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.

Comments

I can see why Apple hates rumors

[Anonymous Coward]

I can really see why Apple hates rumor-mongering like this. They go through a lot of trouble to get a machine design done and out in the marketplace, and two weeks later someone posts a rumor somewhere saying "G5 systems will be announced in three months!" so the user goes "well, I was going to buy a new machine, but I don't want to get screwed so I'll wait for the G5".

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.

Re:Shades of PowerPC

[ZigMonty]

This being Apple, one can infer the following future events:

1) That "state-o-the-art" Powerbook you just bought won't run the next version of the OS.

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.

3) Developers will get screwed (again).

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).

Re:Will it have DRM built-in?

[SmittyTheBold]

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.

Re:Don't use FCP, do you?

[thatguywhoiam]

You do realize that this sort of thing took hours and hours on a $100,000 Avid previously. And now you're doing it on (approx.) $5k worth of Apple hardware with no special boards or drives.

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.