Slashdot Mirror
IBM Plans Collaboration On Power Architecture
TheInternet writes "According to CNET News, IBM has made a series of announcements regarding the opening-up of the Power chip architecture. The story lacks technical details, but apparently, IBM is going to divulge more information about Power/PowerPC, and expects collaboration from the industry on the future of the chip. Nick Donofrio is quoted as saying: 'We will free electronics manufacturers from the limitations of proprietary microprocessor architectures', and Red Hat and Sony are two companies listed as taking part. Power5 was also shown, as was the Blue Gene/L supercomputer, using 32 500MHz processors to achieve 128 gigaflops."
Another interesting .
link at the Inquirer
Seems IBM is courting third party mobo makers to make PowerPC boards.
Their emracing linux and opening up their hardware platform. Sound Like
their getting their troops in line for THE desktop battle.
I, for one, would love to be running Debian Linux on a ATX PowerPC board. Of
course, they would have to sell enough of them to get the price down.
Good luck to 'em.
So, does this mean we might see some good PowerPC emulators coming out? I remember reading that one of the main problems with writing them was the fact that the chip was quite closed, so one essentially had to reverse-engineer the entire instruction set.
From Tom's Hardware: IBM's processor plans: Build your own microchip.
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
Anyone else think this on the first read?
Does this sound like a possible good contender for a general purpose replacement for x86 as an "Open CPU" that would work well with F/OSS apps? One that can't be tied down with DRM in such a way that only large megacorps (I won't name them, except to call them "Microsoft" and "Intel". Oh hell I named them whoops) can end up defining what may or may not run?
I've read the general slashdot crowd clamoring for something like this that's free from central control. Does this look likely to you? Would it be a benefit if it did come about?
Does apple have any say in this at all? What's to stop people from building custom Macs?
I for one was just thinking about how I wish PowerPC was more open. This will give us an alternate platform to work with in case DRM/MS does kill x86.
This fits with IBM's vision for spreading the 970. There's two groups: "Pervasive" and "Deep." IBM uses "pervasive" to describe a wide range wired and wireless devices powered by the 970 chips, (i.e. p2p sharing of naked petrified natalie portman pictures). "Deep" computing describes IBM's high performance technical computing products, like Blue Gene.
Opening the architecture swings the door for pervasive market penetration, indeed.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
128 Gigaflops? April's Fools!
(Hey, it's started already, just look at that pigeon story).
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
I'm still waiting on IBM to release it's PowerPC 970 (aka G5) hardware specs so that I can see what its high-speed bus looks like. The only thing publically available now is some fairly-broad "powerpc family" software arch documents - no electrical specs or 970-specific info.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
There are sound business reasons for all the big-headline stuff IBM's been doing lately, but I think they're doing it because it's the biggest, best, and cheapest PR anyone's ever heard of.
Sure they're positioning POWER/PowerPC as the only architechture that can challenge x86 in a meaningful way. Sure if they release enough of the firmware and stuff it'll probably be better for some open source stuff than x86 is. Sure they're a services company and this will put them on the back end of even more stuff.
But honestly. Everyone loves them. That's what they really need if they want to entrench themselves everywhere.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
I, for one, welcome our OpenPowerPC overlords.
No, seriously, I think this is a great step. When we get to control the functionality and content of our silicon, and contribute to the specs, I think a LOT of creative people will come forward and throw out some truly awe-inspiring ideas. Look what happened with Linux, *BSD, countless GNU projects. The list goes on, people. I think this could be a stepping stone towards getting some really new chip technology on a roll.
Lets just hope this is a sincere effort on IBM's behalf.
Umm, the instruction set is documented and everything. There's this PDF you can download.
The problems with emulators have to do with RISC vs CISC differences and register-rich vs register-poor architectures. I have to go, so I'm not going to go into the details here, but the general idea is this: for the specific case of emulation, it's easier to write an emulator if your host architecture is more RISCy than your emulated architecture, and it's easier to write an emulator if your host architecture has more registers than your emulated architecture.
