IBM's Latest Fab!

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
IBM has announced that they are working on making things run cooler and faster through means other than miniaturization. I'm not fully versed in the geek speak but check it out for yourselves. Interesting approach, equally interesting to see what will bring us over the 3ghz wall, but Ya know, Seeing stuff like this really makes me wonder what Kind of politicing went on between Apple, IBM and Intel? With tech like this (yeah I know IBM's Track record but I've always liked their tech even with the trade off-s) I wonder what Intel has in store? Really adds weight to the theory that Apple has no intention of either switching 100 percent or forever. Their hedging their bets I guarantee it! Well that's my hypothisis anyway ...

G6 sounds F_-_-ng Cool doesn't it?

Anyway follow the link to the reuters story...



IBM 's Latest Fab
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 34
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    What are you talikng about? 65 nanometer transitions is hardly news. Intel is already on their way there, and Apple has already said the entire Mac product line will be on intel. IBM is out of the line entirely. They are no longer making new processor lines with Apple computer in mind. This isn't the Mac users with an XBOX forum. \
  • Reply 2 of 34
    Despite the fact it's very expensive for a company to split it's brain into two parts (double hardware, double software engineering) ... I can't believe that Apple would completely dump the PPC if for nothing then as an escape hatch (and as possible leverage against Intel should it ever be necessary).



    I suspect they'll secretly hedge their bets for some time between PPC and Intel - and who knows, maybe in two or three years, Cell technology will be so cool, that we'll see a "transition" back to PPC for some of the hardware ... done with a nod-and-a-wink because, since at that point, everybody would have been building universal binaries anyway, there won't really be much of a transition.



    And now, back our regulairly scheduled transition.
  • Reply 3 of 34
    Quote:

    [i]I wonder what Intel has in store? Really adds weight to the theory that Apple has no intention of either switching 100 percent or forever. Their hedging their bets I guarantee it! Well that's my hypothisis anyway ...

    G6 sounds F_-_-ng Cool doesn't it?[/B]



    Anyway, advanced techs are not always the best choice.



    Besides, everyone is looking forward to get over the PPC-to-x86 transitional crisis. I guarantee that no one wants another transition again.
  • Reply 4 of 34
    cute onlooker I know 65nm is not news but their fab technique is unique to IBM. That's all I was commenting on. This transition is just a bunch of poop to me! I was happy with the PPC performance and frankly I still think they are better chips in terms of overall robustness. But only time will tell I suppose, Steve J has been quoted as being excited by what intel has down the line. Wait and see.



    IBM is huge in my "home town" (they created the fab for the G5 in fishkill; although it quickly went overseas) so to see Intel score a contract my acquaintances/ regional peers lost (butt heads) burns my arse! In reference to mechengit's input; duh dude, their will be no transition if they want to use PPC again. The code is already written in dual binaries how difficult beside another motherboard revision could it be. The OS is written in "dual binaries", so to will the apps. Seems a perfect fit for a relatively small company who's often burnt because they consume so few chips relative to the market.



    Seems as plausible as the rest of the fodder on this forum lately! Rolo will never out live it!



    Thanks for keeping the discussion open guys!
  • Reply 5 of 34
    Quote:

    Originally posted by OverToasty

    . . . and who knows, maybe in two or three years, Cell technology will be so cool, that we'll see a "transition" back to PPC for some of the hardware ... And now, back our regulairly scheduled transition. . .



    I really like Cell, but I think Intel is the place to be. You'll laugh at me for now, but it's highly likely that over the next few years Intel will be slowly phasing out the x86 on the desktop in favor of advanced designs that are more closely related to Itanium. Intel has gone public in saying that they are already re-organizing the engineering divisions responsible for superscalar and superpipelined designs. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
  • Reply 6 of 34
    skatmanskatman Posts: 609member
    Middle of 2007?? In chip world, that's a few milleniums away. Till then the plan may change a few times since the process of taking an idea developed in lab to industrial fabrication process (in the chip business) is MANY MANY times harder than actually inventing it in lab.



    What counts in this business is NOW and upto 6 months in the future... if IBM doesn't have anything that can compete with Intel within 6 months... it's as good as "doesn't have it at all... period".
  • Reply 7 of 34
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mechengit





    . . . Besides, everyone is looking forward to get over the PPC-to-x86 transitional crisis. I guarantee that no one wants another transition again.







