News: IBM starts up new chip foundry
<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]" />
Hmmm ... wonder if this new plant could be making CPU's for Apple anytime soon? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Comments
<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.
<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?
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>
<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 ?
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.
"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...
1) A slower mhz processor with AltiVec or
2) A faster mhz processor without AtltiVec?
Just curious....
<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.
Face it kids: The new G5 is the G3+.
ting5
[ 07-31-2002: Message edited by: Yet Another Registration ]</p>
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>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.
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>
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>
[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>
<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
<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.