PowerPC 970 Running at 2.5 GHz

kuwan writes "IBM has just released a press release that indicates they have the new PowerPC 970 running at 1.8 to 2.5 GHz making it 'the fastest PowerPC so far.' IBM's original estimates were to have the chip running at 1.4 to 1.8 GHz at introduction, so this is very good news for those of us hoping Apple will use this as their next-generation chip."

Let's see some FAB speed scores

Who cares how fast IBM has this running in the lab--let's see how fast those fab lines are running before we get too excited.

Re:Let's see some FAB speed scores

here is some info i found.. might help:
SPECint2000
- 937 @ 1.8 GHz
SPECfp2000
- 1051 @ 1.8 GHz
Dhrystone MIPS
- 5220 @ 1.8 GHz
- 2.9 DMIPS / MHz
Additional Performance
- Peak scalar GFLOPS = 7.2
- Peak SIMD GFLOPS = 14.4
- RC5 : 18M keys/sec
Unfortunately at the very bottom it says that some of this are estimates.. here is the link where I got the info: http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/tec hdocs/A1387A29AC1C2AE087256C5200611780

Re:Let's see some FAB speed scores

Because we're all too lazy to copy/paste [ibm.com]

Estimated Scores of 2.5GHz Chip

Assuming the same bus speed (which is impossible, so take these numbers to be within, say, one hundred points of reality) and linear performance progression, the 2.5GHz chip should have:

SPECint2000 =
937 / 1.8 = 520.5 points/GHz * 2.5
Estimated Score ~= 1300
Average P4@3.0GHz score ~= 1080 (the 970 = 20% faster)

SPECfp2000 =
1051 / 1.8 = 583.9 points/GHz * 2.5
Estimated Score ~= 1460
Average P4@3.0GHz score ~= 1100 (the 970 = 33% faster)

RC5 =
18 / 1.8 = 10 * 2.5
Estimated Score ~= 25M keys/sec
Average P4@3.0GHz score ~= 4.3M keys/sec (the 970 = 581% faster)

Take these numbers with a grain of salt, but they're somewhat interesting. I like the RC5 score, especially. ;)

Re:Let's see some FAB speed scores (specs here)

Well, hauling out the report [extremetech.com] from Microprocessor Forum it looks like:

The core, as defined, contains 64 Kbytes of instruction cache, 32 Kbytes of data cache, and 512 Kbytes of 8-way set associative level 2 cache. Unlike the Power4, the core does not apparently contain an onboard cache controller to enable the use of off-chip L3 cache.

The front-side bus electrically runs at 450-MHz, double-clocked to an effective rate of 900-MHz, generating a peak bandwidth of 7.2 Gbytes or 6.4 Gbytes/s of useable bandwidth after transaction overhead is taken into account, Sandon said. Five instructions can be issued and acted upon at any one time, while a total of 200 instructions can be "in flight" at any time, taking into account instructions that are stored in queues.

Performance-wise, IBM believes the chip can record a benchmark of 932 on SPECint 2000 and a score of 1051 on SPECfp2000, both at 1.8-GHz. Peak SIMD GFLOPs should be about 14.4, Sandon said. Using Dhrystone MIPS, the chip should output a score of 5,220. or 2.9 DMIPS/MHz/. IBM expects the chip should test 18 million RC5 keys per second.

Re:Let's see some FAB speed scores (specs here)

For comparison's sake, the P4 Xeon @ 1.8ghz pulls 703/717 (int/fp) on SPEC CPU2000.

Assuming a linear scaling in SPEC performance, we can look forward to a 2.5ghz 970 scoring about 1294/1460, which is pretty respectable. Not a world beater (especially for 2H03), but a far cry from the abominable performance of the current G4.

'jfb

Re:Let's see some FAB speed scores (specs here)

Since this chip hasn't seen the light of day, comparing on the best available basis is just foolish, wouldn't you say?

Since this is a 64 bit chip though, wouldn't the proper comparison be with the 64 bit Itanium series?

Re:Let's see some FAB speed scores (specs here)

Fair enough. Right now, the fastest processor in the world is the Pentium 4 3.06ghz: 1130/1103 (int/fp). For pure floating-point horses, it's the Itanic 2 743/1427 (int/fp).

So a 2.5ghz 970 would be close in performance to both of today's fastest shipping processors. It's likely that the P4 and Itanic will be 15-20% faster in six months, so IBM will still be lagging in the performance hunt. However, it's striking how much closer to the peak performers this chip will move IBM -- and, by extension, Apple.

'jfb

Reality check

At the same clock speed, and for short sequences of instructions, a Z80 can beat a P4. The problem is... they don't make them at the same clock speed.

It's irrelevant how many times per second the chips clock says "tic-tac", what matters is how fast real chips can get real jobs done. For real-world purposes, you can compare the best (ie, the fastest chips) or the most valuable (ie, the ones with the best speed/price ratio).

