IBM Announces the PowerPC 970MP

[pubwvj]

I hear the term CPU used to refer to a specific main processor chip and also used to refer to a circuit board containing the main processor chip. So are both references correct?

CPU means Central Processing Unit and has referred to things all the way from a huge box full of parts down to a portion of the die of a single silicon chip. It is where the arithmetic and logic happen for the most part. In micro-computers, of which the Mac is one, the CPU refers to the chip, in the current case PPC (Motorola/IBM/Freescale) and in the future x86 (Intel).

If you're still confused, my best advise is to sit back, relax and enjoy it. It isn't that important...

 

[AidenShaw]

It is where the arithmetic and logic happen for the most part. In micro-computers, of which the Mac is one, the CPU refers to the chip, in the current case PPC (Motorola/IBM/Freescale) and in the future x86 (Intel).

The arithmetic and logic part is key - this is the key active part of the CPU.

In single-core chips, the "chip" and the "CPU" are pretty much the same.

In a dual-core chip, however, each core has all the attributes that we've traditionally associated with a CPU - specifically the "core" is the complete arithmetic and logic structure of the CPU.

Note this picture of the PPC970MP from the original story:

See how the left and right halves of the chip are mirror images of each other?

The blocks at the top are the L2 caches, all the stuff below are the ALU pieces and other logic.

If you cut the chip vertically through the center, both the left piece and the right piece would have all of the attributes of a CPU. (They wouldn't work, though, because of shared access to external memory and I/O.)

If you have two CPUs on two chips - then if you put both CPUs on a single chip you will still have two complete physical CPUs. Dual-core is simply a better and cheaper way of getting a dual CPU machine.

 

[sacear]

Thanks pubwvj and AidenShaw. I appreciate your answers. Those were very helpful.

 

[jhu]

Eh... x86 version of OS X, eh? Despite the fact that I was wrong before (yeah... I was one of the guys who said: "Apple with Intel? HAHAHAHA! NO WAY IN HELL" a while ago...), there is one golden rule which Apple made clear throughout their existence: they are a hardware company. They will never allow/license Mac OS X to run on PCs. Mac OS X x86 will ONLY run on Apple x86 computers; they'll make sure of that. If you could buy a $300 PC and slap in Mac OS X, Apple would lose a TON of $$$ as they would lose a significant (to say the least) portion of their computer sales.

Wasn't it Dell (or Gateway... not sure anymore) who stated they'd be glad to offer Mac OS X in their computers? Steve just giggled and said "Thanks but no thanks".

If you want OS X, get a Powerbook. Your Dell d610 will NEVER run OS X, not in this lifetime anyway.

Here I go again, making absolute statements... Oh well, it's just how I feel. After all, isn't it the whole purpose of Forums like this one?

yes, be careful of those blanket statements. you can:

1) run mac osx under full emulation
2) run mac osx under partial emulation

the first can already be achieved by running pearpc. the people over at softpear are working on the second. with apple's move to x86, running mac osx on a generic x86 might be even "simpler" since the ppc emulation wouldn't be needed.

 

[MegaSignal]

Just a quick Thanks!

The arithmetic and logic part is key - this is the key active part of the CPU.

In single-core chips, the "chip" and the "CPU" are pretty much the same.

In a dual-core chip, however, each core has all the attributes that we've traditionally associated with a CPU - specifically the "core" is the complete arithmetic and logic structure of the CPU.

The blocks at the top are the L2 caches, all the stuff below are the ALU pieces and other logic.

If you cut the chip vertically through the center, both the left piece and the right piece would have all of the attributes of a CPU. (They wouldn't work, though, because of shared access to external memory and I/O.)

If you have two CPUs on two chips - then if you put both CPUs on a single chip you will still have two complete physical CPUs. Dual-core is simply a better and cheaper way of getting a dual CPU machine.

I truly appreciate the info and have committed to memory these basics of computing architecture.

 

[Platform]

Yes, they *do* have two physical CPUs - each core is a physical CPU. Each core has all of the execution units, the registers, the data paths, the cache (L1, usually L2) - all of the physical components of a CPU.

