Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

IBM's Power5 is Coming

The Power5 is very interesting

The Power5 is aimed at covering the Midrange to High End market. They consume little wattage making them suitable for the lucrative Blade Server market. I like this.

I doubt we see a Derivative of the Power5 until the 970 has moved on to 90 nanometers and have a revision or two. At any rate Apple will have some great options should IBM graft Altivec on a Power5 derivative and make it available.

I like the idea of a consumer lineup of PPC 970 systems and pro systems usiing a PPC 980(Power5 based) are tantalizing.

We'll need it too to remain competitive with Clawhammer and future Pentium 4 systems.
 
Re: The 970 is not as fast as two Power4 cores

Originally posted by sergeantmudd
I don't know how to quote, but a comment a few ones up says that the 970 gets almost the same score as a Power4 chip with two cores. Unforunately, SpecInt and SpecFp do not take multiple cores into consideration. So every spec mark only relates to one core, which is why the Power4 really does outclass every other chip.
Click to expand...

Damnit, you're right 🙂 Sorry for the misinformation ...
 
Re: Re: Power 5 in Nuclear Simulators

Originally posted by DavPeanut
Thats at least 3 Petaflops. Thats 15 million DP 1.42 Ghz G4s! Thats crazy! I want one! I could render full length Pixar-style movies at like 3 every 2 minutes or so!
Click to expand...

I want a coupon for 60 seconds of timeshare time on that thing with every 970 Mac I buy, useable in 0.01 sec increments.

Rocketman
 
Know what words I keep seeing in sentences together?

Apple, IBM, and "next year" or "the next few years."

Franky, all this development and speculation and proposed chip talk doesn't mean a thing if they can't get it to market. So far, Apple has NOT said that they'd use a 970, IBM has NOT said Apple is purchasing X thousands of them, and so forth.

The one thing that IBM HAS said is that the 970 tops at about 1.8GHz. HOPEfully, that 1.8GHz is as powerful as a Pentium 4 @ more than 4 GHz, because IF and WHEN Apple uses a 970, Intel will be way over 4GHz. Right now, Avid on a loaded P4 is a heck of a lot smoother than FCP on a loaded G4.

A lot of pro users like myself keep waiting for towers - why spend $10k+ for what is supposedly going to be replaced in X number of months? Catch is, no one knows how many months that will be. I've been ready to plop down around $15k for a new setup, but I'm trying to hold out for something really worth it. I'm getting a bit sick of these 200MHz increases, same Motorola chip for years, essentially the same mobo for years - Apple may be cutting-edge in the consumer space, but if you look at their professional stuff, it hasn't changed in years. The only thing that has really changed has been the speed of the same tired G4 processors, but even those have long since been eclipsed by AMD and Intel.

So why doesn't Apple just let their customers know what's up? Surely, judging by the slow sales of pro equipment, they can see that they need a shot in the arm - why not just announce that "Yes, in the next x months, expect to see some Pro equipment using new technologies." Or at least "Yes, we will be using a new processor within x months". It may be a pipe dream, but at least those on the fences can make a decision whether it's worth it to buy now or wait for the next generation...
 
Originally posted by JtheLemur
Know what words I keep seeing in sentences together?

Apple, IBM, and "next year" or "the next few years."

Franky, all this development and speculation and proposed chip talk doesn't mean a thing if they can't get it to market. So far, Apple has NOT said that they'd use a 970, IBM has NOT said Apple is purchasing X thousands of them, and so forth.

The one thing that IBM HAS said is that the 970 tops at about 1.8GHz. HOPEfully, that 1.8GHz is as powerful as a Pentium 4 @ more than 4 GHz, because IF and WHEN Apple uses a 970, Intel will be way over 4GHz. Right now, Avid on a loaded P4 is a heck of a lot smoother than FCP on a loaded G4.