So you see, Mr. Anonymous Coward, comparing the performance "per clock cycle" is irrelevant. It's like comparing the performance "per instruction length", or "per transistor count". It might be interesting from a theoretical point of view, but if a chip that does a lot of work per cycle cannot do more than a couple of cycles per second, it's still a terribly slow chip. The P4 was designed to do less work per cycle, but work at higher frequencies. The Athlon, on the other hand, does more work per cycle but cannot reach such high frequencies. In the end, they're more or less matched. So, in that situation, which one do you buy? Perhaps you buy the one with better "performance per clock cycle". I buy the one that's cheaper (funnily enough, in this case they would be the same).

I thought Macs were competitive with PCs. Or are you saying that anyone who buys a Mac is totally clueless? It all depends on the market you're talking about. When this chip is finally released, PC processors will be twice as fast than they are now, and will probably cost half what they cost now. Anyone buying a Mac for raw number-crunching is an idiot, just as anyone using Windows for a firewall or a quad Xeon for an office machine is an idiot. It doesn't matter is something is faster or slower, as long as it's fast enough.

To use a car metaphor (that most people seem to understand), not everyone needs or wants to drive a Lamborghini. It's expensive, it's hard to park, it's hard to drive, it's cramped and it drinks like a fish. Most people are better off with a "normal" car, that's fast enough and powerful enough for them, is easy to drive, and has room for the kids and the dog.

Having said that, if you spot someone selling a metallic-gray Lamborghini Diablo Roadster (convertible) for less than 15K, let me know, will you?

