http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c41f2d94-973c-11da-82b7-0000779e2340.html
Just an interesting article I thought some of you might like to read.
Just an interesting article I thought some of you might like to read.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c41f2d94-973c-11da-82b7-0000779e2340.html
Just an interesting article I thought some of you might like to read.
you'd think they'd get a clue.... even intel stopped with the GHz-mongering.There’s nobody looking at anything like this. We have a more highly integrated chip that is multi-core and we are increasing the frequency – we are turning up both knobs at once when the industry is going the other way and turning [the frequency] knob down
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c41f2d94-973c-11da-82b7-0000779e2340.html
Just an interesting article I thought some of you might like to read.
Strange, if this technology works as IBM says, that Apple didn't stay with PowerPC. Apple claimed among its reasons to switch to Intel that the PowerPC architecture didn't scale as well as Intel's. I'm sure IBM showed Apple this on their roadmap, just like Intel probably let Apple know details about their Conroe development. If Apple turned IBM down then it's likely that they don't believe IBM will pull this off or it's going to be too expensive to be viable.
Not sure what you mean here - at least in the context of my original post. :?a. Although AMD's been working in close relationship with IBM, they're entirely different matters.
I agree with your analogy. I don't know how I got PowerPC out of Power6. (I can read really fast, comprehension is another matter. )b. IBM's PowerPC is/was one thing (which was used by Apple & manufactured by Motorola and, lastly, by Freescale...); the IBM POWER series are to PowerPC what Itanium is to x86...
This has been IBM's reputaion for years. Which leads me to an off-topic question: Do you know if IBM holds any patents on today's PCs? Going clear back to the PC-clone days some have argued that IBM put its pc design as "public domain" and that's why they tried ps/2 and microchannel in order to regain rights to the platform - while others argue that IBM holds BIOS and some chipset rights and still makes money on all x86 machines. Haven't thought of this in years, but your post reminded me of it, and how I never did learn a definitive answer.c. IBM's a very different company, from both Intel & AMD; they hold (I think) the crown of the [computing] patent record, for the last few years; PowerPC, POWER series, Cell (which is an Hitachi patent, I believe...). KiloCore, etc, are mostly IBM technological achievements.
Reading this post and others of yours in other threads, you obviously know far more of the upper-end than I. However, if you want to be taken seriously, you really should put an Inquirer link to back up your comments. :lol:d. IBM is - no-more - playing within the the PowerPC vs x86 league; actually, their closest competitors in the [super] computing arena are... themselves! (they're using PowerPC, Intel & AMD processors for it... it's cheaper!); Sun's way behind...
And the list goes on...
POWER6 is a MCM; but, if IBM's to achieve between 4 to 5GHz, that will be by a single core alone... pretty amazing for a non-NetBurst uArch...
Bottoms up!Cheers!
Do you know if IBM holds any patents on today's PCs?
Not sure what you mean here - at least in the context of my original post. :?a. Although AMD's been working in close relationship with IBM, they're entirely different matters.
This has been IBM's reputaion for years. Which leads me to an off-topic question: Do you know if IBM holds any patents on today's PCs? Going clear back to the PC-clone days some have argued that IBM put its pc design as "public domain" and that's why they tried ps/2 and microchannel in order to regain rights to the platform - while others argue that IBM holds BIOS and some chipset rights and still makes money on all x86 machines. Haven't thought of this in years, but your post reminded me of it, and how I never did learn a definitive answer.
Bottoms up!Reading this post and others of yours in other threads, you obviously know far more of the upper-end than I. However, if you want to be taken seriously, you really should put an Inquirer link to back up your comments. :lol:
Thanks for your thoughts. Off to bed I go!
Cheers!
The PowerPC 970 is a stripped-down POWER4 with an Altivec compatible unit bolted on.b. IBM's PowerPC is/was one thing (which was used by Apple & manufactured by Motorola and, lastly, by Freescale...); the IBM POWER series are to PowerPC what Itanium is to x86...
A powerful lineage
One of the original design goals of the Apple-IBM-Motorola partnership that developed the PowerPC architecture back in 1991 was to define a 64-bit architecture that was a superset of the 32-bit architecture, in order to provide application binary compatibility for 32-bit applications. The PowerPC architecture that was born of this partnership is -- and always was -- a 64-bit architecture derived from the IBM POWER architecture. From the very beginning, PowerPC was designed to support switching between the 64-bit mode and the 32-bit mode. As a relative of the IBM POWER4 and POWER5 processors, the PowerPC 970 family may be a new generation of PowerPC processors, but it inherits a history of over ten years of 64-bit computing at IBM.
