News: IBM starts up new chip foundry

banana nut breadbanana nut bread
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
<a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1001-947358.html"; target="_blank">http://news.com.com/2100-1001-947358.html</a>;



Hmmm ... wonder if this new plant could be making CPU's for Apple anytime soon? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
«134567

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 123
    aphelionaphelion Posts: 736member
    [quote]Originally posted by Banana Nut Bread:

    <strong><a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1001-947358.html"; target="_blank">http://news.com.com/2100-1001-947358.html</a>;



    Hmmm ... wonder if this new plant could be making CPU's for Apple anytime soon? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Interesting, they are already producing at .13 and plan to go to .09 soon. could they already be building the next generation processor for Apple? Power5?



    We'll all know sometime this coming month.
  • Reply 2 of 123
    yevgenyyevgeny Posts: 1,148member
    [quote]Originally posted by Aphelion:

    <strong>



    Interesting, they are already producing at .13 and plan to go to .09 soon. could they already be building the next generation processor for Apple? Power5?

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Forget that, I would settle for 0.9 micron G4's (and a really fast bus). Of course, Moto probably would not be too happy that IBM was making chips that wer completely superior to it.



    0.9 micron Sahara's anyone?
  • Reply 2 of 123
    macroninmacronin Posts: 1,174member
    Plain & Simple!



    Can anyone say Apple-designed / IBM-manufactured 64bit G5 PowerPC CPU...!?!



    Which means we are STILL dependant on Moto for the next few quarters, minimum.



    [ 07-31-2002: Message edited by: MacRonin ]</p>
  • Reply 4 of 123
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    Just read the article and came to start a thread about it and see u beat me to it. Gota say I am curious...it would be nice to have a G5 or a revised G4 at MWSF...but since there probably wouldn't be chips by then maybe MWNY?
  • Reply 5 of 123
    aphelionaphelion Posts: 736member
    [quote]Originally posted by ast3r3x:

    <strong>Just read the article and came to start a thread about it and see u beat me to it. Gota say I am curious...it would be nice to have a G5 or a revised G4 at MWSF...but since there probably wouldn't be chips by then maybe MWNY?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    They are already producing chips now and plan to go full capacity by early 2003. MWSF ?
  • Reply 6 of 123
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    My guess is that Motorola will continue to provide the G4 to Apple, but IBM will supply the G5 and beyond. It will have the Velocity Engine in it and standard PPC instructions. A custom chip, for now. I don't suspect the Velocity Engine is a big difficulty with Motorola.



    When Apple went with Motorola as a sole source supplier of the G4 processors, they surely got a contract for protection. If Motorola dropped the ball on providing a G5 in the proper time frame, Apple likely has the right to take the Velocity Engine to another vendor. Maybe Apple is stuck with Motorola for the G4, as long as they provide parts on time.
  • Reply 7 of 123
    rhumgodrhumgod Posts: 1,289member
    <a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2002/0624_xilinx.html"; target="_blank">OLD NEWS!</a>
  • Reply 8 of 123
    animaniacanimaniac Posts: 122member
    [quote]

    "We don't have the plans to have the production capacity they have. Rather we're focusing on the high end of the market...working with the cream of the crop," Davari said.

    <hr></blockquote>



    ... can anyone say POWER5...
  • Reply 9 of 123
    dualsduals Posts: 41member
    If you has a system with DDR Ram and fast system I/O, which would you rather have?

    1) A slower mhz processor with AltiVec or

    2) A faster mhz processor without AtltiVec?



    Just curious....
  • Reply 10 of 123
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    [quote]Originally posted by Duals:

    <strong>If you has a system with DDR Ram and fast system I/O, which would you rather have?

    1) A slower mhz processor with AltiVec or

    2) A faster mhz processor without AtltiVec?



    Just curious....</strong><hr></blockquote>



    With the coming of Quartz Xtream it might be better to have a faster processor without AltiVec since the new Quartz is offloading more of the graphics work to the GPU. The question is how much faster would the chip need to be to make it worth abandoning the technology which Apple has pushed developers to implement in their code, and this could put a bad tast in the developers mouth.
  • Reply 11 of 123
    firelarkfirelark Posts: 57member
    The altivec never became the hit apple wanted it to be. Few applications are using altivec and even fewer have full support for it.
  • Reply 12 of 123
    jet powersjet powers Posts: 288member
    If IBM made a 2 GHz Sahara with SMP capability and big-ass FSB, I'd tell Motorola to stuff a cork in their Altivec hole, and switch in a heartbeat.



