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

Power5 at Microprocessor Forum 2003

Re: G5 -> G6

Originally posted by jaedreth
If IBM does decide to use Power5 or a derivative on Macs, I wouldn't expect it for 4 years or more. IBM makes chips for its own servers first, Apple second. But that's better than Motorola making its chips for cell phones first, and if they feel like it they might make some for Apple. The G4 premiered in 1999, and it's reign lasted until this year, 2003, about the same point in the year. So that's 4 years. Given that, I don't expect G6 until Fall of 2007.

Jaedreth
Click to expand...
Well, I can't give you a link, but it was stated that, from this point on, PowerX development and PPC9X0 development would proceed in parallel. The 980 should arrive very shortly after the Power5.

The more I think about it, the more certain I am that the info above came out of a news item referenced here at MR.
 
Wizard: G5 -> G6

I think you misunderstood me.

1) IBM has not reported that the next processor design, tentatively coded the 980 and/or Power5, would be used in Macs.

2) The reports I've seen seem to indicate they will *not* be used on macs, but technological advances based on this project may eventually be incorporated into Macs.

3) That the G5 would continue to be used, not as is, but as a growing processor architecture, for the next four years.

4) That *if* IBM were to eventually make the Power5 into a chip for Macs, aka a G6, that it would not happen until at least Fall of 2007.

My point is not that the G5 will stagnate. I don't forsee that at all.

I see G5 getting faster and faster. IBM is already working on a second Revision of the 970, that is still G5. And IBM will continue to do so. The chip will get faster and mature more, providing better performance at far more frequent intervals than with Motorola's G4's.

So just because I compare the *life span* of G5 to G4, and expect it to roughly match (my own personal opinion), doesn't mean that I forsee the same bs Motorola put us through happening with IBM. In fact, I'm expecting great things.

But also keep in mind, IBM was using G4 technology in it's current machines four years before Apple had its first G4. IBM makes High End Servers, so the processors they make for themselves are not going to the the processors Apple uses, perhaps except after a good period of time.

I hope that clarifies my position.

Besides, G5 will scale very well over four years, and perhaps beyond. I don't forsee needing a G6 before then, though we've needed G5 for two or three years now.

Jaedreth
 
PowerX, 9x0, G(X)

Well, I can't give you a link, but it was stated that, from this point on, PowerX development and PPC9X0 development would proceed in parallel. The 980 should arrive very shortly after the Power5.

____

I must have missed that one. But what I'm describing is the relationship between Power4 and G5, Power 5 and G6.

If the PPC 970 is a *variant* of the Power4, designed for a workstation instead of a high end server, then I could see this. I think this may be the case, but I'd have to clarify this with my sources.

A PPC 980 *may be* a variant of Power5, but that does not necessarily mean it will be G6.

There is also no guarantee at this early stage that IBM will call this supposed variant of Power5 a PPC 980 anyways.

There *was* a report here about a supposed PPC 980, that more recent reports showed it would likely still be classified as 970, but a new revision.

I do expect technology to increase, and at a far faster rate after Moto is out of the picture, however I still don't forsee Apple releasing a "G6" computer any sooner than late 2007.

Jaedreth
 
Re: PowerX, 9x0, G(X)

Originally posted by jaedreth
Well, I can't give you a link, but it was stated that, from this point on, PowerX development and PPC9X0 development would proceed in parallel. The 980 should arrive very shortly after the Power5.

____

I must have missed that one. But what I'm describing is the relationship between Power4 and G5, Power 5 and G6.

If the PPC 970 is a *variant* of the Power4, designed for a workstation instead of a high end server, then I could see this. I think this may be the case, but I'd have to clarify this with my sources.

A PPC 980 *may be* a variant of Power5, but that does not necessarily mean it will be G6.

There is also no guarantee at this early stage that IBM will call this supposed variant of Power5 a PPC 980 anyways.

There *was* a report here about a supposed PPC 980, that more recent reports showed it would likely still be classified as 970, but a new revision.

I do expect technology to increase, and at a far faster rate after Moto is out of the picture, however I still don't forsee Apple releasing a "G6" computer any sooner than late 2007.

