IBM to Release 64-Bit, 1.8GHz Processor in 2003

Professor_Quail writes "A Forbes article supposed to be released tomorrow gives some details about the new PowerPC processor that IBM and Apple have been working together on; the chip is slated to be introduced at the end of next year. The introduction of this chip should put to rest any speculation that Apple is moving to an Intel platform."

Comments

Everyone will still see it as slow

[SexyKellyOsbourne]

Though we all know by now that cycles per second alone does not determine performance, the average consumer does not.

Though it is a revolutionary advance, they're more apt to see "64-bit" as a useless gimmick or even see it as inferior to "128-bit" Gamecube processors, while thinking that 1.8ghz is dirt slow, especially in 2003 when Intel will be in the 3's and AMD in the 2's, even if the chips still are 32-bit.

All you need to do is make a chip oscillate fast, and Joe Customer will think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Re:Everyone will still see it as slow

[vlad_petric]

Cause they don't really actually run at 2.8GHz.

Actually they do. What you're missing is the other component of the speed equation, namely the IPC (instructions per cycle). Intel design favors clockspeed to IPC, for obvious marketing reasons, while AMDs designs are more balanced. That's why they get similar performance with considerably slower (in terms of clockspeed) CPUs

The Raven

Re:Everyone will still see it as slow

[Hrothgar The Great]

I've taken computer architecture before, thanks, and I've also USED many computers AND I've read benchmarks and listened to the comments of many people with much more knowledge than I on the subject and NO one expert has EVER made the claim, to me at least, that any (non-theoretical) RISC processor will operate 4x more efficiently in regard to clock speed.

While I do agree that a processor running several parallel instructions could average 4 IPC and run instructions really, really fast, if said processor is based on a reduced instruction set, doesn't that mean that each instruction actually accomplishes a smaller amount? (And that the speeds therefore may be closer to balancing than the RISC one actually being 4x as efficient?) Perhaps I simply misunderstand the nature of RISC, but that's the impression I have.

Re:Everyone will still see it as slow

[LinuxHam]

If IBM makes some whack-ass server software that actually takes advantage of the 64 bit architecture

They/we already do. It's called zSeries. Like the z800. That's one whack-ass server. Imagine doing self-service web hosting that takes users from first click to a fixed IP dedicated host up and running in 5 to 10 minutes with no additional hardware. Now imagine that kind of service for up to 10,000 or more fully independent hosts in a 19" rack. If I had a some bucks and gumption to start a business, that's exactly what I would do. A z800, the fattest pipes I could buy, and some disk.

news

[sstory]

I frequently see articles like this on tech sites. Articles about 64-bit chips, 64-bit linux, 64-bit Windows. None of the articles explains how 64-bit equipment will benefit the user. Perhaps techies assume it's obvious; to them it might be. To the rest of us it isn't. And I don't think I'm speaking from a particularly uninformed position. So can someone please point me to info explaining not the availability of 64-bit processing, but the advantages, capabilities, tradeoffs, etc?

Re:Clawhammer for me.

[davidstrauss]

Volume won't be a problem at all for IBM. They run more PowerPC chip fabs than Motorola. The only reason IBM isn't making G4s is Apple's contract with Motorola, which seems to be icy at the moment. IBM could create G3s that run faster than G4s and flood the market tomorrow if there weren't legal issues. IBM and Apple seem to have a serious future together.

Anyone planning on telling the developers?

[hayden]

If Apple is planning on moving to a 64-bit architecture then they'll need to start educating their developers real soon now. If everything is coded properly then there's no problem. In the real world pointers get assumed to be int size or int is assumed to be 32-bits. Also word alignment becomes an issue.

This is not something they should just spring on their developers.

Re:No Certainties..

[Murdock037]

Apple, I should think, will select the company which will allow it to compete most effectively in the marketplace.

Which marketplace did you mean? It seems to me that the only marketplace of which Apple is a part is the Apple marketplace.

You're right, there aren't really any certainties until it comes out of Steve Jobs' mouth-- and even then, take it with a grain of salt. But he does get excited about shiny new things, and this sounds like it would be up his alley. Unless Motorola's keeping some secrets, I wouldn't be surprised if this is what's coming next.

Re:lol

[scrod]

All current PowerPC processors have been 32-bit, but the PowerPC ISA has always been 64-bit. That's why a 64-bit PowerPC processor will be able to run all 32-bit PPC binaries at native speed.

Problems with the Itanium

[computerchris]

I work at the University of Colorado and we have a research lab of Itanium machines that are used to study "Compilation Issues on Itanium Architecture". They are currently doing research on how to get different programs to compile under the new architecture. The current problem is they can't even get the gcc compiler to work correctly, so don't hold your breath waiting for an Intel 64 bit solution.

Re:What's an instruction?

[the_2nd_coming]

yes, however, that one instruction might take 2 cycles :-)

old cisc procs worked like that....sure your assembly was fewer instructions than a risc, however, the cisc proc had to run more cycles per Instruction because at the machine level, it still could only move so many bits in and out of registers so many times in one cycle.

that is why risc was invented, having one or 2 operations per instruction gave the programmer much better ability to squeeze as much out of a cycle as he or she could....think of a cisc instruction as a brawd sword and a risc instruction as a scalple.

now, Intel has realised that a mixture of cisc and risc is good. some situations, it takes you just as many cycles to execute a desired outcome in cisc and risc, so it would be easier on the programmer to use a cisc instruction rather than a group of risc instruction, hence you get the fine tuneability of risc, but the lower impact on the programmer of cisc.

Microsoft would love Apple to

[jpmorgan]

MS would love Apple to switch to a complete x86 architecture.

If Apple went toe-to-toe with the 1000lb Gorilla, they'd be dead within 18 months. Remember, Apple is fundamentally a hardware company. Moving into an ultra-low margin commodity hardware market from a high-margin monopolistic hardware market to compete with a software company would be moronic.

Re:No Certainties..

[GMontag451]

You want to try to emulate PPC on x86?! Good luck. PPC has tons more general purpose registers than x86 does. There is a reason why the only Macintosh emulators for x86 only do 68K emulation.

Re:Linux is available for 64 bit

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Now they're going to be replaced with video editors and 3D modelers. Having 3 or 4 gigs of RAM would allow them to be productive on cheaper and cheaper machines.

One of the best, and possibly most expensive, video effects systems in the world is called "Inferno." It's sold by a company called Discreet Logic, out of Montreal. An Inferno runs on an SGI Onyx2 or Onyx 3000 computer-- one of the ones with like 12 processors that stands 7 feet high and sounds like a hurricane. An Inferno costs around $750,000.

With an Inferno, you can do visual effects for film at 2K resolution (2048x1556, usually at 36 bits per pixel) in real time. There's no tool out there that's better.

An Inferno has, at most, 2.5 GB of RAM. Many systems run just fine with 1.5 GB of RAM. (Don't ask me why, but the vendor recommends either 1.5 or 2.5 GB, not 2.0 or 3.0. That's just the way it is.)

I think you're overestimating the real need for RAM. Having more would be all well and good, but in the real world it's just not necessary for those kinds of tasks.