Slashdot Mirror
Sun Moves Into Commodity Silicon
Samrobb writes "According to Sun Microsystems CEO Jonathan Schwartz, Sun has decided to release its UltraSPARC T2 processor under the GPL. Schwartz writes, 'We're announcing the fastest microprocessor we've ever shipped this week — delivering 89.6 Ghz of parallel computing power on a single chip — running standard Java applications and open source OS's. Simultaneously, we've said we're entering the commodity marketplace, and opening the chip up to our competition... To add fuel to the fire, the blueprints for our UltraSPARC T2... the core design files and test suites, will be available to the open source community, via its most popular license: the GPL.'" Sun is still working on getting these released; early materials are up on OpenSPARC.net.
Finally a chip that you can run Java on.
That's what I got the first time I tried loading this article on /.
But seriously, what's the real point? Are the means to actually make one of these processors beyond 99% of companies and pretty much 99.99% of the people on the planet? What about the patenting of the process or equipment to actually make the processor?
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Clicking the OpenSPARC.net link returned the message: "This Account Has Exceeded Its CPU Quota"
...when you are talking about a market with massive investment related non-recoverable expenses & high barriers to entry, such as processor fabrication.
Although I submit it would be really cool to just manufacture these things in my garage.
Go look at the CPU cycles per watt that the UltraSPARC T1 delivers.
Now, figure the UltraSPARC T2 is better than that.
If it were x86 based, I bet Windows Vista would still be slower than a snail!
I can't wait for somebody to design a new generation of desktop PCs that have lower power consumption than that of previous generations but without sacrificing performance and graphics. Anybody know how much power typical UltraSPARC based desktop PCs consume compared to Intel or AMD based desktop PCs?
Nothing that it matter... just interested, but does anybody know if it is released under GNU GPL 2 or 3?
Something that will run Java apps at a decent speed *ducks*
Many FPGA houses provide free ARM cores etc for inclusion on their FPGAs. You can build an ARM-based (or other core based) device using free download tools and run it on an FPGA that costs a few bucks. To do this the licensee need to pay a heft licencing fee to ARm or whomever. Now they can also distribute GPL cores.
But is this really useful? To use a GPL core would mean that all the rest of the chip design would have to be released too. Very few hardware builders will be prepared to release their silicon source code because that is often the only way they have of preventing mass knock-offs etc.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
How many cores does this chip have?
Apparently Sun will sell the chips to you already manufactured if you want.
I always wanted a Tech 2 processor.
Oh wait...
Depending upon how the patents (are there patents?) are handled. China has been researching it's own chip design in the past. This could be a huge push for Sun if China abandoned trying to re-invent the wheel and just started cranking out UltraSPARC's.
Not to mention Windows not running on such, but Linux will.
And China would have a home source of chips for their IT industry and would not have to import Intel or AMD.
One would be to build a simulator that is accurate at the level of silicon, so that you can cross-compile and run binaries for this CPU on a non-native architecture. Another would be to look at some specific module within the core and re-use the code within an OpenCores project. A third would be to reverse this - take OpenCores code (or write your own) and generate a module that would work within the T2 and would provide functionality the developers might want. A fourth would be to produce a specialized version of the chip (rad-hardened, for example) without paying license costs. And so on.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
We're announcing the fastest microprocessor we've ever shipped this week
"We shipped a faster one last week!"
(Apologies to MST3K and the classic flick Diabolik.)
Comment of the year
Anyone heard what language this proc is in? Verilog or VHDL?
-x
What workloads does sparc excel on? Is there any gains from running one as an add-in on PCIe and could an existing VM solution be hacked to take advantage of it?
This is one of those moves where some abandonware is being open sourced. Usually this happens with software, but here it's happening for hardware. The SPARC line is in decline; Sun is moving to x86 machines. Sun's hardware business is on the same trajectory as SGI's, but about five years behind. (Remember SGI, the MIPS processors, the overpriced x86 workstations, the bankruptcy?)