A lot of pro users like myself keep waiting for towers - why spend $10k+ for what is supposedly going to be replaced in X number of months? Catch is, no one knows how many months that will be. I've been ready to plop down around $15k for a new setup, but I'm trying to hold out for something really worth it. I'm getting a bit sick of these 200MHz increases, same Motorola chip for years, essentially the same mobo for years - Apple may be cutting-edge in the consumer space, but if you look at their professional stuff, it hasn't changed in years. The only thing that has really changed has been the speed of the same tired G4 processors, but even those have long since been eclipsed by AMD and Intel.

So why doesn't Apple just let their customers know what's up? Surely, judging by the slow sales of pro equipment, they can see that they need a shot in the arm - why not just announce that "Yes, in the next x months, expect to see some Pro equipment using new technologies." Or at least "Yes, we will be using a new processor within x months". It may be a pipe dream, but at least those on the fences can make a decision whether it's worth it to buy now or wait for the next generation...
Click to expand...

Since when does apple say anything? What makes you think you're any better at guessing than anyone else. All signs (if you can read) point to 970 based apple computers. Sorry Steve forgot to email you.
 
JtheLemur

Apple and the PPC 970 systems are not very well kept secrets. Apple is not going to announce they are using these processors because they like the element of suprise. However all signs point to Moto stepping back and letting IBM assume the lead.

1. Apple needs a processor to match the 64bit offerings coming from Intel and AMD

2. Apple needs a processor that supports the PPC ISA and Altivec

3. Apple needs a new architecture that has legs and is aimed at Desktops but not so much the embedded markets

4. Apple needs good yields decent power consumption.

The PPC 970 meets all of these needs. There is no reason NOT to support the processor. Even Omnigroups Chief has stated publicly that Apple will "change chips".

IBM will be pushing Linux and this PPC 970 chip hard. Apple simply allows them to sell a few million more chips to help pay for that shiny new Foundry they built in Fishkill.

With the estimated Spec ratings the PPC 970 at 1.8Ghz should perform equal to a 2.8Ghz P4. This won't be enough at the top in in a Single Proc config so Apple can make headway by either offering a Dual 1.6 or 1.8Ghz system which would do the trick.

There's a light at the end of the tunnel and that light is Mac users finally getting the speed they need.
 
Re: Re: JtheLemur

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Yes, but today Dell is already offering dual 3.06 GHz Pentium systems.

By the time a 970 ships, Apple may be able to claim "We've almost caught up with the Pentium".

Big Whoop.
Click to expand...

Actually, that would make a lot of people happy. And why not?:

1. OS X
2. Mac-only i-Apps and pro software
3. Apple's industrial design
4. Hardware performance parity with PCs

For the last few years, Apple has held on on the basis of the first three factors. If they were to make #4 possible, I'd say it would put Apple on top.

I don't expect the 970 to deliver performance comparable to the latest x486s at its introduction. But if we can get close, it'd be a good start. And then, in the following years, PPC will again pass the x486 world.

call me an optimist...
 
Re: Re: JtheLemur

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Yes, but today Dell is already offering dual 3.06 GHz Pentium systems.

By the time a 970 ships, Apple may be able to claim "We've almost caught up with the Pentium".

Big Whoop.
Click to expand...

One small point, the 970 is a 64 bit cpu🙂

While that may not mean much to you, it will give the 970 something the X86 chips don't have. Since its' very beginnings, the PPC architecture has required 64/32 bit compatibility.🙂

And Spec #'s may not indicate everyday performance, give the 970 a chance, it hasn't even shipped. Who knows what its' day to day performance will be.🙂
 
Re: Re: Re: JtheLemur

Originally posted by rickag
One small point, the 970 is a 64 bit cpu 🙂
Click to expand...

Yes, and OS X is a 32-bit operating system. All your apps are 32-bit apps.

I would expect to see a 64-bit production version of OS X about a year after it's announced at WWDC - not only does Apple need to rewrite large parts of OS X (e.g. Carbon64 and Cocoa64, for starters), but it needs to have some 64-bit applications written as well.

