Ibm Gpul2

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
A MacRumors report today cites an eWeek article about IBM's successor to the 970, called GPUL2. My question is, if this is a die shrink of the 970, is this what'll end up in PBs? Will this be what we refer to as the 980? Is this what Jobs was referring to when he said we'd be at 3 GHz in a year? Be sure to read the eWeek article linked from the MacRumors article.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 49
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,268member
    Hmmm does this mean we go up to 2.4Ghz at 130nm? Before going to 90nm and hitting 3Ghz by next Summer?



    I'm all for IBM getting aggressive about Linux on PPC. We will be the beneficiaries of fast processors and a more stable lineup.
  • Reply 2 of 49
    neilwneilw Posts: 77member
    If Apple is waiting for the 90 nm 970 to put into a PowerBook, then I hope this GPUL2 refers to the 980 instead. Mid 2004 for a G5 PowerBook would be a long tough wait indeed, unless Moto has some real success with the 7457.



    This viewpoint is of course based on speculation on top of speculation, so I don't really know what to think.



    Is it reasonable that the die-shrink would take another 10-11 months from now? Or, alternately, is it reasonable that we'd have the 980 so soon?
  • Reply 3 of 49
    ensign pulverensign pulver Posts: 1,193member
    Uh, people, the big news here is that IBM is going after Sun and HP with a 970 based blade server. The 970's identity as the G5 in Macs is small potatoes to IBM, which is a good thing. Future development will be nurtured in a way that would never be possible if Apple were the main customer.
  • Reply 4 of 49
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    I would postulate that the GPUL-2 is refering to a new chip. IBM stated in their press releases on the 970 that they would quickly move to the 9 nm process, 12 months on production is hardly a fast migration to a smaller process.
  • Reply 5 of 49
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    there was also talk of a dual-core iteration of the GPUL,



    not sure if that was post-980 or if die shrink was a prereq to dual-core at usable power/heat levels



    *heads off to search for linkage*
  • Reply 6 of 49
    big macbig mac Posts: 480member
    I doubt the contents of this article. It doesn't sound right to call a die shrink of the GPUL 970 "GPUL2." Die shrinks don't move the name of the processor one whole interger upward. If that is indeed the nomenclature IBM has chosen for the successor to the 970, then I assume GPUL2 is the 980.



    And as far as the wait for a G5 PowerBook is concerned, you'll have a far more reasonable expectation of the timetable if you simply look back at previous transition of like kind. The G4 towers came out in 1999, I recall, and yet we've only had the PowerBook G4 since 2001 I believe. Yup, a Google search validates my memory -- the first PB G4 came out in January 2001. Now that we're dealing with IBM one expects the processors to progress more quickly, but realisitically the migration down to the PB will still take time.
  • Reply 7 of 49
    @homenow@homenow Posts: 998member
    After the long road with the G4, I would hope that Apple pushes the G5 into their product line like they did the G3 rather than the 4.



    G3/233-introduced 1997.11.15

    G3 PowerBook-introduced 1997.11.10; discontinued 1998.05.04

    G3 AIO-ntroduced 1998.04.03; discontinued 1999.01.01

    iMac 233-announced 1998.05.06; North American release on 1998.08.15 at $1,299; replaced by Revision B in mid-October 1998



    Dates from LowEndMac web site. You will notice that the desktop and laptop G3 were both released in the same year, followed up by a quick migration to the true "consumer" mac released less than a year later. I dont think we will see a portable G5 this year, but if IBM can mirror their succes in manufacturing the G5 that they did with the G3 then I see the possability, and need, for Apple to release a PowerBook and iMac using the G5 next year. If there is a hint of truth to the GPUL-2 then the PM's may even be ready to move to a G6 in about 18 months anyway.
  • Reply 8 of 49
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    Remember that the first 'PowerBook G3' was nothing more than a PowerBook 3400 with a G3 upgrade. There was not much redesigning done to get it out the door. That's why you can easily replace the PPC in a 1400 or 3400 with a G3 upgrade. How many other times can you remember a PowerBook processor upgrade?



    The G5, however, will obviously need more of a redesign. That's why you'll see an upgrade taking longer than people might like.
  • Reply 9 of 49
    rolorolo Posts: 686member
    Please correct me if I'm wrong but this is how things seem to me:



    GPUL = G5 970 @ .13µ ranging from 1.2 GHz to 2.8 GHz

    GPUL2 = G6 980 @ .09µ ranging from 2.8 GHz to 4.5 GHz

    (Ranges are rough estimates)



    My question is, will there be a die shrink of the 970? If so, mightn't it be in the first quarter of '04? If there's a die shrink, could the die stay the same size by doubling the L2 cache? That's what Moto is doing with the 7455 to 7457 revision, going from .18µ to .13µ.



