Amiga.org
Amiga News and Community Announcements => Amiga News and Community Announcements => Amiga Hardware News => Topic started by: Skyraker on August 11, 2003, 04:40:15 AM
-
The road ahead for IBM's Power chip line is full of speed boosts with the Power5+ chip hitting 3.0GHz and its successor going well beyond that.
Check it out at The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/32232.html) ...
-
It sounds like good news, but being as you can get a 3+Ghz X86 chip for under $370 (http://www.computerbrain.com/cbisys/items.asp?main=CPUs&cat=Intel_Pentium_4_CPUs&mfr=all&class=) right now how fast will x86 be running when these PPC chips come out? Some where at 6 to 10GHZ? Maybe more?
It's great to have a choice other than X86 and I realize competition will only keep bringing the chip speeds up and prices down. I guess it's just that I feel like it would be nice to have Amiga back at the top of the heap again. I just see such a wonderful future for AmigaOS on X86 and most don't see it that way.
It's hard enough to get people to use a different OS other than Windows. When you compound the problem with them having to buy 'special' hardware that is no where near the price/performance of what they can get in X86 or in many cases 'already own' then it just seems rather difficult to anyone to ever convert.
So here's my question. Does anyone here think or see things like I do as far as: If I were to develope a decent OS that runs on most peoples current computers what are my chances of getting people to use it? Not good? What if I developed a decent OS, but it had to run on expensive hardware that people have to buy first? Now I think my chances would be somewhere in the range of 'not good to impossible'.
I know I know... AROS. It is getting better...maybe someday soon when it's more complete it will be my OS choice.
AmigaGuy
-
Old News, This has already been discussed on Amiga.org
refer to my previous posting
http://amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3554
If I were to develope a decent OS that runs on most peoples current computers what are my chances of getting people to use it?
Not unless you could get it to ship w/ the (mass market "sheep" ) computer pre-installed or dual-bootable.
reference the linux struggles in such an environment.
biggest obstacle imho = pervasiveness
-
No offense but please do not even think of comparing a Power5 to a Pentium IV.
The Power5 is a multicore server chip which is incredibily powerful and leaves a Pentium IV in the dust even if it ran at 12 Ghz.
Having said that, it isn't a desktop chip although it has been said that the PPC980 will be derived from it.
-
@amigaguy
I do see your point. I always thought that having a x86 based AmigaOS would be awsome. I would not have to buy some specific hardware for an OS. You can buy awsome hardware for cheap prices. Oh well, hopefully that perfect OS comes out for x86 sometime.
-
It's hard enough to get people to use a different OS other than Windows.
Via http://www.pricewatch.com/
"Lindows** PC" is an alternative option (within the X86 market).
**Commercial Linux distro...
-
The Power5 is a multicore server chip which is incredibily powerful and leaves a Pentium IV in the dust even if it ran at 12 Ghz.
That's maybe true IF Intel did not apply any IPC increases with their designs...
-
@kd7ota
I do see your point. I always thought that having a x86 based AmigaOS would be awsome. I would not have to buy some specific hardware for an OS. You can buy awsome hardware for cheap prices. Oh well, hopefully that perfect OS comes out for x86 sometime.
Windows just just fine and has everything I need.
Pardon me, but I doubt you'd have any interest in even an X86 AmigaOS :-)
-
DethKnight: Not unless you could get it to ship w/ the (mass market "sheep" ) computer pre-installed or dual-bootable. Reference the linux struggles in such an environment.
The alternative is to do everything yourself and sell a horribly expensive and obsolete machine that almost nobody wants. Good examples are obvious.
Why, oh why, do people just slice things into two categories: Bargain-basement X86 hardware that must be bought in parts and an OS off-the-shelf... or proprietary, prepackaged systems NOT based on X86? Why can't you have a prepackaged X86 system? Put together an Abit IS7, P4, and a custom case, and preload a decent OS on it. Modern hardware, low price, and upgradability. If you can't sell that, it's just because nobody wants it... or your list of potential customers really, really hate Intel. ;-)
Of course, that's the desktop market. For servers, most everything is proprietary. I've been wanting to upgrade our duel processor IBM tower at work, but our software is hard-coded for each CPU by serial number, so we can't upgrade unless we go through Kodak, and, naturally, they don't HAVE any upgrades... at any price.
