Amiga.org
Amiga News and Community Announcements => Amiga News and Community Announcements => Amiga Hardware News => Topic started by: Argo on October 14, 2002, 07:04:13 AM
-
IBM will put its PowerPC processor line back on the map Monday when it talks up a speedy chip that promises a substantial performance boost for desktops and servers.
The PowerPC 970 chip, due next year, will run at 1.8GHz, nearly twice as fast as Big Blue's quickest existing PowerPC chip, the 1GHz 750FX. It will also be able to handle both 32-bit software, the current standard on desktops, and 64-bit software, used on high-end servers.
Engineers from IBM's Microelectronics division will disclose the details of the new chip for the first time at this week's Microprocessor Forum in San Jose, Calif.
Full article here (http://rss.com.com/2100-1001-961862.html?type=pt?=rss&tag=feed&subj=news)
-
Gimmie!
-
Gimme too
-
Sounds good. Yet another “wait” (sigh)…
"losing the gigahertz race, but with all the performance (IBM) packed into this architecture, it's going to be competitive with the performance of the Pentium 4 in 2003."
I just hope the corresponding PPC motherboards are just as completive to the X86 motherboards.
I wonder, IF next release PPC is really completive, why not Big Blue abandon X86-32 PCs for PPC PCs?
In the grand scheme of things, the current Pentium 4 core (even next hyper-threading enabled cores) is predicted to lose with the arrival of AMD's Hammer (X86-64) class CPU, unless Intel surprises the world with Yamhill/AMD X86-64 clone like X86-64 project.
Interesting to note that IBM's SOI .13 micron fabricated chip is clocked ~1.8 Ghz, while AMD’s non-SOI .13 micron fabricated chip is clocked at ~2.2 Ghz now.
Although IBM will disclose technical details on the chip's architecture at the Microprocessor Forum, pricing and other commercial details won't emerge until the chip ships in the second half of next year.
IF next-PPC release is at the second half of 2003, it would be competing with AMD’s Hammer class (X86-64) chips instead of Pentium 4. Pentium 4 wouldn't be considered the X86 flagchip when the Hammer is release. Intel’s IA-64 move has basically abandon X86 leadership to AMD.
Shooting the “Pentium 4” in mid-2003 is like shooting a sitting duck in the light of AMD Hammer class CPUs.
-
I just hope the corresponding PPC motherboards are just as completive to the X86 motherboards.
Well, if IBM release a chipset as well then there's hope. Otherwise this processor will most likely power iMACs in 2003/4. Let's hope companies like MAI are interested in developing chipsets and motherboards for this cpu.
I wonder, IF next release PPC is really completive, why not Big Blue abandon X86-32 PCs for PPC PCs?
Highly unlikely for IBM to abandon the Wintel platform for PPC PC's unless M$ release PPC versions of their Operarting Systems like the old NT 3.51 days.
-
Me want!! MEEE WAAANNNTTT!!
:roflmao:
-
Sound good. Me want too :-)
Who was it who said PPC was a sinking ship? hehehe, sucka ;-)
It's the way to go and I'm glad amiga is on the right track :-)
-zudo
-
Hi
On present SPEC benchmark, Power4 1 GHz is comparable to Pentium 4 2 GHz. I wonder if 970 1.8 GHz is comparable to P4 3.6 GHz.
Perhaps the OS and apps biggest problem: SMP!
The OS + apps should be able to use both cores inside the CPU.
IBM fabs are famous for glitches and delays. In my opinion they are lucky if the CPU is available in 2004.
Watch for new, low cost Itanium-3 & 4 next year (Madison, Montecito). The 1 GHz Itanium-2 is comparable to 1 GHz Power4. MS Windows + Linux are already ported to Itanium.
>Chipset
Another question and problem. Is Teron chipset compatible with 970? What is the price of chipset for 970?
-
Another article (http://www.forbes.com/technology/newswire/2002/10/13/rtr749520.html)
-
On present SPEC benchmark, Power4 1 GHz is comparable to Pentium 4 2 GHz. I wonder if 970 1.8 GHz is comparable to P4 3.6 GHz.
Helk even a G4 at 1 GHz is comparible to a P4 at 2 GHz in most real world benchmarks... these were quite interesting with the new 1.25 GHz G4s:
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html (http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html)
I think the new Power4 based PowerPC 64bit CPU will do much better! I can't wait to see some benchmarks of AOS4 and the AmigaOne in action!
-
Gimme!
-
The PowerPC has the same energy-saving attributes as the Power4 but uses only one central processing unit, not two.
