Say Hello to the PPC NextGen (G5?)

[kenohki]

Originally posted by G4scott
Ok, let me see if I'm right... A 32 bit OS or App could run on a 64 bit chip, but it would only process 32 bits at a time, meaning the processor is running at a 50% performance level.

Now, to have a 32 bit app take advantage of a 64 bit processor, would it be possible to have the processor put two 32 bit commands in each clock cycle? Isn't this how Apple was able to say that Velocity Engine could process data in 128 bit chunks, because in reality, it just does 4 32 bit chunks per cycle?

So, 32 bit apps will work with a 64 bit chip, right? Well, if an app was to take true advantage of that chip, rather than just work with it, it would have to be changed to a 64 bit app, right? But this change would be only to optimize it, because it would run ok without it... This is how I see it, based on some of the stuff I've been reading here...

Not really correct. The processor is an eight way superscalar design meaning it's going to get eight ops out per cycle whether or not they are 32 or 64 bit precision.

The real advantage of 64bit processors is that using 64bits exponentially raises your ability to address memory. So you move beyond 32 bit memory limits.

 

[Snowy_River]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New thought....

Originally posted by kenohki


Apple's new guidelines for developers are to stop using the resource fork and to move resources into .rsrc files which should typically be hidden within application bundles. Apple would also like everyone to stop using the four charachter type/creator codes embedded in the HFS/HFS+ metadata and use a dot notation file extension like Windows. However, there are developers who are not following these guidelines to the T. Also, the Classic environment as well as most Classic applications require the resource fork and usually at least like to have type/creator codes.

This is one of the worst moves that Apple has ever made, IMHO. Just from a simple stand point, three letter case insensitive extensions allows for a specification of 17576 different kinds of files, whereas four letter case sensitive creator and type codes allows for specification of 5.345e13 different kinds of files. (There is an excellent document that talks about meta data handling on different OSes, and the three letter extension issue is just one part of it. If there's interest, I'll see if I can find the link to it...)

For what it's worth, it seems clear that Apple isn't just using the .3 to specify the file's associations, as, unlike Windows, you can have two .pdf files that will each automatically open with a different application. On the Info window, you can specify that a particular file will open with a particular file. So, in some sense, they are still storing an equivalent to the creator code somewhere.

 

[MMBosstonesDA]

Originally posted by whiskeybravo


I don't see that happening, Steve is a bit more clever than that. Introducing the new G4's and simutaneously announcing G5 plans whould effectively cut the legs off of G4 sales. If the G5 is around the corner, but Apple can't wait to introduce new motherboards/architecture, you can bet Steve will trumpet the G4 as the mostest insanely greatestest processor ever...only to be replaced with a G5 at MW in the Spring

Just to throw in something else to think about. If the G5 was designed for massive video editing/business workstations, SJ could do that. He could release the G4 for small/home businesses or just people who want alot of power and the discuss plans for the G5 for large corporations needing that kind of workstation power. He could release ball park prices for each of these. If the G5 was a workstation it would be too rich for the people wanting G4s and the they would go for them.

To tell you the truth I don't think any of this is going to happen. Apple's coming back and doing a great job but I think they've expanded their business so much since '97 that I think they need to settle down and return back to the niche they've created in the last five years, which is having a high end (the PowerMac) and a low end (the Performa/iMac). If this would be their strategy they would introduce the G5 as the new PowerMac the iMac with the G4 getting rid of the classic iMac.

Although there are many other things you could say like Apple's character is to be radical and do thing nobody's done before but it will all happen in good time. This is too much too soon. Just my two cents.

Mike

 

[Faeylyn]

Re: embedded?

Originally posted by chubakka
Also... his source STATES that IBM is wooing Apple to use the chip.

IBM already has a customer for this chip. Note that the customer may be IBM itself and, if so, then they might as well woo Apple to use it as well. The development costs prohibit IBM from making such a chip in the hopes that someone somewhere will use it. Intel and AMD can get away with that practice but not IBM.

