<strong>Which is why Apple calls it the Velocity Engine, while Moto still calls it AltiVec...</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, Apple could walk on over to IBM with the instruction seta nd they could have devised their own implimentation? therefore Velocity engine on Power4/5 PPC?
I think we really need to end our "love affair" with a POWER4/5 chip. It's highly unlikely looking at the PPC roadmap. TING5's insight on a uber-G3 is far more likely, and honestly, I'd like a such a chip a lot more than a bulky, excessive POWER chip.
<strong>I think we really need to end our "love affair" with a POWER4/5 chip. It's highly unlikely looking at the PPC roadmap. TING5's insight on a uber-G3 is far more likely, and honestly, I'd like a such a chip a lot more than a bulky, excessive POWER chip.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is somewhat off topic but I read in another forum that the power4 is basically 2 G3 like cores with a high speed bus and lots of high speed cache. I have not confirmed this but if true, I don't want to go backwards (ie, g3).
Any hardware geeks out there that can verify this?
This looks very good. I hadn't seen IBM's PowerPC roadmap til just now. And there is that SIMD Engine, and SMP. These two features distinguish it as a G4, do they not? Whatever Apple calls it, it can replace the G4 from Motorola. Hopefully it is much faster, and can stay competitive. The comment about Apple calling the G4 SIMD the Velocity Engine based just on the instruction set may be right on. Who cares about implementation details.
So what about the G5? When does Apple get a 64 bit PPC processor from IBM? I see nothing in the roadmap that shows 64 bit architecture. What does it take to be competitive with SGI workstations running really high end video applications?
Out of curiosity, what makes you all so sure IBM can just go ahead and deliver processors with clock rates far exceeding Motorola's offerings?
As it stands today, the supposedly oh-so-highly-clockable G3 is stuck at around 700MHz, whereas Moto don't seem to have too much of a problem delivering enough 1GHz G4s for Apple's top-of-the-line model. And the Power4 isn't exactly the clockrate-monster either.
So I kinda wonder, what is this firm belief in IBM being able to produce super-high-clockrate chips based on?
Lots of wacky comments in this thread, that's for sure.
- IBM's current G3 core is intended for low-power uses and has a fairly short pipeline, so it is doubtful that it will scale to the clock rates mentioned.
- The POWER4 architecture is fundamentally different in that it takes the PowerPC instructions "cracks" them into internal operations and feeds them to a long pipelined core. This has much more potential for higher clock rates, and the design can made made more superscalar. Theoretically at least, the VelocityEngine SIMD instructions could be added by either adding SIMD support to the internal core, or cracking them instructions into their compontent parts.
- The POWER4 core has nothing to do with the G3 core. The POWER4 core ships in pairs on a single silicon die with a transistor count of ~170 million. With some streamlining and simplification, re-orienting it for a desktop processor, this is not outside the realm of possibility for a next generation processor! Look at ATI's R300 -- 108 million on a 0.15 micron process! IBM will be delivering sub-0.13 micron next year.
- The POWER4 (and possibly POWER5) will likely never show up in an Apple machine, but that doesn't mean the lessons & technology gleaned from the POWERx line won't be applied to the next generation (i.e. G5) processor for Apple. A new superfast core is much more likely to be based on a modern POWER4-style architecture than on the fairly old G3-style architecture.
- The POWERx is already 64-bit, the G3 is 32-bit. There is no mention of 64-bit on IBM's PowerPC roadmap. The PowerPC roadmap is seperate from the POWERx roadmap. They are compatible architectures, however, and Apple's high end processor could be derived from either. The POWERx lineup is more promising in this department, however.
- Velocity Engine could be added to both and Apple could use both. iMac, iBook, eMac, and PowerBook would probably use the low power chip. PowerMac and Xserve would probably use the G5. SIMD is not a flash-in-the-pan and it is in all major CPU architectures. IBM seems to have finally come around on this score and I expect we'll see Velocity Engines in future IBM processors for Apple.
