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.
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
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.
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?
"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.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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
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).
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
BAH! the requirement of a fan on the processor is based on very poor heatsink design. remember a small plastic fan is cheaper than a large block of copper and aluminum. and ANY processor including the cook-your-egg AMD's can use a fanless heatsink IF the heatsink is properly designed and sized, AND your case has a poper heat chimney and vents in it's design so that convection will promote cooling.
Using fans is the cheaters way out or the cheap way out.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
What are you smoking? The Darwin kernel can scale up to 32 processors. The 2 processor limit is definitely not in the kernel itself. It is actually a probably with the design of the G4. Instead of a point to point link to the memory controller the G4s are on a shared bus. Stick more than two processors on a shared bus topology like that and your overhead is going to eat any extra performance you can manage to get.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
I think you've been playing with consoles a bit too much. 64-bit here refers to the size of general-purpose registers and memory addressing.
With 64-bit you can address over 4 terabytes. Do you feel the need for more than that?
You can also work with integers up to 18.446.744.073.709.551.615, and floating-point numbers up to 1.7976931348623158 E+308. Feel the need for more than that?
There are wider registers in the CPU (such as the dedicated SSE2 or Altivec registers), but for normal operation I think 64-bit should keep us going for quite a few years.
RMN
~~~
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.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
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.
Since when does Apple have any hardware engineers?
Umm... Since Woz started working in Steve Jobs garage? One of their divisions is the "Hardware Engineering Division"
Even their boards are outsourced
I'm pretty sure that the design is done in-house. some manufacturing may be outsourced.
let alone the actual chips.
I don't know if they STILL have any chip designers (I sort of doubt it) but when AIM first got started the Somerset chip design facility was a joint venture between all three partners including Apple. I believe some of the chip designers at the facility were technically on the books as Apple employees. At the very least the chip designers at Somerset worked closely with Apple.
If Apple had any ability to develop their own CPUs they wouldn't still be stuck with the pre-historic G4, they would simply ditch IBM and use their own chips.
Despite the fact that they DO have hardware engineers, and may even have a few that specialise in chip design to evaluate & work with the other two AIM partners it is obvious that they are not themselves, and are unlikely to become, a chip designers. Though because of the way patent and license agreements between the AIM partners they probably could get into it. But that would be a nightmare, they would bear all the costs and still be stuck with a single supplier (themselves) that would likely fall behind the competition.
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...
--
Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
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?
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
I don't have a DVD player at home, but I just got the new Monster's Inc. DVD (yes, I know I need to buy a player, but I'm cheap...). I happened to bring a brand-new ThinkPad home from the office to do some work. No RCA out, just S-Video. Cool, I can work with that.
So I pull out my S-Video cable, my computer speakers, and subwoofer, and get it all hooked up. Pop in the DVD and play it. Hmm... the TV is mirroring the laptop screen, but the video doesn't show up. After playing around with it for half an hour (and trying two different software players), I finally notice this little warning that says that "Copy protected DVD's will not output to the S-Video port" (or something like that).
WTF? Why even have a DVD drive and an S-Video port if I can't combine them? Note to everyone: Don't buy a ThinkPad if you think that there's EVER a chance you'll want to play a DVD through the S-Video port. If IBM is so damned concerned about DRM, they need to put a big sticker on the laptop that this is a DRM-enabled system. I guarantee that I will never buy another ThinkPad.
Anyway, next night, I bring home the Apple PowerBook. Hook everything up, pop in the DVD, hit play. No problemo.