From Forbes.com news item about IBM PPC970.
The OS + apps should be able to use both cores inside the CPU
If the new PPC is single core, may be this means one less problem. Though, they still need to rewrite apps and systems.
About 64bit CPU: If these become mainstream, then those new experimental (open-source/GPL) OS's could see a new boom. I'm talking about some SASOS (Single address space OS) that are being designed and developed in small groups on rare machines. They try to implement some weird but interesting ideas that take profit of huge 64 bit addressing. x86-64 and this PPC970 could be an inexpensive way to boost those developments.
-
>Gimme too
NO! Give me, gimme two! ;)
-
Interesting to note that IBM's SOI .13 micron fabricated chip is clocked ~1.8 Ghz, while AMD?s non-SOI .13 micron fabricated chip is clocked at ~2.2 Ghz now.
fabing 64-bit chips at high clock rates is a lot harder then fabing 32-bit chips at the same clock rate. that's why AFAIK Intel's IA-64 chips clock at a bit over 1 GHZ, while the P4 clocks at 2.5Ghz.
-
Real World? P4 and Athlon are much faster than any current Mac by more than 2-3 times. I read several articles comparing a P4 2.5 Ghz against a double 1Ghz processor mac, and Mac didn't even come close...as in, it was half the speed. But I do hope this new line kicks Intel and Athlon butt. :-o
-
Real World? P4 and Athlon are much faster than any current Mac by more than 2-3 times. I read several articles comparing a P4 2.5 Ghz against a double 1Ghz processor mac, and Mac didn't even come close...as in, it was half the speed. But I do hope this new line kicks Intel and Athlon butt.
You cant put the two up against each other on clock speed, they are not the same at all. PPC is much faster with the same clock speed as a X86 chip.
-
Real World? P4 and Athlon are much faster than any current Mac by more than 2-3 times. I read several articles comparing a P4 2.5 Ghz against a double 1Ghz processor mac, and Mac didn't even come close...as in, it was half the speed.
Yeah maybe in SPEC, but not Real World... P4s and G4s are neck in neck and various benchmarks show that fact... one wins this and the other wins that! What you're reading is the propaganda FUD spread mostly by PC zealot/tech writers!
-
AmigaMac,
Here is the quote from the article:
"At the level of "2x gigahertz, we will compete very reasonably against the (Intel) Pentium," said Chekib Akrout, vice president of microprocessor development at IBM Microelectronics. "
I'm sure you read that:-o and if you have:"what are you talking about then?' just let someone be right for goodness sake.
And that's with the new chips not the old ones. So it's not exactly propaganda even though just plain clockspeeds are not all that matters. Take into account that before year's end we'll see 3Ghz Pentiums and I'm aure AMD has something up their sleeve. In any case I'm all for competition and I'm happy to see new PPC chip and I hope they do surpass Intel some day. :-)
-
And Acill,
You are probably right at the same clockspeed, but we can't say oh but fastest ppc is faster than a 3-4 year old Intel chip or something like that. I understand your point, but we must compare like this or we will never see a PPC catching up to the Intels and Athlons.
-
Here's it from the horse's mouth (ie IBM)
IBM Press Release (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2002/1014_powerpc.html)
The interesting bit is the 900 MHz FSB !!! Plenty of space to grow, don't you think :-P
Edwin
-
@eddit
Yes that 900MHZ IPC-type bus was the detail that stuck out at me.
Seems like PPC is finally getting a clue, (build in some future to your chip)
Two of these bad boyz and any decent non mickey$oft OS, and I think I could make my own "switch" ad.
-
Dethknight,
nice inclusion of mickeysoft, that's priceless. Hmm I wonder what you used to post this message and I wonder how long it took you to assume that I love MS... hypocrite comes to mind, cause that's what you are no two way about that. guess what I used? no, no, no... guess again! :-D :-D :-D
-
I'm glad to see that the PPC is at least trying to keep up with the x86. Ever noticed that the MHz advancement of x86 CPUs is at a stead pace, while PPC makes huge leaps? It's one of the reasons why, when everyone thinks PPC sucks, suddenly it's back in the running again. The performance of this chip will surely be better than any existing x86 chip.
The big problem is that when the 970 lands, the performance of the x86 may already have crawled far ahead of it again.