As far as embedded stuff, they don't need this type of power. They're still stuck using very slow (by Mac standards) PowerPCs. So unless IBM has plans to enter the desktop market, this chip was custom designed for Apple.

(Either that or Amiga. I hear they're moving over to the PowerPC and should have their new OS out real soon now.)

 

[alex_ant]

As for this chip "emulating" AltiVec, don't count it out because of that, because nobody knows what "emulating" means in this context. Vectorized code is vectorized code which should run well on any compatible CPU with a vector unit. For all anybody knows, IBM is only "emulating" AltiVec because it doesn't own the trademark rights to the term "AltiVec."

Everything about this chip, to me, makes me think that it or something very like it will be the next Mac CPU. It puts all the pieces into place. I don't think the messages of these articles could be any clearer if they were written by Captain Obvious himself.

Alex

 

[jadam]

Originally posted by york2600
I love reading comments on this board. You people say things that surely come right out of your ass. If you say something learn to back it up with facts. If you read something always question it. Some of the things said in response to this post are absurd.

1) not really sneed, its PPC compatible, no reason why it cant boot into OS0

First of all I'm assuming that OS0 was OS9. OS 9 is build around Apple's current round of motherboards and 32bit PowerPC processors. If Apple wants it to run on ANYTHING else they have to modify it. Notice a new OS release comes out with every new round of hardware. Even a G4 board with a few minor tweaks requires Apple to release hardware enablers to allow the OS to work with the new components. A 64bit PPC would require quite the massive motherboard redesign and right there without proper maintence of OS 9 code would end OS 9s compatibility with new Mac hardware. That's just the motherboard though. A 64bit processor woud require a complete recompile of all code. Simple as that. Notice MS has different version of XP and .Net server for Itanium. It's not because they like making two boxes. They have to recompile for the different architectures. Apple would have to do the same and without a similar system to the 68k/PPC FAT application system they would have to convince developers to distribute two version of all their apps for this radically different platform.

Nforce with a G4
This one is just crazy. Yes they both use Hypertransport, and yes Apple's current motherboard goals are similar to that of Nforce, but Nforce is a PC chipset build around a PC BIOS. You would have to fundamentally redesign the architecture to make it work with a Mac. Some of you make it sound like they just change the pin out on the ZIF slot to allow a PowerPC and their done. It would be a huge task to create a Mac compatibile Nforce chipset.

Think about what you read.

-Tim

youve just pissed me off.

OS0 was OS9, it was a typo.

By the ****ing way, Itanium IS NOT x86, its a WHOLE NEW instruction set. OK??? GET THAT????????? ITS A RISC PROCESSOR NOT CISC LIKE THE PENTIUMS, IT uses IA-64 WHICH WAS BUILT FROM TEH GROUND UP. NOT AN EXTENSION TO x86, THE ONLY REASON IT CAN RUN x86 CODE IS BECAUSE INTEL PUT IN AN EMULATION LAYER, READ EMULATION EMULATION EMULATION!!! GOT IT???????????? ITS NOT NATIVE, THE REASON FOR THE NATIVE BUILDS OF XP IS BECAUSE NATIVE GET IT NATIVE IS FASTER THAN ANYTHING THATS EMULATED GOT THAT??????????? NATIVE AND EMULATION, now you should go on talking out of YOUR ass when you dont seem to know ****.

Youve REALLY PISSED ME OFF




now its time to cool down.................

g4scott- no its not utilizing 50% of the performance, 64bit does not add 100% performance boost just cuz its twice the amount of bits, you can have more ram, and if your using say photoshop, you could calculate LARGE Integers WICKED fast. but if you were using a word processor where only 16bits would be really necessary, then ... no real performance boost.

ohh yeah, not to mention, we can all say

AMD Hammer- a 64bit extension to a 32bit processor that ran on a 16bit os that was designed for 8bit processors that were extensions to a 4bit caculator processor that was based on a 2bit processor that comes from a company that has 1bit in its brain that is controlled by a tyrant that has 0bits

or whatever you want to say

 

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by jadam
...ITS A RISC PROCESSOR NOT CISC LIKE THE PENTIUMS, IT uses IA-64 WHICH WAS BUILT FROM TEH GROUND UP...