The PowerPC has a very cluttered instruction set, but it still basically follows RISC as a philosophy-- you're still in a situation where instructions from other architectures have mostly instructions that can be broken down efficiently into a series of PowerPC instructions. Which means that efficiently assembling series' of PowerPC instructions into single instructions while emulating on more CISCy platforms is kind of hard. The PowerPC also has a whole lot of registers, and they're all general purpose so you can't play neat optimization tricks as easily as you can when emulating the Intel x86. Meanwhile, the architecture you probably want to do this emulation on-- x86-- is shit for registers.
The PPC emulation problem has to do with unfortunate conflicts between design philosophies and emulation perverse cases more than anything else.
-- Super Ugly Ultraman
This is an important step, at least for the Power5. It's immensely complex, and I think feedback from collaborators such as OS people is important when they (IBM) ask themselves if a design decision makes sense. For example, SMT adds 24% to the die area for each core (see here). Compare that with Intel's HyperThreading, which adds little area but is still complicated to verify. Getting feedback and involving other groups can help determine if design decisions/features are worthwhile.
So when does SCO sue because AIX runs on PowerPC so they must be releasing SCO Intellectual Property...
x86 and windows are established platforms and people and industry have put lot of time and effort in adopting them. why do you guys are interested in destroying this enormous value created with hardwork over time and replace with totally unproven vaporware system which only the geeks and use?
Even on April 1st, you don't play such cruel jokes.
The way software engineers make money is continually showing a higher price/performance ratio. Microsoft and Intel are two big monopolies that eat at the pocket of every single software engineer. Replacing the WinTel monopoly with something truly open architecture is the type of thing that will be necessary to jump-start IT--which in the US is starting to become a declining industry. We need to think about how to produce $50 PC's--and just open sourcing the OS, CPU and memory design is a big step in that direction.
IBM has seen how well the Open Source/Community model has worked for Linux. Now they believe that it will benefit the deployment of POWER derived technology.
The details are a little sketchy at this point, but Wladawsky-Berger basically said this is of the same magnitude as the decision to embrace Linux.
I think I heard the word "community" in almost every other sentence. I truly believe IBM "gets it" and is moving forward in bold direction. The people I talked to afterward were credible and excited.
There will be a longer story on ClusterWorld tomorrow. (sign up for three free issues of the magazine as well)
I saw the small "Blue Gene" system. Very cool both performance wise and thermally (32 CPUs in a table top box). I also saw the new Power blade server. Nice.
HPC for Primates. Read Cluster Monkey
That Blue Gene/L machine being shown is only a small part of the full machine they are building for LLNL. When its complete, IBM estimates that it will run at 360 TFLOPS, at a fraction of the size and power consumption of the current #1 supercomputer. Even if they miss the mark by 50% it represents a fairly significant leap in processing and power consumption. And hey, since it will only occupy 64 racks, you can just about fit one in your garage! (Nuclear reactor to power it not included...)
straight from the
You can always recompile for whatever architecture you want. No waiting for some monopolist to decide if/when to do the porting.
I think at this point IBM has no main conspiracy.
IBM sells two things: Hardware and Support. Open Source doesn't hurt either. In fact, it makes it more likely IBM can sell Support. (And may help sell hardware, especially if IBM provide better developer-level support, or Open Source can help out entrenched opposition...)
No conspiracy. Supporting Open Source makes IBM money. Nothing more.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
With that Power chip, I can forsee a future where I can build a PC that can triple boot between Windows, MacOS, and Linux!
The next question I'd have to ask myself is what possible gain I could actually get from doing that...
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
As you all know, the costs of developing new chip architectures is escalating. However, once designed, chips can be replicated at relatively low cost (at least by comptent fabs like IBMs). So, to maximize profits despite the high upfront costs, what is one to do?
Design a kick-ass chip, sign up a lot of partners to establish street credibility, maintain processor improvement momentum, deliver chips on time, then sell as many chips as possible, of course! AMD performed in some, but certainly not all of these aspects, hence their current standing in the chip industry. Don't even get me started on the slow train wreck called Motorola.
