64bit chips

[mac15]

I was reading this article on ZDNET yesterday
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2836780,00.html
Its about IBMs new unix system
the new system requires a intel itanium or an IBM power
both 64bit chips
why don't IBM take the first step and introduce the new 64bit chips to apple
and get ahead of Motorola

just a thought

 

[Kid Red]

Actually, the rumor ha it that Apple has to go with IBM to co-fab the g5 because Moto can't handle it. So there does seem to be some kind of partnership going on. Otherwise why would IBM stick around just to produce the G3?

 

[Falleron]

Sounds good.

 

[Pants]

yeah - i was wondering about IBMs place in the apple world now that the iMac is purely a g4 box. Ibm only producing g3s for the iBook? hmmm.....seeing as most ppc chips go to the embedded market, does any 'tailoring' have to be done to get the chip into a laptop , or is it exactly the same chip that they sell for use in routers, washing machines and toasters? Is this finaly a divergence of the ways for apple and IBM, and given motorolas continual lethargy, is this a wise move?

and in other news,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/23/23752.html
looks like IBM have teh ability to secretly get their colective fingers out when they want to....

 

[Microsoft_Windows_Hater]

Altivec

Who is Altivec owned by? I think it is Motorola so that means that there could be problems with IBM producing G5's as they wouldn't contain Altivec. Just a thought...

 

[Pants]

Re: Altivec

Originally posted by Microsoft_Windows_Hater
Who is Altivec owned by? I think it is Motorola so that means that there could be problems with IBM producing G5's as they wouldn't contain Altivec. Just a thought...

indeed it is.

and given the historical animosity between IBM and motorola, I cant see moto feeling that great about having IBM 'fab' their new 'wunderchip'. And besides, if they neede extra capacity, there are far better candidates for chip fabrication than IBM.

It seems to me, especially given motorollas generally flakey attitude to Apple, that this increasing dependance on a very poor performing company is a bad thing. But, given Apples almost public (recent) kicking of motorola, something is afoot. And I wouldn't mind betting its got something to do with IBM.

 

[agreenster]

Good thread with smart opinions:

But I never thought I'd see the day IBM would partner with Apple, and yet they already have (and its a good thing!). I would really like to see Apple offer an affordable, viable 64 bit chip before Intel, and if thru IBM is the way to go, then so be it.

Intel's itanium is a fast chip, but its 64 bit so it cant run 32 bit applications--plus its expensive as all-get-out. If Apple could backwards compatible their G5 so that it would run both 64 and 32 bit apps, they would be in good shape. I would just HATE to see Apple produce a 64 bit G5, and make their consumers have to buy all new software AGAIN, especially after they upgraded for OSX.

 

[AlphaTech]

more then just 64 bit

I just checked on Apple's suport site. The G4 (agp video, 350, 400, 450, and 500 MHz models) all have a data path that is '128-bit, 100 MHz'. The software addressing is 32-bit, but the chip has the 128-bit. The new QuickSilver models are still 128-bit, but who knows what the G5 will be.

When I proved this to my cousin many months ago, he was flattened that a Mac would have a higher data path then his beloved pc's.

 

[mac15]

but isn't the g4 chip 128 bit

 

[BurntCalc]

Originally posted by agreenster
Intel's itanium is a fast chip, but its 64 bit so it cant run 32 bit applications--plus its expensive as all-get-out. If Apple could backwards compatible their G5 so that it would run both 64 and 32 bit apps, they would be in good shape. I would just HATE to see Apple produce a 64 bit G5, and make their consumers have to buy all new software AGAIN, especially after they upgraded for OSX.

According to the PPC roadmap, the G5 is completely backwards compatible. Come on, folks. Apple isn't stupid.

 

[menoinjun]

First off...the G4 is a 32 bit chip, no matter how you look at it. Yes the Velocity Engine can process up to 4 32 bit chunks at a time, but it is still a 32 bit chip. Not 128. Consider Velocity Engine like MMX. Apple is just changing their wording to make you think that the G4 is something it isnt. The G4 DOES NOT have a wider data path than a Pentuim or Athlon chips.

In the past 3 months on theregister.co.uk and macosrumors there have been reports about the upcoming G5. Full 64 bit chip with complete 32 bit backwards compatability. It will contain a Velocity Engine that is 256 bits wide. Clock speeds start around 800mhz, and they have supposedly tested 1.6ghz machines.

-Pete

 

[AlphaTech]

bit path

For everyone claiming that the G4 is 32-bit... How do you explain Gauge Pro showing the PowerBook G4 (Titanium) as having 64-bit??? Just as Apple claims in the specifications database, not where they sell systems, and not a place many people look. The main reason I have been looking there was to check specifications for older systems before attempting upgrades.

I even attached a screen shot taken off of my TiBook just a few moments ago to prove that I am not blowing smoke (or inhaling).

I will be checking the G4 733 (pre-QuickSilver) at work come tomorrow and can guarantee that it will be at least 64-bit. I am not 100% on the 128, since I do not remember when I ran the utility on it last. Either way, the G4 has been 64-bit for a very long time (since at least the agp video model).

 

[Catfish_Man]

Re: bit path

Originally posted by AlphaTech
For everyone claiming that the G4 is 32-bit... How do you explain Gauge Pro showing the PowerBook G4 (Titanium) as having 64-bit??? Just as Apple claims in the specifications database, not where they sell systems, and not a place many people look. The main reason I have been looking there was to check specifications for older systems before attempting upgrades.

