Power5 at Microprocessor Forum 2003

[jettredmont]

Re: Re: Re: PowerX, 9x0, G(X)

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
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.

I disagree. For one thing, there are two designs of the G3 at least (Moto's and IBM's). Amongst the G3 line we have various "designs" as described by IBM and Moto, corresponding to the various manufacturer part numbers.

For another, the G4 above 500MHz is a quite different design from those G4's below 500MHz (many more pipeline stages).

Chip design (as all engineering design) is an evolutionary process. Each design is based on the last to some extent, and borrows concepts if not concrete implementations from it. The difference between a "tweak" and a "whole new design" is one of degree and semantics.

Apple exists on a slightly different plane. They are not a chip manufacturer. They only need to redesignate their computers when there is a significant, user-visible difference. As I said, the G4 and G5 each have real, concrete, user-visible differences relative to their previous generations. I would expect no less from the G6.

Alongside this, Apple will want to embue some facade of stability in their computer lineup. If there is a "generational leap" every six months, you have much less buyer confidence ... why not just wait six months and get the next generation instead? Not to mention the brand recognition that you just throw out the window by shifting G5->G6 so quickly. G6 less than a year after the debut of G5 is silly.

So, it comes down to:

1) There is no reason for Apple to name a 2004 980 chip "G6"
2) There is a business reason to avoid "G6" for a few years.

Therefore, I don't expect G6 next year.

 

[jaedreth]

Panphage

I think you misunderstand.

So many are getting hooked on the idea that the Power5 derivative *will* be called PPC 980. This hasn't been decided. Also many are getting hooked on the idea that the 980 (which DNE), is G6. Not true. IBM has nothing they call G6. Apple has no plans as far as G6. G6 DNE. (Does Not Exist, math lingo)

3 altivec cores, improved "vector" cores, and hyperthreading *are* planned for this "next generation" chip.

As great as the 970, and as far better it is than the current G4's, it is admittedly "slapped together" in a rush.

IBM is taking their time with it's replacement, and wants to do it *right*. So we win big time.

Also these new chips are likely to hit first in Xserve and in high end workstations if those rumors turn out to be true. Then Desktops.

Thus, when that happens, eventually, the *consumer* market can transition to 970 while the *professional* market will move to "980". This being what will bring the transition to G5 to completeness. However, this could take 3-5 years for this cycle to complete.

But rest assured, it only gets better from here.

Jaedreth

 

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by panphage
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?

1) Dual core is inherently more expensive than dual chips on low-yield processes
2) Dual core is not as flexible as dual chips from a design perspective
3) A dual-core chip will put out more heat than a single-core chip, and so you have a concentrated heat source which requires more intelligent dissipation design.
4) Dual cores generally share a single FSB, which the G5's don't (G4's did, though, getting the "worst of both worlds" award).

On the other hand:

1) Dual-core can be cheaper if you have a very high-yield process
2) Dual core chips use less power than two single-core chips (in theory because the existing dual-core chips are on power-hungry monster computers ...)
3) Dual-core chips physically take up less space, making design relatively easier (aside from heat dissipation, see above).
4) Dual Cores Are Cool (tm).

 

[Hattig]

Re: PowerX, 9x0, G(X)

Originally posted by jaedreth
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.

The 970 is a tweaked single-core version of the POWER4 with an added altivec unit. It does incorporate some stuff that went into the design of the POWER5, but overall it is very closely related to the design of the POWER4.

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.

No, that was the 90nm shrink of the 970 that will get the processor to 3GHz and above by the middle of next year. The 980 will most likely arrive between the end of next year and the middle of 2005.

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.

Apple fell behind enough with the G4, I can easily see Apple releasing a G6 in 2005.

 

[jaedreth]

Interesting

If the official 980 isn't expected until 2005, that could be the case.

Whether this 980 winds up being G6 or not is an Apple Marketing decision. But whether the 980 Power5-based derivative is the G6, or if a later variant of a Power6 winds up taking that name, the chips will be released as they will be released, and they will rock for sure. The only way out is up.

We'll just have to wait and see.