    If, as Jobs said, the Power Mac is going to 3 GHz by July of '04, won't that be the 980 at .09µ? If so, does it make sense to invest the time, money and effort to die shrink the 970 just a few months before the 980 comes out?



    Wasn't it Joswiak who said at WWDC that there wouldn't be a G5 PowerBook anytime soon? Didn't he play up the importance of Motorola? If Moto is coming out with the new 7457 for use in PBs and iMacs, would it make sense for Apple to contract for the chips for only 6 months?



    What about this scenario:



    7457 in PBs by August, in iMacs by Sept. and both are speedbumped with faster G4s 6 months later. G5 PMs speedbumped to 2.4 GHz by end of Jan. using same .13µ process. PM moves to G6 at up to 3 GHz in July. PBs and iMacs bumped up to faster G4s in March, April and then move to low end G6 by late summer.



    It may be that Apple continues to call the different versions of the 9XX series the G5. The G4 didn't get a name change throughout all the revisions from the 7400 to the 7457 with all of their speed changes and die sizes.



    So many questions, so few answers.
  • Reply 10 of 49
    nevynnevyn Posts: 360member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by @homenow

    After the long road with the G4, I would hope that Apple pushes the G5 into their product line like they did the G3 rather than the 4.



    G3/233-introduced 1997.11.15

    G3 PowerBook-introduced 1997.11.10; discontinued 1998.05.04





    But the reason Apple could do that is the G3 was a low power, low cost, designed-for-laptops chip.



    The G3/233 _desktops_ were NOT great. The 604 machines (and their varients) were better in some areas, and FAR better in other areas (like 6 slots!) The main disadvantage was PRICE. Apple was basically in full retreat/dig-in-and-weather-the-storm mode.



    There has to be some kind of work done before a next-generation laptop. Either the G5 needs to be cooled off/shrunk, some other chip is being designed, IBM's G3's are extended with AV, or Apple goes to Motorola.
  • Reply 11 of 49
    g::mastag::masta Posts: 121member
    from this article, lifting this piece of text "In pursuit of this goal, IBM is poised to introduce two tiers of products: a low-end blade server and an "ultra -low-end" (ULE) rack/deskside model. The initial blade server will be based on the Power PC 970 processor (known internally as the GPUL), which made its debut this month in Apple Computer Inc.'s Power Mac G5 line. A mid-2004 replacement for the blade as well as the ULE products will run on an updated version of that chip, known as the GPUL2." I get the impression that GPUL2 will be a die-shrunk 970 .. or 970+.



    Surely if the GPUL2 were the 980 (based on the POWER5) then they would milk it for everything they could. I don't see a mere mention of an update as a hint to a POWER5-based chip. I also don't see how, if IBM can make blade servers with the 970, Apple can't put at least one in an Xserve, unless they're waiting for Panther Server to be ready ...
  • Reply 12 of 49
    hasapihasapi Posts: 290member
    Firstly, why do people introduce speculation to a comment, "products will run on an updated version of that chip, known as the GPUL2" directlty referring to "THAT CHIP", the 970 and not any Power5 - 980 derivative?. So I can only interpret that as a 970+ (call it what you will, and whatever updates you might care), but seems logical that it will be an updated process to 0.09um. Peter Sandon on ars confirmed that they will be looking at introducing vector unit improvements as well.



    It also confirms that the 970 will be deployable into 1U systems such as Apple's xserve. Low end Blades are indeed 1" modules in 7U Chassis now, it will be interesting to see IBM sales of these compared to their Xeon offerings - though they have a sales advantage being able to run Windows Server Software.
  • Reply 13 of 49
    maclogicmaclogic Posts: 35member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hasapi



    - though they have a sales advantage being able to run Windows Server Software.




    And disadvantage of not being able to use OSX
  • Reply 14 of 49
    rolorolo Posts: 686member
    The Naked Mole Rat has an NMR Report out today that mentions GPUL2:

    Quote:

    Chips ahoy!



    Speaking of intergenerational relations, the Blade has received some snippets of new intelligence about the successor to the PowerPC G5; aka PowerPC 970; nee GPUL (GigaProcessor Ultralite).



    The GPUL2, which was recently fingered as the centerpiece of a mid-2004 line of Linux servers from IBM, is also a presumptive player in Mac models due at the same time; however, the BladeÕs sources caution that, whirring of the propaganda machine aside, the Rev B processors wonÕt mark much of a departure from the Power4-based underpinnings of the current chip.



