IBM has officially stated anything about POWER5 derivatives.
You obviously mean that IBM has stated nothing about Power5 derivatives. I for one would really like to see the road maps which mentions 980.. I've seen the ones with 970+ on them, but no 980.
You obviously mean that IBM has stated nothing about Power5 derivatives. I for one would really like to see the road maps which mentions 980.. I've seen the ones with 970+ on them, but no 980.
It wasn't in a roadmap, but I recall it being in a press release. I'll try and dig it up.
But what of the eagerly awaited PowerPC 970, a k a GPUL? After a year or so of production (at speeds of up to 1.8 GHz), IBM plans to pop out a 970+, which should include a few niceties that will bring it to 2.5 GHz. While much remains obscured beneath the burning sands, there is an undefined ?Next Generation? chip - and it?s not based on the GPUL but the Power5 successor to IBM?s current server silicon.
So the 970 this year. The 970+ next year and Chip X afterwards. The 980?? Perhaps...
Apple doesn't make desktops only. There are servers as well.
I have seen, with my own eyes, more than 1000 PowerMacs through my life.
Sorry dude, I hope you dont mean that Apple would release a Server to accomodate a Power5 architecture?.
Im consious of the xserve - but this 1U product, CANNOT accomodate a Power4, 5, 6, etc. Why do you think IBM is selling Xeons for its blades?. In fact, the 970's purpose was also for 1U and quite possibly other workstations (Linux). To capture the lucrative Apple CPU orders they had to bolt on Altivec.
The Power 4 and the Power 5 are
1. Not designed for low end servers. and 2. Are prohibitavely expensive, due to their specific designed functions. eg. have you seen this quote "The processor will be used in a nuclear weapons simulation supercomputer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. That machine, called ASCI Purple, is slated to use 12,544 Power5 chips".
3. Relax, we will get its little brother the 980 in 2005 @ 3GHz (it just happens to be twice as fast as 970, IBM says 4 times with SMT technology).
4. I would not worry about that for now the 970 will be more than sufficient in xserves and PowerMacs.
1. Not designed for low end servers. and 2. Are prohibitavely expensive, due to their specific designed functions. eg. have you seen this quote "The processor will be used in a nuclear weapons simulation supercomputer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. That machine, called ASCI Purple, is slated to use 12,544 Power5 chips".
I'm sorry but this has been repeated several times on these boards and is not correct: the Power5 is NOT designed exclusively for high-end servers and will NOT be prohibitively expensive.
The Power5 IS designed to replace the Power4 but unlike the Power4 "The Power5 chip is more of a midrange or low end design that can drive up to the high end and then down to things like blades," Arimilli [an IBM fellow and chief architect] said.
I'm not saying that the Power5 as such will be found in a future PowerMac but the difference between say, the 970 and a Power4 will be much more significant than the difference between a Power5 and a '980' (has IBM actually made any references to such a processor? I thought a '980' was all speculation about a Power5 derivative anyways). In fact a '980' might be nothing more or less than a Power5+Altivec if the Power5 doesn't already have it.
Sorry dude, I hope you dont mean that Apple would release a Server to accomodate a Power5 architecture?.
Well, let's keep in mind that this time 'round, as opposed to the Power4 scenario, IBM KNOWS people would love to have a scaled down version of their Power chip in a hi powered desktop - I recall an earlier article where some IBM Nabob mentioned that the Power5 will scale both down and up much further than the Power4 did, as it will be as at home in Blades as it would be in Big Iron Servers.
When's the last time anybody saw a Power4 in a blade?
It seems to be, that IBM is planning on rolling out the Power5 technology as an entire family of chips, to the point where IBM guy didn't even bother to differentiate in the earlier article between a Power5 and it's bladed/scaled down (980?) version.
Anybody in the know please correct me if I wrong here, but I get the impression that the Power5 is planned as a far greater reaching chip family than the Power4, and as such, we probably won't be waiting around anywhere near as long for some form of Power5 (or scaled down 980?) to appear in a Mac.
