POWER7 To Ship In First Half of 2010 73
BBCWatcher writes "In CPU news, IBM says that its POWER7 servers will start shipping in the first half of 2010, on schedule or perhaps even a few months early if you believe Wikipedia. Moreover, upgrades from a wide variety of POWER6 models will be mere CPU swaps, with the upgraded servers keeping their same serial numbers. (Bean counters like that.) POWER7 sports up to 8 cores per die, 4 threads per core, a clock speed a Hertz or two above 4 GHz, 45 nm process manufacturing, on-chip DDR3, and up to 1,000 micropartitions per machine. IBM claims that POWER7 will offer about 256 Gflops per die and two to three times the performance per watt as POWER6. IBM wants to keep taking orders now for its POWER6 gear (duh), so its sales reps are allegedly ready and eager to deal on 6-cum-7 packages. And it looks like that cunning plan could work rather well given Sun's Rock CPU cancellation and HP's delay of Tukwila Itanium to 2010. (Is anybody still in the server CPU race except IBM, Intel, and maybe AMD?) In 2006, POWER7 won the contest for a DARPA supercomputing R&D grant of $244 million, so you could say that each US citizen is in for about a dollar already."
so, if Apple... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They would still be an online music store.
Re:so, if Apple... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Right, but that is because IBM had decided to g leave this market to PAsemi and its extremely power efficient chips (the 65 nm design needs more or less the same power as an Atom, but gives the performance of a Core Duo, not Core2 however). In its performance range, nothing still matches PAsemi's PA6T, despite the fact that it is one generation behind in process technology.
Ok, Apple bought PAsemi, what will come out of it is anyone's guess (and I don't believe a world class processor design team is only wor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Microsoft taped POWER with Xbox360 and they have the most powerful console on the market (sorry PS3 fanboys, this is true, ask developers not marketing).
I think you need to study up on your processors a little more. From Wikipedia:
The cores of the [X-Box 360's] Xenon processor were developed using a slightly-modified version of the PlayStation 3's Cell Processor PPE architecture
Soooo, if they're both using basically the same CPU, the only difference comes out to what set of software you like better. (Or which set of dev tools the programmers like better.)
Re:so, if Apple... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:so, if Apple... (Score:4, Informative)
While true, the vast majority of the reason developers say the 360's PPC is "faster" is that it's easier to program. In terms of theoretical flops, the CELL inside the PS3 is far more capable.
If you just strung together a bunch of code and hit "compile" on GCC, the 360 will be lightyears ahead. If you have 2-3 really good engineers writing sequences for the CELL, the vertex computational power will be far superior.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
That's what they said about the PS2 though... In the end, the learning curve translated into platform longevity, with next waves of games increasingly leveraging the hardware. Who really cares if the first games tap only a fraction of the potential?
The difficulty gets exaggerated too. There is pretty good middleware available, also as FOSS. (See e.g. the CellPerformance forum at Beyo
Re: (Score:2)
And nobody ever bothered to learn to program a GPU either because specialized processors don't work and are to much trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody ever learned to program a GPU because there is a very very nice standardized -- two of them actually -- API abstraction layer; DirectX and OpenGL. Common graphics functions that are coupled with hardware by the library.
IMO, this is exactly what IBM/Sony should be doing with the Cell -- create a standard library as well as have a staff dedicated to consulting/developing low-level functions and farm those guys out to game developers.
Re: (Score:1)
If you just strung together a bunch of code and hit "compile" on GCC, the 360 will be lightyears ahead. If you have 2-3 really good engineers writing sequences for the CELL, the vertex computational power will be far superior.
And if what you have to do is transform a bunch of vertices, that's going to come in really handy. For many types of workloads, the Cell is simply not adequate where the X360's triple PowerPC is. There are very few cases where the Cell dramatically outperforms Xenon.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
It's not just that. Each one is good at different things.
Massively parallel, but fairly simple tasks (like graphics) are dominated by the the PS3 (if you want to design an engine that renders EVERY snowflake in a snowstorm, the PS3 is going to destroy the 360.
The 360, on the other hand, is good for modestly parallel, complex calculations.
Modern games need both, and the complex computations can't always be split into small enough chunks that the PS3 will do them well.
So, it's not that one is better than the
Re: (Score:2)
It was always my impression that the Cell was designed to be used with more than one CPU per system and more cores than the PS3 has enabled per CPU. Instead of investing in a whole new CPU for next gen systems it seems they intended to be able to throw more CPUs in. Tweak up the processor speed a little and compete with a lot less invested. I remember them advertising that if other appliances were on the same network and had Cell processors that your PlayStation would be able to utilize that processing powe
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cell is potentially much more powerful, it's just harder to program (trust Sony to pick such designs, recall the PS2's Emotion Engine?)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
# Sony says the PS3 can do about 2 teraflops
so, who has more power? for a real-world comparison (like you said, marketing teams suck) here's an article from tgdaily: http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37621/128/ [tgdaily.com]
developers never said the 360 has more power. they said it's easier to develop for.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So, probably not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:so, if Apple... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It might have made the tiny minority of Mac Pro/Xserve buyers happy; but, unless Apple could have done a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No competitive laptop offering! (Score:5, Informative)
They would not be in the laptop market, which has overtaken the desktop market. They did the right thing.