A dual-core chip is two physical CPUs sharing one carrier and socket - and often the same piece of silicon.
Dual dual-core is a quad - but that's another beast entirely. A dual-core is roughly equivalent to dual single cores. Apple doesn't have a quad, so why denigrate the x64 dual-core chips?
No, I don't know what you mean.
There is very little difference between a Celeron, a Pentium 4, and a Xeon - they all share the same core. (The new Celerons are 64-bit....)

The P4 has a larger cache than a Celeron (actually, a Celeron starts life as a P4, but one with too many defects in cache to run as a P4 - it's reconfigured to run with smaller cache and sold for less money).

The Xeon has larger cache (up to 8 MiB), and the SMP circuitry is brought out to the pins.

So when ewinemiller said "technically" that the Xeon wasn't a desktop, it meant merely that Intel puts the Xeon pages under "Workstations and Servers" on its website - rather than under desktops.

Will you argue that a workstation like a PowerMac G5 is *not* a desktop? Is there really any fundamental difference between a PMG5 and a Dell PW470 (dual Xeon workstation) and Dell PW380 (dual-core Pentium workstation) ?? (except that the Dells are much smaller and more suitable for actually putting on top of a desk)
(http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/compare.aspx/workstations?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz)

What I mean is that the current PM's have two CPU's. The new Dual core would be the same just one CPU but with two cores making it near enough the same. But what I'am saying is that with the new 970MP there would be a possability to have 4 cores.......TWO CPU's but 4 cores. And that if we got something like a Pentium XX whatever.........then that would be having most proberly 2 EXECUTION cores but only one CPU/ONLY one chip 2 in 1.

So except the Xeon.....Intel does not really have any current desktop CPU with two cores that can be hooked up with another CPU with again two cores = 4cores on two dies = Two CPU's but FOUR execution cores.

And no both the Dell and the PM are to me DESKTOP's........I just feel that the Xeon was originally a server CPU

Hope you get what I'm tring to say

 

[AidenShaw]

say "chip" instead of "CPU", and "CPU-core" instead of "core"

What I mean is that the current PM's have two CPU's. The new Dual core would be the same just one CPU but with two cores making it near enough the same. But what I'am saying is that with the new 970MP there would be a possability to have 4 cores.......TWO CPU's but 4 cores.

Let me rewrite what you just said in language that I would use:

What I mean is that the current PMs have two chips. The new dual CPU-core would be the same - just one chip but with two CPU-cores making it near enough the same. Of course, in a Powermac with two chip sockets the new 970MP gives the possibility to have 4 CPU cores.......TWO CHIPs but 4 CPU-cores.

A "core" consists of everything that you've always considered to be a CPU - with dual CPU-cores it's just that both CPUs are on one chip (and in just one chip socket).

This makes dual CPU systems cheaper and more practical. Dual core chips make dual CPU iMacs, eMacs and Powerbooks much more likely.

And that if we got something like a Pentium XX whatever.........then that would be having most proberly 2 EXECUTION cores but only one CPU/ONLY one chip 2 in 1

Again, try to think of the "core" as a complete CPU. It's really that simple.

Just start to use "CPU-core" instead of "core" and it will all make sense, and you won't have so much trouble trying to explain it.

So except the Xeon.....Intel does not really have any current desktop CPU with two cores that can be hooked up with another CPU with again two cores = 4cores on two dies = Two CPU's but FOUR execution cores.

Currently only single CPU-core Xeons are available, but dual-core Xeons are starting to sample and will be available soon (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20050509084856.html)

Then you'll have a desktop chip with two CPU-cores that can be hooked up with another chip with again two CPU-cores = 4 CPU-cores on two dies = Two chips but FOUR execution cores.

You're getting close to understanding it - "execution core" is good. It's a short step from "execution core" to "processing core", then "processing unit", then finally to "Central Processing Unit".

And no both the Dell and the PM are to me DESKTOP's........I just feel that the Xeon was originally a server CPU

Hope you get what I'm tring to say

Originally, there was no Xeon. The P6 (Pentium Pro - precursor to the Pentium II) could run in dual-chip (dual CPU) configurations. So could the Pentium II and Pentium III.