- The situation is far more complex that this... but if I can have a lower MHz w/ AltiVec and a higher degree of superscalar design, then I'll take the lower clock rate chip... and it'll most likely stomp all over the higher clock rate chip. Note also that AltiVec is probably not the reason for the lower clock rate, so this isn't even the right tradeoff to be looking at.
[quote]- The POWER4 core has nothing to do with the G3 core. The POWER4 core ships in pairs on a single silicon die with a transistor count of ~170 million. With some streamlining and simplification, re-orienting it for a desktop processor, this is not outside the realm of possibility for a next generation processor! Look at ATI's R300 -- 108 million on a 0.15 micron process! IBM will be delivering sub-0.13 micron next year.<hr></blockquote>
Yup
[quote]
- The POWER4 (and possibly POWER5) will likely never show up in an Apple machine, but that doesn't mean the lessons & technology gleaned from the POWERx line won't be applied to the next generation (i.e. G5) processor for Apple. A new superfast core is much more likely to be based on a modern POWER4-style architecture than on the fairly old G3-style architecture.
<hr></blockquote>
The POWER5 will likely resemble the IBM-Apple part as much as the POWER4.
[quote]
- The POWERx is already 64-bit, the G3 is 32-bit. There is no mention of 64-bit on IBM's PowerPC roadmap. The PowerPC roadmap is seperate from the POWERx roadmap. They are compatible architectures, however, and Apple's high end processor could be derived from either. The POWERx lineup is more promising in this department, however.<hr></blockquote>
It will be intersting if (A) Apple even has an interest in big iron or (B) the Apple-IBM agreement allows Apple to encroach into this terrority. I guess it'll be predicated on just how independent the different branches of IBM are.
[quote]
- Velocity Engine could be added to both and
Apple could use both. iMac, iBook, eMac, and PowerBook would probably use the low power chip. PowerMac and Xserve would probably use the G5. SIMD is not a flash-in-the-pan and it is in all major CPU architectures. IBM seems to have finally come around on this score and I expect we'll see Velocity Engines in future IBM processors for Apple.<hr></blockquote>
G4 vs G3+? interesting...
[quote]
- The situation is far more complex that this... but if I can have a lower MHz w/ AltiVec and a higher degree of superscalar design, then I'll take the lower clock rate chip... and it'll most likely stomp all over the higher clock rate chip. Note also that AltiVec is probably not the reason for the lower clock rate, so this isn't even the right tradeoff to be looking at.<hr></blockquote>
New York Gov. George Pataki joined IBM President and Chief Executive Officer Sam Palmisano to announce the opening of a new IBM 300 millimeter (mm) semiconductor facility, believed to be the most advanced of its kind.
The facility is a major addition to the IBM Microelectronics business -- designed to satisfy increasing customer demand for IBM's chip technologies through high-end "foundry" manufacturing services, as well as IBM's custom and standard chip offerings.
It will house both development and manufacturing, helping IBM more easily transfer its unique set of chip-making technologies into high-volume production. Work on prototype customer designs has begun and the facility is on-schedule to begin volume manufacturing later this year.
"Technology continues to be one of our cornerstones in delivering value to our customers," Palmisano said. "We are re-invigorating our Microelectronics business and are confident that we have the right formula of technology and expertise with a business that is focused on the strategic areas that play to our strengths."
The facility will have a major role in the ongoing collaboration between IBM, the State of New York and major New York universities, further establishing the region as a center for high tech talent, investment and innovation.
"IBM's investment in East Fishkill reinforces the fact that the Hudson Valley and Upstate New York are going to play a leading role in the future of high-tech research and economic development," Pataki said. "The world's most technically-advanced plant that IBM built here will anchor a renaissance for our economy, attracting new business investments and new jobs for years to come. We thank IBM for their commitment and look forward to the tremendous economic benefits our partnership will bring to New York."
The facility combines IBM's chip-making technologies -- such as copper wiring, silicon-on-insulator -based transistors and improved ("low-k dielectric") insulation -- with the economies of scale resulting from production of chips on larger, 300mm diameter silicon wafers.