The power architecture was always meant to be flexible, ranging from the $10,000+ quad-core uber-chip Power5's on down... So it's only logical that we will find stripped-down versions of the Power5 architecture in everything from Apple Desktops to next-gen consoles from Sony and MS.
As I see it, this is a great PR step by IBM to get some mindshare from the growing Linux camp. When you combine the incredible performance, lower prices, etc. of the 970 architecture, folks like Intel will have to take notice sooner or later, particularly when it hits their most profitable processor lines. However, Apple may not be happy to face competition in a market segment that it has had to itself for now.
As for MS and their PowerPC line of NT or whatever, who cares. If they need to make the switch, they'll find a way. In the meantime, it's the Linux/Unix folks who'll benefit the most from no longer being squeezed between SPARC and XEON pricing.
My first thought is that this is nothing but a bunch of marketing BS, no substance at all.
Seriously, read the article, just what is IBM opening up? Answer: nothing that everyone else isn't already opening up.
The instruction set is still controlled by IBM, and while you are free to make your own PPC chips, it's not like that's anything new. Everyone is free to make their own SPARC chips as well, and from the looks of things SPARC has fewer restrictions than what IBM is proposing.
IBM will still license you the core, but that's hardly any different from what a half-dozen other chip markets will do using a wide variety of architectures.
So what does this buy you over x86? It's not like the x86 architecture is somehow *closed*. The ISA is fully documented and there are at least 4 companies producing x86 processors at the moment, possibly more if you look at the embedded space.
To me it sounds like nothing but a bunch of marketing BS trying to jump on some sort of open source bandwagon.
I wonder if Microsoft has kept that old NT version which runs on PowerPC in anyways up to date?
Rumor has it that the first XBox2 development kits ran on Macs (PowerPC) running a custom port of WinNT.
I know this is mostly aimed at embedded devices
Don't forget that WinCE has supported PowerPC chips for ages. It's not like Microsoft is incapable of supporting PPC, there's just never been any demand for it on the desktop or server side.
If MS were to release it's server line for the Power5 or somesuch, how quickly would intel scramble to stay in Microsofts' good graces?
Considering that Microsoft would probably only get about 2 customers for such an operating system, I don't think Intel would be too worried. People who buy IBM Power5 systems are looking at the seriously high-end. They are looking for a complete package of hardware, software and support, so they are not going to go off and install Windows on the thing!
PowerPC is an instruction set that IBM uses for all of their current processors. POWER is two things: first it's an OLD ISA that they used to use long ago, and second it is a marketing name that IBM uses for their high-end PowerPC processors.
Despite popular belief, the "Power4" and "Power5" processors do NOT use the POWER ISA, they are PowerPC chips. Same as the PowerPC 970 chips used in Apple's new Macs and same as the PowerPC 405 used in the Nintendo Gamecube and Cisco routers.
Motorola also produces chips that use the PowerPC architecture, among many other ISAs.
Before people get too excited about this big "development", remember that SPARC was a completely open architecture since something like 1987. Sun and Fujitsu manufacture their chips independently, and there are free SPARC designs downloadable over the WWW. IIRC, the only licensing cost is if you want to use the "SPARC" logo for branding and marketing.
Check www.sparc.org for the rest.
Vote in November. You won't regret it.
I'm glad to see that people think that desktops are the only computers that people use...
I come from the embedded world. I don't know any engineer who would put an x86 in anything. On the other hand, I have put PPC in a lot of places, and there has been a trenendous amount of work to make this a stable, robust platform.
(S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))
The Chipset and CPU's were under the Telecom Divisions where they are used to very high margins and close to Zero price-elasticity as the equipments goes into areas where performance and reliability is paramount. (What does an extra $200 / CPU add to a $100K switch.
The price for an IBM Northbridge in 1K is around $85 compare this to Itnel Chipset that can be had for $9+-. The PowerPC itself was for a long time only available using Bumpchip technology maning you needed a very expensive socket or had to solder the cpu to the board.
In summary IBM and Moto was not interested in initial low volume low profit market.