    Face it kids: The new G5 is the G3+.



    ting5



    [ 07-31-2002: Message edited by: Yet Another Registration ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 123
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    What happens when G4s whip this G5's ass on altivec optimized code?



    I suspect Apple has the rights to Altivec, or will very soon when the option comes up for them to buy PPC copyrights from Moto. Then IBM can bolt Altivec onto their chips and we'll have a scorching G5.



    Hopefully it's not too little, too late.
  • Reply 14 of 123
    hobbeshobbes Posts: 1,252member
    [quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:

    <strong>What happens when G4s whip this G5's ass on altivec optimized code?



    I suspect Apple has the rights to Altivec, or will very soon when the option comes up for them to buy PPC copyrights from Moto. Then IBM can bolt Altivec onto their chips and we'll have a scorching G5.



    Hopefully it's not too little, too late.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Isn't the issue here political rather than technical? Motorola created AltiVec, so Apple has to convince them to sell it. While on the other side of the fence, IBM doesn't like AltiVec -- they didn't invent it, don't agree with the specialized philosophy behind it.



    If Apple can pull off all of the sweet-talkin' involved to make an AltiVec-enabled Power5-derived next-generation PPC chip happen, I'll be impressed.
  • Reply 15 of 123
    jet powersjet powers Posts: 288member
    IBM's roadmap does identify an unnamed SIMD thingamajig (sorry for the technical term) to be added to their PPC chip.







    I am convinced that the G5 is nothing more than a super G3 with a fat FSB, a new SIMD unit that can do Altivec (or altivec-like) work, goes up to 2 GHz, and will have a monster fullspeed L2.



    Maybe a Saraha on steroids:



    [code]

    ting5's lame-ass speculatin:

    Current Sahars design Super Sahara SWAG*

    1 GHz 2 GHz

    200 MHz FSB 400 MHz FSB

    512 Kb L2 full speed 1 MB L2 DDR

    no SIMD SIMD that does AltiVec and more



    * - SWAG - Scientific Wild-Assed Guess

    </pre><hr></blockquote>



    Yours truly,



    There is no G5 (except for the G3)



    [ 07-31-2002: Message edited by: Yet Another Registration ]</p>
  • Reply 16 of 123
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    A 2 gig G3 would be nice! Then...again...a dual core G3 would open a can of whoop ass on G4.



    Ting maybe right.



    (It's been one of the things I have thought about of late...oh...the irony...IBM shows Apple and Moto'...that...they...were wrong...all...along....)



    We'll see...



    Maybe our 'Power4' type chip is a dual core G3? Less cooling requirements?



    Ah...but what of the multi-processing questions?



    Lemon Bon Bon



    [ 07-31-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]



    [ 07-31-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]



    [ 07-31-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
  • Reply 17 of 123
    animaniacanimaniac Posts: 122member
    That road map also says that theirs a shipping Book E, PPC chip running at 500MHz + with DDR and PCI-X? ... I don't see such a chip...



    [quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:

    <strong>



    Ah...but what of the multi-processing questions?



    Lemon Bon Bon



    </strong><hr></blockquote>





    The road map shows SMP as a component.



    [ 07-31-2002: Message edited by: Animaniac ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 123
    mmicistmmicist Posts: 214member
    [quote]Originally posted by Hobbes:

    <strong>



    Isn't the issue here political rather than technical? Motorola created AltiVec, so Apple has to convince them to sell it. While on the other side of the fence, IBM doesn't like AltiVec -- they didn't invent it, don't agree with the specialized philosophy behind it.



    If Apple can pull off all of the sweet-talkin' involved to make an AltiVec-enabled Power5-derived next-generation PPC chip happen, I'll be impressed.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Not quite. Apple and Motorola developed AltiVec, Apple have rights to the instruction set, but not to Motorola's implementation of that instruction set.



    Michael
  • Reply 19 of 123
    agent cooperagent cooper Posts: 157member
    [quote]Originally posted by Duals:

    <strong>If you has a system with DDR Ram and fast system I/O, which would you rather have?

    1) A slower mhz processor with AltiVec or

    2) A faster mhz processor without AtltiVec?



    Just curious....</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Altivec, no question.



    Altivec makes my FCP happy, and my DVDSP very happy.
  • Reply 20 of 123
    macroninmacronin Posts: 1,174member
    Which is why Apple calls it the Velocity Engine, while Moto still calls it AltiVec...
Sign In or Register to comment.