Observation about G5 roadmap

[mcrain]

http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/PPCRMAP.pdf

Has anyone else noticed that the Motorola roadmap does not describe the G5 as having altivec technology?

Is that significant, or is this something old that I'm just noticing.

[Mr. Anderson]

I noticed that too, but I made the assumption at the time that it was part of the architecture, but wasn't mentioned because that didn't change from the G4. Now if I'm wrong, as well I could be, that would be screwy, don't you think?http://www.dukestreet.com/AS/hmm.gif

Why put all that effort into Alti-vec only to dump it in the next upgrade, doesn't really make sense.

[mcrain]

No, you are right, it doesn't make any sense. But, then again, it doesn't make sense to sit on your butt and not work to improve your chip designs when your competitors' chips are improving at an exponential rate.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by mcrain
http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/PPCRMAP.pdf

Has anyone else noticed that the Motorola roadmap does not describe the G5 as having altivec technology?

Is that significant, or is this something old that I'm just noticing. I've noticed it too. I think that the reason that the G5 (G6 for that matter as well) doesn't include Altivec is because Motorola may not be supplying G5s to Apple. Do routers and such need Altivec? I'm not sure.

The other theory is that Motorola is abiding by Apple's wishes and keeping everything hush-hush. Look at when they intro'd the Apollos. The press releases mention nothing about their use in Macs. Mainly routers and such (I think I may have answered my first question). Only after Apple announced the Dual Gig, did Motorola say that the 7455's were used in Macs.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by mcrain
No, you are right, it doesn't make any sense. But, then again, it doesn't make sense to sit on your butt and not work to improve your chip designs when your competitors' chips are improving at an exponential rate. You have to look at the last time that road map was updated. I'm not looking right now, but I think it was early 2001 or late 2000.

[tortus]

Yeah, It has not updated in a long time. I remember looking at it over a year ago with the same chart found today. As far as the g5 is concerned in the context of the roadmap, I don't think we will get much information about the chip beyond its name. I would assume that it will employ the Altivec technology. That is, if g5s are in the next "powermac" line. If they are, I pray to Valhalla that Apple ends its relationship with Motorolla and has IBM/AMD/an army of monkeys fab the chips

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by ftaok
Do routers and such need Altivec? I'm not sure.


The CPU in routers build routing tables using routing protocols, such as BGP and OSPF. Modern routers then take the table and shove it down into ASIC's that do all the actual routing in hardware. Currently Cisco uses MIPS procs in their equipment.

I don't think routers would gain much advantage from Altivec. The Dijkstra algorithm that OSPF uses does not uses numbers big enough to see much advantage in the unit. BGP is basically a big lookup table generated by determining the fewest "autonomous systems" between two locations.

So, now I don't think routers need Altivec

[gbojim]

I don't think routers would gain much advantage from Altivec. The Dijkstra algorithm that OSPF uses does not uses numbers big enough to see much advantage in the unit. BGP is basically a big lookup table generated by determining the fewest "autonomous systems" between two locations.


Actually, Motorola won the Cisco contract mostly due to Altivec. Routing algorithms perform common repetitive tasks on large quantities of small numbers which is exactly what Altivec excels at.

Also, even though it may not be in the roadmap, the MPC8540 which is going to Cisco does have a SIMD built in - I haven't seen any info on whether it is still called Altivec.

[wrylachlan]

If there is a motorola G5, it is nowhere in this roadmap. If you look at the bottom of the chart it clearly states that 8xx and 8xxx chips are for the communications market not the CPU market. Since all G5's in the chart are 85xx...

[tortus]

But, Apple is most likely being very "hush hush" about the upcoming powermacs requiring that Motorola also play mind games by suggesting that the 85xx family be used only for communications. All I have learned about Apple's future is not to take stabs at it. Let it happen, and we will all be pleased at some point regardless of its latency in coming to market.

[gbojim]

If there is a motorola G5, it is nowhere in this roadmap. If you look at the bottom of the chart it clearly states that 8xx and 8xxx chips are for the communications market not the CPU market. Since all G5's in the chart are 85xx...

If you look a little more closely it says communications and consumer. Apple products fall under the consumer label for Motorola semiconductor devices.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by gbojim
If you look a little more closely it says communications and consumer. Apple products fall under the consumer label for Motorola semiconductor devices. Actually ...

If you look at it real closely, you'll see that Apple products would fall under the 7xxx - high performance microprocessor targeting computing and high-end embedded. The 8xxx - integrated processor targeting the Communications and Consumer markets.

My theory is that if Motorola were to supply the G5 for Apple, it would be a 75xx chip. Right now, I'm 70/30 leaning towards IBM supplying the G5.

[eirik]

Cisco routers would also enjoy AltiVec for encryption, IPSec that is. Applying the same operation to many IP datagrams. Oh yeah, AltiVec good, Eirik like!!!!

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by eirik
Cisco routers would also enjoy AltiVec for encryption, IPSec that is. Applying the same operation to many IP datagrams. Oh yeah, AltiVec good, Eirik like!!!!

Definitely. Have you seen the Arstechnica forums thread about Altivec programming? It's quite interesting. Really shows off how badly PC133 ram hurts the G4.

[gbojim]

If you look at it real closely, you'll see that Apple products would fall under the 7xxx - high performance microprocessor targeting computing and high-end embedded. The 8xxx - integrated processor targeting the Communications and Consumer markets.


No argument for the 7xxx series. For the 8xxx series at this time Apple's products are covered under consumer.

[buffsldr]

Originally posted by mcrain
No, you are right, it doesn't make any sense. But, then again, it doesn't make sense to sit on your butt and not work to improve your chip designs when your competitors' chips are improving at an exponential rate.

Did you really mean "exponential"? If so, improvement vs what?

[ftaok]

Originally posted by gbojim


No argument for the 7xxx series. For the 8xxx series at this time Apple's products are covered under consumer. Motorola already has the 7xxx series number to cover Apple's stuff. Why would they use the 8xxx moniker to tag Apple's chips? Doesn't make that much sense to me.

More likely, if Motorola is to supply Apple with G5s, it'll be numbered as a 75xx chip.

Maybe Motorola is calling Cisco's chips 8xxx to put their stuff "1 higher". :D


BTW, that was a really vague reference.