RMN
~~~

Ignorance is no excuse.

That's a wonderful list you have there. It's full of machines that cost hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars. Does Apple produce a high end server like that? No. So the fact that Apple isn't on that list means nothing. You might also want to take a closer look at the list. See number twelve, held by IBM? That's a Power3 cluster. The Power3 is IBM's version of the G3. Look a little further down now. See number 19, IBM's ACSI Blue-Pacific? It's using the 604e processor. That's the processor Apple DISCONTINUED 6 YEARS AGO when they released the G3!!!!! Now if you want to learn just a little bit about powerful Apple processors, try EP2 Cluster [ist.utl.pt] or Bio-IT News [bio-itworld.com]. Maybe in the future a bit of knowledge before you open your mouth might be prudent.

Re:Let's see some FAB speed scores

OK, Everyone who wants to understand which processor is fastest should really take a course on processors. Here's the (condensed) deal with the MHz myth:

All other things being equal, faster clock frequency = faster processor. The trick is in the magic words "all other things being equal". If I have a 1 GHz G4 and overclock it to 1.8GHz it will be faster. That's because the processor is using the exact same process but all the steps in the process suddenly take less time.

The problem is that no two processor designs are the same. RISC vs CISC isn't even the only consideration. There are cache sizes/locations, number of pipeline stages, number of pipelines, processor component layout, all kinds of crap. And thats just IN the processor. Motherboard designs don't even enter into my discussion.

PPC and x86 are very different, as well you know if you are a nerd (if you aren't then what are you doing here anyway?). But even processors that run the same instruction set are different enough that clock frequency doesn't necessarily dictate relative processing speed. This is why if you went to tom's hardware when the P4's first came out and looked at the benchmarks, initial P4's were rated as slower than P3's which were running at a SLOWER clock frequency. And I don't think I have to tell you about AMD vs. Intel processors at equal clock speeds.

The point is that clock frequency is a number that represents something that is actually going on inside your processor. It doesn't always accurately represent speeds relative to other processors, but its a pretty good heuristic when used wisely. If you're comparing the speed of different P4's you wouldn't be in error if you said "I want a 2.6GHz P4 because its faster than a 2.2GHz P4". However, you probably would be in error if you said "I want a 2.6GHz P4 because its faster than a 2.5GHz Power5".

Re:Let's see some FAB speed scores

Once upon a time, Monokeros doth spoketh
> Here's the (condensed) deal with the MHz myth:

[ long explaination snipped... ]

I like my description better ...;-0

MHz is like RPM. Pretend you have 2 engines pulling a heavy load. One is at a high RPM, but with a few cylinders (Pentium 4), and the other at low RPM, but lots of cylinders (Athlon XP). Both can pull the load effectively the same, but watch out when the one with more cylinders gets its RPM up.

It's not completely accurate, but then again, its an anology to illustrate the point.

Cheers

Re:Let's see some FAB speed scores

I think everyone else may have misinterpreted this post. The question is not "how fast are the chips that have been fabbed", but how successful have they been with fabrication? They may have one really fast part while the rest of the lot has serious issues. If they're getting low yield from their manufacturing the chips will be very expensive. There are always a few really fast chips at the extreme end of the distribution, but that's not what speed they'll be selling at. Getting those extra MHz is up to the overclockers if possible.

Re:Let's see some FAB speed scores

Absolutely. As a journalist, it's much easier to attract readers by being deliberately vague. Not only are you never wrong, but readers spend all their energy trying to figure out what you MIGHT have said rather than picking apart what you actually did say.

Nostradamus should have won a Pulitzer.

Re:noo

You're anonymous, so really I shouldn't but..

You can keep on bashing their 1 button mice, and expensive hardware.

Buy a $5 two button mouse from BestBuy and shove it up your ass, or connect it to a Mac.

You can bash quicktime, which is a POS compared to other formats.

Quicktime is a delivery system that can use a plethora of codecs and formats. Unlike RealScum and Wiblows Media, you can encode and decode quicktime files with various programs to provide content.

You can make fun of the dock.
You can make fun of how cheesy OSX looks.

You can if you want. I can make fun of your silly hair. Different strokes for different folks. I happen to think jagged text and rectanguar grey buttons are soooo last year.

You can bash the superdrives, which only burn on certain dvd+ram formats.

Err, hello? knock knock? Anyone home? I didn't think so. The superdrive is a drive used in PCs too - it can burn DVD-R, -RW and +RW. Moral: when there's doubt, cover all bases.

You can make fun of mac users for buying expensive software when there are plenty of free replacements.

I bow to your 37337 \/\/4r3z 5k111z, or didn't you mean that? i like to buy my software thanks, or use sourceforge/versiontracker/etc to get OSS stuff.

I also use iMovie (free) to edit movies, iTunes (free) to listen to mp3s, AppleWorks (free) to do word processing and spreadsheets, Mail (free) to send and receive email, the Developer Tools (free) to write apps for unix and OS X.

I could use iPhoto (free) to manage and edit my pictures, but I have Photoshop.

I could use iDVD (free with superdrive macs) to burn dvds, but I don't have a superdrive.

I can burn CDs from the Finder (built into the OS) but I bought Roxio Toast. I can also rip, mix and burn from iTunes (free), which I do to make CD compliations quite often.

You can bash Inet explorer and MS Office on Mac.

Yeah, bashing Microsoft seems to be popular. Don't blame Apple for Microsoft's apple software. Who uses IE on the Mac anyway? There are a plethora of faster, more standards compliant browsers for the Mac.

I found Office for Mac to be pretty good myself, but I don't have it on my iBook. I don't need it really, I just use AppleWorks (free with consumer Macs) for the odd bit of word processing.