I think you guys need to check the processor specs necessary for mission critical reliable servers iSeries, pSeries and AS/400's.
Your right that the Power5 will indeed be able to scale much better up AND down better than the Power4. But it does not make it the same chip even though the line between Server and Desktop are thinning.
Im still betting IBM CONTINUES to realese 9xx series PowerPC processors that are designed to be faster, but less reliable than their bigger brothers specs. The reality is that the 970 is the first in this series.
The Power 4 and the Power 5 are ... prohibitavely expensive, due to their specific designed functions. eg. have you seen this quote "The processor will be used in a nuclear weapons simulation supercomputer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. That machine, called ASCI Purple, is slated to use 12,544 Power5 chips".
Hey, one of the ASCI supercomputers uses PowerPC 604e CPUs, just like my Power Mac 7600.
I think you guys need to check the processor specs necessary for mission critical reliable servers iSeries, pSeries and AS/400's.
Your right that the Power5 will indeed be able to scale much better up AND down better than the Power4. But it does not make it the same chip even though the line between Server and Desktop are thinning.
Im still betting IBM CONTINUES to realese 9xx series PowerPC processors that are designed to be faster, but less reliable than their bigger brothers specs. The reality is that the 970 is the first in this series.
Cheers,
Hasapi
Hasapi is right about the scaling. However, there will not be a Power5 RISC chip in a mac desktop. Period. And I know this. Believe me or not...I don't care.
The 970 is not just one POWER4 core with AltiVec added. They simplified the design to remove its high-reliability / durability features to bring it more in line with commodity desktop processors. Compared to desktop processors the POWER4 is massively over-engineered which makes it more expensive to produce. The POWER5 and POWER6 will be the same, and we can expect that they will be converted into 9x0 series PowerPC desktop processors in the same way that POWER4 has been. IBM has said, after all, that "the 970 is the first in a new series of PowerPC processors".
The 970 is not just one POWER4 core with AltiVec added. They simplified the design to remove its high-reliability / durability features to bring it more in line with commodity desktop processors. Compared to desktop processors the POWER4 is massively over-engineered which makes it more expensive to produce. The POWER5 and POWER6 will be the same, and we can expect that they will be converted into 9x0 series PowerPC desktop processors in the same way that POWER4 has been. IBM has said, after all, that "the 970 is the first in a new series of PowerPC processors".
Scaled down Power5 conversion will less reliability and durability.....maybe. But people talking about sticking Power5 chips in an Xserve or a PowerMac is insane. That is not gonna happen.
Hasapi is right about the scaling. However, there will not be a Power5 RISC chip in a mac desktop. Period. And I know this. Believe me or not...I don't care.
I never suggested the Power5 would at its release be a candidate for ANY of Apple's product range. In fact I doubt it very much, imagine a rack of Dual 980 @ 3GHz 1U's. If this is not fast enough for Rendering, SQL, Distributed Comupting, then your not likely to even consider OS X Server as a network operating system.
Seriously, anyone who thinks Power5's are even remotely possible in the Apple product range should post the phone number of their dealer, because that is serious s..t their smoking
When the Power4 came out IBM specifically said that they were not selling it to other manufactures. I would expect the same deal for the POWER5 & 6. But the 9XX series is entirely different.
I never suggested the Power5 would at its release be a candidate for ANY of Apple's product range.
O yeah I know. Sorry about that. I wasn't implying that you said a Power5 would go in a desktop or blade. I should have made myself clearer. Got a little over excited when I was reading all these posts.
Comments
Originally posted by hmurchison
IBM has officially stated anything about POWER5 derivatives.
You obviously mean that IBM has stated nothing about Power5 derivatives. I for one would really like to see the road maps which mentions 980.. I've seen the ones with 970+ on them, but no 980.
Originally posted by Henriok
You obviously mean that IBM has stated nothing about Power5 derivatives. I for one would really like to see the road maps which mentions 980.. I've seen the ones with 970+ on them, but no 980.
