have already said. If it provides better FSB support with architectural improvements over Moto's design then it'll sell as a great consumer end chip no matter what the designation. I would never call it a G5, however, because that is understood to refer to a 64-bit chip. I think Apple will not be able to call another 32-bit chip anything other than G4 unless they change the nomenclature.

I also think the G5 will go in the PowerBooks - although the rumors of IBM skipping 90nm and going straight to 60nm may put that off. Last I heard, 60nm was on schedule for production late next year (late Q3 to Q4) and I haven't heard about it being moved up, but it would be amazing if it was - and it could lead to the G5 being used in all Apples if enough variation in speed could be arranged to differentiate the consumer and pro lines enough.

pgwalsh

Sep 9, 2003, 07:47 PM

Freg3000

Sep 9, 2003, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by dguisinger
Sometimes you guys are.......well I dont know, I dont like to call names.....but sometimes you really are morons.

Seriously.....lets all call it a G3....because its based on the G3 and has AltiVec. You know what? If thats the case, Apple already sells G3 PowerBooks.

Thats right, the only large improvement in the G4 is AltiVec. If IBM slapped AltiVec on a G3 core, it WOULD BE CALLED A G4.

Infact, IBM's would be more advanced most likely in the core design over Motorola's, making it much more worthy of the G4 designator.

I'm sorry, I totally missed that. Isn't that what I am saying? Someone said that they should put G3s in the PowerBooks, to which someone else said that the G3s don't have Altivec. So I say that the next incarnation of the G3 will have Altivec on it. Did I imply that a G3 w/Altiec is not a G4? I don't think so....

If you do, I guess I am a "moron."

Docrjm

Sep 9, 2003, 07:58 PM

Call it a G4+:D

Fender2112

Sep 9, 2003, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by pgwalsh
So would you call it a G4?

How about a G4i (for ibm). :)

scem0

Sep 9, 2003, 08:05 PM

It still feels strange to see a semiconductor manufacturer work extremely hard to put out great chips...

hint hint moto sucks hint hint. ;)

Good job IBM - put us ahead of Intel and AMD :).

scem0

cunnin61

Sep 9, 2003, 08:09 PM

G3 with Altivec... call it a Mobile G5. Who cares if it isn't 64-bit. Just look at Intel chips, it's all about marketing that sounds cool but means nothing.

They stuck with the Pentium name now for 4 generations, when the name was just supposed to be cooler than 586.

MikeH

Sep 9, 2003, 08:10 PM

A rose by any other name smells just as sweet...

Who gives a ***** what the damn chip is called - does it do the job?

Freg3000

Sep 9, 2003, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by MikeH
A rose by any other name smells just as sweet...

Who gives a ***** what the damn chip is called - does it do the job?

That does it for me. :)

Catfish_Man

Sep 9, 2003, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by doc_mac
Call it a G4+:D

Already got that (although Moto calls it the G4e). It'd have to be G4++, and if you increment G4, you get G5 (really lame programming joke, for those who didn't get it).

btw, this new process tech they're talking about in the article probably isn't going to be around for another few years.

pilotgi

Sep 9, 2003, 09:40 PM

IBM has been very quiet about the development of the G3. I wonder if this is at the request of Apple?

SiliconAddict

Sep 9, 2003, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by cunnin61
G3 with Altivec... call it a Mobile G5. Who cares if it isn't 64-bit. Just look at Intel chips, it's all about marketing that sounds cool but means nothing.

They stuck with the Pentium name now for 4 generations, when the name was just supposed to be cooler than 586.

Umm no. You start dicking with the naming conventions you are going to have some seriously pissed off switchers and buyers who are going to raise a holy stink when they find out that whaaaa? That G5 that is under the hood of their new laptop isn't the same G5 that is in the desktop. You would have people yelling false advertising in a heartbeat.
As for intel. They have several ongoing lawsuits in regards to performance of certain P4 chips that don't even beat out the speed of even the P3's.

I'm in agreement with the idea of calling it a G4[insert snappy cool designator here] Keep it all in the family. Maybe call it a iG4. Apple likes calling its stuff i ;) :p

PS- Also something to think about: at some point Apple will have a version of OS X that is optimized for the 64-bit G5. You start calling non 64-bit CPU's a G5 and someone goes to install a version of OS X that is optimized for it and get really confused as to why they don't have any type of speed increase.

pgwalsh

Sep 9, 2003, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Fender2112
How about a G4i (for ibm). :) I like this idea...
I think I would do the G3V For vector processing or as someone else mentioned G4M for mobile.... I like it.

Does IBM call it Vector Processing or something else?

Wonder Boy

Sep 9, 2003, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by pgwalsh
So would you call it a G4?

