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.
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
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.
And yet Apple produces desktops and servers that are as fast as the user needs them to be. That is, the user interface is responsive while still aesthetically pleasing; gamers don't suffer paging or poor frame rates when playing games; and programmers are not lacking in development tools and do not lament the speed of their compilers. And they do this all without a fan on their processor.
As an owner of a 700MHz G3 iBook, I can say that I never once have thought, "damn, I wish this thing was faster." Apple may not be for the hardcore overclocking benchmark junkie, but they're just fine for the rest of us who just want to get some work (or play!) done.
Personally, I'll sacrifice performance I'll never realize in return for a beautiful, intuitive, and responsive interface housed in a quiet, attractive package.
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
What are you talking about? Apple's money is mostly made on hardware sales. I don't know what it is with you people that think Apple should move to Intel, but it's a bad idea. Take note of this next sentence:
Apple relies on being on a seperate platform from Microsoft to survive.
If Apple ever moved to Intel, they would be crushed. Steve Jobs said a long time ago that the desktop war had been won by Microsoft, and he's right. Switching to Intel would be suicide.
The Mac isn't about being the fastest machine on the block, it's about being the best designed, easiest to use, most useful machine on the block.
Personally, I'll sacrifice performance I'll never realize in return for a beautiful, intuitive, and responsive interface housed in a quiet, attractive package.
Wouldn't we all... especially if she'll do the dishes too...
The battle for the 32bit desktop processor has been won, you mean. It's been a long, bloody battle, and for a time in the mid-'90s, when Apple was on the ropes, the victory looked complete. Intel and AMD have finally emerged victorious, laying claim to the most powerful 32bit processors on the planet.
But, to be frank, Itanium sucks... even Linus thinks so. Nobody wants to use it, Dell, SGI, even HP is still developing PA-RISC silicon, and is incredibly hesitant to commit to the "next generation" IA-64 chip it designed partly in-house. Yamhill is a nice idea, but Intel has no plans to go that route yet, and what's more, denies it's even considering them.
AMD's 64bit offering are, as yet, vapor... and unlikely to pack the punch of the Power4, nevermind a dual-core Power4 with Alti-Vec.
Meanwhile, PowerPC's been 64bit since '96.
Indeed, the PC will continue to kick Apple's butt in 32bit systems, except in notebook applications, which is the only place Apple will keep using 32bit PowerPC processors. D'oh.
So, yes, x86 is irrelevant and outclassed by PowerPC, Itanium is a floundering wreck, leaving Hammer to look very lonely and small up there all buy itself, shoulder to shoulder with UltraSPARCs, R2400s and Power4s. Economy of scale? What scale? When it comes to 64bit hardware, RISC/Unix =is= the scale.
Game on!
SoupIsGood Food