IBM PPC970 64bit CPU at CeBIT

[Hammer]

Well, if you listen to IBM you would wonder if this is the same "x86" Big Blue 20 years ago.

I well aware of IBM’s products and their ever trying to re-control of Personal Computer market i.e.
1. PS/2's MCA is an attempt to re-control X86 market. Results: Failed. VL-BUS and PCI eventually killed it.
2. OS/2 Warp, one of the first pure 32bit Desktop OS for X86. Results: Still lost to 16/32bit kit-bashed Windows 95 and market power of Microsoft.
3. PowerPC initiative (during PPC 601 era), IBM has finally concluded that it has totally lost control of X86 market and decided to create itself a new PC market i.e. "PowerPC" (based on it’s POWER series lines).
4. IBM's support for Linux bandwagon i.e. aimed against some certain OS ex-partner.

I did purchased (for business purposes) IBM hardware (and OS products) since IBM PS/2 Model
55/56 era (late 80s) until the recent NetVista range.

IBM PS/2 Model 56 era was bundled with OS/2 (still have my pristine IBM PS/2 Model 56 user manual).

The purchasing of the Amiga 500 and the Amiga 3000 is just a personal hobby of mine.

Well, if you listen to IBM

The “you listen to IBM” is irrelevant in this case. I don’t have any feelings towards any optimistic appraisal based on "what we’re going to do speech".

you would wonder if this is the same "x86" Big Blue 20 years ago.

IBM has been involved with non-X86 CPUs way back in 1990s (e.g. RISC System/6000 family of workstations and servers).

And IBM is pushing PPC rather strongly nowdays.

The “PowerPC” (short for “Power Personal Computer”) was targeted for “personal computing” ever since PowerPC 601.

I still remember PPC 601 vs Pentium Class cubed texture map demonstration test. PPC 601 was shown to be faster compared to the similar clocked Pentium Classic.  

"IBM is pushing PPC rather strongly nowdays" would be closer to IBM's attempt to re-energizing PowerPC range.

Personally, I’ll go for “wait an see”, but past deeds plays a large part in terms market acceptance (e.g. desktop PC space).  

IBM has restructured heavily though it is still considered one of the top copmanies in BOTH hardware and software.

So? Any company can “restructure” btw…

still considered one of the top copmanies in BOTH hardware and software.

So? Please note that IBM has to compete with similar level competitors.

 They 've said that noone will speak about Itanium in a few years.

Until Intel has exhausted it’s X86 revenues base,
Intel will pump massive $$$ into it’s IA-64 project.  

Intel is too well cashed up for this type of battle.

And, believe it,

I'm too old for such things. I’m an atheist in such things..

if there is any company with the power to do it IBM would be a strong canditate.

What power? The power like the OS/2 Warp scenario?

Plus, don't forget the new chip they are developing with Toshiba and Sony for PS3.

So? Should one start a list who supports X86 market?  

That means strong sales for their semiconductor division.

Good for the group.

PowerPC is a very good technology - much superior than anything AMD or Intel have in ming.

???ming???

Careful with these types of statements i.e. your statement is open to counter attacks.  

Did you forget X86 market is consist of multiple companies?

It can scale up to servers or down to PDAs. The future is bright.

Oh boy...

[Hammer]

strobe wrote:
Keep in mind PowerPC has been 64bit since day 1.
 

That would be the Power Series not “PowerPC”…

Intel and AMD are still out of their league.
 

Just like during pre-386/pre-Win32 days (before it bashed the existing 32bit desktop platforms out of the water)...

All I hear about Itanium and Hammer are delays, lackluster performance
 

Again, where did you get "lackluster performance" for Itanium and Hammer?

The Mac rumor sites have reported that 2.5Ghz PPC 970 was working using the 130nm process, but the chip consumed as much power as a 3Ghz P4. Of course the PPC 970 does more per cycle...yum! Question is can one supply power to these chips in dual or quad configuration  :-o
 

What was the release date for this product?

I think X86-64 (Opteron) is definitly the overall future, that chip is going to be incredible aswell, it's got an integrated memory controller wich makes SMP bandwidth multiply instead of devide.

[strobe]

The PowerPC has an instruction subset of POWER. POWER is basically PowerPC+Amazon.

PowerPC was 64bit from day 1. The PowerPC 640 may have been the first 64bit chip with only PowerPC instructions, but 64bit POWER processors existed beforehand which have the same instruction set.

Basically what I'm saying is you're wrong.

As for 32bit performance, x86 only caught up to the 68000 series when they released the 486DX4, and it didn't exactly blast anything out of any water (although it could boil water).

Lackluster performance refers to IA-64. Hammer really isn't 'here' yet, it's in one of its many delay cycles.

The release date of the PPC 970 will likely be late summer early fall. Plenty of time for more delays from the 64bit wannabes.

[dammy]

 by mdma on 2003/3/13 6:49:51

Weren't CBM thinking of making next gen Amiga's using PA-RISC processors?

