Slashdot Mirror

but then there is the fact that most RISC's use same registers for both FPU and integer

With the minor exceptions of Alpha, PA-RISC 1.x and 2.0, POWER/PowerPC/Power ISA, MIPS, and SPARC.

Wasn't POWER already an open architecture?

PowerPC was an instruction set architecture based on the POWER ISA; a few instructions were removed, and a number were added; more were added to PowerPC over time. The POWER3 processor implemented the full 64-bit version of PowerPC, and I think it also implemented some of the POWER instructions removed from PowerPC. PowerPC ended up getting renamed "Power ISA" - not to be confused with the all-caps "POWER ISA" mentioned earlier - as part of the "Power Architecture".

I don't know what stuff this consortium is dealing with. There's already Power.org for the Power Architecture, including the Power ISA. I'm guessing that this is for licensing the microarchitecture of the POWERn microprocessors; that seems to be what some of the articles are saying. Then again, some articles are calling it OpenPOWER and other articles are calling it OpenPower, so who knows?

or Power

I couldn't find any references to any open MIPS projects, but there is a Power.org that has open the Power spec.

Both Sparc and Power now have open specifications that anyone can use to implement their own microprocessor and sell it in the market for any targeted applications. Which is pretty much the goal of open standards. The closed RISC standards that were there - Clipper, PA-RISC and Alpha (Alpha actually less so) are all dead, as are i860 and i960.

Incidentally, the latter Alpha and Power architectures, as well as the MAJC processors all borrowed some VLIW concepts such as concatenating multiple instructions into a single word to enhance their SIMD capabilities, so it's not like VLIW is a complete failure. Itanium managed to, on a PR front, knock down PA-RISC, MIPS and later (after HP bought Compaq) Alpha, but ironically, failed to do much against Am64, w/ the result that it's not made a dent in the marketplace, and Microsoft, Oracle, RedHat and Canonical have all dropped support for it. Even Intel's latest C++ & Fortran compilers don't support Itanium: support is referred to earlier versions. Given that factoid, Intel's announcement reiterating support for Itanium sounds hollow. And w/ the Itanium's list price of $700-$4000, one can't support that CPU even if one wants to.

The game is over - the only CPUs that matter are x64, Power, Sparc and MIPS (I'm not counting ARM here, since it's so far unsuitable for server apps).Intel can forget about dethroning either IBM or Oracle in that arena.

Power.org is the standards body that controls the POWER(PC) ISA specifications, among other things. Its members include IBM, *Apple*, Freescale and many others. If you want to build a custom designed chip based on one of the ISAs "owned" by Power.org, then all you need to do is become a member and license the ISA of your choice. You are then free to design any kind of custom *micro*-architecture your heart desires as long as the ISA presented by your chip/micro-architecture is compatible with the ISA you licensed from Power.org .

I want some of whatever the hell IBM is smoking.

jdb2

PowerPC G5 is a lightened Power4 chip. Yes that multi core, 64bit RISC CPU. That could give idea about the monsters mentioned on that story.

Not saying for you of course, telling for people who thinks about buying a Desktop based on Power6. I don't think such thing could happen except if IBM decides to update their "Real" Power Workstation http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/intellistation/power /285/ and CTIA is not essentially entertainment I guess. :)

If I were you, I'd really folllow http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/ and http://www.power.org/ , I suspect very interesting things on way with PS3 (!) Cell Processor. Soon or later I will have to switch YDL Linux anyway so keeping eye on stuff. I even begged for PowerPC Linux Flash from Adobe already :)

When IBM says "Power" or "Cell" processor, they speak about an architecture standard which is relatively open, check info about it on their new http://www.power.org/

For example while not planning a game console, NEC is also in Power board as well as Toshiba. I can think NEC cares about their supercomputing division and Toshiba cares about their future media plans.

Those Cell processors they use will not be the same thing Ps3 runs. For example while my Quad G5 (PPC970) 2500 Mhz is fine for pro HD work if necessary upgrades (SCSI,HDI etc) done, a "real" Power5 AIX workstation used in petrol industry, military etc. would show it as a toy. It has near mainframe features packed to a workstation.

If we are speaking about POWER family (not PowerPC) Opteron is very "simple" compared to Power5 or soon to be released Power6 family.

It seems Wiki's enterprise/CPU sections got rid of CPU fanboys,zeaolots (both CISC and RISC) lately and could be trusted for neutral information regarding these stuff.

