IBM has recently been taking a shine to the whole SIMD idea, the PPC750 Sahara successor is rumored to have a SIMD unit in it's design. Regardless, it's perfectly feasible for Apple to reengineer the Velocity Engine to something that is compatible with the Altivec instruction set without Motorola's permission as long as they follow the correct procedures.
I thought the Power5 was supposed to be released sometime in 2003?? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Abstract: Motorola's new e500 core introduces new SIMD instructions. Early in the week Motorola's Kumar Gala will introduce the e500 SIMD instructions for the first time. Mr. Lund's presentation is a follow-on that contrasts the e500 SMID functionality with the AltiVec SIMD functionality currently available in the G4 and G4+ cores. Mr. Lund's tutorial will help users decide which SIMD instruction set is best for their application's requirements. The tutorial will start at a high level and transition into a review of source code optimized for each processor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This may be old news...but, I wasn't aware that Mot had designed brand new SIMD instructions to go with the 8540. BTW, the session is scheduled the week of 7/21.
I thought IBM had already licensed it from MOTO. </strong><hr></blockquote>
They liccensed it for only certain speeds and only on the implamentations that it's arleady... essentially they can't integrate into their own chips,,,
Wouldn't it make sense to have a workstation - super mac for the high end video market. A magical place where money doesn't mean a whole lot for computing equipment. Apple's buying up a bunch of high end company's so why not have a power 4/5 workstation that blows the crap out of intel's performance, and has an awesome operating system, with awesome software.
<strong>Wouldn't it make sense to have a workstation - super mac for the high end video market. A magical place where money doesn't mean a whole lot for computing equipment. Apple's buying up a bunch of high end company's so why not have a power 4/5 workstation that blows the crap out of intel's performance, and has an awesome operating system, with awesome software.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh yes, this is coming but at what price? Apple could have had it all in 2000 with the 7410 (low power G4 @ 500Mhz) in a Quad and then an 8 way Powermac (by now). My sig is from 2000 when I became a Switcher from 15 years on Windows.
Just a quick question with respect to changing to another CPU, how similar is the power architecture to the Power PC? They derived from the same original design I hear. It would surely behove Apple to make the transition as smooth as possible, but they cant just sit around on their chuffs and do nothing, shit, the g4 has been out for 3 years now with what, a doubling of clock speed. Even the more optimistic amongst us would have to admit that Apple has to do something here.
<strong>Just a quick question with respect to changing to another CPU, how similar is the power architecture to the Power PC? They derived from the same original design I hear. </strong><hr></blockquote>
The G3 (turned G4 with altivec) and the POWER4 both come from the same basic PPC design. This means that they both handle data the same way. The actual architecture is quite different, but in terms of Apple this means absoubtly nothing. Apple would have to change pretty much only it's driver software in order to use the POWER series instead of hte MOT 7450s.
The G3 (turned G4 with altivec) and the POWER4 both come from the same basic PPC design. This means that they both handle data the same way. The actual architecture is quite different, but in terms of Apple this means absoubtly nothing. Apple would have to change pretty much only it's driver software in order to use the POWER series instead of hte MOT 7450s.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This explanation seems a bit confusing, I'll try to restate it:
The POWER4's instruction set is compatible with the PowerPC instruction set used in the G4, except that it doesn't include AltiVec and there are a few system-level issues that only the OS would care about. Application software and most of the OS could run on a POWER4 unchanged. The parts of the OS that would need to change have been carefully isolated by Apple in the MacOSX kernel and so supporting a new processor is a fairly straightforward matter. I'd be a little surprised if Apple didn't have a POWER3 and/or POWER4 machine somewhere in its labs running MacOSX as an experiment.
Hell, I'd be surprised if Apple didn't have OSX running on at least one of HP9000, MIPS, and Sparc processors, and possibly all three. Gotta keep them options open.
JObs recently told analysts that the PowerPC future looked bright. They were most likely referring to an IBM design in the pipeline, perhaps even ready to go.
<strong>Hell, I'd be surprised if Apple didn't have OSX running on at least one of HP9000, MIPS, and Sparc processors, and possibly all three. Gotta keep them options open. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I always dream of Apple and SGI working together...