Intel introduced the Pentium II Xeon with full 64 GiB RAM support, then versions for 4-way processors and larger cache. You could still make dual chip systems with a Pentium II - you just were stuck with 4 GiB max of RAM. Pentium III Xeon continued the larger cache/4-way capability.

With the "Netburst" architecture, Intel went for market stratification, and no longer put dual-chip capability into the "desktop" chips that they called the Pentium 4. The silicon core had SMP capability, but it was disabled and was not brought out to the pins.

The marketing machine used the name "Xeon" for the chips without SMP disabled, which were marketed for workstations and servers. They were priced higher - you had to pay for the SMP and 64 GiB capability. (Similarly, the Celeron was a cheaper line - with smaller cache and slower busses.)

The basic CPU-cores were all the same - sometimes identical as in the case of the Celeron and the Pentium 4. The big cache Xeons were different chips, but had the same execution logic as the rest - just more cache.

And just to confuse the matter a bit more - Intel put a Xeon chip into the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition (sans SMP/64 GiB). So Intel has been shipping "desktop Xeons", just with a different name.

(Check Intel chip history at http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/quickreffam.htm#XeonIII)

 

[per4manz]

What I'm interested to know is what will Apple do with any of their intellectual property they own in the PowerPC architecture? Will they sell it to IBM and Freescale, license it to Intel and AMD, or just quietly sit on it?

And with this Intel partnership, what does this mean for Firewire800? Will Intel license this broadly for the PC market, or will Apple quietly downplay it in favor of better prices on USB 3.0 (?) whenever that hits the market?

And...will Apple drop support of Bluetooth in favor of Intel's Wireless USB?

I see apple licensing anything they have rights to - especially if they have some rights to Altivec. It's possible this has already been arranged with Intel, especially since AMD already has it's own version I believe licensed from MOTO. I wouldn't be surprised to see Freescale license it if Apple can't. Freescale will have almost no choice but to switch to almost an entirely embedded market when the last PPC (G4) chips are purchased and I don't see a need for Altivec in that market.

As for Firewire - I hate to say it. It's dead where it stands. Was a great idea, but Sony was really the only one to jump on board on the PC side. Plus, with Jobs announcing that all iPods where going to go to USB I see no life left for Firewire.

Bluetooth - I see them keeping it simply because there are a quite a bit of devices out there and in the pipeline that support it.

 

[AidenShaw]

Intel has SSE, why would they want Altivec?

I see apple licensing anything they have rights to - especially if they have some rights to Altivec. It's possible this has already been arranged with Intel, especially since AMD already has it's own version I believe licensed from MOTO.

Intel's SSE is already pretty close to Altivec - why would they want to introduce something that's incompatible at the binary level?

And before the chorus of "'cuz SSE sux" starts, note that the current *implementation* of the SSE architecture is what is weak, not the SSE *architecture*.

It's true that there isn't really a parallel ALU to run SSE, it just is able to feed the serial ALU with operands somewhat faster than non-SSE code.

Intel could easily design an SSE implementation with dedicated parallel ALUs - this would be completely compatible with existing binary code and would resolve most of the performance issues of SSE relative to the Altivec implementations in the G4 and PPC970.

Note also that the x64 architecture defines twice as many 128-bit SSE registers as the x86 architecture.

"Intel wants Altivec" is really a stretch....

 

[Surreal]

As for Firewire - I hate to say it. It's dead where it stands. Was a great idea, but Sony was really the only one to jump on board on the PC side. Plus, with Jobs announcing that all iPods where going to go to USB I see no life left for Firewire.

lies. horrible horrible lies.
(which may be true)

i hate usb for storage devices and cameras. and they had BETTER not get rid of firewire in the next powerbook, because i plan on buying a MOTU 896HD alongside my powerbook.

i have a shuffle right now with usb 1..so my animosity could have something to do with that.

 

[BenRoethig]

It's true that there isn't really a parallel ALU to run SSE, it just is able to feed the serial ALU with operands somewhat faster than non-SSE code.

Intel could easily design an SSE implementation with dedicated parallel ALUs - this would be completely compatible with existing binary code and would resolve most of the performance issues of SSE relative to the Altivec implementations in the G4 and PPC970.

