Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
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.
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
The Raven
This is not something they should just spring on their developers.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
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.
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.
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.
Intelligent Life on Earth
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.
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.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
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.