PowerPC is a subfamily of the POWER CPU and Current PPC G3-750FX and G4 are based on POWER 3, if I remember correctly.
Aw </strong><hr></blockquote>
The differences between the earlier POWER chips and the PowerPC are all gone. POWER 4 is a 64 bit PPC implementation. PPC is a 64 bit instruction set with a 32 bit subset which the 32 bit chips use. POWER 4 is %100 compatible with 32 bit PPC.
The thing I hate about these roadmaps is the timeline. 1999-200X might mean 2003, but could mean 2009. So we have no real way of knowing when this 2GHz beast will show up, except for the fact that IBM has it's .13 process going and a even smaller one in development.
They ***NEVER*** had any G3 running faster than equivalent G4's over the past 2 and a half years. <hr></blockquote>
I had assumed that the reason for this was due to the Apple marketing perspective (i.e. there is no way that they could have a faster clockspeed G3 than their flagship G4 chip in any of their 'consumer' computers)?
[Edit; Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by 'equivalent']
The thing I hate about these roadmaps is the timeline. 1999-200X might mean 2003, but could mean 2009. So we have no real way of knowing when this 2GHz beast will show up, except for the fact that IBM has it's .13 process going and a even smaller one in development.
Never happen. Neither IBM nor Motorola would ever develop a new processor in the hopes that Apple would use it. Speed bumps, yes. A new processor which would mean a significant amount of reworking at Apple? No. This isn't like the peecee market where Intel and AMD can come out with a new processor and be guaranteed that enough companies will buy it to cover the development cost.
For something like this, Apple is probably giving them a guarantee of purchasing a certain amount over a certain time. Either that or they?re picking up the tab for a big chunk of the development costs.
Well, what I really mean is that Motorola and IBM can both offer their unique features that will benefit Apple. Let me put it in example, the current Apollo has 1 GHZ clockspeed, but Motorola did not do much for the system bus or they simply refuse to enhance it just for Apple. However, the PowerPC Book E architecture allows IBM and Motorola chips to share common architecture. And in this case, if IBM has a better bus and other elements that can benefit Apple, Apple could just request so that both Motorola and IBM elements of the chips can be put together for Apple. Think of it as Built to Order concept. The architecture of the chip was well layout, now the customers can choose what to add.
I had assumed that the reason for this was due to the Apple marketing perspective (i.e. there is no way that they could have a faster clockspeed G3 than their flagship G4 chip in any of their 'consumer' computers)?
[Edit; Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by 'equivalent']
And I also think that IBM didn't want to spend too many time to work with Apple because they choose moto... but moto being a dead-end, IBM-Apple processors will have a nice roadmap...
Wow, I can't believe all the crap being spewed in here! C'mon guys you're generating crazy amounts of FUD for no good reason.
- IBM has been a huge contributor to the PowerPC movement. They invented the POWER architecture on which it is very closely based, after all.
- The POWER architecture internal design diverged from the PowerPC starting with the POWER2 and they have been unrelated (internally) since then. They have both been very close to compatible, however, and with the POWER4 they are fully compatible at the user ISA level.
- The G3/G4 are not in any way connected to the design of the POWER3.
- IBM decided not to include VMX in their chips because they didn't believe it was the correct way to build high performance processors. Plausible argument at the time, it has since been proven wrong and they acknowledged that a couple of years ago.
- IBM took part in the VMX design process, and are co-listed on the couple of patents I've seen. My guess is that they can't use Moto's implementation, but are free to build their own compatible implementation.
- The POWER4 chip is ~170 million transistors, however that includes two cores and a huge pile of cache. Each core is purportedly about 30 million transistors, which is of the same complexity level as the Pentium4 and Athlon. It works on the PC, it'll work on the PowerPC.
- Architecturally it is very different internally from the G1/G2/G3/G4 in that it "cracks" instructions into internal operations which can then be dealt with by a very highly pipelined and superscalar machine. This ought to allow for very high clock rates (i.e. 2GHz+) with many execution units. Not much point in having an 8-way superscalar machine if you don't have the execution units to feed.
- Most of the believeable sources point to a mid-to-late 2003 introduction for this processor, and this fits with moving to a 0.1 micro (or smaller) process. Apple isn't going to curl up and die in the intervening 12-16 months, especially if the 1.4 - 1.8 GHz G4s come from Motorola and there are solutions to the bandwidth problem.
- The new processor will certainly be 64-bit so Apple needs to get a 64-bit version of OSX up and running by then. Hmmm... that would mean they could build a machine based on the Hammer too (HyperTransport interface and all).
- The 7xx series won't necessarily stop where it is. That line has a different purpose -- low-power, low-cost. I could easily seem them adding VMX and continuing to target the iBook.
Guys be positive. Geez the signs are hitting you in the face .