As a quad G5 owner thanks to Apple move to Intel, like-a-joke non serious claims like "5x faster than G5!" and entire Apple fanboy base becoming Intel fanatics, I felt forced to get all the information which I normally wouldn't care about.

XBox 360 is running a specialised yet Power based CPU having 3 cores for example. PS3 has a very strange CPU which is also specially designed for gaming and entertainment purposes. Still, based on Power.

Based on Wiki, a typical car owner may have purchased 8 or more Power embedded processors along with the car.

Well, you (or anyone got tired of PPC is dead stupidness) should read/reference this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC

and here are the reasons why CISC is still relevant while RISC exists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC#Later_RISC

also if you own a Power based anything (including Mac) http://www.power.org/ (Official site of Arch board)

I am ordinary end user just happen to like PowerPC/RISC platform for my computing needs and I spared my time, pricey data (Opera Mini+GPRS) to read those articles last night. Funny co-incidence that same time a person who has connection to "NY Times" brand was writing such BS article about how Freescale effected by Apple gave up G4.

Lets give a clue: Apple was the smallest customer of FreeScale semiconductor powerpc based CPUs. Unbelievable but true. That is why they (and IBM,recently hating/got rid of end user customers) didn't CARE about Apple move.

"Freescale CEO Michel Mayer said in an email to employees that he was disappointed, but noted that the company's Mac business accounts for less than three per cent of total revenue.

'It is increasingly clear that the center of technology innovation is moving away from the personal computer,' he added. "

Yes, 3%!

I started to wonder if Apple gave PowerPC or PowerPC vendors gave up Apple.

MS XBox or Cell Power arch CPUs are specialised processors. E.g. the MS Xbox 360 CPU has 3 cores. They have problem with desktop application usage.

I know the Intel or AMD duo-poly has huge impact on personal computing but it is not the case here.

For example a monster CPU named Power6 will ship in months which will have max speed of 5.7 Ghz. If you remember it is a RISC CPU , you can imagine the huge power. The problem is, it is not cheap, not suitable for home computing and needs very advanced coders.

So sadly it is the state after Apple gave up Power architecture with some really fake reasons. It shouldn't happen but it happened.

If you just want to run graphics applications on Linux, there is always Terrasoft machines which runs Yellow Dog Linux which is really optimised for PowerPC Apple uses. For example http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/products/ibm/p5- 185.shtml

Or, a quad core powerpc 970 otw soon: http://projects.ppczone.org/projects.php?program=O SW

Should watch this site for PPC news: http://www.power.org/

No, Xbox 360 is in fact a "little G5 powermac", its processor is from Power Family. I heard it lacks many features of G5 PowerPC though.

You see one can make a very good HDTV gaming machine if comes up with some optimised coding, toolsets such as DirectX etc.

"Central processing unit
The CPU, named Xenon (Microsoft) or Waternoose (IBM) is a custom IBM tri-core PowerPC-based design"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360#Central_proc essing_unit

In fact all current generation game/entertaintment consoles are Power architecture. http://www.power.org/home

Well, thanks to the sponsored trolls like TFA author, we can't discuss this matter. Entire mac cult converted to be Intel fan recent year stops the discussion before it begins too.

I can't handle those PPC bashing Intel fanboy comments. Even if he is boss of Apple and got my money for quad G5, anyone claiming a computer 4x and 5x faster than they sold just 2 days ago deserves to get ignored.

I mean there is a sentence saying "Up to 5x faster" used for a SERVER product. If you believe it somehow, some guys as IBM must investigate what really made those G5 Xserve 5x slower.

I am happy Apple could come up with something that is faster than Quad G5 but I can't see them as a serious company anymore.

If I was given moderator rights and Steve Jobs posted something claiming Dell is 4x faster than Apple with another nickname, I would moderate him "-1 troll" just 2 years ago.

No, my mind didn't change. I just gave up reading Apple.com site as a Mac owner and check sites like http://www.power.org/ to watch how the processor he bitches about performing.

I am saying again. Based on my local, quick and dirty benchmarks: Quad Xeon is slightly faster than Quad G5. Lets say 30%. Of course it has better memory and Xeon is a nice WORKSTATION CPU which is in use for years. Why making people mad by using "5x faster" crap? Is it part of Intel deal? I have never seen a professional workstation or a server dubbed "5x faster" in my life. It is completely non serious.

No reason to make their own customers nuts since they started point people to sites like http://www.tyan.com/ for companies doing those Xeon monsters for years. Call my system 5x slow yes? There you go.

