Slashdot Mirror


IBM Ships Fastest CPU on Earth

HockeyPuck writes "The 5-billion-instructions-per second Power6 processor from IBM would beat such rivals as the 3.73 gigahertz Pentium Extreme and the 2.4 gigahertz UltraSparc T2 from Sun. 'It's hard to make the average person understand just how fast this is,' said IBM Chief Technology Officer Bernard Meyerson, offering an example meant to explain his company's baby that still leaves the listener awed with the speediness of the two laggards. 'Hold your index finger out in front of your face,' Meyerson said in a telephone interview from IBM headquarters in New York. 'In less time than it would take a beam of light to travel from your knuckle to your fingertip, the new IBM chip would complete one task and start looking for the next, he said.'"

50 of 410 comments (clear)

  1. Worst analogy EVAR! by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Funny
    What's a 'task'? If you think of a 'task' for a CPU to be an instruction, then any modern desktop or notebook CPU currently in production would meet Myerson's description:

    In less time than it would take a beam of light to travel from your knuckle to your fingertip, the new IBM chip would complete one task and start looking for the next, he said
    C'mon. That's horrible. Where's BadAnalogyGuy when you need him?

    1. Re:Worst analogy EVAR! by ukatoton · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is it not obvious? Myerson is BadAnalogyGuy!

    2. Re:Worst analogy EVAR! by backwardMechanic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think it's a neat calculation. We've all lost track of what fast actually means for a modern CPU. I think task, in this context, would be understood by most to mean a (simple) instruction, maybe an increment for example. That we can compare light moving over such a small distance to the time it takes to complete an op is impressive. Maybe you've not stopped to actually think about it?

    3. Re:Worst analogy EVAR! by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 5, Funny

      He should have said "it's so fast it'll do an infinite loop in half a second".

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    4. Re:Worst analogy EVAR! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      So a priest, a rabbi, and a fork bomb walk into a bar...

    5. Re:Worst analogy EVAR! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      So a priest, a rabbi, and a fork bomb walk into a bar...
      ...and the bartender says "what is this? some kind of joke?".
    6. Re:Worst analogy EVAR! by ScriptedReplay · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think it's a neat calculation. We've all lost track of what fast actually means for a modern CPU.


      Yeah, it's a fast CPU. And it gets faster if you have smaller hands. Or if you watch your hands move by at close to the speed of light. Way cool.

      Should sell like crazy in Japan.
    7. Re:Worst analogy EVAR! by GungaDan · · Score: 5, Funny

      "there probably isn't much difference between a knuckle and a wrist"

      Goatse Guy? Is that you?

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    8. Re:Worst analogy EVAR! by joaommp · · Score: 5, Funny

      only Chuck Norris can reach the end of infinite loops. And he can do it twice.

      And then he roundhouse kicks you into oblivion.

    9. Re:Worst analogy EVAR! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Dalai Lama is fascinated by the analogy:

      http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/10/world/10lama-600.jpg

    10. Re:Worst analogy EVAR! by daveime · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think the processor speed in a ZX81 was defined in arse-to-elbows per hour ;-)

    11. Re:Worst analogy EVAR! by backwardMechanic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Fair point. So I should jump out of the window and my computer will run faster? I'm just looking fora few more cycles...

    12. Re:Worst analogy EVAR! by Have+Blue · · Score: 5, Funny

      And then the fork bomb walks into the bar, and then the fork bomb walks into the bar, and then the fork bomb walks into the bar...

    13. Re:Worst analogy EVAR! by cababunga · · Score: 5, Funny

      So, if I throw my computer out of the window, I'll get more FLOPS? No, you won't. But you may get better performance if you throw all the windows out of your computer.
  2. Units of measurement by muellerr1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm glad they stopped measuring chip speed in Hertz and are now using the simpler metric fingertip-to-knuckle units.

    1. Re:Units of measurement by n3tcat · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, it makes it much easier to explain why multicore processors work faster. Though I expect problems when explaining more than 5 cores per chip...