-
Sorry Mickey, Im not normally one to defend people, but where did DeathKnight suggest you love MS? His post wasn't even a reply to you.
pt
-
Pteppic please read this part of his post:
"Two of these bad boyz and any decent non mickey$oft OS, and I think I could make my own "switch" ad."
read the microsoft part carefully. so please defend me if you made an exception for him...pretty please. makes me sick to be called MS lover and I notice even the smallest hint. ;-)
-
Well, if IBM release a chipset as well then there's hope. Otherwise this processor will most likely power iMACs in 2003/4.
I don't think one could built a cheap PPC white box PC from Apple's Hardware...
Let's hope companies like MAI are interested in developing chipsets and motherboards for this cpu.
PPC market needs a cheap X86 style motherboard manufactures (I’m thinking more inline with **MSI/Gigabyte/Asus/PCChips/PC Partner/Acer/Tyan style companies).
I don’t think “Big Blue” sell their X86 desktop motherboards directly end users (try looking for an IBM branded X86 motherboard as an example).
Having VIA/SIS level companies is nice, but the chain wouldn’t be complete with cheap board manufactures**.
It would excellent proposition if Big Blue deliver near Nintendo Game Cube priced PPC motherboard (e.g. AUD $250~$320 range).
Highly unlikely for IBM to abandon the Wintel platform for PPC PC's unless M$ release PPC versions of their Operarting Systems like the old NT 3.51 days.
I recall, MS Windows NT 4.0(up to Service Pack 3) was available for PPC (the company I work has a PPC edition (via old MSDN subscription). NT 3.51 days is long dead by time of Windows NT 4.0.
As this news indicate
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/27413.html
IBM, MS and Intel are working again for 16 XEON based MS Windows Servers.
I guess they have almost buried their OS/2 vs MS Windows disagreements. Remember, IBM/Intel/MS are the original unholy trinity during 80s.
-
I havnt seen any mention of Microsoft from you in this thread, Mickeysoft is a pretty common "nickname" for them so no reason to assume its about you. by the way if you want defending I do agree with the rest of your posts in this thread ;)
pt
-
@IBM Press Release
52 million transistors would be in the range of Pentium 4’s transistors count. It’s more than the current Athlon XP(~37 million transistors).
I don’t think that chip is for cool computing when compared with the current PPCs.
Prototype Hammer based motherboards is said to have 800Mhz FSB (via AMD’s hyper transport tech).
-
The big problem is that when the 970 lands, the performance of the x86 may already have crawled far ahead of it again.
This press pelease may re-assure PPC fans, but it may give the competitors a target to beat.
IBM should have learned from ATI’s product release style.
-
Pteppic, point taken'
Dethknight I appologize if you didn't mean me in your thread. I rush to judge, but it seemed possible at the time. :-D
Pteppic, thanks for at least defending rest of my points :-)
-
I'm happy to see new PPC chip and I hope they do surpass Intel some day..
A high clock speed (e.g. 1.8Ghz) ~52 million transistor fabricated chip is well within the abilities of Intel i.e. current product range is @ 2.8Ghz(soon to be 3Ghz) clock speed for ~55 million transistor fabricated chip.
Can IBM complete with Intel IF Intel have a licensed (or cloned) PPC-64bit chip (e.g.. Intel has license of ARM CPU designs and it’s currently the world’s fastest ARM chip when compared to Motorola’s ARM chips)?
-
In any case I'm all for competition and I'm happy to see new PPC chip and I hope they do surpass Intel some day.
Well PPC surpassed x86 when it was conceived and it will do it again since the emphasis is more focused on performance than energy efficiency! The only reason Intel has a leg up on IBM/Motorola is the total I/O implementation built around the CPU, which is more up-to-date and has 3 times the bandwidth (RAM/FSB)... imagine if the G3s and G4s had that bandwidth to play with?!
-
imagine
-
Helk even a G4 at 1 GHz is comparible to a P4 at 2 GHz in most real world benchmarks... these were quite interesting with the new 1.25 GHz G4s:
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html
I think the new Power4 based PowerPC 64bit CPU will do much better!
That's hardly the "most real world benchmarks". Any reasonable statistics must have at least n>30.
Refer to
1. http://www.geocities.com/sw_perf/
2. http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20020113045343563
3. http://www.barefeats.com/graf31.html
Interesting that barefeats has tested a current PPC flagchip VS non-X86 flagchip .
Better range of benchmarks
1. Photoshop
2. Maya
3. Lightwave 7.5
4. Cinema4D
5. Mathematica
6. OGR
7. SETI
8. RC5
9. ArsTestBench
10 OpenSSL
11. Quake3 Arena
One has to look at the overall perspective i.e. soon to be released Barton Core Athlon XP with L2 512kb (last Q4 2002 release), which may give Athlon XP some extra IPC jump.
