PPC 970MP - Powerpc

This is a discussion on PPC 970MP - Powerpc ; Now that Apple is bowing down to Intel, does anyone have any plans to make a Power PC 970MP Mobo?...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: PPC 970MP

  1. PPC 970MP

    Now that Apple is bowing down to Intel, does anyone have any plans to
    make a Power PC 970MP Mobo?


  2. Re: PPC 970MP

    On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:21:28 -0700, stork wrote:

    > Now that Apple is bowing down to Intel, does anyone have any plans to
    > make a Power PC 970MP Mobo?


    IBM, for sure:
    they sell server with PowerPC 970 inside.



  3. Re: PPC 970MP

    l'indien wrote:
    > On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:21:28 -0700, stork wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Now that Apple is bowing down to Intel, does anyone have any plans to
    >>make a Power PC 970MP Mobo?

    >
    >
    > IBM, for sure:
    > they sell server with PowerPC 970 inside.
    >
    >


    What machines does IBM presently sell with PowerPC. Last I looked,
    after the 43p-150, everything was Power.

  4. Re: PPC 970MP

    On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:50:15 -0600, Timothy J. Bogart wrote:

    > l'indien wrote:
    >> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:21:28 -0700, stork wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Now that Apple is bowing down to Intel, does anyone have any plans to
    >>>make a Power PC 970MP Mobo?

    >>
    >>
    >> IBM, for sure:
    >> they sell server with PowerPC 970 inside.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > What machines does IBM presently sell with PowerPC. Last I looked,
    > after the 43p-150, everything was Power.


    In fact, POWER is just a commercial name for high-end PowerPC.
    IBM PowerPC 970 based machine that I know are JS-20 blade center:



  5. Re: PPC 970MP

    l'indien wrote:
    > On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:50:15 -0600, Timothy J. Bogart wrote:
    >
    >
    >>l'indien wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:21:28 -0700, stork wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Now that Apple is bowing down to Intel, does anyone have any plans to
    >>>>make a Power PC 970MP Mobo?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>IBM, for sure:
    >>>they sell server with PowerPC 970 inside.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>What machines does IBM presently sell with PowerPC. Last I looked,
    >>after the 43p-150, everything was Power.

    >
    >
    > In fact, POWER is just a commercial name for high-end PowerPC.
    > IBM PowerPC 970 based machine that I know are JS-20 blade center:
    >
    >


    No. POWER is POWER and PPC is PPC. Blades are a different animal. None
    of the Low, Mid, or High end servers use PPC. Blade is a category all
    in itself. You can get blade servers with Intel in them - but note you
    can't get Pseries boxes with Intel in them either.

    For packing density, PPC can have advantages. Simply not used in
    standard lineup.


    Cheers.

  6. Re: PPC 970MP

    On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 20:23:18 -0600, Timothy J. Bogart wrote:

    > l'indien wrote:
    >> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:50:15 -0600, Timothy J. Bogart wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>l'indien wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:21:28 -0700, stork wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Now that Apple is bowing down to Intel, does anyone have any plans to
    >>>>>make a Power PC 970MP Mobo?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>IBM, for sure:
    >>>>they sell server with PowerPC 970 inside.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>What machines does IBM presently sell with PowerPC. Last I looked,
    >>>after the 43p-150, everything was Power.

    >>
    >>
    >> In fact, POWER is just a commercial name for high-end PowerPC.
    >> IBM PowerPC 970 based machine that I know are JS-20 blade center:
    >>
    >>

    >
    > No. POWER is POWER and PPC is PPC.


    Take a closer look to POWER specifications, please.
    POWER was and original architecture from IBM, used in the early RS/6000.
    They extended it with POWER2.
    Then, IBM, Motorola and Apple developped the PowerPC specification, based
    on IBM work on POWER. The first PowerPC, (PPC601) was fully POWER
    compatible.
    From this point, IBM developped 4 lines of products have been developped
    on PowerPC specifications:
    - 32 bits embedded PowerPC: was 401, then 403 & 405.
    - 32 bits generic PowerPC, as 603, 604, 750, ...
    - 64 bits RS/64 PowerPC
    - 64 bits POWER.
    The two last ones are extended PowerPC. They follow the whole 64 bits
    PowerPC specification. RS/64 adds tagged memory access and was mostly used
    in AS/400 line of products. POWER3 & POWER4 were most designed for
    mainframes, with multicore and hypervisor features.

