or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › AbSoft Is Looking For A G5 Compiler Engineer
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AbSoft Is Looking For A G5 Compiler Engineer - Page 2

post #41 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>What does Absoft have to do with the release of the G5?</strong><hr></blockquote>

see, absolutely nothing.
So why the f*ck is everybody taking it as an evidence of the G5 being released soon?
It means absolutely nothing in terms of the release date of the G5.
The same people collecting the "evidence" will bitch the loudest when the G5 is not making it´s way to the next PowerMac update.


bye.
post #42 of 76
Ignorance is bliss...
Itanium machines have been shipping (as servers, not for the normal people) for almost a year now. Their performance has been very bad and thus you never heard about them much, and they may have been halted by now, waiting for improvements in design and speed.

Coding for a chip requires that the design for the chip is so called "taped out", ie frozen,mand won't be changed until the next revision. as soon as a chip is taped out, there is also physical material available, at least in sample quantities, most certainly running into production right away.
Also, you can't make a compiler for a Virtual chip, at least a working prototype is always needed. Just loojk at BitBoys OY, the company that claimed it was going to revolutionize the graphics card market. They never hard any silicon to do with, they used a complete PC in emulation mode to "emulate" the graphics card. Things have been silent about them since they went belly up about 1.5 years ago.

The Apollo is coming, that has been officially confirmed more than once, and it's logical. However that does not mean it's going to be used in PowerMacs, or any Macs at all. Some of you probably remember IBM's 620 chip back in the days of the 603 and 604. That chip as NEVER used in any retailed Mac, although it was by far the fastest chip of the whole 6xx family. IBM used it for their servers.

The Book E architecture has been there for a long time already, way enough time to develop the G5 to a level that may well have reached mass production by now. the transition to the 8xxx naming doesn'tmean anything either.

G1/G2 also had a 6xx naming, G3/G4 had a 7xx/x naming, so why not have the G5/G6 have a 8xxx naming scheme? Also who tells you Apple hasn't already started developing their version of the G5 themselves. Just because we never heard about an agreement between Apple and motorola, doesn't mean there never was one.

Concluding, all arguments speaking AGAINST a near release of the G5 (within 6-10 months), have failed to convince, an are basically based on a stubborn thought of some people here, while arguments speaking towards the release have shaped up more and more and are starting to go beyond the level of rumors, more to the level of facts.

I don't be getting specific on any of the claims made, I'll just wait and see. Watch for my LOL @ suckfuldotcom, as soon as the G5 has arrived.

G-News
Matyoroy!
Reply
Matyoroy!
Reply
post #43 of 76
[quote]Some of you probably remember IBM's 620 chip back in the days of the 603 and 604. That chip as NEVER used in any retailed Mac, although it was by far the fastest chip of the whole 6xx family. IBM used it for their servers.<hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

as far as my dudeness knows, the 620 never saw the light of the day. there were no computers at all with this chip.
gimme some prove, g-news. until then, i stick to my story.
post #44 of 76
[quote]

Also, you can't make a compiler for a Virtual chip, at least a working prototype is always needed. [/QB]<hr></blockquote>

Well, I guess yoou are not a computer scientist...

Anyway, it could be that they are going to make a 32 bit compiler ( for the e500 core ).
post #45 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by G-News:
<strong>a near release of the G5 (within 6-10 months)</strong><hr></blockquote>


´cept for: that is not a near release, at least not in the sense of most of the optimist here (who vote for a Feb./March release).
6-10 month is quite realistic.


bye.
post #46 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Strangelove:
<strong>

you all do know that ibm has a g4/g5/g6 line of computers/processors which is totally unrelated to anything from apple/motorola?
so, if our friend amir talks about his career and the g5, he certainly isn't talking about our g5.

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Strangelove ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, read the page, he was at the time employed at the Somerset facility, which is the PowerPC design centre.