I can't wait to see some benchmarks of AOS4 and the AmigaOne in action!
Are you implying that AmigaOne HW can mount IBM’s new chip?
-
Well PPC surpassed x86 when it was conceived
So you comparing a 8086 to Power1? Intel back at time didn't apply RISC techniques to their CPUs.
and it will do it again since the emphasis is more focused on performance than energy efficiency!
“Energy efficiency” was a recent re-positioning for the said product.
"Energy efficiency" was not even an issue during the launch of PPC 601(max IPC) vs Pentium Classic (max compatibility).
-
Hammer read his name "AmigaMac", you can see why he says what he says don't you? Those post don't require responses, they are self-answering.
-
Well PPC surpassed x86 when it was conceived and it will do it again since the emphasis is more focused on performance than energy efficiency! The only reason Intel has a leg up on IBM/Motorola is the total I/O implementation built around the CPU, which is more up-to-date and has 3 times the bandwidth (RAM/FSB)...
You realise Pentium III(considered to have a better IPC than Pentium VI) communicates with outside world @133Mhz. Anything greater is useless for this chip.
imagine if the G3s and G4s had that bandwidth to play with?!
It would be pointless since the current G3 and G4 communicates with the out world side @133Mhz.
Secondly, G4 has a massive 512kb L2 cache to compensate some of the problem e.g. OpenSSL's core routines should fitting nicely.
Most games store their textures within GPU’s RAM, both modern Apple and old Intel Pentium III has AGP 4X. It reduces texture fetch action from the main ram.
Note that Athlon XP has yet to have the 512 L2 treatment unlike the G4.
More news about the 64bit CPUs
http://www.eet.com/semi/news/OEG20021014S0059
-
So you comparing a 8086 to Power1? Intel back at time didn't apply RISC techniques to their CPUs.
Actually I'm talking about the PowerPC 601!
“Energy efficiency” was a recent re-positioning for the said product.
But it has been the last few years due to targeting the embedded market and has been the primary focus of IBM (and even Motorola) until now!
It would be pointless since the current G3 and G4 communicates with the out world side @133Mhz.
Why would you not increase the bandwidth around the CPU if the architecture allowed that possibility?!
Secondly, G4 has a massive 512kb L2 cache to compensate some of the problem e.g. OpenSSL's core routines should fitting nicely.
The Pentium 4 has 512kb L2 cache as well!
Note that Athlon XP has yet to have the 512 L2 treatment unlike the G4.
Yeah but the Athlon MP is the only one that is designed with its memory cache cross-strapped... I think that's a great advantage!
Are you implying that AmigaOne HW can mount IBM’s new chip?
Well unless EyeTech has changed its CPU strategy, I am assuming the G3s/G4s will come as expected!
-
Hammer read his name "AmigaMac", you can see why he says what he says don't you? Those post don't require responses, they are self-answering.
Never judge a book by its cover... I own/use both platforms on top of what I use at work (Suns/PCs)!
-
sorry bout the confusion there mickey, it was intended to be 1> a response to eddit
2> a slur against micro$oft , mickey as in mickey mouse.
(I hadn't realized a Mickey was a user here, my oversight)
and just to satisfy curiosity, I posted using Mozilla 1.2a.
I'm curious also, has anybody here coded, plan to code, hate to code 64 bit?? Is it worse/better?? generally
-
Actually I'm talking about the PowerPC 601!
You did not state it.
Intel hasn’t implement their post-RISC architectures at that time(mid 90s).
But it has been the last few years due to targeting the embedded market and has been the primary focus of IBM (and even Motorola) until now!
What was the "PC" stands for in "PowerPC" label again?
The Pentium 4 has 512kb L2 cache as well!
Refer to Pentium III with L2 512kb vs Pentium 3 with L2 256kb examples. Pentium III with L2 512kb has a better IPC compared the older Pentium III.
Yeah but the Athlon MP is the only one that is designed with its memory cache cross-strapped... I think that's a great advantage!
I don't recall 512Kb worth of Cache memory was onboard a single CPU. In some bench test MP solution didn’t perform as good when compared to a single Athlon XP solution. Dual CPU has to deal with SMP overheads.
Well unless EyeTech has changed its CPU strategy, I am assuming the G3s/G4s will come as expected!
What’s the point of this statement?
==========================================
I can't wait to see some benchmarks of AOS4 and the AmigaOne in action!
==========================================
The tread was about IBM's new chip not the existing solution.
Doubt that the A1+AOS4 solution will significantly increase their IPC?