First tape-outs using 65nm fabrication process at IBM.

[tink]

While this is about the Xbox it is still very interesting!
First Xbox 2 Processors Taped-Out

5GHz 65nm Chips Enroute to Microsoft?


by Anton Shilov
01/26/2004_|_06:19 AM


A report from over a web-site dedicated to game consoles claims there are first tape-outs using 65nm fabrication process at IBM. Apparently, the first chips are non-other than central processing units for highly anticipated Sony PlayStation 3 and Microsoft Xbox 2 consoles.

As announced previously, both Sony and Microsoft will use technologies developed by IBM in microprocessors for next-generation of their gaming consoles. Some sources suggest that CPUs in the Play Station 3 and Xbox 2 machines will be based on Cell technology, a derivative of PowerPC micro-architecture. Given that PowerPC and Cell architectures are expected to be found in a wide range of applications from consumer electronics to servers, mention of these names gives hardly any details about consoles except the fact that they are 64-bit and are not Intel-based.

“It will be built on a 65nm process,” a source confirmed to TeamXbox web-site. “IBM has already taped out experimental samples at its East Fishkill fab, but it will take between 12 to 18 months for them to deliver commercial parts. Anyway, they are way ahead of Intel.”

“With the new 90nm manufacturing process, IBM broke the 2GHz barrier. The 65nm- technology will allow them to break the 3GHz barrier for sure and get closer to the 5GHz mark,” the source added.

“However, this is not just about clock speed. The more important thing here is what this baby and its specialized cores can do in a single clock cycle,” an anonymous source of TeamXbox said.

Concerns about IBM’s ability to tailor its 64-bit microprocessors for Microsoft consoles did not materialize, in case the information published herein is correct.

Microsoft Corporation is likely to adopt Nintendo’s approach to pay only royalties for technologies the company utilizes in its products, but not to acquire every single chip from every single developer. It is not known who will manufacture semiconductors for Microsoft, but there is likely to be a number of makers. Nevertheless, whatever chips are made outside of certain silicon developers, such as ATI or SiS, IBM has been historically manufacturing its CPUs in its own fabs. http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mmedia/display/20040126061648.html

[tfworld]

Nice! So in 12 months or so we will see the 65nm dual cored GX chips? 8)

[onlooker]

Awesome! I wonder when IBM estimates it will be supplying 65nm Cell PPC's to Apple? If the dual cored rumors, and double piped Altivec, or whatever are correct the PowerMac is going to be one h3ll of a wicked computer next year. :D

[PB]

So, this old rumor (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031113115838.shtml), may have some true in it after all.

[Addison]

Presumably the idea of both Sony and Microsoft is that by going the G5 route, the games will not be playable on PC nor will the boxes be so easily hacked.

[onlooker]

Originally posted by Addison
Presumably the idea of both Sony and Microsoft is that by going the G5 route, the games will not be playable on PC nor will the boxes be so easily hacked.

OK, they are not G5's they are PPC's. There is a difference.

Well you can't really play either of them on PC's anyway? I think the reason is just because IBM has a better more powerful processor design than intel does, and they both new it right away.

But what I have really always thought was that Microsoft chose the processor because they new Sony would be using one. Which will make the processor category equal on both systems. Micronopoly figures with the same processor game developers will probably be using Mac's, or special IBM's to write the games for both platforms. So if they are that similar Microsoft will have it's exclusive XBOX development teams going, but write some program that will make porting the code from PS3 code to XBOX2 compatible code so easy that all, or most of the console game developers will have no excuse not to port the games to XBOX which will give Micronopoly more games for the upcoming generation of consoles. Of course this software will be free for the price of developing the games. Micronopoly will also stick to it's formula of making a console with the most impressive #'s. Like GHz, and MHz, Graphics, GPU, Memory, and so on. They will be ahead in the hardware department (faster system), and have all the games their console was lacking in it's first generation.

That's what they hope for IMHO.

[Smircle]

This is huge. Although I believe MS will not want to use a 5Ghz part for reasons of heat dissipation, a rumored 3-core 3Ghz Chip would pack some serious punch.

