Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PowerPC 970 Running at 2.5 GHz

pudge posted more than 11 years ago | from the something-you-got-i-want-it-i-want-it dept.

IBM 719

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."

cancel ×

719 comments

Lets hope... (0, Troll)

neo8750 (566137) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401065)

lets hope this lives up to apples known standards. and is a good chip.. FP

Re:Lets hope... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401143)

PEACE [masturbateforpeace.com]

Wrong story category (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401167)

Whey the hell is this "Apple:"?!!!

This is IBM doing this.
Not Apple.
And certainly not those losers over at Motorola!

Bicches, Big Blue'll show ya how it's done!

Appel == TH3 5|0W! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401203)

That's OK, it'll be 2025 and our VR-enabled cellphones will be using these puppies before Apple gets them out the door!

More Apple Weenie drivel (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401308)

As if Apple has a clue. They lose market share each day and spend zillions creating "new" versions of old servers, ie: The Power Mac G4 (Mirrored Doors). Yes, a real slow machine by ANY standards. While the real world is pushing into the world of 3.6 G machines, Apple still drags behind. Woot, OS X, BFD! And the COST!!! Shit, for the price of a Power Mac, I could get 3 cheesy machines that are not only faster, but have more get up and go! You Photoshop fools need to remember, Photoshop was designed for Apple, and THEN ported to the PC, do not bring up those lame benchmarks!

LOL (-1, Offtopic)

benntop (449447) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401066)

...there are lies and then there are damned lies...

sigh, the humanity of it all...

Re:LOL (-1, Offtopic)

t0ny (590331) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401133)

Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter because nobody listens.

-Nick Diamos

A True Patriot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401335)

I guess you morons and bastards may need a pick-up, Dennis Leary's "I'm an Asshole" fits nicely.

Fuck'em

IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401068)

PowerMac run off cow dung.

Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (-1, Offtopic)

intermodal (534361) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401123)

egad...if you're gonna troll, do it right. your cow dung thing doesn't make any fucking sense.

The infamous question ... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401071)

think what a beowulf cluster of those would be like

Let's see some FAB speed scores (5, Insightful)

MarkRH (629597) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401076)

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 (2, Interesting)

enigmiac (621541) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401228)

I'm also wondering how they measured the clock speed. Mac fanatics are always saying "MHz is a myth" because their chips will do more per clock cycle. I'd be really interested in seeing ALL the specs (flops, and mips, etc) along with clock speed.

Re:Let's see some FAB speed scores (5, Informative)

AresTheImpaler (570208) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401323)

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

noo (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401079)

what? apples cant just become fast. how am i suppoesd to keep bashing apple lovers if their cpus beet mine?

Re:noo (2, Informative)

aSiTiC (519647) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401199)

Learn a little about superscalar architecture. PowerPC architecture is far superiour to Pentium *.

Pentium is basically a CISC processor that takes CISC x86 instructions and converts them to RISC operations. PowerPC is RISC through and through.

The Pentium 4 requires 20+ pipelined cycles! PowerPC 6** only has 4 pipelined cycles. Hmm... I wonder why the Pentium 4 is clocked so high?!?!

Re:noo (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401201)

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

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

You can make fun of the dock.

You can make fun of how cheesy OSX looks.

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

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

You can bash Inet explorer and MS Office on Mac.

The list goes on and on...

Obligatory Questions (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401081)

  1. Does it run linux?
  2. How many fps on doom 3
  3. How many keys/s on rc5-72
  4. Can i overclock it?
  5. How hot is it?

Re:Obligatory Questions (5, Informative)

addaon (41825) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401176)

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 (1)

cyman777 (631050) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401298)

How is this software overclocking done?

Can you post some links please!

Re:Obligatory Questions (1)

Creepy (93888) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401327)

How hot is it?

Actually, that varies from where and when you stole it. If you wait a couple of months... oh, nevermind.

So Sad... (5, Funny)

pardasaniman (585320) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401083)

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

?!?!?!1 (4, Interesting)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401088)

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.

Anyone else notice... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401118)

that the IBM press release states that it includes "Altivec"? I don't seem to remember them actually using the trademarked name before now...

Easy (5, Funny)

sydlexic (563791) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401166)

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

Xeon + hobby paint.

Re:?!?!?!1 (1)

PCBman! (605303) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401190)

They probably underestimated the design in the first place.