As Wikipedia points out, Sun already did this for the UltraSparc T1 in 2006. Nobody cared. Now they're doing it for the UltreSparc T2.
This might be useful if someone needed to emulate a SPARC CPU twenty or fifty years from now. So it's good to have the details of the CPU design on the record for historical purposes. But nobody is going to manufacture the things.
Nothing that it matter... [is it] GNU GPL 2 or 3?
It actually matters a lot because Sun probably owns a lot of patents.
Too true.
If I've got this right: Under GPL3 anybody with foundry access could make the chip or a derivative, with no more patent issues than Sun itself would have. But under GPL2 they might have to enter separate license agreements to actually implement it.
= = = =
Presuming this release does make the chip open to anybody absent further licensing, it will be interesting to see how it affects Sun's future.
On one hand it means any company that wants to could build the chip and sell it in competition with Sun (which has borne the development costs on the SPARC series - but recouped much of them already).
On the other hand, they have a number of advantages: Already up and fabbing, deep understanding of the chip, etc.
Further, one big source of resistance to adoption of their chips is the concern for what happens if Sun abandons the line, stops developing it, goes belly-up, or closes up again. With a perpetual license to others to build this chip and make improvements on it, that's no longer an issue. Even if Sun went belly-up and left them with no other sources, a big enough company with a product based on this chip could even commission the fabrication of its own chips, rather than twisting in the wind for lack of supplies. So such a company can design this chip into their product line and buy it from Sun without betting their own company on a possibly weak supplier.
Let's see Intel or AMD compete with that that. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Oh, yes:
If Sun's open-sourcing of this chip leads to a big boost for them, just IMAGINE what an argument that will be against the utility of the government-enforced monopoly in the patent reform debate. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Because wrapping an open source CPU around street furniture is great advertising. I think you have the wrong article.
Sam ty sig.
I am actually hoping that AMD or Intel decide that there is useful technology they can use in their own chips.
Especially AMD who needs whatever they can get at the moment. It is really far fetched, but possible we see AMD respond with a GPL chip that uses parts of Sun's tech they find useful. If they can get ahead of Intel for another generation or two it could be worth it to them.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Yeah, but does it run linux?
As far as I knew, GPL only covered copyright. If this is the case, then Sun would still be protected by patent law. Unless GPL covers patents too.... Anyone know?
Anyone else find it ironic that the processor itself is acclaimed for being open-sourced, among other things, while the podcast of the announcement is only available in Realplayer format?
Now that the design is available, it may be possible to implement this chip without needing a fab.
/ 11/016223
...
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05
For a while, everyone was excited about being able to implement various CPUs using FPGAs. As the link points out, it has even been done for a couple of SPARC chips. In theory, Sun has just given us the wherewithal to implement a more powerful CPU. It might not be quite as fast and it might take more than one FPGA and it might be prohibitively expensive but
I have no intention of trying to implement this chip. I also note that most of the links on implementing different CPUs on FPGAs peter out some time around 2002. On the other hand, you sometimes need a chip that is no longer available. A couple of years ago NASA was scouring the planet to find out-of-production chips. In that light, using an FPGA to implement random chips might not be so nuts.
Now if they'd get S-Bus/hardware specs opened up on a "hobbyist RAND" basis, then you could bury the sun4m specific bits for good. Otherwise, to not aim to this crowd in some form would be stretching the "commodity silicon" term, as well as insisting on sun4m be buried and gone.
Commodity silicon exists, and it's not done on SPARC.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
That comparison is between a 1.0 GHz UltraSPARC T1 - a three-year-old chip. There are 1.4 GHz chips currently available. How many months has the Intel Q6600 been on the market?
How well will that Intel architecture scale to over 4 CPUs, anyway. At least AMD can do that.
Hmmmm, doesn't sound Greek.
If the design is GPL then those people will have to release their own touches etc under GPL too. They'd rather have LGPL or BSD licensed cores.