IMO Apple will first announce 970 systems (if they use them) running completely in 32-bit mode. Perhaps they'll support more than 2GB of RAM, but not likely 64-bit virtual addressing for users.

However, the G4 can support 64GB today, but Apple's never supported more than 2GB on them. (P4 can also support 64GB, but you can already buy Pentium systems with up to 64GB of RAM installed.)

Another small point - 64-bit Windows systems are available today, about $4000 for an HP Itanium 2 workstation. It also runs Linux and HP-UX.

There just isn't much need for 64-bits on the desktop...yet.

Don't fall for the "Bit-width Myth" -- the 970 will be good for Apple because it should be faster than the G4.

Its 64-bit abilities will be handy in a few years, but unless you've got 2GB in your PowerMac and it's out of space more than likely 64-bits won't do anything for you.
 
Re: Re: JtheLemur

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Yes, but today Dell is already offering dual 3.06 GHz Pentium systems.

By the time a 970 ships, Apple may be able to claim "We've almost caught up with the Pentium".

Big Whoop.
Click to expand...

Yes, that IS a "big whoop." Apple is running at almost 25% behind in real world performance on it's top of the line machines today. When the 970's come out, they will ramp up in clock speed fast, according to almost every rumor about them. This means that Apple will go from a 25% shortcoming to maybe 5 or 10% in one revision. The next revisions, which could be in the low to mid 2 GHz range, could get them neck and neck. P4's are getting tapped out. The 970 is just (almost) beginning.

To the guys who still doubt the 970, you HAVE to be crazy. Apple is NEVER going to admit using a new processor because it would make their existing sales essentially stop. They never have, and never will... yet even Jobs has hinted at a big change coming soon without officially letting the cat out of the bag. Even IBM has said that Apple would be a likely candidate for the chip. All the signs are there! The 970 will happen. It ain't gonna change the world overnight, but we'll play a good game of catch-up... then eventually overtake the Wintel world again.
 
Re: Re: Re: JtheLemur

Originally posted by rickag
One small point, the 970 is a 64 bit cpu🙂

While that may not mean much to you, it will give the 970 something the X86 chips don't have. Since its' very beginnings, the PPC architecture has required 64/32 bit compatibility.🙂

And Spec #'s may not indicate everyday performance, give the 970 a chance, it hasn't even shipped. Who knows what its' day to day performance will be.🙂
Click to expand...

AGREED! Bottom-line, cutting the BS and all the tech talk: Can you run the apps you have today and run them so fast you never have to wait. Answer: With the 970, this is very likely. You'll be able to run quality software at speeds that will make you no longer worry about OS X's speed, etc.
 
Pentium and G4 supporting more than 4 GB of RAM

Whoever commented on the Pentium and G4 being able to address more than 4 gigs of RAM is wrong. The Pentium4 can have 64 gigs of RAM in a machine, but can only address 4 gigs at once. What the chip does is use it's PAE (Pentium Architecture Extensions?) to use the other 60 gigs as a swap disk. Individual apps can never use more than 4 gigs, and the chip itself can only work on 4 gigs at once. This is important because every swap operation requires CPU involvement and the PAE extensions require considerable CPU resources.

Also, the G4 has nothing like that. It is 32 bits all the way, do you think if Motorla really wanted their router chip to be able to address more than 4 gigs, they would go through the trouble of creating hacks on their existing architecture, or do you think they would just upgrade to 64bits, which they had already done with 620 (so they know exactly how)
 
Re: Re: Re: JtheLemur

Originally posted by Frobozz
Yes, that IS a "big whoop." Apple is running at almost 25% behind in real world performance on it's top of the line machines today. When the 970's come out, they will ramp up in clock speed fast, according to almost every rumor about them. This means that Apple will go from a 25% shortcoming to maybe 5 or 10% in one revision. The next revisions, which could be in the low to mid 2 GHz range, could get them neck and neck. P4's are getting tapped out. The 970 is just (almost) beginning.
Click to expand...

