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."
All it really says is that they plan to go into production of the 64 bit chips toward the second half of next year. "Industry" experts say that it would be used in the Mac. This is certainly a far cry from Jobs saying it - if anything, I think it makes the race between the two competing chip manufacturers all the more interesting. Apple, I should think, will select the company which will allow it to compete most effectively in the marketplace - not the first one who says in a press release that they plan to release bigger, faster, more powerful chips sometime next year..
IBM server chip seen slimmed down for Apple Macs
So the IBM version still stuffs itself with pizzas, whereas the Apple version is on Slim-Fast shakes wearing a lycra outfit and eating mostly fruit (well eating Apples would be cannabalistic, unless they bring out the PowerHannibal chip variant)... ;)
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
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?
But that's a big *IF* . But it would be cool to have another option out there.
I'm sure they'll spin the 64-bit thing as being 'better' just like they've convinced their loyal followers that the mhz-myth makes an 800mhz G4 perform like a 2+ Mhz Athlon or Intel processor. By the time they even finish developing this 1.8ghz chip, those of us using 32bit chips will be chuggling along at 4ghz or so and waiting for the 5ghz on the horizon.
Many people doing CAD, circuit simulation, or editing large images need more than 4 gigs of ram now. 4 gigs is all you can get with 32 bits. On intel, using evil segments, you can use 36 bit. Win2k Enterprise does this...
Also, do not forget about Moore's Law. CPU's keep getting faster. Problem is hard disks are not. So more RAM for caching will be the solution.
Checking pricewatch I see that 2 gig pc100 dimms are less than $500 each.
The law is a weapon of the government, not a protection for the likes of you. Surely you understand that.
I was like... you know... posting a flame on slashdot while logged in... and then beep... and I was modded to -1... so nobody could see my post. So now I log in as an AC... because mods don't want to waste their points on me. AC Swith.
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.
Hrm, intel/AMD will be at what then, 4ghz? :P
:P
64 bit is nice, but I doubt the chip will be more powerful then an x86 chip at twice speed.
Keep in mind that 64 bit chips do not simply work at twice the speed that 32 bit chips do, unless they are working on 64 bit integer numbers (in which case, they will actually work faster then 2x the speed of a 32 bit chip). Unlike the move from 16 bit to 32 bit, where 16 bit integers (either -32k to 32k or 0 64k values) were to small for lots of work, especially work with memory addresses on machines with >64k of ram
Nowadays, most CPUs (including x86) have 64bit floating point coprocessors to handle most mathematical code, so 64bit CPUs won't give you much of an improvement there either.
on machines with >4gb of ram, it will be a big improvement, but with advances in virtual memory it won't be as much of an advance, since programs can work in their own 4gig memory space on systems with more then 4 gigs of ram, and the virtual memory hardware can use more then 32 bits for mapping addresses.
Anyone, one only has to look at the difference between a Nintendo 64 (64 bit CPU) and a PC (32bit CPU) to see that CPU speed (and graphics accelerators!) has a much greater impact on performance then the bit width of the CPU.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
"The introduction of this chip should put to rest any speculation that Apple is moving to an Intel platform."
Especially since Apple has never changed their mind before, about anything major.
Casual Games/Downloads
C'mon ... Mac OS/X for x86 doesn't really have much to do with Intel, but with Microsoft. A Mac OS/X running on Intel hardware is nothing but Microsoft's worst nightmare in terms of what it can do to its market. So it's just a trumpcard in negotiations with Microsoft (i.e. "If you stop Office/Mac, we drop the atomi^M^M^M^M^M Mac OS/X for x86").
The Raven
The Raven
This is just confirmation of threads folks on appleinsider.com and other mac websites have been following for quite some time.
Based on all the rumor and innuendo that is swirling around for the last 3 months, it is highly likely that this is indeed the chip Apple will be migrating to, and that it will be out at some point in 2003...probably the fall, though opinions on that vary.
At the Microprocessor Forum on the 15th (Tuesday) IBM will be giving a long talk on the nature of this chip, and that's the talk Mac enthusiasts have been waiting for to see what's what with the particulars...so stay tund for that to receive more information than the Forbes article had.
XServe
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
I'm sure they'll spin the 64-bit thing as being 'better' just like they've convinced their loyal followers that the mhz-myth makes an 800mhz G4 perform like a 2+ Mhz Athlon or Intel processor.
:P
Well, I would hope so, that's almost 400 times as fast
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I'd rather have a Power4 (which is available now of course) than wait a year for a crappy stripped Power4.
-Kevin
I've seen several. Try here for starters.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
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.
