Slashdot Mirror
HP & IBM Unveil New Chips
In the CPU market, both IBM and HP have new offerings. The first chip is IBM's 500-MHz PPC 440 for embedded systems, etched at .18 microns, and the second is the HP PA-RISC 8600, which uses the same core as the 8500. The IBM chip is for embedded applications, while the second is for workstations. The HP debuts at 500 MHz, and will soon be followed by the 8800.
well, isn't that what intel does?
furthermore, once a chip has already begun to get old, it will not stay at "consumer item" level for such a long time. some of those skip the "consumer" stage entirely.
watch the consumer market behavior - they always buy the newest... pentiums and clones.
why? because those are designated for the consumer market. they will not buy a comparable, 2-year-old chip. and since those would be out of production by that time, they'd probably still cost more, not come with support, etc etc.
I have noproblems with the link .
I would love to see HP make a graphing calculator out of one of these babies! Imagine the games one could play if they improved the LCD as well!
--KF6NUX
Actually, there is an excellent reason to not so much *move* MacOS to IA64 as to port it to that platform, the same way that Linux is ported to different platforms
If Apple brought the MacOS to IA64, and did it before, say, Microsoft brought out Windows for that platform, then it would have a lot of people seriously considering whether Windows is worth the effort on IA64.
It would be very interesting to see the OS battle that would be waged between the two sides if this happened. Unfortunately, given its success in the past with this type of thing, I fear that Microsoft would win. Oh Well.
life is a canvas/and the paint is hope and promise/the world is ours/no one can ever take it from us.
It's interesting that you should bring up the question of porting Mac OS to the Intel platform. Many years ago, Apple wrote a version of System 6(I believe) that would run on the x86 architecture. Whoever was running the shop back then (Sculley, I believe), decided _not_ to ship it to compete with Windows. I don't know why Apple didn't ship this ported OS, but I am certain that it would have beaten out Windows 2.0 (the Windows state-of-the-art at that time). Now, however, Windows is approaching the usability and stability of Mac OS, and I doubt that the user base will be easily shaken (especially because Microsoft would pull tricks like not writing Office for the new OS). All that being said, if OS X is ready before NT 5 or Win2000, or whatever they're going to call it, for the IA-64, it would definitely stand a chance of taking over the server market. Time will tell...
SomeoneElse wrote:
"For a 'Next Generation' system to include ISA slots is a joke. Why not build it on a MCA bus while you are at it."
Are you somehow under the impression that MCA was/is an old-fashioned and inefficient bus architecture?
If you are, then you are sorely mistaken -- it just got beaten in the market, even though it *was* technically better.
And in one market it's still alive and well: It's the bus architecture IBM's R/S 6000 RISC workstations use -- quite successfully, AFAIK.
Your statement is somewhat akin to saying "For a 'Next Generation' system to use Linux is a joke. Why not base it on NeXTstep while you are at it."
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
Christian R. Conrad
mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here
No. I refuse to call things gay names like "itanium". I'm sick of product names like "GeForce 256" and "Athlon". From now on, I'm going to call it by its codename: NV10 and K7.
-Warren
How many times:
Linux doesn't run on 286's - it requires a multitasking processor which a 286 isn't capable of.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Actually workstation prices have been dropping to resonable levels.
I'm not convinced that 21264 systems are cheaper than the HP's. HP-UX is a miserable Unix? I'm just a user but I am still getting work done on a very old 735 which has uptimes that have corresponded to power outages in my building for years.
As far as performance HP's 8500's were comperable at lower clock speeds with the 21264. I'm not sure what the 8600 will do for numbers or price but....
From Microway's site Alpha Screamer 21264 @500MHz
SpecInt95 28.6
Specfp95 42.9
From HP's site on a
C3000 (8500 @400MHz)
SpecInt95 30.3
Specfp95 48.6
B1000 (8500 @300MHz)
SpecInt95 22.4
Specfp95 38.8
Prices?
(Compaq's site was very slow)
Microway 21264 -> 8,995
HP C3000 -> 13,475
HP B1000 -> 7,795
The hp c3000 has more ram, hd, graphics than the b1000 or microway.
I've also heard of extreme discounts on the HP's from my sys admin.
I like the idea of an alpha heating my feet at better prices but the 21264 alpha's are not that compelling.
And if you read that article, the 8X00 HP's are heading to clock speed in Alpha teritory.
Sure these chips are nice -- better performance is always great I suppose. But I think we've reached the point where before designing yet another CPU with yet another instruction set we should go and change the design of the PC a bit. If the Itanium includes any of the following, then it speaks for itself on just how crappy the PC is regardless of speed.
.02
1. IRQs. The IRQ controller in most PCs was designed by IBM if I remember correctly, circa *1982* or so. If we have to recompile and redesign all our apps and OSes anyway, can't we go ahead and redesign the other aspects of the circuitry to drive this thing?
2. Don't tell me this thing will have a AT style keyboard port. Or a PS/2 port for that matter. Something that is supposed to represent bleeding edge technology built with a keyboard controller designed around 1980. Bravo Intel.
3. ISA: don't even get me started. For a "Next Generation" system to include ISA slots is a joke. Why not build it on a MCA bus while you are at it.
4. Floppy drive controller. Enough said. A 1.44 MB drive in a system attached to a 80 GB raid array. Great for backups, right?
The sad thing is that all these wonderfully annoying and archaic antiques will likely be part of the "Next Generation" PCs built on Intel architecture. Says how far we've really come, doesn't it?
Just my
Though we'll need a lot of development time (the kernel is close to running, but glibc, binutils and the rest of userspace will need work), testers will be of help, too.
SPEC/MHz is a completely meaningless measure. They are making both PA-RISCs and Alphas at the highest clock speeds they currently can, and those are the chips that you can buy. The Alpha just happens to be designed so that they can crank the speeds higher. Since this means that the Alphas do less work per clock cycle but the clock cycles can then be made correspondingly shorter (by design!), why should they be penalized for it? Now if you want to divide the SPEC results by something, SPEC/price would be a more sensible comparison.
Yes, 1W caught my eye. That's quite amazing for a 500MHz CPU. The question is, does it have a floating point unit? From memory, the older embedded PPC cores didn't. A lot of embedded applications don't require an FPU. Hell, I wonder if I'd even notice if the K6-2 Linux box I'm using now didn't have an FPU. All the stuff I'm doing is compiling, web browsing, network apps... -t.
Why post this here? Is this on the topic? Who cares that you can't setup a computer in the correct fashion.
We're getting faster and faster CPU's (almost 1GHz x86's), yet we're still basing it on 1980's technology. Let's put a nifty computer on a rear-wheel drive, carburetor car with all-drum brakes and no power steering!!!
nevermind, it worked after crashing 5 times..
Then again, he has a karma of 6.
Christ, you first posters are lame.
Then again, at least you didn't do it anonymously.
How many RC5 keys will it get?
iTanium, the cpu with the cool translucent die. Comes in 5 fruity flavors.
Anyways, since HP had a hand in with Intel in designing the Merced, will it also be able to emulate PA-RISC based software in addition to x86 software?
Can these Chips run Linux ?? I am not trying to be silly, I just want to know.
With Both IBM and Motorola moving into producing embedded PowerPC chips, What does this mean for Apple, who rely especially on Motorola for the CPUs in the current generation of PowerMacs?
Or will Apple just move to the IA-64 architecture?
life is a canvas/and the paint is hope and promise/the world is ours/no one can ever take it from us.
man can you imagine a beowulf cluster of these babies? kiiiiick asss....
Lets get these out of the way, cuz we all know they'll be asked/said.
- "F1RZT!"
- "Do these run linux?"
- "WOW! Imagine a Beowulf cluster of THESE!"
What am I missing? I just want these out of the way, so moderators can at least label the rest as "redundant."
i dont display scores, and my threshhold is -1. post accordingly.
Discuss
How do these processors compare to the compaq alpha 21264's. This is the real 64 bit competition. Hope their price structure is reasonable as well.
-- Moondog
I doubt it has an FPU... the die is 4mm^2 compared to the PPC750 which is 40mm^2. That's 100 times smaller than a G3. Not much room for anything but a basic PPC core. Still would make a great processor for a small handheld or portable game system.
--
Don't lead me into temptation... I can find it myself.
1 watt? So, will this thing not need on of those power sucking fans on a heatsink?
--
Lab test show that use of micro$oft causes deadly cancer in lab animals.
Yeah maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan! Smash the fucking state! Is that PA-RISC CPU really worth your suffering? Spend your hard earned money and help support their *death*. The system works... for them!
That carbureted, kettering ignition (points/condenser/coil/distributor) car will still be running fine after you try to HERF it. Also, you can still make tighter 180 degree, slam on the brakes, spin the steering wheel, romp on the gas, applied-power-assisted-oversteering getaway-style U-turns in the middle of a two-lane road than you can with a plowing, understeering front wheel deathtrap. Power steering just robs power away from the engine anyway, and drum brakes will stop just fine as long as you know how to use them (don't overheat them so they fade). Oh, and by the way, front wheel drive cars are for housewives and homos. A real man's car has rear wheel drive and an absolute minimum of 302 cubic inches of V8 American iron under the hood. The only front wheel drive cars that were ever made on this planet that are worthy of the title "Real Man's Car(tm)", would be the Olsmobile Toronado with 455 V8, the Buick Riviera with 455 V8, and the Cadillac Eldorado with 500.1 V8 engines from the 1970's. All other FWD's are girliecars. Yeah, those were the good old days! Flame away :-)
http://www.openbsd.org/hppa.html
500MHz at 1 Watt
The strongarm only uses 1/4 watt, but its only 110 MHz or so.
It says its based on the powerPC core, so i wonder if linux would run on it ?
Computers (and thus, computer chips) are no longer only a luxury product.
and again, a new chip is released, with high-end designation.
it's interesting to see how many chips are low-end designated, and how much of them really are low-end.
when a company designates a "low-end", 2999$ chip, it doesn't constitute as low-end for me.
i'll most probably never going to get use that kind of chip.
that's a real pity, isn't it?
my current tally of lowend chips counts only a handful of vendors, while there's a lot more.
why can't we get better computing at more affordable prices, than seeing companies release yet another high-performance, high-end, highly-overpriced chip??
also have a look at the old post about the ultra-5 "lowend" machine.
Be encouraging.
Alphas come out slightly faster, as was mentioned, due to clockspeed. PA-RISCs are faster clock-per clock (tho 21364 hasn't come out yet...)
But Alphas are very different machines than HPs. Alphas are pure number crunching machines. I don't think anyone's using HPs who doesn't have legacy reasons to do so. HP-UX is a pretty miserable UNIX, and the machines themselves are quite expensive (moreso than Alphas, I believe). Alphas are relatively cheap as workstations go. HPs tend to be popular in engineering applications, where the people have been using them for a long time and are very comfortable with them.
Ehh, not even worth it. I love bigass RWD cars too. I had a '71 Challenger w/ 360 4 speed. I do all my own mechanic. Loved that car. But I still wouldn't drive it everyday! That's what FWD shitboxes are for!
I never considered ANY 455 to be a real engine, especially those slugs they'd put in those 6.3 TA's. 302 Furds are like belly-buttons: everyone has one. How genuine is that?
So according to your post, you probably made up a 32-way 286/8 SMP box to run Linux? With 128 X 1MB SIMMS? heheh and 100 X 40MB Western Digital Drives? Those were the good old days indeed...
It was a Caddy 505 or a 502, not a 500.1 anything.
Nice site.Thanks to the well trained midgets. OK-how do you rate the posts?I ask because I'm interested in top marks.;-)
query: Looking through Intel's webpage, I see that their roadmap for future processor development is limited to IA-64. The G4 is already a 128 bit processor. I'm just interested as to what Intel intends to do about the fact that a 64 bit processor can't really compete with one that is at 128 bits. In other words, the G4 will be perpetually faster than the Intel processors coming in the next few years -- or am I missing something here...
The big Cadillac V8 production engine of the 1970's was INDEED a 500.1 cubic incher. That's five hundred and one-tenth cubic inches. Fed by an 800CFM Rochester Quadrajet carburetor, this engine was also known as the "8.2 Liter". It appeared in several Caddy models, not just the Eldorado.
Glad to see more progress of alternate CPU architectures. Both of these chips are great. I use a bunch of RS6000 servers and HP workstations that I rescued from various dumpsters on "midnight commando missons" ;) and I must say that they are not as fast as this lame Pee Sea, but I certainly can say they are definately superior. I wouldn't trust a PC to be anymore reliable than I can throw it.