That's what I was thinking.

Photorun

Sep 9, 2003, 10:05 PM

upstream, I went out (have a life) and came back to see your snarky comment.

I was assuming most who come to these forums are fairly Mac knowledgeable... clearly not, or you aren't. As someone already corrected you, G3 750s HAVE Altivec which is why I posted what I did.

Not that they always have the most accurate info but macosrumors.com has a lengthy post about the 750. The Altivec G3 IBM has been known about for a while, I've been excited about it after reading it's white paper in (I think) May. In many, many ways it's better than the G4, has more life to it, that's for sure, and being IBM HOPEFULLY can actually, you know, be delivered on time?

As far as naming I could care less, call it Napolean or WicketWidget or, heck, Jobs4, as long as it's faster in specs and will advance the [Macintosh] platform bring it on. (fast)

edgar_is_good

Sep 9, 2003, 10:07 PM

How about calling it a G4M for mobile (like P4M)? At that point it would probably just be going in ibooks and maybe the 12inch, and it'll be so low power it'll be practically begging to be called a mobile chip. Or not, whatever.

Phil Of Mac

Sep 9, 2003, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
Its always good to see how the chips can be made faster, even though we keep hearing about all the issues and the eventual limit being reached with the current materials.

Its only too bad that its going to be a few years before we see this - G6 or G7?

Probably G7. G6 is likely too imminent to use any of this, but it's possible. I'm pegging the release of the G6 at 18 months from the G5.

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
I also think the G5 will go in the PowerBooks - although the rumors of IBM skipping 90nm and going straight to 60nm may put that off. Last I heard, 60nm was on schedule for production late next year (late Q3 to Q4) and I haven't heard about it being moved up, but it would be amazing if it was - and it could lead to the G5 being used in all Apples if enough variation in speed could be arranged to differentiate the consumer and pro lines enough.

It will definitely go into a PowerBook, unless the G6 comes out fast enough to skip the G5.

If IBM is skipping 60 nm, that indicates that Apple is going to a PowerBook G5 at 120 nm anyway--which would indicate an imminent release.

Catfish_Man

Sep 9, 2003, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Photorun
upstream, I went out (have a life) and came back to see your snarky comment.

I was assuming most who come to these forums are fairly Mac knowledgeable... clearly not, or you aren't. As someone already corrected you, G3 750s HAVE Altivec which is why I posted what I did.

Not that they always have the most accurate info but macosrumors.com has a lengthy post about the 750. The Altivec G3 IBM has been known about for a while, I've been excited about it after reading it's white paper in (I think) May. In many, many ways it's better than the G4, has more life to it, that's for sure, and being IBM HOPEFULLY can actually, you know, be delivered on time?

As far as naming I could care less, call it Napolean or WicketWidget or, heck, Jobs4, as long as it's faster in specs and will advance the [Macintosh] platform bring it on. (fast)

Whoa, since when do G3s (shipping ones anyway) have Altivec. I've written Altivec code and it most definitely does NOT run on G3s. Linkage to this whitepaper please?

Mr. MacPhisto

Sep 9, 2003, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
Whoa, since when do G3s (shipping ones anyway) have Altivec. I've written Altivec code and it most definitely does NOT run on G3s. Linkage to this whitepaper please?

I think he's referring to an upcoming release that is a 750 series update with altivec - coming after the 750GX, which could appear in the next iBook revision at 1.1 GHZ. Likely early Q2 next year.

Catfish_Man

Sep 9, 2003, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
I think he's referring to an upcoming release that is a 750 series update with altivec - coming after the 750GX, which could appear in the next iBook revision at 1.1 GHZ. Likely early Q2 next year.

OK, that's fine then. I'd still like better confirmation of it then rumors though... I can see some possible places IBM would market it (specifically if they've really decided that they want Motorola's embedded market share. A low 1.xGHz G3 with Altivec and an on-chip memory controller could handily demolish the G4+ in medium-low end embedded. The shorter pipeline and slightly less advanced architecture would be limiting for higher end stuff, but in the mid-low range...)

panphage

Sep 9, 2003, 10:36 PM

The 750GX (Gobi) was rumored to have "Altivec". It doesn't. Now there's talk of a 750VX (I think) with "Altivec", codename Mojave (I think). No announced IBM G3 chip has "Altivec". No produced IBM G3 chip has "altivec".

EDIT: Ok, I'm too old to be calling strangers names.

The term "Altivec" is in quotes since it's motorolla's term. Apple calls it "Velocity Engine". I don't know what IBM calls it's implementation (for the G5). Technically no IBM chip EVER made, from now until the end of time, will EVER have altivec since Altivec is a motorolla mark. IBM calls the vector unit something else.

