PDA

View Full Version : IBM Power4 and Apple


arn
Aug 9, 2002, 11:22 AM
Silicon.com (http://www.silicon.com/public/door?6004REQEVENT=&REQINT1=55033&REQSTR1=silicon.com) claims that IBM and Apple are in discussions with the 64-bit Power4 design that is to be discussed at the Microprocessor Forum 2002 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/08/20020808110527.shtml):

Network equipment and other communications gear is the most likely destination for the new PowerPC, as the bulk of existing PowerPCs are used there. However, IBM is also wooing Apple, sources familiar with the chip said. The company is in a constant tug of war with Motorola, which makes most of the PowerPC chips slotted into Macs, for Apple's business.

Mr. Anderson
Aug 9, 2002, 11:34 AM
That's some really good news. I just wonder if we'd see this happening anytime before the end of the year, which I find highly doubtful. Why is it that everything with Apple seems to be more potential that actual?:(

rugby
Aug 9, 2002, 11:38 AM
Now we're talking. Let's get a REAL chip manufacturer to develop some REAL horsepower. Motorola can then focus on embedded processors and crap like that.

drastik
Aug 9, 2002, 11:49 AM
It would be like setting up a friend with a girl you know is just perfect for him. Maybe I'll write an email:

Dear Apple,

I know that you and your current partner (Moto) have been having some trouble recently. Now, I love Moto as much as they next guy, but I think its time for you to move on with your life. Shake free of those chains and live for yourself.

I know someone who I think would be just perfect for you, she's into Vector processing and RISC just like MOTO, but shes much more cooperative and "faster" if ya know what I mean. Now her names Big Blue, but don't let the Big throw you, she's usually not bloated. I heard that Blue like you, and I think the two of you could get together and have a little fun.

:D

chubakka
Aug 9, 2002, 11:55 AM
I'm the one that FIRST posted that Article's Quote in the original IBM PPC discussion... I found it at CNET this morning.

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 9, 2002, 12:17 PM
If this is accurate, and IBM is now only trying to convince Apple to get on board with this chip, maybe we should rethink that the IBM G5 is imminent...

topicolo
Aug 9, 2002, 12:21 PM
As much as I hate "wintel" (windows+intel), I just can't stand the thought of "mopple" (motorola + apple).:)

Rocketman
Aug 9, 2002, 12:37 PM
The article cited is the most definitive news yet on what we usually call G5. It also confirms it will have Altivec+, will be one processor per chip, which is a change from prior statements.

It also says shoot for 2ghz, so I bet it will be more like 1.6ghz on release because Apple slightly underclocks computers for mass-production compatibility and reliability.

The late 2002 timeframe also indicates Jan-03 is a likely release date for first items. Probaly a server box and maybe a super top of the line workstation.

It will be PRICEY.

It will be faaaaaaaaast.

Rocketman

Eliot
Aug 9, 2002, 12:38 PM
Yeah, TiBM sounds a lot healthier:cool:

Goblin2099
Aug 9, 2002, 12:47 PM
TiBM? Nah, I'm thinking iBapple

foniks2020
Aug 9, 2002, 01:15 PM
Could this be the sleeper rumor of the decade?

You know the one that doesn't have any hype around it, almost looks like a given course for Apple to follow and has been completely underground up until the last minute.

More than just a rumor it could be the BIG DEAL like when Apple announced PowerPCs (though hopefully this will have better follow through - Jobs).

Going 64 bit seems natural for Apple to do. We all know they move in great leaps instead of babysteps. Look at internet connectivity, Macs used to have the worst support for ethernet / TCP/IP... it was all Appletalk, but then they were the first to include standard GigEthernet and then wireless with the network subsystem to use it all very well.

I'm not sure which methodology i prefer though. As an investor I think Apple is working a good revenue model but as a consumer i would prefer more scalability and compatibility from generation to generation or at least a better and more standard upgrade path.

eddively
Aug 9, 2002, 01:22 PM
WHOOOO! Just in time for my next year college purchase!

I really like the part about --They should able to meet their 2GHz speeds by the end of 2002-- (thats not verbatim, but close enough) I like this kind of proof/evidence. Get excited.

TechLarry
Aug 9, 2002, 01:29 PM
Well, if this comes true (and it has Altivec AND it hits the street at 2Ghz), then I'll shut up about Apple needing to switch to x86 Processors.

But not until then :)

Either way we get one thing out of the way. MOTOROLA!

TL

topicolo
Aug 9, 2002, 01:36 PM
yeah, regardless of if apple leaves motorola or not, I propose that motorola's microprocessor execs get a good beating with those 10 foot poles they have stuck up their @$$es:D

Pin-Fisher
Aug 9, 2002, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by arn




What do they mean by most? Are they already using someone else's chips??

gropo
Aug 9, 2002, 01:48 PM
Let's suppose that the new IBM PowerXX core doubles+ the wattage consumpton from today's G4 Apollo (21.3 Watts) The PowerMac CPU is now on-par with the x86 competition in terms of wattage consumption.

Now Apple must decide what the high-end portable will utilize as a CPU... While both AMD and Intel have mobile-specific cores with power-conservative features, IBM and Motorola haven't needed to develop such jury-rigged solutions (due to thier ability to squeeze good performance out of low-consumption cores)

We might possibly see an IBM "Son-of-POWER" in the Xserve and PowerMac lines, and Motorola 74xx's in the iMac, iBook and PowerBook... Great if Motorola can achieve better performance in the coming 18 months, bad if the PowerBook turns in to "the big iBook with the better features and slightly faster CPU"

Then there's the matter of 32-bit and 64-bit binaries. It's unclear whether the new PowerXX cpu will be able to crunch both 64-bit and 32-bit strings in unison, or if the new CPU will initially require a 32-bit hardwire (such as the G4 utilizes for its 64-bit FPU) for Apple's purposes...

Apple might very likely enable the transition between 32-bit and 64-bit OS X "smoothly", much like the 680x0 ---> PPC transition seen in 7.x... Perhaps a return to the age of Fat Binaries...

suzerain
Aug 9, 2002, 01:51 PM
...they use IBM chips in CRT iMacs and iBooks. Those obviously aren't made by Motorola.

I think that's why the wording is the way it is.

elitemacor
Aug 9, 2002, 01:56 PM
Gosh, It is good news...

But here's to hoping it's not more vaporware (ala' G5)

topicolo
Aug 9, 2002, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by gropo
Let's suppose that the new IBM PowerXX core doubles+ the wattage consumpton from today's G4 Apollo (21.3 Watts) The PowerMac CPU is now on-par with the x86 competition in terms of wattage consumption.