Sheesh. No wonder they're hemorrhaging money.
-
Not unless you could get it to ship w/ the (mass market "sheep" ) computer pre-installed or dual-bootable.
It’s funny that it took a “commercial X86 Linux vendor”(i.e. non-free Linux distro) to break into Wal-Mart targeted PC markets. I don’t think the mass desktop PC market is ready for 'shovelware' Linux distros. At least they (Lindows) started off a bit better than 'OS/2 Warp PCs'…
These sheep has needs and wants. For fill those needs and wants then you’ll get the business. BeOS departed from Window'ish familiarly i.e. learn from Lindows‘s experiences (i.e. look'a'like WinXP with Linux/GNU). BeOS's presentation is to foreign for most desktop users…
Note that Windows PPC PC failed by the way side due to relative hardware cost and poor Motorola support… Even Microsoft's Windows brand can't rescue PowerPC for mass desktop OS use.
-
That's maybe true IF Intel did not apply any IPC increases with their designs...
The P4 actually decreased IPC by around a third. The P4 at 1.5GHz was beaten by a P3 at 1GHz.
Thats how the 970 at 2GHz gives the P4 a good run for it's money at 3GHz.
When the POWER5+ "consumer version" appears (second revision of the 980?) it should be I'd guess around 3.5GHz, don't know where Intel will be but I suspect by then the IBM will be outgunning them performance wise. If the 980 (or whatever it's called) has the same enhancements as the POWER5 it'll leave even the 970 in the dust.
-
The Power5 is a multicore server chip which is incredibily powerful and leaves a Pentium IV in the dust even if it ran at 12 Ghz.
Well, it hasn't yet, and that's matching clock for clock.
-
The Power5 is a multicore server chip which is incredibily powerful and leaves a Pentium IV in the dust even if it ran at 12 Ghz.
Well, it hasn't yet, and that's matching clock for clock.
Heh,
A 1.5GHz POWER4+ can outgun a P4 running at 3.2GHz...
And thats on SPEC FP marks where Intel gets to throw in it's favorite compiler...
-
Poster: kd7ota Date: 2003/8/11 2:59:59
I do see your point. I always thought that having a x86 based AmigaOS would be awsome. I would not have to buy some specific hardware for an OS. You can buy awsome hardware for cheap prices. Oh well, hopefully that perfect OS comes out for x86 sometime.
Then you may want to keep an eye on AROS (http://www.aros.org/) .
Dammy
-
amigaguy:
"It sounds like good news, but being as you can get a 3+Ghz X86 chip ... how fast will x86 be running when these PPC chips come out? Some where at 6 to 10GHZ? Maybe more?"
If schedules do not fail too badly, there should be PPC980 @ 3Ghz available year from now.
And if Alan Redhouse wins in lottery a few times, we might see PPC970 on A2 already in y2005??? :-P
-
right now how fast will x86 be running when these PPC chips come out? Some where at 6 to 10GHZ? Maybe more?
I doubt it. 3GHz is quite a significant heat barrier so far for x86, and modern x86 3GHz chips have enormous coolers and fans just to stay running. Unless Intel and AMD do something about this heat problem, a 6GHz CPU will need a small refridgeration unit at about 300W to run. Not what I want for a home computer.
-
And if Alan Redhouse wins in lottery a few times, we might see PPC970 on A2 already in y2005???
Well BBRV is talking PPC970 for the Pegasos III for next year. I guess there's no use talking about the AmigaOne until OS4 is out :-?
-
A 1.5GHz POWER4+ can outgun a P4 running at 3.2GHz...
And thats on SPEC FP marks where Intel gets to throw in it's favorite compiler...