I even attached a screen shot taken off of my TiBook just a few moments ago to prove that I am not blowing smoke (or inhaling).

I will be checking the G4 733 (pre-QuickSilver) at work come tomorrow and can guarantee that it will be at least 64-bit. I am not 100% on the 128, since I do not remember when I ran the utility on it last. Either way, the G4 has been 64-bit for a very long time (since at least the agp video model).

I'm afraid not. If you look at Motorola's PowerPC roadmap it clearly shows the G4 as 32 bit. Also, there is an excellent series of articles about processor design at http://www.arstechnica.com . You should read them before posting stuff like that.

 

[AlphaTech]

Basically you are calling Apple and the parts of Motorola's web site as well as Gauge Pro liars. I really don't think so, but then again it's a free country and if you want to think that little of the Apple systems that is your right.

I still believe Apple, and the utilities that tell me it is 64-bit, you can think what you want.

 

[anshelm]

"The MPC7400 Host Processor is a high-performance, low-power, 32-bit implementation of the PowerPC Reduced Instruction Set Computer (RISC) architecture combined with a full 128-bit implementation of Motorola's AltiVec[tm] technology instruction set..."

Direct quote from the first line of http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC7400&nodeId=03M943030450467M98653

You will find that ALL of the 74xx procesor specs begin with that line. The G4 IS 32-BIT!

All Gauge Pro is showing is that it's DATA BUS is 64-bit, but that doesn't make it a 64-bit processor!

 

[TEG]

You Guys are half right. On the picture, its talking about memory path.... DIMMs and all their derivatives are 64-Bit, and most Processors have had things similar to the Altivec Engine. That is why with early PMs and Pentium style PCs required SIMMS installed in pairs because SIMMS are 32bit, 2x32=64bits. And the same goes for early 5V DIMMS, 32 Bit.

I read this earlier, (Has some PC stuff, Sorry)

Pentium 64x64 (Two SIMMs/One DIMM)
Pentium II 128x64 (One Dimm)
Pentium III 128x64 (One DIMM)
Pentium IX 128x128 (Thats why RIMMS must be in pairs)

G1s:
601(e) 32x32 (One at a Time)
603e 32x32 (One SIMM/DIMM)
G2s:
603 64x32 (One DIMM)
604(e) 64x64 (One DIMM)
G3:
705 64x64 (One DIMM)
G4:
74xx 128x64 (One DIMM)

For the G5s they should be 128x128 (Using DDR... The only one chip 128bit memory right now)

That would be awesome, especally if there was a 400MHz Bus or higher and Speeds in excess of 1.2Ghz.

TEG

 

[colocolo]

I think its time to clarify some stuff here, as what is meant when saying the G4 is a 32 bit chip. Its kind of late, so I'll try to keep it short, running the risk of not explaining too well:

The G4 chip has 32-bit registers. that is the maximum size of information that the chip can do operations with at one specific cycle, 32 bits per register in operation. As one operation can deal with at most 2 registers at a time (ie LDA B), it can operate with 2 numbers of 32 bits, making the G4 beyond any other argument a 32-bit chip.
True, ALtivec can move bigger chunks at the same time, but 32 bit chunks anyways.
And what is stated in the screenshot is that the memory flow is 64 bit-based, meaning that that is the size of the data bus, thats all.

Please, someone less sleepy finish this up

I must go to bed!

 

[menoinjun]

Don't you just love it when someone insists that they are right, without any real in-depth research, to the point of calling all of the knowledgeable people here wrong? I betcha he's young.

Well, now that we've clarified that the G4 is and will always be a 32 bit chip, what about the rumors on the G5 I posted above? Does anyone agree or disagree?

-Pete

 

[pc_convert?]

Intel's itanium is a fast chip, but its 64 bit so it cant run 32 bit applications--plus its expensive as all-get-out. If Apple could backwards compatible their G5 so that it would run both 64 and 32 bit apps, they would be in good shape. I would just HATE to see Apple produce a 64 bit G5, and make their consumers have to buy all new software AGAIN, especially after they upgraded for OSX.

Let's clarify, Itanium is 64bit but it uses a completley different Insruction set than x86. It's based on VLIW processor architecture with some clever enhancements. Itanium is expensive - 800MHz and 733MHz processors with 4MB of L2 cache are $4,227, 800MHz with 2MB of cache $1,980. The 733MHz with 2MB of cache costs $1,177. Prices are per chip for 1,000-unit quantities.

Plus Itanium runs x86 code very slooooowly. Itanium is
not intended for the desktop it's for high end customers.

AMD's x86-64 so called Hammer processor are an extension to x86 and are much more likely to do well.

Now the G5 will be 64bit and will run 32 bit's apps no problem, microprocessors are designed to be backwardly compatable because of the huge investement in software development.

Motorola by my understanding is not doing well. In the UK they being cutting back on the telecoms workforce in order to keep costs down. IBM has the expertise, and facilities to fab the G5 for apple, but AltiVec was developed and is owned by Motorola.

I'm not sure if IBM was offered an AltiVec license as part of the PPC consortium but it seems likely that given Motorola's problems some sort of licensing agreement between IBM and Motorola could be reached.

This benefits:

Motorola in the short term with a cash injection.

IBM in the long term, it can integrate AltiVec into G3 if it wants and it can Fab G5's.

Apple with a second CPU supplier for the high-end CPU's helping reduce costs, possibly increasing market share.

Us, we get faster, cheaper Apples.

"Everyone's a Winner!™"