Slashdot Mirror
Apple and IBM Working Together on 64-bit CPUs
Currawong writes "eWeek reports that IBM Microelectronics is working with Apple on a 64-bit PowerPC processor called the
GigaProcessor Ultralite (GPUL). Unlike previous reports, eWeek now reports that Apple is testing the chip for use with future hardware. IBM apparently also plans to use the processor in linux-based servers. It's believed IBM will disclose some details of the processor in October at the upcoming Microprocessor Forum in San Jose, California. While this story is similar to recent stories about Apple using Power4-based IBM chips in future Macs, the GPUL, unlike the Power4, is smaller, runs cooler and consumes far less power, making it suitable for desktop machines and small servers. The processor is described as having the same 8-way superscalar design fully supporting Symmetric MultiProcessing." We had a previous story about these new chips.
or in an Apple Store. I've heard about the G5's for years and I know they are the next best thing. However, seeing is believing.
I'm not a processor expert or anything, but this can't spell anything but good competition with Intel (not that they're evil or anything, but they haven't had a reason to make their chips better performers, and no, increasing clock cycles doesn't count). Won't hurt Apple either unless it requires their developers to rewrite stuff (haven't they done this enough already with the Mac OS X transition?)
Multiple processors in a chip? Good. AltiVec or similar number-crunching in combination? Great. If Apple pursues this, their boxes might--might achieve a performance that easily blows away the still-powerful SGI workstations and their slow-clocks-but-very-powerful processors (MIPS? Alpha? Can't remember right now).
I hope that some other enterprising company works up a PC mobo that can handle it for those not inclined to Apple products. That would light a file under Wintel's corporate ass to build something better.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
1) That "state-o-the-art" Powerbook you just bought won't run the next version of the OS.
Maybe, but then again it might just be a different version (like Windows XP has both a 32-bit version and a 64-bit version).
2) All of your current software will still work but in some sort of wierd "Compatibility Mode" that is ten times slower than it runs today.
Not likely. Just as the forthcoming AMD Hammer will have 32-bit backwards compatibility, I expect the IBM/Apple proc would do the same. You won't have to boot to "32-bit mode" it will just run 32-bit apps. And while it won't run them as fast as the 64-bit apps, it should run them at least as fast as a native 32-bit processor.
3) Developers will get screwed (again).
Only in the sense that they may have to decide whether to program only in 32-bit (for the widest compatibility with the least effort) or expend the extra effort to support two versions.
Again thank you Motorola for screwing us! I have a small feeling that IBM can be counted on a little more that motorola, because IBM sells its power pc based chips to more that just apple, where if I am not mistaken motorola only sells to Apple so when times gets tough for Motorola like they have for the past few years the R&D for power PC chips drop.
This chips' project doesn't even complete until summer 2003, that doesn't even imply it'll be ready to fabricate or be in any kind of production then, even if it DOES pan out to be a useful design. I imagine by tomorrow Macosrumors will be touting it to be in the new uber-G4 to be released next month.
How long has the G5 been 'almost ready' as far as rumor sites go? Two years now? It's great to spin up your readership with crap like that, but it really does a disservice when it's untrue.
Look, I'm sorry but I'm sick of these posts. The PPC instruction set was designed to be a 64bit architecture. There is a 32bit subset that all current mac programs use and Mac CPUs understand. Theoretically, running 32bit code on a 64bit PPC should be as simple as setting a bit in a special register in the CPU, putting it in 32bit mode.
In fact it might make sense to make 64bit mode an option to the developer. If they don't need very large integers or 4+GB of address space, they could use 32bit mode. This would mean that you don't waste RAM and memory bandwidth using 64bit pointers when you don't need them. The OS would still be 64bit of course.
All applications should run flawlessly (if they did before :-). There is no emulation. And even if there was, how would that hurt the developers? The only time Apple has switched processor architectures before was 68k->PPC. I can still run a 1984 68k copy of MacPaint in Mac OS X's Classic environment. Hell, their 68k emulator was so good that they didn't update all of the OS to PPC straight away! Yes, the jump from OS9 to OSX was difficult for developers but this wont be, even if Apple had to use some sort of emulator (which they wont).
Yes, but they're one of the largest companies on the planet. If they want to capture the non-DRM market, all they have to do is lobby the government to *not* pass compulsory DRM laws.
Except that the GPUL is not the next best thing. If you read the eWeek article, you'll find that the projected time-line reads, basically, the G5 first and then the next best thing after that. And it is very much up in the air what that next best thing will be. I know that Apple has had a long history of working with IBM and Motorola, and that adds a certain amount of probability to the conjecture that the GPUL will be the next best thing, but the existence of Apple's Marklar project shows that we cannot discount the possibility of a switch to x86 architecture. I think the most likely candidate within the x86 world is AMD's Hammer -- it will be available at desktop-processor-level prices, and will also be available in versions more suitable for servers. Since both markets are areas Apple has targeted, this makes the Hammer more appropriate than, say, a combination of Intel's Pentium4 on desktop and Itanium for servers.