Now Apple must decide what the high-end portable will utilize as a CPU... While both AMD and Intel have mobile-specific cores with power-conservative features, IBM and Motorola haven't needed to develop such jury-rigged solutions (due to thier ability to squeeze good performance out of low-consumption cores)

We might possibly see an IBM "Son-of-POWER" in the Xserve and PowerMac lines, and Motorola 74xx's in the iMac, iBook and PowerBook... Great if Motorola can achieve better performance in the coming 18 months, bad if the PowerBook turns in to "the big iBook with the better features and slightly faster CPU"

Then there's the matter of 32-bit and 64-bit binaries. It's unclear whether the new PowerXX cpu will be able to crunch both 64-bit and 32-bit strings in unison, or if the new CPU will initially require a 32-bit hardwire (such as the G4 utilizes for its 64-bit FPU) for Apple's purposes...

Apple might very likely enable the transition between 32-bit and 64-bit OS X "smoothly", much like the 680x0 ---> PPC transition seen in 7.x... Perhaps a return to the age of Fat Binaries...
P4s and Athlons comsume upwards of 60-100 watts of power. The Power4 is about 100watts, I believe.

SubFredZero
Aug 9, 2002, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by Pin-Fisher
What do they mean by most? Are they already using someone else's chips??

Ever heard about the ibook ? it has a g3 chip in it... guess who makes the g3 ? Yes, we have a winner... IBM is the correct answer

Titian
Aug 9, 2002, 02:46 PM
If this rumor is true this must happen very soon because in half a year this processor is already old: Intel and AMD are not sleeping...

But I have another concern. Will we see OSX on IBM mainframes? At the moment IBM is working on having LINUX on mainframes. It would be interesting to see many big companies, which have IBM mainframes, having as servers and terminals MACs.
Maybe it is just nonesense....

Faeylyn
Aug 9, 2002, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Titian
If this rumor is true this must happen very soon because in half a year this processor is already old: Intel and AMD are not sleeping...

Personally, I think it will be out by MWSF -- at the latest -- with a good chance of being announced as being part of the next PowerMac. This processor was announced almost a year ago. They're probably already very far along in development, if not finished. There is NO RULE that states one must first present a paper on the chip, then design the chip, then produce the chip, then put it in a Mac. They can do it in whatever order they want. Okay?

Also note the new IBM Fishkill facility. People keep saying this is for the new PS3 "cell" chip. Wrong. The "cell" is still 2 or more years away. There's no way IBM would build a plant that's ready now for a chip that won't be ready to be produced for a few years.

As far as speed, expect this to blow the doors off a 3GHz P4. By itself, it should go 2x the speed of a similar speed G4. After that, take into account hypertransport and faster bus speeds. In terms of raw performance, I expect the top end PowerMac with these chips to be roughly 8x the speed of the current top end.

And as far as the future goes, IBM already has that well in hand. Remember, this is a Power4 "lite". They could very easily bump up its power TODAY (for a price). Throw the "cell" research in and the road ahead looks better than it has in a long while.

G4scott
Aug 9, 2002, 03:31 PM
Well, all of the news is fitting together nicely. A new chip plant, a scaled down Power4, and discussions between IBM and Apple... I think Apple's been somewhat pissed off at Moto because of 1) their first flop with the G4 and not being able to produce enough (where IBM had to come in and help) and 2) performance is falling behind

One thing about Apple is that they try to reach ahead, and develop new technologies that they think will catch on, and work out for them. They will seem to be falling behind the competition, but instead of working on just catching up, they're trying to find a way to surpass the competition. Right now, it looks like Apple has 2 options, the Motorola G5 or the IBM scaled down Power4 (what would they call it? The Power4 is a big, power hungry chip, and this isn't, maybe the miniPower4?). Motorola has been working on the G5 for 2 years or even more, and they still haven't gotten a desktop version on the market... IBM has been making Power4's, and this new chip is just a matter of taking off what a desktop CPU doesn't need... If the new Power4 does have alti-vec, great, but if not, it may be fast enough that you don't need special instructions for better performance...

Personally, I think that Apple's going to have Motorola try to make the G4 a lower power, cooler, yet faster chip for portables, and use this new Power4 for their desktops... Now, the day you get a laptop with a Power4... :D

G4scott
Aug 9, 2002, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Titian
If this rumor is true this must happen very soon because in half a year this processor is already old: Intel and AMD are not sleeping...

But I have another concern. Will we see OSX on IBM mainframes? At the moment IBM is working on having LINUX on mainframes. It would be interesting to see many big companies, which have IBM mainframes, having as servers and terminals MACs.
Maybe it is just nonesense....

I don't think you will ever see OSX on IBM mainframes... We know that Steve Jobs doesn't like for the Mac OS to run on any other computer than an Apple. IBM can make the processors for Apple's servers, but since Apple is very strict about the hardware of their computers, I doubt anyone else will ever make a computer to run the Mac OS...

Pin-Fisher
Aug 9, 2002, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by SubFredZero


Ever heard about the ibook ? it has a g3 chip in it... guess who makes the g3 ? Yes, we have a winner... IBM is the correct answer


Yes I've heard of the iBook....but since I am new to the Mac world I am not aware of the goings on.....

Mr.Hey
Aug 9, 2002, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Titian
If this rumor is true this must happen very soon because in half a year this processor is already old: Intel and AMD are not sleeping...

But I have another concern. Will we see OSX on IBM mainframes? At the moment IBM is working on having LINUX on mainframes. It would be interesting to see many big companies, which have IBM mainframes, having as servers and terminals MACs.
Maybe it is just nonesense....

Well at this pace will see if by the time Apple comes out with their 64bit chip Intel might, just might have theirs working properly too.
Sun Blasts Intel's Itanium (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,449120,00.asp)

FatTony
Aug 9, 2002, 04:37 PM
what would they call it? The Power4 is a big, power hungry chip, and this isn't, maybe the miniPower4?


If this is the next big chip, Apple will call it the G5. G3 and G4 are Apple's names for the chips. Motorolla has a differnt number scheme.

SubFredZero
Aug 9, 2002, 05:05 PM
I realy hope this Power4 will be the g5. Although a G5 coming from motorola wouldn't realy be a surprice.

I wonder, this power4 has some kind of altivec, but will the apps that use altivec like photoshop or final cut pro, be able to use this kind of altivec just as good as altivec itself ? Would it have the same effect as a processor with altivec ? or the same effect as a processor without altivec ?
This is realy important, if not so, apple will never use this chip because it could harm there friendship with adobe, who did everything to make photoshop optimal for altivec...

If the power4 has the same effect as altivec, then it will be amazing fast... :) i want one

Wry Cooter
Aug 9, 2002, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Mr.Hey


Well at this pace will see if by the time Apple comes out with their 64bit chip Intel might, just might have theirs working properly too.


