The advantage would be the competition supposed to be happening between Motorola and IBM that would lead each to try to make their chips faster than the other, bringing better/faster chips to Apple.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
IBM and Motorola G5's?
- Thread starter MacManiac1224
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Introduce Moto's G5 at MWSF in PowerMacs and xServe and at MWNY introduce the POWER4 chip (different name than G5) and place those in PowerMacs and xServes and place Moto's G5 in iMacs/PowerBook (G4 in iBook and eMac)
My mistake about " Will be the same price"
I just spoke with my friends who work at IBM. They told me that both processors are not the same price. The price is uncomfirmed yet. They think the cost will be (IBM Power4 lite) $385.00 (64 bits). They are still discuss about costs. They will not sell one piece. They required to sell for 2,000 items for this price.
They sure the cost will be (Motorola G5 PowerPC) $275.00 (32 bits). They had prototype of Motorola G5. It was year ago. Umm... I wonder why the G5 have 32bits? Why not 64 bits? Good Question.
One is 64 bits and other is 32bits. We do see why we have two different advantages.
I hope its true!
Power4 Lite will support 32bits environments
Power4 May Give Insight into Next-Generation Apple CPU
by Remy Davison, Insanely Great Mac
October 10th 2002
IBM next week will provide a preview of its 64-bit Power4 processor. Designed for both desktops and entry-level servers, the new PowerPC chip could find its way into Apple desktops sometime in the future, according to a report in the EETimes.
The Power4 will be the first IBM PowerPC processor which incorporates Motorola's AltiVec instruction set, which has long been a feature of the Motorola G4s used in Apple's Power Macs, PowerBooks, flat-panel iMacs and eMacs.
IBM will detail the chip at the Microprocessor Forum, running October 14-17. According to the report EETimes, the chip will support extensions which will provide compatibility with PowerPC architecture, with backward-compatibility with 32-bit environments. Commentators in the article argue that this will ensure compatibility with the Mac OS.
"Apple would have to be crazy not to use this part," Peter Glaskowsky. editor-in-chief of The Microprocessor Report, the forum's host, said to EETimes.
However, there are obstacles to the Power4's use: Apple would need to invest significant time in OS development to support a 64-bit environment. Moreover, software developers would need to rework their applications to take full advantage of the chip.
The upsides, should Apple decide to adopt the Power4, include a superscalar pipeline and symmetric multiprocessing.
Analysis: Jobs has had a sneak preview of the PowerPC roadmap that we aren't privileged to, but it's safe to say he's happy with the 'options'. The work needed to rework OS X to get the best performance out of the Power4 may take considerable time and investment; however, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Apple could implement the Power4 and use the existing 32-bit architecture in its boxes. It's been done before and they're doing it now: the current PM G4s are a case in point, employing processors which cannot take full advantage of DDR.
Similarly, Apple has pulled such stunts in the past, with some deplorable, half-baked Performas. Power4 - like the early PM G4/350 - might give Apple the marketing edge it sorely needs while it competes with the next-generation Intel/AMD chips. To be able to use Power4 in a 32-bit environment while it waits for the OS to catch up may prove a temptation for Apple that is too great to ignore.
Power4 May Give Insight into Next-Generation Apple CPU
by Remy Davison, Insanely Great Mac
October 10th 2002
IBM next week will provide a preview of its 64-bit Power4 processor. Designed for both desktops and entry-level servers, the new PowerPC chip could find its way into Apple desktops sometime in the future, according to a report in the EETimes.
The Power4 will be the first IBM PowerPC processor which incorporates Motorola's AltiVec instruction set, which has long been a feature of the Motorola G4s used in Apple's Power Macs, PowerBooks, flat-panel iMacs and eMacs.
IBM will detail the chip at the Microprocessor Forum, running October 14-17. According to the report EETimes, the chip will support extensions which will provide compatibility with PowerPC architecture, with backward-compatibility with 32-bit environments. Commentators in the article argue that this will ensure compatibility with the Mac OS.
