Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the insulation-is-good dept.
hypos writes: "According to this ZDNet article, IBM is going to add an insulating layer of oxide between the transistor and its silicon bed, which IBM claims can increase a processor's performance by 20 to 30%. Best of all, it's supposed to come to new Macs soon. "
Re:PowerPC users have always been SOL.
by
um...+Lucas
·
· Score: 5
I don't mean this to sound like flamebait, but it always seems that the PowerPC is playing second or third fiddle.
I think this is flamebait...
It gets knocked aside by x86 users on the desktop due to lack of applications.
Same thing always happens to Linux around here, but everyone seems to defend that OS.
Yeah, sure, it's nifty to do graphics/desktop publishing, but if you're serious about that, you're running an Amiga or BeOS anyway.
The Mac decimates both the Amiga and BeOS in the graphics and desktop publishing arena's. The Amiga used to be (and still is somewhat) a wonderous machine to work with video with, but it's been floundering the past several years due to not really having an owner that's been willing to pour money into it. The BeOS, yes, has a more elegant architecture, but alas, it lacks color management, postscript font support, and applications from Quark, Adobe, and Macromedia. Until it gets more apps, the BeOS will remain an oddity to everyone except it's core users.
I recall reading once that a Mac makes a nice webserver because it's too dumb to really break into or do any damage.
Well, that's true, but if you're buying a mac specifically to serve web pages, in most cases I'd say that you just wasted a pile of money... Or else you're limiting your sites functionality serverly. The mac is missing a lot of support i the server arena. Doubtless, that will change when OS X arrives, but until then.
So why do people insist on using the Power PC?
Because 99% of the computers that use PowerPC's run the Mac OS. And some people prefer that OS to those available from Microsoft, IBM, Redhat, Be, or any other. They even like it enough to spend a few more dollars on the hardware i nwhich to run it.
Why do companies like IBM spend development dollars trying to push an outdated chip architecture, when they could be pushing next generation technologies.
With Apple shipping nearly a million iMacs and G3/G4's per quarter and with Power PC chips selling for (a complete stab in the dark) $250 a piece, that translates to a BILLION dollars a year of business for IBM and Motorolla. If you ran a company, would you turn down that much money?
The PowerPC chip isn't geared towards "PC's" as it's name implies... At least in my world, i equate PC with "x86 compatible". People shouldn't be buying Power PC based computers unless (for now) they want to run the Mac OS, or for the small percentage of folks (Linux PPC users) they value to superior hardware designs enough that a few more dollars doesn't hurt. Asd for your 3 year time limit, I don't quite get it. Are you suggesting that Mac users should abandon the platform they chose and switch to Windows or Linux after 3 years for no reason? I've been computing for 15 or so years and the Mac is still my favorite platform for getting work done on and I'm sure plenty of other/. readers will agree..
As this is getting into a fest of Mac Bashing I though I'd try and do something on-topic. So here is a little explaination of how IBM's method works (note this is not a new method as the Silicon on Saphire method has been around for years.. however IBM seems to have altered the idea by replacing the expensive saphire with cheap silica) A normal NMOSFET transistor would to something like this (side view) Drain Source MMMMM Gate MMMMMM OOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMOOOOO OOOOMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMOOOOO SSSS######SSSSSSSSSS######SSSSS SSSS######SSSSSSSSSS######SSSSS SSSS######SSSSSSSSSS######SSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS (M Metal track) (# Doped silicon) (O Silica) (S Intrinsic silicon)
When the transistor is in operation it has a charged region (depletion zone) around it as such... Drain Source MMMMM Gate MMMMMM OOOOMMMMMMMMMMM MOOOOO OOOOMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMOOOOO SS@S######SSSSSSSSSS######S@SSS SS@S######SSSSSSSSSS######S@SSS SS@S######SSSSSSSSSS######S@SSS SS@SSSSSSSSSSS@@@@@@@@@@@@@@SSS SSS@@@@@@@@@@@SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
This charged region (boundary shown with @ signs) acts as capacitor which is bad (slows down the operation of the transistor). What the process does is to place a layer of oxide below the chip as shown MMMMM MMMMMM OOOOMMMMMMMMMMM MOOOOO OOOOMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMOOOOO SS@S######SSSSSSSSSS######S@SSS SS@S######SSSSSSSSSS######S@SSS SS@S######SSSSSSSSSS######S@SSS OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO This stops some of the charged layer from forming as the charge cannot move (easily) in the oxide. Which speeds up the transistor. 'Tis a nice idea doing it with silica though which should make the chips very affordable (ie. only 2 or 3 extra process stages) (btw. this is my on words no trade secrets - not that/. would allow that;) ) -mG
-- Physicists are said to stand on one another's shoulders while programmers stand on one another's toes.