Bash the Mac for so many things? I think you're a couple of gunmen short of a posse my friend.

Stick to Winblows, we don't need someone like you using a Mac.

So Sad...

That is pretty pathetic considering my cordless phone goes faster!! --Mickey Mouse Microsoft Geek

US wireless phones better

We run GSM at 1900Mhz! Take that eurotrash!

?!?!?!1

I wonder how they managed to up the clock so dramatically? Is it just SOI and other techniques, or did they lengthen the pipeline significantly.

If it's just a pipeline lengthening scheme, well, meh, but if they kept the same execution pipeline and are now at 2.5ghz operating range, they're going to kick some ass.

Easy

I wonder how they managed to up the clock so dramatically?

Xeon + hobby paint.

Re:Easy

Xeon + hobby paint.

No way, man, VTEC stickers! :)

Re:?!?!?!1

This is the same 970 as before. No lengthened pipeline, although the 970 has a relatively long pipeline to begin with. And they probably hit 2.5ghz by selective testing... I haven't seen suggestions they can manufacture these chips in quantity yet. Keep in mind that Intel demos ~5GHz chips every few months or so. Even so, it's promising that the design seems to scale up that far without issues and without needing a process change.

No

The 2.5GHz number isn't the same as Intel talking about 5GHz P4s. IBM means that they're going to sell 2.5GHz Blade servers. The reason that Intel talks about their insane GHz processors is to impress consumers into buying Intel. People in the market for mid-range Blade servers couldn't care less about what IBM can do in one in a million chips, and they would likely be annoyed if IBM misrepresented it in that way. If IBM can't manufacture the chips in quantity (I'm not aware if they're manufacturing any 970's in mass yet), they will be able to shortly, certanly before the release of the chip.

Re:?!?!?!1

Funny that you ask. The fact is that it doesn't matter. Remember the so called "mhz myth" well it definitely exists from a marketing standpoint. IBM could have cranked up the clock rate and achieved 0% performance increase and it wouldn't matter to most people. They just say "oh, Apple has a 2.5ghz processor, that's better than 1.8ghz, oooh, aaaah". This is the same battle that AMD fights. They are spending big bucks trying to remind people that just because that P4 is running at 3ghz, it doesn't mean that it is THAT much faster than a 2.2ghz Athlon.

From the Specs...

From reading the specs it says:

9 Fetch, Decode Stages
5-13 OoO Execute Stages
2-3 Dispatch, Commit

So at total of 16-25 pipelined stages. I also notice that the longest(25) is for the Alti-Vec engine. This is very comparable to Pentium 4 which has 26 pipelined stages, although Pentium 4 does not have a vector engine.

Re:x86 does have vector support

Yeah you're right I didn't account for MMX and SSE.

However there is little comparison.

Alti-Vec
# 32 separate Registers
# 128 bits per register
# No interference with FP registers
# no context or mode switching
# max throughput: 8 Flops / cycle

MMX/SSE
# 8 MMX registers shared with the FPU, 8 for SSE
# 64 bits per mmx register, 128 bits per xmm register
# MMX stalls the FP registers
# context switching required for MMX
# max throughput: 2 Flops / cycle

When you are playing a 3D game do you really want your FPU stalled for vector calculations?


To be fair, you could program your 3D game to do all FPU calculations in SSE. gcc has an option to do this automatically now. And SSE2 is one step ahead of AltiVec in one regard - it supports a few double-precision operations.

But aside from those two nitpicks, I agree completely. I've hand-optimized code for both Pentium/SSE and G4/AltiVec and there's no comparison: SSE provides a small performance boost for a lot of work, while AltiVec provides a large performance boost for a little bit of work. AltiVec has very fancy shift, rotate, and shuffle instructions that are completely lacking in SSE. These are useful for more than just RC5 - they're totally necessary to vectorize many more complicated algorithms without the overhead of putting the data in the right place eating up any potential speed gains.

That's why the 970 in a Mac will easily beat the P4 in a number of tests: Apple has optimized hundreds of system calls to use AltiVec already, so many programs get the speed gain automatically.

Motherboards ready for 2.5MHz?

I just hope Apple has their motherboards ready for 2.5GHz. The original spec of 1.8GHz with 6+GB bus was a little heady compared to Apple's current technology (no thanks to Motorola). I'm hoping they know how to build motherboards with the best of them to take advantage of IBM's new 970 chip. Pushing the envelope from 1.8GHz to 2.5GHz just makes the whole motherboard engineering issue more challenging. Let's hope Apple hardware design it up to the task (and then some).

Re:Motherboards ready for 2.5MHz?

What's more interesting is that the frontside bus of the 970 was designed to scale with processor speed. So the 1.8GHz was supposed to have a 900MHz (well, presumably 225MHz quad-pumped) FSB, using a multiplier of 2. The 2.5GHz, then, has two options... either drop down a notch to use a multiplier of 3 (getting an 833MHz FSB, which is manageable)... or go full-hog and hit a 1.25GHz FSB. While I suspect that for the 2.5GHz chip the answer is, unfortunately, the former, the question is a bit hazier in the case of a 2GHz part... 1GHz is manageable but impressive, whereaz 666MHz simply isn't enough. Of course, they can allow non-simple multipliers and solve the issue, but I do recall that they were planning on supporting only integral multipliers.

Re:Motherboards ready for 2.5MHz?

Eh, us mac users have lived with a slow bus too long to not want a fast one... because it might not be improved significantly for another four years! But yes, you're correct about the multiplier math. I just seem to remember hearing someone from IBM refer to the 1.8GHz part as having a 2x multiplier, and saying the 1.4GHz would have the same multiplier for a 700MHz (175MHz) bus... and I got the impression, quite possibly incorrectly, that the phrase 'simple multiplier' (they didn't say integer multiplier, note) meant a multiple of four, pre-quad-pumping. But again, all I'm going on here is vague phrases and the fact that the 1.4GHz and 1.8GHz parts had such different bus speeds (which makes upgrading even more fun, come to think of it).

-1, Troll

