www.insanely-great.com/cms/article.php?thold=-1&mode=flat&order=0&sid=6592What could have been.
IBM will debut its Power6 processor in 2007, with clock speeds breaking the 4GHz mark, CDR Info reports. The dual-core Power6 is running against the trend of Intel/AMD's multiple cores approach, with an emphasis on higher clock speeds instead, marking a reversal in the traditional strategy of the x86 and PowerPC chip makers. But the Power6 will also feature two dual-core chips on a single die, with IBM expected to introduce the quad-core Power6 generation in November 2007. The Power6 is expected to run at speeds between 4 and 5GHz. It packs up to 8GB of L2 cache and can transfer data to RAM at a rate of up to 75GB per second. Despite speeds which double those of the Power5 chip, power consumption is the same as the previous-generation Power processor. The Power6 will be used predominantly for IBM's server line. Another innovation for the Power6 is the addition of an external embedded controller which can power the chip up or down and adjust its power use and performance. Analysis: In a way, it's a shame that the desktop versions of the Power processors under IBM's control were so neglected, given the otherwise optimistic prognosis of the PowerPC roadmap. Not to mention the fact that they're not suited to portable computers. Would you have preferred to continue to have had a PowerPC option from Apple? For example, in XServe? Admittedly, the cost of maintaining PowerPC compatibility in OS X in the longer term would have been a major consideration. Not to mention the logic board design and production. Ultimately, the market would have been too small.
Related Links
· More about General Hardware
· News by Remy Davison
· IBM
· Intel
· Apple
Most read story about General Hardware:
PowerPC 970 "Not Yet in Production" at IBM Plant
Options
· Printer Friendly Page
· Send this Story to a Friend
Threshold
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
They can always introduce a PPC model (Score: 49)
by Guest Poster #1 on Wednesday, October 11 @ 11:24:24 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
I don't think keeping a PPC option would be that big a problem, they already have the expertise. For crying out loud, they kept an Intel version going for 6 years with no users at all. If IBM *ever* makes a Power6 that crushes Intel chips for a reasonable price, they can always put out a PPC machine. If another crushing architecture ever comes out, they can migrate to that one too. We've already seen NeXT/OS X on three architectures. There's no reason to think Intel is the last stop. Maybe for the next decade, but further out is anyone's guess.
[ Reply to This ]
RE: They can always introduce a PPC model (Score: 33)
by Mark on Wednesday, October 11 @ 21:21:16 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
OS X currently runs for PPC and Intel. XCode allows for Universal builds. Leopard will be OS X on Intel and PPC. The point being, eventually, the Mac OS, and software written for it, will run on any chipset. One of Apple's long-term goals is to make the processor irrelevent. One of OpenSource's goals is to make the OS irrelevant. The two shall meet within five years. Just buy a computer, any computer, and buy a software title, any title and install it, and it'll just work. It's that simple... Oh, unless you run Windows, in which case, you'd better read the specs and make sure it can run on the correct Windows version... ~OUT
[ Reply to This ]
RE: They can always introduce a PPC model (Score: 5)
by Guest Poster #29 on Saturday, October 14 @ 07:28:39 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
"For crying out loud, they kept an Intel version going for 6 years with no users at all" Exactly. How long have we heard of the Darwin project, which was OSX ported to the x86 processor? And that is how long ago Apple started looking at switching to Intel from the PPC processor. It would of not made any difference to Apple, they were dertermined to switch to Intel.
[ Reply to This ]
Driver's Seat (Score: 48)
by sfw on Wednesday, October 11 @ 11:29:30 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
There is nothing to say that Apple cannot again make PowerPC based Macs if it should make sense. Apple's move to Intel does not have to be one way. Since Apple will be supporting PowerPC legacy systems for some time, they find themselves in a rather unusual position for a computer company to truly pick the best solutions available, be it from Intel, AMD or IBM.
[ Reply to This ]
RE: Driver's Seat (Score: 3)
by Guest Poster #30 on Sunday, October 15 @ 18:35:50 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
No, OS X is based on NeXTStep, which was originally for the Motorola 68xxx series and THEN ported to the 486. When Apple bought NeXT, they had to port NeXTStep TO the PPC. They merely continued the x86 port.
[ Reply to This ]
PPC (Score: 47)
by Guest Poster #2 on Wednesday, October 11 @ 11:31:15 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
"Would you have preferred to continue to have had a PowerPC option from Apple?" YES Unfortunately, I believe Apple's OS X and software quality is suffering trying to cover too many bases.
[ Reply to This ]
RE: PPC (Score: 42)
by Guest Poster #7 on Wednesday, October 11 @ 12:58:11 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
How do you figure? You should support your opinions unless you want people to assume you're some idiot who managed to string a few words together.