Here are details on the facility and its products:
It totals 140,000 square feet in size and contains 200 miles of piping and tubing, 600 miles of cable and wiring and two million pounds of ductwork. It was finished with 50,000 gallons of paint
Activity on the process floor of the manufacturing line is driven by more than 1700 processors operating at over 1GHz speeds each and accessing more than 110 terabytes of storage. This is more processing power than NASA uses to launch the space shuttle
It is designed to support the creation of chips with circuits smaller than 100 nanometers (a nanometer is a billionth of a meter) in size. A single 300mm wafer can hold up to about 50 billion transistors. Chips produced on the wafers will have some structures comparable in size to viruses and DNA
[quote]New York Gov. George Pataki joined IBM President and Chief Executive Officer Sam Palmisano to announce the opening of a new IBM 300 millimeter (mm) semiconductor facility<hr></blockquote>
PS. Praise be to Programmer who immediately brings sanity to the proceedings.
It will be interesting to see where .13 puts power pc.
I'd take the mhz of the Power 4 style of cpu with its thumping fpu performance. Mhz. Who cares? If it can stomp x86 land. Great. They're due for an ass-whoopin'...
Also of note...if the G3 is going to be boosted in ways mentioned...it could certainly power the ibook for a while...
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>
mmm, that's quite an interesting coincidence, isn't it? I wonder how IBM thinks they have enough semiconductor business to justify opening such a plant...
- IBM's current G3 core is intended for low-power uses and has a fairly short pipeline, so it is doubtful that it will scale to the clock rates mentioned.<hr></blockquote>
Pipeline depth is not the be-all and end-all of processor speed.
The die shrinkage will add speed, as will the SOI sauce. These advances in the process are not just about lower voltage, the same advances can be used to raise clock rates.
Or so I'm told.
Furthermore, there's nothing to stop IBM from deepening the pipeline on their Sahara design, much like Moto did going to Showtime at the Apollo.
If we assume that IBM will hit 1 GHz with the 750FX as they say they will, and add the die shrinkage all the way down to .09 microns as well as improve the SOI and add an SMD unit like their roadmap says, I say you've got the makings of a desktop/laptop processor from a proven family of chips.
I'm still betting that the next Apple proc is an IBM proc and it's an advanced G3 design, and not a slimmed down POWER4/5 design. One thing I'm SURE IT WONT BE is a Motorola.
I don't see why IBM would even want to attack their profit margin by releasing a "POWER4/5 LE". All of their high end customers would suddenly decide they don't want to spend $10K+ on their POWER rigs when they can get a chip from the same family for about 1/50 of the the price. My gut tells me that IBM will never pollute the POWER family will low-cost chips available to the masses, but they will pimp the hell out of the PPC chip family they already have. (I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just guessing.)
It seems to me that the path of least resistance is a souped-up G3 is all I'm saying. I'm not willing to fight on this point, however. Smarter people than me will tell me I'm probably wrong.
<strong>Out of curiosity, what makes you all so sure IBM can just go ahead and deliver processors with clock rates far exceeding Motorola's offerings?
As it stands today, the supposedly oh-so-highly-clockable G3 is stuck at around 700MHz, whereas Moto don't seem to have too much of a problem delivering enough 1GHz G4s for Apple's top-of-the-line model. And the Power4 isn't exactly the clockrate-monster either.
So I kinda wonder, what is this firm belief in IBM being able to produce super-high-clockrate chips based on?
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
100% agreed. What most here don't want to see is that IBM produces only very very few POWER4 chips. If MOT would need to make only such low number for the G4s, they'd probably be at 1,6 Ghz at least. There is no high volume PPC from IBM that is faster than MOT volume PPC, but this is fact and facts don't count much on a rumor board
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...<hr></blockquote>
Whilst not exactly what Apple could use, IBM does have a product with these features:
Comments
<strong>Which is why Apple calls it the Velocity Engine, while Moto still calls it AltiVec...</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, Apple could walk on over to IBM with the instruction seta nd they could have devised their own implimentation? therefore Velocity engine on Power4/5 PPC?
