Ars Technica Interviews 970 Designers 225
11223 writes "John "Hannibal" Stokes has interviewed Pete Sandon, the PowerPC 970's main designer, and David Edelsohn, a compiler writer from IBM, and clarified several points about the 970 regarding group formation, vector issue queues and performance, and more. The interview is a very interesting read for anyone who has been following his earlier articles on the processor that Apple calls the G5."
Anybody else (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anybody else (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Anybody else (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Anybody else (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Anybody else (Score:2)
ahh, but (Score:3, Funny)
cLive ;-)
Re:Anybody else (Score:2)
Re:Anybody else (Score:1)
Yes, and I was wondering (Score:2)
Re:Anybody else (Score:1)
Re:Anybody else (Score:2)
Re:Anybody else (Score:2)
Whats with this? (Score:3, Funny)
In addition, during this attention seeking attempt, my children's attention is also held by the cat. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even trying to get the remote from my partner fails.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while dealing with other cats, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a cat that fetches as much as it's canine counterpart, despite the cat's faster ambulatory system. My terrier with one ingrown toenail runs consistently faster than this siamese at times, as the cat is often completely asleep. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the cat is a superior animal.
Cat addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a cat over other faster, cheaper, more affectionate animals.
Re:Whats with this? (Score:1, Funny)
I call user error on all cat/dog bashing posts. As a seasoned veteran of both cats and dogs, I should know.
Okay, this is getting dumber by the sentence.
But my cat DOES fetch.
Re:Whats with this? (Score:2, Funny)
You should really be less pitiful as a hunter. You're emberassing your cat.
Re:Whats with this? (Score:1)
That's a defective cat. Please take it to the nearest authorized service center immediately. Be careful with it - it could explode at any moment!
970 designers! (Score:3, Funny)
Ars Technica Interviews 970 Designers
970 designers! Holy nerd-fest Batman! That's where Gotham's entire supply of throat lozenges disppeared to!
Altivec execution (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Altivec execution (Score:5, Informative)
"The AltiVec subunits are more independant than in the 7400, i.e. there isn't just a single vector ALU, instead the vector FPU, vector simple IU, and the vector complex IU can now accept AltiVec instructions concurrently (up to two vector instructions per clock); this means technically, the G4e does have 4 AltiVec units, while the MPC7400 has only two, but in practice the G4e merely relaxes some instruction scheduling restrictions that the 7400 has to adhere to."
Re:Altivec execution (Score:2)
Re:Altivec execution (Score:1, Informative)
IBM in the apple.slashdot.org section ? (Score:4, Funny)
2) That logo clashes like hell with the sexy aqua theme 8|
Re:IBM in the apple.slashdot.org section ? (Score:1, Informative)
2) No Icons (disable topic icon images on stories) [slashdot.org]
Re:IBM in the apple.slashdot.org section ? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm assuming it was even longer than that. IBM has made the G3 for Apple for ages.
Re:IBM in the apple.slashdot.org section ? (Score:1)
Re:IBM in the apple.slashdot.org section ? (Score:1)
Re:IBM in the apple.slashdot.org section ? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:IBM in the apple.slashdot.org section ? (Score:2)
Re:IBM in the apple.slashdot.org section ? (Score:3, Funny)
conspiracy!
Re:IBM in the apple.slashdot.org section ? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:IBM in the apple.slashdot.org section ? (Score:5, Interesting)
How about October, 1991? [mackido.com]
More info about the PowerPC [wikipedia.org] alliance.
Apple never said that IBMs *technology* was no good. They said [uriah.com] that IBM made boring corporate Personal Computers that didn't foster individuality and creativity amongst it's users. I would say that is still correct. [ibm.com]
Not to mention (Score:2)
The Reality Distortion Field (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The Reality Distortion Field (Score:2)
Heh.
As an Apple enthusiast, I thought Hannibal's reply was even funnier:
Re:The Reality Distortion Field (Score:2)
How could it be too deep when you're replying to a zeolot making the quote?