<strong>A custom Power 5 would be more likely than a Power 4. IBM don't want Apple to go in the same market segment as them with high end Servers.
IBM will never sell high end chips to Apple. A larger agreement would be possible like licence MacOS X Server to IBM for there high end server and Apple sells only low end servers. Apple could than use the same chip but in max. 2 cores chip.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
even though it sounds that apple and ibm might be competing for high end server market when apple uses power4/5/6 line chip, in reality, they are working on different market sectors. people who want to use mac mostly likely will not buy an AIX or linux line of ibm machines. most important of all, apple is focusing on consumer market. so it should be ok.
as to the power comsumption on power4, somewhere i read and it is around 100W.
I always dream of Apple and SGI working together...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
apple and sgi are two jewels of workstation computing in my mind since apple promotes the ease of use and funky gui into computation and sgi really shows the world the wonder of graphical effect. they shed the light on computer box...
it would be great if they work together. sgi will bring talents to apple on high end media server platform for hollywood while apple will show sgi how to populate its tech advance into consumer market.
sgi can also lead apple into defense market where the taxpayer money go to and is wasted...
now sgi is a $241m market cap company while apple is a $5.26n market cap corporation with almost $5b in hand... why not?
This explanation seems a bit confusing, I'll try to restate it:
The POWER4's instruction set is compatible with the PowerPC instruction set used in the G4, except that it doesn't include AltiVec and there are a few system-level issues that only the OS would care about. Application software and most of the OS could run on a POWER4 unchanged. The parts of the OS that would need to change have been carefully isolated by Apple in the MacOSX kernel and so supporting a new processor is a fairly straightforward matter. I'd be a little surprised if Apple didn't have a POWER3 and/or POWER4 machine somewhere in its labs running MacOSX as an experiment.</strong><hr></blockquote>
with the power of two 64-bit cpu cores cranching the number, i really don't see the need for altivec, as i always regard it as a workaround for apple/moto. but since apple and moto promoted it for a while, i guess many developers have used this feature. so it would generate certain bad response if apple's new cpu does not have altivec.
power4 is compatiable with powerpc architecture with some improvement on the parts that hinders the faster cycle design. also, keep in mind, this chip is powerful and intented to be used in server. therefore, it has many features which does not exist in consumer market: reliability and fault tolerance management. if apple has its will to use it and move consumer product to server level (not everything but certain features), i am not surprisde to see a future mac can run and run and run...
apple: answer is out there, please get it and fire it up and move on...
<strong>The POWER4 has an impressive core, even if it was single. It has a 14 stage pipeline second longest only to the P4 and lots of room to grow. Already 64bit compliant, a proprietary but fast system bus (10GBps max transfer rate), excellent cache support, a first rate FPU, and a modular design. With the proper design (taking some elements from the 750FX design) this can even be made for use in a portable device.
IBM can do it. Does Apple want it?
In my opinion such a processor would have:
Single POWER4 derived core;
Altivec-clone (Velocity Engine II);
500MHz GX bus to memory/PCI/peripheral controller;
not sure the process to make a single core version of power4, since the min. config for a power4 has two cores. the biggest archievement on pqwer4, in my mind, is that ibm created cpu switch within the die. ibm uses this type of crossbar switch between multiple cores to achieve on-die parellel processing. this is quite different from what intel does on its itanium chip and what sun does it on its ultrasparc v. of course it could use one cpu while another one is turned off. well, i think we lost some points or sense to do so, don;t we?
but i do agree that two core power4 will be too expensive for consumer. i can easily see a targeting price for such machine as $7000+.
my bet on what apple might do;
1: keep g4 line and improve it on motherboard. build low end/entry level power mac. price ~ $1000-2000. imac line
2: have g4 with two cpu on a SMP machine with higher clock rate. this is for middle level power mac. price ~ $2000 to 4000. high end imac and low end desktop
3: have pwer4 with two core on one die for a high end power mac. price ~ $4000 to 10,000. high end desktop
4: have power4 with 2, 4, 8, or 16 dies for high end server line. long gone the cheap server, replica of existing power mac line. price ~ $4000 to 100k
well, we have the right to speculate, don't we:-)?