Fully commoditised hardware is going to be a very difficult thing to get hardware companies to sign up to.
As for FPGAs... You can get a few ARM7 cores onto a single FPGA that costs less than $10 and those prices are dropping. I have no idea how complex an OpenSPARC is, but I assume it is something equivalent to an ARM9 or so and will fit in a $10-or-so FPGA.
The hurdles are not technology, but political. Sure people want free-as-in-beer cores, but they don't want GPL cores that force them to release their design.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
FTFS: 89.6 GHz
When did we get close to 100GHz for processors?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Another advantage is that no business in their right mind would enter into the chip market as a direct competitor, but embedded or other technologies will be encouraged by the GPL availability, spreading Sun technology.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Not hindered by any actual knowledge about the processor, but this was my first thought:
Considering it's Sun, this to me seems to have all the hallmarks of a farewell bid by "going open source" and hoping to hop onto the momentum it generates, if any.
Five years from now, sparc will be history. Not for being bad or outdated, but because nobody really cares. And I think they know it.
I might be wrong but I think that i386, and perhaps more specifically AMD/64 ultimately are just not possible to compete with, with specs going up (relatively) and costs going down (relatively).
It's quite possible that sparc is much better but like I said, no one will care (also relatively).
There used to be some free tools out there long ago that would let you design the actual silicon. Not sure what ever happend to them.
Besides, they said they are releasing the entire thing in this case so that problem is sort of moot.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
There are a couple of companies that are making a living off sparc clones now. sure not many, but id not call it 'nobody'.
And lots of people cared about the T1.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Just to quell the concerns of "abandonware" and cries of "performance benchmarks"
:-)
Linky on numbers
Summary:
* This puppy comes ahead of Power5 and top-dog (till now) Power6
* Highest single CPU integer and floating point performance
Oh, and it has 2 10G network interfaces on chip... and EIGHT crypto cores to keep them running full throttle too. All this with 8 core each with its own floating point unit and 8 threads.
Oh and BTW, Ubuntu guys just booted their distro on this puppy
So yeah, it runs Linux (too)!
- mritunjai
So ... if the chip is under GPL, they have no problem with China fabbing it and won't sue like MIPS did? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godson )
...hell, while I'm on the subject, can any Slashdot reader confirm or deny the assertion that the whole 'Godson' / 'Dragon Chip' processor is absolutely nothing but prototypes, and demo units, with no computer system whatsoever purchaseable on the Internet for personal use?
And I'm off to the races! Moon Computers on the rise!
the GPL isn't about free it's about FREEDOM -- the rights of the end user to modify the program. Will I, as an end user of a GPL processor, be able to modify the processor? This looks like yet another big company abusing the spirit, if not the letter, of the GPL.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Well, that was fun.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
'We're announcing the fastest microprocessor we've ever shipped this week'
I bet its the only chip they've shipped this week.
Wouldn't that let people modify the blueprints (which are GPL'd) but not actually make the chip (which is presumably patented). Sounds like a PR stunt to me.
The posters here seem to be complaining that this is worthless because individuals can't make their own processor chips.
That's not the point. Here's the point:
1: Sun's processors are a niche market. People don't use them because they're harder to use than cheap commodity processors from Intel. Why are they harder to use? Because not enough people use them to create the kind of economic ecosystem that drives down the price of using the processors.
2: All over Asia are chip factories that make low-end embedded devices, RAM chips, and so on. Factories that are owned by companies that don't have the cash on hand to do the R&D to design their own processors to compete with Intel.
3: By GPL'ing their chip designs, Sun lets all those Asian factories produce chips that perform like Intels but cost even less. This gives people an extra incentive to switch away from Intel and to create the very economic ecosystem the processor needs.
4. Next, Sun releases enhanced versions of the chip that aren't GPL'ed. Chip consumers can now choose from fast commodity processors or more expensive deluxe models - that are still code compatible.