Pudge, I really appreciate that you read Macslash, and copy there stories here so I don't need to type in a second address. Do you think you could convince some of the editors to read some of the other slashcode sites? Slashdot would be a good start.

Re:-1, Troll

I actually posted the story to Slashdot first, then MacSlash later, but MacSlash was faster at putting it up. Probably because they don't get as many story submissions as Slashdot.

Kuwan
--
Get HyperSpell [kuwan.net] for OS X - Instant access to OS X's built-in spellchecker.

drool ...imagine dual pro Macs :)

Ok, this is great news. I hope Apple decides to use this chip. I could just see dual ppc 970 Power Macs running at 2.5Ghz x 2 :) Why stop there maybe they'll go quad, and that would be awesome :)

I just hope apple doesnt go back to using single chip on their high end systems...its ok if they do use one chip for say the iMac, *book line but the Power Macs should stay with dual if they end up using this chip.

Oh and the obligatory, karma whoring

"Imagine a Beowulf of these!!!!"

When Used....

Does this chip match the power consumption and low heat dissipation that we have all come to know and love from the PPC arch? Does anyone know?

More Information

Here [ibm.com] you can find a more technical details than just press release.

Here [ibm.com] is the actual spec about the PowerPC 970.

Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] articles. Apparently, PPC 970 just last year's news. The real news is just the cranked-up speed...

Re:More Information

One of the most interesting bits of information from the above IBM pages: In addition to its support of new 64-bit solutions, the 970 retains full native support for 32-bit applications. This not only protects 32-bit software investments, but provides these 32-bit applications with the same high-performance levels that it extends to 64-bit uses. This native, nonemulated, 32-bit support is not limited to application code, which runs unmodified. 32-bit operating systems with minor updates can also take advantage of the PowerPC 970's outstanding performance.

Explanation

"First of all, what is the processor that Apple using now? Isn't it some sort of PowerPC already? I see this one supports Altivec and I know that G3 and G4 Apple computers have the same instruction sets. Is this just another implementation, or is G3 and G4 relatives of this new processor?"

Apple does currently use a PowerPC processor in their computers. They have for the past eight years or so. Currently they're using the "750" edition, a'la G3 and G4, which are supplied by both IBM and Motorola.

"Second: what operating system does the IBM PowerPC run?"

The IBM machines with these series of microprocessors are things like the later generation AS/400s and RS/6000's. There are also some workstation machines (both badged as such and badged differently) with IBM PowerPCs in them. AS/400s use OS/400. RS/6000s can run many different OSes, including Linux and AIX.

"I suspect that the article is just confusing and processor itself is not made by IBM. Right??"

Wrong, at least on who makes the microprocessor. Motorola hasn't been doing so well lately, and even early on they had to deal with IBM to meet quota. IBM's hand in the PowerPC line is visible in Macintosh 5200's, which were common schoolroom computers that are starting to be end-of-lifed. They're dating back to August 1996 or so.

Re:please explain

The 970 has the same instruction set (99%) as the G4, but it also has a very, very different internal architecture that should make it quite a bit faster than the G4 at the same clock rate. It's actually a scaled-down version of the Power4 chip, the CPU in a lot of IBM's much larger systems. The Power family is the root of the PowerPC chip, which was actually created by IBM/Apple/Motorola to simply use the same instruction set.

The IBM Power4 runs many of IBM's OS's.

Re:please explain

First of all, what is the processor that Apple using now? Isn't it some sort of PowerPC already? I see this one supports Altivec and I know that G3 and G4 Apple computers have the same instruction sets. Is this just another implementation, or is G3 and G4 relatives of this new processor?

Apple currently uses the G4 and G3 family. The G4 has AltiVec, G3 does not. G4/G3 are product names, whereas 970 are more like model numbers. There all related in that they implement the PowerPC ISA (Instruction Set Archetecture).

Second: what operating system does the IBM PowerPC run?

Depends on who is selling the machine the chip is in. Apple sells OS9 and OSX. IBM has AIX. And of course there's Linux and BSD. These are the most common.

I suspect that the article is just confusing and processor itself is not made by IBM. Right??

Nope, IBM does manufacture the 970. IBM also makes G3's. AFAIK Motorola is the only one making G4's right now (could be wrong here, could be that IBM is cranking some G4's as well). Also note that both Motorola and IBM sell other variations of the PowerPC (most well known is the PPC that powers the Nintendo GameCube).

Re:please explain

PowerPC is an open architecture; several companies make different CPUs based on the design. IBM's historically made them for servers (the 970 was originally intended to be a server chip) while Motorola made them for desktops (Apple). Only problem is, Motorola sucks -- and their growth in the wireless business has gotten them to the point where they don't need Apple's business any more, so they have no real reason to improve their CPU line.

The G3 and G4 are also PowerPC chips -- they just are specific models made by Motorola. It's half new implementation, half relative.

Finally, a CPU doesn't run any specific OS -- OSes just have to be written for that CPU (and more generally, for the system architecture that CPU uses). Linux has supported the PPC for a long time; there's a distro called Yellow Dog that specifically targets Macs, and does a good job of it. Mac OS X's kernel, Darwin, has been backported to Intel IA-32. Windows used to be available for Alpha processors. It's just a matter of coding and hardware knowledge.

Re:please explain

The G3 (PPC750) is a development of the PowerPC 603. It's got superb integer performance, decent FP, no Altivec and extremely low power draw.

The G4 (PPC74x0) is a development of the PowerPC601 and 604. Integer Performance is about the same as the 750, but it has a much faster FPU and Altivec. Moderate power draw and a much more powerful CPU overall.