<strong>I think we really need to end our "love affair" with a POWER4/5 chip. It's highly unlikely looking at the PPC roadmap. TING5's insight on a uber-G3 is far more likely, and honestly, I'd like a such a chip a lot more than a bulky, excessive POWER chip.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is somewhat off topic but I read in another forum that the power4 is basically 2 G3 like cores with a high speed bus and lots of high speed cache. I have not confirmed this but if true, I don't want to go backwards (ie, g3).
Any hardware geeks out there that can verify this?
<strong>I think we really need to end our "love affair" with a POWER4/5 chip.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not really in love with the Power4/5 chip, I'd just like to use her to make my PC friends feel impotent. A trophy bride, er, chip....
So what about the G5? When does Apple get a 64 bit PPC processor from IBM? I see nothing in the roadmap that shows 64 bit architecture. What does it take to be competitive with SGI workstations running really high end video applications?
A SIMD unit is coming. Put that into the mix and wha-hey.
I did hear of this 'rumour' somewhere on the net. I'm not sure it was a rumour or actual IBM plans to boost the G3...
The G3 Sahara already has low cooling requ's. Another die shrink...a simd unit and a dual core and bus/controller boost.
It could be a 'G5'. It would also be ironic. In the extreme.
Lemon Bon Bon
As it stands today, the supposedly oh-so-highly-clockable G3 is stuck at around 700MHz, whereas Moto don't seem to have too much of a problem delivering enough 1GHz G4s for Apple's top-of-the-line model. And the Power4 isn't exactly the clockrate-monster either.
So I kinda wonder, what is this firm belief in IBM being able to produce super-high-clockrate chips based on?
Bye,
RazzFazz
- IBM's current G3 core is intended for low-power uses and has a fairly short pipeline, so it is doubtful that it will scale to the clock rates mentioned.
- The POWER4 architecture is fundamentally different in that it takes the PowerPC instructions "cracks" them into internal operations and feeds them to a long pipelined core. This has much more potential for higher clock rates, and the design can made made more superscalar. Theoretically at least, the VelocityEngine SIMD instructions could be added by either adding SIMD support to the internal core, or cracking them instructions into their compontent parts.
- The POWER4 core has nothing to do with the G3 core. The POWER4 core ships in pairs on a single silicon die with a transistor count of ~170 million. With some streamlining and simplification, re-orienting it for a desktop processor, this is not outside the realm of possibility for a next generation processor! Look at ATI's R300 -- 108 million on a 0.15 micron process! IBM will be delivering sub-0.13 micron next year.
- The POWER4 (and possibly POWER5) will likely never show up in an Apple machine, but that doesn't mean the lessons & technology gleaned from the POWERx line won't be applied to the next generation (i.e. G5) processor for Apple. A new superfast core is much more likely to be based on a modern POWER4-style architecture than on the fairly old G3-style architecture.
- The POWERx is already 64-bit, the G3 is 32-bit. There is no mention of 64-bit on IBM's PowerPC roadmap. The PowerPC roadmap is seperate from the POWERx roadmap. They are compatible architectures, however, and Apple's high end processor could be derived from either. The POWERx lineup is more promising in this department, however.
- Velocity Engine could be added to both and Apple could use both. iMac, iBook, eMac, and PowerBook would probably use the low power chip. PowerMac and Xserve would probably use the G5. SIMD is not a flash-in-the-pan and it is in all major CPU architectures. IBM seems to have finally come around on this score and I expect we'll see Velocity Engines in future IBM processors for Apple.
- The situation is far more complex that this... but if I can have a lower MHz w/ AltiVec and a higher degree of superscalar design, then I'll take the lower clock rate chip... and it'll most likely stomp all over the higher clock rate chip. Note also that AltiVec is probably not the reason for the lower clock rate, so this isn't even the right tradeoff to be looking at.