I wouldn't be surprised if this very subject comes up quite often when Apple and Intel speak. Apple won't switch over the PowerMacs until their intel replacements are faster in all areas.

 

[Platform]

Let me rewrite what you just said in language that I would use:

What I mean is that the current PMs have two chips. The new dual CPU-core would be the same - just one chip but with two CPU-cores making it near enough the same. Of course, in a Powermac with two chip sockets the new 970MP gives the possibility to have 4 CPU cores.......TWO CHIPs but 4 CPU-cores.

A "core" consists of everything that you've always considered to be a CPU - with dual CPU-cores it's just that both CPUs are on one chip (and in just one chip socket).

This makes dual CPU systems cheaper and more practical. Dual core chips make dual CPU iMacs, eMacs and Powerbooks much more likely.



Again, try to think of the "core" as a complete CPU. It's really that simple.

Just start to use "CPU-core" instead of "core" and it will all make sense, and you won't have so much trouble trying to explain it.



Currently only single CPU-core Xeons are available, but dual-core Xeons are starting to sample and will be available soon (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20050509084856.html)

Then you'll have a desktop chip with two CPU-cores that can be hooked up with another chip with again two CPU-cores = 4 CPU-cores on two dies = Two chips but FOUR execution cores.

You're getting close to understanding it - "execution core" is good. It's a short step from "execution core" to "processing core", then "processing unit", then finally to "Central Processing Unit".



Originally, there was no Xeon. The P6 (Pentium Pro - precursor to the Pentium II) could run in dual-chip (dual CPU) configurations. So could the Pentium II and Pentium III.

Intel introduced the Pentium II Xeon with full 64 GiB RAM support, then versions for 4-way processors and larger cache. You could still make dual chip systems with a Pentium II - you just were stuck with 4 GiB max of RAM. Pentium III Xeon continued the larger cache/4-way capability.

With the "Netburst" architecture, Intel went for market stratification, and no longer put dual-chip capability into the "desktop" chips that they called the Pentium 4. The silicon core had SMP capability, but it was disabled and was not brought out to the pins.

The marketing machine used the name "Xeon" for the chips without SMP disabled, which were marketed for workstations and servers. They were priced higher - you had to pay for the SMP and 64 GiB capability. (Similarly, the Celeron was a cheaper line - with smaller cache and slower busses.)

The basic CPU-cores were all the same - sometimes identical as in the case of the Celeron and the Pentium 4. The big cache Xeons were different chips, but had the same execution logic as the rest - just more cache.

And just to confuse the matter a bit more - Intel put a Xeon chip into the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition (sans SMP/64 GiB). So Intel has been shipping "desktop Xeons", just with a different name.

(Check Intel chip history at http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/quickreffam.htm#XeonIII)

I said that there were currently Xeons that were in Dual Chip confings....But my Whole First Question was: PPC CAN BE IN DUAL CHIP CONFIGS AND WITH THE 970MP WE COULD GET QUAD CPU's................WHAT HAS INTEL GOT???? 8xx series in dual core fine........but not dual chip configs.

 

[AidenShaw]

IBM has the "vapor-chip" here....

I said that there were currently Xeons that were in Dual Chip confings....But my Whole First Question was: PPC CAN BE IN DUAL CHIP CONFIGS AND WITH THE 970MP WE COULD GET QUAD CPU's................WHAT HAS INTEL GOT???? 8xx series in dual core fine........but not dual chip configs.

Did you miss where I said this?

Currently only single CPU-core Xeons are available, but dual-core Xeons are starting to sample and will be available soon (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...0509084856.html)​

To clip a little from that link

Intel Demos Dual-Core Xeon Processors, Supporting Platforms.
Intel’s Dual-Core Xeon Processors Operational Right Now

by Anton Shilov
[ 05/09/2005 | 08:50 AM ]

The world’s most influential manufacturer of microprocessors, Intel Corp., last week demonstrated servers running the company’s dual-core processors for dual-processor and multi-processor machines.

The company said it would provide “thousands of seed systems” containing dual-core Xeon processor to software and hardware developers this year in order to ensure that the infrastructure takes advantage of dual and multi-core chip designs. Commercial shipments of the dual-core Intel Xeon processors are scheduled for 2006.