IBM offers x86 and Power5 based solutions for years. The PowerPC used in IBM servers and Workstations is very different from the ones Apple shipped in their desktop computers.

Gaming territory is almost invaded by PowerPC RISC chips. Even XBox 360 uses sort of PowerPC and Cell processor in PS3 is also PowerPC.

The chips used in servers are from same standard (PowerPC) and shares some stuff but completely different. We are speaking about some monsters here.

Can check here for more info http://www-03.ibm.com/chips/power/index.html

Those things shows my Quad G5 as a toy :)

"Power" is sort of standard in fact, check http://www.power.org/ , it is very alive and well. In fact, it looks like taking over the World.

I am getting sick of pure mac zealots praising Intel since WWDC announcement.

Where did I praise Intel? I'm just glad Apple is offering competitive boxes again.

I also see you pay $100 yearly to .Mac service and you claim the parent being "devotee".

I admit that .Mac isn't the best hosting/email/sotrage value in the world, but it is nicely integrated with the Mac OS, comes with some free spiffs every month, and is a tiny cost of doing business overall. I use it for it's ease of posting password-protected files for clients.

Apple does not announce professional workstation line because there is NOTHING from x86 (Intel) to have Quad G5 specs right now.

Care to back that up with anything beyond your ironclad assurance? You come off as a tad defensive in your post, and somehow neglected to post any actual, you know, facts to bck up your claims. A Folding@home score does not mean that my database sort will go any faster, or that Apple will be able to get a faster or larger allocation of chips from IBM - who are having fab troubles of their own. The switch to Intel was a smart one from a cost, performance, and availability standpoint.

Also read some sites like http://www.power.org/about/faq/ before claiming PowerPC is old arch.


I didn't say it was an old architecture, just that it is no longer competitive in the General Purpose CPU space. PowerPC is a very competitive architecture in particular market segments - but general purpose CPUs are no longer a space IBM or Freescale want to play in. Maybe you can write them a similarly-reasoned letter and get them to reconsider.

I am getting sick of pure mac zealots praising Intel since WWDC announcement.

I also see you pay $100 yearly to .Mac service and you claim the parent being "devotee".

Apple does not announce professional workstation line because there is NOTHING from x86 (Intel) to have Quad G5 specs right now.

People becoming Intel fanatic after WWDC calling concerned Quad G5 owners make me sick indeed.

You call a 64 bit, RISC processor having vector processing unit several year old design... When will Intel reach Altivec specs? SSE3?

Please don't comment about professional workstations, they have nothing to do with your consumer grade shareware applications or games.

Did you watch World Cup Excerpts? Quad G5 is designed for such usage and those people using them does not come to slashdot to comment.

Apple kinda gave up the computer business, they offer stylish Intel whiteboxes with some stylish OS to keep the "computer company" image. You really want the truth? Quad G5 is the LAST true Macintosh coming from Apple.

Rest are locked down, DRM chip having Intel white box crap. You use x86 generic computer and you can't even decide what brand of x86 to use.

Want more truth? I bet you bought a "macbook" pro (!), there is a multiplatform game in hand "World Of Warcraft" which is coded by Blizzard. Use bootcamp , run game on both OS'es and compare fps.

Also read some sites like http://www.power.org/about/faq/ before claiming PowerPC is old arch.

Oh check this too: http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype= userpage&username=Ilgaz

As there are no Mactel folding@home right now, I wonder how Team Mac OS X is number 11 with these "old" CPUs
http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype= teamstats

The arch they run (IBM) is open itself, I am not speaking about Apple PPC stuff (I run ppc apple), I speak about the Power architecture spec:

http://www.power.org/

OpenGL is now a "industry group"/board for long time.

http://www.opengl.org/

Whatever (sad!) happens, nothing happens to OpenGL.

Look at members
http://opengl.org/about/arb/overview/

It is kind of similar to hardware, the PowerPC board. So when Apple gives up PowerPC, nothing happens to powerPC since

http://www.power.org/kshowcase/view/browse_profile s/mp_browse

If Apple did not give up powerPC and it went chap. 11, Power Architecture would still continue.

http://www.power.org/

3% of entire PowerPC sales. Not 3% of PC market.

PowerPC is huge on server,embedded and various platforms. http://www.power.org/

It is a "architecture committee" in fact. It is not only IBM. IBM makes better publicity.

I just didn't like Steve Jobs making funny face when he said "I promised 3 ghz". Yes he promised but a RISC CPU obviously have problems with high speeds. A computer legend like Steve Jobs knows Mhz is NOTHING in this time.