Actually, I've always thought this is why earlier attempts at sneaking out the 64 bit x86 stuff have flopped. They are saving viable attractive working versions for when Apple has something similar coming out, so they can knock the wind out of Apples sails by announcing around the same time.

Right now, there is no market impetus for Intel to release a 64 bit chip- the market wants the cheap stuff, and AMD isn't threatening their market enough. It serves more value as an ace in the hole to steal thunder from Apple.

Someone else said:

what would they call it? The Power4 is a big, power hungry chip, and this isn't, maybe the miniPower4?


I call it...Mini-G....

Foocha
Aug 9, 2002, 05:39 PM
The new IBM PowerPC chip has a vector-processing unit that is similar to Altivec, but not the same. As such, it would be a significant departure if Apple chose to go down this route, and would probably require a lot of work on the part of software developers, who've just had to make a substantial investment in porting to OS X.

Hmm, if this does happen, it'll take some time. As SJ said, they need to complete the migration to OS X before they can consider migrating to new hardware.

Choosing IBM over Motorola could be leaping from the frying pan to the fire - IBM are not much more committed to desktop PowerPC than Moto.

If you're going to make a big hardware change, and expect your developers to support it, you'd better be sure this one is for keeps!

chubakka
Aug 9, 2002, 05:39 PM
Intel Schmintel.

IBM is solid... and they have the new chip plant to crank these puppies out.

Intel has Itanium... and SUN calls it crap.

A 2 GHz 64-Bit IBM PowerPC will smoke the 3 GHz Pent 4.

Foocha
Aug 9, 2002, 05:49 PM
Now that you mention it, Intel and AMD do present interesting possibilities!

Dave K
Aug 9, 2002, 06:20 PM
Also note the new IBM Fishkill facility. People keep saying this is for the new PS3 "cell" chip. Wrong. The "cell" is still 2 or more years away. There's no way IBM would build a plant that's ready now for a chip that won't be ready to be produced for a few years

Actually, if you believe IBM's interview with CNet earlier this week, Cell's taped out and into production now for testing and hardware/software design purposes.

Although, admittedly, it's not likely to be using anywhere near the entire plant's potential capacity at the moment...

topicolo
Aug 9, 2002, 09:12 PM
Problem is, IBM is just like motorola in that it's goals are beginning to unalign themselves with apple's goals. IBM makes more than half of its money by consulting with companies right now. That's why it has sold off its hard drive division and bought that consulting firm (PriceCoopersWaterhouse?). We may just see IBM sell off its microprocessor division to Samsung, Hitachi, or some other company we may not feel comfortable with as a source of our chips. *shudder*:eek:

I hope that doesn't come to pass

Eliot
Aug 9, 2002, 09:16 PM
*****, that's the first thing I've read on this board that actually frightened me.

What then................?

Faeylyn
Aug 9, 2002, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by Foocha
The new IBM PowerPC chip has a vector-processing unit that is similar to Altivec, but not the same. As such, it would be a significant departure if Apple chose to go down this route, and would probably require a lot of work on the part of software developers, who've just had to make a substantial investment in porting to OS X.

Hmm, if this does happen, it'll take some time. As SJ said, they need to complete the migration to OS X before they can consider migrating to new hardware.

Choosing IBM over Motorola could be leaping from the frying pan to the fire - IBM are not much more committed to desktop PowerPC than Moto.

If you're going to make a big hardware change, and expect your developers to support it, you'd better be sure this one is for keeps!

Errr, can you point to the technical specs that justify the statements above? No? Because they haven't been released?

The chip has a vector-processing unit. Period. It APPEARS that it MAY BE similar to Altivec. It might also, in fact, BE Altivec. There is no techical reason why it couldn't be. However, given everything that we KNOW, it is most likely IBM's implementation of the same instruction set that Altivec uses. That's ALL WE KNOW about the vector portions because that's all they've leaked. It might compatable with Altivec or it might not. And just because some other web site says it's not DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING.

One other thing we do know is that this chip already has a large customer. IBM would not undertake the significant investment in the HOPE that someone would buy this chip. Someone has already placed an order. And that customer is NOT the embedded market. It's a desktop/server customer. Apple is THE ONLY current maker of PowerPC desktop computers. The only other signficant user of Power/PowerPCs is IBM. So either IBM is producing this chip for themselves and they plan on using it to enter the PowerPC desktop and low-end server market (probably with Linux), or the chip was made for Apple.

Exploring the IBM/Linux angle just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Exploring the IBM/Mac angle makes nothing but sense.

So, I'll say it again. The chip is for Apple. Apple has already placed a large order. At the VERY outside, we'll see this in new Macs within one year. Much more probably by MWSF. Very possible by next week.

The G4 will still be around in entry-level Powerless (in comparison) macs and we'll probably see the G4 scale up to 1.6 or 1.8MHz over the next year for those machines with better bus architecture, etc., etc.

Faeylyn
Aug 9, 2002, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by Dave K

Actually, if you believe IBM's interview with CNet earlier this week, Cell's taped out and into production now for testing and hardware/software design purposes.


There's a long way to go from the end of the design phase to samples. And an even longer way to go from samples to shipping. From the same CNet article, "At this rate, commercial production of Cell could come as soon as the end of 2004." They're being generous with that statement.

I really doubt that IBM would let that factory sit idle for the next 2+ years. They already have plans for it. And the plans are to procduce the chip for my next Mac! Now quit trying to bring me down!

Faeylyn
Aug 9, 2002, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by topicolo
Problem is, IBM is just like motorola in that it's goals are beginning to unalign themselves with apple's goals. IBM makes more than half of its money by consulting with companies right now. That's why it has sold off its hard drive division and bought that consulting firm (PriceCoopersWaterhouse?). We may just see IBM sell off its microprocessor division to Samsung, Hitachi, or some other company we may not feel comfortable with as a source of our chips. *shudder*:eek:

IBM is DEEPLY committed to the Power/PowerPC design. They invented the thing. It powers all their high-powered stuff. If IBM sold their microprocessor division, they would be handing over their crown jewels to another company. IBM would then be depending on that company to keep up development of that design for IBM's servers. NEVER GONNA HAPPEN.

jadam
Aug 9, 2002, 10:10 PM
lol, btw do you know how much money IBM makes on catia??(CAD software) that software runs BEST on IBM Machines. it costs $1,000,000 for the full version with all plugs or something like that, really expensive and powerful ****

Dave K
Aug 9, 2002, 10:22 PM
There's a long way to go from the end of the design phase to samples. And an even longer way to go from samples to shipping. From the same CNet article, "At this rate, commercial production of Cell could come as soon as the end of 2004." They're being generous with that statement.