More info (probably won't be in Macs 'soon')
by
loki7
·
· Score: 4
Despite what the poster said, this probably won't be appearing in Macs 'soon'. SOI requires redesigning the entire chip -- it's not just a different manufacturing process. The Register (everyone's favourite source of fun rumours!) has a much more techinically detailed article.
It's a shame that/. relies so heavily on zdnet for stories. They're always technically weak. The Register isn't always accurate, but at least they're not writing for PHBs.
/peter
Re:Faster chips are always good.
by
ravenwing_np
·
· Score: 4
Faster chips are nice, but what I really want is a faster front side bus. I've been working on a long running project that deals with processing lots of large multimedia data. Even though our CPUs have been getting faster, our processing isn't taking less time because we are being IO limited.
I'd much rather have a 400 Mhz cpu with a 400 Mhz bus then a 1.5 Ghz box sitting over a 133 Mhz bus.
A starved CPU does no math.
Re:Wonder what Motorola has to say about this?
by
Coventry
·
· Score: 4
IBM's PowerPC processors for thier rs6000 and as/400s are COMPLETELY diffrent from the g4 design - they are compatable on a binary level, but then again, so are the 386 and the pentium II... IBM uses very specialized processors in thier high-end systems - three integer pipelines, 2 fpus, 1000+ pins on thier interface (HIGH bandwith bus!!), tons of cache... each integer pipeline is Long, like 12+ stages, allowing for high scalablity in the Mhz of the processor... The g4 has too few stages in its pipeline, leading to it being Very hard to scale to high Mhz... copper/soi g4s _might_ get to 600Mhz - but the yeilds would be just as low as the current 500Mhz ones. Remember, the g4 is Tiny it was designed to be used in embeded apps as well as desktops - and thus was designed with as few transistors as possible. AMD and motorola have been working on a 'new' g4 that is basicly a redesign with a few more stages in the pipelines, allowing for much higher speeds.
-- man is machine
Re:Wonder what Motorola has to say about this?
by
PenguinX
·
· Score: 4
Everyone dogs MacOS - perhaps it is not the newest OS in the world and unquestionably it has it's roots for being one of the first GUI OSes out there. But let's be honest - the only idea behind MacOS to begin with was to create a perfectly functional operating system. The concept of resource forking was unthought of prior to this, and still is for the most part.
Honestly we need to give MacOS more credit, and Apple for that matter. How many people have ever been able to make a user friendly unix? or frighteningly enough a cooperative multitasking operating system work so well?
I am a Linux bigot and as much as the next - but we should give credit where due. Most of us come from the PC background where hardware needs to be kicked to work. From Apples camp the hardware is usually good enough to make do, so this concept is nearly oblivious to us.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't mean this to sound like flamebait, but it always seems that the PowerPC is playing second or third fiddle.
/. readers will agree..
I think this is flamebait...
It gets knocked aside by x86 users on the desktop due to lack of applications.
Same thing always happens to Linux around here, but everyone seems to defend that OS.
Yeah, sure, it's nifty to do graphics/desktop publishing, but if you're serious about that, you're running an Amiga or BeOS anyway.
The Mac decimates both the Amiga and BeOS in the graphics and desktop publishing arena's. The Amiga used to be (and still is somewhat) a wonderous machine to work with video with, but it's been floundering the past several years due to not really having an owner that's been willing to pour money into it. The BeOS, yes, has a more elegant architecture, but alas, it lacks color management, postscript font support, and applications from Quark, Adobe, and Macromedia. Until it gets more apps, the BeOS will remain an oddity to everyone except it's core users.
I recall reading once that a Mac makes a nice webserver because it's too dumb to really break into or do any damage.
Well, that's true, but if you're buying a mac specifically to serve web pages, in most cases I'd say that you just wasted a pile of money... Or else you're limiting your sites functionality serverly. The mac is missing a lot of support i the server arena. Doubtless, that will change when OS X arrives, but until then.
So why do people insist on using the Power PC?
Because 99% of the computers that use PowerPC's run the Mac OS. And some people prefer that OS to those available from Microsoft, IBM, Redhat, Be, or any other. They even like it enough to spend a few more dollars on the hardware i nwhich to run it.
Why do companies like IBM spend development dollars trying to push an outdated chip architecture, when they could be pushing next generation technologies.
With Apple shipping nearly a million iMacs and G3/G4's per quarter and with Power PC chips selling for (a complete stab in the dark) $250 a piece, that translates to a BILLION dollars a year of business for IBM and Motorolla. If you ran a company, would you turn down that much money?