    2. Re:Units of measurement by plover · · Score: 5, Funny
      I thought this meant they were switching from bogomips to bogogips.

      But then I suppose some math genius is going to come along and claim we should be counting bogipigips because bogogips is just a marketing term.

      --
      John
    3. Re:Units of measurement by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 5, Funny

      I calculate a "fingertip-to-knuckle unit" to be 3.174 * 10^-4 football fields.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    4. Re:Units of measurement by hallucinogen · · Score: 3, Funny

      How many fingertip-to-knuckle units does the library of congress hold?

    5. Re:Units of measurement by Gazzonyx · · Score: 5, Funny

      American or British football fields, man?! Be precise or we'll have another mibibyte(MiB) situation on our hands, for craps sake!

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    6. Re:Units of measurement by BJH · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, no no. You've got your units all mixed up.

      The correct question to ask there would be:

      "How many Libraries of Congress can I process in a fortnight with one hand?"

    7. Re:Units of measurement by TeknoHog · · Score: 5, Funny

      But then I suppose some math genius is going to come along and claim we should be counting bogipigips because bogogips is just a marketing term.

      Yeah, when bogopigs fly.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    8. Re:Units of measurement by Curien · · Score: 5, Funny

      "How many Libraries of Congress can I process in a fortnight with one hand?"

      The LoC has pr0n?

      --
      It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
    9. Re:Units of measurement by TeknoHog · · Score: 4, Funny

      American or British football fields, man?!

      Huh.. I don't know that! Aaarrggh! *falls into the chasm*

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    10. Re:Units of measurement by spazdor · · Score: 3, Funny
      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
  3. Tried running Vista SP1 on that monster... by jkrise · · Score: 4, Funny

    and all the water turned into steam!

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
  4. It's a ploy by imstanny · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Too bad Apple no longer uses IBM processors, this would've been a great marketing scheme for Steve Jobs.

    1. Re:It's a ploy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't be silly.

      Apple doesn't care about marketing, they are only interested in making quality product.

    2. Re:It's a ploy by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The switch from PPC to Intel wasn't really about performance or pricing. It was about supply and logistics. Both the Motorola and IBM PPC chips were custom chips from their Power architecture as neither company sold CPUs for general consumer computers. IBM made chips mostly for workstations and servers (which were considerably more powerful and expensive).

      Like most manufacturers, Apple, IBM, and Motorola do not want to keep a large inventory of anything. So Apple would only order and project as much as they thought they needed. IBM and Motorola would allocate enough resources for Apple's forecasts. But the problem was Apple was selling Macs faster than they anticipated. So they would order more. Neither IBM or Motorola could keep up with the increased supply.

      Even if they ordered millions of chips a year, Apple was never going to be IBM's or Motorola's largest customer. They could not dedicate large amounts of resources for one custom product line of one customer when they had much larger customers (for IBM, their own workstation/server division. for Motorola, their electronics division). At most, Apple was their highest profile customer.

      From Apple's standpoint, they were tired of not getting enough CPUs. So if they switched to a stock Intel chip, their supply problems because more manageable. Because for Intel it wouldn't be a small customer ordering more of a specialized part; it would be a small customer order more of the stock part.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  5. National Lampoon Radio Hour by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Funny

    'It's hard to make the average person understand just how fast this is,' said IBM Chief Technology Officer Bernard Meyerson, offering an example meant to explain his company's baby that still leaves the listener awed with the speediness of the two laggards.

    Made me think of a National Lampoon Radio Hour (SNL before it was on TV) skit about the George Foreman-Muhammed Ali fight. Foreman (John Belushi IIRC) talking about Ali:

    "He so fast he can turn off the light and be in bed before the room get dark!"

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  6. Re:Sour grapes or a real arguement by Timesprout · · Score: 3, Funny

    IBM just hired some peeps from the Intel marketing division.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  7. I use the new sun chips at work by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ob disc: I work at sun (but not ON those chips).