Jaedreth
Click to expand...
Sorry, Jaedreth, I think you need to read some of the info out there. The relationship between Power4 and the 970 is well known and authoritative. Same goes for the next generation of Power5 and the 980. Search the forums and I'm sure you can dig up the links.
 
Re: Re: G5 -> G6

Originally posted by daveL
Well, I can't give you a link, but it was stated that, from this point on, PowerX development and PPC9X0 development would proceed in parallel. The 980 should arrive very shortly after the Power5.

The more I think about it, the more certain I am that the info above came out of a news item referenced here at MR.
Click to expand...

Which would indicate that the G6 will come very, very soon.

Originally posted by jaedreth
So just because I compare the *life span* of G5 to G4, and expect it to roughly match (my own personal opinion), doesn't mean that I forsee the same bs Motorola put us through happening with IBM. In fact, I'm expecting great things.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the long lifespan of G4 was part of Moto's BS.

Consider:

The 601 (IBM exclusively) was the first generation, or "G1". It lasted from 1994 to 1995 before the next generation came out. 1 year.
The 603/604 "G2" (IBM and Motorola at Somerset) lasted from 1995 to 1997. Two years.
The G3 (IBM and Motorola at Somerset) lasted from 1997 to 1999. Two years.
The G4 (Motorola exclusively) lasted from 1999 to 2003. Four years.

Conclusion: The G4 lasted twice as long as it should have. It is the outlier. A one to two year lifespan for the G5 (until it is replaced by the G6, it will actually be used longer than that) is perfectly reasonable.

The POWER4 had been out for awhile when IBM developed the 970. If POWER and PowerPC development continue at IBM concurrently, than it's reasonable to assume that the G5 will be short-lived, the G6 will last about as long as the POWER5, until the POWER6/G7 comes out, and so forth.
 
Re: Again

Originally posted by jaedreth
I'm not questioning that.

What I'm questioning is the relationship between PPC 980/Power5 and G6.

That's all.

Jaedreth
Click to expand...
Oh, so you are saying you're not sure that the 980 will makes its way into the Mac? I guess nothing is for certain, but Apple and IBM have worked very hard to communicate that there relationship is for the long haul and that Apple will benefit from IBM's continuing development of the 9x0 processor architecture. I guess we will see.
 
Re: PowerX, 9x0, G(X)

Originally posted by jaedreth
There *was* a report here about a supposed PPC 980, that more recent reports showed it would likely still be classified as 970, but a new revision.

I do expect technology to increase, and at a far faster rate after Moto is out of the picture, however I still don't forsee Apple releasing a "G6" computer any sooner than late 2007.

Jaedreth
Click to expand...

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the 980 (ie, a Power5 desktop derivative) will make it to Apple's lineup, but that Apple will still call it a G5.

If that's not what you're saying, it should be :)

There is nothing stating that Apple must brand a Power5-derivative "G6". In fact, the "G" number should, by design, escalate quite slowly, as a result of fundamental advances. Processor shrink is (obviously) not such an advance; increased FSB is not such an advance; bringing the memory controller on-chip is not such an advance.

G4: Altivec
G5: 64-bits
G6: (dual core? SMT aka HyperThreading?)

If the Power5 derivative does not have something fundamentally new, then it should not be designated a "G6". IMHO, SMT doesn't qualify either (heck, even Intel, they of the P2->P3 transition that meant next to nothing, didn't bump their proc number with HyperThreading!) Dual cores would do it. Any other ideas out there about what should be the next generational leap?

This is all IMHO, but because of the fairly small period of time between the 970 and the 980 (assuming previous rumors are correct there), I don't see the 980 being called "G6". I suspect the "G6" is a few years off, but that we'll see the "980" on our desktops a bit sooner than that.
 
Re: Re: PowerX, 9x0, G(X)

Originally posted by jettredmont
There is nothing stating that Apple must brand a Power5-derivative "G6". In fact, the "G" number should, by design, escalate quite slowly, as a result of fundamental advances.
G4: Altivec
G5: 64-bits
G6: (dual core? SMT aka HyperThreading?)