The PowerPC chip isn't geared towards "PC's" as it's name implies... At least in my world, i equate PC with "x86 compatible". People shouldn't be buying Power PC based computers unless (for now) they want to run the Mac OS, or for the small percentage of folks (Linux PPC users) they value to superior hardware designs enough that a few more dollars doesn't hurt. Asd for your 3 year time limit, I don't quite get it. Are you suggesting that Mac users should abandon the platform they chose and switch to Windows or Linux after 3 years for no reason? I've been computing for 15 or so years and the Mac is still my favorite platform for getting work done on and I'm sure plenty of other
As this is getting into a fest of Mac Bashing I though I'd try and do something on-topic. So here is a little explaination of how IBM's method works (note this is not a new method as the Silicon on Saphire method has been around for years .. however IBM seems to have altered the idea by replacing the expensive saphire with cheap silica)
/. would allow that ;) ) -mG
A normal NMOSFET transistor would to something like this (side view)
Drain Source
MMMMM Gate MMMMMM
OOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMOOOOO
OOOOMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMOOOOO
SSSS######SSSSSSSSSS######SSSSS
SSSS######SSSSSSSSSS######SSSSS
SSSS######SSSSSSSSSS######SSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
(M Metal track) (# Doped silicon)
(O Silica) (S Intrinsic silicon)
When the transistor is in operation it has a charged region (depletion zone) around it as such...
Drain Source
MMMMM Gate MMMMMM
OOOOMMMMMMMMMMM MOOOOO
OOOOMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMOOOOO
SS@S######SSSSSSSSSS######S@SSS
SS@S######SSSSSSSSSS######S@SSS
SS@S######SSSSSSSSSS######S@SSS
SS@SSSSSSSSSSS@@@@@@@@@@@@@@SSS
SSS@@@@@@@@@@@SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
This charged region (boundary shown with @ signs) acts as capacitor which is bad (slows down the operation of the transistor). What the process does is to place a layer of oxide below the chip as shown
MMMMM MMMMMM
OOOOMMMMMMMMMMM MOOOOO
OOOOMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMOOOOO
SS@S######SSSSSSSSSS######S@SSS
SS@S######SSSSSSSSSS######S@SSS
SS@S######SSSSSSSSSS######S@SSS
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
This stops some of the charged layer from forming as the charge cannot move (easily) in the oxide. Which speeds up the transistor.
'Tis a nice idea doing it with silica though which should make the chips very affordable (ie. only 2 or 3 extra process stages)
(btw. this is my on words no trade secrets - not that
Physicists are said to stand on one another's shoulders while programmers stand on one another's toes.
It's a shame that /. relies so heavily on zdnet for stories. They're always technically weak. The Register isn't always accurate, but at least they're not writing for PHBs.
Faster chips are nice, but what I really want is a faster front side bus. I've been working on a long running project that deals with processing lots of large multimedia data. Even though our CPUs have been getting faster, our processing isn't taking less time because we are being IO limited.
I'd much rather have a 400 Mhz cpu with a 400 Mhz bus then a 1.5 Ghz box sitting over a 133 Mhz bus.
A starved CPU does no math.
IBM's PowerPC processors for thier rs6000 and as/400s are COMPLETELY diffrent from the g4 design - they are compatable on a binary level, but then again, so are the 386 and the pentium II... IBM uses very specialized processors in thier high-end systems - three integer pipelines, 2 fpus, 1000+ pins on thier interface (HIGH bandwith bus!!), tons of cache... each integer pipeline is Long, like 12+ stages, allowing for high scalablity in the Mhz of the processor...
The g4 has too few stages in its pipeline, leading to it being Very hard to scale to high Mhz... copper/soi g4s _might_ get to 600Mhz - but the yeilds would be just as low as the current 500Mhz ones. Remember, the g4 is Tiny it was designed to be used in embeded apps as well as desktops - and thus was designed with as few transistors as possible. AMD and motorola have been working on a 'new' g4 that is basicly a redesign with a few more stages in the pipelines, allowing for much higher speeds.
man is machine
Everyone dogs MacOS - perhaps it is not the newest OS in the world and unquestionably it has it's roots for being one of the first GUI OSes out there. But let's be honest - the only idea behind MacOS to begin with was to create a perfectly functional operating system. The concept of resource forking was unthought of prior to this, and still is for the most part.
Honestly we need to give MacOS more credit, and Apple for that matter. How many people have ever been able to make a user friendly unix? or frighteningly enough a cooperative multitasking operating system work so well?
I am a Linux bigot and as much as the next - but we should give credit where due. Most of us come from the PC background where hardware needs to be kicked to work. From Apples camp the hardware is usually good enough to make do, so this concept is nearly oblivious to us.