It wasn't in a roadmap, but I recall it being in a press release. I'll try and dig it up.
But what of the eagerly awaited PowerPC 970, a k a GPUL? After a year or so of production (at speeds of up to 1.8 GHz), IBM plans to pop out a 970+, which should include a few niceties that will bring it to 2.5 GHz. While much remains obscured beneath the burning sands, there is an undefined ?Next Generation? chip - and it?s not based on the GPUL but the Power5 successor to IBM?s current server silicon.
So the 970 this year. The 970+ next year and Chip X afterwards. The 980?? Perhaps...
Screed
Originally posted by costique
Apple doesn't make desktops only. There are servers as well.
I have seen, with my own eyes, more than 1000 PowerMacs through my life.
Sorry dude, I hope you dont mean that Apple would release a Server to accomodate a Power5 architecture?.
Im consious of the xserve - but this 1U product, CANNOT accomodate a Power4, 5, 6, etc. Why do you think IBM is selling Xeons for its blades?. In fact, the 970's purpose was also for 1U and quite possibly other workstations (Linux). To capture the lucrative Apple CPU orders they had to bolt on Altivec.
The Power 4 and the Power 5 are
1. Not designed for low end servers. and 2. Are prohibitavely expensive, due to their specific designed functions. eg. have you seen this quote "The processor will be used in a nuclear weapons simulation supercomputer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. That machine, called ASCI Purple, is slated to use 12,544 Power5 chips".
3. Relax, we will get its little brother the 980 in 2005 @ 3GHz (it just happens to be twice as fast as 970, IBM says 4 times with SMT technology).
4. I would not worry about that for now the 970 will be more than sufficient in xserves and PowerMacs.
For what its worth!8)
Originally posted by hasapi
The Power 4 and the Power 5 are
1. Not designed for low end servers. and 2. Are prohibitavely expensive, due to their specific designed functions. eg. have you seen this quote "The processor will be used in a nuclear weapons simulation supercomputer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. That machine, called ASCI Purple, is slated to use 12,544 Power5 chips".
I'm sorry but this has been repeated several times on these boards and is not correct: the Power5 is NOT designed exclusively for high-end servers and will NOT be prohibitively expensive.
For more information, read this infoworld article.
The Power5 IS designed to replace the Power4 but unlike the Power4 "The Power5 chip is more of a midrange or low end design that can drive up to the high end and then down to things like blades," Arimilli [an IBM fellow and chief architect] said.
I'm not saying that the Power5 as such will be found in a future PowerMac but the difference between say, the 970 and a Power4 will be much more significant than the difference between a Power5 and a '980' (has IBM actually made any references to such a processor? I thought a '980' was all speculation about a Power5 derivative anyways). In fact a '980' might be nothing more or less than a Power5+Altivec if the Power5 doesn't already have it.
Originally posted by hasapi
Sorry dude, I hope you dont mean that Apple would release a Server to accomodate a Power5 architecture?.
Well, let's keep in mind that this time 'round, as opposed to the Power4 scenario, IBM KNOWS people would love to have a scaled down version of their Power chip in a hi powered desktop - I recall an earlier article where some IBM Nabob mentioned that the Power5 will scale both down and up much further than the Power4 did, as it will be as at home in Blades as it would be in Big Iron Servers.
When's the last time anybody saw a Power4 in a blade?
It seems to be, that IBM is planning on rolling out the Power5 technology as an entire family of chips, to the point where IBM guy didn't even bother to differentiate in the earlier article between a Power5 and it's bladed/scaled down (980?) version.
Anybody in the know please correct me if I wrong here, but I get the impression that the Power5 is planned as a far greater reaching chip family than the Power4, and as such, we probably won't be waiting around anywhere near as long for some form of Power5 (or scaled down 980?) to appear in a Mac.
Your right that the Power5 will indeed be able to scale much better up AND down better than the Power4. But it does not make it the same chip even though the line between Server and Desktop are thinning.