Actually, it's neither RISC nor CISC. It's EPIC.

Article here.

 

[Wry Cooter]

Re: Power 4 sounds good...

Originally posted by GrizzlyHippo
I hope this comes to the Mac soon. My problem is that I need to upgrade from my G4/400 AGP a.s.a.p. and I'm waiting for the next PowerMac announcement before making a decision what to do.

If you don't like what may be announced at the end of the month, a g4 1.x with faster motherboard, and want to wait for a real g5, or whatever comes next, bide your time with Jaguar and a good video card and your g4 400 agp. That is my plan.

I may have to wait another year that way, but I think I will manage.

Perhaps Apple has been calling it the Velocity engine instead of altivec, so there can be more similarity in the instruction set they may be able to add to a chip made by the fast and reliable IBM corporation.

 

[timothyjoelwrig]

of fans, VMX, and SEC EDGAR Filing requirements

Originally posted by ftaok
I agree that Altivec is here to stay (in some form or another).

But, there is no way that Apple has bought out the PPC assets of Motorola. If they had, there would have been press releases and SEC filings. Publicly traded corporations can't make large deals like that without announcing it. More likely, if the IBM chips do have Altivec, is that Apple has persuaded IBM to license Altivec from Motorola or that IBM engineered their "own" version of it.

Not true. The SEC only requires reporting for activities relating to investing or shareholder welfare. The most common forms being earnings reports on a quarterly (10-Q) and and annual basis (10-K) for the purpose of calculating shareholder's equity, new securities issues (the F and S series forms), and the stock transactions of people owning 10% or more stock (Forms 3, 4, and 5). Public corporations can make all the asset transactions (intellectual or otherwise) they choose with no obligation to make it public knowledge. Despite this, I highly doubt Apple could buy Moto's PowerPC intellectual property. They don't have the cash or the credit to do so. IBM would be a more likely purchaser.

As a suggestion to those really desperate for clues to what Moto, Apple, and IBM could be doing, read their recent 10-Q reports. They often show what shares they own in who and their opinions on those investments. You can search for these filings on the SEC web site . The CIK's for the companies are: Apple - 0000320193, Motorola - 0000068505, and IBM - 0000051143.

Also, notice that Apple has their own name for AltiVec (Velocity Engine). This would allow them the flexibility to change the underlying hardware. From what's been said here, it could be surmised that Apple could easily use the VPU provided with this new chip, keep the Velocity Engine name for it, and the consumer would be none the wiser.

As for fans and cooling, I don't understand why Apple (or any computer manufacturer for that matter) doesn't use something based on the Zenion Effect (U.S. Patent No. 4,789,801). It's silent, no moving parts, and has proven to be very effective at moving a lot of air quickly in the other markets in which it's been integrated. Not to mention it wouldn't cost much more to manufacture.

Overall, I'm praying Apple uses this processor from IBM simply because they're doing a crappy job of keeping up with the rest of the world. Motorola has a weak business model and hasn't been going anywhere exciting many years. This kind of move with also help IBM by giving them a little light at the end of the tunnel. They've been admittedly losing marketshare due to lack of direction.

 

[Dave K]

Re: Apple developing chips

"IBM's decision to tout the chip may indicate that Apple has so far balked at embracing the chip, one analyst said.

"What I find is interesting is the fact that IBM can talk about it. If there was committed iMac design, you know (Apple CEO) Steve Jobs would have his hands around IBM's neck not to talk about this chip," said Kevin Krewell, a senior analyst at In-Stat/MDR. "The fact that IBM is talking about it indicates to me that it's not a mainstream Apple product at this time."

A certain analyst obviously didn't notice that IBM announced the Sahara G3, what, 6-8 months?, before Apple was more than happy to use it in the iBook...