The timing sounds a bit early though. The rumored tape out for the 130nm 970 was in winter 2002 (of course, this could have been very wrong). Achieving a 50% structure size reduction in two steps over 1.5 years is more than I believe is possible - even in a new fab like Fishkill.

But if it is true, IBM is surely taking business dead serious - in fact this is a killing mission to regain a large chunk of the chip market.

[kim kap sol]

WTF? IBM was on 130 8 months ago. Heck...we haven't even seen 90's yet cuz of stupid unknown problems.

[Programmer]

Originally posted by kim kap sol
WTF? IBM was on 130 8 months ago. Heck...we haven't even seen 90's yet cuz of stupid unknown problems.

Considering there are people on Ars saying they have G5 Xserves already, the 970FXs do seem to be out there. The "delay" of the PowerMacs might not have anything to do with the processors, or it might be related to the volume of speeds that Apple wants (3 GHz?).


Keep in mind that this is 65nm tape out which is a far cry from production. It probably does put them on track for production sometime in mid to late 2005, however. If 130nm tape out was 2002, then it has taken 2 years to advance 2 stages, which is pretty impressive. Hopefully they get the kinks worked out on schedule so that we can have 65nm Macs next year.

[PB]

Originally posted by Programmer
Keep in mind that this is 65nm tape out which is a far cry from production.

Now what's that tape out? Anyone care to explain to the ignorant (me for example :rolleyes: )?

[snoopy]

Originally posted by PB
Now what's that tape out? Anyone care to explain to the ignorant (me for example :rolleyes: )?


Back in the dark ages of electronics, technicians used what looked like black masking tape on a clear plastic sheet, mylar I believe. The tape came in different widths and it would represent, say, the conductive paths in an electronic circuit. This was first done to layout circuit boards, and a similar technique was used for early microcircuits on a chip. Now the design layout is done in a computer. I'm surprised that people are still using this term in some companies. I'm accustomed to calling it "layout."

[Smircle]

Originally posted by PB
Now what's that tape out? Anyone care to explain to the ignorant (me for example :rolleyes: )?

Basically the point in time, where a chip design is finalized and lithographic masks are created (this used to be done with photographic film - "tape"). After this step, the design is tested, debugged, and optimized.

Call it an alpha stage if you like to compare it to software.

[tink]

65nm even at this early stage is impressive especially given the difficulties Chimpzilla seems to be having with the 90nm.

Having all this development energy around the PowerPC is extremely nice.
A couple of years ago it seemed like the only development besides the Power4's was from Motorola and they were starting to look pretty anemic, even in the the embedded space.

It seems like all of a sudden we have unreal momentum with the PowerPC.
We have the Fabs, the brains and the funding to pump out powerful, efficient, inexpensive custom PowerPC chips tailored for Multimedia, Graphics and 3D and backed by some of the biggest names/pockets in the industry.

Isn't that nice!:D

:devil: :devil: :devil:

[ZO]

Sony is going to use IBM??? I thought they just invested a few BILLION dollars to make their own fab for the PS3????

[kim kap sol]

Originally posted by Programmer
Considering there are people on Ars saying they have G5 Xserves already, the 970FXs do seem to be out there.

This is apparently horseshit...nobody's got G5 Xserves. Can you point out the thread on Ars about this?

[onlooker]

Originally posted by ZO
Sony is going to use IBM??? I thought they just invested a few BILLION dollars to make their own fab for the PS3????

The few billion was to IBM wasn't it.

As announced previously, both Sony and Microsoft will use technologies developed by IBM in microprocessors for next-generation of their gaming consoles

[jouster]

Originally posted by kim kap sol
This is apparently horseshit...nobody's got G5 Xserves. Can you point out the thread on Ars about this?

There are certainly a couple of posters on ars claiming to have one, though I think these were within other threads as opposed to being in threads of their own.

Of course, it's easy to claim whatever you want in a forum.

I'll see if I can dig 'em out when I get back from class.

[snoopy]

Originally posted by tink


. . . It seems like all of a sudden we have unreal momentum with the PowerPC. We have the Fabs, the brains and the funding to pump out powerful, efficient, inexpensive custom PowerPC chips tailored for Multimedia, Graphics and 3D and backed by some of the biggest names/pockets in the industry.