Michael
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
post #47 of 76
[quote]The same people collecting the "evidence" will bitch the loudest when the G5 is not making it´s way to the next PowerMac update.
<hr></blockquote>

I've been collecting "evidence" on the G5 since November. I've got a list of references in my bookmarks. And you will notice that I didn't bitch at all when the Powermacs were not updated at MWSF.

I can't stand the way some people here feel the need to bitch and complain about how some OTHER people here supposedly "whine". In reality, most whining is constructive criticism of Apple's products or strategy. When you love a computer as much as we all love Macs, you want to see Apple do more than just stay alive. We want to see Apple thrive, to grow and innovate.
post #48 of 76
Evidence of usage of the 620...

<a href="http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/news/0408/08ppc62.html" target="_blank">http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/news/0408/08ppc62.html</a>

I'd also think that Apple has a couple of these in their labs -- it would have made a good test machine for a 64-bit OS well before an G5 showed up.


As for the comment that you can build a "virtual machine" to test compilers against... this is true for basic functionality, but Absoft has had a PowerPC compiler for ages so they already have the basic ISA functionality. For any real performance work you need real hardware to test on because an emulated machine's performance characteristics never match the real hardware's. I don't remember Absoft beating a real machine out the door, either.

That said, the Absoft ad isn't particuarly compelling... it doesn't give us any indication of timeframe, just that 3rd party developers have prototype hardware which only the most skeptical didn't already believe.

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Programmer ]</p>
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #49 of 76
[quote]Evidence of usage of the 620...

<a href="http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/news/0408/08ppc62.html" target="_blank">http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/news/0408/08ppc62.html</a><hr></blockquote>

yeah...when i said "never seen the light of the day" i rather meant the chip was never commercially sold. sure there were protos...whatever...who gives a shit nowadays... :cool:

however, you may have a point here:

[quote]No, read the page, he was at the time employed at the Somerset facility, which is the PowerPC design centre.<hr></blockquote>

"you may have" and not flat out "you have" because ibm was designing fish and chips for themselves too at somerset. smells fishy..

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Strangelove ]</p>
post #50 of 76
The 620 was indeed used in commercial machines.... Bull computers in france made rs/6000 clones. Some used the 620 chip. <a href="http://www-frec.bull.fr/" target="_blank">http://www-frec.bull.fr/</a>
post #51 of 76
post #52 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>I can't stand the way some people here feel the need to bitch and complain about how some OTHER people here supposedly "whine".</strong><hr></blockquote>


that is not quite my point.
I say if you cut yourself in the arm don´t blame the knife, that´s all.


bye.
post #53 of 76
Oh, sorry.

I lumped you in with some others here and I shouldn't have. I guess I was just fed up with a particular person's post style, and your's reminded me of it and I went off on you when I shouldn't have. My apologies. You were making a good point.
post #54 of 76
No problem, i´ll try and change my style a bit too. .
After all very few people know for real what the deal with the G5 is. So speculating and looking for infos is all that is left for us.


bye.
post #55 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by G-News:
<strong>Ignorance is bliss...
Itanium machines have been shipping (as servers, not for the normal people) for almost a year now.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

OK, got me, sorry 'bout that.


[quote]<strong>
the transition to the 8xxx naming doesn'tmean anything either.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why then rename it?


[quote]<strong>
G1/G2 also had a 6xx naming, G3/G4 had a 7xx/x naming, so why not have the G5/G6 have a 8xxx naming scheme?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

From Moto's website:
PowerPC ISA -&gt; Products:
"MPC7XXX, MPC7XX, and MPC6XX Host Processors"
"MPC8XXX Integrated Host Processors"


[quote]<strong>
Also who tells you Apple hasn't already started developing their version of the G5 themselves. Just because we never heard about an agreement between Apple and motorola, doesn't mean there never was one.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

This might be the case, but I know of no serious hints leading to that conclusion.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #56 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by suckfuldotcom:
<strong>

This is from hmurchison in a different thread.

In other words, there is no difference between coding for G4 or G5.

Ergo, there is no difference between a G4 coder and a G5 coder.