36 != 64, but just because CPUs with Intel's PAE can address 64GB of RAM (2^36 = 64GB) does not make them 36-bit processors. They can only actually address 4GB at any one time, which is why any single process can use no more than 4GB of RAM (actually, 3.5GB with Linux and 3GB with Windows)
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
Where can you get a PC comparable to the iMac for $650? Or comparable to the iBook for $600? The price difference is not as much as you think, and can easily be made up for by ease of maintenance, lack of viruses and spyware, and better security.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
It's the efficiency of the processor that matters, which is measured in IPC, the "instructions per cycle" that it can execute.
Be careful. Some architectures require more instructions to do the same thing. For instance, on 6502 or x86, you can load an integer from memory and add it to a register in one instruction, whereas on ppc, arm, or mips, this takes two.
Will I retire or break 10K?
At least, not necessarily.
Just because these new chips will be 64-bit does not mean they will be fast. 64-bit processors require more cache and main memory (because all of the memory pointers are 64-bits rather than 32) and cannot necessarily do most common computations faster.
Say you are doing a multiply operation. Very common. The numbers are, say, 500,000 and 42. Both of those numbers are occupying a full 64-bit register, even though they could be stored in 32-bit registers easily. The multiply operation still takes the same amound of time to complete, because the register size doesn't matter unless the numbers cannot fit.
Now, software doing math with numbers greater than ~4.3 billion (what will fit in a 32-bit register) will be able to perform those calculations more quickly, but rarely are such large numbers used. Certain operations, such as encryption and advanced mathematics, will be able to calculate up to 4 times faster, but again, this will not matter much for most applications (though perhaps folding@home and SETI@home will see a speed up).
Additionally, the increased code size caused by the larger memory pointers (about 5%) can actually slow code, because the cache hit rate will drop by that same 5%.
The Opteron processor's early benchmarks (which show that it simply kicks ass) are misleading because the Opteron has other tweaks to improve speed: Twice as many registers, an integrated low-latency memory controller, probably a better branch prediction unit, and a few other minor tweaks. The speed increase is not caused by the larger registers.
That said, IBM makes some very nice processors, and if they incorporate many of their ideas into this new CPU, Apple will hopefully be very competitive. (though those 1.8GHz better have a great IPC to compete with the Clawhammer and 3+GHz P4!)
64-bits is very nice in that Apples can now address >4GB RAM per process, but few people are finding the 4GB memory barrier to be all that restrictive, less professionals working on very high-end tasks such as gargantuan 3D models with staggeringly huge textures.
I'm all for Apple every since OSX was released, but let's not succumb to the 64-bit myth anymore than we should the MHz myth.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
"Further proof that OS-X is NOT an unix OS is the fact that you can't backup HFS+ files using standard GNU tar."
/etc/fstab and so forth."
GNU is not UNIX.
"Also, OS-X doesn't include simple items such as
fstab does not a UNIX make. Besides, fstab is there and useable if you want. NetInfo is used as first choice only.
OSX is as much a UNIX as Linux is, if you wish to be pedantic. Both use GNU/BSD tools on top of a kernel.
Why bother bickering over which is the most UNIX-like or UNIX-based? This isn't a pissing contest.
-- Jared Earle | "There is no spork"
The Didge Viper revs to less than 6krpm.
What can beat it? Normal street cars cant. Take your 1.8L super-big-exhaust-turbo civic/integra/prelude/whatever and see what happens.
YOU GET SMOKED!
Why? Because the viper has mad displacement. More displacement means more energy per revolution, aka more computation per clock, ala AMD or the P3. P4 is more like the rice burner, revving to insane RPM but generally not doing much per revoltion. It only gets "fast" because it revs so high.
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
The melting point of steel is about 1500C.
The Athlon XP uses 12% more power than the P4, and hence produces 12% more heat. The problem with Athlons is that (unlike the P4) they don't include an integrated head spreader, so all heat is concentrated on a much smaller area. The Hammer / Opteron does have an IHS, and will probably dissipate between 60 and 80 Watts of heat. That is quite good for a 2.5 GHz, 64-bit chip (compare with 135 Watts for Intel's Itanium 2).
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.
Well, let's see, pay more and it works or pay less and babysit it ... gee, what's my time worth again? More than about $3,000 once every five years or so, for sure. (Yes, I said five years. I'm on a three-year-old machine now any my previous two Macs held up for five years each before they were just plain obsolete.)
Isn't this the same reason most of us are moving away from Sun to begin with?
