ohmygod2 wrote to us with a story from
SF Gate that Apple, unsurprisingly, is going to be one of the purchasers of IBM's PowerPC 970. At this time, though, it's unclear where Apple is going to actually *use* said chip.
Update: 10/14 15:53 GMT by
H : Follow-up to Tim's
story.
Slashdot Mirror
I predict that Apple will use the chip in a high end personal computer.
Google News of course has pretty much all the acticles. They are all based upon the same IBM press release, but many make slightly different predictions.
Critics -- notably Intel -- argue that most desktop users have no need for 64-bit processing.
then to be redundant, Intel should face up to the fact that most users have no need for 2.8 Ghz processors.
There are so many options:
- Stacked up to make that annoying table in the engineer's break room stable
- Ceramic heat thingys for toaster ovens
- Dropped out of airplanes over Alaska as a NORML protest
- Thrown at people pumping gas
- As party favors at Job's next all-night coke party
- The latest thing in West-Coast gansta rapper accessories
I mean, seriously, where the fuck else would you use a new CPU than inTHis is an interesting story:
:)
The 970 is a derivative of the Power 4 chip (with what I assume to be the Altivec extensions)
These run in the 1.6 -2.0 Gig range
As a Risc chip
with 64 byte chunks.
Granted, I am unsure as of yet if Darwin runs 64 bit natively, but when it does, imagine a dual processor of these (with of course, quartz extreme pushing all of the video over to the Graphics processor).
Maybe I am getting my hopes up, but this is what I have been waiting for. New macintosh, here I come
Blah Blah Blah.
http://www.eet.com/semi/news/OEG20021014S0059
Essentially a derivative of the company's Power4 microprocessor, IBM's PowerPC 970 adds 64-bit PowerPC compatibility, an implementation of the Altivec multimedia instruction-set extensions and a fast processor bus supporting up to 16-way symmetric multiprocessing.
I hope they use a memory controller that does at least DDR 333.
The law is a weapon of the government, not a protection for the likes of you. Surely you understand that.
Keep in mind most of these articles are coming from the BusinessWeek article, or an IBM press release. IN the IBM release, *nothing* about a real date of shipping was stated. What was stated was "Second Half of 2003".
As for the GHz issue, the chip does more per-clock than the P4. This means that it can still be competitive. Just wait another day for the MPF, and maybe we'll be able to see some initial SPEC numbers.
I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
.
Blocklevel: Practical Information Architecture
I predict that Apple will use the chip in a high end personal computer.
...but the 64-bit iPod project is already in high gear, so we can't stop now, can we?
Wow! That's an even better idea!
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
Both the Power4 and Itanium are tremendously powerful processors. See this page, ironically intending to promote the Itanium2 (which is a tremendously powerful chip), to see how a 1.3Ghz Power4 compares with a P4.
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,55722,00.html
This is being discussed all over (here, Ars, Macworld) but the Wired article takes a much more "done-deal" tone than any of the other commentary I have seen yet. It suggests the possibility of Macs with 4TB of ram too :-)
--is not to be confused with user #672982 - Bame Flait
When Apple started selling FireWire-based Macs, Intel immediately tried to marginalize it by saying that the technology only appealed to a niche of consumers, and oh-by-the-way here's our specs for ATA/66 and USB 2.0 (for which the detailed specs hadn't been finalized, and which didn't start hitting mainstream systems until some 2 years later).
Intel takes seriously Andy Groves's words about only the paranoid surviving.
Slashdot: SF Gate: Wake me when one of the companies comments please. They will, but be patient before yelling CONFIRMED!
Thanks
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
"Critics -- notably Intel -- argue that most desktop users have no need for 64-bit processing"
:-)
Critics -- notably Microsoft -- have argued that most desktop users have no need for more than 640kb of memory.
the 'slide
"Corporate rock still sucks. What are you gonna do about it?"
"Corporate rock still sucks. What are you gonna do about it?"
Okay, actually read the stories. "According to industry sources..." is what it says. Nowhere is there confirmation from Apple or IBM that Apple has comitted to purchasing them. This is not new, this is just the same news as the last story, only centered on one specific rumor, instead of the main story.
As soon as Apple or IBM officially states that Apple has committed to purchasing these processors, don't title the story 'Apple is Buyer...' since we still aren't sure.