Actually, I'd say they're working to hit Sony's 2005 release date for the PS3, which likely means queuing about 6 months of production to prevent the under runs they had with the PS2 which they likely won't be able to get away with the second time around as MS and Nintendo are likely to do simultaneous launches to prevent Sony getting another 30 Million console lead. If Sony plays true to form, they'll want to launch early 2005 in Japan, and late in NA to hit the Christmas season...

Sony's gonna need a pile of those chips before they go 'commercial' for hardware dev. Another pile to do software and compiler testing, since Cell's design dictates an entirely different way of programming. Then they're gonna need another pile to get dev machines in the hands of the Game companies at least a year ahead of general production so there's games on the shelves when the console ships...

Of course, all this production can be tossed between Toshiba, IBM, and I'm fairly sure Sony's got their own fab or two lying around somewhere...

I really doubt that IBM would let that factory sit idle for the next 2+ years. They already have plans for it. And the plans are to procduce the chip for my next Mac! Now quit trying to bring me down!

Like I said, I doubt cell production is gonna be tying up the entire plants output for a while, but I doubt the plant is sitting idle...

Besides, If I wanted to depress ya, I'd point out that IBM still wants to shrink the original Power4 to make it go faster. ;)

Or that they could aways just rent the idle portions of the plant out to one of the fabless semiconductor companies like nVidia for a profit. ;)

Or AMD might need some extra production facilities for Clawhammer... ;)

G4scott
Aug 9, 2002, 10:28 PM
What I'm pretty sure of, is that we can see this chip in mass production by the end of the year. It's just a matter of taking things off the current Power4 so that the chip would be a feasible solution in a desktop computer... They don't really have to worry about scaling down the design to make it a small, low power processor for another year or more because there probably aren't any plans for notebook Power4's... That being said, Apple can have this machine out by early next year.

Or, in a really optimistic tone, I can see Jobs at a special Apple event on the 15th... "IBM's going to officially introduce a scaled down Power4 chip in October, but we're going to unofficially introduce it here, in our new PowerMac G5..."

I remember when I used to jump with joy on the news of new Apple hardware...

Dave K
Aug 9, 2002, 10:47 PM
It's just a matter of taking things off the current Power4 so that the chip would be a feasible solution in a desktop computer...

Like the socket design that requires 700 lbs of insertion force...:D

But, seriously, if we can use the Sahara G3 announcement as a guideline, IBM would probably already be in production on this chip, will have samples for early 2003, and be into mass production in April/May.

Thus, leading to a July PowerMac launch if this is where the Mac is going...

lost_n_mad
Aug 9, 2002, 11:22 PM
Actually, I've always thought this is why earlier attempts at sneaking out the 64 bit x86 stuff have flopped. They are saving viable attractive working versions for when Apple has something similar coming out, so they can knock the wind out of Apples sails by announcing around the same time.

Right now, there is no market impetus for Intel to release a 64 bit chip- the market wants the cheap stuff, and AMD isn't threatening their market enough. It serves more value as an ace in the hole to steal thunder from Apple.

Of course, they still have to wait on Window's to give them an Operating System. Be a good thing if Linux could step up and have a GUI to go with theirs, but still, that's probably the thought with AMD. Intel won't release one until there is a version by M$ tho.

Faeylyn
Aug 10, 2002, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by Dave K

Besides, If I wanted to depress ya, I'd point out that IBM still wants to shrink the original Power4 to make it go faster. ;)


They've already said that the facility is for external customers.

thedude
Aug 10, 2002, 01:35 AM
It seems like this would be an opportune time, if they go to the power4, to implement a new rating convention, i.e. amd's XP ratings and maybe a possiblility of skipping the "g5" moniker to a 6 ( then it would be the power_six4 with 64bit procs!)?

Does anyone know if osX 10.2 and be recompiled (easily and quickly) to make it 64 clean? If so, then Apple won't have to wait until development on a 64b version is done before introducing a 64b proc.

Lastly, what's the chance of apple using power4's in their high end machines and offering turnkey systems for shake/tremmor, FCP to bite into Avid and Discreet profits?

Kethoticus
Aug 10, 2002, 01:45 AM
"The company is in a constant tug of war with Motorola, which makes most of the PowerPC chips slotted into Macs, for Apple's business."

*Really?!?!?* Gee... I thought competition was the thing that spurred the growth of x86 performance. It seems to have had the opposite effect on IBM and Motorola.

Foocha
Aug 10, 2002, 02:46 AM
Of course Mac is the only PowerPC based desktop computer. That is Apple's problem. Neither Moto nor IBM are particuarly motivated to focus on Apple's needs when developing their PowerPC lines - and it's worth noting that both Moto and IBM have abandoned PowerPC altogether at various points in the past. Remember a few years back when Moto had pulled out of G3 and we all though IBM were going to be our saviours? Then suddenly it was all talk of G4 and IBM were old news. Now suddenly we're talking IBM again.

IBM has all but given up on their desktop PC business, and they invented the damn thing. The last thing they're going to do is release a PowerPC/Linux desktop. Who the hell would want one of those when you can get a nice Intel/Linux from Dell for (presumably) a fraction of the price.

Saying that IBM would never scrap PowerPC because they invented it is like saying that Compaq would never scrap Alpha.

If Apple wants to find suppliers of competively priced and specced CPUs for desktop PCs, they'll have to go to companies that specialising in designing and producing them, and who have the economies of scale to do a good job of it - namely Intel and AMD.

Faeylyn
Aug 10, 2002, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by Foocha
Of course Mac is the only PowerPC based desktop computer. That is Apple's problem. Neither Moto nor IBM are particuarly motivated to focus on Apple's needs when developing their PowerPC lines - and it's worth noting that both Moto and IBM have abandoned PowerPC altogether at various points in the past. Remember a few years back when Moto had pulled out of G3 and we all though IBM were going to be our saviours? Then suddenly it was all talk of G4 and IBM were old news. Now suddenly we're talking IBM again.

IBM has all but given up on their desktop PC business, and they invented the damn thing. The last thing they're going to do is release a PowerPC/Linux desktop. Who the hell would want one of those when you can get a nice Intel/Linux from Dell for (presumably) a fraction of the price.

The purpose of pointing out the facts that (a) the Mac is the only desktop PowerPC out there and (b) New IBM desktops are unlikely was to point out that Apple is far and away the mostly likely purchaser of the new chip. As pointed out before, this chip already has a customer. That customer is Apple. Do you understand now?

As far as IBM abandoning the PowerPC and Apple, you're so very far off the mark. IBM has been happy to develop and build whatever Apple asks them to. It's the Apple asking that has been in the way. Meanwhile, IBM continued to develop high-powered Power architecture chips at the same time Motorola abandoned that market in favor of the embedded market. The only reason this chip can exist at all is because of IBMs commitment to that chip.