Re:The Reality Distortion Field (Score:2)
Windows based 970? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:5, Interesting)
You still need a licence to run Mac OS X, and I think it would be trivial for Apple to add a clause (if it's not already there) that would forbid installing the software on non-apple hardware.
There is also a port of Mac OS X for Intel processors being maintained in parallell, mainly because it CAN be done very easilly with minimal effort. Covering all bases...
Remember, Apple is a hardware company, and will protect their core business, which currently is and always has been hardware.
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think apple is really a software company that has managed to force people to buy hardware from it( at high margins) so their software can be run. As obvious as that statement is, I think many people forget it.
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:5, Insightful)
COMPANIES selling non-Apple machines running OS X are a real threat to Apple.
The legal issues won't stop the first crowd (but then again, Apple won't have lost a great deal), but the people who actually buy computers and work with them as well as Joe home user will not go to any lengths to save a few bucks just to run OS X on a non-Apple box.
That's where Apple gets its money -- and it's pretty well protected.
Apple does make the entire computer, which is much more than a sum of its parts.
I'm not sure how many of the components that go into a car (I'm not a car nut) are actually made by the car company themselves, but let's for the sake of argument say that the car company doesn't make any of the components in the car. But the design of the car and putting the car together is still something the car company does, and that is the value they add.
This is basically what Apple does, to make a product you don't neccecarilly have to make your components yourself.
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, the chip set for the motherboard. See the second page of the article, under Miscellany, the second question "I also asked at one point about the Apple-designed chipset..."
I was really hoping we'd find out more about the chip set used in the 970 blades. Oh well.
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:3, Informative)
You don't need a license to run software that you buy. See 17 USC 117 [cornell.edu].
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:1)
Anyway, you don't buy the software. You buy the installation media and a license to run it -- although the way software is sold today is very confusing.
I don't wnat to get into a discussion of whether EULA's are valid or not here, mainly because I haven't researched this thoroughly enough to have a discussion about it -- still an assumption that they are is valid.
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:1)
Well, that's what publishers may claim, but whether it's actually true is a different matter (see Softman v. Adobe). But this is getting off topic, so I'll save further EULA rants for a more appropriate thread.
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:5, Informative)
They're post-sale contracts. This sort of thing has never been legit.
When they show you the license in the store, and you must overtly agree to it to buy the product, then they may be legal. Until then they're lies.
But, they'll have to be a lot simpler. Judges are already invalidating long small-print contracts for regular consumers. If it takes a law degree to understand, you can't possibly enter into it knowingly. Thus, the company should reasonably know that nobody reads (and hence, nobody agree to) their contracts.
Further, the concept of post-sale restrictions was decided in the early 1900s, with the First-Sale doctrine. Books were being sold with 'contracts' inside the cover limiting resale rights. It didn't work then, it won't work now, even if the many issues keeping EULAs from being valid contracts were fixed.
(Such as, they disclaim consumer rights they aren't allowed to disclaim under the Magnuson-Moss warranty act. Many EULAs disclaim all responsibility even if the product doesn't function at all, etc. Not allowed, and in fact, likely criminal to claim.)
You do everyone a disservice by saying that EULAs might be valid. It's misleading and can be very damaging.
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:2)
This is a popular meme, and it seems to come up whenever Apple hardware does. But whenever someone makes this claim, it's always offered as a naked assertion, with no more proof offered than, well, you know, everybody knows that.
Care to cite a source?
This rumor has been going around for as long as OSX has, but not once have I for one e
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is already ported to PPC (maybe not 970, but PPC) and has been since 3.51. Even with that, I _highly_ doubt that Microsoft will venture down that road again. Back in the late 80's/early 90's when RISC was the "NEXT BIG THING", M$ was hedging their bets by making sure that NT was available for all manner of RISC flavours. Now that RISC is "NOT THE NEXT BIG THING", I really don't think M$ cares anymore, to them it's just another platform they'd have to support and probably wouldn't make any money off of.