Isn't that nice!:D




It's been a long time since I last saw a discussion on "why Apple should switch to Intel." Nice change in climate.

[atomicham]

Originally posted by kim kap sol
This is apparently horseshit...nobody's got G5 Xserves. Can you point out the thread on Ars about this?

I am curious as well about these claims. We ordered an xServe soon after the announcement and our date (I just checked the order) is currently "on or before 3/31/04".

[onlooker]

Originally posted by atomicham
I am curious as well about these claims. We ordered an xServe soon after the announcement and our date (I just checked the order) is currently "on or before 3/31/04".

I don't think many people have them because Virginia Tech' is either still replacing the PowerMacs with Xserves, or just finished. I'll bet if you check that VT teachers blog you could easily find out how close Apple is to sending out those Xserves to the regular customers. :) I suppose the date you have is probably correct for yours considering Apple has been hard at work filling that first order (again).

[oldmacfan]

Everyone should keep in mind that Apple and IBM are in the process of developing 2 lines of PPC at the same time. So they can catch up to Intel/AMD. This has been common knowledge for some time.

[onlooker]

Originally posted by oldmacfan
Everyone should keep in mind that Apple and IBM are in the process of developing 2 lines of PPC at the same time. So they can catch up to Intel/AMD. This has been common knowledge for some time.

Did IBM mention that they were going to keep doing that at some point? Developing 2 lines for Apple simultaneously that is. I ask that because all I recall personally was that IBM had that 130nm fab running somewhere, and then there was fishkill which would be the 90nm fab, but it (fishkill) was new at the time I thought.

[oldmacfan]

Originally posted by onlooker
Did IBM mention that they were going to keep doing that at some point? Developing 2 lines for Apple simultaneously that is. I ask that because all I recall personally was that IBM had that 130nm fab running somewhere, and then there was fishkill which would be the 90nm fab, but it (fishkill) was new at the time I thought.

I don't recall the exact details, it has been awhile, but I believe I got the information from this site or through this site. (link in the news or something). As far as I remember it was not about fab size per say, but about the next generataion (G6) and that Apple was funding the push.

[concentricity]

Originally posted by onlooker
Did IBM mention that they were going to keep doing that at some point? Developing 2 lines for Apple simultaneously that is. I ask that because all I recall personally was that IBM had that 130nm fab running somewhere, and then there was fishkill which would be the 90nm fab, but it (fishkill) was new at the time I thought.

2 lines, meaning PPC 97x and PPC 37x or something. not "production lines" or anything.

[Yankeedoodle]

This sounds incredible! Seems like Apple's horse is about to win the race! Way cool! :smokey:

[Socrates]

Originally posted by Yankeedoodle
This sounds incredible! Seems like Apple's horse is about to win the race! Way cool! :smokey:

Which race? The race for the fastest CPU you mean? Apple has been ahead in that race before, and no doubt will be again, but there is no "winning" in the race because the race never ends. Even Moors law still has a few years left in it, and who knows what will come after. Do you really think Intel will just throw up their hands and surrender because IBM manages to make a CPU a few MHz faster? Why would they, IBM hasn't even though they are currently outpaced by the Pentium and have been for years.

Or perhaps you mean the race for platform dominance, in which case it will take a lot more than fast CPU's to do that given that years of having a more stable and user friendly OS hasn't made much difference. And again, if the race is to be deemed "over" I think Intel won - all our hopes are pinned on the theory that the race will go on indefinitely.

Socrates

[willywalloo]

Originally posted by atomicham
I am curious as well about these claims. We ordered an xServe soon after the announcement and our date (I just checked the order) is currently "on or before 3/31/04".

>>I wouldn't put too much into that date. We just recieved an order (03.04.2004) that was supposed to arrive on or before the SAME DATE !

But you are dealing with the G5 Xserve ! As far as I've heard they are having problems getting those computers to a sellable state...though that pretty much describes every product ever made. There is always problems leading up to the actual ready-to-ship date.

-walloo.