Im still betting IBM CONTINUES to realese 9xx series PowerPC processors that are designed to be faster, but less reliable than their bigger brothers specs. The reality is that the 970 is the first in this series.
Cheers,
Hasapi
Originally posted by hasapi
The Power 4 and the Power 5 are ... prohibitavely expensive, due to their specific designed functions. eg. have you seen this quote "The processor will be used in a nuclear weapons simulation supercomputer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. That machine, called ASCI Purple, is slated to use 12,544 Power5 chips".
Hey, one of the ASCI supercomputers uses PowerPC 604e CPUs, just like my Power Mac 7600.
Too bad I can't say anything about the Power5.
Originally posted by hasapi
I think you guys need to check the processor specs necessary for mission critical reliable servers iSeries, pSeries and AS/400's.
Your right that the Power5 will indeed be able to scale much better up AND down better than the Power4. But it does not make it the same chip even though the line between Server and Desktop are thinning.
Im still betting IBM CONTINUES to realese 9xx series PowerPC processors that are designed to be faster, but less reliable than their bigger brothers specs. The reality is that the 970 is the first in this series.
Cheers,
Hasapi
Hasapi is right about the scaling. However, there will not be a Power5 RISC chip in a mac desktop. Period. And I know this. Believe me or not...I don't care.
Originally posted by Programmer
The 970 is not just one POWER4 core with AltiVec added. They simplified the design to remove its high-reliability / durability features to bring it more in line with commodity desktop processors. Compared to desktop processors the POWER4 is massively over-engineered which makes it more expensive to produce. The POWER5 and POWER6 will be the same, and we can expect that they will be converted into 9x0 series PowerPC desktop processors in the same way that POWER4 has been. IBM has said, after all, that "the 970 is the first in a new series of PowerPC processors".
Scaled down Power5 conversion will less reliability and durability.....maybe. But people talking about sticking Power5 chips in an Xserve or a PowerMac is insane. That is not gonna happen.
Originally posted by Locomotive
Why did IBM start at the number 970 for this chip? Did they permanently waist the numbers 910 through 960?
Lucky number '7', perhaps?
Originally posted by trailmaster308
Hasapi is right about the scaling. However, there will not be a Power5 RISC chip in a mac desktop. Period. And I know this. Believe me or not...I don't care.
I never suggested the Power5 would at its release be a candidate for ANY of Apple's product range. In fact I doubt it very much, imagine a rack of Dual 980 @ 3GHz 1U's. If this is not fast enough for Rendering, SQL, Distributed Comupting, then your not likely to even consider OS X Server as a network operating system.
Seriously, anyone who thinks Power5's are even remotely possible in the Apple product range should post the phone number of their dealer, because that is serious s..t their smoking
Originally posted by hasapi
I never suggested the Power5 would at its release be a candidate for ANY of Apple's product range.
O yeah I know. Sorry about that. I wasn't implying that you said a Power5 would go in a desktop or blade. I should have made myself clearer. Got a little over excited when I was reading all these posts.
Originally posted by costique
Apple doesn't make desktops only. There are servers as well.
There's a different between a $5,000 Xserve and a $150,000 IBM high-end server. And it isn't just the price tag.
Sorry, but Apple is just in the low-end file server market, and not in anything near to HP's, SUN's or IBM's position there.
Originally posted by Chucker
Sorry, but Apple is just in the low-end file server market, and not in anything near to HP's, SUN's or IBM's position there.
What a coincidence! IBM states that the Power5 is made for low end servers!
Originally posted by Henriok
What a coincidence! IBM states that the Power5 is made for low end servers!
IBM's definition of what a low end server is, is vastly different than Apple's version of a low end server (ie Xserve).
Low end servers for IBM start around $20,000 or so.
Originally posted by Henriok
Apple just might have had OSX running on machines powered by Power-processors for several years by now.
Yeah, Apple might just have G4-powered landers roaming Mars right now!