Now having it run Linux is a no brainer. IBM is obviously in Linux in a big way, so having some 970 based boxen are obvious. Now having "generic" white box 970's designed to run Linux is a different story. I don't know if this would make sense from a market perspective. Perhaps cheaper commodity based servers? Perhaps giving Dell a run for their money in the Linux market for higher end workstations? Hard to say, esp the latter since IBM is notorious for not wanting to cannibalize their higher end sales by having lower end box's with better price/performance ratios.
BTW, you can kiss off the Apple clone notion. Makes absolutely no sense for Apple unless they can assure themselves of at least doubling Mac market share by such a move. Anything less would mean a repeat of their previous foray, which Stever would never allow to happen.
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now having "generic" white box 970's designed to run Linux is a different story.
Hmm...or IBM branded, consumer or corp grade desktops, with 970s, running Red Hat, Yellow Dog Linux [yellowdoglinux.com], or IBMnix? I think the big advantages would be IBM QA and warranty on the hardware, and a linux optimized for the 970. Commodity parts, no M$ tax, the processor at cost since it's being sold by the fabber=cheap cheap and powerful. Say, $4-500 for a very competent office/workstation machine.
I can see these on a lot of de
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:2)
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd like to see this quote, since the majority of the Win2k development cycle (including up to beta 2) supported the Alpha CPU.
So if Microsoft made NT (Win2k) non-portable did they do it in the Release Client a month or two before release just to screw with people or maybe in a mysterious service pack? Give me a break.
Win2k WAS designed for FULL Alpha supp
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:2)
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:2)
Um... Maybe not... Win2k on Alpha was a fully running version, and when DEC was sold to Compaq, Compaq pulled the plug on the Alpha.
(Win2k on Alpha was at the Beta 2 stage, which means that not only was it running, but stable, and full featured.)
Microsoft was still willing to ship Win2k for Alpha, but Compaq was going to phase out Alpha - intentionally as it competed with thei
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:2)
Yep... Exactly.
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:2)
But that does not mean that the (XP) NT Kernel and HAL layer are not fully portable, just as they were first designed in the early 90s.
Don't get the Win32 kernel (Windows) confused with the NT kernel.
XP is just as portable as NT4 was, as you can witness with how easily the Native 64bit Itanium port of WindowsXP came about two years ago. And it is a full native 64bit native support of the I
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:4, Insightful)
I repeat, Apple is a hardware company.
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:1)
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:1)
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:1)
Windows could be ported to PPC, sure, but it still wouldn't run any of those programs which are only compiled for Intel. As you suggest, most people would just buy Windows/Intel anyway, since it's cheaper, so it makes no sense to develop for Windows/PPC.
It is possible to run Windows on an Mac today. I run Virtual PC [connectix.com] on my iBook for those rare moments when I need to run Windows-only software. (Not very often). It runs with the performance of a Pentium II 400 MHz, approximately, and I assume one o
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:1, Insightful)
Really? What hardware do they make? Last I checked they have gone the commodity PC hardware route for their hardware, and IBM for their CPU's. Apple ties software they make to other companies hardware, and charge for the combination. Apple may be a hardware marketing company, but they are not a hardware company like say Sun microsystems.
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:3, Insightful)
A computer is more than the sum of its parts. You wouldn't say a car company wasn't a car company merely because it used commodity parts?
This is redundant of course, since I posted the exact same argument in this thread in this post [slashdot.org].
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing to note is that Apple has always designed their own motherboards, including the chip sets. They still do. That would seem to make them a hardware company even as you've defined it.
Also consider that the PPC architecture is designed by the AIM (Apple-IBM-Motorola) alliance. Thus Apple has had some input in the CPU design as we
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:5, Informative)
User-serviceable parts (RAM, HD, AGP, etc) are commodity, but the hard stuff [apple.com] is designed in Cupertino.
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:2)
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:5, Informative)
The most interesting thing for me with all this "cheap PowerPC" stuff is it seems to be the rebirth of CHRP, which Apple kind of scotched becasue they were fearful of clones back then. Maybe they realize they need to kill some of the "hardware premium price" and get costs more in line with Intel boxes.