Yup
[quote]
- The POWER4 (and possibly POWER5) will likely never show up in an Apple machine, but that doesn't mean the lessons & technology gleaned from the POWERx line won't be applied to the next generation (i.e. G5) processor for Apple. A new superfast core is much more likely to be based on a modern POWER4-style architecture than on the fairly old G3-style architecture.
<hr></blockquote>
The POWER5 will likely resemble the IBM-Apple part as much as the POWER4.
[quote]
- The POWERx is already 64-bit, the G3 is 32-bit. There is no mention of 64-bit on IBM's PowerPC roadmap. The PowerPC roadmap is seperate from the POWERx roadmap. They are compatible architectures, however, and Apple's high end processor could be derived from either. The POWERx lineup is more promising in this department, however.<hr></blockquote>
It will be intersting if (A) Apple even has an interest in big iron or (B) the Apple-IBM agreement allows Apple to encroach into this terrority. I guess it'll be predicated on just how independent the different branches of IBM are.
[quote]
- Velocity Engine could be added to both and
Apple could use both. iMac, iBook, eMac, and PowerBook would probably use the low power chip. PowerMac and Xserve would probably use the G5. SIMD is not a flash-in-the-pan and it is in all major CPU architectures. IBM seems to have finally come around on this score and I expect we'll see Velocity Engines in future IBM processors for Apple.<hr></blockquote>
G4 vs G3+? interesting...
[quote]
- The situation is far more complex that this... but if I can have a lower MHz w/ AltiVec and a higher degree of superscalar design, then I'll take the lower clock rate chip... and it'll most likely stomp all over the higher clock rate chip. Note also that AltiVec is probably not the reason for the lower clock rate, so this isn't even the right tradeoff to be looking at.<hr></blockquote>
yeah...sort of a false dichotomy there, i think.
<a href="http://www.ibm.com/news/us/2002/07/31.html"; target="_blank">http://www.ibm.com/news/us/2002/07/31.html</a>;
[quote]
Palmisano, Pataki unveil IBM 300MM chip facility
New York Gov. George Pataki joined IBM President and Chief Executive Officer Sam Palmisano to announce the opening of a new IBM 300 millimeter (mm) semiconductor facility, believed to be the most advanced of its kind.
The facility is a major addition to the IBM Microelectronics business -- designed to satisfy increasing customer demand for IBM's chip technologies through high-end "foundry" manufacturing services, as well as IBM's custom and standard chip offerings.
It will house both development and manufacturing, helping IBM more easily transfer its unique set of chip-making technologies into high-volume production. Work on prototype customer designs has begun and the facility is on-schedule to begin volume manufacturing later this year.
"Technology continues to be one of our cornerstones in delivering value to our customers," Palmisano said. "We are re-invigorating our Microelectronics business and are confident that we have the right formula of technology and expertise with a business that is focused on the strategic areas that play to our strengths."
The facility will have a major role in the ongoing collaboration between IBM, the State of New York and major New York universities, further establishing the region as a center for high tech talent, investment and innovation.
"IBM's investment in East Fishkill reinforces the fact that the Hudson Valley and Upstate New York are going to play a leading role in the future of high-tech research and economic development," Pataki said. "The world's most technically-advanced plant that IBM built here will anchor a renaissance for our economy, attracting new business investments and new jobs for years to come. We thank IBM for their commitment and look forward to the tremendous economic benefits our partnership will bring to New York."
The facility combines IBM's chip-making technologies -- such as copper wiring, silicon-on-insulator -based transistors and improved ("low-k dielectric") insulation -- with the economies of scale resulting from production of chips on larger, 300mm diameter silicon wafers.