As long as IBM never says: "Apple will be using our wonderful chip" and/or proceeds to leak other Apple procuct info before Apple does, I highly doubt SJ cares what they say with regards to IBM's own proprietary tech info nor is he likely in a position to make them stop...

 

[ddtlm]

Dave K:

Yeah that analist does sound way off. About now, IBM probably expects S. Jobs to salute and scream "Yes Sir!" when they becon. This "G5" could mean a lot to Apple... a whole heck of a lot.

 

[jadam]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Actually, it's neither RISC nor CISC. It's EPIC.

Article here.

woops forget about that one thanks for poiting that out.

yeah i read that arstechnica article a while back.

 

[Cappy]

Originally posted by york2600
I love reading comments on this board. You people say things that surely come right out of your ass. If you say something learn to back it up with facts. If you read something always question it. Some of the things said in response to this post are absurd.

1) not really sneed, its PPC compatible, no reason why it cant boot into OS0

First of all I'm assuming that OS0 was OS9. OS 9 is build around Apple's current round of motherboards and 32bit PowerPC processors. If Apple wants it to run on ANYTHING else they have to modify it. Notice a new OS release comes out with every new round of hardware. Even a G4 board with a few minor tweaks requires Apple to release hardware enablers to allow the OS to work with the new components. A 64bit PPC would require quite the massive motherboard redesign and right there without proper maintence of OS 9 code would end OS 9s compatibility with new Mac hardware. That's just the motherboard though. A 64bit processor woud require a complete recompile of all code. Simple as that. Notice MS has different version of XP and .Net server for Itanium. It's not because they like making two boxes. They have to recompile for the different architectures. Apple would have to do the same and without a similar system to the 68k/PPC FAT application system they would have to convince developers to distribute two version of all their apps for this radically different platform.

Nforce with a G4
This one is just crazy. Yes they both use Hypertransport, and yes Apple's current motherboard goals are similar to that of Nforce, but Nforce is a PC chipset build around a PC BIOS. You would have to fundamentally redesign the architecture to make it work with a Mac. Some of you make it sound like they just change the pin out on the ZIF slot to allow a PowerPC and their done. It would be a huge task to create a Mac compatibile Nforce chipset.

Think about what you read.

-Tim

Some of us do. You, yourself, are not even offerring any expert testimony on your last claim. For years many of the pci and agp cards could not work in both a mac and pc. That's not the case as long as the design and firmware are done correctly. Granted it's not a motherboard chipset but I would never say it's impossible. There is nothing to back it up unless you just go with the fact it may not have been done before. If nvidia and Apple wanted to do it, I think they're technically capable of it.

Your first point though on OS 9 I might somewhat agree if we follow your words very strictly. The thing is that Classic is something many are worried about and I think Apple will be as well. I think Apple cares more about this working than whether OS9 will boot. Emulation could address this and I would guess they will go that route if they use this chip. Doing this would keep developers somewhat satisfied while helping move people more toward OSX.

 

[Cappy]

Originally posted by kenohki
The real advantage of 64bit processors is that using 64bits exponentially raises your ability to address memory. So you move beyond 32 bit memory limits.

Actually the "real" advantage for 64bit on the desktop for now may prove to be more for marketing.

 

[Scottgfx]

Originally posted by jadam


youve just pissed me off.

OS0 was OS9, it was a typo.

By the ****ing way, Itanium IS NOT x86, its a WHOLE NEW instruction set. OK??? GET THAT????????? ITS A RISC PROCESSOR NOT CISC LIKE THE PENTIUMS, IT uses IA-64 WHICH WAS BUILT FROM TEH GROUND UP. NOT AN EXTENSION TO x86, THE ONLY REASON IT CAN RUN x86 CODE IS BECAUSE INTEL PUT IN AN EMULATION LAYER, READ EMULATION EMULATION EMULATION!!! GOT IT???????????? ITS NOT NATIVE, THE REASON FOR THE NATIVE BUILDS OF XP IS BECAUSE NATIVE GET IT NATIVE IS FASTER THAN ANYTHING THATS EMULATED GOT THAT??????????? NATIVE AND EMULATION, now you should go on talking out of YOUR ass when you dont seem to know ****.
Youve REALLY PISSED ME OFF

I have two words for you... Anger management.