Ergo, the alleged 'need' for G5 coders because of the imminent release of the G5 is nonsensical.

Ergo, we have to state that there continues to be no good evidence of an imminent release of the G5, whereas the evidence behind the Apollo continues to mount.

Ergo, despite all of the Tinkerbell Effect (if you wish hard enough....) in the world, the G5 will continue to be seriously in-the-future tech.

You know what?

I'd like to be wrong about the G5. I really would.

But I'm not.

Say hello to Apollo, kids! 'Cuz here it comes!

SdC</strong><hr></blockquote>

I have done machine level programming for MOS, Zilog and Motorola processors. In my eyes your statement proves that you don't have the slightest idea about processor design.

There are even noticable differences between the 7400 and the 7450, due to the longer pipeline for example, the L2 cache and more. A G4/7400 compiler will never generate optimum code for a 7450 unless you tell your compiler how to create better code for it.

Application code compiled for the G4 will run without changements on the G5 (in 32 bit mode, as far as reported), but as soon as you wish to generate code that's really optimized you will have to use (or write) a compiler that knows about the G5's pipeline, cache,... Maybe you also wish to add 64 bit support to your compiler.

Compiling an OS is even more special, as most processors offer instructions that can only be used in a special mode reserved for the OS. Usually there are changements in this area if you pass from one chip generation to another.
post #57 of 76
Did anyone see that news about Linux being the first OS ported to that new Intel Itanium (sp?) CPU. Itanium wasn't even out to developers yet but because they had a good emulator they were able to get a first pass Linux compiled for it. That was months ago and still the Itanium a while off.

AbSoft maybe to working on a compiler or an emulator to aid people getting ready for the G5. We all know the G5 is coming but I'm not sure this news helps us to know when.
post #58 of 76
As far as I know...

... Apple didn't use the PowerPC 620 because of:
1. it's high price compared to the 604
2. fpu performance was about 50% higher compared to 604, but integer performance was not much higher.
3. There was no 64 bit support in the OS

... only 3400 Itanium systems were sold in 2001 (all other machines were prototypes or demo units).
post #59 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>Did anyone see that news about Linux being the first OS ported to that new Intel Itanium (sp?) CPU.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is correct. Intel had a quite good cpu simulator that was reliable enough to run an entire OS. I worked with some 8 and 16 bit cpu simulators a long time ago, but unfortunately not enough to be able to provide useful information here...

Check out the Linux for 64 bit PowerPC page:

<a href="http://www.linuxppc64.org" target="_blank">www.linuxppc64.org</a>
post #60 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>

You did realize the "for Intel's IA64 (Itanium)" part, right?
Seen any shipping or near-shipping IA64 systems lately?

Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>

IBM Intellistation Z Pro

<a href="http://www.sgi.com/workstations/750/" target="_blank">SGI 750</a>

<a href="http://www.hp.com/products1/itanium/servers_workstations/index.html" target="_blank">HP Itanium workstations and servers</a>
post #61 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>

Seen any shipping or near-shipping IA64 systems lately?

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, and they were benchmarking them over in the Ars Battlefront forum using ArsBench.

To put it bluntly, their performance was shockingly bad. IIRC, I think my Powerbook G3 250 narrowly beat out the Itanium they were testing.

Looks to me like EPIC is a bust. Depending on the compiler for all of your prediction and instruction scheduling never made to much sense to me.
post #62 of 76
OK, let's talk about some more facts then.

Many people here know about MrNSX from Ars Technica forums, and some of the stuff he's said in the past over there. For those who don't know, he works for ATI, 'nuff said.

This is what he said in a reply to a thread titled "estimation of real G5 benefits? MrNSX?" in October 13, 2001:

<strong> "Well there's multiple new CPU's in the works from both Motorola and IBM. Unfortunately I don't have a lot of in-depth details on most of these designs, and what information I do know, I can't share due to NDA. Suffice to say that pipelines are being lengthened and code will need to be recompiled to take full advantage of the new CPU's. HOWEVER, existing code will also run better due to having more instructions in-flight and less dispatch/resource restrictions. Sorry for being necessarily vague." </strong>

Even people who say there is no G5, all there will ever be is a G4 Apollo
know that the Apollo is supposed to just be a G4+ built with SOI and thus able to be clocked higher. It shouldn't have an entirely redesigned pipeline, or need recompiling of applications to take advantage of its features. We're talking about new chips here.