PowerPC has nothing that can compete with Core Duo on the laptop. Not even close.
Re: (Score:2)
What would stop them from building high-end scientific/medical/video/whatever Mac Pro workstations but using Power6 chips/boards straight from IBM?
Sure it'd be pricey, but there's a niche for this kinda stuff; SGI & Sun workstations come to mind
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maintaining a branch of the OS complete with drivers for a separate chip architecture is non-trivial. Undoubtedly, someone in Apple marketing has a spreadsheet that compares development & maintenance costs of each chip available (ARM, CELL, Intel, Power) with anticipated product demand. Right now the numbers don't work out.
Seth
Re: (Score:2)
OS and Software.
Apple isn't even supporting Power with 10.6.
Some other vendor's going to have to fill that role.
Re:No competitive laptop offering! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure it'd be pricey, but there's a niche for this kinda stuff; SGI & Sun workstations come to mind
You might want to look into how SGI and Sun are doing these days. Especially SGI.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but they could have dominated the desktop and server market. And with universal binaries, they could have supported both architectures until the right power chip came along for more powerful laptops.
I also think we would have seen the lower power chips eventually if they had stayed continued with the Power chip a little longer. Walking away from it destroyed any leverage they had, so we never saw what was possible..
Re: (Score:2)
Apple walking away from power probably had the effect of IBM re-assessing their market, making them divert resources from the mobile chips to the server and console products. Net result: the power7 looks pretty good...
Re: (Score:2)
Something tells me that Apple may see the writing on the wall and positioned themselves to eventually become a software vendor like Microsoft. It would certainly throw the world into a whirlwind if they started offering OS X for off the shelf commodity PC hardware. They may see their position as a hardware vendor as precarious and could have been planning for a potential plummet. If their software already ran on PCs it would be a very easy switch to just stop producing hardware and go software only. I don't
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not in the workstation market. Possibly trying to figure out a way to credibly attack the server market by competing with their supplier of server CPU's in a very awkward way. And, presumably doing a bunch of interesting things in the embedded space beyond iPod / iPhone. I'm imagining all sorts of wacky embedded PPC chips being targeted toward in-car Apple branded entertainment systems, and set top boxes, etc. The "Macintosh" would basically be d
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly trying to figure out a way to credibly attack the server market by competing with their supplier of server CPU's in a very awkward way.
PowerPC based Apple servers did not compete with IBM's Power Systems in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, but the question was where Apple would be now if they had stuck with IBM CPU's. Without a credible desktop CPU option, they'd have embedded and server CPU's, which means they'd probably be trying to figure out some use for big POWER chips. Possibly in some insane Mac Pro analogue, but much more likley that Apple would be trying to do something in the POWER Server market.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah so? [wikipedia.org]
(yeah yeah, short lived system, but at least it had a funny advertisement IIRC...)
Re: (Score:2)
Dead, Jim.
Anyway, who says they can't make a server with these chips, or even release OS X for IBM hardware?
Re:Look at Cell on PS3... (Score:4, Interesting)
POWER is an ordinary RISC architecture, not at all like the Cell. Programming for it isn't a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong (Score:1, Informative)
Nice try, but you're wrong. The PPU of the cell is a dual-issue, in-order chip design that was developed specifically for Cell by IBM. POWER4+ is aggressively out-of-order.
Its kind of like comparing an original Pentium with a Pentium II. The name may be similar, but the internal architectures are entirely different--Pentium had dual in-order pipelines and PPro/P2/P3 were the out-of-order predecessors of the Core and Core2 architecture.
Since IBM, Toshiba and Sony all jointly have rights to use the Cell st
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who will ship the other half? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Price Cuts? (Score:1)
Do you know what this means? (Score:2)
Here comes the DREAMCAST II
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Is Jeremy Clarkson (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
*boggle*
Clarkson does commercials?
New powerbook? (Score:2)
Cool, can we get this in a powerbook.. oh wait, Apple abandoned the future...
Re: (Score:2)
wiki (Score:1)
Sure we do!
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, when I asked the P7 chips were way expensive on top of a server that already costs 10's of thousands of dollars.
Obsession with 7 (Score:1)
Is it just me or is the tech world currently obsessed with the number 7?
Intel Core i7
IBM Power7
Windows7
Re: (Score:1)