IBM announces new Chip Foundry
Oh suprise they also announce a new Power4 derivative for Desktops with a Vector Unit no less.
IBM is not Motorola...don't get them confused.
You know more today about the potential for staying PPC than you did just two days ago.
I'm happy. I'm not interested in X86 Macs. However I do believe the current G4 may have alot of life yet. I doubt you see a Power4 Derivative in a notebook anytime soon.
Peter Sandon from IBM who will be giving the presentation on the new chip is the same guy who authored the papers / releases on the 750CX/FX which in my opinion makes this highly credible as a replacement to the G4 on high end machines. Peter is the Senior PowerPC Processor Architect.
I would guess it would have to be an early 2003 release if it really is a replacement for the G4. Once this chip is confirmed as a part apple could use, Apple's high end sales will go stagnant until it's release. (Not that they've been great in recent months anyways).
[quote] Once this chip is confirmed as a part apple could use, Apple's high end sales will go stagnant until it's release. <hr></blockquote>
I think Apple will have to realise soon that they HAVE to make an announcement of some form or other with regard to where their architecture is going. There has been too much rampant speculation about what Apple must/will do, among others this includes much of the 'legitimate' press (i.e. Macworld magazine) and these 'analysts' that are beginning to make waves. Apple really should clarify their commitment to PowerPC and yield some information about what we can expect from them in the future. Jeez, they're not dealing with national security here.
- The POWER4 chip is ~170 million transistors, however that includes two cores and a huge pile of cache. Each core is purportedly about 30 million transistors, which is of the same complexity level as the Pentium4 and Athlon. It works on the PC, it'll work on the PowerPC.
.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Considering that the new chip will have only one core, and less cache (i consider that they will remove the L3 cache and limit the L2 cache between 512 k and 1 MB) : i say 30 MB for the core, add 10 M transistor for the altivec, and 10 millions more for the cache : it make 50 millions of transistors, like the Programmer said the same amount of transistors that the last release of pentium 4. Considering that the derived chip, let's call him the power VMX is built on SOI 0,13 , it will make less heat thant the pentium 4 on 0,13 (but without SOI).
There is no reason why such a chip can't work in a Apple. Considering that the latter version of the tower have a more big (efficient ventilation) the power VMX will be perfect in it.
Here's my bet we will see a power VMX next year : if i win i will buy one
<strong>IBM took part in the VMX design process, and are co-listed on the couple of patents I've seen. My guess is that they can't use Moto's implementation, but are free to build their own compatible implementation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As a point of interest, after I saw those 2 vector patents that named IBM, Motorola, and Apple jointly as assignees (filed in '98), I did a search on the named inventors (which I would assume were employees from all 3 companies).
I came up with about 30 more patents (many filed in 2000),mostly vector related, all SIMD related, all with the exact same inventor names, and all filed in IBM's name alone.
Kinda made me wonder if those employees have all moved to IBM, or if IBM is filing (under legal contract showing joint ownership) for all to keep the competition from knowing what's up.
<strong>I'm happy. I'm not interested in X86 Macs. However I do believe the current G4 may have alot of life yet. I doubt you see a Power4 Derivative in a notebook anytime soon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hm, that triggered a thought. Will G3s be left in the iBook? Or will there be a clean split:
G4s for portables (and the iMac)
Power4 derivatives for Power Macs
Maybe that's how Moto stays in the game -- with a demotion.
Considering that the new chip will have only one core, and less cache (i consider that they will remove the L3 cache and limit the L2 cache between 512 k and 1 MB) : i say 30 MB for the core, add 10 M transistor for the altivec, and 10 millions more for the cache : it make 50 millions of transistors, like the Programmer said the same amount of transistors that the last release of pentium 4. Considering that the derived chip, let's call him the power VMX is built on SOI 0,13 , it will make less heat thant the pentium 4 on 0,13 (but without SOI).
There is no reason why such a chip can't work in a Apple. Considering that the latter version of the tower have a more big (efficient ventilation) the power VMX will be perfect in it.
Here's my bet we will see a power VMX next year : if i win i will buy one </strong><hr></blockquote>
Just for speculation, how about 80 million transistors - dual core with AltiVec
Maybe on a smaller proccess?
What is the current transistor count in the G4?
It's sure a lot smaller (in physical size) than a P4. So, is this a transistor count difference, or a something else difference?
That's very interesting, maybe, if I understand what your implying, IBM shouldn't have any trouble providing Altivec/Velocity Engine for Apple. No rewriting code, no loss in speed, no hassles w/ Motorola.
Comments
<strong>
PowerPC is a subfamily of the POWER CPU and Current PPC G3-750FX and G4 are based on POWER 3, if I remember correctly.