Comments
I thought the Power5 was supposed to be released sometime in 2003?? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>Session Topic: PowerPC SIMD Instructions (H1121)
Level: Advanced
Presenter: Craig Lund, Mercury Computer Systems
Abstract: Motorola's new e500 core introduces new SIMD instructions. Early in the week Motorola's Kumar Gala will introduce the e500 SIMD instructions for the first time. Mr. Lund's presentation is a follow-on that contrasts the e500 SMID functionality with the AltiVec SIMD functionality currently available in the G4 and G4+ cores. Mr. Lund's tutorial will help users decide which SIMD instruction set is best for their application's requirements. The tutorial will start at a high level and transition into a review of source code optimized for each processor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This may be old news...but, I wasn't aware that Mot had designed brand new SIMD instructions to go with the 8540. BTW, the session is scheduled the week of 7/21.
<strong>
I thought IBM had already licensed it from MOTO. </strong><hr></blockquote>
They liccensed it for only certain speeds and only on the implamentations that it's arleady... essentially they can't integrate into their own chips,,,
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=businessnews&StoryID=12094 75" target="_blank">Motorola beats analyst expectation and posts their biggest loss in history.</a>
At this rate, Apple could just buy them.
Um.....G4+?
<strong>
Um.....G4+?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The 7450 and 7455 are the G4+, although that term was never officially used. They are the lengthened pipeline versions.
<strong>
The 7450 and 7455 are the G4+, although that term was never officially used. They are the lengthened pipeline versions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Many thanx. I remembered the term used around here by someone relating to a future CPU. Must have been an older post.
<strong>Wouldn't it make sense to have a workstation - super mac for the high end video market. A magical place where money doesn't mean a whole lot for computing equipment. Apple's buying up a bunch of high end company's so why not have a power 4/5 workstation that blows the crap out of intel's performance, and has an awesome operating system, with awesome software.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh yes, this is coming but at what price? Apple could have had it all in 2000 with the 7410 (low power G4 @ 500Mhz) in a Quad and then an 8 way Powermac (by now). My sig is from 2000 when I became a Switcher from 15 years on Windows.
<strong>Just a quick question with respect to changing to another CPU, how similar is the power architecture to the Power PC? They derived from the same original design I hear. </strong><hr></blockquote>
The G3 (turned G4 with altivec) and the POWER4 both come from the same basic PPC design. This means that they both handle data the same way. The actual architecture is quite different, but in terms of Apple this means absoubtly nothing. Apple would have to change pretty much only it's driver software in order to use the POWER series instead of hte MOT 7450s.
<strong>
The G3 (turned G4 with altivec) and the POWER4 both come from the same basic PPC design. This means that they both handle data the same way. The actual architecture is quite different, but in terms of Apple this means absoubtly nothing. Apple would have to change pretty much only it's driver software in order to use the POWER series instead of hte MOT 7450s.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This explanation seems a bit confusing, I'll try to restate it:
The POWER4's instruction set is compatible with the PowerPC instruction set used in the G4, except that it doesn't include AltiVec and there are a few system-level issues that only the OS would care about. Application software and most of the OS could run on a POWER4 unchanged. The parts of the OS that would need to change have been carefully isolated by Apple in the MacOSX kernel and so supporting a new processor is a fairly straightforward matter. I'd be a little surprised if Apple didn't have a POWER3 and/or POWER4 machine somewhere in its labs running MacOSX as an experiment.
<strong>Hell, I'd be surprised if Apple didn't have OSX running on at least one of HP9000, MIPS, and Sparc processors, and possibly all three. Gotta keep them options open.
I always dream of Apple and SGI working together...
<strong>
OSX + Duals, Quads & Octos = World Domination
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes !!!!
If we have the G5, what the G5 is (PWR4/5, Hammer, Moto G5,...)
Hope Steve doesn't think different for this
MWNY02 : <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>A custom Power 5 would be more likely than a Power 4. IBM don't want Apple to go in the same market segment as them with high end Servers.