URL please? I'm having difficulty finding any PPC results on the SPEC site.
-edit-
I've found a few results, amusing:
Intel P4 CFP2000 benchmark (http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2002q4/cpu2000-20021202-01876.html)
IBM Power4 CFP2000 benchmark (http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2003q2/cpu2000-20030505-02137.html)
Btw, you need to read the specs of the machines first!
-
URL please? I'm having difficulty finding any PPC results on the SPEC site.
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/cpu2000.html#SPECfp (http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/cpu2000.html#SPECfp)
Just compare IBM (pSeries) to Intel.
Here's Apple's recent SPEC benchmarks (not revealed on SPEC.org just yet):
http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/ (http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/)
With the Power4 being the big daddy to the PPC970, there's no doubt that the Power4+ is no slouch :-D
-
Perhaps you should pick a slightly more reputable source for your Power5 benchmark? :-)
-
Perhaps you should pick a slightly more reputable source for your Power5 benchmark?
You talking to me?... I didn't show any Power5 benchmarks. And 'reputable' is irrelevant here since SPEC.org doesn't take any responsibility/accountability for results submitted READ THE DISCLAIMER (http://www.spec.org/spec/disclaimer.html)!
-
The second URL you submitted has Power5 benchmarks, and the previous URL, have you read the specs of the machines? The Power4 SPEC URL is just one of the ones I checked out...
-
Which page are you talking about? The SPEC.org one, or the Apple one with the PPC970 benchmarks? I threw the Apple one in to spice up the forum :-)
Of course I'd rather see Apple just submit their SPEC numbers to SPEC.org to avoid anymore 'conspiracy theories' :-D
-
he second URL you submitted has Power5 benchmarks, and the previous URL, have you read the specs of the machines? The Power4 SPEC URL is just one of the ones I checked out...
I didn't actually inspect what the IBM pSeries machines had equipped, I just knew that the Power4s had to be in there somewhere.
At the end of the day, it's pointless to compare a desktop chip to a server chip since they both target 2 different markets.
-
Ooooo.....I am beginning to drool! ...and going to save money for that!
AHA! So newer Intel chips require bigger heatsinks, eh? They definately be good enough to cook your meals in your kitchen oven! hehe
:-)
-
Whomever even tries to compare a POWER4 or POWER5 to a Pentium 4 is really being an idiot. The POWER series is designed for heavy-duty processing, as well as high-reliability. Frankly, it's like comparing a Ferrari vs an 18 wheeler.
-
@downix
Yes the 18 wheeler allways wins ....
1. It's bigger, and we all know that size does matter.
2. It's faster ...... yes it is faster ! Push down the pedale in mid rush-hour and
watch all those small Hondas giving space ;-)
And now try that with a Ferrari (a rented one preferably) :-o
3. The 18 wheeler can take 12786 6packs home.
The Ferrari only 10 or so.
4. When you want to proove 1., you got a big bed in the 18 wheeler, while you have to
search for a dry and hidden lawn if you go out with the Ferrari.
5. The 18 wheeler has more power.
6. The 18 wheller wil take diesel, and we all know that that is much cheaper
than unleaded super gasoline :lol:
Nuff said, I'm of to buy a 40t truck :-D
-
Reminds me of my step-father when he was shopping for trucks. He was discussing with one of his co-church-goers going to Boston, and someone went "wouldn't you be intimidated by the traffic."
His line is one of the best I've heard him utter:
"In a Peterbuilt, I *DO* the intimidating."
-
Ahhh, yer all a bunch of speed demons.. :crazy:
-
My Truck ..
(http://www.langdons.co.uk/artic375x200.jpg)
Believe it or not ... Car drivers actually DO try to muscle us out of the way !! :-o They fail to grasp that it wont be just a little bump ...... More like .. Globules of human flesh scattered over the highway !! ( Ask a Fireman)
-
@Editor
That doesn't count !!