That misses a point that no processor development ever stands still. Intel has said the Pentium 4 design is able to scale to 10Ghz. Intel will take the current Pentium 4 to 3.6Ghz. Then they will switch to the 90nm process and take it to 5+Ghz. Then they will switch to the 65nm process and take it to wGhz.

IBM will do the same thing with the PPC 970. They will start with a 130nm process and take it to xGhz. Then they will switch to a 90nm process and take it to yGhz. Then they will switch to a 65nm process and take it to zGhz.

The question is who ramps up their process changes the fastest and pumps up the Ghz quicker than the other one. No one knows that answer yet. The PPC 970 is great because is closes the widening performance gap in the pro lines. We have no idea whether it will catch up and overtake it because we don't know how quickly IBM can ramp up.

So far no one has been able to demonstrate the ability to switch processes and ramp up quicker than Intel. IBM is a business and it may turn out there is no economic advantage to trying to keep pace. It may turn out the market wants x86-64 processors from AMD instead of PPC 970s for the blade servers. It may turn out that Intel's low power Itanium processor becomes a reality. That would leave the PPC 970 in the same boat as the G4--a processor for Apple and embedded customers.

Of course I hope that does not happen but know one knows at this point.
 
Re: Pentium and G4 supporting more than 4 GB of RAM

Originally posted by sergeantmudd
Whoever commented on the Pentium and G4 being able to address more than 4 gigs of RAM is wrong. The Pentium4 can have 64 gigs of RAM in a machine, but can only address 4 gigs at once.
Click to expand...

A process on the P4 can address 4GibiBytes. The system can support multiple 4GB processes at once, and can therefore use all 64GB for processes. This is done without explicit PAE code in the processes - any number of legacy processes can be running and consuming more than 4GB of memory.

http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.asp

A PAE-enabled operating system should be capable of utilizing all physical memory provided by the system to load multiple applications; for example, App#1, App#2, App #N, each consisting of 4 GB (maximum) of virtual address. In a non-PAE enabled system, the result can be a great deal of paging, since maximum physical memory in the system is limited to 4 GB.

With the additional physical memory supported under PAE mode, an operating system can keep more of these applications in memory without paging. This is valuable in supporting server consolidation configurations, where support of multiple applications in a single server is typically required. Note that no application changes are required to support this capability.

The system can easily manage more than 4GB because it deals with the physical memory pages. Since pages are 4KB (on x86), 32-bits of page numbers can easily handle 64GB of RAM.

A specially written program can use the PSE operations to remap its 4GB to different regions at different times, thereby effectively having access to more than 4GB (but never more than 4GB at any instant. This is not what I'm talking about, though.


Originally posted by sergeantmudd
Also, the G4 has nothing like that. It is 32 bits all the way
Click to expand...

Motorola does not agree with you.

http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC7455&nodeId=018rH3bTdG8653

o 36-bit physical address space for direct addressability of 64 Gigabytes of memory
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: JtheLemur

Originally posted by ktlx
That misses a point that no processor development ever stands still. Intel has said the Pentium 4 design is able to scale to 10Ghz. Intel will take the current Pentium 4 to 3.6Ghz. Then they will switch to the 90nm process and take it to 5+Ghz. Then they will switch to the 65nm process and take it to wGhz.
Click to expand...

Intel has said this? The only estimates I've heard from Intel is that the P4 is set to go up to 3.6 by the end of this year, and that the 90nm P5 will debut at 3.2GHz in the fall (but it's supposed to be more efficient than the P4 so a 3.2GHz P5 *should* meet or beat a 3.6GHz P4). Unless you've seen something that no one else has, Intel is quite tight-lipped about what will happen to the Pentium line after this year.

In any case, 3.6GHz P4-class is the end-of-year projection from Intel. Not 5GHz. Not "wGHz" whatever 'w' stands for.