In theory, practice must follow theory, in practice, things aren't so simple.

Re:?!?!?!1 (4, Informative)

addaon (41825) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401194)

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.

Re:?!?!?!1 (5, Insightful)

binaryDigit (557647) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401293)

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... (5, Informative)

aSiTiC (519647) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401321)

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.

Motherboards ready for 2.5MHz? (4, Interesting)

occam (20826) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401091)

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? (1)

dhovis (303725) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401162)

I don't think the bus speed changes with processor speed for the 970, only the multiplier. It is still a 900MHz effective bus (225-quad pumped, IIRC). Much better than the 166 SDR bus on the current G4's.

Re:Motherboards ready for 2.5MHz? (4, Informative)

addaon (41825) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401230)

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.

Help (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401097)

I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.

Re:Help (1)

rmarll (161697) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401145)

Your mac is busted. Whatever the problem is, it has nothing to do with its macness.

Seriously.

Re:Help (1)

Morky (577776) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401147)

Dude, Macs have a new operating system now. Your post sound like it's from 1996.

Re:Help (2, Insightful)

presearch (214913) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401219)

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.

Hmmm (1)

Cyno01 (573917) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401103)

OSX is great, and with the posibility of Apple using comparable processors to PCs, it may be time soon to Switch.

-1, Troll (3, Funny)

addaon (41825) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401104)

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.

Any takers? (1)

ruprechtjones (545762) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401106)

I'm betting we won't see any new 970 Mac desktops til January, then 970 PowerBooks 6 months after that, but I'm hoping I'm wrong.

Re:Any takers? (1)

Znonymous Coward (615009) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401214)

There is 1 more MacWorld before then. If Apple is smart, they will have them ready before the X-Mas shopping season. Computers don't sell as well in January.

Re:Any takers? (2, Funny)

rgraham (199829) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401258)

I'd take that bet, I'll say September 7th '03. "The Price is Right" rules, closest person w/o going over wins.

Re:Any takers? (1)

ruprechtjones (545762) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401310)

You're on. I hope you win, I want my dual-970 now!

Turtle races! (-1, Flamebait)

t0ny (590331) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401108)

Saying "Fastest PPC ever" is like saying "most stupid of the retarded monkeys".

If a processor isnt cheaper than, doesnt perform faster or use less power than, Intel's lineup, how is it even news?

Re:Turtle races! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401175)

I bet the PPC will outperform a comparable x86 chip, and very likely it will use less power (at least if current PPC chips are any indication). I'm not too sure about cheaper though - probably depends if you're comparing to Intel or AMD. Keep in mind these will be 64 bit chips running at 2.5GHz - that my friend is news.

drool ...imagine dual pro Macs :) (3, Insightful)

codeonezero (540302) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401110)

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!!!!"

May Apple ISNT dead??? (0)

Znonymous Coward (615009) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401114)

w00t, w00t (I'm jumping with joy).

2.5 GHz PPC sure would close the gap with x86.

When Used.... (3, Interesting)

johny_qst (623876) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401117)

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 (5, Informative)

robbyjo (315601) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401120)

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...

Wowie! (2, Funny)

TWX_the_Linux_Zealot (227666) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401121)

Can you imagine a Beow---

Oh, nevermind.

Re:Wowie! (1)

Znonymous Coward (615009) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401244)

Yes, yes I can.

please explain (0)

meshko (413657) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401126)

I have a couple of questions.
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?

Second: what operating system does the IBM PowerPC run?

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

Sorry, I'm really ignorant when it comes to Mac hardware (or any hardware actually)

Explanation (5, Informative)

TWX_the_Linux_Zealot (227666) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401202)

"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 (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401206)

the PPC 970 is a IBM designed processor when previously, Motorla developed all the PPC CPU's. Apple own the TM PowerPC so they can change hardware vendors and slap their name on it no problem. IMHO, I think this is very good for the computing world.

Re:please explain (4, Informative)

MikeMo (521697) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401210)

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 (4, Informative)

binaryDigit (557647) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401240)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401246)

1.) Apple uses Motorola's G4 PPC chips in their current systems (except for a few G3s in their low end stuff). IBM licensed Altivec from Motorola so that the Power970 can also have it, although they don't call it Altivec (I forget the name they use for it).