    Yes, no one wants another transition - - - again!



    However, returning to the PPC for maybe one or two models isn't a transition. From now on, Mac OS and all Mac software with run on either processor. If IBM came up with a fantastic CPU for some application, like a server, Apple could use it without a problem. Apple is actually in an enviable position regarding hardware. Why not capitalize on it? It seems like a no-brainer. I don't think there is much chance of this happening, but we certainly can't rule it out. Let's wait and see what IBM and Intel have for offerings down the road a few years.



    Jerry
  • Reply 8 of 34
    IBM will abandon chip business in a couple of years.
  • Reply 9 of 34
    gargar Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by skatman

    IBM will abandon chip business in a couple of years.



    and sell it to the chinese
  • Reply 10 of 34
    Quote:

    Originally posted by spliff monkey

    IBM is huge in my "home town" (they created the fab for the G5 in fishkill; although it quickly went overseas) so to see Intel score a contract my acquaintances/ regional peers lost (butt heads) burns my arse! In reference to mechengit's input; duh dude, their will be no transition if they want to use PPC again. The code is already written in dual binaries how difficult beside another motherboard revision could it be. The OS is written in "dual binaries", so to will the apps. Seems a perfect fit for a relatively small company who's often burnt because they consume so few chips relative to the market.



    Speaking of "relatively small company", I guess it's almost impossible for Apple to change their hardware platform again within ten years.



    There is also a question about the Dual binaries. The main consideration for dual binaries is back-compatible. Compatible with future IBM products is not Apple's main consideration. Do you expect that the existing dual binaries will utilize the new features of IBM's new coming CPU (maybe Power6) without any additional optimizing work? I don't think there is such free lunch. EVEN Intel have put a lot of hard work on their compiler to utilize the performance of each new CPU products. Will IBM do that for Apple? I don't think so... they will rather put their focus on Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo instead.



    Besides, I don't think it's easy to utilize both new coming features of x86 and PPC fully without any compromise in the future. If they can, maybe x86 and PPC should be already compatible by now. :P
  • Reply 11 of 34
    Quote:

    Originally posted by spliff monkey

    cute onlooker I know 65nm is not news but their fab technique is unique to IBM. That's all I was commenting on. This transition is just a bunch of poop to me! I was happy with the PPC performance and frankly I still think they are better chips in terms of overall robustness. But only time will tell I suppose, Steve J has been quoted as being excited by what intel has down the line. Wait and see.



    Just as I said, advanced techs are not always the best choice for companies, because there are many more considerations other than techs. (Take RISC for example...)
  • Reply 12 of 34
    cubitcubit Posts: 846member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by gar

    and sell it to the chinese



    Who may well forget to pay royalites, or keep the back door unlocked....
  • Reply 13 of 34
    well well well IBM cell chips in blade servers huh? Who said it wouldn't happen? Sucka's I assume that since it's PPC that it'll run linux?



    here's the linky...



    IBM Cell Blades



    What do ya'll make of that?
  • Reply 14 of 34
    Quote:

    Originally posted by spliff monkey

    well well well IBM cell chips in blade servers huh? Who said it wouldn't happen? Sucka's I assume that since it's PPC that it'll run linux?



    here's the linky...



    IBM Cell Blades



    What do ya'll make of that?




    According to your interesting "compatible" statement,

    MAYBE you're assuming that it "could" run Mac OSX?!



    I will wait for your good news.
  • Reply 15 of 34
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,393member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Splinemodel

    I really like Cell, but I think Intel is the place to be. You'll laugh at me for now, but it's highly likely that over the next few years Intel will be slowly phasing out the x86 on the desktop in favor of advanced designs that are more closely related to Itanium. Intel has gone public in saying that they are already re-organizing the engineering divisions responsible for superscalar and superpipelined designs. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.