    Specifically, the next-generation processor will be based on IBMÕs Power4+, not the Power5, the BladeÕs moles attest. ÒGPUL and GPUL2 are considered the same architecture, and if the marketing drones donÕt fiddle with it, GPUL2 should be marketed under the 970 series,Ó they chirp. ÒThe 980 series (if indeed it will be called 980 at all) will be the chip referred to as P5UL (Power5 UltraLite).Ó



    It seems to me that GPUL2 will be the .09µ version of the 970, will be out by July 2004, will be up to 3 GHz, and will still be called the G5.



    BTW, I'll bet the Blade scans these pages. 8)
  • Reply 15 of 49
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Rolo

    The Naked Mole Rat has an NMR Report out today that mentions GPUL2:

    It seems to me that GPUL2 will be the .09µ version of the 970, will be out by July 2004, will be up to 3 GHz, and will still be called the G5.



    BTW, I'll bet the Blade scans these pages. 8)




    M.Isobe over at the Ars Macintoshian Achaia forum in

    this thread says:

    ""P5UL (for Power5 Ultralight), may or may not be branded 980, but will be a Power5 derivative."



    "No. The codename of POWER5 is not "P5", but "GR". Furthermore, the present 970 has already been POWER4+ based specification, such as 130nm process, 512KB L2 block and 3:1 bus ratio support."



    Seems the "Blade's" info is a little off. \



    MM
  • Reply 16 of 49
    costiquecostique Posts: 1,084member
    Hmmm...
    Quote:

    From IBM's press release

    1.2 GHz IBM POWER4+ processor with peak power consumption of 35 watts per processor.



    Well, this is old news, but POWER4+ seems to be a low-power mod of POWER4 on a smaller process (130nm). From the PDF I gather that POWER4+ performs very much like higher-clocked POWER4. So, considering that PowerPC 970 is on 130nm, I think it's based on POWER4+. Am I wrong?
  • Reply 17 of 49
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MartianMatt

    M.Isobe over at the Ars Macintoshian Achaia forum in

    this thread says:

    ""P5UL (for Power5 Ultralight), may or may not be branded 980, but will be a Power5 derivative."



    "No. The codename of POWER5 is not "P5", but "GR". Furthermore, the present 970 has already been POWER4+ based specification, such as 130nm process, 512KB L2 block and 3:1 bus ratio support."



    Seems the "Blade's" info is a little off. \



    MM




    You are right there is not much difference between a power 4 and a power4 plus : more speed, a greater L3cache.

    The next PPC 9XX chip will be based upon the power5.



    The question is : is the next chip from IBM will be the powerPC 970 on 90 nm process with some improvements like a bigger L2 cache (1MB), or directly a new design derivated from the power 5.

    The rumors seems to be in favor of a PPC 970 on 90 nm process first.
  • Reply 18 of 49
    henriokhenriok Posts: 537member
    The original GPUL stood for Giga Processor Ultra Light, and that seems appropriate since the POWER4 went under the name of Giga Processor before it was named the POWER4. Power 5 Ultra Light, aka P5UL seems appropriate too, but from where does the R in GRUL come from? I can understad the P5UL name, but I can not understand the GRUL name. Can someone make an educated guess to what it stands for?
  • Reply 19 of 49
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    The question is : is the next chip from IBM will be the powerPC 970 on 90 nm process with some improvements like a bigger L2 cache (1MB), or directly a new design derivated from the power 5.

    The rumors seems to be in favor of a PPC 970 on 90 nm process first.




    With all due respect for M.Isobe, he is not an IBM employee and does not have any more access than any of the rest of us. Where he got the code name, I have no idea, but I suspect that TGB's info is more accurate.



    I think we will next see a 90 nm PPC970, possibly with a slightly updated Altivec engine (not sure about cache), followed by a 90 nm SMT version of a Power5-based chip (P5UL) about one to one and a half years from today.
  • Reply 20 of 49
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown

    With all due respect for M.Isobe, he is not an IBM employee and does not have any more access than any of the rest of us. Where he got the code name, I have no idea, but I suspect that TGB's info is more accurate.



    I think we will next see a 90 nm PPC970, possibly with a slightly updated Altivec engine (not sure about cache), followed by a 90 nm SMT version of a Power5-based chip (P5UL) about one to one and a half years from today.




    IBM has been steadily increasing cache size with changes in process or sometimes with out. The 750CX series went to 256KB L2 from 0KB in the 750. The 750FX went to 512KB and the 750GX will go to 1MB. An educated guess would show the 970 going to 1MB cache with a move to 90nm.
Sign In or Register to comment.