2.) Any PPC chip could theoretically run OS X if it weren't for Apple's BIOS only being available on Apple motherboards. IBM's PPC chip would also run any Linux or BSD that has a PPC port (Mandrake and NetBSD are examples).

3.) The processor is definately made by IBM. Motorola isn't really all that interested in making desktop processors anymore, which unfortunately has been hurting Apple for quite a while. Apple was originally hyping up the G5 from Motorola, but unfortunately this turned out to be vaporware. Thankfully it seems they've found a new source for chips (although Apple has never officially confirmed they're using Power970).

Okay, here goes... (1)

daoine_sidhe (619572) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401253)

Well, there's the PowerPC Alliance, of which IBM and Motorola are the major players. Altivec is Motorola's little toy for the G4, of which they are the primary supplier; however, the G3 (which doesn't have Altivec) is supplied mostly by IBM, which does in fact manufacture the chip. The new PowerPC 970 is related to IBM's Power4 processor (though seriously stripped down), and is another of the PowerPC type processors. As for operating systems, any PowerPC can run OSX (though it's tied strictly to Apple hardware, to promote sales of said hardware), as well as numerous versions of Linux and Unix (though don't quote me on that; I just assume that the Power4 and variants run on IBM's *nix operating systems, as they make the hardware.) There, I think that covers all the questions. Hope it helps!

Re:please explain (3, Informative)

Uller-RM (65231) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401292)

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 (1)

a7244270 (592043) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401300)

First Question:
Apple is using the G3 and G4 processors in its computers. The G3 is made by IBM. The G4 is essentially a G3 with the addition of the AltiVec extentions.

Second Question:
NFI - The blade server line pages claim that it will run unix or windows server (and most likely linux), but this particular prototype, I don't know. I would suspect AIX.

Suspicion:
Wrong, the processor is actually made by IBM.

Theres a HUGE discussion about this CPU on arstechnica - link [infopop.net] but its pretty technical.

This chip was not just for mac, its supposedly to make IBM more competitive in the mid-level server market.

Re:please explain (3, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401331)

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.

I'm gonna case mod my SE for this! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401135)

Mmmm. Tasty!

Digital Lifestyle (5, Funny)

anaesthetica (596507) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401137)

"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!

If Apple uses this, it will just be the same prob. (3, Insightful)

Quarters (18322) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401139)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401265)

Of course the usual disclaimer that clockspeed alone is not a sufficient measure of performance across CPU architectures applies.

Re:If Apple uses this, it will just be the same pr (1)

addaon (41825) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401269)

Honestly, as someone who'll probably buy a new mac between July and January... a 2.0GHz mac, then, with 5GHz intel chips, would get my cash. Speed isn't everything, and even at 1.5GHz G5 at the end of the year, Apple would be close enough that the downside of speed would not outweigh the other advantages of the architecture.

So... should Apple NOT roll out faster chips? (1)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401288)

Since there are no 2.5GHz machines *now*, does that mean we shouldn't be excited that IBM is offering a much faster chip than what Apple is currently using?

We will see 4GHz Intel and AMD chips soon, but a jump from just under 1.5GHz to something around 50% faster seems like good news to me.

Plus, the 970 offers more than just raw clock speed increases. It'll be interesting to see how it stacks up in real-world performance to the Intel and AMD chips.

Re:If Apple uses this, it will just be the same pr (1)

druske (550305) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401338)

It remains to be seen how systems designed around this chip will perform. Most /. readers are well aware that clock speed is just one variable in the final product. How much work the CPU can do in a clock cycle, how fast you can feed it from memory, and I/O performance all play their part. Then there's the responsiveness of the software that you put on the platform...

It may be that Apple won't take bragging rights for the highest clock frequency, but that in itself won't leave them out of the performance game.

wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401140)

at that pace, they'll catch up with x86 chips and their 3GHz in no time!

Hopefully (5, Funny)

cosmo7 (325616) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401141)

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

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401151)

That is one fast prozessor

you gotta wonder... (5, Insightful)

Petrox (525639) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401155)

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... (1)

Petrox (525639) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401252)

here. Here's some support for my claim about the Power5Lite:

http://www.oscast.com/stories/storyReader$130

bottom line? It's coming. And soon.

