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.
Clicking the OpenSPARC.net link returned the message: "This Account Has Exceeded Its CPU Quota"
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?
Apparently Sun will sell the chips to you already manufactured if you want.
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.
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
I do high performance numerical computation research, and something like this would help a lot.
As part of my research I have to hand tweak and tune the inner most loops of our algorithms. Unfortunately, the performance of moderns processors behaves so counter-intuitively when pushing the floating-point units to the max, that it is basically impossible to guess whether a certain change will speed up or slow down the computation. Being able to know *exactly* what in in the CPU would greatly help with this.
Well, apart from Simply RISC, who used the design to build a single-core chip (S1) for embedded applications.
And Polaris Micro in China, who are doing the same.
And David Miller & friends, who made Linux run on it.
And Canonical who support Ubuntu running on it.
And the other Linux distros picking it up.
And... Oh, sorry, you were just trolling, right?
Indeed, someone just did:
More details on Simply RISC's web site.
I don't know of anyone who has gone to the gate level to tune software - I've never found it necessary to go beyond a high-level definition of the processor, the sizes/speeds of the caches, the lanes between the segments, the length of each pipeline segment and other such information that can be basically listed. However, such information will not reveal unintended features (distinguished from bugs by being useful) and won't expose every possible shortcut.
HPC is fun, though I agree that modern processors are counter-intuitive. They can do some seriously weird things at times, which is why CPUburn is such an interesting program. If only the developers still maintained it. :( A CPU that can self-destruct performing legal, documented operations is a buggy CPU. That goes for any other hardware, too.
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)
1.4 GHz * 8 cores * 8 threads = 89.6 fake GHz.
I wonder how many BogoMIPS that is equivalent to.
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
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
CISC eventually collapsed precisely because of this. RISC was faster - far faster - without the composite instructions. Hybrids, like the Pentium series, have since developed, where the underlying architecture is RISC and the composite instructions are emulated by being split into much simpler ones. So far, so good, so what? You still have a translation layer. You still have that decomposition. That's not free, you know. It takes time.
So why do this at all, and not have a pure RISC system? Well, many CPU manufacturers asked the same question. And decided to do exactly that. Have a pure RISC architecture. They generally do the same amount of real work with a fifth of the clockspeed of a CISC/RISC hybrid - so they run cooler and you can pack more into less space.
Why don't Intel and AMD do this? Oh, they'd love to! The Itanic proved many things, though, one of which is that the 8086-style CISC layer has to remain. The customers have too much legacy software now. Not only are consumers locked into Intel's architecture, so is Intel! There's nothing they can do to escape, unless they make a chip that has some cores on the old design and some on a new one. But who is going to buy a processor that costs more and does less (for now)? Nobody. Thank you.
This should be the lesson that companies learn from the IT industry (but won't): Too much lock-in locks the company in as well, making necessary changes and corrections impossible. Given enough time and enough failures to change, the company will destroy itself.
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)
The main reason this is actually slower is the ordering of instructions. Intel chips have out-of-order execution that lets them run micro-ops from instructions in a different order that will make things faster and make more use of all the parts of the processor.
If a compiler could do this instead of the processor, by ordering the micro-ops itself, Intel wouldn't need die space for out-of-order execution. The space could be used for more cache or to squeeze more cores in.
Also the compiler would be able to do better optimization because it has the bigger picture of what's coming up, and it has more time to do the optimization because it doesn't do it on the fly. They generally do the same amount of real work with a fifth of the clockspeed of a CISC/RISC hybrid - so they run cooler and you can pack more into less space. That's a pretty wild exaggeration. (UltraSPARC sure isn't 5x faster than Core 2 Duo, and PPC wasn't 5x faster either, despite what Apple marketing used to want you to think).
Intel make excellent processors even if they do have to do CISC-RISC translation, and they still beat any competing RISC processor hands down (except in specialized applications like supercomputers or Sun benchmarks). This isn't because CISC is better than RISC, it's just because the difference isn't nearly as large as you make out, and Intel has a massive R&D budget that offsets any performance decrease and then some.
If Intel really felt it was necessary to move to a new processor they would. They talked MS into using Itanium for high end apps so I'm sure they could push a transition if they wanted.
They could include a Rosetta style software translator for old x86 binaries, and perhaps include an x86 translator on-die (like Itanium 1 did). The reason they don't is because it wouldn't give such a large boost, and would be relatively expensive, when they can get larger speed boosts for less by going for smaller processes and optimizing micro-ops.
It wouldn't be as big a transition as you make out, and it wouldn't give as big of a performance increase as you make out. It would be better if they had gone with RISC, but not that much better.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);