Saying that IBM would never scrap PowerPC because they invented it is like saying that Compaq would never scrap Alpha. [/B]

You don't seem to know ANYTHING about IBM's business. IBM NEEDS the Power architecture for THEIR OWN machines. They will NOT sell it. They will NOT abandon it. IBM makes MUCH MUCH MUCH more than simple desktops. You do know that IBM makes computers other than desktops, don't you? That's what they do. And they make a HECK of a lot of money doing it.

If Apple wants to find suppliers of competively priced and specced CPUs for desktop PCs, they'll have to go to companies that specialising in designing and producing them, and who have the economies of scale to do a good job of it - namely Intel and AMD. [/B]

Oh gosh. There are SOOOO many reasons why this WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Why am I even arguing with you? Waste of time....

djmcave
Aug 10, 2002, 05:35 AM
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26611.html

Tho Amiga might not ship that many computers so its profitable for IBM..That is if they ship... They could just sell there OS to run on existent PPC computers/servers

Foocha
Aug 10, 2002, 06:22 AM
I'm not questioning the fact that IBM makes servers. I'm questioning IBMs commitent to developing PowerPC chips that meet Apple's needs. I don't believe that it is not correct to say that IBM has always made what Apple wanted. If this was the case, I think we would have seen IBM supporting Altivec a long time ago.

Whilst I recognise that Apple will not release a PC compatible version of OS X any time soon, that does not preclude the possibility of Apple migrating the Mac platform to an Intel processor. Clearly software would need to be recompiled and some software developers (Microsoft) may not be willing to do that.

All I'm saying is that if the Mac has to migrate to a new CPU - Apple might as well choose one with a future.

This is a discussion, not an arguement - I'm interested to know your views :)

ZigMonty
Aug 10, 2002, 07:36 AM
All I'm saying is that if the Mac has to migrate to a new CPU - Apple might as well choose one with a future.

64 bit PPCs are backwards compatible with 32 bit PPC code, ie. all the current Mac software will still run. Apple won't "migrate" to the 64 bit PPC any more than they migrated from the G3 to the G4. The jump to an x86 processor is a *much* bigger jump. This is really apples and oranges.

Wry Cooter
Aug 10, 2002, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by Foocha


Whilst I recognise that Apple will not release a PC compatible version of OS X any time soon, that does not preclude the possibility of Apple migrating the Mac platform to an Intel processor. Clearly software would need to be recompiled and some software developers (Microsoft) may not be willing to do that.

All I'm saying is that if the Mac has to migrate to a new CPU - Apple might as well choose one with a future.


There are other pitfalls of moving to Wintel or AMD, but beyond that, you will probably not see such a move until there are more COCOA apps. And that is a few years down the road as all major apps want the OS 9 Market as well as OS X, for several reasons major apps have to be legacy apps, carbon.

IBM has as much of a future as AMD or intel with chip manufacture. AMD/Intel will eventually have to ditch x86, but they may find that much more difficult to do than the switch from 68k to ppc, or from os9 to os x due to the ubiquity and inbeddedness of the PC market.

IBM knows how to get chips out in volume, and on time and has state of the art R and D pushing the envelope. Motorola is still run by people whose dream business model is selling TVs through furniture stores as they did 30 years ago, they are only in the tech business by an accident of hiring some guys to create a remote control for them. They have a handful of smart guys on the payroll drowning in a corporate culture with 1950's values, like a kernal of corn in a turd. The best deal about the development of the PPC is that with IBM in the mix, it always created another possible supply of corn for Apple, but Motorola has always made sure anyone has to climb through a lot of ***** to get to it.

kenohki
Aug 10, 2002, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by G4scott
Well, all of the news is fitting together nicely. A new chip plant, a scaled down Power4, and discussions between IBM and Apple... I think Apple's been somewhat pissed off at Moto because of 1) their first flop with the G4 and not being able to produce enough (where IBM had to come in and help) and 2) performance is falling behind

One thing about Apple is that they try to reach ahead, and develop new technologies that they think will catch on, and work out for them. They will seem to be falling behind the competition, but instead of working on just catching up, they're trying to find a way to surpass the competition. Right now, it looks like Apple has 2 options, the Motorola G5 or the IBM scaled down Power4 (what would they call it? The Power4 is a big, power hungry chip, and this isn't, maybe the miniPower4?). Motorola has been working on the G5 for 2 years or even more, and they still haven't gotten a desktop version on the market... IBM has been making Power4's, and this new chip is just a matter of taking off what a desktop CPU doesn't need... If the new Power4 does have alti-vec, great, but if not, it may be fast enough that you don't need special instructions for better performance...

Personally, I think that Apple's going to have Motorola try to make the G4 a lower power, cooler, yet faster chip for portables, and use this new Power4 for their desktops... Now, the day you get a laptop with a Power4... :D

Yeah, pissed is an understatement. LOL. They have to be nice in public but I'm sure Steve is not happy about having to use a router chip (hehe, or a Nintendo chip) in his top of the line workstation. Actually, the PowerPC is a very nice platform, it's just been lacking in it's high end implementations. Ever since the original roadmap with the mythical PowerPC 620 (the chip that, at the time, was even supposed to blow the doors off of the then-speed-champ Alpha) fell off the radar, it's been that way.

And yes, the chip fab in Fishkill is almost definitely for this chip. IBM has stated that it's for external customers and for the high end. Cell is not ready for any sort of production yet and so of course that would be one of the biggest mismanagements of capital to have a fab (which cost billions of dollars) sitting idle. The only other application in high end for external customers would be desktop/workstation (read Apple).

Apple needs to surpass IA-32 pretty quickly if they want to be taken seriously in the vertical markets they are trying to target. Why spend more for Apple hardware to run Shake and Maya when cheap IA-32 hardware running Linux does a better job for less money. Apple's a nice platform but money talks.

Also, don't disregard a vector/SIMD unit as being trivial. Good floating point performance is going to be a given (seeing how the POWER4 screams on SPECcpu...something like 1042 where Itanic was doing 800-something). That's all good for technical computing like GIS, some CAD/CAE, and visualization stuff. But SIMD is extremely useful for doing some of the meaty realtime video encoding, effects processing, etc. And considering that Apple wants to be the new Hollywood powerhouse, I think a good SIMD unit is a necessary.

G4scott
Aug 10, 2002, 10:08 AM
One of the interesting things about the Power4 is that the system bus is always at half the processor speed, and isn't fixed. I wonder if this feature will carry on to this new chip. Of course, then we'd all have to buy PC500 or a special type of RAM to work with the bus. That's going to be interesting, and I'd like to see how the bus speeds for these new processors turn out...