Crap, I see Downix already beat me to this one.  Oh well.

Dammy

[Hammer]

 The PowerPC 640 may have been the first 64bit chip with only PowerPC instructions,

May have been?

A few of the PowerPC CPUs wasn't even pure 64bit   CPUs i.e.
PowerPC 602 Embedded Processor,
PowerPC 603e Microprocessor,
PowerPC EM603e Microprocessor
PowerPC 604e Microprocessor,
PowerPC 740 Microprocessor (300MHz to 550MHz),
PowerPC 740 Microprocessor (up to 266MHz),
PowerPC 750 Microprocessor (300MHz to 550MHz),
PowerPC 750 Microprocessor (up to 266MHz),
PowerPC 750CX and 750CXe Microprocessor,
PowerPC 750FX Microprocessor,

[Damion]

Hmmmm...from what I can find, the POWER
(Performance Optimization with Enhanced
Risc) architecture was not fully 64 bit, but
its FPU did indeed have 32 64 bit registers
(branch and integer registers remained 32 bit).
I'm not sure whether or not the 64 bit FPU
architecture was carried over to the PPC
line of processors before the 620 (the first
true 64 bit PPC) but if so, it may explain why
the early 66mhz 601's stomped the 66mhz
'060's in the FPU benchmarks, while remaining
relatively on - par or even slightly slower
in other benchmark areas.

[Hammer]

As for 32bit performance, x86 only caught up to the 68000 series when they released the 486DX4,

So?

Why did DID cut down TFX for the AmigaOS platform release?

"X86 only caught up to the 68000 series when they released the 486DX4" generalization would be false when given a certain scenario.

Are you saying a 68030@25Mhz can beat 80486DX @33Mhz?

Are you referring to 68060@66Mhz?

Please be more specific.

Lackluster performance refers to IA-64
 

Are you referring to IA-64's 32bit performance?

Hammer really isn't 'here' yet, it's in one of its many delay cycles.  

What about the delays? Most of release dates are just estimations.

At the moment; AMD was still in game (against Intel) with their current Athlon XP’s  Barton core.

give IA64 a few years... it's comming slow and it's comming big... Intel is nobody fool...they have enough money to license PowerPC if they needed it... their filthy rich... and they wont be beaten so easily...

People often concentrate on how much X86 sucks (wich is dosent, benchmarks show otherwise) while never concentrating on it's price/performance ratio...and the fact that it's backward compatible to nearly 30 years of code (first x86 is 1976?) ...

Intel's done a damn fine job of SUPPORTING it's customer base for such a long period of time... meanwhile motorola just outright dumpes  68K and dosent give anyone any other option except to dump it... no backward compatability... no forward momentum...

now here we sit 10 years or so later... and we got 'UNDERPERFORMING" (compared to X86) PowerPC on the 'desktop'...

so I ask... what benefit did PowerPC give them?... If intel had totally dumped X86 and gotten to start from scratch... would they have a CPU that's architecture is damn near a junker 10 years later? I doubt it... thats bad planning... thats bad design... good design allows for future developments... not middle-of-the-night bail outs from big blue...

Intel's done a damn fine job creating cheap, relatively reliable processors that are damn near 30 years backward compatible (wich MATTERS to business).

I wont knock them or put them out of the game so fast. IA64 might suck right now...but in 5 years... I'll bet right now... we'll all be sitting here arguing over benchmarks where the IA64 is competing with the X86-64 and both Opteron and Itanium are stomping the PunyPC2200 or whatever they call it.

I'm going to buy a Mac probably as my next machine...and I dont knock big blue's engineering it's got alot more  faith from me then Motorola's does... but I'm realistic... when Intel starts going in a direction... their such a driving force that  (the entire market really) there is nothing stopping them... except time ... wich holds them back... IA64 or whatever they choose for the 64bit market will be big... it will take time...and AMD/IBM can make hay while the sun shines... but it wont shine forever.... AMD has a good chance at taking a big percentage of the market and comming on par with Intel... but Intel's got full bank accounts and a very broad spectrum and such a high percentage of the overall market that it's going to hard to derail them... Intel would probably sooner make thier own X86-64 then give that market away to AMD...

[toRus]

Until Intel has exhausted it?s X86 revenues base,
Intel will pump massive $$$ into it?s IA-64 project.
Intel is too well cashed up for this type of battle.

Rephrase: "They 've been a failure though they will be the last to admit it".

So? Please note that IBM has to compete with similar level competitors.

Few can be credited being right at the top in BOTH hardware and software.

So? Should one start a list who supports X86 market?

Let me guess. Dell ?

Well, just about everybody uses x86 nowdays, including Sun, Sony, Toshiba and ... (aargh !!) IBM. But these companies (unlike Dell and Gateway) are not that tightly dependent to Intel for their revenues.

What power? The power like the OS/2 Warp scenario?

Well at least the try. Intel is good  in two things:
1) build and supply many CPUs
2) overhype their products

They are going nowhere with Itanium because there is no market for it in the desktop (i.e. no 64bit Windoze) and they have to rely in others (HP) in the server market where just selling hardware is not enough.