Aw
The differences between the earlier POWER chips and the PowerPC are all gone. POWER 4 is a 64 bit PPC implementation. PPC is a 64 bit instruction set with a 32 bit subset which the 32 bit chips use. POWER 4 is %100 compatible with 32 bit PPC.
<a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/rdmap/roadmap_small.jpg"; target="_blank">http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/rdmap/roadmap_small.jpg</a>;
and check out an IBM article on Power and PowerPC to see that PowerPC is a derivative of Power and yet very similar.
<a href="http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/whitepapers/power/ppc_arch.html"; target="_blank">http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/whitepapers/power/ppc_arch.html</a>;
[ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: Slacker ]</p>
<strong>check out IBMs roadmap.
<a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/rdmap/roadmap_small.jpg"; target="_blank">http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/rdmap/roadmap_small.jpg</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
The thing I hate about these roadmaps is the timeline. 1999-200X might mean 2003, but could mean 2009. So we have no real way of knowing when this 2GHz beast will show up, except for the fact that IBM has it's .13 process going and a even smaller one in development.
It's all too vague.
They ***NEVER*** had any G3 running faster than equivalent G4's over the past 2 and a half years. <hr></blockquote>
I had assumed that the reason for this was due to the Apple marketing perspective (i.e. there is no way that they could have a faster clockspeed G3 than their flagship G4 chip in any of their 'consumer' computers)?
[Edit; Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by 'equivalent']
[ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: DaveLee ]</p>
<strong>
The thing I hate about these roadmaps is the timeline. 1999-200X might mean 2003, but could mean 2009. So we have no real way of knowing when this 2GHz beast will show up, except for the fact that IBM has it's .13 process going and a even smaller one in development.
It's all too vague.</strong><hr></blockquote>
100 % Agree
I think the 2 GHz+ will be shipping 2006-2007...
Aw
<strong>check out IBMs roadmap.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pay particular attention to the fine print in the bottom right corner.
*subject to change without notice
For something like this, Apple is probably giving them a guarantee of purchasing a certain amount over a certain time. Either that or they?re picking up the tab for a big chunk of the development costs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, what I really mean is that Motorola and IBM can both offer their unique features that will benefit Apple. Let me put it in example, the current Apollo has 1 GHZ clockspeed, but Motorola did not do much for the system bus or they simply refuse to enhance it just for Apple. However, the PowerPC Book E architecture allows IBM and Motorola chips to share common architecture. And in this case, if IBM has a better bus and other elements that can benefit Apple, Apple could just request so that both Motorola and IBM elements of the chips can be put together for Apple. Think of it as Built to Order concept. The architecture of the chip was well layout, now the customers can choose what to add.
<strong>
I had assumed that the reason for this was due to the Apple marketing perspective (i.e. there is no way that they could have a faster clockspeed G3 than their flagship G4 chip in any of their 'consumer' computers)?
[Edit; Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by 'equivalent']
[ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: DaveLee ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I also think that IBM didn't want to spend too many time to work with Apple because they choose moto... but moto being a dead-end, IBM-Apple processors will have a nice roadmap...
Aw
[ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: Appleworm ]</p>
- IBM has been a huge contributor to the PowerPC movement. They invented the POWER architecture on which it is very closely based, after all.
- The POWER architecture internal design diverged from the PowerPC starting with the POWER2 and they have been unrelated (internally) since then. They have both been very close to compatible, however, and with the POWER4 they are fully compatible at the user ISA level.
- The G3/G4 are not in any way connected to the design of the POWER3.
- IBM decided not to include VMX in their chips because they didn't believe it was the correct way to build high performance processors. Plausible argument at the time, it has since been proven wrong and they acknowledged that a couple of years ago.
- IBM took part in the VMX design process, and are co-listed on the couple of patents I've seen. My guess is that they can't use Moto's implementation, but are free to build their own compatible implementation.
- The POWER4 chip is ~170 million transistors, however that includes two cores and a huge pile of cache. Each core is purportedly about 30 million transistors, which is of the same complexity level as the Pentium4 and Athlon. It works on the PC, it'll work on the PowerPC.
- Architecturally it is very different internally from the G1/G2/G3/G4 in that it "cracks" instructions into internal operations which can then be dealt with by a very highly pipelined and superscalar machine. This ought to allow for very high clock rates (i.e. 2GHz+) with many execution units. Not much point in having an 8-way superscalar machine if you don't have the execution units to feed.
- Most of the believeable sources point to a mid-to-late 2003 introduction for this processor, and this fits with moving to a 0.1 micro (or smaller) process. Apple isn't going to curl up and die in the intervening 12-16 months, especially if the 1.4 - 1.8 GHz G4s come from Motorola and there are solutions to the bandwidth problem.
- The new processor will certainly be 64-bit so Apple needs to get a 64-bit version of OSX up and running by then. Hmmm... that would mean they could build a machine based on the Hammer too (HyperTransport interface and all).