Yeah, I'll admit, I've been expecting it since IBM announced the chip, and I fully expect that Apple will be the main customer. BUT, my belief (or the belief of any 'industry source', without hard proof) doesn't make it a fact.
I'm not asking that you not to rumormonger on it, I'm just asking that it not be presented as fact when it is still just rumor.
(Bah, and now I've forfietted three of my moderator points by posting in a thread I moderated in... :-( It just got me pissed off when I finally noticed that there still isn't any proof.)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
The 'G5' will be whatever chip Apple slaps on their next 'big' processor upgrade. The G3, G4, G5 designations have nothing to do with the chips themselves or their model numbers. They're just spin that Apple uses to compete with the Pentium 3, Pentium 4, etc lineup. Apple could decide to throw AMD Hammers in their next generation systems and would still call the chip the 'G5'.
Ignorant consumers are unlikely to percieve any performace improvements in models unless there is some underlying technology that gets a new name or a new version number. It's like model years in cars, the 2002 has a higher number than the 2001 model, so it MUST be better, and people drool over it.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Cupertino, CA - Apple Computer (AAPL) is expected to buy a record number of the new "PowerPC 970" CPU, but in a suprise move, isn't expected to actually do anything with them.
"We're doing great with the iPod, the warehouse is totally empty," said Apple VP Phil "All your Jaguar" Schiller. "Steve thought it would look more lived-in if we had some big boxes of stuff in there."
Steve Jobs was hard at work developing a new way to mispronounce the name of the new CPU and was unavailable for comment.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
I imagine that thoses Apple computers will only be sold to the inhabited continents.
MHz and GHz are fine, but that's just RPMs. As anyone who has driven a bored out V8 or massive V10 will tell you, there is no replacement for displacement. You can rev a crappy 2L engine to 7,000rpm and make your itty bitty wheels spin and make a nice smell. But if you want to throw asphalt into the air and stike terror into living things you put the pedal to 8 or 10L of fire-breathing cast iron.
The Power line from IBM has that kind of displacement. You don't need GHz, or at least not as many, to get a lot of torque out the back end. And of course once you get torque, you can work on the revs. As we've all seen, higher revs happen with improvements to production technique, and are a given. But more torque (ie, more and better logic on the die) takes a strategic investment, and some amount of risk. But I'll take a bigbore Dodge Viper over this years higher-revving econo Tondabishi any day.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
Despite the fact that the PPC 970 will be introduced at 1.8 GHz while the P4 is expected to be around 3GHz, the 970 will execute 8 instructions per cycle. I can't recall how many instructions per cycle the P4 executes but I believe it is far fewer than 8. Of the handful of articles I read about it, somebody said that the 970 would effectivly compete with a 4-6 GHz P4 as a result of the instructions per cycle efficiency of the chip.
Plus, it's gotta run cooler than a 6GHz P4 would. As a laptop owner, ignoring the superior performance potential of this chip, the cooling and power requirements alone would make me choose a 970 architecture over a Pentium.
The fabled G5 is the next generation chip from Motorola, Apple's current supplier of G3 and G4 chips.
Sorry, but you're wrong. IBM currently supplies Apple with the G3s (for the iBook). Motorola only supplies Apple with the G4s.
The Gn style of naming is Apple's doing. Motorola and IBM use names like PPC 750 or PPC 7440.
If Apple uses this chip in their future you can bet it will be called G5s (if they decide to keep with that naming convention).
sin(6cos(r)+5A)
Uhm, what are you talking about? This IS a PowerPC chip. It uses the PPC instruction set and is backward compatible with the 32 bit G3 and G4.
.technomancer
No need. The PowerPC 32bit ISA is a subset of the 64bit version. 32bit apps run in 32bit address space perfectly happily.
You only need to recompile if you need to see the full 64bit address space.
Oh, and don't worry about AltiVec. The AIM alliance jointly developed the Vector SIMD extensions. Apple calls the unit Velocity Engine, Moto uses AltiVec and IBM calls it VMX.
From the article:
"Critics -- notably Intel -- argue that most desktop users have no need for 64-bit processing. In fact, Microsoft Corp. has yet to release a 64-bit version of Windows that will run on AMD's Hammer chips."
Is it any wonder, given they just lost their defense against Intergraph's patent lawsuit which may result in them not being able to release the Itanium series?