At its Intel Spring Analyst meeting in New York on Thursday, Abhi Talwalkar, general manager of Intel’s Digital Enterprises Group showed off two working servers running upcoming dual-core implementations of Xeon code-named Dempsey and Paxville, respectively, claims a report at TechWeb web-site.

So the answer to your question

WHAT HAS INTEL GOT????​

is that Intel is publicly showing running dual-chip (quad CPU-core) and quad-chip (octo CPU-core) systems running today.

IBM is showing a Powerpoint slide of the PPC970MP.

Which horse would you bet on? (Hint - Jobs bet on Intel.)


Also check the article at http://informationweek.serverpipeline.com/highend/162800182 which states that Intel currently has 17 multi-core chip projects underway....

 

[~Shard~]

<snip>

I've been reading through your comments and explanations in this thread AidenShaw and I just wanted to say thanks - you really know your material and it's great to learn more about these sorts of things from a knowledgeable person as yourself. I took microprocessor design back in university so I know a lot of the technical aspects of what you speak of, yet not to the degree you do, and I am not as in touch with current industry developments, etc. as you, so thanks again for the insight.

 

[Platform]

Did you miss where I said this?

Currently only single CPU-core Xeons are available, but dual-core Xeons are starting to sample and will be available soon (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...0509084856.html)​

To clip a little from that link

So the answer to your question

WHAT HAS INTEL GOT????​

is that Intel is publicly showing running dual-chip (quad CPU-core) and quad-chip (octo CPU-core) systems running today.

IBM is showing a Powerpoint slide of the PPC970MP.

Which horse would you bet on? (Hint - Jobs bet on Intel.)


Also check the article at http://informationweek.serverpipeline.com/highend/162800182 which states that Intel currently has 17 multi-core chip projects underway....

Ok.......thank you...

I'm also woth Intel but just thought since the switch has not been done yet Anyway thanks for the info

 

[AidenShaw]

thanks

I've been reading through your comments and explanations in this thread AidenShaw and I just wanted to say thanks - you really know your material...

Thank you for the compliment.

I learn a lot from posting here - I hadn't seen the news of the dual-core Xeon demonstration before today. I knew that there were lots of dual-core projects and codenames, but missed the news that chips were being produced for development systems.

However, when platform asked "What has Intel got?", I Yahoo!'d for "dual-core Xeon" and got a lot of hits - including the news.

So, I don't know all of this stuff off the top of my head - but I don't like to post opinion without checking facts. And in checking the facts, I learn quite a bit that's useful in my day job....

 

[~Shard~]

So, I don't know all of this stuff off the top of my head - but I don't like to post opinion without checking facts. And in checking the facts, I learn quite a bit that's useful in my day job....

Sounds like a sound strategy - one that I try to follow as well. I, like you, have learned a lot on this Forum as well, so I'm always happy when I can contribute and educate others in return - I just want to ensure I have my facts straight before doing so.

 

[ryaxnb]

Just for comparison, the Intel Pentium M 1.6GHz and 1.7GHz are rated at 24.5W. The 2.13GHz Pentium M 765 is rated at 27W.

Reference on Intel site and here .

If the low-power PowerPC 970FX 1.6GHz is at 16W, old Stevo better hope that Intel's got some serious plans to make his power claims accurate.

The 1.6 ghz g5 is like a 900-1000 mhz M. A 1.6 offers no serious speedup vs. 1.67 ghz g4 in most cases.

 

[RichardCarletta]

too hot a day to read all 390+ posts

Apple will not and must not wait beyond October 2005 to design and develop a G5 laptop. The laptops are not the first macs slated to be switched to Intel processors in 2006 , the Mac Minis and eMacs are. An update to the laptops is vital. I believe Apple will put 1.6 GHZ 970FX G5s in all Powerbooks models (including the 12 inch models ) and 1.4 GHZ 970FX G5s in all Ibooks . This would update the laptops for at least 9 months. Hopefully, by that time IBM will comeup with a 20 W 2 GHZ 970FX G5.

