jared_kipe said:
yes. but you have to go through "member" before you can be a "regular."
fear not, though, once you get to be a regular, there are still plenty more seemingly impossible levels to reach.
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.
IBM Spins Off 3 PowerPCs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yes. but you have to go through "member" before you can be a "regular."
fear not, though, once you get to be a regular, there are still plenty more seemingly impossible levels to reach.
tace said:It also means, the more people/devices using that architecture than that much more damaging a trojan horse/virus written for those platform(s) could be.
Some of us always think the glass is half empty.
This makes no sense. Virus' have nothing to do with processor performance!! If you're implying that Apple will significantly increase their market share....good for them...then they can afford to hire a few more people to work on security.
So if IBM is opening the architecture of it's lower end chips geared towards an embedded OS. It sorts of opens the door to Apple to start working on an embedded version of OS X. If they could wrap some of the Spoken Interface design that's rumored for 10.4 it could revolutionize the PDA and Cell Phone markets. If Apple made this happen they could easily capture the low-vision users, and as baby-boomers get older so goes their vision... PDA screens are simply too small for many people to use. If they put out a great cell phone/pda on top of the iPod, I think it would be hard for people not to be a lot more curious about what they're missing on their computers.
I'm pretty pleased with how IBM has changed in the last 10 years. At some stage they told every division that instead of favouring other IBM division's products when they made their own products, treat them like any other company - choose the best parts, and work with as many different products as possible. The internal competition improved each of IBMs divisions (and I assume some divisions which were badly run got noticed quickly, and fixed or axed as they should have been). In the end, for end users using any product at all (not IBM), adding an IBM product could make your life easier.Frobozz said:
I prefer the Mac to Windows because it gives us choice, and the competition and diversity lets a better product emerge. Whether Apple would help choice if it had 50% of the market is unknown. Anyway, I know that long term I'll be supporting any company that encourages true competition and diversity. IBM has done a good job of that.
I hope IBM kick start a new clone market where they are the equivalent of "Intel" (chip supplier), and outside sources provide motherboards, bioses etc. I hope their architecture runs Windows XP, Linux, and MacOS. Sounds to me like that could be IBM's hope too.
Good on IBM for opening up their chip architecture a step, that surprises me.
ps. Why all these stupid comments on EVERY rumour about updates next Tuesday. I'm sure some people find it amusing, but no "someone does NOT have to say it"... it's annoying. It almost makes me ignore a thread entirely.
Guess that makes since, I was just wondering why I can be a member for 6 months, have read for a year, and still show up as newbie. I guess I don't post enough, but I'm one of those people who checks 2-3 times a day, and finds what needed to be said has already been said on most threads.
Blending both the PowerPC 440 and PowerBook G5 threads...
In November last year there was a rather interesting thread on AppleInsider (I know, YA AppleInsider quoting thread...) with a speculation about the PowerBook G5's chip architecture.
Someone claimed to have inside knowledge about the chip architecture of this 'G5 Mobile' chip. The concept was to build 4 (four!) 440 cores (each with its own integer and AltiVec unit) onto one chip. Each core would only run at 700-800MHz but since the 440 is an embedded concept each core would consume just 1.5W of power max. And since those are cores on a single chip the speed between them would be really fast, much better than on current dual PowerMacs.
Effectively you would get a quad 800MHz (or '3.2GHz') 'G5 Mobile' PowerBook consuming 1/2 the juice of today's 1GHz G4 (i.e. resulting in twice the battery life) yielding a performance on properly threaded applications close to a 3GHz system. Not bad at all.
Since applications need to be specifically written to make maximum use of this new quad core design (loosely fashioned on the IBM Cell idea) the introduction would be at WWDC - as was claimed already back then in November 2003.
Here's the link to that admittedly old thread:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33983&ibm+440
In November last year there was a rather interesting thread on AppleInsider (I know, YA AppleInsider quoting thread...
) with a speculation about the PowerBook G5's chip architecture.Someone claimed to have inside knowledge about the chip architecture of this 'G5 Mobile' chip. The concept was to build 4 (four!) 440 cores (each with its own integer and AltiVec unit) onto one chip. Each core would only run at 700-800MHz but since the 440 is an embedded concept each core would consume just 1.5W of power max. And since those are cores on a single chip the speed between them would be really fast, much better than on current dual PowerMacs.
Effectively you would get a quad 800MHz (or '3.2GHz') 'G5 Mobile' PowerBook consuming 1/2 the juice of today's 1GHz G4 (i.e. resulting in twice the battery life) yielding a performance on properly threaded applications close to a 3GHz system. Not bad at all.