Hey, Intel, last I checked, no one had a use for 32-bit processing or 640K of RAM on the desktop, either.</sarcasm>
blog |
http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2002/1014_powerpc. html
moox. for a new generation.
It's like he never even thought about what he wrote. Someone conveys the thought that marketing hype may be costing you money, but let's ignore that and perpetuate the marketing hype.
On the other hand, the "Megahertz Myth" is marketing hype aimed at opposed marketing hype, so who really cares what either Apple or Intel offer as the "fastest"?
My PowerBook G3 runs just fine, my Pentium III runs just fine. If you need the power, go for it, but if you don't, go refurbished.
Just my opinion.
This kind of technology can be more easily implemented by burning porn directly into ROM reducing lookup times to almost the speed of the bus.
Apple could appeal to the hardware hackers with offers of ROM upgrades packaged in convienent easy-to-bend pinned chips using tightly machined push-down sockets. Withing months there would be a "Burn your own Porn ROM howto" and instructions on how to mill the pin thickness down to permit easy insertion!
(puns, unfortunately, were intended)
the P4 executes 1 instruction per cycle. the G4 does 3 (the basis of apples "megahertz myth" myth), so this is a huge step up.
as for the laptop part, hell yeah. my tibook by the end of 2003 should be nearing the end of it's "useful lifespan" - whatever that is, and i'll probably sell it for half of what i bought it for then and buy the latest, greatest "G5" laptop once it's avalible. that's the plan, at least. i'm in college after all.... and apple has a tendancy to take forever to release a new laptop based on a new processor design.
moox. for a new generation.
If they put it into one of those sexy Titanium Powerbooks, they got themselves a convert. Woot! I would love to be able to afford one
More likely they will start in the Xserve. The server crowd is much more likely to be able to use 64-bit and much more likely to be able to afford the new chip.
I'm wondering though.
I remember part of the reason apple went with motorla G4's was for the altivec engine. Back when Motorala and IBM split they forked the powerpc chip (the then G3), when this happened the definition for the chips changed slightly.
Motorola's definition of the G4 was a faster chip with the altivec engine. This is what allows for superfast processing during high floating point calculations (similar to MMX only phatter). This was also the part Apple was talking about when they used to advertise "twice as fast as pentium pc" because during those moments of super-intense number crunching, they were. IBM's definition of the G4 was a chip made with copper, shorter pipelines things like that. How is the switch to an IBM chip going to affect altivec? Since it's motorola technology I think it's safe to assume it won't be on the IBM chip. Will the IBM chip suffer at all during those slowdowns? Or will the extra 32 bit data path, in conjunction with copper, etc... be more than enough to make up the difference?
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
FYI, the G4s have 7 stage pipelines It's in the side bar about halfway down the page.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Breakfast served all day!
And IBM said no one needed the power of the 80386. Then Compaq released their 386 monster and IBM stopped mattering in the PC world.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
I agree with you, but I hope you're not confusing instructions per cycle with length of the pipeline.
The P4 processes instructions in a pipeline. The pipeline can contain 20 instructions at any one time, but each instruction is only finished once it exits the pipeline.
Same goes for the 970, I'd imagine.
To truly increase instructions per cycle, you have to add extra pipelines (and a lot of extra circuits to prevent instructions from stepping on each other)
If pipelines were always full, and all instructions were equivalent, the P4 would beat the pants off of the 970. But the pipeline is not always full because instructions often depend on the results of other instructions, and not all operations are equal in their requirements.
So shorter pipelines often handle instruction dependancies better resulting in better performance, while (for other reasons) longer pipelines are easier to design for higher Ghz.
Also, notice that according to press relewase 970 will be the single core version of Power4, so you should look at the green box closer to Sun's suckers, not at the orange one. Press release also notices "economy version" of Power4, so it may be even slower.
MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
Ahem. 128MB L3 cache (on the POWER4 in the benchmark)? Daaaamn. I'm not saying that a fat L3 cache has anything to do with SPEC benchmarks (I'm guessing it doesn't), I'm just making an observation: that's a lot of cache! And it's probably bloody expensive to get 128MB of cache-speed memory. HP's comments allude to that but it also has 64GB of RAM so it's sort of a straw man ("let's overconfigure a system and then make fun of how overpriced it is").