"Apple would have to be crazy not to use this part," Peter Glaskowsky. editor-in-chief of The Microprocessor Report, the forum's host, said to EETimes.
However, there are obstacles to the Power4's use: Apple would need to invest significant time in OS development to support a 64-bit environment. Moreover, software developers would need to rework their applications to take full advantage of the chip.
The upsides, should Apple decide to adopt the Power4, include a superscalar pipeline and symmetric multiprocessing.
Analysis: Jobs has had a sneak preview of the PowerPC roadmap that we aren't privileged to, but it's safe to say he's happy with the 'options'. The work needed to rework OS X to get the best performance out of the Power4 may take considerable time and investment; however, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Apple could implement the Power4 and use the existing 32-bit architecture in its boxes. It's been done before and they're doing it now: the current PM G4s are a case in point, employing processors which cannot take full advantage of DDR.
Similarly, Apple has pulled such stunts in the past, with some deplorable, half-baked Performas. Power4 - like the early PM G4/350 - might give Apple the marketing edge it sorely needs while it competes with the next-generation Intel/AMD chips. To be able to use Power4 in a 32-bit environment while it waits for the OS to catch up may prove a temptation for Apple that is too great to ignore.
Motorola G5 isn't prototyping anymore. It's in production; been in production for a good while. Those prices are probably the current G5 85xx. Those processors are not suited for desktop Macintoshes.
Re: Power4 Lite will support 32bits environments
I think the article over states the difficulty. All things should work fine in 32 bits. As applications beging to take advantage of 64 bits, they will just work better. I may be mistaken, but much of the BSD Unix may already be 64 bit ready.
I think the article over states the difficulty. All things should work fine in 32 bits. As applications beging to take advantage of 64 bits, they will just work better. I may be mistaken, but much of the BSD Unix may already be 64 bit ready.
Re: Re: Power4 Lite will support 32bits environments
Agreed. There may be effort to get extra benefit, but Apple appears sufficiently sensible (based on examining xnu source code etc) that there just shouldn't be major issues to recompile a program so that it can benefit from a 64 bit pointer. These 32/64 bit issues are not new to the industry 0 I was bashing poorly written code to make it work with 64 bit pointers on Alpha machines about 8 years ago - the world has improved a lot since then (and the BSD family has generally been pretty cleanly written code for ages anyway).
Agreed. There may be effort to get extra benefit, but Apple appears sufficiently sensible (based on examining xnu source code etc) that there just shouldn't be major issues to recompile a program so that it can benefit from a 64 bit pointer. These 32/64 bit issues are not new to the industry 0 I was bashing poorly written code to make it work with 64 bit pointers on Alpha machines about 8 years ago - the world has improved a lot since then (and the BSD family has generally been pretty cleanly written code for ages anyway).
Check this out.
http://www.forbes.com/technology/newswire/2002/10/13/rtr749520.html
It is the PPC 970, a single core and available the second half of 2003. Oh yes, 1.8 GHz. We even learned that IBM will make the Playstation 3 chip, though it didn't state that directly.
http://www.forbes.com/technology/newswire/2002/10/13/rtr749520.html
It is the PPC 970, a single core and available the second half of 2003. Oh yes, 1.8 GHz. We even learned that IBM will make the Playstation 3 chip, though it didn't state that directly.
snoopy, nixd2001:
I'm sure you both realize that most applications that run in 32 bits now simply do not need any more bits, and so they will continue to be 32-bit for quite some time and possibly "forever". 64-bitness will only speed up certain applications, in particular those that need more than 4GB of RAM. Native 64-bit integers are also useful for a handful of tasks but I don't think thats a big deal.
AMD's Hammer is said to be faster in 64-bit code, but that is only because it gets more general purpose registers (8) that way as opposed to the pathetic 4 x86-32 has.
I'm sure you both realize that most applications that run in 32 bits now simply do not need any more bits, and so they will continue to be 32-bit for quite some time and possibly "forever". 64-bitness will only speed up certain applications, in particular those that need more than 4GB of RAM. Native 64-bit integers are also useful for a handful of tasks but I don't think thats a big deal.
