well Motorola has been saying that it would move to outside sources of production for it's chips, only designing them in-house. A logical choice would be IBM.
<strong>Actually, the G3 is "stuck" at 1GHz. Apple chooses to only use the G3 in the low-end iBook portable, and so doesn't use the 1GHz part.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So is there any other manufacturers out there actually using those GHz G3s? I.e. do they exist as a shipping product, or merely as an item on some roadmap or whitepaper?
It would be in Apple's best interests to just get them straight from IBM instead of getting them from Moto who then gets them from IBM. Cutting out the middleman reduces costs. I'm sure this new IBM facility is much more advanced than Moto's facilities and should produce higher yields which means lower prices. That is one thing we really need. The higher performance sure doesn't hurt either.
If the iMacs and eMacs switch to IBM chips, that could bring the prices down $200 or more across the board. The current G4s Apple gets from Moto are several hundred dollars, while IBM might be able to make them for under $200 based their G3 pricing.
mmm, that's quite an interesting coincidence, isn't it? I wonder how IBM thinks they have enough semiconductor business to justify opening such a plant... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Woo hoo! Maybe I actually stumbled onto something! Even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while
<strong>By the way, since I'm posting, don't any of you think that opening up a new chip foundry for the soul purpose of supplying Apple is a bit extreme?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think anyone is suggesting that this will be the sole purpose of the foundry -- I'm certainly not.
Note also the expansion of facilities in Burlington and Japan. Looks like IBM is finally going to do something with all that chip fab technology. Now lets hope they get good at fabbing.
<strong>So I kinda wonder, what is this firm belief in IBM being able to produce super-high-clockrate chips based on?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think it basically comes from good IBM marketing, since they are making a lot of progress as far as chip-making technology goes (yet don't often mention it will only come in a few years) plus the fact that IBM _does_ ship the POWER4 line of CPUs. So it's easy to conclude that IBM must be doing something right and knows the stuff.
Considering IBM and Apple both doing the PowerPC dance, it would also make sense to provide Apple's next-gen CPUs since I guess IBM would have nothing against showing it up a Pentium 4's at a Steve-o bakeoff. And maybe then sell more PowerPCs.
Right now IBM has nothing to show, but I belive myself that with all that "breaktroughs" they're having and new sub 0.10 nm facilities they're a more likely candidate to provide the next best thing for Apple than anyone else.
One incentive I can think of for IBM to design and produce processors for Apple is the fact that they can use them too. It's been rumored that IBM wants a processor for their low end rs6000 workstations and they were thinking of using Motorolas 7450 series. But this rumor has died down lately and maybe this is because Apple an IBM are indeed working on a joint project based on an extended pipeline 750 core. A SIMD unit (Velocity Engine II) that can take Altivec code and process it is well with-in IBM's capability. Also, it's not far-fetched that IBM, Motorola, and Apple have made an agreement for use of key Altivec design elements to be incorporated in an IBM design. If the price is right Motorola may very well choose to pursue this especially in a time where they can use the extra income. A 750 core designed for scalable clock frequency (hyper-pipelined), some more cache, Altivec, a DP floating point unit, the impressive GX bus from the POWER4 for memory controller access, and a side of RIO for good measure. Keep the package small (small pin count)! Small package will mean lower manufacturing costs and that will filter down to lowered prices on the Macs.
I haven't seen this link posted before (or maybe I just missed it). I am not sure if it is pure speculation, wishful thinking, or some basis in fact but it seems to go along with this thread. I find it interesting that he is talking about the followup to a processor that is unannounced.
<strong>One incentive I can think of for IBM to design and produce processors for Apple is the fact that they can use them too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is what it is all about! IBM are (beleive it or not) MORE desperate for a new desktop chip than Apple. Look at this:
The first machine starts at over 8000USD for a 250MHz 604e!!!!!
Apple and IBM are tied together with self interest here. Every CPU Apple sell helps to amortise the massive up-front capital cost of designing a CPU. This is a real win-win situation:
1. IBM and Apple each get a fast CPU for less than either one could do alone.
2. IBM get to fill their shiny new production lines, Apple get chips built on a state of the art (SOTA) fab.
3. Apple's and IBM's markets probably have close to 0% cross-over (except perhaps bio-tech).
4. Two R&D driven companies, one shared chip architecture to invest it on. Imagine IBM complier technology on a Macintosh!!!!