There are more differences between the PPC750 family and the PPC74x0 Family than just Altivec, although that's the most notable difference.

All of these CPU's are descendants of the Power CPU line. Theoretically Mac OS X could run on teh Power4 with some minor work. Now that would make a killer system, at the expense of cost (A single Power4 CPU package, with multiple cores, costs as much as a PowerMac.)

Re:please explain

First of all, what is the processor that Apple using now? Isn't it some sort of PowerPC already?

G3 and G4 are Apple marketing terms for current PPC chips, made by IBM or Motorola (the G3s in the iBooks are made by IBM). The only real difference between the two is that the ones with a G4 sticker on it supports AltiVec and SMP (I'm simplifying here for the sake of brevity, before I get flamed). Both are 32-bit chips.

The 970 will probably be called a G5 by Apple (although they may drop the G_ naming convention and call it a PPC64 or something) and is a 64-bit PPC chip based on IBM's Power4 series, with AlriVec tacked on. Power4 is a PPC-derived architecture, specifically designed to run in high-end UNIX servers, where x86 just doesn't cut it. With the 970 IBM are trying to move this technology to the desktop.

Second: what operating system does the IBM PowerPC run?

It will run any OS that runs on current PPC chips (PPC Linux and OS X, for example), although it will probably require OS modifications to take advantage of the 64-bit features of this chip.

I suspect that the article is just confusing and processor itself is not made by IBM. Right??

The chip indeed is made by IBM, as are the G3s in the current iBook range (as I recall Motorola G3s top out at <600MHz, while IBM make them up to 1GHz). Apple is expected to be one of the largest customers for these chips, hence their mention.

Digital Lifestyle

"It is ideal for very computing intensive applications, for example in the area of simulation like meterology or geological calculations."

Along with the rollout of the 970 chip, Apple will introduce two new insanely great iLife Apps: iWeather and iEarth. Now you can calculate weather patterns in your neighborhood and export the results to iMovie! Also, use iEarth's predictive powers in landscaping your front yard, planning your garden, and preventing cracks in your house's foundation.

Perfect for your digital lifestyle.

Eat that Miscrosoft!

Re:Digital Lifestyle

Okay... I've got karma to burn...

Microsoft, after several delays, releases Hailstorm XP and Terra XP for their latest operating system, Longhorn. The release announcement was done with Steve Ballmer running around the stage at TechEd 2004 screaming, "Call me daddy! I own the Earth!" Later, Bill Gates corrects Ballmer by saying, "Sorry Steve, I own the Earth!" Reports have been coming in that Scott McNealy of Sun, Larry Ellison of Oracle, and Richard Stallman of FSF all huddled up and crying.

Unfortunately, shortly thereafter, Earth blue-screened and permanently enabled copy-protection on every living person until each person forks over their soul along with $5000 per year for life support.

If Apple uses this, it will just be the same prob.

2.5GHz now is interesting. 2.5GHz in 12-18 months if/when Apple gets them into actual production hardware will not be that interesting. By that time we'll probably see >= 4GHz Intel and AMD chips. Apple needs 2.5GHz machines *now*.

Re:If Apple uses this, it will just be the same pr

The following is a simplistic view of things, but we are talking about a 64bit processor. Remember the Itaniums Intel is selling are running at around 1GHz - 1.5GHz I believe and they run circles around the 3Ghz P4.

Hopefully

~Perhaps this will lead to some sort of debate regarding the virtues of Macs compared with PCs, something so rarely discussed on SlashDot.

you gotta wonder...

how many people have been holding off (or switching to other platforms) on a new Apple computer purchase for these new chips. I'm sure Apple is chomping at the bit waiting for these chips to be mass produced so that they can get them into Powermacs (and hopefully Powerbooks too), like, yesterday.

The POWERLite series (which is basically what the 970 is) is a great alternative to x86 for Apple for quite a few years ahead. Not only does IBM have an incentive to keep producing these chips at ever-greater clock speeds (something that Motorola with the G4 doesn't seem to have a great deal of interest in doing) because IBM actually uses these in their Blade servers, but it sets up a nice roadmap for successive generations of chips (the POWER5 is just around the corner, with a Power5Lite a la PowerPC 980 coming shortly thereafter? Such a chip is probably only a year and a half off and, running MacOSX, would rocksock).

Yum.

Re:you gotta wonder...

how many people have been holding off (or switching to other platforms) on a new Apple computer purchase for these new chips. I'm sure Apple is chomping at the bit waiting for these chips to be mass produced so that they can get them into Powermacs (and hopefully Powerbooks too), like, yesterday.

Well, for scientific users the debate about which platform to use has *significantly* been mitigated by the presence of a true UNIX with OS X allowing for the easy porting and running of code already written for other *nix distros. I personally have replaced three machines including an older Mac, a Windows box and an SGI with a single dual G4 with a sweet Cinema Display.

Now, could I use more power? Absolutely. Code that is optimized for Altivec is screaming fast. Faster than just about any other platform I have used in fact. However, code not optimized for Altivec gets whomped on by the Wintel platform right now and I would like to see some of the delta in performance go away.

All of that said, OS X is one impressive OS. The best OS out there for the general audience and for a number of specialized audiences as well. It can only get better and is awaiting fast CPU's with fast bus speeds.

I suppose it also might be argued that OS X has matured faster as a result of the lagging performance of the G4 chips in that Apple has had to optimize lots of code to get things running fast, whereas Microsoft tends to rely on fast boxes to get through code bloat. Just look at Safari vs. IE as an example of this.

Re:you gotta wonder...

Well, for scientific users the debate about which platform to use has *significantly* been mitigated by the presence of a true UNIX with OS X allowing for the easy porting and running of code already written for other *nix distros.