[ Reply to This ]
RE: PPC (Score: 20)
by Guest Poster #2 on Thursday, October 12 @ 11:46:31 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Have the quality of subsequent 10.4 releases improved? Is Apple just trying to keep MacFixIt in business? Cordially, some idiot
[ Reply to This ]
Intel and portables (Score: 46)
by Guest Poster #2 on Wednesday, October 11 @ 11:33:27 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Supposedly, Intel chips have made possible faster portables. I suppose they're faster than the G4's in some instances, but for most uses, they're about the same. The downside? They generate so much heat the "laptops" are not comfortable to use -- a friend with a MBP said he almost burned himself on one. There is only one advantage to the current Intel chips in my opinion -- they run Parallels. But for most tasks on a portable, I would much prefer the G4.
[ Reply to This ]
RE: Intel and portables (Score: 40)
by Guest Poster #8 on Wednesday, October 11 @ 13:01:06 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
"I suppose they're faster than the G4's in some instances, but for most uses, they're about the same." - Talk about damning with faint praise. Having used both, the Core Duo is *much* faster than the G4 in just about everything.
[ Reply to This ]
RE: Intel and portables (Score: 28)
by Guest Poster #16 on Thursday, October 12 @ 10:44:42 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Apple never used most advanced PPC processor for portables, Freescale 8641 (dual e600-cores). Beats Core Duo both in performance and energy consumption.
[ Reply to This ]
RE: Intel and portables (Score: 18)
by Guest Poster #21 on Thursday, October 12 @ 15:07:03 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
A lot of the speed gain is due to the fact that the G4 is one core, true DDR support and has a crippled front side bus. However there was a chip that apple could have used that was suppose to replace the G4 that had 2 cores, a faster frontside bus, and true DDR support. This processor would have easily held it's weight against the intel chips and with lower wattage... however the problem wasn't simply with architecture, it was with supply and with the ability to overcome problems in manufacturing. Intel has simply unlimited resources to overcome kinks in production, which sad to say is one of the biggest reasons of apple leaving ibm/freescale...
[ Reply to This ]
RE: Intel and portables (Score: 12)
by Guest Poster #24 on Thursday, October 12 @ 15:20:21 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
whoops I meant to say the G4 doesn't have true ddr support
[ Reply to This ]
RE: Intel and portables (Score: 8)
by Guest Poster #27 on Friday, October 13 @ 10:02:03 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
MPC6841D actually has true DDR support, namely DDR2/533MHz at dual channel with integrated memory controller (like AMD Athlon 64s and unlike antiquated Intels)
[ Reply to This ]
Who cares... (Score: 45)
by Guest Poster #5 on Wednesday, October 11 @ 11:54:03 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
we already know what IBM annouces and what it can produce are two different things. Weren't they supposed to be at 3ghz last year and made Apple look bad when it couldn't produce it? Then theres the portable issues. Nah, its Intel from here on out, but wouldn't mind seeing AMD inside Apples.
[ Reply to This ]
RE: Who cares... (Score: 36)
by Guest Poster #11 on Wednesday, October 11 @ 14:31:38 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
And that's the bottom line. Even the chips they JUST announced still hasn't hit 3 Gigs yet. Again, speed isn't everything architecture counts for some as well, but it says something when you engineer something to run at 3, yet can never reach that goal...
[ Reply to This ]
RE: Who cares... (Score: 26)
by Guest Poster #17 on Thursday, October 12 @ 10:52:24 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Intel has also produced vaporsilicon roadmaps. We were supposed to have about 10GHz P4s this year. Intel still can't do SOI and has power leakage problem on their silicon. IBM and AMD as its licensee have more advanced production technology. So does Freescale. Why did Apple use water cooling? Not because of pure heat. It's the power density. 970 is very small die compared to Core or P4. Same heat dissipation, smaller die, it results into higher thermal power per area. Sometimes less advanced (P4/Core) tech helps, since it takes more space.
[ Reply to This ]
RE: Who cares... (Score: 16)
by Guest Poster #22 on Thursday, October 12 @ 15:10:58 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
in response to #17... Ditto on the power density, I study architecture and this is True!!!! However a small correction. IBM has an even better process than simply SOI. They have SSOI, which is strained silicon on insulator. It works 10 times better than even SOI. And the reason Intel doesn't use either is because they would have to license the technology from IBM because of lovely patents...
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Intel and portables (Score: 44)
by Martin Pilkington on Wednesday, October 11 @ 12:28:10 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
While the temperatures aren't very low, they aren't THAT much higher than the G4s they replace while providing processing power that matches that of G5 systems. And it is only due to the environment they're in. My 1.83GHz Core Duo iMac can beat a Dual 2.7GHz PowerMac in Geekbench scores by quite a way (180 to 140 I think) and yet it runs around 30-40ºC when idle. I have friends with iMac G5s that the see them running at 40-50ºC idle, if not higher
[ Reply to This ]
Let's see them hit 3GHz first (Score: 39)
by Guest Poster #9 on Wednesday, October 11 @ 13:39:21 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
They need to hit 3GHz first, and they haven't yet. No one else has those frequencies and Intel is shipping 65nm chips now... Sounds delusional... again.