Jaedreth

 

[Phil Of Mac]

A few things:

1. This is all speculation based on rumors. It's stupid to point out that nothing is set in stone yet. Of course not. This is MacRumors.
2. No one's saying the G6 is coming out in six months. All I'm saying is that in terms of release, it might take anywhere between one year from the G5 (i.e. next summer) to two years. The G5 is probably a transitionary chip, considering how quickly it was slapped together out of spare parts, so to speak. A single Power4 core there, an Altivec unit tacked onto the side, with a few modifications to make it work. The design of IBM's PowerPC counterpart to the Power5 (rumored to be called the "980", so I'm calling it that) is reportedly being done more methodically, alongside the Power5. So it's possible that the 970/G5 is simply a 601-style immediate solution that's due for a quick replacement. That would lean toward one year. The fact that the 980 corresponds with the Power5 suggests that the 980 will probably be out around the time the Power5 is, and if later, then not too much later. That puts an upper limit of 2 or so years on the 970.

G1 lasted one year, G2 and G3 lasted two years. G4 lasted four years, but that was for many reasons (end of Book E, Motorola's troubles, etc.) a fluke.

Also, G3 and G4 did refer to variants of the same chip. The G3 was called the 740 or 750, while the G4 was called the 74xx. Motorola's Book E G5 was the 8500--indicating that in Motorola's eyes, it was a "new processor". The above-500 MHz was not a "new processor" because it was still a 74xx.

And the G5 is the 970.

IBM obviously considers the 980 to be a "new processor", because it corresponds with Power5, which is also a "new processor" compared to the Power4.

Therefore, the 980 will be universally considered a "new processor", justifying the name G6.

 

[hasapi]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
A few things:

1. This is all speculation based on rumors. It's stupid to point out that nothing is set in stone yet. Of course not. This is MacRumors.
2. No one's saying the G6 is coming out in six months. All I'm saying is that in terms of release, it might take anywhere between one year from the G5 (i.e. next summer) to two years. The G5 is probably a transitionary chip, considering how quickly it was slapped together out of spare parts, so to speak. A single Power4 core there, an Altivec unit tacked onto the side, with a few modifications to make it work. The design of IBM's PowerPC counterpart to the Power5 (rumored to be called the "980", so I'm calling it that) is reportedly being done more methodically, alongside the Power5. So it's possible that the 970/G5 is simply a 601-style immediate solution that's due for a quick replacement. That would lean toward one year. The fact that the 980 corresponds with the Power5 suggests that the 980 will probably be out around the time the Power5 is, and if later, then not too much later. That puts an upper limit of 2 or so years on the 970.

And the G5 is the 970.

IBM obviously considers the 980 to be a "new processor", because it corresponds with Power5, which is also a "new processor" compared to the Power4.

Therefore, the 980 will be universally considered a "new processor", justifying the name G6.

Logic suggests you will be right, the 980 will achieve greater performance (speculation about twice as fast per clock), so its more than likely that Apple marketing will introduce this as a G6. Of course its not a '6th generation' processor but then neither is the 970 a '5th generation'. Its just naming to differentiate processors of disparate performance.

Everything ive read from IBM suggests this chip (980) will be available around early 2005 (at least in samples).

I just hope (not looking good?) Motorola can get some more legs out of the 7457 to 2GHz+ for the consumer range over the next 6-9months before we get 0.09um G5's into the PBooks and then into the iMacs/iBooks in time for the PMacs to go to G6.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by hasapi
Logic suggests you will be right, the 980 will achieve greater performance (speculation about twice as fast per clock), so its more than likely that Apple marketing will introduce this as a G6. Of course its not a '6th generation' processor but then neither is the 970 a '5th generation'. Its just naming to differentiate processors of disparate performance.

Exactly. It doesn't necessarily mean they add a new feature.

Originally posted by hasapi
Everything ive read from IBM suggests this chip (980) will be available around early 2005 (at least in samples).

That pegs release in the summer of 2005. Sounds like a two-year generational period, quite reasonable and in line with past history.

Originally posted by hasapi
I just hope (not looking good?) Motorola can get some more legs out of the 7457 to 2GHz+ for the consumer range over the next 6-9months before we get 0.09um G5's into the PBooks and then into the iMacs/iBooks in time for the PMacs to go to G6.