G4scott
Aug 10, 2002, 10:20 AM
Oh, this is interesting... I just read this from a Power4 data sheet:

Maintain binary compatibility for both 32-bit and 64-bit applications with prior PowerPC and PowerPCAS systems: Several internal IBM task forces in the first half of the 1990s had concluded that the PowerPC architecture did not have any technical impediments to allow it to scale up to significantly higher frequencies with excellent performance. With no technical reason to change, in order to keep our customers software investment in tact, we accepted the absolute requirement of maintaining binary compatibility for both 32-bit and 64-bit applications, from a hardware perspective.

kenohki
Aug 10, 2002, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Foocha
I'm not questioning the fact that IBM makes servers. I'm questioning IBMs commitent to developing PowerPC chips that meet Apple's needs. I don't believe that it is not correct to say that IBM has always made what Apple wanted. If this was the case, I think we would have seen IBM supporting Altivec a long time ago.

Whilst I recognise that Apple will not release a PC compatible version of OS X any time soon, that does not preclude the possibility of Apple migrating the Mac platform to an Intel processor. Clearly software would need to be recompiled and some software developers (Microsoft) may not be willing to do that.

All I'm saying is that if the Mac has to migrate to a new CPU - Apple might as well choose one with a future.

This is a discussion, not an arguement - I'm interested to know your views :)

Yeah, I have to agree that Intel is not the way to go. IBM is the poop when comes to fab technology. They're going to be working on 90 nanometer process soon and their SOI, low-K dielectric, and SiGe technology is pretty much unmatched in the industry.

And saying PowerPC doesn't have a future is a very uninformed statement. PowerPC is just behind on it's roadmap. IBM is driving the platform with POWER which is pretty much one of the only three contenders for high end chips (as well as the current performance champ, thank you very much). The others would be UltraSPARC and IA-64. IA-64 is unproven at this point and there's a lot of risk associated to moving to that platform until it's solid or disproven, one or the other. UltraSPARC would involve less risk but IBM is usually ahead of Sun and TI with both performance and manufacturing technology.

There's pretty much two schools of thought in processor technology right now. Let the chip find parallelism and schedule instructions as best it can, or let it be done at compile time. IBM happens to be on the more conservative hardware scheduling side. Intel is moving most scheduling to the compiler with it's EPIC/VLIW design. The problem with VLIW design is that it hasn't worked out as well in execution as in theory. Transmeta's Crusoe hasn't been able to keep up and Sun's MAJC didn't pan out for a general purpose processor. So staying with RISC might be prudent for Apple at this point. IBM and Sun are both working on instruction and thread level parallelism and IBM is doing neat things with POWER5 and POWER6 to move commonly used calculations (like handling TCP/IP) into hardware and out of software (can we say CISC? VAX?). I think IBM is going to be right up there with cutting edge processors. So don't say PowerPC doesn't have a future.

Peterthehermit
Aug 10, 2002, 01:19 PM
I know we all would love to see a 64 bit chip. I know the rumors are strongly suggesting that Apple is going with IBM and that new models may be appearing soon. Here is my only question: what about the applications? What I mean is, wouldn't programs like Final Cut Pro or Photoshop have to be programmed to specifically take advantage of the 64 bit chip? And what about OS X? Is it possible that one of Jaguar's secret little bonuses is that it is already 64 bit ready or could we expect that with 10.3? There just seems to be a lot of questions that haven't been answered yet regarding a 64 bit chip. Either way, if all the rumors are true, God speed Apple, and good luck.

Wry Cooter
Aug 10, 2002, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Peterthehermit
what about the applications? What I mean is, wouldn't programs like Final Cut Pro or Photoshop have to be programmed to specifically take advantage of the 64 bit chip?

What if such a 64 bit chip was able to act like two 32 bit ppcs, in a manner more purely additive than todays dual processors, which due to bottlenecks of being two separate chips, add up to 1.4 or 1.5 times rather than 2 times the processing power.

I even tend to look at multiprocessing problems (or one chip able to bite off more) this way-- One particular program may NOT be set up to take full advantage of a particular set up for however the data may be queued about, but with the OS, I could possibly have -more apps open at once- without such a processor hit- have something intense processing in the background without slowing down my foreground work as much. It may not be as important that one program be able to use a processors power fully, as it may be for Several programs to use as much as they can without having to share.

G4scott
Aug 10, 2002, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Peterthehermit
I know we all would love to see a 64 bit chip. I know the rumors are strongly suggesting that Apple is going with IBM and that new models may be appearing soon. Here is my only question: what about the applications? What I mean is, wouldn't programs like Final Cut Pro or Photoshop have to be programmed to specifically take advantage of the 64 bit chip? And what about OS X? Is it possible that one of Jaguar's secret little bonuses is that it is already 64 bit ready or could we expect that with 10.3? There just seems to be a lot of questions that haven't been answered yet regarding a 64 bit chip. Either way, if all the rumors are true, God speed Apple, and good luck.

The apps might have to be re-written to take advantage of the new chip, but they will certainly still work, and they will work faster than they ever have before, so it's probably going to be an optional thing for a couple of years...

Faeylyn
Aug 10, 2002, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Peterthehermit
what about the applications? What I mean is, wouldn't programs like Final Cut Pro or Photoshop have to be programmed to specifically take advantage of the 64 bit chip? And what about OS X? Is it possible that one of Jaguar's secret little bonuses is that it is already 64 bit ready or could we expect that with 10.3? There just seems to be a lot of questions that haven't been answered yet regarding a 64 bit chip. Either way, if all the rumors are true, God speed Apple, and good luck.

The hardware has to come first. This is exactly like the switch from 68K to PPC (in more ways than one). The applications can't be written and tested for 64-bit without a working computer. The solution is to release the 64-bit Mac but have it run mostly in 32-bit mode. Now they have a base to work from and test against. Same thing for OSX, except that Apple has the hardware in advance of its release.

BTW, when they moved from 68K to the PPC, the main reason was that Motorola couldn't get their act together and release new processors fast enough. By the time the 68060 came out, Apple was well on their way to the PPC. And today, Motorola can't get their act together and release new processors fast enough.... Dump that dog already!

Foocha
Aug 10, 2002, 06:02 PM
I didn't mean that PowerPC in general has no future. I mean that it seems to have no future for Apple, and that the Mac's dependance on PowerPC is starting to do the platform harm.

Wry Cooter - are you saying that Apple could not develop the Carbon framework for an Intel-based Mac?

Wry Cooter
Aug 10, 2002, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by Foocha
I didn't mean that PowerPC in general has no future. I mean that it seems to have no future for Apple, and that the Mac's dependance on PowerPC is starting to do the platform harm.