Get rid of 2 wheels and your allowed to play with ... :-D
Must admit that the biggest truck I ever drove was a 7,5 t + 7t trailer, but it was just one meter
shorter than the big ones, and driving that one through inner-city Berlin (including small living-quarters-streets) on saturday
morning/ noon was a special way of fun :-D
-
@ Kronos :-D
All in a days Yakka (work)
-
The P4 actually decreased IPC by around a third. The P4 at 1.5GHz was beaten by a P3 at 1GHz.
That true to a limited extent but your not encapsulating the whole picture.
Pentium 4 (Northwood A core) increase their IPC compared to Pentium 4 (Willamette core) due to minor 512Kb L2 cache increase and switching to .13 micron processes.
IPC is further increase in Canterwood (Intel’s answer to nForce2) due to FSB increase. The next minor IPC increase will be due to 1Mb L2 cache increase. Intel is not that stupid when they reached a clock speed barrier with the current designs. Not factoring in hypertreading (with Northwood B core) due to problems with some applications.
Further minor IPC increases will be applied in the
Prescott (planned Q4 2003 release)
http://www.chip-architect.com/news/2003_03_26_Prescott_clues_for_Yamhill.html
Thats how the 970 at 2GHz gives the P4 a good run for it's money at 3GHz.
Depends on application being run…
e.g.
1. Apple’s Quake 3 number is in conflict with most major X86 PC sites (most of them running at 400+FPS.
2. Pentium 4’s problems with Portland group’s complier V4 i.e. structural problem with Intel's SSE2.
3. Pentium 4’s narrow application in regards to SSE2 (generally benefits games not scientific applications).
4. Problems with Apple's claims.
References
http://www.overclockers.com/tips00408/
http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296&page=2
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10292
(PGI compiler V5.0(cite 32bit version) improvements over V4**).
http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021218/vgacharts-05.html
(nForce2/AthlonXP vs Pentium 4(533FSB)(mostly entertainment bias benchmarks)
http://members.cox.net/craig.hunter/g5/
(PS; Portland Complier V4** for Pentium 4)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10155
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_1274_3734^3750,00.html
(AMD Athlon™ XP processor 3200+ in entertainment bias benchmarks).
When the POWER5+ "consumer version" appears (second revision of the 980?) it should be I'd guess around 3.5GHz, don't know where Intel will be but I suspect by then the IBM will be outgunning them performance wise.
How can you conclude "IBM will be outgunning them performance wise" then you haven't satisfied "don't know where Intel will be"?
-
A 1.5GHz POWER4+ can outgun a P4 running at 3.2GHz...
"Power 4" out guns "Pentium 4" in price… Some people didn’t learn from Alpha > Pentium Classic days….
-
And 'reputable' is irrelevant here since SPEC.org doesn't take any responsibility/accountability for results submitted READ THE DISCLAIMER!
"Accountability" did not appear in http://www.spec.org/spec/disclaimer.html
SPEC only state "... submissions by member companies and the contents of any SPEC reporting page are the submittor's responsibility. SPEC makes no warranties about the accuracy or veracity of this data."
-
Accountability" did not appear in http://www.spec.org/spec/disclaimer.html
Never said the word 'accountability' was in the disclaimer :-P
-
Hammer: "Power 4" out guns "Pentium 4" in price…
Too bad that's only the CPU.
-
How can you conclude "IBM will be outgunning them performance wise" then you haven't satisfied "don't know where Intel will be"?
I didn't conclude, I said "I suspect".
New CPUs are always weak due to weak compilers, P4 was a case in point, it was outperformed by the P3 at the begining but then Intel got into gear, shrunk the die, added enhancements and got a better compiler it started to fly.
The 970 has shown it is has legs despite the fact it's brand new. When it gets a die shrink, better compiler etc. I think things will be very interesting.
The next generation (980 I assume) based on the POWER5 will hopefully get the same enhancements that chip shall have - POWER5 is expected to perform 4X faster than POWER4.