I think the current G4's (the late ones) are the end of the line. IBM's working on 90 nm, which is probably the only real obstacle to putting the G5 into the PowerBook. I'm guessing that summer 2004 or the following winter will see the G5 in all lines. Remember, the G3 went across the entire line in a matter of 1 day, back in 1997. (Discontinuing the entire product line and replacing it with the Power Mac G3 and a hacked PowerBook 3400 upgraded to G3 was a feasible option then, but not now.) An entire G3 product line took until 1999 to complete, but that's because they had to develop four all-new products, using completely different technologies, from the ground up. (The "New World" computers, based on CHRP technology.)

If IBM takes 6-9 months to go to 90 nm, then I think Apple can put G5's across the line by next summer. The iMac and PowerBook are the obvious choices, then the eMac and iBook.

And no, I don't think the iBook will ever see a G4. I don't think it should. The purpose of the iBook is to be a consumer portable that's not just yesterday's technology. Using yesterday's processor makes it yesterday's technology. The iBook was a G3 when the PowerBook and Power Mac were both G3. Apple liked that, and probably wants that type of thing going. I can believe that we'll see the G5 across the line. I can believe that since the 980/G6 will be a 90nm chip. it'll be across the line within a matter of months. That's what I would do if I was Apple's CEO, and I think Steve Jobs is just as smart as I am.

 

[hasapi]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
If IBM takes 6-9 months to go to 90 nm, then I think Apple can put G5's across the line by next summer. The iMac and PowerBook are the obvious choices, then the eMac and iBook.

Again, it appears that this is indeed the case, the problem for Apple right now is that in terms of price/performance both the PowerBooks and the iMacs SUCK!. The G4 is relatively stuck at 1G, discounting the super hot 7455 1.42's (unsuitable for PB's/iMacs).

Both the PB's & the iMacs NEED G4's at around 1.6G at the high end or G5's at say 1.2G. But what are the odds of Moto shipping 7457's @ 1.6G and in quantity!, probably why Apple engineers are trying to get G5's to work in PB's now - before SJ blows a fuse!

 

[AidenShaw]

You are out of your mind.... (imho ;-) )

Originally posted by jaedreth
IBM G5 mainframes (which IBM is still KING of mainframes) are only sold to .gov. Period.

IBM is not selling anything with a PPC970 chip today (the "PPC970" is the real name for what Apple marketeers have dubbed the "G5") - nothing, nada, zilch, zero. (Actually, IBM is already selling G5 and G6 systems in the S390 line (http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/s390/pes/), but that has nothing to do with PowerPC.)

IBM POWER4 systems (of course, the PPC970 (Apple G5, not IBM G5) is a "POWER4 Lite" chip) are in a number of systems, and are on the open market. (At least, I know that the big black system in the 2nd floor lab is a 32-processor POWER4 system, and I *don't* work for the government.)

You are so full of it that the whites of your eyes are brown....

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Re: You are out of your mind.... (imho ;-) )

Originally posted by AidenShaw
IBM is not selling anything with a PPC970 chip today (the "PPC970" is the real name for what Apple marketeers have dubbed the "G5") - nothing, nada, zilch, zero. (Actually, IBM is already selling G5 and G6 systems in the S390 line (http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/s390/pes/), but that has nothing to do with PowerPC.)

I think that's what jaedreth was talking about. And yes, it was dumb to bring it up.

 

[Fitzcaraldo]

With any luck the next revision of G5 will include 64 way altivec like this:

CS301

If not then the next generation should? I quit like the idea of a personal 'Super Computer'...

 

[yamabushi]

Seperating the Altivec unit into a large math coprocesor similar to the CS301 might be worthwhile. It certainly sounds interesting. Alternatively, IBM could leave things the way they are and supply an extra Altivec PCI-X card for those who need it. However it kind of seems llike the opposite of their current stategy of putting everything onto the chip.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by yamabushi
Seperating the Altivec unit into a large math coprocesor similar to the CS301 might be worthwhile. It certainly sounds interesting. Alternatively, IBM could leave things the way they are and supply an extra Altivec PCI-X card for those who need it. However it kind of seems llike the opposite of their current stategy of putting everything onto the chip.

PCI-X? Altivec currently operates at the clock frequency. The PCI-X bus won't even be a tenth of that.

Bad idea.