    I'd like to see an on-die memory controller, remove the circuitry for the x86 legacy apps, and altintelvec.
  • Reply 16 of 34
    MY point was obviously missed. Many have told me and others on these boards (somewhat overconfidently) that you's never see cell in a desktop and or server. Well here they are! Any reason apple couln't or wouldn't make this work? Please I just want to know whay my next "PowerMac" won't be using this technology, rendering entire cities in real time. OMFG how could that not be appealing. Obviously I'm ignorant to the tecchnical/ political reasons why not but I'm not dumb enough to not recognize that it is very obviously possible. I just want to understand are intel chips superbly better or are we in the middle of another snow job?
  • Reply 17 of 34
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by spliff monkey

    MY point was obviously missed. Many have told me and others on these boards (somewhat overconfidently) that you's never see cell in a desktop and or server. Well here they are! Any reason apple couln't or wouldn't make this work? Please I just want to know whay my next "PowerMac" won't be using this technology, rendering entire cities in real time. OMFG how could that not be appealing. Obviously I'm ignorant to the tecchnical/ political reasons why not but I'm not dumb enough to not recognize that it is very obviously possible. I just want to understand are intel chips superbly better or are we in the middle of another snow job?



    Cell isn't designed the way your insinuating it is yet. Just because you put it in a server to do a task doesn't mean it's a competent CPU for personal computing. To serve is one thing. To run a complex OS and 1000's of applications from different vendors is another. These IBM's are designed with specifics in mind just like the PS3 is. Military is one, and Medical is another. We expected this, and we knew it when IBM announced the CELL processor. You can read all about it in old maccentral articles, and most other news sites early CELL technology review articles about IBM being in the XBOX, and PS3. All these details are in there.
  • Reply 18 of 34
    jrgjrg Posts: 58member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by spliff monkey

    MY point was obviously missed. Many have told me and others on these boards (somewhat overconfidently) that you's never see cell in a desktop and or server. Well here they are! Any reason apple couln't or wouldn't make this work? Please I just want to know whay my next "PowerMac" won't be using this technology, rendering entire cities in real time. OMFG how could that not be appealing. Obviously I'm ignorant to the tecchnical/ political reasons why not but I'm not dumb enough to not recognize that it is very obviously possible. I just want to understand are intel chips superbly better or are we in the middle of another snow job?



    The CELL chips/designs are FPU monsters, no doubt at all, but they are pathetic at general purpose computing taks. They are in-order integer chips, like the 601, 603, 604 etc.



    The performance of CELL running anything other than games, multimedia and other FPU heavy workloads will be dismal compared to the Intel or G5 chips.



    The CELL chips also have a strange programming model, it will take some time for programmers to learn how to use them effectively, just as it did for the PS2, is for the XBox 360 and will for the PS3.



    Intel are the better long term choice, they can dedicate far more resources towards developing chips. You can see this in how they provide different chips targeted to different markets: laptop, desktop, workstation and server.
  • Reply 19 of 34
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,409member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JRG

    The CELL chips/designs are FPU monsters, no doubt at all, but they are pathetic at general purpose computing taks. They are in-order integer chips, like the 601, 603, 604 etc.



    The performance of CELL running anything other than games, multimedia and other FPU heavy workloads will be dismal compared to the Intel or G5 chips.



    The CELL chips also have a strange programming model, it will take some time for programmers to learn how to use them effectively, just as it did for the PS2, is for the XBox 360 and will for the PS3.




    I would be careful with those characterizations. Cell will actually do just fine at many computing tasks which are considered "general purpose"; the key is that "strange programming model". The important observation should be that unmodified software will generally not run particularly well on a Cell, although a 4+ GHz in-order processor can do pretty well compared to an ~2 GHz out-of-order one, especially given the >25 GB/sec memory bandwidth of the Cell. If the software is redesigned/rewritten to conform to the Cell's "strange programming model" then for many tasks (floating point or integer) where people care about performance, the Cell will perform extremely impressively. And only time will tell how long the Cell's programming model will remain strange... the hardware design pressures driving it are not unique to STI.
  • Reply 20 of 34
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Programmer

    And only time will tell how long the Cell's programming model will remain strange... the hardware design pressures driving it are not unique to STI.



    There ya have it folks - a definite "maybe" ... nothing wrong with that, so ...



    Apple would be smart (in my very humble opinion) to keep its options open with this Univeral Binary thing for a while, maybe even experiment with tweaking for the Cell Model and see what happens: and yes, that's NOT just for backwards compatability.
Sign In or Register to comment.