    Nowadays, PowerPC 970 & POWER5 use the same core unit. But POWER5 is
    multicore and PPC970 has hypervisor feature disabled (though all
    needed registers are still present).
    And IBM uses POWER name for _all_ their PowerPC based products.

    The difference between POWER & PowerPC is quite the same than between
    Athlon XP & Athlon64.


    > Blades are a different animal. None
    > of the Low, Mid, or High end servers use PPC. Blade is a category all
    > in itself. You can get blade servers with Intel in them - but note you
    > can't get Pseries boxes with Intel in them either.


    I was talking about one model of the IBM eServer Blade Center.
    I said "JS-20 blade is 970 based". I never said _all_ blades are Power
    based.
    Please try to read before arguing...


  7. Re: PPC 970MP

    l'indien wrote:
    > On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 20:23:18 -0600, Timothy J. Bogart wrote:
    >
    >
    >>l'indien wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:50:15 -0600, Timothy J. Bogart wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>l'indien wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:21:28 -0700, stork wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Now that Apple is bowing down to Intel, does anyone have any plans to
    >>>>>>make a Power PC 970MP Mobo?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>IBM, for sure:
    >>>>>they sell server with PowerPC 970 inside.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>What machines does IBM presently sell with PowerPC. Last I looked,
    >>>>after the 43p-150, everything was Power.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>In fact, POWER is just a commercial name for high-end PowerPC.
    >>>IBM PowerPC 970 based machine that I know are JS-20 blade center:
    >>>
    >>>

    >>No. POWER is POWER and PPC is PPC.

    >
    >
    > Take a closer look to POWER specifications, please.
    > POWER was and original architecture from IBM, used in the early RS/6000.
    > They extended it with POWER2.
    > Then, IBM, Motorola and Apple developped the PowerPC specification, based
    > on IBM work on POWER. The first PowerPC, (PPC601) was fully POWER
    > compatible.
    > From this point, IBM developped 4 lines of products have been developped
    > on PowerPC specifications:
    > - 32 bits embedded PowerPC: was 401, then 403 & 405.
    > - 32 bits generic PowerPC, as 603, 604, 750, ...
    > - 64 bits RS/64 PowerPC
    > - 64 bits POWER.
    > The two last ones are extended PowerPC. They follow the whole 64 bits
    > PowerPC specification. RS/64 adds tagged memory access and was mostly used
    > in AS/400 line of products. POWER3 & POWER4 were most designed for
    > mainframes, with multicore and hypervisor features.
    >
    > Nowadays, PowerPC 970 & POWER5 use the same core unit. But POWER5 is
    > multicore and PPC970 has hypervisor feature disabled (though all
    > needed registers are still present).
    > And IBM uses POWER name for _all_ their PowerPC based products.
    >

    OK, I may have missed something here - you are claiming that the
    instructions dropped by the PowerPC after the 601 have now been dropped
    in POWER? That would be news to me ... common-mode is not needed any
    more? It would be news to me if the POWER included the graphics related
    functions (I read them as MMX like stuff that Apple wanted) - I can't
    find the article right off, but IIRC it was related only to the PowerPC.

    I would have to look up the history of 64 bit PowerPC, because PPC
    disappeared from the IBM machine line up. At one point, the most
    powerfull box RS6K was PPC based - the J50. Yet, the first 64 bit
    machines, and all RS6k/Pseries boxes since, don't use PPC. They use POWER.

    Here is what IBM told me over the years - they were going to get speed
    and performance improvments going to smaller packaging. All there boxes
    headed in that direction. Ooops. POWER came back to the forefront
    because they could put the servers line back into a performance range
    that was competative and PowerPC could not.

    > The difference between POWER & PowerPC is quite the same than between
    > Athlon XP & Athlon64.
    >
    >
    >


    That is quite a stretch. Let's see, if the Athlon 64 spec was developed
    not by AMD, but by a consortium which included other vendors, and then
    broke backwards compatability ..... And that of course completely
    ignores the real point - these are two different microprossors and the
    POWER vs PowerPC are completely different packaging animals ...