As for where intel will be - well the next gen P4 is now said to be at 100Watts and Intel are talking about water cooling. If they can't cool the P4 they'll not be able to scale it. Indeed, notice how the clock rate increases have slowed recently.
"Power 4" out guns "Pentium 4" in price… Some people didn’t learn from Alpha > Pentium Classic days….
Problem with the Alpha was although they had the best technology DEC didn't know how to sell it. IBM on the other hand do know how to sell which is why things they are spending millions developing things like POWER5 and POWER6 - BTW they are not optimied for speed, they use larger transistors than usual for extra reliability.
Alpha was a market failure, it's technology was -and still is- the best going, which is why Intel were so keen to get their hands on the Alpha team.
-
BTW Alphas are cool:
http://amiga.org/gallery/index.php?n=360
:-D
-
That's an itty bitty one compared to the mobo in my Alpha XP10,000
-
As for where intel will be - well the next gen P4 is now said to be at 100Watts and Intel are talking about water cooling.
Notice it’s non-mass market release…
If they can't cool the P4 they'll not be able to scale it.
They have to find an engineering solution e.g. .09 micron die strink.
Addendum :
Refer to http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2003/0812/kaigai011.htm (in Japanese) for the Prescott core @3.4Ghz’s planned release for Q4 2003.
Indeed, notice how the clock rate increases have slowed recently.
Notice Intel's alternative "Pentium M" release...
Refer to http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10964
The 970 has shown it is has legs despite the fact it's brand new.
Not quite brand new, refer to "Power 4" ISA.
When it gets a die shrink, better compiler etc. I think things will be very interesting.
Note that both is at .13 microns.
-
Problem with the Alpha was although they had the best technology DEC didn't know how to sell it. IBM on the other hand do know how to sell which is why things they are spending millions developing things like POWER5 and POWER6
How could one equal 'R&D' to 'selling'? Selling/Marketing is quite different to R&D.
-
Quote:
As for where intel will be - well the next gen P4 is now said to be at 100Watts and Intel are talking about water cooling.
Notice it’s non-mass market release…
Since when has Intel done anything other than Mass market CPUs?
The 100W refers to Tejas, and the water cooling is for everything from what I read.
Intel have already talked about how they expect mainstream CPUs to hit 140 Watts on EE Times.
Nvidia said the same for graphics chips.
They have to find an engineering solution e.g. .09 micron die strink.
Refer to http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2003/0812/kaigai011.htm (in Japanese) for the Prescott core @3.4Ghz’s planned release for Q4 2003.
Which will mean they have managed to up the clock 350MHz in a year, not exactly the stellar scaling we are used to.
What happend to moores law???
Not quite brand new, refer to "Power 4" ISA.
The 970 isn't a POWER4, it's based on it yes but there are differences, not least Altivec. Also there are additional instructions for runing 32 bit OSs.
How could one equal 'R&D' to 'selling'? Selling/Marketing is quite different to R&D.
Where exactly did I equate R&D to selling?
-
Since when has Intel done anything other than Mass market CPUs?
That was not point. The point was; economically viability for the mass market. This includes ISV/distribution channels support infrastructure..
Refer to http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=2462
(Intel demos fanless, cool 5GHz chip).
What happend to moores law???
This is not first time that they hit a speed wall. Refer to Intel’s Pentium III 1.13Ghz (pre-Tualatin release) era for their attempts to break the barrier.
Also there are additional instructions for runing 32 bit OSs.
What about the earlier 64bit/32bit PowerPC 601?
The 970 isn't a POWER4, it's based on it yes
but there are differences, not least Altivec.
Note; Altivec tweaked programs there are available for the PowerMac G4...
Note that Apple used tweaked library for their bench test……
-
The 100W refers to Tejas, and the water cooling is for everything from what I read.
What was "Power 4's" watts number again?... (rhetorical question)
-
The 100W refers to Tejas, and the water cooling is for everything from what I read.
What was "Power 4's" watts number again?... (rhetorical question)
-
:-o