- The 7xx series won't necessarily stop where it is. That line has a different purpose -- low-power, low-cost. I could easily seem them adding VMX and continuing to target the iBook.
IBM announces new Chip Foundry
Oh suprise they also announce a new Power4 derivative for Desktops with a Vector Unit no less.
IBM is not Motorola...don't get them confused.
You know more today about the potential for staying PPC than you did just two days ago.
I'm happy. I'm not interested in X86 Macs. However I do believe the current G4 may have alot of life yet. I doubt you see a Power4 Derivative in a notebook anytime soon.
I would guess it would have to be an early 2003 release if it really is a replacement for the G4. Once this chip is confirmed as a part apple could use, Apple's high end sales will go stagnant until it's release. (Not that they've been great in recent months anyways).
I think we have the real deal here.
OMG, I just can't wait till October anymore to find out, I feel like a little boy at Christmas time...
Me too
[quote] Once this chip is confirmed as a part apple could use, Apple's high end sales will go stagnant until it's release. <hr></blockquote>
I think Apple will have to realise soon that they HAVE to make an announcement of some form or other with regard to where their architecture is going. There has been too much rampant speculation about what Apple must/will do, among others this includes much of the 'legitimate' press (i.e. Macworld magazine) and these 'analysts' that are beginning to make waves. Apple really should clarify their commitment to PowerPC and yield some information about what we can expect from them in the future. Jeez, they're not dealing with national security here.
[QB
- The POWER4 chip is ~170 million transistors, however that includes two cores and a huge pile of cache. Each core is purportedly about 30 million transistors, which is of the same complexity level as the Pentium4 and Athlon. It works on the PC, it'll work on the PowerPC.
.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Considering that the new chip will have only one core, and less cache (i consider that they will remove the L3 cache and limit the L2 cache between 512 k and 1 MB) : i say 30 MB for the core, add 10 M transistor for the altivec, and 10 millions more for the cache : it make 50 millions of transistors, like the Programmer said the same amount of transistors that the last release of pentium 4. Considering that the derived chip, let's call him the power VMX is built on SOI 0,13 , it will make less heat thant the pentium 4 on 0,13 (but without SOI).
There is no reason why such a chip can't work in a Apple. Considering that the latter version of the tower have a more big (efficient ventilation) the power VMX will be perfect in it.
Here's my bet we will see a power VMX next year : if i win i will buy one
<strong>IBM took part in the VMX design process, and are co-listed on the couple of patents I've seen. My guess is that they can't use Moto's implementation, but are free to build their own compatible implementation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As a point of interest, after I saw those 2 vector patents that named IBM, Motorola, and Apple jointly as assignees (filed in '98), I did a search on the named inventors (which I would assume were employees from all 3 companies).
I came up with about 30 more patents (many filed in 2000),mostly vector related, all SIMD related, all with the exact same inventor names, and all filed in IBM's name alone.
Kinda made me wonder if those employees have all moved to IBM, or if IBM is filing (under legal contract showing joint ownership) for all to keep the competition from knowing what's up.
<strong>I'm happy. I'm not interested in X86 Macs. However I do believe the current G4 may have alot of life yet. I doubt you see a Power4 Derivative in a notebook anytime soon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hm, that triggered a thought. Will G3s be left in the iBook? Or will there be a clean split:
G4s for portables (and the iMac)
Power4 derivatives for Power Macs
Maybe that's how Moto stays in the game -- with a demotion.
Screed
[ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</p>
<strong>
Considering that the new chip will have only one core, and less cache (i consider that they will remove the L3 cache and limit the L2 cache between 512 k and 1 MB) : i say 30 MB for the core, add 10 M transistor for the altivec, and 10 millions more for the cache : it make 50 millions of transistors, like the Programmer said the same amount of transistors that the last release of pentium 4. Considering that the derived chip, let's call him the power VMX is built on SOI 0,13 , it will make less heat thant the pentium 4 on 0,13 (but without SOI).
There is no reason why such a chip can't work in a Apple. Considering that the latter version of the tower have a more big (efficient ventilation) the power VMX will be perfect in it.
Here's my bet we will see a power VMX next year : if i win i will buy one
Just for speculation, how about 80 million transistors - dual core with AltiVec
Maybe on a smaller proccess?
What is the current transistor count in the G4?
It's sure a lot smaller (in physical size) than a P4. So, is this a transistor count difference, or a something else difference?
[ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: taboo ]</p>
<strong>Well, IBM has NOT been any great contributor to the PPC.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well so far as the Apple crowd is concerned. They have done massive amounts for their own desktops/workstations/servers.
That's very interesting, maybe, if I understand what your implying, IBM shouldn't have any trouble providing Altivec/Velocity Engine for Apple. No rewriting code, no loss in speed, no hassles w/ Motorola.