IBM's Latest Fab!
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
...G6 sounds F_-_-ng Cool doesn't it?
Anyway follow the link to the reuters story...
IBM 's Latest Fab
Comments
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.
[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.
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!
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.
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".
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
Originally posted by skatman
IBM will abandon chip business in a couple of years.
and sell it to the chinese
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
Originally posted by spliff monkey
cute onlooker
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...)
Originally posted by gar
and sell it to the chinese
Who may well forget to pay royalites, or keep the back door unlocked....
here's the linky...
IBM Cell Blades
What do ya'll make of that?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.