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

Cooler?

[greenhide]

the GPUL, unlike the Power4, is smaller, runs cooler and consumes far less power, making it suitable for desktop machines and small servers

Does anyone know if the chip would actually be cool enough so that it would not require a fan? One of my favorite features of the G4 is that it requires no fan whatsoever. My PowerMac G4 makes so little noise that sometimes it's hard to tell if its running or not without looking at the little glowing power button on the front.

I think this is one of the nicest features of Macintosh computers and if they need to add a fan I think that will be a real shame. On the other hand, Motorolla really hasn't gotten their act together, so Apple may not have a choice.

Will it have DRM built-in?

[sphealey]

A key question: will this chip have DRM (aka Digital Rights Reduction) features built-in? If NOT, there could be a good market here for IBM as the free alternative to Intel.

sPh

Re:Will it have DRM built-in?

[gclef]

I was at a talk recently given by one of the security guys from Apple. He was asked about the whole TCPA thing, and his response was that Apple wasn't participating in it at present, and didn't really see what they could offer to it. Unless some sort of TCPA-like thing became law, or unless someone came up with some way for Apple to contribute, they were going to stay out of it.

So, at least for now, they're staying out of the DRM wars. Of course, this is all subject to management whims, but that's the state as of now.

I don't see the landscape changing too much...

[xidix]

Yes, a new 64-bit PPC processor would be great, because the G4 is really showing its age. But I don't think this will be something to drive Wintel users over to Apple. If anything, it will just help Apple hang on to its existing marketshare.

The thing to remember is that "switching" is expensive, and not just for the new hardware. When a longtime PC user switches to Apple, they have to replace all of their software with Mac versions (and in a lot of cases, say goodbye to certain titles altogether). A new PPC processor isn't going to make that any less of a reality (unless of course, it allows VirtualPC to run fast enough that it's actually usable).

A 64-bit PPC would almost assuredly be backwards compatible with 32-bit PPC applications so for current Apple users, it will be a big boost in speed without having to reinvest in all of their software immediately (although, if you want the most speed, you'll eventually need to upgrade to the 64-bit versions of your apps).

Great news for Apple, but it's not a "Windows killer".

Re:I don't see the landscape changing too much...

[Matthias Wiesmann]

(although, if you want the most speed, you'll eventually need to upgrade to the 64-bit versions of your apps).

Why would code that uses 32 bit pointers be slower than code that uses 64 bit pointers?
Having 64 bits pointers is needed to address more than 4 gigabytes, but why would there be a performance gain? I would think that longer pointers imply moving more data into the CPU, and therefore would consome more memory bandwidth. Am I missing something?

Hmmm...

[rgoer]

So what is Apple's plan for all this horsepower? It seems that the current 7450/7455 G4 chips have more than enough "under the hood" to comfortable kick the likes of Photoshop and Illustrator around, not to mention the iApps, and everybody's favorite Final Cut Pro. So this news begs the question: where does the GPUL fit in to Apple's master plan?

Perhaps, just perhaps, has Apple something up their sleeve? Like a purchase of Alias|Wavefront to go along with their other recent acquisitions, and fully stack the high-end graphics deck? Or maybe pro-E has finally gotten their act together and is releasing a Mac client? Or are there going to be some new Xserves based on this chip, and maybe we'll actually see some type of installed base start to grow in the Apple-branded server market.

Who knows... but as big as this news is (for Apple-heads, at least), the upcoming developements this GPUL (potentially) foreshadows loom much larger.

itanium in commodity hardware?

[turgid]

So, does this mean that to compete, intel will have to migrate itanium down to commodity hardware in a hurry? What about recouping their R&D costs, and what about the cooling issues and prduction costs?

You're kidding, right?

[bill_mcgonigle]

"New processor Z has just been released. Sources say the processor is so fast typical users won't have a need for it, but is expected to be popular among engineering and CAD users."

I first started reading this line when the 386/25 came out. Replace CAD with 3D Graphics for this decade. Every time a new processor comes around, they say almost exactly the same thing - watch for it in the press. So far the prediction hasn't shown to be true.

Re:I'll believe it when it's on the shelf at CompU

[sphealey]

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

The whole PowerPC thing was one of the most amazing displays of corporate loyalty I have ever heard of. Apple needed a new chip but was unwilling to abandon their historical supplier, so they forced IBM and Motorola to the table and knocked heads until they got a joint production agreement.

Most companies would have said: "sorry Motorola - you are out of gas. We just signed with Digital (Alpha) [or IBM or Intel]. Thanks for the memories". Instead Apple force-fed the entire PowerPC thing.

I wonder what their motivation was? And did Apple truely benefit in the long run?

sPh

Re:Shades of PowerPC

[hey!]

I think he's alluding, not to the OS9->OSX upgrade, but the 68K -> PPC conversion. The compatibility mode was, in my opinion, a tour de force, but they screwed developers by the Lisa Pascal to C switch. It wasn't just that C became the preferred development enviornment, it was because they decided not to support Pascal at all. This was a horrible miscalculation, because it put developers using what up to then was the preferred development environment at a huge disadvantage. They had to retrain their programmers and port their applications. This left some applications stranded in emulation land for two years or more.