And Sun can repeat steps #3 and #4 as often as they like, feeding their previous generation designs to the GPL audience as their newest designs hit the market.
Clear, Dark Skies
That theory might hold water, if Sun hasn't seen one of it's best years in recent history.
WebMink:
Oops! Is he really just trolling?Oh, sorry Animats. Didn't mean to step on your trolling line there...
Ahm, yea, right! They're just heading for financial collapse! They're just making lots of money along the way! Yea, Yea, that's the ticket! ;)
Shane
So what's the DigiKey part number? So I can buy a few (or a thousand, or whatever). I just entered "SPARC" in their database, and got "No records match your search criteria."
If I can't buy it from major distributors, it's not "commodity" silicon.
When will it be possible to get a PCI-e board with a load of FPGAs to which I can download a T2 to run code on, when some code I download happens to be T2 opcodes? Or even anywhere close to that, like a wrapper on the FPGA that can use the T2 config as a starting point to emulate the T2?
--
make install -not war
Or a real database. Or anything that requires a scalable OS. And you gotta wonder what's going through the minds of all those CIOs responsible for HIPAA and SOX compliance, dealing with the nightmare that is Windows "security".
Sun's target market is the big server room, not one that involves tweaking toy computers that do a good job drawing pictures fast for FPS games but puke on their shoes when asked to process multiple gigabytes of data fast. The world's fasted Yugo is still a Yugo.
* This puppy comes ahead of Power5 and top-dog (till now) Power6
* Highest single CPU integer and floating point performance
In two benchmarks: SPECint_rate and SPECfp_rate. Now let's see some real-world application performance.
While it supports 8 threads per core, only 1 thread per core is executed at any given time, 8 in a core aren't executing concurrently. It's targeting business servers which typically have many threads but at any given only a subset can perform calculations, the others are waiting on I/O.
What is the business outcome and advantage for Sun with this open hardware move?
It looks to me like Sun has figured out that they are in a knowledge business. They are operating on an information theory algorithm. They are creating a much larger pyramid of customers for their particular computer knowledge. There is a new enormous bottom layer of people contemplating using this fascinating powerful chunk of information. They are emitting information, not hardware.
The thing from information theory is: The more high quality information a source emits, the more valuable the source becomes. Sun still has the stable of PhD researchers from U.C. Berkeley and some more wags from Stanford. So the company will continue in the business of emitting information.
If you want the Macintosh of mainframes, they will sell them to you. If you want to boot Solaris or wire up Sparc chips you are still their customer. Sun will be your first publisher, web site and consultant.
It seems to me that this is a business innovation. It has been 60 years since Shannon's information theory paper suggested that the source that emits information increases in entropy. Sun is doing that by making available a uniquely sophisticated design - not hiding it in file cabinets in the basement.
While impressive, these are not workstation chips. They only thrive in an environment where they run many processes or threads in parallel, like a webserver. If you were to use it as workstation and run Linux and browser and desktop suites, you'd probably find it feels slow!
Just look at the 4-core Mac Pro vs. 8-core benchmarks; not much difference.
The only "workstation" activity where these multi-core multi-thread CPUs shine is video rendering.
It is hard to create commodities unless you have the demand. The fact is that the demand is low. I am sure Sun is manufacturing these at the lowest possible cost in the entire world and it is unlikely that anyone else will produce the same or better chips at lower costs. This chip is - not for desktops or notebooks - not for embedded app - server - Sun competes with you in this market - supercomputers, grid - Sun competes with you in this market not to mention other players like Fujitsu that use Sparc For the foreseeable future, this opensparc is going to be a hobby in the best case.
Did anybody ever fab the thing and offer it for sale? Simply RISC doesn't seem to be shipping any real hardware. The picture of the chip looks fake. It looks like they put the logo onto a picture of some other chip with Photoshop. Look at the jaggies on the logo, and how the logo doesn't line up with the upper edge of the chip.