PC == Personal Computer || Wintel architecture? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401161)

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?");

SYNTAX ERROR (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401270)

You FUCKED UP like a BIG FAT NIGGER.

Re:PC == Personal Computer || Wintel architecture? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401294)

WTF?

Dear Apple (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401170)

Dear Apple

I am a homosexual. I have bought an Apple because of its reputation as the "gay" computer. Since buying one of those lampshade macs i have met loads of gay friends and I would like to know about your latest 2.5 ghz processor so I can jerk off to gay pr0n faster than my wintel counterparts.

Thank you in advance.

Father "pudge" O'johnny. III

New Apple Switch Ad (0, Funny)

j0nkatz (315168) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401173)

I was writing a post on the slashdot, and Michael was like BLEEP BLEEP BLEEP BLEEP BLEEP BLEEP BLEEP,
and then like half of my post was censored.
And I was like "huh?".
He bitchslapped my posting.
It was a really good troll.
And then I had to post it again and I had to do it fast so it wasn't as good.
It's kind of a.... bummer.

I'm j0nkatz and I'm a slashdot troll.

No mention of Apple... (5, Insightful)

thoolie (442789) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401177)

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!)

1.8 GHz - 2.5 GHz not the cool thing (1)

SexyTr0llGal (650651) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401182)

The cool thing is the predicted 6.4 GB/second I/O throughput on the system bus...wow!

Isn't it ironic? (-1, Flamebait)

56ksucks (516942) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401184)

Isn't it ironic that IBM makes the Power PC processor but doesn't use it? Instead IBM uses someone else's processors and lets their competition uses the Power PC.

Re:Isn't it ironic? (1)

bmetzler (12546) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401231)

Isn't it ironic that IBM makes the Power PC processor but doesn't use it? Instead IBM uses someone else's processors and lets their competition uses the Power PC.

dude! IBM uses PowerPC chips in a huge percentage of their servers. You do not know what you are talking about....

-Brent

Re:Isn't it ironic? (1)

tachyon_01 (534668) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401233)

Dude, go to IBM's website and look at thier products (not thier chessy little windows workstations) and look. They use them on thier UNIX workstations and servers.

AltiVec confirmed (5, Insightful)

obi (118631) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401188)

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.

Re:AltiVec confirmed (1)

rgraham (199829) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401305)

Nope, it was confirmed back in October of '02.

New Fast Chip (1)

herwin (169154) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401191)

My argument this last year for using a Macintosh on my desk over a UNIX workstation or a Windows box has been mostly security (where Apple is very strong), but it has been looking a bit pale in view of the speed difference. There's a chance now to catch up, especially given Intel's current dalliance with 64-bit chips and hardware DRM. I'm glad to see this.

misinformation (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401204)

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.

Photo (-1)

xdfgf (460453) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401209)

Picture of the blade card is here [ibm.com]
Dial up warning its 2.1MB

You may have noticed this... (1)

NewWaveNet (584716) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401216)

...from the article:
Onchip 512 KB L2 Cache
Altivec (TM) Vector/SIMD unit
6,4 GB/s I/O system bus throughput

I'm not sure about this. IBM is stating that this chip is targeted towards their PPC eServers. I'm not going to get my hopes up that this will be the next gen chip for the Mac.

In other news . . . (1)

dgrgich (179442) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401218)

. . . I think hell just froze over.

Looks like Apple may have a shot at getting a Power Mac that lives up to their moniker!

Of course... (1)

valkraider (611225) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401224)

There is always the possibility that these processors are not even going to BE in the Apple boxen. I know everyone is thinking that way - but no one knows for sure *yet*.

One of these puppys running at 2.5Ghz will be *fast*. I would bet - depending on if Apple/IBM put together good motherboards and components - that machines based on this processor will skunk 4+ Ghz P4 boxes. The "megahertz myth" is even greater in the 970 than it EVER was in the G3/G4. Just look at the Power4 performance - and the 970 is essentially a "mass market" Power4.

Of course, there is the possibility that I am just plain wrong, and these will skunk along slowly forcing Apple to put 9 of them per machine to keep up... Naw, that couldn't happen...

Implications? (3, Insightful)

useruser (638080) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401226)

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.

heh silly germans (1)

hfastedge (542013) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401247)

You can see that the article is from germany,eg:
Prototype from the IBM Development Lab in Böblingen, Germany

The translator missed a word:
"Power und Intel Blades can be mixed in a BladeCenter in any order depending on the software applications."