The question is who ramps up their process changes the fastest and pumps up the Ghz quicker than the other one.
Click to expand...

There's more to it than process changes and raw GHz. Processor design and architecture also make a big difference in overall system performance. You are correct that Intel is the only company out there with experience in produce its volume level of production of CPUs, and experience counts for a lot. However, boiling that down to how fast they can shrink their manufacturing process is overly simplifying the matter. IBM has a world-class design team, and a world-class implementation team. If anyone has the goods to challenge Intel, it is IBM.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: JtheLemur

Originally posted by AidenShaw
[B...- not only does Apple need to rewrite large parts of OS X (e.g. Carbon64 and Cocoa64, for starters), but it needs to have some 64-bit applications written as well.

Another small point - 64-bit Windows systems are available today, about $4000 for an HP Itanium 2 workstation. It also runs Linux and HP-UX.

There just isn't much need for 64-bits on the desktop...yet.
[/B]
Click to expand...

Yes some Mac OS X code will need to be rewritten/updated to utilize a 64 bit cpu, but many people disagree with you on how long it will take. Many people believe a 64 bit Mac OS X version will ship along side the 970 and probably is currently running @ Apple right now.

Yes applications will be need to be rewritten to utilize a 64 bit cpu and this will take more time than updating Mac OS X. But most all current 64 bit Unix should work fine with little or no effort.

Yes there are 64 bit Itamiums out there and they are very expensive, hot and use >100watts each AND they only have a very very limited # of apps that will EVEN RUN on them.(re:according to Intel about 100 apps).

Yes I agree that a 64 bit cpu will not, in and of itself, increase speed, but there are and will be benefits, especially since current 32 bit apps will run @ native speeds(ie: no emulation) requiring no rewrites @ all.

What WILL knock peoples socks off is the fact that they will be able to seemlessly be running their current 32 bit apps with 64 bit apps at the SAME TIME on the SAME COMPUTER with a very user friendly interface. With dual 970 cpu's running multiple apps simultaneously will be fast and efficient.

The 970's competition is not the Itanium it is the PIV. And clock for clock the 970 will slaughter it.

Whether the 970 will be faster(in the real world & not Spec #'s) than the PIV @ whatever GHz it is at, at the time of the 970's release, we will have to wait. In anything optimized for SIMID the 970 will absolutely destroy the PIV. Integer and Floating point should be close and depending on the software it may be a toss up, we will have to wait and see. But to all those out there saying the 970 will be too little too late and still be behind the PIV, I say right now ONLY IBM KNOWS.

If I remember correctly, the 970 will have 8 execution units and be able to retire 5 units each cycle. It can be working on over 200? units at any given time. And now there are rumblings that it may or will shortly have similar hyperthreading capabilites to what Intel is touting.

If I have made any errors feel free to correct me, but I'm really getting tired of people dissing the 970 before it even comes out and comparing it to Intel's future PIV cpu's.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JtheLemur

Originally posted by rickag
Many people believe a 64 bit Mac OS X version will ship along side the 970 and probably is currently running @ Apple right now.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but to get widespread developer support one can't keep the whole affair secret. That's why I would expect the first news about 64-bit APIs to surface at a WWDC.

On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with delivering a 32-bit system on the 970. One gets the immediate performance boost from the faster CPU, and one can announce the 64-bit roadmap after the system. Secrecy may be more important than a few months delay in 64-bit applications.

Apple might even do something in the middle - make enough changes to OS X so that it can support 8 or 16GB of RAM on the 970, but short of full 64-bit support. This would be similar to the >4GB support on x86 operating systems, you'd be able to run lots of 2GB processes at once.

Someday we'll know the real answer - 'til then we're all guessing. (I've did lots of 64-bit porting when I was working at Digital on the Alpha rollout - I agree that moving other 64-bit UNIX apps should be fairly easy, but porting the 32-bit Mac apps is likely to be hell!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back