    >> Blades are a different animal. None
    >>of the Low, Mid, or High end servers use PPC. Blade is a category all
    >>in itself. You can get blade servers with Intel in them - but note you
    >>can't get Pseries boxes with Intel in them either.

    >
    >
    > I was talking about one model of the IBM eServer Blade Center.
    > I said "JS-20 blade is 970 based". I never said _all_ blades are Power
    > based.
    > Please try to read before arguing...
    >


    "In fact, POWER is just a commercial name for high-end PowerPC."

    In fact, PowerPC is just a commercial name for a low end POWER. It has
    failed in it's orginal intent. How long it will remain alive is a good
    question. I am sure IBM will milk what it can out of it's investment,
    but for the original poster - good luck finding MBs so folks can build
    'clone' systems as was done with the G5 stuff. IBM no longer used it in
    their main product line, and with Apple dropping it, who is going to
    build then next MB we could put in a desktop? Embedded and specialty
    devices like the blade server seems to be the only life left in it.
    It's a pity, really, but there it is.


  8. Re: PPC 970MP

    Timothy J. Bogart wrote:

    > OK, I may have missed something here - you are claiming that the
    > instructions dropped by the PowerPC after the 601 have now been dropped
    > in POWER?


    Now, as he said POWER is a superset of PowerPC.

    > That would be news to me ... common-mode is not needed any more? It would
    > be news to me if the POWER included the graphics related functions (I read
    > them as MMX like stuff that Apple wanted) - I can't find the article right
    > off, but IIRC it was related only to the PowerPC.


    Some PowerPC chips, notably the G4 and G5 have a vector processing unit
    (Altivec). POWER and most PowerPC implementations do not.

    Altivec is not a part of the PowerPC specfication but an add-on.

    --
    Andrew J. Brehm
    Marx Brothers Fan
    PowerPC/Macintosh User
    Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches

  9. Re: PPC 970MP

    Timothy J. Bogart wrote:

    > In fact, PowerPC is just a commercial name for a low end POWER. It has
    > failed in it's orginal intent. How long it will remain alive is a good
    > question.


    Probably very very long. Most game consoles use PowerPC now.

    --
    Andrew J. Brehm
    Marx Brothers Fan
    PowerPC/Macintosh User
    Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches

  10. Re: PPC 970MP

    On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:10:00 +0100,
    Andrew J. Brehm , in
    <1h0dpk6.1g7vomepsug00N%ajbrehm@gmail.com> wrote:
    >+ Timothy J. Bogart wrote:
    >+
    >+ > In fact, PowerPC is just a commercial name for a low end POWER. It has
    >+ > failed in it's orginal intent. How long it will remain alive is a good
    >+ > question.
    >+
    >+ Probably very very long. Most game consoles use PowerPC now.


    I see them popping up in printers, too.

    James
    --
    Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
    I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
    isn't looking good, either.
    I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

  11. Re: PPC 970MP

    "Andrew" == Andrew J Brehm writes:

    Andrew> Timothy J. Bogart wrote:
    >> In fact, PowerPC is just a commercial name for a low end POWER.
    >> It has failed in it's orginal intent. How long it will remain
    >> alive is a good question.


    Andrew> Probably very very long. Most game consoles use PowerPC
    Andrew> now.

    And lots of embedded systems. The Motoroal MPC860 and variants (all
    with a powerpc core) are much loved in communications applications.

    /Shyamal

  12. Re: PPC 970MP

    Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
    > Timothy J. Bogart wrote:
    >
    >
    >>OK, I may have missed something here - you are claiming that the
    >>instructions dropped by the PowerPC after the 601 have now been dropped
    >>in POWER?

    >
    >
    > Now, as he said POWER is a superset of PowerPC.
    >
    >


    Yes, well, as he noted, POWER came first, and the first PPC was an
    identical instruction set - then PPC dropped some instructions and broke
    all sorts of code. To say that the new chipsets are 'based on' the PPC
    specification, but are a 'superset' - if that 'superset' is indeed the
    instructions that have been there all along - am I the only one that has
    a problem with that logic?