    I write management software that lets admins turn on/off/standby (etc) the state of the various 'cpus' (threads, as sun calls them). there are 128 and 256 cpus in a regular 2u..4u style rackmount box. these are 'simple' air cooled systems with fans blowing over the whole U-style chassis and over the passive cpu heatsinks. nothing 'scary' at all, really.

    it is pretty wild to be able to do the equiv of 'show cpu' and have an ascii output scroll 64, 128 and even 256 times; one for each 'cool thread' which is a real actual processor element.

    the down side is that this threading stuff does not automatically get you faster speed on a SINGLE non-threaded traditional task. as I understand it, these T-series sun boxes are meant to process a lot of transactions (think webservers) and not so much number crunching.

    how do you define 'fastest chip'? well, one thing is for sure, you do NOT simply go by 'gigahertz' alone. that's really an oversimplification.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    1. Re:I use the new sun chips at work by s_p_oneil · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fortunately, Java is a very thread-friendly language. I'm sure I could think of a way to use those 256 processors. ;-)

  8. And in 25 year's time... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... it will be in a washing machine controller.

  9. Better analogy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    Better analogy; He should've said;

    'Hold your index finger out in front of your face,' Meyerson said in a telephone interview from IBM headquarters in New York. 'Ha Haw! Now you look like a retard!
  10. Re:It's the uses, stupid! by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nice chip. Now what OS and applications run on it?

    I'd guess anything that runs on the Power archicture. Here's a list of the various OSs that have been supported on various iterations of the Power architecture at one time or another.

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  11. There is no such thing as an all-purpose CPU by sirwired · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are indeed many algorithms that run well in a parallelized environment. IBM even makes the world's fastest supercomputers that take advantage of this fact.

    However, there are many other tasks fit for computers that do not parallelize well. In addition, writing massively parallelized software is often quite HARD. It is far easier to design software for a single CPU running very quickly, than a whole boatload of CPU's running slower. There have in fact been quite a few articles in CS journals lately wondering how on earth software is going to be written for all these new bunch-o-cores CPUs. While it can be done, it is tedious, expensive, and error-prone for all but the most trivial tasks.

    SirWired

  12. YES! by AndGodSed · · Score: 3, Informative

    It DOES run Linux!

    (mod me down if you must - but I just HAD to...) ...>ahem and other OS's too... like Windows NT...

  13. Meaningless Indicator of Processing Speed by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    5 billion THEORICAL instructions per second just mean nothing.

    Anyway, the DSP I'm working on, the TI C6416 (1GHz), claims up to 8 billion instructions/s (5 to 6 can be realistically obtained).

    1. Re:Meaningless Indicator of Processing Speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm working on a much faster multi-core cheap based on a new concept of extreme simplify all code using SISC instructions (aka Single Instruction Set Computer) and I'm reaching several tens of billion NOP's per core.

      When I power off the system it can sustain the proposed performance for a period of eternity seconds - best instructions per watt ratio ever found.

      PS: Still trying to design an operating system for this architecture that can produce end results different than Windows on x86.

  14. Average Person? by dreemernj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's hard to make the average person understand just how fast this is
    It's hard to make the average person understand that the CPU isn't the entire box under their desk. Don't even bother with trying to explain this. The average person doesn't want to know.
    --
    1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
  15. Re:Sour grapes or a real arguement by Albanach · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's horses for courses. If you're serving web pages and running database queries from a well tuned database, the Sun Niagara chips are fast and very well suited. They serve the pages a little slower, but can serve many more at a time.

    If, on the other hand what you're doing is not easily threaded then IBM probably have the upper hand. Say you're doing some mathematical analysis, where you have to do everything in sequence. IBM's faster processor can complete each stage quicker, moving on to the next part and delivering the result faster than a chip with more threads but slower speed.

  16. Power6 architecture: it's different by frankie · · Score: 4, Informative

    Power6 is a big change from Power4 & Power5 series. The key factor is: it gains clock and SMT at the expense of OoOE. In-order execution means its performance is deeply dependent on perfectly tuned compilers.