If the Power5 derivative does not have something fundamentally new, then it should not be designated a "G6".
Click to expand...

Well, keep in mind that the G3 was always the exact same processor design. The G3 you use today is a variant of the same chip the G3 of 1998 was. The G4 you use today is a variant of the same chip that it was in 1999. The G6 is simply going to be the next chip that someone designs.
 
Exactly

Jettredmont: Exactly what I mean.

And Phil, what we're saying is that it won't be the next chip someone designs, but the next *generation* of chip.

Jaedreth
 
One and the same, jaedreth.

No one will design a new chip unless it has an inherent advantage over the current chip. Thus, a new generation. (Apple is more than happy to use one chip in all their products, they did it with the G3, couldn't do it with the G4, but with the G5, they'll probably go back to it.)

My point is, the G6 won't necessarily have any big new feature. It could, but there's no evidence that for Apple, the "G" designations mean anything other than "how much more new and improved the chip is".
 
Re: Exactly

Originally posted by jaedreth
Jettredmont: Exactly what I mean.

And Phil, what we're saying is that it won't be the next chip someone designs, but the next *generation* of chip.

Jaedreth
Click to expand...
I agree that dual cores would demand the G6 moniker. I really don't care *what* they call them though, and I don't relate to threads that debate that issue endlessly. Then again, I'm an engineer, not a marketing guy or a sales guy or a poet. To each his own.
 
G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6...

Apple didn't start using Gx designations until the G3.

Technically the 601s were G1, 603 and 604 were G2.

So more than one chip are within a generation. If IBM does release this new G3 chip, the chip has a new name, but it's still a G3 chip. It's still using third generation technology.

All of the G4 chips had their names, but they were each G4 technologies.

Neither a new revision of an existing chip nor a brand new chip will qualify as a new generation because this isn't a marketing thing.

Just because Intel artificially inflates numbers for the next-gen appeal doesn't mean others do. The Power5 is the next evolution of the Power4, however that does not mean that they aren't both "G5" chips. (In fact, a friend of mine does AIX L3 support at IBM, and allegedly IBM doesn't use the G5 moniker for either the Power4 nor the upcoming Power5, but a different processor that is their supercomputers that can only be sold to the US Gov't. So IBM's use of G5 does not even relate to Apple's. Yet this is still a 5th generation processor used in Macs, so G5 is appropriate, and Apple will not use G6 until the processors they use advance a generation.)

Jaedreth
 
Re: G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6...

Originally posted by jaedreth
Apple didn't start using Gx designations until the G3.

Technically the 601s were G1, 603 and 604 were G2.

So more than one chip are within a generation. If IBM does release this new G3 chip, the chip has a new name, but it's still a G3 chip. It's still using third generation technology.
Click to expand...

G2 was an exception only because the 603 and 604 were used at the same time. The G3 was intended to be used in all products at the same time, as was the G4. (Motorola's production problems scuttled that plan.) The G5 will probably be used in this manner. The "Gx" moniker relates to using the same chip across the entire product line because that one chip alone represents an entire generation of design.

Originally posted by jaedreth
All of the G4 chips had their names, but they were each G4 technologies.
Click to expand...

They were variants of the same chip.

Originally posted by jaedreth
Neither a new revision of an existing chip nor a brand new chip will qualify as a new generation because this isn't a marketing thing.

Just because Intel artificially inflates numbers for the next-gen appeal doesn't mean others do. The Power5 is the next evolution of the Power4, however that does not mean that they aren't both "G5" chips.
Click to expand...

Actually, neither is. G5 is Apple's marketing term for the 970 processor (and presumably its variants).

Originally posted by jaedreth
Apple will not use G6 until the processors they use advance a generation.
Click to expand...

The next chip WILL be an advance of a generation. That's what the Gx thing is about.
 
Gx

Whatever. We're not going to agree on this one. My prediction stands. No G6 products til late 2007. Feel free to disagree.

Jaedreth
 
Re: Re: G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6...