Again, though, let me reiterate that this is all just conjecture until "The Steve" makes some sort of formal announcement.
If Apple sticks to their old game, there will be no DRM whatsoever.
After all, iTunes rips audio into MP3 formats instead of some "protected" format. QuickTime does not (IIRC) support DRM, except for (weak) protections on streamed movies to prevent a person from saving the movie.
Apple has made a market by keeping a user's options open. Closing that up is not a priority for them. The infrastructure to do such things is not only not there, it would take a lot of time to implement. I am sure Apple is more interested in getting a new processor to market than they are in restricting the rights of their target market - content creators.
± 29 dB
So it may be a long wait! I got my G4 Tower a few months ago to see if I even would like Apple OSes. To my delight I love OS X (hell even OS 9) and OS X is everything X-Windows/Linux should have been striving for. I was going to sell my G4 and get a dual 1.25 but the one I have is more than enough for now and 1 to 1 1/2 years isn't too long to wait for the next Mac (besides I've still got to save for the 22" display!).
I've tried to use Linux on the desktop since 0.98 (Slackware in '96) and never found it to my liking. I don't like to tweak and read man pages for hours, I just want the damn thing to work. That being said all my companies servers run Linux (killed the SPARC the other day) and being able to sftp/ssh to my servers from a terminal in OS X was great. Plus using Dreamweaver to do my JSP development makes a great environment.
Hopefully 1 to 1 1/2 years is all I'll have to wait. I'm patient so I'll start saving now.
Motorrola has no one to blame but themeselves for this. If they innovated and tried to keep up with the industry like everyone else, they would of not had this problem. They figured mac users are suckers and will always buy anyway so who cares. They guessed wrong.
Believe it or not, consumers do look at the mhz rating as an indicator of performance and value for what they are paying for. Even some look at the mhz rating for internet speed! If they see an expensive box that has a low mhz rating, they will just shake their heads and move on to another pc. Consumers aren't real bright and apple needs to boost the mhz peed on these new chips and not just have them perform fast. Palladium scares the hell out of me and I want no part in it.
Kudos to apple. As soon as palladium is out and when these babies find their way into powerbooks, I will be one of your first customers.
ALso MacOSX is one of the easiest versions of unix out there! No rpm hell, no spending hours configurating text files, no waiting for gentoo to compile everything, and all of the binaries like Windows include the dependancies. I will still keep a copy of linux around for the hell of it but I would love MacOSX!
http://saveie6.com/
True, to some extent. But keep in mind that Motorola sells to Apple - and Apple will certainly attempt to keep Motorola's prices down to a minimum as well (not anything like $5/cpu, but you get the idea).
.. :)
What's most important here, I think, is that Intel/Windows has created a culture that believes that when Intel releases a new CPU, everyone needs to upgrade. This is great for Intel, as it guarantees an ROI for their research.
The Mac crowd, however, is not like this. Mac owners will typically keep their Macs for 3-5 yrs w/o upgrading. OS X isn't doing much to change that, as every release of OS X is progressively faster than the previous release on the same hardware. While people may need to upgrade now to take advantage of OS X's best features, an upgrade now will mean no more upgrades for the next few years.
I think Motorola was aware of this and realized that for the amount of R&D they needed to compete effectively with Intel/AMD, they weren't able to sell enough CPUs to make up for the cost of bringing a new chip to market.
Just my thoughts, though
I feel your pain, but let's get some real perspective. Video is almost always going to need some sort of rendering, especially when dealing with uncompressed (or nearly) video. That's upwards of 600K per frame, times 30 per second. Just for the data.
I used to have all these stats for explaining to clients why 'video rendering' always takes so long. My favourite: one minute of Cinepak (old-school!) video requires more math than the Apollo missions did. Sure, it's a whack stat, but it get's the point across, eh?
The G4 is no slouch. Realtime Video Everything requires a massive bank of DSPs, or a CPU that does not yet live.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
If you look at Intel's price sheet and subtract off the cost of the high amount of cache the Itanium2 is not any more expensive than the P4. I think Intel may be making a killing on the markup on the cache, but we could reasonably priced Itanium2's today if there was any demand.
Customers have proven over and over that they are willing to stand the noise for a cheaper PC. Something that extends the life of a PC "robs" the vendor of another purchase soon. The "cheaters way out" you speak of is, in fact, sound engineering.
What you're missing is that Apple sells quiet machines that last, and their customers ARE willing to pay for that, because a lot of them are doing audio/video work where they're LISTENING to their work, not just looking at it on a display, and because artists and musicians value their tools very highly and use them very personally. People don't buy Macs to be disposable ... I have a three year-old blue PowerMac here that runs great and it has kept its own software up to date automatically all this time as well ... works better now than when it was first purchased because the software has continued to mature, and it is about to be re-dedicated as a server (it has FireWire, USB, a TFT display, 1.5GB RAM, room for four HD, and three empty PCI slots, so it is a good fit for this). It has already paid for itself a few times over, but it will get a chance to do that again.