Polaris Micro says they're shipping on Q3 2007, but their web site hasn't updated their news section since 2005.
It's neat that you can load their cut-down version of a SPARC CPU into an FPGA, but that's not a partcularly useful product.
With a non-existent market share of that hardware, and virtually no investor rush to Sun thanks to that technology, and no customers (desktop or server) really hyping it up and the orders queues of those companies being significant, ... No one really cares of T2.
It might be technically the best chip out there, but the nerds should really learn that technical side is less than some 1/10 of the actual product. And the product sucks from countless viewpoints.
I'm assuming it will be GPLv3 since Sun generally has said they like v3.
Did I miss that anywhere? Did he say it would be GPLv2 or v3
and...somebody get RMS on the phone for comment.
Could anyone explain why SPARCS are so slow?
Never mind the GhZ: I noticed that if I compile
(Sun CC or gcc, does not matter much) the same stuff on Solaris/SPARC
and then on Solaris/x86 I obtain a big fat performance gain on the second.
Why is that?
I suppose that Schwartz wants that the people know the Sparc64 architecture against PowerPC64 architecture.
- 08/msg00072.html
What 64-bit CPU targets dominate in the future?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-08/msg00112.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-08/msg00113.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2007
There are x86-64 soft-simulators for 32-bit PCs but i don't known Sparc64 soft-simulators for running linux or opensolaris OSes in my existent 32-bit PC.
That doesn't mean the end of SPARK. That means that Sun wants to go into the MIPS market, that is licensing the core to custom designs.
But Sun isn't getting money out of this. That probably means that they want to fill that market so their core will be more used and so they have better support and a bigger production scale scale for their servers.
Rethinking email
As fast as this chip is in Ghz, would it be possible to run a single threaded .Net application in a VM (Virtual Machine) on this chip and still have it perform faster than on the fastest Intel chip?
Does Sun have a VM that will do this.
I know about mono but there are many .Net applications that on API's not present in the mono environement.
I know Ghz is no longer the end all/be all measure of computing performance especially when comparing CISC and RISC but would dearly like to know if there's anything like this that could leapfrog Intel by a few generations.
GPLv2 has an implicit patent license in it. It makes it pretty clear that people who receive the code can do whatever they like with it - including make chips in this case. It also makes it pretty clear that they can distribute or sell derived works to others who have the same permissions. If you can't give the code or chips (which are literally "printed" derived works) to someone else then you don't really have the rights the GPL says you do. In case that isn't enough, GPLv3 has explicit patent coverage.
Might be safe to say, that Sun is betting they will be able to improve the design better and faster than brand X (lenevo?), but that brand x's can help establish a broad and diverse culture of software, support, and education - in which Sun can expect to retain the highest margin business, in exchange for some, or most of the low-margin fare.
The gamble loses if sun cannot produce a better chip next year than brand x.
I like sun's odds.
AIK
The gamble loses if sun cannot produce a better chip next year than brand x.
It's even better for sun than that.
Even if Sun doesn't produce a better chip next year, it's still a win if they make more money as a result of opening than they would have if they'd stayed closed.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Where can I buy one of these machines to see how the PR lives up to the hype?
Closes up again? The SPARC architecture is and pretty much always has been an open standard. Anyone can implement it, and several other companies have, including TI, Cypress Semiconductor, and Fujitsu. The architecture is controlled by a separate organization, which is a non-profit: SPARC International.
Now this only applies to the architecture, not the design of the chips that implement the architecture. Nevertheless, if your concern is to be able to run SPARC code, you don't need to rely on Sun to do that.
What is the situation about the processes used to make the chips? Are there processes or materials (components, machines, etc) that are required to produce it?
it isn't necessarily about the average Joe making one in his garage. It is more than blueprints. I could "GPL" blueprints to a miraculous, functioning, FTL drive but what good would it do SpaceX if it requires some proprietary hardware/processes/material to actually make it? Hence the question about the entire process and requirements.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
I rest my case.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.