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
G2 was an exception only because the 603 and 604 were used at the same time. The G3 was intended to be used in all products at the same time, as was the G4. (Motorola's production problems scuttled that plan.) The G5 will probably be used in this manner. The "Gx" moniker relates to using the same chip across the entire product line because that one chip alone represents an entire generation of design.


They were variants of the same chip.
Click to expand...

Well, this discussion is just about all G'd out - but I think it's worth pointing out that the original G4 bears little resemblance to the current design. The original G4's are more like G3's + an altivec unit. It's the altivec that makes it a "G4".

Apple will name thing's Gx where ever they see the bigest marketing impact - and that's reflected in leaps in evolution, not tweaks.
 
This is what I've heard.

Unlike Power4, Power5 is not exclusively designed to be used in big iron servers. Its design will allow for use in smaller servers even high end workstations. It will come with an Altivec(SIMD) unit and it will incorporate hardware multi-threading. Its gonna be very easy to make derivative of this chip just by scraping one of its two CPU cores or there will be almost no need to make any changes to its design in order to be used in Apple high end boxes.

By the way!

G3+Altivec!=G4

G3 was derived from PPC 603 while G4 borrowed heavily from PPC 604 including far superior FPU unit.
 
Generations

The generations did mean something even though the "Gx" series monikers were not used openly until the "G3" series.

The original chip -- the PowerPC 601 -- was a derivative of a combination of the original single chip version of IBM's POWER CPU and Motorola's 88000 CPU (The original POWER CPU actually contained either 5 or 7 chips, depending on the model, to house all the units in it and to dissipate heat -- I believe it took IBM 2 or 3 years to get the first single chip version of the POWER CPU out the door after the original CPU chip sets shipped and within a year after that IBM Manassass started shippind a radiation hardened version for the military and space applications. The Motorola 88000 CPU was a 1-5 chip configuration depending upon how much static RAM Level 1 cache you wanted in your system.) The original chip was a truly 32 bit design just like the chips it was based upon, but, just like the POWER CPUs it was designed from the start with the intention of eventually taking it to a 64 bit chip. The AIM consortium (Apple, IBM and Motorola) took the execution units, predominantly, from the POWER chip and the internal busses and the ability to be extensible in nature (ability to add unique execution units as the chip evolved) from the 88000. This first hybrid one out the door was the 601.

The 603 and 604 (and their variants) were the next generation. They were fundamentally different in that the 603 emphasized power coservation and simplicity while the 604 had the fullest implementation, in hardware, for fully symmetric multiprocessing. (Full SMP could be done in the 603, but IIRC it only had MEI of the full MERSI suit so a lot of the cohernecy task had to be done in software -- which Be Inc did when it used 603s. IIRC, the 604 had the full set of MERSI hardware hooks.)

The "G3" from Motorola was specifically tuned -- in hardware -- to the Mac OS. Motorola had been negotiating to be a Mac OS compatible vendor. Motorola wanted the G3 tuned to that OS. Motorola worked with Apple to carefully model how the PowerPC chips ran the Mac OS of the time and tuned the hardware in the G3 to run the Mac OS and Mac applications as fast as possible. In fact Motorola not only got a license to be a Mac cloner, Motorola got the right to license OTHER companies as Mac cloners -- thus getting Motorola a possible double, triple, or even more, revenue stream in the Mac clone market.

(This hardware tuning of the G3 for the Mac caused no end of shouts in the benchmarking world that Apple had "cheated" and that such things as the Byte benchmarks -- remember them? -- were tailored to the Mac. In fact the opposite was true, Byte actually went in and modified its benchmark to run faster on the Intel chips of the time -- actually going in and changing a malloc call to make the Intel chips perform better. No such modification of any kind was done for the G3.)

We all know what happened to the Mac clone market. Motorola became very, very annoyed (to say it mildly) with the abolishment of the Mac clone market.

Meanwhile IBM loved the concept of the G3. It was a "clean design". IBM went forward with it, enhancing it dramatically. I remember hearing of samples shipped to various users (even Apple), but I don't remember any significant implementations of this very fast G3.