EDIT: IBM also announced a G3 chip at 1.0Ghz...TWO YEARS AGO. http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2001/10/15/ibm/ I wonder why the FX took so long to get to market and why it hasn't improved since then? I mean, IBM was claiming they'd get to 2GHz by October 02. Ok, claims are claims...but maybe the G4 stalling at 500...and again at 1.0/1.25...maybe that held Big Blue back a touch?

Phil Of Mac

Sep 9, 2003, 10:38 PM

Nah. By the time that an Altivec-G3 comes out, the G5 can go across the line.

And IBM just refers to it in generic terms as an SIMD unit.

Catfish_Man

Sep 9, 2003, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Nah. By the time that an Altivec-G3 comes out, the G5 can go across the line.

And IBM just refers to it in generic terms as an SIMD unit.

VMX, actually.

Phil Of Mac

Sep 9, 2003, 10:58 PM

Altivec G3 or not, it's not going to have SSDOI or HOT.

Flynnstone

Sep 9, 2003, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by mvc
And for their next trick - diamond semiconductors!

IBM and others are working on that.

Flynnstone

Sep 9, 2003, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by Fender2112
How about a G4i (for ibm). :)

For the Canadians call it the G4eh :D

eric_n_dfw

Sep 9, 2003, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by panphage
The term "Altivec" is in quotes since it's motorolla's term. Apple calls it "Velocity Engine". I don't know what IBM calls it's implementation (for the G5). Technically no IBM chip EVER made, from now until the end of time, will EVER have altivec since Altivec is a motorolla mark. IBM calls the vector unit something else.
IBM can and did/does refer to it as Altivec (tm): http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/newsletter/dec2002/newproductfocus2.html

It appears that they licensed it.

eric_n_dfw

Sep 9, 2003, 11:21 PM

I'm now convinced that there are lurkers here that enjoy rating stories negative just to be different.

Flynnstone

Sep 9, 2003, 11:23 PM

OK what to put in the Apple consumer line. Presently G3 (750) from IBM. Whats a good next move & to distance from Motorola?
- I like on cpu memory controller (keep latency to a minimum, L3 cache not required)
- Hyper Transport local bus to connect peripherals and AGP (fast)
- what the heck throw in the "Velocity Engine"
- optimize for single processor operation (Power series duals)
- change instruction ordering to match the 970 so compiler can optimize for IBM
- only a 32 bitter (for near term anyways)
- ?

Phil Of Mac

Sep 9, 2003, 11:53 PM

Flynnstone, wouldn't it just be easier to put the G5 in everything, and to make more cost-efficient G5's? I just don't get this "Let's trick out a G3" obsession.

hose this!

Sep 10, 2003, 12:37 AM

I think this bodes very well for Apple. It's nice to see them hook up with another company that takes innovation seriously and can consistently produce new 'wow' products.

IBM has a great client in Apple because they're dealing with the only OEM in the PC biz that can command high margins and deal decent volume.

hose this!

Sep 10, 2003, 12:37 AM

now where are the G5 PBs, dammit? :D

panphage

Sep 10, 2003, 03:42 AM

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
IBM can and did/does refer to it as Altivec (tm): http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/newsletter/dec2002/newproductfocus2.html

It appears that they licensed it.

Well whattayaknow. There it is in black and white (depending on your browser defaults.) Who would have thought that IBM would not only make chips with a vector unit, but go ahead and refer to it as AltiVec. I seem to remember SIMD/No SIMD being a bit of a falling out between IBM and Mot, but times change I guess. Hell, I can remember when IBM was the cruel, evil, cold, faceless corporate enemy of all things Apple and Microsoft was Apple's largest and most prolific third-party developer. Times change indeed.

JayBee

Sep 10, 2003, 05:48 AM

Just a few quick thoughts on naming conventions. This is all pretty baseless and fantastic. I'm just rambling, but if you throw enough **** at the side of a barn...

I'm assuming that Apple is going to want to kill off the "G3" as soon as possible. I think a lot of people correlate the G3 branding with OS 9, and correlate the G4 and G5 with OS X. If you can remove the G3 from the equation, you're looking at a much more "unified" hardware front.

It seems, from the comments posted about IBM's tentative G3 roadmap a couple of years ago, that Moto's sluggish G4 ramping has been responsible (at least in part) for some artificial hobbling of the G3 line of machines. We can see the current uneasiness at having the prosumer iMac outperforming the fully pro TiBook. Imagine the iBook was outclocking the TiBook as well? Can't have that!