[ Reply to This ]
Technically feasible, but not practical (Score: 38)
by Guest Poster #10 on Wednesday, October 11 @ 14:02:42 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Technically, Apple could support multiple hardware platforms. The more difficult convincing would be for third party software makers. It's one thing to get them on board for a conversion. It's another to ask them to support multiple hardware platforms for what is already a niche market. Universal binaries require much more quality and assurance testing. Steve
[ Reply to This ]
[No Subject] (Score: 35)
by Constable Odo on Wednesday, October 11 @ 18:34:13 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Phooey. I'll take Intel anyday. Core Duo, Core 2 Duo, quad-core Kentsfield all run in the same socket. Xeon Duo Core and Clovertown quad-core run in the same socket. No weird daughter boards required. No liquid cooling necessary. Intel increases chip speed about .2 GHz every three months while decently dropping prices on older processors. Intel improves on compatible chipsets every six months. Intel is interested in desktop and server computing, not some stupid embedded processors that might be used in desktop machines as an afterthought. Sure, those PPC chips might run at 4 GHz, but the yield is probably so low that the costs will be outrageous. I like the option of running Windows if I need to. Goodbye Motorola and IBM. Helloooo Intel. PS. And it wouldn't hurt if AMD chips could be used in an Apple product line. Just to keep Intel on their toes.
[ Reply to This ]
RE: (Score: 31)
by Guest Poster #14 on Thursday, October 12 @ 05:50:46 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Haha nice one! makes me think of when OS X was new and the whole ridiculous debate was going on whether Classic was better. Just like OSX then wasn't just some novelty toy, but a well thought out and vast improvement, I think the move to Intel now has the same character. Odo has some nice points regarding that. I for one don't care that Apple dropped the slow-advancing, hot-running PPC thingies, just as I was happy to ditch os 9
[ Reply to This ]
RE: (Score: 22)
by Guest Poster #19 on Thursday, October 12 @ 11:33:52 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Computer is more than CPU and frequency. The Inquirer has it very well in article Woodcrest lost in workstation woods Unfortunately, Apple needs good workstation chipset Intel doesn't have. Stuck with poor FSB. Not problem with AMD x86 or any PPC.
[ Reply to This ]
Power is not PowerPC (Score: 30)
by Guest Poster #15 James of Arlington on Thursday, October 12 @ 07:08:51 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Some seem to think that Power is PowerPC... It is not. Power is a more powerful CPU. Who knows if PowerPC has much of a future.
[ Reply to This ]
RE: Power is not PowerPC (Score: 24)
by Guest Poster #18 on Thursday, October 12 @ 11:06:26 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Well, IBM propably sells more POWER dies than Apple sells computers. PowerPC is most popular high performance CPU in embedded applications. IBM PPCs are based on POWER, main difference is smaller cache. The amount of processor Apple uses or doesn't use is insignifican't in whole cpu market. Changing architecture was pure marketing, since PPC is more advanced. Apple was and is just incapable of designing decent chipsets. Now they can buy it from Intel. Core has still pathetic FSB, even if compared to first and cheapest G5. And that's only one example.
www.power.org is worth checking. For real knowledge, it can tell some facts instead of pure Apple/intel marketing hype.
[ Reply to This ]
RE: Power is not PowerPC (Score: 14)
by Guest Poster #23 on Thursday, October 12 @ 15:19:00 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
The true market for PPC is in embedded systems!!! Freescale has this market hands down. They produce chips for BMW, and many other car manufacturers. Why do you think they are still in business even without apple... I wouldn't totally agree with "apple is incapable of designing decent chipsets". The asics in the G5 is amazing for a personal computer. (it really is a workstation). Anyways they just chose not to put much effort into the chipsets for the G4 because they new they were going to choose something bigger and better with some variant of the G5, a new variant of the G4, or Intel.. So they just left the G4 chipsets crippled with simple hacks up the ars...
[ Reply to This ]
The move to Intel was good for obvious reasons… (Score: 11)
by RayCon on Thursday, October 12 @ 16:21:01 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
…not the least of which has been a further enticement to Windows users who don't have to necessarily ditch all their Windows software. If has provided them with a "can't lose" situation and, if they were sitting on the fence, the switch was enough to bring them over. While anecdotal in nature, I've been witnessing the migration first-hand, as my wife keeps telling me about the latest of my Windows friends who finally bought a Mac. Thus, all said and done, maybe it's a good thing it took IBM so long.
[ Reply to This ]
[No Subject] (Score: 10)
by Guest Poster #26 on Thursday, October 12 @ 19:28:57 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Whatchu talkin bout Willis? PPC forever!
[ Reply to This ]
[No Subject] (Score: 7)
by Guest Poster #28 on Friday, October 13 @ 18:41:04 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
I would have preferred to see apple stay with the PPC. It makes perfect sense to me that as soon as steve jobs made the move to intel that ibm would finally make a huge advance!!!! But, as others have written, they could end up going back...unless they burned their bridges when they left?