[Yankeedoodle]

Originally posted by Socrates
Which race? The race for the fastest CPU you mean? Apple has been ahead in that race before, and no doubt will be again, but there is no "winning" in the race because the race never ends. Even Moors law still has a few years left in it, and who knows what will come after. Do you really think Intel will just throw up their hands and surrender because IBM manages to make a CPU a few MHz faster? Why would they, IBM hasn't even though they are currently outpaced by the Pentium and have been for years.

Or perhaps you mean the race for platform dominance, in which case it will take a lot more than fast CPU's to do that given that years of having a more stable and user friendly OS hasn't made much difference. And again, if the race is to be deemed "over" I think Intel won - all our hopes are pinned on the theory that the race will go on indefinitely.

Socrates

No, I mean the race about Apple's processor choice (IBM vs. Motorola vs. Intel). Apple is going to win in more than one aspect:

1. 65nm processors will run much faster and cooler and consume less power

2. 65nm processors can be used to make wicked fast PowerBooks

3. 65nm processors will be much cheaper (!), since lots more of them can be produced on one single silicium waver

4. Apple will gain reputation to have outrun the Intel side of the fence and will (truly) have the fastest Personal Computer in the world

5. Apple will gain reputation to deliver the fastest notebooks out there with long battery times

6. Apple will switch the entire product line to the G5 and will be able to lower its prices, since G5s will suddenly be much cheaper than G4 processors (130nm or 90nm) from Motorola


All in all, this looks pretty good for Apple. If Intel really gets stuck at its current speed and has problems to get those Prescotts out; Apple and IBM could be the big winners in this game in just some months time...

... I just like to see Apple win... Even if it's only for a limited time... Sorry if that is a sin... ;)

[PB]

Originally posted by Yankeedoodle
If Intel really gets stuck at its current speed and has problems to get those Prescotts out; Apple and IBM could be the big winners in this game in just some months time...

I doubt Intel would leave IBM alone in this race. Intel expects to be the first company to have 65 nm process in manufacturing by 2005 (http://www.reed-electronics.com/semiconductor/article/CA377723?stt=000&pubdate=2%2F1%2F04).

[msantti]

Its hard to believe we are talking about 65nm when it seems like Apple and IBM are barely getting 90nm chips out the door. :\

[KANE]

Originally posted by msantti
Its hard to believe we are talking about 65nm when it seems like Apple and IBM are barely getting 90nm chips out the door. :\

Such is the inevitable march of progress... ;)

[Tomb of the Unknown]

Originally posted by PB
I doubt Intel would leave IBM alone in this race. Intel expects to be the first company to have 65 nm process in manufacturing by 2005 (http://www.reed-electronics.com/semiconductor/article/CA377723?stt=000&pubdate=2%2F1%2F04).
The article you point to refers to Intel's development of a 65nm process which means they'd still have to develop a CPU design that works on that process. (As distinguished from producing memory chips or simple embedded processor designs.) If IBM truely has "taped out" a 65nm CPU they already have a process and could be in production of that processor in 6-9 mos (judging by the time the 90nm 970FX took from taping out). That would mean 65nm this year.

I think it's unlikely we'll see any complicated CPU designs from Intel until perhaps late 2005 (although they may have other designs in production before then).

[PB]

Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
The article you point to refers to Intel's development of a 65nm process which means they'd still have to develop a CPU design that works on that process.

Right, but I guess Intel has already in the works such a design. By the way, here (http://www.dvhardware.net/article1585.html) is an Intel-like roadmap delirium.

[willywalloo]

Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
The article you point to refers to Intel's development of a 65nm process which means they'd still have to develop a CPU design that works on that process. (As distinguished from producing memory chips or simple embedded processor designs.) If IBM truely has "taped out" a 65nm CPU they already have a process and could be in production of that processor in 6-9 mos (judging by the time the 90nm 970FX took from taping out). That would mean 65nm this year.

I think it's unlikely we'll see any complicated CPU designs from Intel until perhaps late 2005 (although they may have other designs in production before then).

But somehow, won't they still make it bigger, with more Mhz, and still use more power? Let's hope they back off that bandwagon, producing a chip that roughly .1 percent faster (BUT STILL BIGGER !)

-walloo.