Wry Cooter - are you saying that Apple could not develop the Carbon framework for an Intel-based Mac?

No. I might be saying that if all apps were Cocoa, you could see OS X on Intel TODAY. (Ever notice most cocoa apps are really old NextStep apps, which ran on Intel when Steve returned?) Its the carbon code, as well as other classic apps, that will not port without being recoded, as far as I know. There are many reasons for carbon being the transitional phase during an OS shift, and why carbon might not work on x86- it makes platform dependant calls. Say PPCs have an instruction set, as do x86 designs. Carbon is a subset that works both in OS X and earlier MacOS. Cocoa needs OS X. But that cocoa app and OS X, might not need a PPC... savvy? But hell, why not just run Gimp on Linux then....

Someone else could explain this more clearly- with all the colored boxes on top of Mach, etc... I don't think my impression is a complete misconception.

I don't think the PowerPC, the G3 and G4 family and its future decendants as we know it today, is in itself bad- Its just that it is supplied by people who can't seem to make enough, make them fast, or make them fast enough.

kenohki
Aug 11, 2002, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by Foocha
I didn't mean that PowerPC in general has no future. I mean that it seems to have no future for Apple, and that the Mac's dependance on PowerPC is starting to do the platform harm.


What's good for the goose is good for the gander. A computer is a computer and a faster computer is a faster computer. The two company's goals are exactly the same as far as what they want from the PowerPC. IBM and Apple both want performance and IBM is going to drive performance into the POWER/PowerPC line. Why? Because it's used for their RISC-based Unix workstations, servers, and supercomputers. IBM needs to keep up with Intel and Sun in order to sell these machines in that very lucrative market. And if Apple stays along for the ride, good things will come of it. (Hell, if only we were using straight up POWER chips right now...) The only tough part is what they are going to do about the portable market.

Don't blame the PowerPC. Blame Motorola for wimping out and retargeting their efforts toward embedded (where all the money is).

elgruga
Aug 11, 2002, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by topicolo
As much as I hate "wintel" (windows+intel), I just can't stand the thought of "mopple" (motorola + apple).:)

Yeah? Well how do you like Nipple - nVidia and Apple?

Foocha
Aug 11, 2002, 08:13 AM
I don'y blame any company for targetting their effort where the money is. That's just business. The trick is to stike deals that deliver mutual advantage.

Wry Cooter
Aug 11, 2002, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Foocha
I don'y blame any company for targetting their effort where the money is. That's just business. The trick is to stike deals that deliver mutual advantage.

The problem is that for over a decade Motorola has been unable to see mutual advantage in properly serving a large high profile customer, or several other market advantages for that matter. This is a company that repeatedly could not fill the early orders from their largest customer because they were selling every bit of their production trickle to smaller competing customers. They simply don't have very good business sense.

driinc
Aug 11, 2002, 05:43 PM
I remember back many years when Mac users refered to IBM as "I bought Macintosh". It seems ironic that Mac users may be refering to IBM as "I build Macintosh" now. Isn't it funny how things change.
:D

Ibjr
Aug 12, 2002, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Wry Cooter


AMD/Intel will eventually have to ditch x86, but they may find that much more difficult to do than the switch from 68k to ppc, or from os9 to os x due to the ubiquity and inbeddedness of the PC market.

I rememberas a young child reading articles by Mac evangelists claiming the x86 hardware would hit a brick wall. It has yet to do so.

With AMDs new x86-64 I am left asking, when will they? Yes Digital introduced x86 as a s hort-term solution but, digital was wrong. Don’t even bother claiming RISC is superior to CISC, that argument is a non sequitur.

tazznb
Aug 12, 2002, 11:56 AM
-Originally posted by Faeylyn-

"Personally, I think it will be out by MWSF -- at the latest -- with a good chance of being announced as being part of the next PowerMac. This processor was announced almost a year ago. They're probably already very far along in development, if not finished. There is NO RULE that states one must first present a paper on the chip, then design the chip, then produce the chip, then put it in a Mac. They can do it in whatever order they want. Okay?"

:D :D :D :D
From what I saw from those smuggled pictures of the new power macs they look as if they can hold a power4 (fingers crossed tightly) processor already; huge fans, extra memory slots, etc.

solrac
Aug 18, 2002, 11:45 AM
Apple needs the emotion engine from the playstation!!!

iH8Quark
Aug 18, 2002, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Faeylyn
After that, take into account hypertransport and faster bus speeds. In terms of raw performance, I expect the top end PowerMac with these chips to be roughly 8x the speed of the current top end.


Yes, but judging by all past performance, Applie will find a way to cripple the performance of the system to increase profit margin. It will include old, half-implemented technology, just like all the G3's and G4's have had. Don't think that the G5 will suddenly mean Apple's m.o. is going to change. because it isn't.

but the power4 is a step in the right direction.

tjwett
Aug 18, 2002, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by iH8Quark



Yes, but judging by all past performance, Applie will find a way to cripple the performance of the system to increase profit margin. It will include old, half-implemented technology, just like all the G3's and G4's have had. Don't think that the G5 will suddenly mean Apple's m.o. is going to change. because it isn't.

but the power4 is a step in the right direction.

i hate to say it but i believe you are correct. Apple's method of "getting blood from a stone" can't let me believe otherwise. i wish they would just release the technology they keep hidden. but if they did they would die because they are such a niche market and rely on Mac "fanatics" to buy into minor upgrades over and over. if they were a larger company things would be different. oh well. i hate Quark too, with a passion.

Catfish_Man
Aug 18, 2002, 08:09 PM
...where people are getting the idea that this is a scaled down Power4. It's a new chip that takes a lot of its design ideas from the Power4. This isn't just Power4 minus all the big price and heat generating parts. As for Apple not using it... if they don't (assuming the chip really is what it seems) I'll be pissed. This is the first really desktop oriented PPC chip since, what, the 604? It has TONS of memory bandwidth (Apple's current performance problem), it has a VPU (It seems reasonable that it's IBM's implementation of the Altivec/VMX instruction set. I certainly hope so.), it's made on IBM's fabs (.13 micron SOI, the most advanced manufacturing process I've heard of any current chip using), and it's based on a chip designed for multiple cores (easy scaling when it gets old?). Apple would have to a) be idiots, or b) know something about the chip that we don't, to not take this opportunity. As for all G3s and G4s being crippled... perhaps you're forgetting when they first came out. The Sawtooth G4 blew the pants off the Pentium 3s of its time. The beige G3 did the same to the P2s of its time <looks at the beige G3 on his desk, smiles>. I'm hoping/guessing that the G5 is going to do the same to the P4 (and more importantly, the Hammer). This makes it a bit more likely, imo.

bousozoku
Aug 19, 2002, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Wry Cooter


No. I might be saying that if all apps were Cocoa, you could see OS X on Intel TODAY. (Ever notice most cocoa apps are really old NextStep apps, which ran on Intel when Steve returned?) Its the carbon code, as well as other classic apps, that will not port without being recoded, as far as I know. There are many reasons for carbon being the transitional phase during an OS shift, and why carbon might not work on x86- it makes platform dependant calls. Say PPCs have an instruction set, as do x86 designs. Carbon is a subset that works both in OS X and earlier MacOS. Cocoa needs OS X. But that cocoa app and OS X, might not need a PPC... savvy? But hell, why not just run Gimp on Linux then....