I think it's quite silly of HP to say that "IBM's Power4 architecture is outclassed in performance". Really? A 10% difference qualifies as outclassed? I don't agree. And the POWER4's SPECint score is better. "Outclassed?" Hah.
Of course the proof is in the pudding. Let's see what actually hits the streets. Apple has now been "just around the corner from really kicking Wintel's butt" performance-wise for about 8 or 9 years, but it has yet to happen. We were all led to believe that the PPC would blow away x86 and that never happened. With luck, IBM will actually deliver a really kick-ass CPU at clock speeds close to the x86 family, and the superior per-clock performance will actually make it faster. But there would still be the question of price/performance. If Joe PC Buyer can buy a faster PC for the price of a Mac, it doesn't matter that the Mac runs cooler, or at a lower clock speed, or in 64-bit mode. Joe will just say "my $500 PC is faster than your $1500 Mac, end of story". And he will have a good point. Until that changes, the only people who care are the people who are willing to pay a premium for OS X and the Mac experience, and people who need something faster than the fastest desktop PC but still want a user-friendly mainstream desktop OS. The folks who use Office and Outlook all day won't be able to justify the extra $1000 or whatever it would cost to get a Mac that performs similarly.
I'd also like to remind everybody that benchmarks don't necessarily reflect real-world performance. This is a very synthetic benchmark that is great for telling you what the best-case raw CPU performance of these CPUs can be, but it doesn't prove that $REAL_APP will see those performance gains over older CPUs.
In particular it's not clear what the performance cost would be of using code compiled for a PPC604 would be vs. using code compiled with the very best compiler for the POWER4. I'm sure that Steve Jobs will crow about another highly-optimized Photoshop benchmark that we can all wish represented overall system performance, but it doesn't. That said, I imagine that the really important professional creative apps (you know, the ones that cost thousands of dollars per seat and really beat the @%$%@$% out of the CPU) will be quickly updated for the new CPUs because their customers will demand it. (To be fair, the same is true for the Itanium.)
By "in flight" I'm assuming you mean "in some stage of the processing pipeline at any given moment" - I believe the P4 has something like a 20stage pipeline, the G3/G4 I believe is more along the lines of an 8 stage pipeline, if memory serves.
..
Part of what's at stake here is how many instructions are decoded/dispatched each clock cycle and then other factors like branch-prediction and such muddy the waters a bit more. In the end, the 'instructions per cycle' is really more of an average than anything else, as not every instruction will be a candidate for sending through the parallel functional units, etc. Taking into account the efficiency of the branch-prediction unit is important, too, since you could take a wrong turn and have to clear out all your functional units, at every stage of the pipeline and start over again, in certain circumstances. The fewer times this happens, the more effective your CPU will be at pushing the bits around.
Bottom line: modern processor mechanics are far more sophisticated than can be easily summarized by any one number or neat phrase. Just ask AMD about that one
1 rows affected (0.01 sec)
And IBM didn't see a world-wide demand for more than a dozen mainframes.
By the time you factor in biometric security, voice recognition and Christ's own gaming engines, VR generation, desk-top video editing and so on, 64 bits gets chewed up pretty fast even if you offload some processing to custom chips (and anyway who wants to build boxen with more ASICs that cost more money?)
64-=bitrs on the desktop? In five years it may be the majority of new box builds are 64-bits and 32-bit will be for poor for folks stuck on Windows without a migration path.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Now here's a case of when life hands you lemons you make lemonade. The parent was talking about simultaneous execution, i.e. how many instructions per cycle can come out of the end of the pipeline. You're twisting it around to take that number and multiply it by the horribly long pipeline.
Let's go back to basics, every time the processor makes a mistake in guessing what's going to happen next, the pipeline has to be cleared. Every modern CPU faces this problem so you want short pipelines so your penalty is low. Intel has vastly longer pipelines and thus they pay a higher price every time predictive branching screws up.
So having a large number of instructions being simultaneously worked on is a *bad* thing unless they are also being pumped out and executed in large numbers as well. AFAIK, in the P4 they aren't.
According to Ars Technica the P4 in the real world gets 2.5 instructions per cycle done. With the new G5 getting 8 done per cycle with half the pipeline depth, performance should once again favor the Mac side of the PC wars.