I really don't think you said anything more than what york2600 said. He wasn't even impolite. So "OS0" was a typo, so what?

 

[me_animal]

IBM no big deal

The Power PC has always been desiged by Motorola, Apple and IBM.

http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/chips/
Scott

 

[Catfish_Man]

Re: IBM no big deal

Originally posted by me_animal
The Power PC has always been desiged by Motorola, Apple and IBM.

http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/chips/
Scott

You're quite right. The big news is not that IBM makes PPC chips, it's that IBM is making an 8 way superscalar desktop targetted 64 bit chip with a VPU. Based on this I'm retracting most of my previous statements about the G5 until we get some more info (Right now, if I understand this correctly, both Motorola's and IBM's chips look like a very plausible G5). We could be getting a fun 6-12 months coming up...

 

[ezzyme]

Re: of fans, VMX, and SEC EDGAR Filing requirements

Originally posted by timothyjoelwrig


Despite this, I highly doubt Apple could buy Moto's PowerPC intellectual property. They don't have the cash or the credit to do so. IBM would be a more likely purchaser. "


I guess $1.25 billion cash wouldn't take an asset that is losing Motorola a billion a year. But maybe if they dipped into the three billion in short term investments (cds, commercial paper, treasury notes....) Apple has on hand. No, I'm sure they couldn't afford it.

APPLE COMPUTER,_INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (Unaudited)
(in millions, except share amounts)

_ _ June_29, 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------ _ September_29, 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------ _
ASSETS: _

Current assets:
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_ Cash and cash equivalents _ $ 1,246 _ $ 2,310 _
_ Short-term investments _ _ 3,060 _ _ 2,026 _
_ Accounts receivable, less allowances of $52 and $51, respectively _ _ 626 _ _ 466 _
_ Inventories _ _ 34 _ _ 11 _
_ Deferred tax assets _ _ 164 _ _ 169 _
_ Other current assets _ _ 313 _ _ 161 _
_ _
------------------------------------------------------------------------ _
------------------------------------------------------------------------ _
_ _ Total current assets _ _ 5,443 _ _ 5,143 _
Property, plant and equipment, net _ _ 589 _ _ 564 _
Non-current debt and equity investments _ _ 48 _ _ 128 _
Acquired intangible assets _ _ 99 _ _ 76 _
Other assets _ _ 114 _ _ 110 _
_ _
------------------------------------------------------------------------ _
------------------------------------------------------------------------ _
_ _ Total assets _ $ 6,293 _ $ 6,021 _
_ _
------------------------------------------------------------------------ _
------------------------------------------------------------------------ _

 

[nuckinfutz]

Re: IBM no big deal

Originally posted by me_animal
The Power PC has always been desiged by Motorola, Apple and IBM.

http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/chips/
Scott

PPC 601 was a purely IBM design IIRC. Moto came in for the 603 chips an later. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

 

[me_animal]

Re: Re: IBM no big deal

Originally posted by nuckinfutz



PPC 601 was a purely IBM design IIRC. Moto came in for the 603 chips an later. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

And you would be wrong. In early 1991, a group of technical leaders from Apple, Motorola, and IBM began work to develop a sleeker and cleaner architecture with expanded function, using the POWER Architecture as a base. The PowerPC Architecture, the result of this effort. And you ask the first PowerPC processor, the 601.

 

[Mr Jobs]

Re: Re: Re: IBM no big deal

Originally posted by me_animal


And you would be wrong. In early 1991, a group of technical leaders from Apple, Motorola, and IBM began work to develop a sleeker and cleaner architecture with expanded function, using the POWER Architecture as a base. The PowerPC Architecture, the result of this effort. And you ask the first PowerPC processor, the 601.

hey Tazan wher'd ya learn to speak english

BTW you're about the PowerPC, i guess there are history classes in the jungle...sorry cant help it

P.S how's Cheta