I think he may also be referring to the death of OpenDoc, which badly burned many developers and for which I too still have not forgiven them. OpenDoc was brilliant and so, so close to being ready for prime time when it was killed. This was a one-two punch for many small developers -- once they spent perhaps eighteen months in their C conversion, they then spent another eighteen months or two years redesigning their application for an architecture that simply went up in smoke. I knew some small innovative software developers that had, perhaps, a two or three year lead over similar applications on the Windows end, who ended up behind, a place you simply can't afford to be if you are on a niche platform like the Mac. This experience soured many developers on Apple, and prepared many of them to be well disposed to open source.

Bitterness for past misdeeds aside, I expect a 32 bit to 64 bit conversion to go more smoothly than the 68K to PPC conversion, or the equivalent conversion on the Windows side.

Don't use FCP, do you?

[edremy]

G4 chips have more than enough "under the hood" to comfortable kick the likes of Photoshop and Illustrator around, not to mention the iApps, and everybody's favorite Final Cut Pro.

You have *got* to be kidding. Enough power for FCP? Dude, I routinely run 30+ minute renders for a 3 minute chunk of video on a 933MHz G4, and I'm not even doing all that much. A few filters, some text generation, a mask or two and it's walk away from the machine time.

Apple could be shipping 8-way 2GHz G4s and it still wouldn't be enough.

new bus is the interesting part

[smagoun]

The really important part here is that Apple would be using a new bus with these machines. What the bus is doesn't matter so much as the fact that it's not the Maxbus, which is what the G4 and its ilk use. Maxbus is designed for routers + other embedded apps, not high-performance desktop computers. Currently Maxbus runs at 167Mhz, which is about as far as Motorola is willing to push it (167Mhz single-pumped, mind you). As a result, even a single G4 can more than saturate the bus, and the dualies spend a *lot* of time idling (they share one memory bus). Big caches help the problem, but there's still a fundamental issue.

Even if the new chips are clock-for-clock identical to the current G4, the mere fact that they're running on a newer bus will make the machines much more powerful.

For more info about this, head over to Ars and check out the posts in the Mac Achaia by BadAndy from earlier this summer ("Altivec, anyone?" I think it was titled). He knows a hell of a lot more about this stuff than I do; it makes for fascinating reading, and you can really understand why faster CPUs alone won't cut it for Apple.

Re:This could be good.

[jweatherley]

i'd be happy to use a ppc box as my desktop while not paying apple prices.

After you've checked out IBM's prices for PPC boxes you might not mind Apple's pricing so much...

Re:Computer noise, it's not so bad

[N Monkey]

honestly have grown to love the steady white-noise of a running computer... I find it difficult to sleep if my computer is shut off

A bit off topic perhaps, but some people I know find they can get their young babies to go back to sleep by playing a recording of, say, a vacuum cleaner. Apparently the white noise is supposed to be similar to the sound of the womb.

I'm not at all sure what this says about you. Perhaps you want to go back... :-).

To return to the topic, I find that I don't notice the "jet engine like" whine of my PC until I turn it off. It's then that I appreciate the peace and quiet. Frankly I'm all for more efficient CPUs.

Simon

That's one of the really nice things about Linux..

[mmol_6453]

..It can easily adapt and grow with new hardware and new architectures.

Microsoft has been dependant on Intel for a long time. Their one foray into another architecture (WinNT for the Alpha) was just a proof-of-concept, and didn't go anywhere, IIRC.

The Linux kernel covers several architectures. SGI, x86, Alpha, PPC, and StrongARM are just a few.

It's really nice to finally see a real, immediate threat to Microsoft's dominance. Apple and IBM have enough revenue to run a massive advertising campaign. Even if it just involves OS-X, it'll still produce a large shift away from Microsoft's domain.

Re:Actually the new Dual Systems have a fan it'sOT

[Oculus Habent]

Fans aren't that bad until you realize you can't hear as well as you used to. I work in the server closet alot (moving offices right now) and I sometimes grab a pair of earplugs.

The whine isn't bad until you realize you used to watch TV on 12, and now it's got to be 15.

In fact, our whole world (mine, anyway) is like this - far more noise than we were intended to hear regularly, and it slowly causes us to lose frequencies and ranges...

Do you find yourself trying to figure out what people said?

Re:I can see why Apple hates rumors

[Elwood P Dowd]

Well. MOSR is the only site that's both constantly incorrect and constantly paid attention to. There are other sites that are just as full of crap, but MOSR gets attention... well... because they act like they get attention.

The frustrating thing with MOSR is that they seem to never fucking learn. They might always have well placed sources for their info, but... those sources are so overly optimistic that they consistently make MOSR look like idiots.

ThinkSecret and MacRumors are both much better rumor sites, and I don't believe that they detract from Apple's sales in the slightest. Nick DePlume of Thinksecret seems to care enough about accuracy that he doesn't make many long-distance predictions. I've never seen him be very incorrect. His steadfast accuracy has made me reconsider purchase of a PC desktop, lately, because he says ATI is working on an all-in-wonder card for the mac. I believe him completely.

MacRumors has a much higher volume of information, so sometimes they come up with crap, but they never make it sound more authoritative than it is. They don't act like you can bet the farm on their information.

At this point, MOSR needs to curl up and die. Back in the day, they had enough viewers and sources that they could have been the premier rumor site indefinitely. Even with Jobs' crackdown on leaks. But their BS predictions (and crappy management) probably alienated as many sources as it did readers. So now those sources go to Thinksecret.