    >>That would be news to me ... common-mode is not needed any more? It would
    >>be news to me if the POWER included the graphics related functions (I read
    >>them as MMX like stuff that Apple wanted) - I can't find the article right
    >>off, but IIRC it was related only to the PowerPC.

    >
    >
    > Some PowerPC chips, notably the G4 and G5 have a vector processing unit
    > (Altivec). POWER and most PowerPC implementations do not.
    >
    > Altivec is not a part of the PowerPC specfication but an add-on.
    >


    Thank you - that was of course what I was trying to remember.

  13. Re: PPC 970MP

    Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
    > Timothy J. Bogart wrote:
    >
    >
    >>In fact, PowerPC is just a commercial name for a low end POWER. It has
    >>failed in it's orginal intent. How long it will remain alive is a good
    >>question.

    >
    >
    > Probably very very long. Most game consoles use PowerPC now.
    >


    ???? I remember reading about the new Xbox hoorah - but as I don't
    exactly follow game consoles - in fact I only know of Xbox and PS2, or
    maybe if Nintendo is still around? Are any or all of these what you are
    referring to?

    And I assume these are the embedded models - which would also make sense
    to me as having the longest life. I vaguely hear that they are rather
    popular (though I hadn't heard of game console use!) - the other models
    are the ones that I haven't heard anyone exactly lining up at the door for.

  14. Re: PPC 970MP

    Timothy J. Bogart wrote:

    > Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
    > > Timothy J. Bogart wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>In fact, PowerPC is just a commercial name for a low end POWER. It has
    > >>failed in it's orginal intent. How long it will remain alive is a good
    > >>question.

    > >
    > >
    > > Probably very very long. Most game consoles use PowerPC now.
    > >

    >
    > ???? I remember reading about the new Xbox hoorah - but as I don't
    > exactly follow game consoles - in fact I only know of Xbox and PS2, or
    > maybe if Nintendo is still around? Are any or all of these what you are
    > referring to?


    What other game consoles do you know? The three major ones use PowerPC
    now (or with the coming incarnation).

    > And I assume these are the embedded models - which would also make sense
    > to me as having the longest life.


    The Xbox uses three 2 GHz 64 bit PowerPC chips (presumably G5
    variations).

    > I vaguely hear that they are rather popular (though I hadn't heard of game
    > console use!) - the other models are the ones that I haven't heard anyone
    > exactly lining up at the door for.


    It's been in the news for over a year that all consoles switch to
    PowerPC. Where have you been hiding? (And can I come?)

    --
    Andrew J. Brehm
    Marx Brothers Fan
    PowerPC/Macintosh User
    Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches

  15. Re: PPC 970MP


    "Andrew J. Brehm" wrote in message
    news:1h0fat4.159xuhu1i933wwN%ajbrehm@gmail.com...
    > Timothy J. Bogart wrote:
    >
    >> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
    >> > Timothy J. Bogart wrote:
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >>In fact, PowerPC is just a commercial name for a low end POWER. It has
    >> >>failed in it's orginal intent. How long it will remain alive is a good
    >> >>question.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > Probably very very long. Most game consoles use PowerPC now.
    >> >

    >>
    >> ???? I remember reading about the new Xbox hoorah - but as I don't
    >> exactly follow game consoles - in fact I only know of Xbox and PS2, or
    >> maybe if Nintendo is still around? Are any or all of these what you are
    >> referring to?

    >
    > What other game consoles do you know? The three major ones use PowerPC
    > now (or with the coming incarnation).


    Cell isn't just a powerpc, the ppc is just one part of the core.
    Have a read of the docs.

    Some good articles here
    http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/cell-1.ars
    http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/cell-2.ars

    http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu.ars


    >> And I assume these are the embedded models - which would also make sense
    >> to me as having the longest life.

    >
    > The Xbox uses three 2 GHz 64 bit PowerPC chips (presumably G5
    > variations).


    No not G5 but custom powerpc chips. No ooo (out of order) execution.
    Basically no branch prediction.

    Also cut down the complexity of the core so they could get faster clock
    speed.

    http://arstechnica.com/articles/paed.../xbox360-2.ars

    Alex



+ Reply to Thread