No, it's because they cost $40k each just for the right to win the pissing contest with the ISP next door. EVERY situation I've seen a large Sun used it could have been handled with Linux on a couple of Xeons or on an Xserve and MOSXS. There's no compelling reason to use a Sun anymore other than to win the pissing contest with the sysadmins of the competitor (what competitors are left, at least).
I think its time Apple start calling anything based on the power PC architecture twice its clock speed, and anyhting thats both powerPC and 64 bits at 4 times its clock speed. After all, the processor does twice as much as a 32 bit processor in a given clock.
No it does not. Do you think bits are some sort of speed measurement? Like, "bits per second"? 64-bit means the chip has 64-bit registers. Basically what that means is it can work with larger numbers and - more importantly - larger memory addresses. It will take exactly the same time as a 32-bit chip to do a specific operation (ex., add two bytes, jump to a new address in a program, etc.). The speed at which operations are done depends on the chip's design and clock speed.
So calling this new PowerPC that runs at "1.8GHz" a "7.4GHz PowerPC" is just as legitimate as Intel calling their pentiums 2.8GHz, etc. (Cause they don't really actually run at 2.8GHz. That's just one clock rate that exists at some point on the processor. Processor clocking is far more complicated than that.)
What? Of course they run at 2.8 GHz. That's the clock speed; they can't help but run at 2.8 GHz. Even if they have absolutely nothing to do, they still go through 2.8 billion cycles each second. There are clockless chips (that work at a variable speed), but the P4 is not one of them.
RMN
~~~
Did you know that a P4 takes 20 clock cycles to perform a multiply?
:) )
Did you know that you are an idiot? the p4 has a 20 stage pipeline, which means the process of excecuting instructions is seperated into 20 peices, and the hardware used to do each one of those pecies works on part of a diffrent instruction at the same time. So while a multiply might take 20 clock cycles to come out of the other side of the CPU, if all you have is a program with one multiply instruction followed by a hlt or something.
Most programs, of course, have more then one instruction. With a 20 stage pipline one instruction takes 20 cycles to run, but you can also perform 19 other instructions along with it... depending on how many excicution units you have along with it.
The p4 has two ALUs, each running at twice the clock speed of the rest of the CPU. (in contrast, the athlon has 4 regular speed ALUs). So in actualy, you'd be able to run 80 or so instructions in that 20 clock cycles.
Integer multiplies are actualy performed by the floating point system, IIRC, rather then by the ALU, so they won't be as fast as addition and subtraction.
The chip IBM is making is a mips based chip, and takes fewer cycles to perform all its instructions. It also has a _ton_ more registers, which means you can perform significant operations without going to or from memory.
IBM is not making a mips chip, moron. They are making a Power PC chip. the p4 has only 8 general purpose 32 bit registers, but in addition has 8 80 bit floating point registers, 8 64bit integer SIMD registers and 8 128 bit floating point/vector SMID registers.
MIPS only has 32 general purpose registers, and although they can be used however you want, several of them are 'reserved' for the stack, and things like that. Also the first register is always zero, and you can't store anything in it. So in actuality, MIPS chips have fewer registers then Intel chips. PPC chips on the other hand do actually have more registers then Intel chips though, with 32 general-purpose registers, 32 floating (64 bit?) point registers, and 32 128 bit vector SMID registers.
This doesn't really help your argument, though: Reading or writing a number to memory is about 100 times slower than an arithmatic instruction.
it's true that reading from memory takes a long time, and that's why modern CPUs don't do it very often. They use these things called "caches" you know? The vast, vast majority of memory access doesn't actually need to hit ram.
But to use those coprocessors, you have to go into modes like mmx. And bolted on extra instructions like mmx have restrictions on them, like not being to do mmx and floating point math at the same time.
No, I was talking about using floating point math for integers larger then 32 bits, rather then splitting 64 bit ints up into 32 bit chunks and adding them with carry (which takes more then two instructions). MMX doesn't allow 64bit int math, as far as I know, but rather allows you to sacrifice floating-point math for accelerated 8, 16, and 32 bit math. It's always interesting in that Mac fans seem to think that Intel chips suddenly lost the ability to do integer math and floating point math at the same time when they gained MMX.
Anyway, that's really beside the point due to the fact that, as you can see, MMX no longer uses the floating-point registers.
For the future, 64-bit is the way to go, and x86 is not. I think one of these IBM processors will be the ideal linux machine. (It'll be low power too, so I won't need a hairdrier-loud fan like I do with my athlon
since when are those separate things?