Someone else could explain this more clearly- with all the colored boxes on top of Mach, etc... I don't think my impression is a complete misconception.

I don't think the PowerPC, the G3 and G4 family and its future decendants as we know it today, is in itself bad- Its just that it is supplied by people who can't seem to make enough, make them fast, or make them fast enough.

Carbon, being more portable that the original Mac Toolbox code, could be ported to another platform. Since the 680x0 code is gone, it should be much simpler. It might not be as simple as Cocoa because NeXT had been through that with OpenStep. Then again, without seeing the source code, who here can say for certain?

CarbonLib on Mac OS 8.x and above, hides some of the system details for the Carbon-ised application.

semi
Sep 2, 2002, 12:04 PM
Found an interesting article/thread at just-auto.com: 30 Aug 2002-
USA: GM's news suprecomputer will "speed vehicle design"

IBM has announced that GM has selected a supercomputing infrastructure based on theIBM pSeries 690 servers to power the company's vehicle design applications.

Now here's a message posted in reply:
from Texas Bill--The IBM p690 systems (also known as Regatta) will be deployed in detroit as wellas at Opel in Russelsheim and Saab in Trollhattan.
When linked they will have a total processing power of 2.3 terraflops, making the system one of the 10 largest supercomputers in the world.
The pseries is an 8 to 32 way symmetrical multiprocessing system and has the industry's currently most powerful processor - the Power4. TheThe p690 also has true logical partitioning. This allowsthe regatta to be divided into up to 16 virtual servers each with its own processor, memory and I/ODaimlerChrysler and Ford also use IBM systems. IBM is the system integrator for DaimlerChrsyler"s new web-based production system.
Note: IBM is a client of mine. But the p690 isreally a pretty spiffy machine. It can even detect components that may be on the verge of failing and reroute processes around them on the fly.
Incedentallly the the Power4 is from the same family of processors that power the Apple Macintosh and some of the new technologies derveloped for the Regatta will be appearing in tyhe next generation of Apple processors.

eddively
Sep 2, 2002, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by semi

...Incedentallly the the Power4 is from the same family of processors that power the Apple Macintosh and some of the new technologies derveloped for the Regatta will be appearing in tyhe next generation of Apple processors.

thats either naitivity, inside knowledge, or rampant rumor mongering.

pick one of the above.

semi
Sep 2, 2002, 12:36 PM
It' rumor mongering. But I want it to be true--anything but Intel!:)

scem0
Sep 2, 2002, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by semi
It' rumor mongering. But I want it to be true--anything but Intel!:)

I would rather have intel inside my mac then moto. Intel will get jobs dont that moto couldnt. I would prefer AMD or IıM, but Intel would be better then moto.

semi
Sep 2, 2002, 01:41 PM
No not motorola-- Power4 is what I saw.

Tiauguinho
Sep 2, 2002, 01:58 PM
Yesterday I was reading geek.com and camed across this:


http://www.geek.com/procspec/ibm/power4desktop.htm

"
IBM - Power4 Desktop
IBM's Power4 Desktop chip will be detailed on October 15th at the Microprocessor Forum. Current speculation is that the Power4 Desktop chip, "...designed for desktops and entry-level servers," will be used in Apple Macintosh computers starting in 2003, instead of a Motorola G5 processor.

Other details of the Power4 Desktop chip that are known are a vector processing unit handling over 160 vector instructions, and a system interface that can transmit data at 6.4 GB/second. Rumors suggest that the chip could arrive at speeds of up to 2GHz. It will be capable of handling 8 Instructions Per Clock (IPC)."


heheheh wouldn't that be just nice! A PowerMac with a 8 Superscalar Processor Chip! hehehheh Pentium 4,5,6,7 whatever! Just say Bye Bye!

Tiauguinho
Sep 2, 2002, 02:13 PM
Im sorry to double post, but I would like to add just one more thing...

If this rumors comes true, i'm saying IF, and if this new Processor Chip would come with more Cache, like 512k of L2 and 4Mb L3 ( I would like to double this values but that would be just way too expensive!)... Then this sucker would perform as I can only dream of...

jefhatfield
Sep 17, 2002, 05:46 AM
if we get the ibm power4 with 64 bit processing, it looks like it won't likely be until second half of next year if at all in 2003

the wintel world may move to 64 bit processing with amd and intel in 2004...so the whole move to 64 bit will be slow and painful

64 bit does support up to 8 gigs of RAM which is good

Wry Cooter
Sep 17, 2002, 03:32 PM
I've always thought the delay of 64 bit being released to the consumer market on the intel side has been one of the intel side holding back, to see if they need to, that is, keep it as a counter measure to steal any thunder from something not based on X86 or windows compatible architecture that might be aimed at the same market.

Naïveté, naivety perhaps. Naitivity is a scene you put in front of your trailer.

nixd2001
Sep 17, 2002, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
if we get the ibm power4 with 64 bit processing, it looks like it won't likely be until second half of next year if at all in 2003

I can't really comment on this as there's no hard facts available - it may be true and it may not be true. To say one way or the other would be speculation (which is not the same as rumor!).

the wintel world may move to 64 bit processing with amd and intel in 2004...so the whole move to 64 bit will be slow and painful

Mixing Intel and AMD here isn't something that helps when talking about the 32 -> 64 bit transition. AMD is (planning on) offering a fairly easy migration route, with the downside that their long term performance may be impacted. Intel is offering a difficult migration route with the upside of (hopefully) maximising long term performance. The AMD approach means fast or slow is not relevant if both can be supported. 32 bit apps. won't be able to access beyond 4GB, but very few actually need that amount of memory! Who wants a 4GB word processing document! Likewise, dual support 32/64 isn't necessarily painful.

64 bit does support up to 8 gigs of RAM which is good

2^64 is a LOT more than 8GB! In reality, 2^64 decoded address lines (ie not all bits in a 64 bit register actually affect the address presented to the memory system) is not that relevant. The (detailed!) Power4 description on IBM's web site talks about 42 bits of decoded address for instruction space. The real use for large address spaces is sparse mapping onto very large files, such as might (is?) used for database applications.

hope this is helpful