Once you normalize rPerf and GHz going back to Power 4 there is nothing special about Power 6 performance so why would 6+ be any better? I'm surprised such an astute observer hasn't done the research.
Where on earth is IBM's Power6+ kicker to the dual-core Power6 processors that were first announced in July 2007? Moore's Law says it should be here right about now. When it comes to the Power6+ processor, IBM has been as quiet as a child playing hide and seek that wants to win the game so badly that she ends up falling asleep …
The roadmap shows Power6+ was not a chip fabrication enhancement but was a tweak of Power6 technology, so I am wondering if its actually in the new systems IBM brought out last fall but decided not to call it a + so customers would not stall purchases. Afterall what does + mean?
Power7 will be a huge advance.
Free the Pirates
Apple dropped the PPC Processor, not the Power Processor although both are based on the same architecture. Also, Nintendo along with Sony and Microsoft have adopted variants of the Cell Processor for their gaming consoles, which is based on the Power/PPC architecture but is not the Power Processor.
The processors being talked about in this story are for Big Iron servers.
Anyway, as Apple found out much to their very public and vocal annoyance, IBM let them down and proved they are thoroughly incapable of even getting close to achieving their grandiose roadmaps. Lots of promises but nothing ever delivered on time, on budget or on spec.
... and PS3 and XBOX and millions of set-top-boxes based on PowerPC derivatives. However, these are low end, low margin items.
I remember when NT was announced and the HAL meant you could run Intel or Power PC and future processors would be possible. Good for competition. However, it seems IBM messed up. I'd love there to be 3 way competition - IBM, Intel. AMD.
Whatever happened to Motorola - 68000 etc. There was a JV with IBM but that didn't seem to work either.
Seems like IBM don't know much about high volume, lower margin products.
It seems to me that if IBM wants to be able to spend the money to design advanced microprocessor chips that are at the leading edge of technology, then they need to be able to sell a lot of those chips after they design them.
To me, that means they should be joining ranks with AMD and VIA, selling processor power in the form people most want to buy, x86 compatible chips. And then cut expenses for their other product lines by making what is essentially the same chip available in x86, PowerPC, and z/Architecture flavors, so that only instruction decoding needs to be designed again for each one.
And, of course, the only reasonable position to be in with respect to a new Intel product like Nehalem is to have released something that knocks the socks off it before it's released. If you aren't serious about playing the game, what are you doing here?
By Stuart Duel Posted Friday 24th April 2009 04:39 GMT
Apple dropped the PPC Processor, not the Power Processor although both are based on the same architecture.
Also, Nintendo along with Sony and Microsoft have adopted "variants of the Cell Processor" for their gaming consoles, which is based on the Power/PPC architecture but is not the Power Processor.
actually Stuart Duel , the truth IS, Nintendo use in affect a generic G3 at it core.
Microsoft Use a generic G4 WITH an Extended Altivec SIMD core, thats got the generic G4 Altivec 128 bit SIMD registers AND a seperate matching set of Altivec SIMD+ registers for exclusive use..
and we all Know the Sony PS3 uses a cut down G4 plus the so called Co-processers know as "Cell" That are INFACT modifyed cut down Altivec SIMD units as their core, you can evendirectly port your existig Altivec SIMD codebases with care and reasonable ease as the old school G4 coders found out...
OC the x86 SIMD guts didnt get Altivec or "Cell" by any other name, so could take best advantage of it in their x86 SIMD ports.... funy how intel CPUs improved SIMD are only now finally becoming more like the old 128but Altivec after all this time....
powerPC OC is dirived fromthe G5 that could do its SIMD anywere as good as the G4 clock for clock, infact you have to tweak your G5/PowerPC SIMD to get anywere near the G4's implimentation.
the basic premise today then for this story and the perhaps impending Power6+ IS will they have included the MS inspired Altivec+ additions and vastly improved on them,
making a new [Altivec] SIMD++ 512Bit available perhaps...
alongside the expected and demanded multicore, bus, interconnects, memory, and other generic boosting for todays markets OC, rememebr IBM have a worlds smallest die tech, and make massive head line news with it all the time, so why dont they use it on mass.
multi "cell" Altivec++ SIMD is Good, so let us buy it and use it TODAY....
Power 5/6 are different processors targeted at servers (running AIX, z/os and other boring stuff).
Gaming processors and apple processor are cousins. Originally from the same family; but have forked off and have totally different strengths (and cost less).
It's like comparing Core2 with Nehalem/Opteron - same family but no connection. Once is used in corporate datacenters and the other in homes or desktops.
If you are from the IT industry you'ld know that IBM has slowly divorced itself from the consumer/home world and caters - in hardware/software/services - only to big corporates. (Yeah there might be some odd execptions; but 99.99% of the revenue comes from big corporates).
Apple, nintendo are direct opposites. They hardly cater to the "datacenters". They targe home environment. The processors they use are chearper, less power hungry but also less powerful copmared to power hungry, cache loaded, cash-demanding power6.
Paris, coz she left the corporate world to help the average citizen.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021