Disposable computers are bad for the environment and wrong-headed when we have so many people in need of computers (think Third World, etc). Look at how hard it has been to re-dedicate old x86 systems even for charity due to Microsoft. If not for Linux, there'd be no hope for these older machines, even for simple tasks, because to admin Windows 95 on them is either illegal or way too fucking hard or both. With a Mac, it is a one-piece widget that keeps on trucking for years and years and years.
I record high-quality audio in the field on my PowerBook, and the fact that it is silent is a true feature, given that it has so much horsepower, especially for DSP stuff. I certainly get many more tracks and effects plug-ins going on my PowerBook than on PIIIm and P4m machines (note the "m" ... very different from desktop chips).
Also, check out the fact that the Gateway Profile that is so publicly going up against the new iMac runs Quake and Photoshop at almost exactly the same speed, even though the Gateway has a 70-watt 2.8GHz CPU with a huge fan and the iMac has a 15-watt, 800MHz CPU with a fan that's quieter than a hard drive. THAT is engineering.
It sounds (!) to me like you're just getting old and starting to lose your hearing as is not atypical. I'm aware of much evidence that loud sounds can damage hearing. I'm not aware of any evidence that low level white noise of the sort found in a server closet can do the same.
Unless your server closet has an unsually high decibel level, I think the problem is far more likely to exist solely in your ears and not as a result of your environment.
At some point though, Apple's gotta throw us a frickin bone. Something to let us know that the platform has a future. Judging by the course of development on the Hardware side for the past two years, wrt not only bus speed, but CPU development, with AltiVec being practically the ONLY high point, the Macintosh Hardware landscape is incredibly bleak. The only thing selling Macs now on the Hardware side is Gee-Whiz fancy cases, DVD burners, and LCD monitors.
The SOFTWARE story, on the other hand, is BRILLIANT. But what the fuck are you going to run this tremendously asskicking OS on in 5 years?
I don't give a crap what the rumor sites say - I'm *not* going to invest $3500 in a pro Mac until Apple brings it's system architecture into the 21st century. I'm talking about bus bandwidth. I don't care if I have to squeeze another two years of life out of my heavily upgraded Beige G3. Apple's not getting my money, until they offer a system that's worth it to me.
If I see developments - rumors, in the positive direction, I'm more likely to wait for the worthy upgrade, than I am to say "FUCK Steve Jobs, I'm building an AMD box, and running Linux". It's as simple as that. A platform that has a future, that I can afford, versus one that does not have a future, that I can't buy at any price.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
> Clearly you have a short memory. The "emulated"
... they're just too different from modern apps to run natively on a modern system (different event model, different multitasking model). Similarly, "Classic" Intel apps (32-bit x86 architecture) are going to run in a special mode on 64-bit chips because they are just too different from modern ideas about chipmaking. After 20 years, you have to scrap some things, which means you don't get perfect compatibility.
... they've been so future-focused (Mac OS X) that many of their traditional user base are still using three and four year-old machines while they're currently selling to "Switchers" and UNIX people.
> 68k mode of PowerPCs (which were also supposed to be
> waaay faster) weren't because the emulator didn't fit in
> the cache. And for christ sakes, who the hell believes
> what chip companies say about speed anymore?
The very first PowerMacs ran 68K software faster than it had ever been run before. You are completely wrong.
The 32-bit compatibility mode your'e talking about is an Intel thing, to make up for the fact that they've been bolting things onto their chips for 20 years, going from 8-bit to 32-bit currently. PowerPC is younger and benefits from a much more mature industry when it was designed. There are already 64-bit POWER chips, and some parts of the current 32-bit PowerPC are 64-bit and some are 128-bit. The switch to 64-bits was designed into PowerPC.
"Classic" Mac software runs in a partial emulator (some hardware is emulated, but not the CPU) on Mac OS X because Classic Mac apps have a 20 year history
The important thing to remember is that Apple has been on their current CPU for only a little more than five years, and on their current OS for only two years. They are RISC, they are 64-bit, they are UNIX, and they are ready for the future like nobody else. Every Mac sold for the past two years has had a Wi-Fi slot in it and antennaes built-in, as well as FireWire, and also Gigabit Ethernet on all pro machines for the past 18 months or so. The platform is in a great place for the future. In fact, that's the only thing holding Apple back for the past few years
Here is the future: the dark lord in Redmond is going to create a large unwitting/unwilling installed base of DRM implementations, and there's not a damned thing anyone can do to stop it. Once that installed base exists, then various mass-market media will be made by the "big players" (the ones with all the money, who are able to put asses into seats in theaters worldwide, the ones who can buy slots for radio play) and you can only play it if your computer implements DRM.
Apple, the company that cares enough about multimedia that they got the studios to release movie trailers in their Quicktime format and the exclusively-licensed-to-Apple Sorensen codec, can either be a part of this or not. They can either throw up their hands and say, "Well, you need to be running Windows on x86/Palladium boxes to play that movie trailer" or they can say, "Yes, of course you can play that music "CD Next Generation" media on Macs too."
Do you really have the slightest doubt which way they are going to go?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.