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.
Is that "160 specialized vector instructions" the infamous motorola designed altivec? Is this the next processor apple will use? Does this mean all that intel talk was well.... just talk?
 
anyone know?
yes i run a goth/punk/emo porn site.
There is also an eWeek 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
the fact that PowerPC high end is comeing down to the low end well who whould have that coming .....
the intresting part will be a 1.2GHz ARM part from Samsung useing the Alpha technology
(they say its ARM10 but I think thats wrong and its just ARMv5 complient but that sounds bad in marketing speak so thedy said it was like an ARM10(I think I am not sure) )
regards
John Jones
Motorola's 85xx processor, aka G5, is 64-bit, if this article is to be believed.
Is this IBM just coming out with their own 64-bit PPC core? I thought Apple, Motorola and IBM were in an alliance? Seems to me that its quite a competitive alliance, eh?
PowerPC has been available in 64 bit since the introduction of the A10 in 1996.
Here's some proof.
The new multi-code die is very interesting though...
Back in 1993-1994 when IBM was still working on the OS/2 for PowerPC and WorkPlace OS, and Taligent and "Pink" were still on the drawing board, IBM was planning to release the PowerPC 620 Series, a 64-bit version of the PowerPC 604. They intended to use it to run a 64-bit version of OS/2 that ran on the Mach kernel.
The design was scrapped because back then the manufacturing process was way too expensive to be cost effective in mass producing the chip. And we all know what happened to PowerPC OS/2.
http://www.byte.com/art/9411/sec8/art5.htm
I requested this at IBM's PPC booth at linux world in JANUARY ;-)
what took them so long
Buttsex.
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.
The original specs for POWER/PowerPC CPU's were 64/32 bit anyways. This was set in stone over 10 years ago.
The great thing is that PPC-64 is that it's natively code compatible with PPC-32. No ISA 'extentions' (like x86-64), or instruction convertion (like Itanium), just a simple processor mode switch.
Apple would be a fool not to jump on this CPU for their high-end workstations or low cost servers.
If I recall correctly, when Nintendo had IBM create the processor for the gamecube, IBM retained the rights to fiddle the their specialized PPC chip, then resell it. I'm wondering if the vector instructions are spillover from the Gamecube chip (I know it does a lot of fast vector math).
Power4 has *huge* cooling requirements, despite being copper-interconnect and all that. (it also has something like 5800 pins, btw, drawing somewhere in the range of 100A worth of current, IIRC) -- I wonder how much cooling needs to be for the 64-bit power PC if they are based on the Power4 design?
My life in the land of the rising sun.
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
You're not getting particular great answers to this question. :-)
The PowerPC is a completely different chip architecture (search for explanation of RISC vs. CISC if you want more detail) in comparison to the Intel x86 architecture. There is a lot of complex discussion on this, but theoretically speaking the Power PC architecture is more advanced and efficient at the same processor speed.
At any rate, the Mac OS is optimized for this processor type. I guess it could be rewritten to run on x86, if Apple wanted to do that.
With the help of an emulator, Win32 programs can be executed in the Mac OS environment. (Virtual PC is the one that I can think of off the top of my head.) It's a testament to the architecture of the Power PC that the performance of Windows in an emulated environment is pretty good. (Not a computer science person, but my understanding is that Virtual PC makes Windows thinks that it's on an x86 computer...and it's an elegant hack.)
I think other posts here are discussing how Apple can/will migrate Mac OS X to the 64 bit processor, and whether or not 32 bit programs need to be recomplied/redesigned for the new processor, or if they can run directly on it in some sorta emulation mode.
Actually, the PPC has usually run much cooler than the equivalent Intel and AMD chips. It's what lets Apple get away with some of the case design decisions they make. It also is going to be a plus for them as they get more into the server market. Lower monthly cooling bills is a significant recurring savings.
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.
My bet is that it's either it's reverse engineered or it's licensed, not that it's a variant. Apple isn't likely to want a variant different enough that Motorola's lawyers could claim infringement.
Who'd a thunk it, we've arrived at a day when IBM is the reverse engineering firm!
RISC
PowerPC architecture is an example of a RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing) architecture. As a result:
Technically, a developer can use any GPR for anything. For example, there is no "stack pointer register"; a programmer could use any register for that purpose. In practice, it is useful to define a set of conventions so that binary objects can interoperate with different compilers and pre-written assembly code.
PowerPC was designed from the POWER architecture to replace it, and has been designed from the beginning to support 32-bit and 64-bit versions. The architecture is actually designed from the beginning to be a 64-bit architecture, and the common desktop implementations are only the 32-bit subset of the original design.
Here's some additional background info:
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
You've got the wrong kind of "proprietary" in mind. Compaq used proprietary boards so that you couldn't upgrade with standard parts, were locked into their upgrade path. For a standard user, this did not offer any additional functionality.
Apple uses proprietary boards so they can offer features like autoswitching networking (just plug in an ordinary ethernet cable between two macs, and the two computers show up on each others local network), target disk mode (use a scsi or firewire cable between two macs, and one computer becomes a HDD on the second computer), instant dynamic network configuration (change your IP/ or configure multiple network devices with just a few clicks, no restarts), dynamically driving multiple monitors with multiple cards (I can plug in two graphics cards, and two monitors, then tell the mac which monitor to drive with which card, while its on.), and USB/Firewire plug and play ease that's still years ahead of windows (oh look, it's the windows hardware manager, again...). On the portables, multimonitor/external monitor support is so slick, it's enough to make a Wintel laptop user cry.
There are plenty of things you _can't_ do as a result of proprietary HW, such as move as quickly with the industry as new HW comes out (lets see how long it takes apple to get AGP 8x...*roll*), but the main differences in functionality between MacOS9 and Win9X/ME/XP is the hardware tweaks that you don't realize by using "open" HW. In the Wintel world, the peripherals people don't work with the OS people, who don't live on the same continent as the BIOS ppl, etc. etc.
Mac admins live for these tweaks, since it means hours less frustration and "pointless clicking" to set up an office of computers, or get them networking just so, using external devices, while adapting the systems to individual work flow and idiosyncrasies.
This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
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