Since applications need to be specifically written to make maximum use of this new quad core design (loosely fashioned on the IBM Cell idea) the introduction would be at WWDC - as was claimed already back then in November 2003.
Here's the link to that admittedly old thread:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33983&ibm+440
Dreamail said:In November last year there was a rather interesting thread on AppleInsider (I know, YA AppleInsider quoting thread...
Someone claimed to have inside knowledge about the chip architecture of this 'G5 Mobile' chip. The concept was to build 4 (four!) 440 cores (each with its own integer and AltiVec unit) onto one chip. Each core would only run at 700-800MHz but since the 440 is an embedded concept each core would consume just 1.5W of power max. And since those are cores on a single chip the speed between them would be really fast, much better than on current dual PowerMacs.
Effectively you would get a quad 800MHz (or '3.2GHz') 'G5 Mobile' PowerBook consuming 1/2 the juice of today's 1GHz G4 (i.e. resulting in twice the battery life) yielding a performance on properly threaded applications close to a 3GHz system. Not bad at all.
Since applications need to be specifically written to make maximum use of this new quad core design (loosely fashioned on the IBM Cell idea) the introduction would be at WWDC - as was claimed already back then in November 2003.
Here's the link to that admittedly old thread:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33983&ibm+440
That would be a nice product but like you said the PB would have a better chip than he PM and apple wouldn't want to do that now would they?? Considering they have a dual 2.0 out and it is now getting obsolete, why not throw those in PM's as well since they most likely don't throw out as much heat. Then they can have a dual processor quad core making it essentially an "octa" core. Then again if that were to go in a PB the PM's should be up to 3.0 GHz which would make their whole pro line more reasonable and able to beat out the Windows side of things once again.
djbahdow01, such a quad 800MHz core chip would have a couple of drawbacks. Applications which are not threaded would only use one core, effectively running on a slow 800MHz chip. Therefore this concept is not really faster and (yet) suited to replace a dual 2GHz PowerMac.
But the whole system would seem rather responsive since the Finder would make good use of effectively 4 CPUs.
The problem with the 970fx at 1.8-2.0GHz is that it still uses more power than current 1.33GHz G4s (according to the above mentioned thread). So unless other components in the PowerBook can be made to use less power it means that the G5 PowerBook has a worse battery life than the current line of G4 PowerBooks. At best the same. Wouldn't it be better to get a chip that in total uses not more than 7-8W max, effectively doubling the battery life of current PBs - even if it meant that some (older) applications would only run on one 800MHz core?
But in any case, further down the thread it is speculated that this new multi-core concept for PBs would in fact eventually be used in PowerMacs too. The point being that Mac OS X is ideally suited for multi-multi CPU environments and since Apple can control both hard- and software they would be ideally suited to push such a 'Cell'-like concept.
In the long run it would also circumvent speed stumbling blocks in CPU design. Instead of going for dual or quad 3,4 and (mabye) 5 GHz chips manufactured in a (maybe) 45nm process, go for 256 1GHz embedded PowerPC 440 derived cores. Consumes less power (generates less heat) and runs properly threaded applications much faster.
-
But with IBM selling their 440 design, perhaps it doesn't seem like this idea is still being pursued...
But the whole system would seem rather responsive since the Finder would make good use of effectively 4 CPUs.
The problem with the 970fx at 1.8-2.0GHz is that it still uses more power than current 1.33GHz G4s (according to the above mentioned thread). So unless other components in the PowerBook can be made to use less power it means that the G5 PowerBook has a worse battery life than the current line of G4 PowerBooks. At best the same. Wouldn't it be better to get a chip that in total uses not more than 7-8W max, effectively doubling the battery life of current PBs - even if it meant that some (older) applications would only run on one 800MHz core?
But in any case, further down the thread it is speculated that this new multi-core concept for PBs would in fact eventually be used in PowerMacs too. The point being that Mac OS X is ideally suited for multi-multi CPU environments and since Apple can control both hard- and software they would be ideally suited to push such a 'Cell'-like concept.
In the long run it would also circumvent speed stumbling blocks in CPU design. Instead of going for dual or quad 3,4 and (mabye) 5 GHz chips manufactured in a (maybe) 45nm process, go for 256 1GHz embedded PowerPC 440 derived cores. Consumes less power (generates less heat) and runs properly threaded applications much faster.