Might not hurt to learn a thing or two about how computers work before opening your mouth.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Everything about IBM's Power4 processor is amazing. Amazing technology, amazing size (680 million transistors), amazing power requirements, amazing performance. And it's amazing that anything so complex can work at all. This beast has 5,200 pins on the package and consumes 500 watts (that's right, half a kilowatt) of power. Actually, Power4 is more than a processor, it's an entire neighborhood of processors. It's sold as a module comprising two processor cores per die, and four die per module, making eight 64-bit processors and 680 million transistors in one unit. Each individual die contains 174 millions transistors and measures a sun-blocking 400 mm2 in IBM's 0.18-micron 7-layer copper process.
:P
8 CPUs stuck together, 1.33 times faster then a p4. And with only 12.36 times as many transistors! (And just 10 times as many interface pins, and power use!)
If IBM's 'scalling down' is more then by more then 25%, it'll be slower then intel. If it's by less then 95%, it'll be more expensive
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
... because they perceive M$ OS to be clunky, junky, and unsafe at any megahertz!
Hi,
My name's Tony. I work at a law firm. My PC used to hiccup at me all the time, blue screens here, illegal operations there. I didn't know what to do. All I know is the macros for my legal documents used to take forever. I'd start a macro then answer the phone, and it wouldn't be done until nearly after I said "Hello, this is MacIntyre and Finch, how can I help you?" How annoying???
That's when I realized I needed to address more than 4 gigs of memory. I mean really, when you're sending out C&D letters to 180 million people you need real power!
Then I got this new 64 bit Apple machine and it's like "WOW", man do those macros fly!!!
Hi! My name's Tony and I work for the RIAA...
-dameron
Sure there are. Sun Ultrasparc IIe's are consumer priced and fully 64-bit. You can pick up a full system for just around $1k. They're not the speediest things on the planet, but you just said 64-bit consumer level processor.
First things first, they cost twice as much as a comperable PC.
;-)
Yes, but you only have to buy them half as often.
And, incidentally, no they don't. You can find cheaper PCs, but most often a prebuilt system with the same features as the Mac-- like a widescreen LCD, or a Superdrive, or Gigabit Ethernet, whatever-- will be within 15% of the Mac's price.
Second, if the logic board or one of the other pieces of proprietary hardware breaks....
Speaking as a long-time Mac owner... doesn't happen. I have seen a couple of systems fail while under warranty, but those of course get repaired for free. If you're really worried about it, buy a five-year AppleCare plan. By the time your warranty runs out, you'll be ready to buy a new computer.
Please explain the logic behind that statement to me.
In order to fully understand the math, you have to assign a dollar value to your time. I find that about $250 an hour is a good number for me during the week; since I value my weekends more, I arbitrarily assign a value of $500 an hour to Saturdays and Sundays. Since Macs require essentially no farting around to make them work or keep them working, while PCs-- no matter what OS they run-- require considerable set-up and maintenance time, the Mac comes out as a big winner.
I write in my journal
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.
This "megahertz myth" crap was around when I had a 33 MHz 68040 Performa 640, and my 486/DX2 66 blew the shit out of it.
Therefore, with my minimum sample size of 2 machines, I can deduce that all processors can be compared with MHz alone. Further, all architectures perform exactly the same, MHz for MHz across the board for similar instructions and they all scale in a linear fashion regardless of the ratio of core speed to main memory speed or other similar limitations. There is also no such thing as this "bottleneck" crap. Bottlenecks r what yer get when your old Chev brakes down on tha intastate and bloks a lane.
PS, this is sarcasm.
NASA did a study to find the best cost/performance for their Fortran number crunching.
AltiVec is a beast. A 500MHz G4 using AltiVec ran 6.9 times faster than a P3 800 and 3.7 times faster than a 500MHz Alpha 21264. The G4 worked out to be 5.3 times cheaper per FLOP than the P3 and 8.4 times cheaper than the Alpha. Although there is no mention of Intels SIMD within this documents and the FORTRAN compilers at the time of the documents writing were very limited in their abilities to vectorize FORTRAN code to make better use of the AltiVec.
Here is a 1GHz G4 performing up to 10 times faster than a 2GHz P4 while querying a DNA database and 2 times faster at their fastest measured rates.
Saying that the MHz Myth is a Myth, based on a single experience is really idiotic. Anyone who has at least failed the first semester of a CS course would know that different architectures cannot be judged on MHz alone. Hell, even comparing different revisions of the same architecture family cannot be judged on MHz alone (a 33MHz 486DX is much faster than a 33MHz 386 for example, ignoring floating point of course). Wanna talk about CISC vs RISC vs CISC-wrapped-around-RISC?
Here are some G3's (as low as 333MHz) and a 450MHz G4 running faster than a P3 500MHz. There are plenty of graphs and numbers here which might put a fright into you Hrothgar.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?