As far as I know, MrNSX develops drivers for Macintosh products at ATI. This means that he would have nothing to do with an embedded PPC G5 that Motorola is developing.
post #63 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by timortis:
<strong>OK, let's talk about some more facts then.

As far as I know, MrNSX develops drivers for Macintosh products at ATI. This means that he would have nothing to do with an embedded PPC G5 that Motorola is developing.</strong><hr></blockquote>

MrNSX also get's prerelease machines to work worth. Having said, that he is not one to spill the beans, other than "good things are coming."
post #64 of 76
News Flash

Regardless of whatever MrNSX or whoever else wants to believe ATI is so close to being completely out of the Apple picture and it's their own doing. For years their drivers sucked and then when nVidia enters the picture it lights a fire under all of their asses and they start writing drivers, and then they issue a press release a week before a MacWorld show including the products Jobs plans on releasing?!?!? As soon as nVidia makes a mobile chip that will not drain the battery in 15 minutes you can bet your ass that ATI is out the door.
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
post #65 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Bodhi:
<strong>News Flash

Regardless of whatever MrNSX or whoever else wants to believe ATI is so close to being completely out of the Apple picture and it's their own doing. For years their drivers sucked and then when nVidia enters the picture it lights a fire under all of their asses and they start writing drivers, and then they issue a press release a week before a MacWorld show including the products Jobs plans on releasing?!?!? As soon as nVidia makes a mobile chip that will not drain the battery in 15 minutes you can bet your ass that ATI is out the door.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is completely irrelevant. What matters is that here we have some info from the mouth of someone who definitely has access to pre-release hardware and he's saying the chips aren't just Apollo's, ie 7450's built on a new process. He's saying they have different pipelines, and will require recompiling to fully utilise their potential. This means he's talking about a new core. How much more proof do people need that there are other things out there than the MPC 7460?
post #66 of 76
Just a minute this is an ad for Future processors.

It tells us nothing.
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
post #67 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by JW Pepper:
<strong>Just a minute this is an ad for Future processors.

It tells us nothing.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It tells us a lot. It's yet another reference to a processor some people claim doesn't exist.

In fact, some people have really short attention spans and bad long-term memory it seems. Here's a <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2336967,00.html" target="_blank">ZdNet article</a> from all the way back in 1999 when the G4 was fresh off the silicon plant. It's talking about the 64 bit G5 that's supposed to compete with Intel's Merced. People act like all this stuff about about the G5 was just rumors from MOSR, when this is not a new story in any way.

Use some common sense. Since the G4 came out in 1999. AMD came out with the Athlon, and this year they're about to launch their 64 bit Hammer series. They've had enough time to design an extension to the X86 ISA, whereas the PPC ISA already supports 64 bits and does not need to be redesigned or extended. It is absolutely ridiculous to assume that all Motorola's PPC design team was able to do in 3 years was slightly modify the MPC 7400 core to create 7450 and then add SOI to that to make the 7460 (Apollo). They must be eating a lot of donuts and taking a lot of coffee breaks I guess.
post #68 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by timortis:
<strong>

I'd say there's overwhelming evidence that the G5 has been in development for a very long time.