Well at least the try. Intel is good in two things:

I'd put 'supporting their architecture' in there aswell... wich is one of the BIGGEST factors to business... they ask 'will there be OS's and software for this in 10 years?" with X86 the answer is still yes.

Just a few facts :

1) Opteron will reach the market by april 22, when AMD announce them, provided it is not a paper launch and you can effectively buy them (at premium price in server boxes).

2) Athlon 64 (the consumer version) will reach the market in septemeber, if all things go well, by that time, it would be possible to see ppc 970 chips chipping in apple products, but this may be a bit optimist.

3) ia64 is a joke, intel sold 2500 servers running ia64 in 2002, worldwide.

4) IBM helped AMD out with their copper + SOI process, and IBM is said to have the fastest from design to market time, so it is well possible to have ppc 970 before athlon 64 (which is already 6 or so month late).

5) itanium 1, which didn't exceed 800 MHz or so was a total failure, and not designed by the HP team. itanium 2, was designed by the itanium team.

6) about price, you cannot compare the price of the high-end dual core power4 with that of the consumer-level ppc970. Most power4 come in 4 CPU/8 cores CPU daughterboards with insane amount of L3 cache, there is no way this can be cheap.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

[Hammer]

Rephrase: "They 've been a failure though they will be the last to admit it".

For Intel’s POV it would be just a "black eye". It’s not the first time that Intel has embarked on non-X86 processors (not including StrongARM RISC families) venture.

Few can be credited being right at the top in BOTH hardware and software.

Did that combination change their fortunes in regards to the desktop PC market?

Let me guess. Dell ?

Did you forget the following supporters?

Micro-Star-International, Tyan, ASUStek, Gigabtye, nVidia(e.g. nForce2 x86 chipsets; a close AMD partner), ATI (e.g. A3/3x0 x86 chipsets), Aopen, Acer labs (Mitsubishi), Gateway, Walmart, Asrock, Luckystar, Abit, VIA, Chaintech, Evergreen, Supermicro, Transmeta, SIS, Soltek, Newsys, ALi, Microsoft(1),  and 'etc'.  Just about 90 percent of desktop market vendors and mainstream distribution channels.    

Notes;
1. Microsoft has repeatedly stated that it strongly prefers AMD's 64-bit architecture to Intel's IA-64.
2. Red Hat, Mandrake and SUSE has support for AMD64.
For Mandrake's AMD64 Linux refer to
http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/90/

Intel is good in two things:
1) build and supply many CPUs
2) overhype their products

You are forgetting the other half of the partnership i.e. the Microsoft factor.

@strobe
Refer to "http://www.amdboard.com/hn03130301.html" Athlon 64's K7 rating (Via Canadian Québec distributor MRS MAINTENANCE).
1800Mhz = 3200+ (Planned for June 2003).
1900Mhz = 3400+ (Planned for June 2003).
2000Mhz = 3600+ (Planned for June 2003).
2100Mhz = 3800+ (Planned for September 2003).

One could guess the Athlon XP's Barton Core (3200+) is nearing the end of it's life cycle i.e. 400Mhz DDR is the last stop for EV6 architecture**.

Such a scenario would be similar to 486 days i.e. running 16bit OS (e.g. MS-DOS/MS Win3.11) on 32bit hardware (Not factoring MS Windows 2003 Server AMD64 edition, Red Hat Linux Advance Server AMD64 Edition and ‘etc’ releases).

[olegil]

Sven highlighted a few important points up there, which I must say ties in pretty well with my initial statement somewhere on the first page of this thread. PPC970 will be a consumer-level CPU based on the POWER4 architecture, and if IBM get it out on the market in time it's got all the chances in the world of becoming a success. Because neither Intel nor AMD have a stronghold here yet.

[Hammer]

Sven highlighted a few important points up there, which I must say ties in pretty well with my initial statement somewhere on the first page of this thread. PPC970 will be a consumer-level CPU based on the POWER4 architecture, and if IBM get it out on the market in time it's got all the chances in the world of becoming a success. Because neither Intel nor AMD have a stronghold here yet.
 

Define success in your view.

Bringing out a CPU product alone doesn’t automatically equal success. Many other factors will aid the level of success for the particular product.  

Did you forget 64bit MIPS based processor?

Because neither Intel nor AMD have a stronghold here yet.
 

It didn't stop Intel from reaching world domination during the late introduction of it’s first X86-32bit processor (e.g. 80386DX).

Intel alone (and X86 market as a whole) did not reach world domination by it’s own abilities i.e. one must the Microsoft factor.

[Damion]

I agree with mips_proc...Intel after all
invented the first single - chip cpu...and AMD
goes back to the '70's as well. Intel has
supported the x86 architecture for 20 years,
even with built - in chip emulation of the
older instructions.

They're not going anywhere like Motorola,
who left several companies and user
bases "in the water" when they 'bailed' on
68k and other architectures.