Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Computer processor architectures (G5, G4, Intel and AMD)
- Thread starter tech4all
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The PowerPC alliance is Apple, IBM, and Motorola (their Freescale division).tech4all said:Oh so PowerPC isn't just specific to IBM but rather Macs (their logic/mother board) in general? All the companies that produce processors for Apple all run on the PowerPC architecture?
Hehe, and hear I though "PowerPC" was the technical name to the G5 processorSo I guess the G5, G4, and G3 processor are really only called G5, G4, and G3....learn something new everyday
Thanks!
Motorola did the G4, IBM did G3 and G5.
The PowerPC 970 is the G5.
Gimzotoy said:
I personally think that a lot of the problems Itanium has suffered are down to the quality of the Intel compiler for it. It is not an easy ISA to get the best out of as a programmer (as far as I can tell, I have never worked with the beast), and it's proved to be even more difficult for Intel to get a compiler that optimises well for it. It might be the future, but it does not seem to be ready for right now!
robbieduncan said:
There's definately a lot of problems in the line. Intel really botched it. Personally, I think they kind of rushed it out the door without the tools necessary for it to be successful, like the compiler issues you mentioned. They're lucky they got anyone to support it at all.
If they were smart, they would have taken an approach similar to Apple. Oh well, it'll be an interesting case study for someone down the road.
I don't know a whole lot about chips, but is the itanium not bases on x86 at all. Will it not run x86 Apps? I knew that the itanium was supposed to be a bad mofo, and thought that Apple might use it for servers, but if it isn't x86 compatible, then i'm sure it won't.
JasonElise1983 said:
It can run x86 in "compatibility" mode. It's amazingly bad at running x86 code so not a good choice for this role at all. In many ways it's rather like emulation.
Apple could call NeXT Power Mac G6
So, could Apple call the upcoming Intel based Power Mac the "G6?" Well, they could. If they want to. The moniker Gx is Apple's and refers to the Power Macintosh model first and predominantly, and secondarily to the CPU. The CPU was named after the Power Mac model moniker. At this particular time the fifth generation Power Mac just happens to coincide with the fifth generation of PowerPC.
The next generation of Power Mac will still be the sixth (G6), no matter what they call it and no matter what processor is inside. Apple could easily call the new Intel processor based CPU "G6," if Apple uses the sixth generation of some Intel processor (hmm, P6 in the G6?) The Pentium itself was the fifth generation of Intel's x86 processor (80586, i586, P5), the Pentium Pro, Pentium ||, Pentium |||, and Pentium M are the P6, (Pentium M P6 in the Power Mac G6? PowerBook Yonah?) hmm.
So the next machine itself will still be a sixth generation Power Mac (G6). However, Apple may decide to change the naming scheme partially or altogether completely.
No it wouldn't, not at all.jayscheuerle said:
So, could Apple call the upcoming Intel based Power Mac the "G6?" Well, they could. If they want to. The moniker Gx is Apple's and refers to the Power Macintosh model first and predominantly, and secondarily to the CPU. The CPU was named after the Power Mac model moniker. At this particular time the fifth generation Power Mac just happens to coincide with the fifth generation of PowerPC.
The next generation of Power Mac will still be the sixth (G6), no matter what they call it and no matter what processor is inside. Apple could easily call the new Intel processor based CPU "G6," if Apple uses the sixth generation of some Intel processor (hmm, P6 in the G6?) The Pentium itself was the fifth generation of Intel's x86 processor (80586, i586, P5), the Pentium Pro, Pentium ||, Pentium |||, and Pentium M are the P6, (Pentium M P6 in the Power Mac G6? PowerBook Yonah?) hmm.
So the next machine itself will still be a sixth generation Power Mac (G6). However, Apple may decide to change the naming scheme partially or altogether completely.
The G5 is a Power chip, and we lose one of the elements that differentiated Power chips from PowerPC -- biendian capability.
But gained the most important piece from the Power line, 64-bits of memory addressing and 42-bit of real memory addressing -- along with a variant of the big iron elastic FSB.
The G5 is a crossover chip, alot like the original PPC601.
But in the G5s case this was also it's failure -- since the FSB was a cost and learning gap that enough customers failed to cross making the chip an economic disaster.
But gained the most important piece from the Power line, 64-bits of memory addressing and 42-bit of real memory addressing -- along with a variant of the big iron elastic FSB.
The G5 is a crossover chip, alot like the original PPC601.
But in the G5s case this was also it's failure -- since the FSB was a cost and learning gap that enough customers failed to cross making the chip an economic disaster.
Platform said:G1=PPC 601 series [IBM/Motorola]
G2=PPC 603/603e and 604/604e series [IBM/Motorola]
G3=PPC 75x series [IBM]
G4=PPC 7xxx series [Motorla/Freescale]
G5=PPC 970 series [IBM]
Directly from my post on this very subject on June 6, 2005:
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=1511582#post1511582
robbieduncan said:
Actually that compatibility mode is literally a tiny x86 "chip" integrated with the main processor. Ran about like a 200MHz Pentium 1, iirc. They're using a software emulator now, with much better results (1.5GHz Xeon-ish). I believe the compatibility logic in the processor is going the way of the dodo in the next Itanium chip, which should help cut costs a little bit. Should be a neat chip to watch; Dual core, 2 threads per core, 24MB of L3 cache... and building on the highest SPECfp score in the industry for the current generation one (roughly tied with the POWER5).
primalman said:Directly from my post on this very subject on June 6, 2005:
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=1511582#post1511582
Was that bad
Only helped people