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:1)
God man dont make me shiver! MS has no business on that cool platform, but since SCO -remember- , IBM has all the more reason to hush about linux adventures!
Your wrong! Your Wrong! Windows! On Mac hardware! VPC is hard enough, alright! -spit-
Re:Windows based 970? (Score:2)
1) Microsoft stopped porting Windows to PPC with NT 4. I dont this all the service packs even made it. Which is just as well, because finding PPC hardware that would run, or any additional software that would run on it, was just about impossible. Also, most of the 64 bit porting you describe is making the code 64 bit clean, not rei
Improvements to GCC? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a fairly big deal as people have pointed out before that GCC on PPC isn't as hot as it should be, but with that kind of muscle and money behind it it should go forwards by leaps and bounds.
With the new GCC improvements it looks like Linux on those new, remarkably cheap, P970 IBM boxes is going to be a real winner. And AFAIK Gentoo already runs on PPC fine - no one is going to be bitching about compile times with 4 1gig+ CPUs crunching away at it!
Re:Improvements to GCC? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Improvements to GCC? (Score:2)
Re:Improvements to GCC? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Improvements to GCC? (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple (or probably rather NeXT, but who cares nowadays) already tried once to improve GCC without releasing their changes, esp. the Objective C support. Turned out not to be such a good idea.
Re:Improvements to GCC? (Score:3, Interesting)
It may well be that the changes that IBM and Apple want to do to gcc are such that it would violate the basic model and methadology that gcc is following. At that point IBM can simply stick with Visual Age, accept a flawed compiler, or go with a fork. Apple's in a bit more of a pickle due to not owning Visual Age. There are rumors floating around about a port of Visual Age for OS
Re:Improvements to GCC? (Score:5, Interesting)
These are basically this generation's Alphas... but with a better market positioning and without Digital/Compaq/HP at the helm. (we all know their pilot is dead at the wheel)
Re:Improvements to GCC? (Score:2, Interesting)
I really wish Sun would ditch the ailing SPARC line and adopt the POWER/PPC line.
Re:Improvements to GCC? (Score:2)
Ah, now I see IBM's strategy. If you sell one computer for 3 gigadollars, you've basically earned enough money to pay off SCO's pesky $3 billion lawsuit.
Re:Improvements to GCC? (Score:4, Interesting)
So either GCC needs a serious reworking on a fundamental level, or more likely since it already exists, they will just release a separate compiler that doesn't suck.
I just hope they release the proprietary compiler for OS X sometime before the G5 hits. The 2-3x performance hit of GCC is really starting to hurt Apple, and piss off all the developers. If IBM only releases the good compiler for their OSs and Linux, they are effectively telling people that OS X is not welcome on the 970.
Noone seriously considers using gcc on x86 now that the Intel compiler is free (root beer). And frankly that alone makes AMD chips totally unattractive for a computation farm (that and the nuclear plant you need to power the things).
IBM needs to step up and do the same.
Re:Improvements to GCC? (Score:5, Insightful)
It has been stated that GCC is attempting to be a 'good' solution for all architectres rather than the 'best' for any one. It's not incapable of adapting to be the best for the P970, but that would require a permanent fork from the general GCC code.
So either GCC needs a serious reworking on a fundamental level, or more likely since it already exists, they will just release a separate compiler that doesn't suck.
The advantage of using GCC is that developers can write with reasonable confidence for any platform with GCC available. I have done some heavy porting work between code written for TC/TCC and code written for GCC and it's no fun at all. By comparison code for GCC for PPC and x86 isn't that bad to chop and change.
Given the nature of Apple (who seem to like being able to use open source apps written for GCC) and IBM (who want Linux - developed for GCC - to compile on their boxes) I think they will prefer to optimise GCC as far as possible for the P970.
Given the competence of IBM and Apple programmers (especially the former) I suspect that they will do a pretty good job.