[quote]<strong>It's been rumored that IBM wants a processor for their low end rs6000 workstations and they were thinking of using Motorolas 7450 series. But this rumor has died down lately and maybe this is because Apple an IBM are indeed working on a joint project based on an extended pipeline 750 core. A SIMD unit (Velocity Engine II) that can take Altivec code and process it is well with-in IBM's capability. Also, it's not far-fetched that IBM, Motorola, and Apple have made an agreement for use of key Altivec design elements to be incorporated in an IBM design.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Forget about a G3 based design. It has far too many inadequities to use. Too low issue width, too small a pipeline, too braniac a design.
Anyway, the G3 started life as a .35 micron part. It was shrunk to .25 and then .18, I can't think of another chip that went through four shrinks. The general rule is the first generation process is less than ideal, the second process the design hits its straps and the third one it is ready for retirement. Intel are brilliant at this (P4 as a developing example).
"News 2.10.2002: I'm leaving IA-64 chipset development to work on PowerPC floating point/SIMD/VMX design. I've been working on the Blue Gene/L supercomputing project for awhile now, soon I'll be moving into working on the STI (Sony/Toshiba/IBM) next-generation PowerPC that will be at the heart of the Playstation 3. It's exciting."
This comes from the other thread 'IBM CPU' thingie.
I didn't think the next gen' PS III cpu would be Power PC...
...how ironic considering Nintendo has one.
...could this be the same chip that Apple will use in future desktops?
Comments
<strong>Actually, the G3 is "stuck" at 1GHz. Apple chooses to only use the G3 in the low-end iBook portable, and so doesn't use the 1GHz part.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So is there any other manufacturers out there actually using those GHz G3s? I.e. do they exist as a shipping product, or merely as an item on some roadmap or whitepaper?
Besides, according to <a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/2FF4861D6755A6CA87256BB1006B1DE6/$file/PPC750FX_PB.PDF"; target="_blank">IBM</a>, the 750FX reaches 1GHz on a 130nm process, whereas Moto's G4 reaches the same clock frequency on a 180nm process.
[quote]<strong>As has been pointed out before, G3 and G4 have had similar clockspeeds since the G4's creation.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even so, this still doesn't give people too much of a reason for saying "dump the G4, use higher-clocked G3s instead".
Bye,
RazzFazz
[ 08-01-2002: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
<strong>I was curious why doesn't IBM make the chips for MOTO
I was wondering if this strategy would work out for the ppc alliance?
[ 08-01-2002: Message edited by: freeyomynd ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
It would be in Apple's best interests to just get them straight from IBM instead of getting them from Moto who then gets them from IBM. Cutting out the middleman reduces costs. I'm sure this new IBM facility is much more advanced than Moto's facilities and should produce higher yields which means lower prices. That is one thing we really need. The higher performance sure doesn't hurt either.
If the iMacs and eMacs switch to IBM chips, that could bring the prices down $200 or more across the board. The current G4s Apple gets from Moto are several hundred dollars, while IBM might be able to make them for under $200 based their G3 pricing.
<strong>
mmm, that's quite an interesting coincidence, isn't it? I wonder how IBM thinks they have enough semiconductor business to justify opening such a plant...
Woo hoo! Maybe I actually stumbled onto something! Even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while
<strong>Even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's got to be, by far, the worst analogy. Ever. Don't let me catch you using that again.
By the way, since I'm posting, don't any of you think that opening up a new chip foundry for the soul purpose of supplying Apple is a bit extreme?
<strong>By the way, since I'm posting, don't any of you think that opening up a new chip foundry for the soul purpose of supplying Apple is a bit extreme?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think anyone is suggesting that this will be the sole purpose of the foundry -- I'm certainly not.
Gotta make the GP-UL's somewhere, tho...
[ 08-01-2002: Message edited by: moki ]</p>
<strong>Even so, this still doesn't give people too much of a reason for saying "dump the G4, use higher-clocked G3s instead".
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unless you could get away with a 8-way sub-1000$ G3 system!