<a href="http://www.amir.com/amir/vita.html" target="_blank">http://www.amir.com/amir/vita.html</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
One thing that nobody's pointed out yet is the DATE on the ARTICLE that timortis posted above... although that the page was made sometime last year ( I think that someone said that it was 11/01) The date that he says that the G4/G5 project that he was working on finishes is 2/02... hmmmm.... that oh! NEXT MONTH! ~The same dates that were looking at for the update to the PowerMac line... I think that that's pretty revealing in itself.
My comic, <a href="http://www.rhcomic.com" target="_blank">Reality High </a> has more hits from AppleInsider than anywhere else. Thanks for supporting your fellow mac artist!
Later Days!
Reply
My comic, <a href="http://www.rhcomic.com" target="_blank">Reality High </a> has more hits from AppleInsider than anywhere else. Thanks for supporting your fellow mac artist!
Later Days!
Reply
post #69 of 76
I suggest you read that again -- he said that he worked on it until Feb 2000, and since then he's been in the IBM PPC44x group working on embedded processors.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #70 of 76
I really don't think anybody contends the G5 doesn't exist. The contention is when, and with what specifications, it will appear in an Apple computer.

Personally, I'm betting on very late 2002 or early 2003. Hope I'm wrong, but well that's my uninfomed and outsider info.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #71 of 76
I must admit this is one of the more compelling arguments I've seen in this forum over the last couple years. At least there is some form of evidence on both sides and people seem to be trying to put two and two together. I honestly don't know what to believe but it makes perfect sense to me that even if the G5 isn't about to be released, that information about prototypes and job postings specific to the new architecture will be seen before the release. Hence, seeind job ads != a near-term release. Not necessarily.

We simply don't know how many of these ads are placed by companies that are late to the game (which would favor a sooner release) vs. those who are getting an early jump on things (which would favor a later release). All it tells us really is what we already know - there are some companies out there that have working prototypes. That's still a little vague to use it as a basis for statements of imminent release of a product....

One thing I'm wondering though...does Apple have the legal right to bar 3rd party partners from using the terms "G5" or "PPC 8xxx" or other similar terms that would could tip people off about future power macs? In other words, can Apple say "you cannot divulge the existence of this processor, either directly or by implication, whether you're hiring engineers for it or not"?

Further, if these companies are looking for people with G5 expertise, where in the hell would these people come from...Motorola? Surely there aren't any publcations which detail the spec at a low leve, so how could anyone hope to find experts on said spec?

Kind of a chicken and egg thing. Sometimes I wonder if some of these companies aren't just yanking our chains. I think someone should actually send in an e-mail and pretend to apply for that compiler job or one of other others, and see what response they get.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #72 of 76
I'm gonna play a game that Apple played when rumors of the G4 chip came to a head.

"Apple will be shipping G5 based systems in 2003"

Anyone remember when Apple used that line (using G4 instead of G5)? I think it was the Summer before the G4 intro. Anyway people on the message boards were SO upset... I kept telling them that the statement didn't mean a dern thing since Apple *could* release a G4 based system this year and the statement that was made would still be true... Nobody would listen and the bitching moaning and complaining continued.. Fall of that year the G4 was released.

So anyway, my prediction stands and I know that I'm gonna be right!

Dave "wishing for a G5 betting on a G4+" Gee

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #73 of 76
i am cutting brushed aluminum cases now.

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: kim kap sol ]</p>
post #74 of 76
Suckful,

Gee, it looks like you are getting kind of beat up on this thread. As Mr. Spock would say : " Why not yield to the logic of the situation? "
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #75 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by kim kap sol:
<strong>i am cutting brushed aluminum cases now.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Was this meant to be one of those "hey , if I make a cryptic statement, will you buy into the idea that I might have insider information" comments...or are you perhaps trying to tell us that Apple is redesigning the pro case to have the QT / iTunes / iPhoto look? Either way I'm inclined to think you're full of poop.

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #76 of 76
[quote]Originally posted by Moogs ?:
<strong>


Was this meant to be one of those "hey , if I make a cryptic statement, will you buy into the idea that I might have insider information" comments...or are you perhaps trying to tell us that Apple is redesigning the pro case to have the QT / iTunes / iPhoto look? Either way I'm inclined to think you're full of poop.

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's a riff on the old "I am making plastics now!" joke of his that has a long and... long history here at AI.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › AbSoft Is Looking For A G5 Compiler Engineer