Slashdot Mirror
PowerPC Goes 64 bit
prostoalex writes "ExtremeTech runs a story about IBM planning to introduce a new 64-bit PowerPC architecture for desktops in October at the Microprocessor Forum. The conference agenda tells us that "this processor is an 8-way superscalar design that fully supports Symmetric MultiProcessing. The processor is further enhanced by a vector processing unit implementing over 160 specialized vector instructions and implements a system interface capable of up to 6.4GB/s"." There's also a News.com story.
If these are as good as they sound, all those speculations and rumors of apple switchin to intel are going to be thrown out the back door.
Later,
Phil
I believe the current PowerPC instruction set is a subset of the POWER's, with the exception of AltiVec, which sounds like IBM has cloned with their claim of 160+ vector processing instructions. Also, the claim is that 32-bit PPC code should be binary compatible with this 64-bit chip. Sounds like a processor tailor-made for Apple to me, but there's not enough detail yet, and Apple is being very tight-lipped on its future processor plans.
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
Intel won the CPU war on desktop PCs. Look to servers, handhelds, game consoles, etc. for the the next CPU battle worth fighting.
Well, I think it's a little more complicated than that. What about other hardware in the system that uses 32-bits of address space? What about all the driver software that assumes physical addresses are 32-bits wide? Maybe not super difficult, and helped by the fact the IOKit is an object oriented framework, but still harder than flipping a switch.
I say to myself. "Self, I wish this damn iBook wasn't burning a whole through my pant leg."
I do have to say that the iBooks are VERY nice though. Good performance at a great price. My wife loves hers, the only complaint either of us have with it is that it does heat up under the hard drive, and a small fan couldn't possibly hurt to push the air around and out the large vents on the left side where most of the heat builds up.
Sorry, but market forces are now as powerful as performance metrics. Apple no longer benefits from not being x86...cost being the biggest issue, and most of the time now they can't even claim a performance gain.
Intel won the CPU war on desktop PCs. Look to servers, handhelds, game consoles, etc. for the the next CPU battle worth fighting.
Until we have a monoculture in all our products, and have eliminated every trace of competition or choice, everywhere?
You waive your hands at the "invisible hand" of the free market as an argument for competitors to not even try competing for a portion of the marketplace, in effect advocating the replacement of a market with competitors with an intel monopoly.
I suspect you do not even see the contradiction in your argument, so let me spell it out for you. Monopolies are antithetical to a functional Free Market. Without competition the entire basis for capitalism functioning in any worthwhile capacity at all is removed and no free market exists. In short, without competition capitalism dies, and the free market "authority" you are alluding to becomes meaningless.
It astonishes me how people can argue "the market says" with one breath and "everyone should cave and give company X a monopoly" with the next. Indeed, one is forced to wonder if much of the current economic chaos isn't a result of an entire graduating class, perhaps an entire generation, not understanding even a little of economics in any context other than the inflated (and as it turns out largely fradulant) boom of the 1990s.
I won't even get into the fact that free markets are but one force, one tool, necessary for a functioning society or culture, another point often ignored in our western myopia, but that is a discussion for another thread.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Whatever 64-bit PPC CPU Apple ends up with, be it from IBM, Motorola, or a new partner like AMD or nVidia, will almost certainly have to natively run 32-bit code.
They can, they can. There are plenty of good reasons not to:
In short, provide even one application domain where having 128 bits of addressable memory, or a convenient 128-bit word size, would come even close to offsetting the inherent architectural costs compared to a 32- or 64-bit design. I can't think of one.
NO, IPv6 isn't a valid answer! (: Word size hasn't been a significant obstacle for current implementations.
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
Why not use the proven high-performance IBM power4 design instead. Why design something brand new that will have "less" performance that the already existing 64bit single/dual core power4 design.
From the register article:
It needs to remain competitive with entry-level workstations against the likes of Sun and HP's Alpha, where the size and heat dissipation of the mighty POWER4 have kept it out of systems below $12,000. IBM's desktop workstations still run POWER3
IBM would need to design this chip even if Apple didn't exist, simply because the current Power4 cannot be produced cheaply enough for a $10,000 workstation, much less a $800 macintosh.
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre