[Jdraienier]

Ibm's new factory in New york which will produce the Power 4 will not go into fullscale production till April 2003.

This means no G5 powermacs before April, 2003.

Heres a link to an EE times article about the new IBM Factory: http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020805S0039

[CheesePuff]

How do you know IBM will make the G5? I'm pretty damn sure Apple wants to keep the Altivec processing unit so they will stick with Motorola.

[Jdraienier]

The new Power 4 chip uses a vector processing which is very similar
to altivec.

[[email protected]]

I remember reading something that made sense; if these power 4 chips were Really made for Apple, why would Apple let IBM let the world know about their new super chip this early, especially considering how secretive Apple is usually. Secondly, while the vector processing in the IBM chip sounds similar to the motorola version (160+ units for IBM v. 162 for motorola), they are not necessarily the same. If they are different, some serious recompiling will be necessary.

[Jdraienier]

If any of you out there dont beleive that a Power 4 will be in the new powermacs. A Zdnet article stated that the Power 4 is two equal processors into a single piece of silicon. This means this processor will be able to take advantage of multithreading.

heres a link to the article: ZDnet

[l008com]

These processors in question, whatever they are for, are NOT Power4's!!! They have similarities and they use some or lots of the same technologies, but they are a whole new chip. I think they are the G5's personally.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by l008com:
These processors in question, whatever they are for, are NOT Power4's!!! They have similarities and they use some or lots of the same technologies, but they are a whole new chip. I think they are the G5's personally.

Technically they fall under the PowerPC line of microprocessors and are intended to replace the G3. I highly doubt Apple would make 64-bit iBooks and 32-bit Pro Macs.

Also, you have to take into consideration that this new chip is for desktop computers only. I can't imagine any company other than Apple using these desktop PowerPC processors since they and Amiga are the only computer companies that make PowerPC based desktop computers.

I'll be the first to admit I could be wrong, but my hunch is that these processors will end up in a Macintosh. Besides, when has the release of information on a perticular processor been countermanded by Apple? Only when it came down to look and operation of the computer, never the processor itself.

[Metzen]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Technically they fall under the PowerPC line of microprocessors and are intended to replace the G3. I highly doubt Apple would make 64-bit iBooks and 32-bit Pro Macs.

Also, you have to take into consideration that this new chip is for desktop computers only. I can't imagine any company other than Apple using these desktop PowerPC processors since they and Amiga are the only computer companies that make PowerPC based desktop computers.

I'll be the first to admit I could be wrong, but my hunch is that these processors will end up in a Macintosh. Besides, when has the release of information on a perticular processor been countermanded by Apple? Only when it came down to look and operation of the computer, never the processor itself.

Apple only has the power to have Motorola do "as simon says". IBM has always told the market what it's plans are or what chips it is releasing before they are released, ala 750FX and 750CX/CXE.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Metzen:


Apple only has the power to have Motorola do "as simon says". IBM has always told the market what it's plans are or what chips it is releasing before they are released, ala 750FX and 750CX/CXE.

Exactly. So to say that Apples isn't going to use them because Apple hasn't threatened lawsuits against everyone is frivolous.

[raferx]

IBM for desktop... Moto for laptop..?

[OreoCookie]

IBM has other customers for their chips, e. g. they produce the CPU in the GameCube (essentially an altered G3 with a SIMD unit).

The Power4 derivative (there will be just one core on-die!) aka Desktop Power4 is also built for telecommunications (i. e. small form factor server machines for telecommunication business).

[Superchicken]

even if there are other coustomers than apple.
Why on EARTH wouldn't apple jump on a 2Ghz proccessor?
Anyway, I dout apple would have a problem with letting people know hey things are comming that will be good!

And IBM has other coustomers too, if they didn't say it someone in one of the other companies woulda leaked it.

[vsurfer]

Originally posted by Jdraienier:
Ibm's new factory in New york which will produce the Power 4 will not go into fullscale production till April 2003.

This means no G5 powermacs before April, 2003.

Heres a link to an EE times article about the new IBM Factory: http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020805S0039

Just to reiterate the article among the expected customers seem to be nintendo & sony for gaming devices, and plenty of OEM. Which could well include apple.

My sense is that Apple is as frustrated with the progression of speed as some of us. I would have guessed Intel lay ahead, but if the IBM chips area truly as advanced as the hype, well they are a uh, 'blue chip' co to work with.

PS. did ya'll notice this in the article: "This is the first fab whose IT infrastructure is all Linux-based, controlled by some 1,700 1-GHz microprocessors". No surprise Win didn't make the cut.

[bigv]

I do feel it necessary to point out that IBM specifically stated that the new chip was for desktop and low end server machines NOT game systems. Apple does produce desktop and low end server machines. It is very likely that these chips will end up in PowerMacs at some point. I find it highly unlikely that a sony playstation will sport a highly advanced 2 ghz processor that is designed for desktop and server systems.
As for other customers for the chip, when another company claims to produce PowerPC desktop and server machines then I will concede that the chips may go into systems other that Macs.

But who knows. Maybe Apple will decide that motorola is a superior company producing a superior processor that never shorts them on quatity doing lots of R&D for new processors and decide not to use the IBM chip. I know if I ran Apple that would be my decision. NOT!! :o

Seriously, Apple may not go with the IBM chip but they will have to forgo using motorola produced chips in the future if they intend to stay competitive. I personally don't see motorola making a big turn around and meeting everyone's expectations in the near future.

[DaveGee]

Originally posted by bigv:
But who knows. Maybe Apple will decide that motorola is a superior company producing a superior processor that never shorts them on quatity doing lots of R&D for new processors and decide not to use the IBM chip. I know if I ran Apple that would be my decision. NOT!! :o

Bigv,

I was about ready to slap you silly until I got to the very end of that quote...

Dave

[samm]

Originally posted by Jdraienier:
Ibm's new factory in New york which will produce the Power 4 will not go into fullscale production till April 2003.

This means no G5 powermacs before April, 2003.

Heres a link to an EE times article about the new IBM Factory: http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020805S0039

The Power4 has been in production for a while. I've seen shipments of the Regatta (iSeres 890) servers personally: http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver...are/mod8xx.htm

If the Power4 microprocessors are used in Apple computers, it won't be the current variation. They are way to large and are extremely hot. The only servers I have seen these microprocessors in are bigger than me, take a look at the website above to see what I mean.

The announcement by IBM a few weeks ago about putting a Power4 derived microprocessor in desktops and low end servers, they are probably referring to their blade servers. I also wouldn't be surprised to see a Power4 chip in RS/6000 desktop boxes.

[KidRed]

Originally posted by l008com:
These processors in question, whatever they are for, are NOT Power4's!!! They have similarities and they use some or lots of the same technologies, but they are a whole new chip. I think they are the G5's personally.

We all know (or at least I assume so) that we will not get the current POWER4's in the next gen towers. We will however get a POWER4-CORE scaled down desktop version. So in essence when someone says we'rre getting power4s in the desktop it's a accurate statement and doesn't need to be chastized. Unless of course, those who say we won't get a power4 in a mac because it would cost $10k, those people need to be slapped

[Superchicken]

yeah I guess you havn't heard all the stuff commin out from IBM about their new PPC proccessor, BASED On tech from the Power 4... I suspect these most likely are gona have a lota the smiliarities with the current G3s they're selling for iBooks.
BUt as for the mobile part of this. MIGHT IBM makthe G3 Sahara or whatever it's got now, stick a VMX thingy on it, soup it up a bit and possibly make it able to take on that thing from Intel?

[hoshi]

http://news.independent.co.uk/busine...sp?story=92371

i say stick with motorola.

[Superchicken]

hmm the article suggests they'll licence it.
I say stick with IBM.

[bigv]

A monumental breakthrough from motoroa. Where have I heard this before? Will we see this just like the rest of their promises? Yep, next year we will see the all new super fancy faster than light hyper dimensional super drive processor from motorola! Can do 14 quadrillion operations per second. Using the latest technology developed by the rest of the industry only five years ago! But wait! We have something new and even better! Yeah that's why we haven't gone to the all new 5 year old technology. Yeah that's it! We will have something even better next year!

Motorola is great for making all of these breakthroughs that we never see actually implemented in anything other that cell phone chips. When I see a desktop processor from them that employs ANY modern technology, as compared to the rest of the industry, then I will believe it.

That's right. I'm just a little miffed with motorola. If they would only keep their promises even if they are still behind the rest of the industry I would not be so upset with them. Anybody remember the G5 we have been hearing about for more than 3 years? Will we ever see it? No, not from motorola at least.

Just my own personal opinion.

[Metzen]

Originally posted by Jdraienier:
Ibm's new factory in New york which will produce the Power 4 will not go into fullscale production till April 2003.

This means no G5 powermacs before April, 2003.

Heres a link to an EE times article about the new IBM Factory: http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020805S0039

IBM has a goal of producing a PowerPC that either hits 2.0Ghz or surpasses it before the year is out.

Now, IBM has publically stated that they expect the Power4 to hit 2.0Ghz, but I don't think IBM would push the Power4 any faster than it is right now because there is still a huge demand for the chip.

Server chips typically refresh once the competition has something better, or demand for the chip has died and higher speed chips are in huge demand (read: playing supply and demand).

The Power4 will not hit 2.0Ghz this year. I wonder what will...

[OreoCookie]

The Power4 is not the Desktop Power4 derivative.

The Power4 is expected to hit 1.4 to 1.6 GHz in its latest incarnation (Power4-II).

But that doesn't mean IBM could produce the Desktop Power4 at speeds in excess of 2 GHz. Due to their capabilities in chip production (SOI, low-k dielectrica, etc.), I am sure they can accomplish that when they claim it.

[Rickag]

Couldn't find where any one posted this announcement about the Microprocessor Forum

"Breaking Through Compute Intensive Barriers - IBM's New 64-bit PowerPC Microprocessor
Peter Sandon, Senior Processor Architect, Power PC Organization,
IBM Microelectronics IBM is disclosing the technical details of a new 64-bit PowerPC microprocessor designed for desktops and entry-level servers. Based on the award winning Power4 design, this processor is an 8-way superscalar design that fully supports Symmetric MultiProcessing. The processor is further enhanced by a vector processing unit implementing over 160 specialized vector instructions and implements a system interface capable of up to 6.4GB/s."

Just a note, according to IBM, they could use Altivec if they so choose.

Link

"AltiVec could be an example of one of these coprocessors that could be plugged in [to a Book E-compliant PowerPC]," Newcombe said. "Nothing precludes IBM from doing that, but I cannot comment on whether a design is in progress. The market will decide whether we do that, and I can just say 'stay tuned.' "

[Superchicken]

Why on earth would they put Altivec in there if they already HAVE VMX?
Are there tons of different instructions in VMX or something?

[Rickag]

VMX = Altivec
Altivec is just Motorola's name for it, just like Apple's is Velocity Engine.

Be happy, IBM doesn't have to lincense it, which was the urban myth circulating web.

Heck, start a thread on what IBM's name will be for VMX.

[DrBoar]

Back in the B&W G3/450 (and 9600/350) the Motorola CPUs were on par clcokwise with the Intel/AMDs. With the G4 trouble Motorola started lagging by a factor of 2.

While moving upwards they show no signs of ever catching up, in fact with the 1.25 MHz G4 not yet out and Intels 2.8 GHz the ratio seem to be slipping to 3!

If Apple whould release a (IBM) G5 workstation for say 5 K with performance that blast Intel& AMD in video end rendering applications and everyting else from mp3 ripps to Quake III this would to two good things
1. Show that Apple have a very good CPU coming to its line of computers
2. Stem the flow of migrationto Wintel in the highend arena and also perhaps attract new customers in this small but high margin sector.

The cost would be reduced PM sales as many would wait for the G5 to get into the towers.

Apple was stuck for one year around 500 MHz and the following two years have made no progress in closing the gap. The G4 will go down along with the 68040 and the 603 as less good CPUs and having the G4 and marginal speed bumps as the high end CPU does not cut it. The clock is ticking Apple!

Correct me if I am wrong but did not Motorola give up the CPU race with the 68040 and the high end 604E and G3 were from IBM?

[himself]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
IBM has other customers for their chips, e. g. they produce the CPU in the GameCube (essentially an altered G3 with a SIMD unit).

The Power4 derivative (there will be just one core on-die!) aka Desktop Power4 is also built for telecommunications (i. e. small form factor server machines for telecommunication business).

While IBM has developed the current gamecube chip and N64 processor (im not so sure about them producing a chip for sony), those were requests for a specific chip design geared solely for use on those consoles (and Nintendo paid IBM big bucks to produce the chips for them)... as others have stated, these new chips are geared toward general purpose desktop and lowend server applications... I would assume that they are ear marked for apple...

<wild speculation>...what if the "other customer" were IBM themselves? Mr. Jobs finally agrees to let one manufacturer develop Macintosh clones (that would be IBM), on the condition that IBM makes the chips available to power these machines and apples hardware... or, maybe IBM will produce OS X Server hardware (ala the XServe) using these chips, and apple reaps the rewards by having these chips availble for their use as well...</wild speculation>

My imagination is getting the best of me. I'm going to stop right now.

[Metzen]

Originally posted by DrBoar:
Back in the B&W G3/450 (and 9600/350) the Motorola CPUs were on par clcokwise with the Intel/AMDs. With the G4 trouble Motorola started lagging by a factor of 2.

1st off, the PowerPC, when it was first introduced were extremely powerful compared to the current generation x86 at the time. The 601 kicked the crap out of the original pentium, clock for clock. Not by a huge margin, mind you, but probably close to 10% faster or (add some arbitrary number).

2nd, the 603 and 603e chips were pathetic because of a mall L1 cache and frequently no L2 cache, as well as Apple either A) making a really poor implentation of the bus (sometimes to cripple consumer machines Apple would set the bus to run at 16bits wide. VERY bad design. You can cripple the processor, hey, that's not so bad, but when you make the whole machine suffer as well... BAD!!!!

Anyways, clock for clock, a 603e on a decent PowerMac machine (not a 680x0 motherboard machine) runs about the same as a x86 of the same speed.

604e's, clock for clock, trounced anything out there, and 603e's with a large amount of L2 cache, ran decently. As a matter of fact with the release of the Performa 6500/300 Apple was touting that it was the first PC maker to crack the "300Mhz" barrier. Later the 604e followed and then beat that going up to 350Mhz. Right around the time the G3 was released at 233Mhz, IBM has released "Mach5", a 604e processor with expensive improvements that made it one of the fastest chips on the market (one of which was inline cache). It's performance is a testament to the fact that IBM still sells server's with them.

Then Apple released the G3 with it's 4 stage pipeline, was nearly 2x as effiecient as opposed to current generation Pentiums (PIII's) with there 12 stage pipeline. Astute viewer's at that time would have noticed that having the nice luxury of less than half the number of pipeline stages made the G3 typically more than 2x as fast as equivalent PIII's. Where are we now?

PIII -- 12 stages
G3 -- 4stages

Difference of 3x

P4 -- 20stages
G4 -- 7stages

Difference of 2.8x

Since both processor's have tended to scale linearly to one another, I would be willing to bet that a P4 @ 1.25 Ghz will be almost the exact same "speed ratio" of similar benchmarks to a G3 and PIII at the same speed. (In other words, the G4 will probably be close if not faster than 2x the P4).

If I had a 1.25Ghz G4 and a P4, I'd clock down the P4 to 1.25Ghz, test them both on a opensource benchmark
and then, since as you scale up a processor in Mhz it more or less scales linearly, it should be easy to find out approx. how much faster or more effiecent a G4 is vs. a P4.

While moving upwards they show no signs of ever catching up, in fact with the 1.25 MHz G4 not yet out and Intels 2.8 GHz the ratio seem to be slipping to 3!

Originally posted by DrBoar:
If Apple whould release a (IBM) G5 workstation for say 5 K with performance that blast Intel& AMD in video end rendering applications and everyting else from mp3 ripps to Quake III this would to two good things
1. Show that Apple have a very good CPU coming to its line of computers
2. Stem the flow of migrationto Wintel in the highend arena and also perhaps attract new customers in this small but high margin sector.

The cost would be reduced PM sales as many would wait for the G5 to get into the towers.

You won't want to do that for too many reasons....

1. Only Apple customer's would be watching Apple's product line
2. Wintel people will look at Wintel. Apple probably doesn't want to become another Sun.

Originally posted by DrBoar:
Apple was stuck for one year around 500 MHz and the following two years have made no progress in closing the gap. The G4 will go down along with the 68040 and the 603 as less good CPUs and having the G4 and marginal speed bumps as the high end CPU does not cut it. The clock is ticking Apple!

Correct me if I am wrong but did not Motorola give up the CPU race with the 68040 and the high end 604E and G3 were from IBM?

Not quite. The 601, 601e, 603, 603e, G3, and G4 were all co-developed by all companies (Apple, IBM, and Motorola). After the making of AltiVec by ALL three companies. As well, the 68040 was a hugely speedy processor compared to the 68030. A 25Mhz 68040 typically beat up the $10k IIfx and it's 40Mhz 030'. The 040 lasted a very, very long time. Motorola later released a 6 stage 68060 CPU, but Apple was looking at RISC and opted out of that CPU. Amiga used it though, and from what I've heard about machines based around those processor's, they were very good.