The 2.5 GHZ 970MP could be put in a top-end dual dual core Powermac . The top single core Powermac could be the 2.7 GHZ G5 Powermac . Follow those models with a single duel core 2 GHZ 970MP Powermac and a dual dual core 2.3 GHZ 970MP G5 Powermac . That would make 4 Powermac models.

The iMac G5 could be updated to a single 2.3 GHZ G5 for the 20 " model . The 17" models could get the 2 GHZ G5 . A new 23 " iMac could get one dual core 2.5 GHZ 970MP model ( that would not seriously threaten Powermac sales ) .

As for prices on some models:

dual dual core 2.5 GHZ 970MP Powermac $3500 or less

dual dual core 2.3 GHZ 970MP Powermac $3000 or less

single 2.7 GHZ G5 Powermac $2200 or less

single dual core 2 GHZ 970MP Powermac $2200 or less

20" 2.3 GHZ Superdrive iMac G5 $1900

17" 2 GHZ Superdrive iMac G5 $1500

17" 2 GHZ combo drive iMac G5 $1300

23 " 2.5 GHZ single dual core 970MP Superdrive iMac G5 $2500 or less

I will not even attempt to guess prices on G5 laptops .

What is the wattage for the G5s used in the iMacs and current Powermacs ?

I am guessing that maybe the Mac Minis could get the topend 1.6 GHZ 970FX G5 or 1.67 GHZ G4 if there are heat issues or the 2 GHZ G5 if there aren't (Mac Minis can't wait for updates either. ) eMacs will probaly just get a 1.67 GHZ G4 by the Spring ( Steve Jobs did say starting in the SUMMER of 2006 for Intel swiches , right ?)

 

[wdlove]

I still don't think that we will ever see a PowerBook G5. Why spend the time working the technology for just one model cycle. The time would be better spent working on Intel issues.

The first Intel Mac is due around WWDC 2006. That would put the possible first shipment for late Spring.

 

[Noiseboy]

I still don't think that we will ever see a PowerBook G5. Why spend the time working the technology for just one model cycle. The time would be better spent working on Intel issues.

The first Intel Mac is due around WWDC 2006. That would put the possible first shipment for late Spring.

I completely agree, it would crazy to shoehorn any kind of G5 into the PB when the Pentium M would appear to be not too far around the corner.

 

[~Shard~]

I still don't think that we will ever see a PowerBook G5. Why spend the time working the technology for just one model cycle. The time would be better spent working on Intel issues.

I agree. In fact, now that I think of it, when I made predictions a year ago that we wouldn't be seeing a G5 PowerBook until fall 2005 if at all, some people bet me money otherwise... but how do I go about collecting....

 

[GregA]

The laptops are not the first macs slated to be switched to Intel processors in 2006 , the Mac Minis and eMacs are.

Be careful of believing what people are guessing!

The first Intel Mac is due around WWDC 2006. That would put the possible first shipment for late Spring.

No the transition is a 2 year transition, and will be completed by the end of 2007. At the 2006 WWDC, Intel based Macs will already have been released.

That's all we know - that the first releases are planned for the first half of 2006, and we have no idea which Mac's will be first.

We can make educated guesses, but lets make sure that we make it clear when it's a guess so that others don't think it's a fact!

 

[Multimedia]

Deal Core Yonah Likely First Intel PowerBooks

I completely agree, it would crazy to shoehorn any kind of G5 into the PB when the Pentium M would appear to be not too far around the corner.

You have got to be kidding or mistaken. No way is Apple going to adopt a Pentium M processor. I believe Dual Core Yonah will be in the first Intel PowerBooks early next year. I think anything less may not sell well. I'd take any G4 over a Pentium M. You didn't mean that right?

 

[GregA]

No way is Apple going to adopt a Pentium M processor. I believe Dual Core Yonah will be in the first Intel PowerBooks early next year.

Yonah is the code name for the 3rd generation of the Pentium-M processor. All Intel chips will be growing from the Pentium-M line (Pentium 4 and Netburst are abandoned).

Someone mentioned that the 4th generation of Pentium-M was quite a step up from the 3rd too, and less than 6 months behind. With all the promises broken, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple had a Pentium-M (generation 2) plan as a backup should the Yonah be delayed.