IBM will never sell high end chips to Apple. A larger agreement would be possible like licence MacOS X Server to IBM for there high end server and Apple sells only low end servers. Apple could than use the same chip but in max. 2 cores chip.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
even though it sounds that apple and ibm might be competing for high end server market when apple uses power4/5/6 line chip, in reality, they are working on different market sectors. people who want to use mac mostly likely will not buy an AIX or linux line of ibm machines. most important of all, apple is focusing on consumer market. so it should be ok.
as to the power comsumption on power4, somewhere i read and it is around 100W.
[ 07-20-2002: Message edited by: anakin1992 ]</p>
<strong>
I always dream of Apple and SGI working together...
apple and sgi are two jewels of workstation computing in my mind since apple promotes the ease of use and funky gui into computation and sgi really shows the world the wonder of graphical effect. they shed the light on computer box...
it would be great if they work together. sgi will bring talents to apple on high end media server platform for hollywood while apple will show sgi how to populate its tech advance into consumer market.
sgi can also lead apple into defense market where the taxpayer money go to and is wasted...
now sgi is a $241m market cap company while apple is a $5.26n market cap corporation with almost $5b in hand... why not?
<strong>
This explanation seems a bit confusing, I'll try to restate it:
The POWER4's instruction set is compatible with the PowerPC instruction set used in the G4, except that it doesn't include AltiVec and there are a few system-level issues that only the OS would care about. Application software and most of the OS could run on a POWER4 unchanged. The parts of the OS that would need to change have been carefully isolated by Apple in the MacOSX kernel and so supporting a new processor is a fairly straightforward matter. I'd be a little surprised if Apple didn't have a POWER3 and/or POWER4 machine somewhere in its labs running MacOSX as an experiment.</strong><hr></blockquote>
with the power of two 64-bit cpu cores cranching the number, i really don't see the need for altivec, as i always regard it as a workaround for apple/moto. but since apple and moto promoted it for a while, i guess many developers have used this feature. so it would generate certain bad response if apple's new cpu does not have altivec.
power4 is compatiable with powerpc architecture with some improvement on the parts that hinders the faster cycle design. also, keep in mind, this chip is powerful and intented to be used in server. therefore, it has many features which does not exist in consumer market: reliability and fault tolerance management. if apple has its will to use it and move consumer product to server level (not everything but certain features), i am not surprisde to see a future mac can run and run and run...
apple: answer is out there, please get it and fire it up and move on...
<strong>The POWER4 has an impressive core, even if it was single. It has a 14 stage pipeline second longest only to the P4 and lots of room to grow. Already 64bit compliant, a proprietary but fast system bus (10GBps max transfer rate), excellent cache support, a first rate FPU, and a modular design. With the proper design (taking some elements from the 750FX design) this can even be made for use in a portable device.
IBM can do it. Does Apple want it?
In my opinion such a processor would have:
Single POWER4 derived core;
Altivec-clone (Velocity Engine II);
500MHz GX bus to memory/PCI/peripheral controller;
512KB L2 cache;
Up to 8MB L3 cache (optional);
state of the art 130nm SOI process.
The PowerPC 850.
[ 07-15-2002: Message edited by: Outsider ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
not sure the process to make a single core version of power4, since the min. config for a power4 has two cores. the biggest archievement on pqwer4, in my mind, is that ibm created cpu switch within the die. ibm uses this type of crossbar switch between multiple cores to achieve on-die parellel processing. this is quite different from what intel does on its itanium chip and what sun does it on its ultrasparc v. of course it could use one cpu while another one is turned off. well, i think we lost some points or sense to do so, don;t we?
but i do agree that two core power4 will be too expensive for consumer. i can easily see a targeting price for such machine as $7000+.
my bet on what apple might do;
1: keep g4 line and improve it on motherboard. build low end/entry level power mac. price ~ $1000-2000. imac line
2: have g4 with two cpu on a SMP machine with higher clock rate. this is for middle level power mac. price ~ $2000 to 4000. high end imac and low end desktop
3: have pwer4 with two core on one die for a high end power mac. price ~ $4000 to 10,000. high end desktop
4: have power4 with 2, 4, 8, or 16 dies for high end server line. long gone the cheap server, replica of existing power mac line. price ~ $4000 to 100k
well, we have the right to speculate, don't we:-)?
[ 07-20-2002: Message edited by: anakin1992 ]</p>