Compare this to TI where you can buy DSP's in small quantities for almost the same as 100K price. TI understand they market needs to be developed and the pricing strategy needs to make the innovators job doable.
Help fight continental drift.
The SPARC is already an open architecture processor. It's been that way for years. Sun was the big player behind it, and certainly the best known, but the SPARC design is the closest thing there is to an "open source cpu." There's even a non-Sun organization (SPARC International) they spun off to act as a steward for the standard.
SPARC processors are made by Sun, Texas Instruments, Hitachi, and others. There's a history of all the chips made on their web site.
Dunno why they're too blind to see that this would be as good an idea for Java.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
First open source, now open hardware. I'm...pleasantly stunned. Go Blue!
Weaselmancer
PS: At the Risk of -1 Redundant, this is a great move. I'm in embedded design, and I've discovered a few things that wound up in errata sheets later on. If I had been working on an open chip like this, I'd have worked out a fix and contributed it back to the project.
Sure beats skimming errata sheets endlessly and knowing there's nothing you can do to fix things.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Reminds me of Sun's SPARC archetecture. This was supposed to be used in everything from the top-end processors to little embedded thingies, using different performance silicon but a common instruction set. And it was supposed to be open.
You don't hear much about that either, do you?
The difference here is that Power/PowerPC is already being used in everything from the top-end processors to little embedded thingies. IBM has a pre-established market with an interest in their technology. Other than a few half-hearted SPARC based Sun clones, Sun never had anything besides high hopes for the SPARC technology.
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
not in the desktop market, but PPC (also ARM and MIPS) outsells x86 in the embedded market and is a pretty strong force on servers.
the problem with the desktop market is/was that when the PPC came out, the x86 was already established as the dominant platform in an environment where closed source applications got distributed in binary form only, which makes it pretty hard to get marketshare, since programs either won't run at all or extremely slow (on an emulator). and since the marketshare is so small it's almost impossible to get anyone to port his/her programs to the new architecture. combine that with microsoft's tendency and ability to sabotage such ports (e.g. by buying the company and dropping the port "for lack of demand" as they have done several times when OS/2 started to gain some popularity), and you can understand why its hard for a new architecture to take off (could that be the reason for IBM getting behind open source?)
in terms of performance
until pretty recently (until intel started to riscify the x86) RISC style CPU were performance leaders, and the G5 seems to hold up pretty good.
all three of the major video game consoles in the next generation (GC2, PS3 and XBox) will be using some workalike of the PPC chip
just an example of the embedded market
This seems like a smart buisness move by IBM that will end up benefiting everyone. IBM probably believes that they will controll most of the manufacturing, because the only company with the fab capacity to make many is Intel, and i doubt they'd want to jeopardize thier probably higher profit margin pentium market share by making a power chip. At the same time, small fabs will be able to make the chips and keep the price reasonable. Also, i'd have to assume that IBM expects to provide most of the service and support for the chips. So the result will be a better designed chip because more people are working on it, oppritunities for small fabs to make this excelent chip, and profits for IBM because if the chip design is improved, market share will rise, with IBM reaping a good part of the profits. Bottom line in this optomistic scenario is a cheap, high preformance chip, and added profits for everyone but Intel. Everyone wins.
You can sum it easily up.
No early adopters who can build their own PowerPC based PCs. The PowerPC and related boards are no commodity hardware you can get for affordable prices.
Many early adopters love to build their own computers, they basically are locked out.
That basically means no early adopters, no long term mass market. What is left is only niche markets like Apple, who is not too unhappy not to have commodity hardware in their machine (high prices)
PowerPC is strong in many areas but as long as you cant get PowerPC ATX boards and processors at the same prices as their x86 counterparts, and the DRM lock in on the x86 side is not very strong yet, people still will buy x86.
No, its most certainly is not. Sparc is not open, you cannot get documentation on it without signing an NDA. Just because other companies who have been forced to sign NDAs can make sparc chips, doesn't make sparc open. And what does DB2 or AIX have to do with anything? When did I say IBM was open? I said open is a buzzword and IBM has been taking advantage of that fact lately.