Motorola had the G4 under development before the death of the clone market -- IIRC, internally referred to as the PowerPC 7XXX series rather than the "G4" label. The big change for the G4 from the G3 was that it was the first chip to really use the extensible nature of the 88000 derived internal bus. Motorola added a vector unit (actually a SIMD unit not a true vector unit like on the old Cray computers and IBM's 3090-600VF machinines). IBM decided to pull out of the AIM aliance and sold its interest in the joint development center to Motorola. To my knowledge IBM never did a G4 with, or without, a SIMD unit.

After the G4 Motorola did do a G5. It actually shipped some test chips. Some of these machines actually found their way out into the world, and many of us who had friends with these boxes heard great stories about how these chips were real "screamers". However, these were rarely referred to as G5 chips by anyone other than Apple, but rather as "Book E" chips after a set of specifications referred to by that name. Motorola never got these chips into production. The rumors were that there were serious design flaws in the chip that kept it from going into production. Motorola decided the cost to redesign the chip would be greater than any profit they would make off it -- because Apple would be the only significant customer for it. Thus Motorola killed the project. (As an aside, Apple and Motorola had an agreement that Motorola would give Apple a significant lead time before killing any PowerPC production or PowrPC development. Motorola appears to not have given Apple the appropriate lead time. Thus Apple is suing Motorola over killing the G5/Book E chip and not giving Apple enough notice.)

Enter IBM. Motorola is not going to do anything beyond variants of the G4. Apple needs something significantly faster. IBM offers to do a derivative of the POWER4 chip and add a SIMD unit to it. This would not be a true PowerPC derived from the original concept, but instead a POWER derivative with SIMD added to it, yet still use the PowerPC instruction set. Thus IBM created the PowerPC 970 based upon the POWER4 with SIMD added. Is the PowerPC 970 different from the POWER4? Definitely, but it does carry that heritage. In fact its hardware implementation carries more heritage from the POWER4 than it does from the PowerPC G4 (other than the SIMD unit, that is). It has the PowerPC instruction set and is software backwardly compatible so everyone is calling it a PowerPC.

In adding a SIMD unit to the POWER4 derivative, IBM did a sub optimal SIMD to get the chip out the door in a reasonably short period of time. It is definitely NOT a bad SIMD unit, but it could have been better if they had been given more time. IBM engineers have admitted this openly. No one but Apple refers to this chip as the G5. IBM calls it the PowerPC 970.

There will definitely be future versions of the PowerPC 970. IMB has alread hinted rather heavilyt at adding memory management, a better SIMD unit, etc. to the PowerPC 970. Will they be a 970+, 970e, 971 or 980? Who knows. I doubt the decision has even been made yet. Apple will almost definitely refer to these as G5 chips in G5 systems.

IBM is most definitely going forward with the POWER5 chips. Will Apple use the "G6" label with the PowerPC derivative of the POWER5 CPU (already rumored to be in development for several months now)? Who knows. I doubt Apple's marketing team has made that decision yet.

We should never confuse the POWER chips with the PowerPC chips. They are two different CPU families for very different markets. It is true, one has always had a heritage from the other, but they are two different chip families. Also we should never confuse IBM's G5 CPUs with either the POWER CPUs or the PowerPC CPUs. IBM's G5 CPUs (as were the IBM G4s before them) are mainframe CPUs and are a totally different beast.

Bottom line as I see it is IBM is agressively pushing the POWER series forward (funded through the purchases of truly massive machines by DOE and the EU). IBM has made so many hints over the past 6-12 months that they will agressively create an even better PowerPC derivative of the POWER5 that this seems like a virtual certainty. Will Apple call the POWER5 derivative a G6? Who knows? I doubt anyone does.

Is this all good for Apple and Mac users? Definitely.
 
Re: Wizard: G5 -> G6

Currently the Power5 and the imainged 980 are considered to be two different things just as the 970 is a differrent product from the Power4. Further I don't think IBM would ever comment on a customers projected usage of anything they make. This would be especially the case with respect to Apple, considering Steves obsession with keeping everything secret.