It is all what performance you get from professionally coded, optimised applications.

I am in video industry, nobody sees a valid reason to buy Mac arch. after Mactel announcement.

Now the Mac zealots converted to Intel fanatics in 1 day (after announcement) will bite you very bad. :)

Well, I am a G5 1600 user converting to dual G5 2700 soon myself.

BTW, to check PowerPC stuff , check http://www.power.org/ , better news there. Better than this PR thing. From Power committee. (official)

(posting with karma bonus for obvious reasons)

Hi,

As a G5 owner and also thinking about a dual g5 2700 or dual core systems if I am sure about Apple's stance I am checking PowerPC community except Apple which removes pages about how PPC outperforms Intel from their site lately.

Here is the leading PPC Linux for Apple and IBM HPC cluster producers stance on Intel decision:
http://lists.terrasoftsolutions.com/pipermail/yell owdog-announce/2005-June/000094.html

As we (home users) figured after Mactel decision, Apple is one of smallest PowerPC customers on planet. Here is the PowerPC platform official page (without removed benchmarks :))
http://www.power.org/home

And I hope I don't see another story like that which will make me delete OS X and run PPC Linux...

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436

Its a server centric benchmark and OS X produces very sad results. I just hope Apple workstation does not have similar disadvantages which will make Apple a waster of the architecture they bitch about lately.

Its not AMD versus Intel. Apple certainly lies about the real reason behind the switch to Intel.

What about performance per watt on latest announced FreeScale DUAL CORE CPUs?

Sony was hyping up the Cell so much it was almost guarenteed to suck. It's almost like the Cell architecture was designed to score the highest possible score on trivial benchmarks (like the ones that give you FLOPS) without worrying about real world performance. Where have we seen this before? Oh yeah, the Emotion Engine (PS2)! Wasn't Sony saying that we'd be sticking Cell processers in everything because they were going to be so great? I seem to recall talk about personal computers switching over to Cell because it was going to blow regular processors away. In a way, it does (FLOPS), but in practice it's way slower than even processers from last year.

More photos here. http://www.power.org/news/events/barcelona/photos/

The Cell processor (PS3) is made for those applications. At the Power.org convention in Barcelona, IBM presented a programming example of large FFTs on Cell. It turned out, that large FFT calculations are about 100 times faster than on a Xeon 3.2 GHz processor.
Keep in mind, that this presentation was held in front of super computer professionals and its not that easy to trick them.

Apple is the first letter in AIM. Is there any reason they couldn't license the architecture to Intel?

The fact that the architecture is primarily the invention of the second letter in "AIM", so, if anybody gets to license the architecture, it's probably IBM? I don't know whether power.org or IBM or... "owns" the various flavors of POWER-based architectures, but I suspect Apple can't unilaterally grant somebody else a license if it requires a license.

You might want to keep an eye on these guys. Power.org members are likely to produce those PPC standard case motherboards in the reasonably near future.

> Yes, you can. Read up.

Nice summing up, but I could find nothing at Power.org, and I'd definetly want to read something by either them or IBM itself.

As I posted I wonder if Apple might jump right over the G5 in notebooks to something based on the CELL cpu that IBM is developing.

As we now know [Recent Details] the PU is a 64bit "Power Architecture" processor. Power Architecture is a catch all term IBM have been using for a while to describe both PowerPC and POWER processors. Currently there's only 3 CPUs which fit this description: POWER5, POWER4 and the PowerPC 970 (aka G5) which itself is a derivation of the POWER4.

quoted from: http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cells/Cell1.htm l

1. IBM selling its PC business
2. Cell workstations
3. POWER5 amazing benchmark records
4. IBM incents Linux on Power app development
5. Launches a Power architecture coalition
6. IBM and Red Hat begin certifying apps for Linux
7. IBM ups its Desktop Linux push

Under one of the stipulations for many industries (automotive was the focus for this article), the Western corp must:

* Partner with a Chinese company
* Share design and technical info
* License design and IP in such a way that the partner company can create new designs from the original and derivative works are owned by the Chinese company

Well, tying the two stories together, it doesn't look like IBM is going to have any problem with that

IBM might be selling their Desktop and Laptop lines but it is not getting out of the hardware market. I agree they might be trying to distance themselves from Microsoft but the x and i series servers will remain because they are a growth market. The new focus for IBM will become their Power Platform and Linux http://www.power.org/.