-
But with IBM selling their 440 design, perhaps it doesn't seem like this idea is still being pursued...
shadowfax said:
what was wrong with my post???? it was an honest question, i didnt know! i thought they only used the 7 w/es and the 9 w/es and the G4s but i wasnt sure
nsb3000 said:
Ah, you have much to learn. Obviously, as Apple's goal is to piss off PowerBook owners, the next product to be updated will be the iBook.
It's good that IBM is more interested in a flexible architecture and allowing outside companies to design their own variations of the Power Architecture. Now, they can take what they did for Nintendo with the PowerPC 40x series and expand to almost anyone willing to meet their quantity and costs.
Does this mean anything to Apple? It probably doesn't but it could be useful in producing more capable handheld devices since they probably don't want to use Motorola or Intel processors for them. The one place where it might make a difference for Apple, indirectly, would be the sale of PowerMac G5s as development systems.
Does this mean anything to Apple? It probably doesn't but it could be useful in producing more capable handheld devices since they probably don't want to use Motorola or Intel processors for them. The one place where it might make a difference for Apple, indirectly, would be the sale of PowerMac G5s as development systems.
Ahh yes... or to see it another hypothetical way...Damek said:Ah, you have much to learn. Obviously, as Apple's goal is to piss off PowerBook owners, the next product to be updated will be the iBook.
Some time in the not too distant future, 2 computer companies, neck and neck in technology, get a chance to use a fast chip for their low end computers.
Company X says "we can't insult our high end customers by having such a good chip on the low end. We will stay with our present course". They push the high end development as fast as possible.
Company Y puts the new chip into their low end computers and release them. They also push the high end development as fast as possible.
In a perfect competitive world... one company keeps customers happier, and sells more. The good company grows, the bad company loses marketshare.
Would you buy shares in Company X or Y?Company X says "we can't insult our high end customers by having such a good chip on the low end. We will stay with our present course". They push the high end development as fast as possible.
Company Y puts the new chip into their low end computers and release them. They also push the high end development as fast as possible.
In a perfect competitive world... one company keeps customers happier, and sells more. The good company grows, the bad company loses marketshare.
Maybe Apple will play the Microsoft game and put a Darwin derivative in routers AND make the routers give priority to Mac packetsDoctor Q said:
(I refer, among other things, to the fact that Microsoft destroyed the nice priority system that unix-like-systems used on packets to make the internet traffic flow smoother (in the early days of the internet). Microsoft entered the arena and slapped top-priority on all their packets, thereby forcing all others to do the same, and poof, bye bye to smoother internet traffic.
)Not so very low end. IBM is building the Blue Gene/L super computer with a couple of thousand dual core 440 processors at 700 MHz each. AMC has not bought that technology though, they only bought the designes for older 440 implementations using the 0.25 micron fabrication, and license to use newer technology.macshark said:
Actually, it seems that IBM didn't use PPC 405 as the basis for Gekko but rather 750CX.bousozoku said:
If IBM doesn't have to produce the 400 series anymore, it could open up more lines for the PPC900 series and POWER processors.
I don't see why people start drawing conclusions leading to new powerbooks when ibm sells some technology. of course this is good business for ibm and - as said earlier on this thread - speeds up development. still i wouldn't start waiting new PBs just because of this, eventhough it's good news.
hey keysersoze whats with the sig it makes us brits look like your pets
"i love brits"
were not cute and fluffy
also what is the performence of these chips compared to a ppc750
edit: also dose anyone remember the washing macheine sized super computer ibm made with 500 4xx seris chips it ranked as somthing like the 60th most powerfull super computer
"i love brits"
were not cute and fluffy
also what is the performence of these chips compared to a ppc750
edit: also dose anyone remember the washing macheine sized super computer ibm made with 500 4xx seris chips it ranked as somthing like the 60th most powerfull super computer
Generally speaking they have lower performance, but that's because focus is on low power consumption and flexibility. 750GX and a 440GX performs equally well per MHz (~2 DMIPS/MHz), but the 750GX have more MHz, 1 GHz vs 667 MHz.Hector said:
Ofcouse I do, that's why I mentioned it aboveHector said:
It was a prototype node in IBM's upcomming BlueGene/L super computer. They had 512 dual core 440 CPUs, ie 1024 processor cores. They ran at 500 MHz in the prototype node, but the finished super computer should have processors running at 700 MHz. The prototype was the 73 fastest computer, just one point ahead of a 800 CPU Xeon-monster, where each processors is running at 3 GHz. Built by IBM too.