POWER5 exists!
I'm pretty sure this hasn't been posted before - apparently the POWER5 does exist, not just as a concept but as early pre-production hardware. A few IBM engineers posted to a Linux/PowerPC mailing list about a week ago showing a boot log from such a pre-production machine. A few interesting things to note:
- This machine has over 1GB of memory attached to it (though for some reason naca->physicalMemorySize is set to something much smaller than that - strange.)
- This is an SMP kernel
- It's CHRP - are existing POWER4 machines CHRP? Other machines of theirs probably are (such as their 604e-based workstations; my Motorola Powerstack 604 is CHRP).
EDIT - there's a good InfoWorld article on the POWER5 at http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/...ibmroad_1.html - may have already been mentioned, but I'll provide it again anyway. From the article:
"We looked hard at the future roadmaps, and we believe strongly that we have the answer in Power technology. The [IBM] xSeries team has an Itanium box, and we are out to make sure Itanium doesn't survive."
I forgot to include the log! http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linu...1921406815&w=2
- This machine has over 1GB of memory attached to it (though for some reason naca->physicalMemorySize is set to something much smaller than that - strange.)
- This is an SMP kernel
- It's CHRP - are existing POWER4 machines CHRP? Other machines of theirs probably are (such as their 604e-based workstations; my Motorola Powerstack 604 is CHRP).
EDIT - there's a good InfoWorld article on the POWER5 at http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/...ibmroad_1.html - may have already been mentioned, but I'll provide it again anyway. From the article:
"We looked hard at the future roadmaps, and we believe strongly that we have the answer in Power technology. The [IBM] xSeries team has an Itanium box, and we are out to make sure Itanium doesn't survive."
I forgot to include the log! http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linu...1921406815&w=2
Comments
I don't know about CHRP but from what i've read
it's already booting a kernel or Assembly
Supports 2 cores with SMT to each core.
IBM claims it's up to 4x faster than teh POWER4
It should scale from Midrange Workstation/Server on up to high end.
Originally posted by Placebo
Exciting! No chance of this hitting the Mac market, though. And if it does, my money won' amoun' to nuttin.
Take heart 'o Placebo ... the Power5 is apparently the chip of our whacky mac dreams ...
It's supposed to be everything the Power4 was, just a whole lot faster and far more scaleable; in other words, without much modification, it's supposed to fit just fine in everything from blades, and all the way up to the big iron.
So ...
... if anything we're hearing from the preliminary info is correct, scaling the Power5 into a Mac will be far far less of an issue than scaling the Power4 was.
in leiu of a smug emoticon, this will have to do ->
Originally posted by OverToasty
scaling the Power5 into a Mac will be far far less of an issue than scaling the Power4 was.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the PowerN chips are not PowerPC compatible, and therefore wouldn't that require a complete re-write of the OS?
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Correct me if I am wrong, but the PowerN chips are not PowerPC compatible, and therefore wouldn't that require a complete re-write of the OS?
No, I'm pretty sure they Power4 and 5 are PowerPC compatible (somebody around here will definitely know for sure) ... even though the Power4 didn't have altivec ....
As far as I know - vis the Power4 - it wasn't the chip itself that was incompatible per se, it was the entire support structure beyond it ... for instance, Apple simply didn't have a Mobo to support a Power4, thus, no OSX on a Power4 - but that wasn't the chips fault.
As for rewriting the OS? Nah, there'll definitely be some tuning to get to 64bit clean OSwise, but a re-write? Definitely not.
"We looked hard at the future roadmaps, and we believe strongly that we have the answer in Power technology. The [IBM] xSeries team has an Itanium box, and we are out to make sure Itanium doesn't survive."
Hope they actually mean this, and that it isn't just marketing talk.
Originally posted by OverToasty
Take heart 'o Placebo ... the Power5 is apparently the chip of our whacky mac dreams ...
It's supposed to be everything the Power4 was, just a whole lot faster and far more scaleable; in other words, without much modification, it's supposed to fit just fine in everything from blades, and all the way up to the big iron.
So ...
... if anything we're hearing from the preliminary info is correct, scaling the Power5 into a Mac will be far far less of an issue than scaling the Power4 was.
in leiu of a smug emoticon, this will have to do ->
But will they put the Power5 in a mac? I think the Power5 derived chip, the 980, is a likelier candidate for the mac.
Originally posted by Henriok
Apple just might have had OSX running on machines powered by Power-processors for several years by now.
And there's still a chance we'll see Power5 in Apple's products.
Originally posted by OverToasty
No, I'm pretty sure they Power4 and 5 are PowerPC compatible (somebody around here will definitely know for sure) ... even though the Power4 didn't have altivec ....