While UNIX compatibility in OS X is great, calling it a "true UNIX" is really rather misleading. First of all, the kernel isn't a UNIX kernel, it's a hacked Mach kernel with a BSD compatibility layer. Furthermore, there are very significant differences in userland, including things like a case-insensitive file system, huge changes in system administration, lack of device nodes for things like audio and video, multiple views of the file system (from Carbon/UNIX), etc. Also, the standard UNIX window system, X11, is at best bolted onto OS X.

Now, you may think all these things are improvements to UNIX, and you might be right. However, they make OS X pretty significantly different from UNIX. And while some applications port with no problems to OS X, others require incorporating Cocoa or Carbon code for porting, which can be a lot of effort.

PC == Personal Computer || Wintel architecture?

if (PC == "Personal Computer")
printf("Why do we say Mac vs PC?\n");
else if (PC == "Wintel architecture")
printf("Why confuse people with something called 'PowerPC'?\n");
else
printf("WTF?");

No mention of Apple...

According to the press release, there is no mention of apple, they are talking about the Blade servers (I know, I know, this is the CHIP apple hopes to use, but it is missleading having the apple header!)

AltiVec confirmed

Interesting: this PR release seems to confirm the planned extensions are in fact, Altivec. I haven't followed it too closely, but I thought this wasn't confirmed yet.

Guess that makes it clear this is Apple's next chip.

misinformation

Here's some:

- The new chip has a 54 stage pipeline, thus making it as effective as a current 700 MHz G4.

- The chip tested eliminated all ability for cache, thus allowing the speedup in clock but making it slower than all current G4s available in Apple computers.

- It is being developed as PowerPC but will be transitioned into x86.

- It will not support multiprocessing and MP applications will have to be done through a hackneyed clustering.

- This chip will help to propel Apple to 20% market share. (I'm a shareholder.)

- When worked hard, the chip gives off an odor vaguely reminiscent of shrimp flavored chips.

- The 970 is slightly faster than a Porsche 944.

Please feel free to add your own misinformation because there's not all that much real information to be discussed, anyway.

Re:misinformation

the 970 achieves 64bit performance by having 4 on-die 16bit 68040 cpu's and doing hardware instruction translation (in realtime) from ppc to 68000.

in a technology leap, this cpu bypasses intel's hyperthreading technology and proceeds directly to 'ludicrous threading'. this technology allows a thread to finish a task before it was even created.

the 970 incorporates hardware acceleration for microsoft's windows media drm technology. Windows Media Player 9 Series(r): If You Struggle It Only Hurts More(tm).

unlike endothermic cpu's commonly manufactured by intel and perfected by amd, the ppc 970 uses exothermic cmos technology. it therefore requires a constant heat source to avoid freezing.

these chips use ibm's patented plutonium-on-silicon manufacturing process, and as such require a license from the nuclear regulatory commission to own.

Implications?

IF Apple happens to be a consumer of these chips, what is IBM likely to charge for them? It really seems that most consumers complaint about Apple computers is the price, given consumers even consider them an option. I can't imagine Apple would take a hit on these to keep PowerMacs at their current prices. And I don't imagine most switchers will really want to pay for speed when they get it for a commodity price in the PC world.

wiggy

Whodathunk that one day we'd be reading a story titled "Apple: ..." with an IBM icon? Maybe I'm getting old, but I think it's kinda cool.

Re:quick question

will laptops be feasible?

These chips are targetted at blades. Blades require:

1. Low power consumption
2. Low heat dissipation

Laptops, on the other hand, require:

1. Low power consumption
2. Low heat dissipation

Draw your own conclusions

Macs could use the speed

I hired a graphic artist to design a brochure for our product. When we were down to final tweaks, she brought in her Titanium Mac so I could look at the changes as she made them. It was the first time I had seen Illustrator running on OS X on a Titanium. Watching the glacial screen redraws (she had a lot of filters running) made me think that if there ever was a task that would clearly benefit from multiples of more CPU horsepower it was Illustrator drawing complex images. 64 bits at 2.5 Ghz should help a lot.

You have to have the patience of Job to be a graphic designer. That's Job, not Jobs.

I'm sick of you Mac haters

You think Apple sucks because they have realised that the traditional MacOS has come to the end of the line and instead of rehashing old rubbish as MS and Intel have been doing, they have gone to great lengths to write a new OS based on highly regarded kernal and system, whereas MS has rehashed NT and, as they usually do, added more and more (mostly unnecessary) features.

You think they suck because they base their computer and OS designs on what their customers want, unlike MS which designs its own ideas and forces them on its customers (HTML email, VBS, ASP and now the new IE5, with it's different rendering of web pages and 96dpi images) because, being the market leader (due to great marketing, not great design), people have no choice.

You think Apple hardware sucks because it uses parts compatible with PC's, despite the fact that Apple hardware components have (for the most part) always been designed by other manufacturers, merely this time they have selected less unique hardware, because this is what their customers wanted and Apple customers are willing to spend extra for this.

You all think Apple sucks because they build computers up to a quality, not down to a price. They suck especially because they took the bold step of designing harware that simple, straightforward and attractive to alot of people (iMac), and in great defiance of the PC market, sells very well. More insulting are the PC owners who discovered their friends' iMacs ran faster.

Oh, and you think Apple sucks most of all because it forces PC owners to realise that they are MS and Intel lemmings - in no control of the chipset's and OS'es they use, as what they do is controlled by both these companies. If it weren't for Apple, AMD and others, everyone, with the exception of companies that can afford expensive un*x workstations, would be complete slaves to MS and Intel.