The PowerPC 970 is a stripped-down POWER4 with an Altivec compatible unit bolted on.
A powerful lineage
One of the original design goals of the Apple-IBM-Motorola partnership that developed the PowerPC architecture back in 1991 was to define a 64-bit architecture that was a superset of the 32-bit architecture, in order to provide application binary compatibility for 32-bit applications. The PowerPC architecture that was born of this partnership is -- and always was -- a 64-bit architecture derived from the IBM POWER architecture. From the very beginning, PowerPC was designed to support switching between the 64-bit mode and the 32-bit mode. As a relative of the IBM POWER4 and POWER5 processors, the PowerPC 970 family may be a new generation of PowerPC processors, but it inherits a history of over ten years of 64-bit computing at IBM.
I was under the impression that Itanium was taken from the ground up. If not, of course, add this post to the rest of the useless froth on THG forums.
POWER is a server chip.I agree with Joset.
I do believe this Power6 is the beginning of the end for IBM's PC desktop processor division.
Or Big Blue themselves?No one will buy these. the only customer i forsee purchasing these would be the makers of superclusters like Cray or NEC.
That's fairly naïve.I doubt anyone will be seriously interested in these new PowerPC's.
POWER -> PowerPC. The parent architecture is, basically, a superset.no one will want these power hungry overclocked PowerPC's.
Mhm. The desktop market is the only market of importance, etc, etc.apple effectively ended IBM's PowerPC. and who can blame them?
Indeed, PPC970 was, IIRC, built upon the single core ripped from POWER4, in much the same way AMD are now boasting of their own 'modular' microarchitecture.Although the design, process & most of the microarchitectural philosophy was the same, that's pretty much to compare an Intel P4 DT with an Intel Xeon Server: both are derivatives of a single uArch, NetBurst.
IBM went a [big] step further: The POWER series come in a MCM (2 to 4 chips with off-die L3 cache, in its current implementation).
For a glimpse & compare on the POWER4:
Source 2
It's a generation increment... this is to be expected? As far as I remember, there has been no real PowerPC spinoff from POWER5... but you're right - it's been a while since I did careMeanwhile, POWER6 has much less to do with the PowerPC (and, as a matter of fact, with all the previous POWER chips), if you care to search.
I understand and acknowledge your point... who is aiming for which market, ne'er the twain shall meet - my original post was just a nitpick...My point still is to try to differentiate IBM from the current "AMD vs Intel" issue, as chip/platform manufacturers & putting it forth as, most probably, the biggest technology giant, if you will.
It's a generation increment... this is to be expected? As far as I remember, there has been no real PowerPC spinoff from POWER5... but you're right - it's been a while since I did careMeanwhile, POWER6 has much less to do with the PowerPC (and, as a matter of fact, with all the previous POWER chips), if you care to search.
Whether IBM can follow up on their promises for POWER6 remain to be seen, but there's no way you can say whatever they come up with has no viable use, as long as it's binary compatible with existing software. Likewise, PowerPC, whether it's a 970MP-based blade or a 74xx based Cisco router, has it's place. You don't see ARM chips inside your gaming boxes, but do they exist? ****, yea, they do. And ARM make rather a good living.
I agree with Joset.
I do believe this Power6 is the beginning of the end for IBM's PC desktop processor division.
No one will buy these. the only customer i forsee purchasing these would be the makers of superclusters like Cray or NEC. but even cray is being pressured to reduce energy costs of their systems. and the only superclusters they sell go to LANL, Sandia, Livermore, etc. with Sun competing again and Intel's new Xeon lineup, I doubt anyone will be seriously interested in these new PowerPC's.
no one will want these power hungry overclocked PowerPC's.
apple effectively ended IBM's PowerPC. and who can blame them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER6Dr Frank Soltis, an IBM chief scientist, said Intel had delivered 4 GHz Pentium 4 chips to several manufacturers but subsequently needed to cancel plans because of problems with current leakage. Soltis said IBM had solved these problems by using a combination of 90nm and 65nm parts in the Power design.