My feeling is that the "G3 with Altivec" would just be rebranded as "G4". I can't see this causing any compatibility problems, and it would satisfy Apple's abhorrance of breaking up the brand with suffixes. How many different "G4" chips have we had? And how many have been given different names?

The way I see it, this would allow these "G4"s to take over the consumer line (iBook and iMac), while the G5s would consume the pro line.

Who cares what the chip's called. It's not like there's a rule (AFAIK) that only Moto chips can be called G4. It's Apple's brand, so they can call the chips anything they damn well like!

I think they could use the release of an IBM G4 to kick Moto in the teeth a bit. They could shunt the Moto G4s into the iBooks (they've shown they can easily do this with the 12" pBook), start building the IBM G4s into the pBooks as a stopgap while awaiting the G5s.

Then, when pBooks load with the G5s, the IBM G4 slips to the iBook and... what does Moto do? G4s for the iMac? Why? G4s for the eMac? Maybe. Yeah, we'll let them make the kiddie machine. For a while ;-)

Then we'll pour some sugar in their gas tank while they're not looking...

Analog Kid

Sep 10, 2003, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
Already got that (although Moto calls it the G4e). It'd have to be G4++, and if you increment G4, you get G5 (really lame programming joke, for those who didn't get it).

Buzz. You fail the interview...

It wouldn't be a G5 until after it's used... ++G4 would be a G5 before it's used. :p

Sorry, I figure this thread is already far enough off topic...

Back on topic: I'm just psyched to see a roadmap ahead. Yeah, it'll be a while before we actually get to use anything off the new process, but at least we know there's room for improvement after each iteration. With Mot it's been a struggle just to get to 90nm and the next question is whether they'll just quit and sell their fabs...

senjaz

Sep 10, 2003, 06:52 AM

They stuck with the Pentium name now for 4 generations, when the name was just supposed to be cooler than 586.

I thought it had more to do with trademarks, i.e. you can't trademark a number so other chip makers could produce their own compatible chips with the same model number.

mvc

Sep 10, 2003, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Analog Kid
Buzz. You fail the interview...

It wouldn't be a G5 until after it's used... ++G4 would be a G5 before it's used. :p

Sorry, I figure this thread is already far enough off topic...

switch(processor)
{
case Motorola:
exit (as soon as possible)
case IBM:
continue (as long as they are faster)
default :
not intel (pleease no)
}

Mr. MacPhisto

Sep 10, 2003, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Nah. By the time that an Altivec-G3 comes out, the G5 can go across the line.

And IBM just refers to it in generic terms as an SIMD unit.

I agree here. I think the 750GX will be the last G3 used by Apple in the iBook. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple announces the G5 across the board at next year's WWDC. It'd be wonderful if they did it @ MWSF, but that isn't going to happen if IBM is skipping 90nm.

Docrjm

Sep 10, 2003, 10:13 AM

After the G6 we will have to look at fairly diif names. There already has been G7 , which is now the G8. Whenever they meet there is frequent disruption.
Come to think of it we could still use G8, so long as we are disrupting intel!
:D

Steamboatwillie

Sep 10, 2003, 12:25 PM

'Strained Silicon Directly on Insulatar'

The future seems to be here quicker than I expected. Is it me or do every day items all of a sudden feel like they cam right out of a Star Trek episode?

mvc

Sep 10, 2003, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Steamboatwillie
'Strained Silicon Directly on Insulatar'

The future seems to be here quicker than I expected. Is it me or do every day items all of a sudden feel like they cam right out of a Star Trek episode?

Wait till 2017, when your new quantum Mac ships with "64 qubit photonic teleportation bus" or maybe a "Heisenberg uncertainty quantum-state buffer"

But will it play WarcraftVII?

CooCooCaChoo

Sep 11, 2003, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by panphage
Well whattayaknow. There it is in black and white (depending on your browser defaults.) Who would have thought that IBM would not only make chips with a vector unit, but go ahead and refer to it as AltiVec. I seem to remember SIMD/No SIMD being a bit of a falling out between IBM and Mot, but times change I guess. Hell, I can remember when IBM was the cruel, evil, cold, faceless corporate enemy of all things Apple and Microsoft was Apple's largest and most prolific third-party developer. Times change indeed.

The issue had nothing to do with any political or anti-Apple, the cold hard fact is that IBM's main use for the PowerPC is the server which does not need SIMD extensions.

Apple approached IBM, IBM more than happy as they would have another customer meaning greater number of CPU's made meaning a larger economy of scale resulting in IBM being able to lower their pricing on their AIX/Power4 machines whilst still making a tidy profit.

As for any rumours out there about Itanium and Apple, for some reason I don't think Apple is going to start using CPU's that consume 100watts of energy and need a tornado to ventilate the computer properly.