Reports or not I would see Apple being driven to use a 980 as soon as possible. For one thing it si still up in the air as to how well the 970 actually performs. Second; by the time the G5 MACs are in full produciton both AMD and Intel will have signifcantly improved hardware on the market. Apple will have to implement the 980 quickly just to keep up with Intel hardware.

Both IBM and Apple realize that they need a single processor (chip) Power 5 implementation. I would not be surprised to see the 980 (G6) in a Mac 6 month after it is taped out for the first time. As good as it is (or a hack depending on veiw point) the 970 will not improve at a fast enough rate.

I don't believe that the 970 will stagnate either, but simple clock ramping won't be enough to save its behind. Hitting 3 GHz may help but it will have to be judged against what Intel and AMD are selling at the time. A 50% speed boost may be to little by the end of the year.

DAve

Originally posted by jaedreth
I think you misunderstood me.

1) IBM has not reported that the next processor design, tentatively coded the 980 and/or Power5, would be used in Macs.

2) The reports I've seen seem to indicate they will *not* be used on macs, but technological advances based on this project may eventually be incorporated into Macs.

3) That the G5 would continue to be used, not as is, but as a growing processor architecture, for the next four years.

4) That *if* IBM were to eventually make the Power5 into a chip for Macs, aka a G6, that it would not happen until at least Fall of 2007.

My point is not that the G5 will stagnate. I don't forsee that at all.

I see G5 getting faster and faster. IBM is already working on a second Revision of the 970, that is still G5. And IBM will continue to do so. The chip will get faster and mature more, providing better performance at far more frequent intervals than with Motorola's G4's.

So just because I compare the *life span* of G5 to G4, and expect it to roughly match (my own personal opinion), doesn't mean that I forsee the same bs Motorola put us through happening with IBM. In fact, I'm expecting great things.

But also keep in mind, IBM was using G4 technology in it's current machines four years before Apple had its first G4. IBM makes High End Servers, so the processors they make for themselves are not going to the the processors Apple uses, perhaps except after a good period of time.

I hope that clarifies my position.

Besides, G5 will scale very well over four years, and perhaps beyond. I don't forsee needing a G6 before then, though we've needed G5 for two or three years now.

Jaedreth
Click to expand...
 
All I know is the IBM guy at the WWDC said IBM was well along in development of the *next generation* of chips. I had just assumed that meant a POWER5 derivative, I didn't think a die shrink of the 970 warranted a next generation label. But maybe IBM's feelings differ.

Can someone with some chip design knowledge explain/speculate on why apple wouldn't want a dual-core chip for their powermacs? I mean since they keep pumping out dual processor systems, isn't a dual-core a shortcut?
 
Just a few observations

And some of it builds on what others posted.

1) The POWER5 will never show up in workstations, and not likely in any Apple server. It is very expensive and extremely reliable at the expense of speed, and people in Apple's market want speed and are not willing to pay for that class of reliability.

2) PPC970 was a POWER4 derivitive, but the POWER5 and next gen PPC970 will be designed together, as will future generations.

3) In the pipline are supposedly better predictive logic (very important with the grouping it does), on-die memory controller, their version of Hyperthreading and a better SIMD unit. Better SIMD was left out due to time to market constraints.

4) I doubt the PPC970 and heirs will show up in Apple blade servers since IBM has already announced they'll be making those.

5) According to an Ars interview, gcc has a hard time dealing with the PPC970 architecture, and they're working on a better compiler. I'd think a dedicated compiler would be very important for the PPC970 with its group dispatching.
 
Thank you Shadowself

Thanks Shadowself, you explained this all far better than I could, or did.

IBM G5 mainframes (which IBM is still KING of mainframes) are only sold to .gov. Period. Federal law prohibits machines this powerful to be sold anywhere else.

So G6 as Apple uses it is purely an Apple Marketing thing.

So it will still be a few years to G6. But who cares, this supposed 980 will likely be counted as G5, but that doesn't mean it would be any less awesome. It's just a name.

Jaedreth
 
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