Re:Improvements to GCC? (Score:2, Informative)
The biggest problem for gcc is the confusing switches (I've still not seen a single benchmark use the aggresive optimization of gcc correctly) and the fact that it not really got onto the RISC movement and is basically still a CISC compiler at
Intel (Score:4, Interesting)
Wouldn't be the first time
Link to story [e-insite.net]
Re:Intel (Score:2)
Another interview... (Score:1)
Re:know whats really funny? (Score:2)
Re:know whats really funny? (Score:2)
There really isn't a difference between a "workstation" and a "desktop" anymore.
Also, it doesn't matter if "anyone has heard of them". Apple is claiming that they have created the world's first 64-bit personal computer. It is extremely arguable that BOXX's 64-bit Opteron system for around $2200 is a personal computer. It has AGP, it comes in a desktop
Re:know whats really funny? (Score:2)
Ok, that clears it all up, since he is an asshole, then the Opteron machines that 'various' small manufacturers have released no longer exist. Poof, magic of an asshole reviewer can do miracles. Geesh.
BTW, considering market share, wouldn't Apple be considered a 'small manufacturer'? Hmm...
Get over it, the G5 is not, and will not be the first 64bit Desktop Computer. Additionally, Panther isn't even a 64bit OS, so where do al
Re:know whats really funny? (Score:2)
Ten bucks that Apple will sell more G5s in the first week than BOXX will sell computers ever.
Re:know whats really funny? (Score:2)
Maybe, but PC users don't look at 'vendors'; they look at products from MANY vendors. - Which somehow seems to be a foreign concept to Mac zealots.
How about let's bet ten bucks there have been more AMD 64bit desktop computers sold & shipped before ANY Apple 64bit Desktop is ever sold & shipped...
Additionally, I will also put 10 bucks that by the end of August there will be more 64bit Desktop AMD systems s
Re:know whats really funny? (Score:2)
Re:know whats really funny? (Score:2)
Even one of my independant companies has shipped several hundred dual processor Opteron systems.
If you think Apple is GOD and can do no wrong, just live with it, quit trying to make excuses...
As I said before, I actually like Apple, but their marketing likes to stretch the truth too much.
Re:know whats really funny? (Score:2)
How do you get that it TOOK SO LONG for Windows XP 64bit edition to ship? It was released only a month or two after Windows XP was release
Re:know whats really funny? (Score:2)
However, I did enjoy your last post; it was quite a demonstration of your lack of perspective and knowledge. I couldn't have tried to discredit you myself better than you were able to do so with your own words.
Re:know whats really funny? (Score:2)
Some people work and aren't 15 year olds living with mom. I'm glad you have t
Re:know whats really funny? (Score:2)
Considering you couldn't even read the wording in the post and figure out what was said, says something in and of itself. Secondly, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you WOULD HAVE KNOWN that WindowsXP 64bit edition had been shipping since 2001. Almost everyone else here, and most
GCC (Score:2, Interesting)
1) would it be possible to fork GCC so that it is completely optimized for the 970, if this is possible than GCC will be a good compiler.
2) from personal experience GCC sucks, its inefficient and wastes cycles, borland or Solarises compilers beat the crap out of GCC on their respective platforms. so when is apple going to have a highly optimized 970 based compiler that will make x86 whine in the corner after being raped, and made to look like the bad market whore that it is.
3) if a GCC970
Re:I can't wait.. (Score:4, Funny)
Lost you there. Oh, oh, MacOS X. Gotcha, sorry.
I bet Visual Basic code runs reel fast on this baby
Visual Basic, fast? Oh god, please...someone mod the parent up as funny, he/she deserves it :-)
Re:I can't wait.. (Score:2)
Lost you there. Oh, oh, MacOS X. Gotcha, sorry.
> I bet Visual Basic code runs reel fast on this baby
Visual Basic, fast? Oh god, please...someone mod the parent up as funny, he/she deserves it
Indeed... MS finally admits future technology will contain cheese....this certainly would be a quantum leap in computing...I can't wait till I can run SETI@Home on a block of cheddar or colby...then of course we'd have to come up with a cooling system because tha
Re:I can't wait.. (Score:2)
Re:I can't wait.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:English!! (Score:2)
Damned if you do, damned if you don't