This is like saying Mercedes Benz sucks because they design innovative cars who's designs influenced car designs for many decades.

Maybe Apple should apologise for shattering people's ideas of what a computer should be.

Join my Slashdot clan! [slashdot.org]

Itanium 2 peaks @ 1 GHz and costs over $3000

Fantastic news for Apple, and trouble for Intel and HP.

For all your Wintel idiots out there who know nothing other than GHz, PPC 970 is a super efficient 64 bit server grade RISC processor with the G4 style Altivec engine, and will blow away your P4, Xeon and Itanium. I home Apple will make a PowerBook with one of these.

According to benchmarks by Intel and HP, the floating point performance of Itanium 2 @ 1 GHz is about 50% faster than P4 @ 3.06 GHz, so clock rate clearly doesn't equal to performance.

In other news, out of 4.5 million servers shipped in 2002, only 3500 were Itanium. In contrast, Apple apparently had already sold approximately 8000 Xserves 6 or 7 months after it was launched in May 2002 - not too shaby for a new product.

MHZ? What about FLOPS?

I really wish manufacturers would cut the crap and just give a FLOP rating off of some standard test that could be performed cross-platform. Then they can stop worrying about turning processors into microwave ovens and focus on more efficent silicon techniques. They are starting to run into problems in these high frequencies because on a motherboard, because by the time the signal reaches another side of the board, it has already switched from a 1 back to a 0 or whatever. That's fast.

Apple servers up 370% in Q3 2002

Apple shipped 7484 servers (presumably mainly Xserve) in Q3 2002. In contrast, there were only 3500 Itanium 2 based servers sold in the whole of 2002.

The future looks even better for Apple in the server space, following the recent release of the new Xserve and the Xserve RAID. I can't wait to see an Apple 64 bit PPC 970 blade server to blow the crappy Dell out of the water.

Quoting numbers attributed to Internet World, MacInTouch (Saturday, Jan 12) reports that Apple's share of the server market has more than trebled from 0.2 percent to 0.7 percent (Q3 '01 vs Q3 '02). An equally telling statistic is the fact that approximately 40 percent of growth had taken place by the end of Q2 '02 (ie before Apple's Xserve was released).

In terms of unit sales, Internet World quotes the following for Apple:
? Q3 '01 2,049
? Q2 '02 3,937
? Q3 '02 7,484

Unfortunately, the press release has been removed

MacAddict [macaddict.com] and others are reporting that the press release has been removed from IBM's site; clicking the link to it in this story now takes one to a listing of IBM's German press releases. The pr on the 2.5 GHz 970 seems to have been completely removed. Might the announcement have been premature?

Re:Obligatory Questions

Does it run linux?

Yes. Or at least, PowerPC linux works great, and linux is 64-bit clean. I don't know of anyone running linux on a current 64-bit powerpc, but I'm sure it's been done.

How many fps on doom 3

More a function of graphics card than processor these days, no? With any luck PCI-X will be available with these systems. Bandwidth never hurts.

How many keys/s on rc5-72

A surprising number, although presumedly only a linear increase (with clockspeed) over current PowerPC's. Altivec has a number of instructions which are very useful for rc5 (and very useless elsewhere), and the bitwidth of Altivec is, of course, unchanged.

Can i overclock it?

Probably. IBM has been doing so remarkably good clocking design on their consumer chips lately. The 750FX, for instance, used in current iBooks, is software overclockable, takes about 10-30 cycles to change clock speeds, and mine (600MHz on the die) runs at 900MHz stable, although I tend to avoid that for battery life reasons. (Note that os x 10.2 blocks software overclocking by resetting the clockspeed every 1000th of a second or so. Os x 10.1 allows it, and 10.2 can be forced to rather trivially.)

How hot is it?

Not very. Don't have numbers off hand, but I believe the 1.8GHz numbers were at least comparable with current 1.3Ghz G4 numbers... 30-40 watts or so.

Re:Obligatory Questions

It's really not hard. I don't have anything formal written up, but just read the IBM docs on the 750FX. Basically, you initialize a register with the multiplier you want, wait a few cycles for the PLL to lock, and then send an instruction which switches the machine from one PLL to the other (there are two). You can then reverse the process. One PLL is initialized from hardware to the speed of your computer, but they're both settable. If you disable clockspeed switching on moving to battery (which does it's own thing, of course), all you need to do under 10.2 is disable the kernel's resetting of the clock. Just grep for the opcode to write the appropriate register in the kernel; if my memory is correct, it occurs twice in the kernel, never figured out what the first one did... may just set the second PLL for battery-removal clocking later on. In any case, no-oping out both of those occurances causes no problems at all, that I've noticed. Of course, every update that changes the kernel (10.2.4 being the latest) requires you to redo this, but it's about one minute with grep and a hex editor. That should be enough to get you going... took me about four hours, and I didn't even know PPC machine code when I started.

Re:Help

Although an 8600/300 speed comparison might be
interesting from a historical perspective, it's not
that relevant these days as a benchmark point.
A dual G4 running OS X is a whole 'nuther animal.

Re:Help

Didn't you post this to the last article that mentioned Apple? If you hate your Mac so much, why is it still on your desk? And why do you keep copying this 19MB file around anyway? Your disk must be getting pretty full of copies of the same file by now...

Re:Chip speed won't save Apple

They're over and done with, and have been, for nearly half a decade now.

And they will continue to be over and done with for several more decades, while still turning out incredible computers.

Re:Help

That's funny, we had a 9600/300 working as a professional non-linear edit suite, producing programs for TV and video handling multi-gigabyte files and full frame video with no problems.

Your Mac is broken.