As far as I know - vis the Power4 - it wasn't the chip itself that was incompatible per se, it was the entire support structure beyond it ... for instance, Apple simply didn't have a Mobo to support a Power4, thus, no OSX on a Power4 - but that wasn't the chips fault.
As for rewriting the OS? Nah, there'll definitely be some tuning to get to 64bit clean OSwise, but a re-write? Definitely not.
Yes, the Power4 and 5 series are PowerPC compatible, the POWER ISA is a superset of the PowerPC ISA, which means POWER is everything PowerPC is, plus a little more.
The Power4 chip, or it's structure isn't incompatible with the mac (Apple had/have to make a new mobo for the PPC970 too), but the Power4 is an expensive server chip, and not suited for the desktop market (for example, reliability is much more important for the servers, thus IBM uses more reliable, but also "slower" technology to produce the Power4, compared to the 970). To make a Power4-chip suited for the desktop, they redesigned it, added some (higher clock-frequency, Altivec, probably on Apple's request, but I have little to back that up), removed some (dual cores, L3) and ended up with something that is a much more effective solution to the performance-problems on the desktop PowerPC platform, than the Power4.
Altivec has little with compatibility to do, it's just "a little extra snack"
And yes, to support the 64-bit chip the PPC970 is, they have to tune the OS (I guess the kernel), but there is no need for anything that's even near a complete rewrite.
The Power5 is IBM's next generation (5th) PowerPC Server chip. Just like the Power4 - has been specifically designed for this business, mission critical reliable high end server applications - and thus totally overengineered for any form of desktop use. That aside like the 970 which is a Power4 desktop derivative (with Altivc added), the 980 is destined to be the desktop version of the Power5.
If they can get the 980 to outperform the 970 like the Power5 over the Power4, which IBM claims to be up to 4 times faster, do the math!. The 970 is probably twice as fast as a G4.
Obviously, we will need the 980 to be dual core/smt, etc, etc for that performence assumptions to be translated. Still with debut clock rates around 3GHz+, DP's running Maya/Shake/FCP/Cinema, Im betting that Apple will be the platform of choice for the Film/TV market. OK, back to reality - what do you mean 970 PowerMacs dont exist?.
Originally posted by hasapi
Power5 in a Mac? Ahhh..... no!
The Power5 is IBM's next generation (5th) PowerPC Server chip. Just like the Power4 - has been specifically designed for this business, mission critical reliable high end server applications - and thus totally overengineered for any form of desktop use. That aside like the 970 which is a Power4 desktop derivative (with Altivc added), the 980 is destined to be the desktop version of the Power5.
Apple doesn't make desktops only. There are servers as well.
Originally posted by hasapi
OK, back to reality - what do you mean 970 PowerMacs dont exist?.
I have seen, with my own eyes, more than 1000 PowerMacs through my life.
-walloo.
Originally posted by willywalloo
Why does IBM all of the sudden support Alti-vec, is it because they've seen the progress of the G4 add-on and finally like it?
Because it pulls 18 GFLOPS per processor @ 1.8 GHz.. Thats ALOT och computing power..
.. and Apple asked them to
Originally posted by willywalloo
Why does IBM all of the sudden support Alti-vec, is it because they've seen the progress of the G4 add-on and finally like it?
-walloo.
1) They own some rights to the technology
2) They're producing a serious, high-performance desktop/entry-level processor (and they did not do that until now), and such processors "needs" a kick-ass SIMD unit
3) Altivec is really, really kick-ass, when the code is properly optimized, and it is not strangled by the FSB (like on the G4) or other bottlenecks
4) Like vinney57 said, Apple probably asked them to, and showed them some goodie goodie money
Originally posted by RBR
IBM is in a hurry to get the Power 5/980 chips out as there are manufacturing as well as performance advantages over the Power 4/970 chips.
970 is here this year. 980 won't be here for some years. IBM hasn't made any public anouncment when they intend to ship the slimmed down version of Power 5 AFAIK. It might not be here until 2005 or even later.. But til then we just might enjoy 970+ © 3 GHz or more, and that's good enough for me. Very much so!
Originally posted by Henriok
970 is here this year. 980 won't be here for some years. IBM hasn't made any public anouncment when they intend to ship the slimmed down version of Power 5 AFAIK. It might not be here until 2005 or even later.. But til then we just might enjoy 970+ © 3 GHz or more, and that's good enough for me. Very much so!
The 980 is projected for next year. If Apple fools around too long the 970 will be yesterday's news.
Originally posted by RBR
The 980 is projected for next year. If Apple fools around too long the 970 will be yesterday's news.
I don't think so. IBM has not officially stated anything about POWER5 derivatives.
My personal thoughts are we see the 980 by 2H 2005. That gives us roughly a minimum of 3 970 cycles before moving on. The 970 then would be in the whole Mac lineup by the time the 980 hits adding the needed differentiation.
<edit> added "not" thank Henriok.