Arent I the csi^2 ??

wiggy (5, Insightful)

DemiKnute (237008) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401261)

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.

Fred Rogers, dead at 74 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5401273)

I just read some sad news on yahoo news. Fred Rogers, beloved star of Mr Rogers Neighborhood, was found dead in his home. There weren't any more details. Even if you didn't watch him, you probably watched Sesame Street which was on right after his show. Truly a PBS icon.

PowerPC, IBM, and DRM (1)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401284)

I'm just wondering about a few things.

How much does IBM use PowerPC in its own servers, whether they by AIX or Linux, or do they mostly install them on Intel servers?

Is PowerPC going to implement Palladium and DRM, or will it remain free of those "technologies"? Apple took the position that it was not going to implement DRM in its products. Does this mean the PowerPC will remain a "free" chip?

If so, then this is good. If all computers become hard-wired with DRM as well as Windows, then I could conceivably still assemble my own system with commodity hardware, a PowerPC chip, and run a Linux PowerPC distro on it.

Any thoughts on this?

Original Text (0, Redundant)

Bender_ (179208) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401287)

The server is already quite slow, here is the Text:

IBM PowerPC Blade
Prototype from the IBM Development Lab in Böblingen, Germany

With the planned introduction of the PowerPC Blade, IBM will expand the performance of the IBM eServer BladeCenter and further extend its range of open source IBM eServers. To customers in the high performance computing sector (HPCS) the PowerPC Blade presents a very interesting and competitive extension of the IBM eServer BladeCenter and offers cost-effective computing power in the Unix and Linux area.

The PowerPC Blade offers outstanding performance and is superior to Intel Blades for certain applications in the High Perfomance Computing Sector. It is ideal for very computing intensive applications, for example in the area of simulation like meterology or geological calculations. The PowerPC Blade integrates seamlessly into the IBM eServer BladeCenter architecture with all its software components. Power und Intel Blades can be mixed in a BladeCenter in any order depending on the software applications.

The new IBM PowerPC 970 is the heart of the PowerPC Blade. It is based on the 64-Bit Power 4 architecture which is also used in the processors of the IBM eServer pSeries. The 64-bit microprozessor
Offers full symmetrical multi-processing
Has a high reliability (with parity L1, ECC L2 and parity checked system bus)
Is manufactured in the latest 0,13 micrometer Copper/SOI CMOS technology
Runs at frequences ranging from 1.8 GHz - 2.5 Ghz
Therefore the IBMPowerPC 970 is the fastest PowerPC so far.

Further technical highlights of the PowerPC 970:

Onchip 512 KB L2 Cache
Altivec (TM) Vector/SIMD unit
6,4 GB/s I/O system bus throughput

The IBM eServer BladeCenter has been available since December 2002 and is currently delivered with Intel processor blades.

IBM offers a solution for modular computing with the space-saving BladeCenter. The IBM eServer BladeCenters distinguish themselves by their high reliability and extensive system management software. The flat servers create free space in the computing center and can simply be supplemented with additional server "slices" when needed.

Is this a German thing? (2, Interesting)

OECD (639690) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401289)

Two things struck me as odd. First, there's an inconsistent use of a comma as a decimal seperator:

6,4 GB/s I/O system bus throughput

Second, they direct you to a German IBM site for more info:

Further information in the Internet: www.ibm.com/de/entwicklung [ibm.com]

Which leads me to think this was originaly a German IBM press release, which was quickly translated.

What does this mean? I have no idea. Is IBM's PowerPC development done in Germany?

quick question (1)

themadmoney (644302) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401291)

assuming apple is currently planning on implementing OS X on these chips, how long will it be until we see some 2.5 ghz machines being sold by apple? will laptops be feasible, and if so, will they take any longer to appear?

would they be available by august? (asks the soon to be college student)

Macs could use the speed (2, Informative)

jmichaelg (148257) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401296)

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.

So what about the old rumor about IBM chips in... (1)

bigBlackSabbath (462796) | more than 11 years ago | (#5401304)

How does this effect the rumor status for the old story about Apple possibly using that new fangled Power-4 chip by this summer? Is this the same chip in question?

Does anybody know if this is a 64-bit or 32 bit-processor?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...