<strong>
Unless you could get away with a 8-way sub-1000$ G3 system!
Yeah, on a nice 60x bus.
(At 200MHz, admittedly, but still...)
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>So I kinda wonder, what is this firm belief in IBM being able to produce super-high-clockrate chips based on?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think it basically comes from good IBM marketing, since they are making a lot of progress as far as chip-making technology goes (yet don't often mention it will only come in a few years) plus the fact that IBM _does_ ship the POWER4 line of CPUs. So it's easy to conclude that IBM must be doing something right and knows the stuff.
Considering IBM and Apple both doing the PowerPC dance, it would also make sense to provide Apple's next-gen CPUs since I guess IBM would have nothing against showing it up a Pentium 4's at a Steve-o bakeoff. And maybe then sell more PowerPCs.
Right now IBM has nothing to show, but I belive myself that with all that "breaktroughs" they're having and new sub 0.10 nm facilities they're a more likely candidate to provide the next best thing for Apple than anyone else.
The ball is in Apple's court now.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
The ball is in Apple's court now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mmmm.... BPGA (Ball Pin Grid Array)
Can someone explain to me what Moki was refering to in his last (further up this page) post?
Barto
<a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=4717"; target="_blank">http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=4717</a>;
Very strangely written though.
[edit: Spelling, Bah!]
[ 08-02-2002: Message edited by: DaveLee ]</p>
Moki I've been waiting for someone else (nevermind)... Where did you first see/find the term GP-UL?
D
[ 08-02-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
<strong>One incentive I can think of for IBM to design and produce processors for Apple is the fact that they can use them too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is what it is all about! IBM are (beleive it or not) MORE desperate for a new desktop chip than Apple. Look at this:
<a href="http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/workstations/"; target="_blank">IBM Poer/PowerPC workstation page</a>
The first machine starts at over 8000USD for a 250MHz 604e!!!!!
Apple and IBM are tied together with self interest here. Every CPU Apple sell helps to amortise the massive up-front capital cost of designing a CPU. This is a real win-win situation:
1. IBM and Apple each get a fast CPU for less than either one could do alone.
2. IBM get to fill their shiny new production lines, Apple get chips built on a state of the art (SOTA) fab.
3. Apple's and IBM's markets probably have close to 0% cross-over (except perhaps bio-tech).
4. Two R&D driven companies, one shared chip architecture to invest it on. Imagine IBM complier technology on a Macintosh!!!!
[quote]<strong>It's been rumored that IBM wants a processor for their low end rs6000 workstations and they were thinking of using Motorolas 7450 series. But this rumor has died down lately and maybe this is because Apple an IBM are indeed working on a joint project based on an extended pipeline 750 core. A SIMD unit (Velocity Engine II) that can take Altivec code and process it is well with-in IBM's capability. Also, it's not far-fetched that IBM, Motorola, and Apple have made an agreement for use of key Altivec design elements to be incorporated in an IBM design.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Forget about a G3 based design. It has far too many inadequities to use. Too low issue width, too small a pipeline, too braniac a design.
Anyway, the G3 started life as a .35 micron part. It was shrunk to .25 and then .18, I can't think of another chip that went through four shrinks. The general rule is the first generation process is less than ideal, the second process the design hits its straps and the third one it is ready for retirement. Intel are brilliant at this (P4 as a developing example).
[ 08-02-2002: Message edited by: JRG ]</p>
<strong>Can someone explain to me what Moki was refering to in his last (further up this page) post?</strong><hr></blockquote>
GP = IBM's POWER4 Gigaprocessor
UL = What do you think?
D
Srangely written article.
The next year of my Mac life is one I'd like to put on 'fast forward'. This cpu spec' is playing with my mind...
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
IBM and Apple...as the above post mentions...could be complimentary partners when it comes to CPUs...
They COULD be a killer team... (Onced they ditched the leeching incompetant parasite called Motorola...)
Lemon Bon Bon
This comes from the other thread 'IBM CPU' thingie.
I didn't think the next gen' PS III cpu would be Power PC...
...how ironic considering Nintendo has one.
...could this be the same chip that Apple will use in future desktops?
Lemon Bon Bon
Some weird stuff going on...