AMD's Hammer is said to be faster in 64-bit code, but that is only because it gets more general purpose registers (8) that way as opposed to the pathetic 4 x86-32 has.
Moving to 64bit asap does have its benefits. It does mean that in the future when current RAM limits are too small for the biggest of applicatinos the people at apple will be able to just up the RAM. Intel etc. will have to sell its clients a brand new processor and the vendors entirley new computers. If apple makes the move within the next year then once again, technology wise, apple will be ahead.
Who else ehas an OS that is future prrof until the year 99999???
Who else ehas an OS that is future prrof until the year 99999???
Winblows is only compatible until 9999, Mac OS is compatible until 99999. Lets see that means that is your hardware lasted aslong you could theoretically get 90 000 years more usage out of a mac. hmm ....... which computer is more future proof.
Furuture proofing an OS is making sure it will run a few apps that are released for machines with better versions. Even if updates are needed, eg OS 9.2.2 with carbonlib. It is obvious which one lasts longer.
The programs don't necessarily ened to be written in 64bit integers. The whole process can work just like Altivecs 128bit pathway or the Sony PS2s 128bit pathway. They both can take in 4 x 32bits at a time or 8 x 16 bits. I think you get the point. What it simply does is widden the pipeline so more tasks can be taken care of at once.
Probably not. The key thing large registers in Altivec can do is "break the carry bit". In other words, depending on the size of the "words" being operated, there is no carry from some bits to the next bit up for additions, etc. Creating this "split carry" architecture would take extra work, followed by the need to create additional instructions to use the capability. I think they'll stick with letting Altivec handle SIMD operations and leave the INT cores alone (IMHO).
Within the MIPS core? Pretty funky if so.
The first I remember of split carry processors was the TMS340 graphics accelerator from Texas Instruments in the mid 90s. Become a bit more popular since then.
On the other hand, it's possible the mainframe guys did this back in the 60s - many of the "new" acceleration techniques got invented in the 60s or 70s by IBM for mainframes and then waited in the wings until microprocessors could catch up
Originally posted by nixd2001
Within the MIPS core? Pretty funky if so.
The first I remember of split carry processors was the TMS340 graphics accelerator from Texas Instruments in the mid 90s. Become a bit more popular since then.
On the other hand, it's possible the mainframe guys did this back in the 60s - many of the "new" acceleration techniques got invented in the 60s or 70s by IBM for mainframes and then waited in the wings until microprocessors could catch up
Here's an excerpt from a thread that we were discussing it in recently. I may be wrong but I think this is what you thinking of.
Check out the thread here the inof is towards the bottom of the second page.
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11781&pagenumber=4
Also check out the info here at ArsTechnica.
http://www.arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/playstation2/ee-1.html
It is the sort of thing I was thinking of. I hadn't realised the MIPS core had been tweaked that much, but I guess they've got the volume behind it to make it worth it.
I'd wager good beer that IBM won't go that route though (the catch is you've got to work out how to get the beer if I'm wrong
) It sounds like too much compilication for a more general purpose CPU than the hassle is probably worth.Hopefully, we'll find out more details before the week is out. The memory bandwidth side of things is sounding on track though!
Originally posted by nixd2001
It is the sort of thing I was thinking of. I hadn't realised the MIPS core had been tweaked that much, but I guess they've got the volume behind it to make it worth it.
I'd wager good beer that IBM won't go that route though (the catch is you've got to work out how to get the beer if I'm wrong
Hopefully, we'll find out more details before the week is out. The memory bandwidth side of things is sounding on track though!
Seeing how I live in Oregon the land of beer I don't think getting good beer will be a problem. I do accept paypal and billpay.
Originally posted by nixd2001
Here's a new signature for you.
Dude you're getting 86'd.
Following Dells announcement to cancel the, "Dude," adds. That there description not mine. Someone at Dell actually called themt the, "Dude," adds.