    Other than the lack of out-of-order, on paper it looks pretty strong. Dual core, lots of bandwidth, up to 7 IPC (5 in one thread, 2 in the other), big GHz, voltage & frequency slewing, and yes it has AltiVec.

    p.s. No, it would not be good for Macs. POWER chips are all made for big iron.

    1. Re:Power6 architecture: it's different by aproposofwhat · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, although Gentoo will still take a week to compile ;P

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
  17. Re:Sour grapes or a real arguement by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Informative
    Actually the whole article is utter bollocks. They talk about 5 billion instructions per second. But

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER6

    Each core has two integer units, two binary floating-point units, and a decimal floating-point unit, and is capable of two way SMT. The binary floating-point unit incorporates âoemany microarchitectures, logic, circuit, latch and integration techniques to achieve [a] 6-cycle, 13-FO4 pipeline,â according to a company paper.[6] Unlike the servers from IBM's competitors, the POWER6 has hardware support for decimal arithmetic and will include the first decimal floating-point unit integrated in silicon. More than 50 new floating point instructions handle the decimal math and conversions between binary and decimal.[7] This is a feature being added to the processors powering IBM's System z.[8] So it has a 5Ghz clock rate but can actually manage a bit more than 5 Bips peak. But

    A notable difference from POWER5 is that IBM moved from an out-of-order design to an in-order design, a drastic change which should require software recompilation for top performance. However, the processor still achieves significant performance improvements even with unmodified software, according to the lead engineer on the POWER6 project.[2] Hmmph. I'd bet it's got a really long pipeline to reach that clock speed.

    The POWER6 has approximately 790 million transistors and 341 mm large fabricated on an 65 nm process. It was released on the 8th June 2007, at speeds of 3.5 GHz, 4.2 GHz and 4.7 GHz[2], but the company has noted prototypes have reached 6 GHz.[3] POWER6 reached first silicon in the middle of 2005[4]. Wow it's huge, almost twice the size of a Core 2 Duo.

    I think IBM is doing taking the NetBurst approach - a long pipeline to get to high frequencies. Plus it's a server chip only used in their servers so they can design for a much higher TDP than Intel or AMD and rely on water cooling.

    I think this guy is spot on
    http://aceshardware.freeforums.org/praising-the-power-6-design-t426.html

    Later this year Intel will release the 65 nm bulk CMOS Tukwila and
    it will likely easily outperform the 65 nm SOI CMOS Power6 on the
    benchmarks of most interest to buyers of business critical servers
    despite running at less than half its clock frequency and having
    less than half its socket level bandwidth. IBM might have created
    a better product and closer competitor to Tukwila better if Power6
    had been a quad design based on a Power5 core worked over to
    improve performance/power but then its wouldn't have the mega-
    giga for headlines in the WSJ and given IBM Micro a measure of
    bragging rights to help justify its continued existence. ;-)
    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  18. Useless measurement by downix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I always said rating CPU's in Hertz is like rating engines by cubic inches. Bigger *can* get more performance, but it's no guarantee. The compression, carbeuration, transmission, fuel flow, exhaust, all add up to final performance, same as cycles per instruction, the amount of work each instruction can do, the memory bandwidth and the IO system all add up to system performance in a computer.

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    1. Re:Useless measurement by TeknoHog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've compared CPU clock frequency to the RPM in engines. Both of them measure the number of basic operation cycles per unit time. However, what exactly happens in a cycle is left open. When other things are equal, more RPM/GHz means higher performance. In practice, it's rare to find such accurate comparisons, due to the multitude of those other factors.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  19. I'm holding a finger in front of my face... by slyborg · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...but it's not my index finger....

  20. This fast... by AttillaTheNun · · Score: 3, Funny
    'Hold your index finger out in front of your face,'

    and I thought he was going to finish that with "and it goes THIS fast!!!", as he waves his finger across his face as fast as he can.

    That's how my brother and I used to measure seconds when we were 5 years old. Accurate to within 500% (your mileage may vary).

  21. Speed of light in FPS by helicologic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's very useful to remember that the speed of light is about a billion feet per second, or a foot in a billionth of a second. He was just looking for a measure that is 1/5 of a foot long.