Here are details on the facility and its products:
It totals 140,000 square feet in size and contains 200 miles of piping and tubing, 600 miles of cable and wiring and two million pounds of ductwork. It was finished with 50,000 gallons of paint
Activity on the process floor of the manufacturing line is driven by more than 1700 processors operating at over 1GHz speeds each and accessing more than 110 terabytes of storage. This is more processing power than NASA uses to launch the space shuttle
It is designed to support the creation of chips with circuits smaller than 100 nanometers (a nanometer is a billionth of a meter) in size. A single 300mm wafer can hold up to about 50 billion transistors. Chips produced on the wafers will have some structures comparable in size to viruses and DNA
<hr></blockquote>
wow, that facility is really small!
That's a cheap shot...
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. Praise be to Programmer who immediately brings sanity to the proceedings.
It will be interesting to see where .13 puts power pc.
I'd take the mhz of the Power 4 style of cpu with its thumping fpu performance. Mhz. Who cares? If it can stomp x86 land. Great. They're due for an ass-whoopin'...
Also of note...if the G3 is going to be boosted in ways mentioned...it could certainly power the ibook for a while...
[ 08-01-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
[ 08-01-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>...or will very soon [have the rights to Altivec] when the option comes up for them to buy PPC copyrights from Moto.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When is this expiration date suppose to occur?
<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>
mmm, that's quite an interesting coincidence, isn't it? I wonder how IBM thinks they have enough semiconductor business to justify opening such a plant...
- IBM's current G3 core is intended for low-power uses and has a fairly short pipeline, so it is doubtful that it will scale to the clock rates mentioned.<hr></blockquote>
Pipeline depth is not the be-all and end-all of processor speed.
The die shrinkage will add speed, as will the SOI sauce. These advances in the process are not just about lower voltage, the same advances can be used to raise clock rates.
Or so I'm told.
Furthermore, there's nothing to stop IBM from deepening the pipeline on their Sahara design, much like Moto did going to Showtime at the Apollo.
If we assume that IBM will hit 1 GHz with the 750FX as they say they will, and add the die shrinkage all the way down to .09 microns as well as improve the SOI and add an SMD unit like their roadmap says, I say you've got the makings of a desktop/laptop processor from a proven family of chips.
I'm still betting that the next Apple proc is an IBM proc and it's an advanced G3 design, and not a slimmed down POWER4/5 design. One thing I'm SURE IT WONT BE is a Motorola.
I don't see why IBM would even want to attack their profit margin by releasing a "POWER4/5 LE". All of their high end customers would suddenly decide they don't want to spend $10K+ on their POWER rigs when they can get a chip from the same family for about 1/50 of the the price. My gut tells me that IBM will never pollute the POWER family will low-cost chips available to the masses, but they will pimp the hell out of the PPC chip family they already have. (I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just guessing.)
It seems to me that the path of least resistance is a souped-up G3 is all I'm saying. I'm not willing to fight on this point, however. Smarter people than me will tell me I'm probably wrong.
ting5
<strong>Out of curiosity, what makes you all so sure IBM can just go ahead and deliver processors with clock rates far exceeding Motorola's offerings?
As it stands today, the supposedly oh-so-highly-clockable G3 is stuck at around 700MHz, whereas Moto don't seem to have too much of a problem delivering enough 1GHz G4s for Apple's top-of-the-line model. And the Power4 isn't exactly the clockrate-monster either.
So I kinda wonder, what is this firm belief in IBM being able to produce super-high-clockrate chips based on?
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
100% agreed. What most here don't want to see is that IBM produces only very very few POWER4 chips. If MOT would need to make only such low number for the G4s, they'd probably be at 1,6 Ghz at least. There is no high volume PPC from IBM that is faster than MOT volume PPC, but this is fact and facts don't count much on a rumor board
End of Line
As has been pointed out before, G3 and G4 have had similar clockspeeds since the G4's creation.
Barto
I was wondering if this strategy would work out for the ppc alliance?
[ 08-01-2002: Message edited by: freeyomynd ]</p>
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...<hr></blockquote>
Whilst not exactly what Apple could use, IBM does have a product with these features:
<a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/products/PowerPC_440GP_Embedded_Processor?opendocument&dsor t=date" target="_blank">IBM 440GP</a>