IBM plans to doulbe performance for PowerPC6
IBM plans to double the performance of their PowerPC chip to 4 to 5 Ghz. Rather than fitting more smaller transistors they plan on placing an insulator under the silicon measuring 500 atoms thick. My hats off to IBM if they can do this. Though I wonder if they will actually achieve it considering that PowerPc run very hot, my brother lives in Spokane and leaves his window open with the computer is on in the dead of winter, so I am not going to get too excited, but i will be 'catiously optimistic'.
Allow me to disagree.
Most of the now "off-the-shelf" techniques & technologies, came from the mainframe space. Examples like 'Integrated Memory Controller', 'Silicon-on-Insulator', 'Cross-Bar Switches' are paradigmatic. And, the trend is to continue & grow.
SoI was first implemented in IBM POWER series, then on the PPC architecture and AMD's, for instance. IBM will also implement sSoI (strained SoI) in its next gen PPC architecture (co-jointly with Freescale.).
What's sort of puzzling, is this: Strained silicon (mainly used by Intel, licensed by IBM), is a technique which modifies the silicon's ionic structure (through the use of Silicon/Germanium, SiGe: http://www.research.ibm.com/resources/press/strainedsilicon/), stretching the ionic lattice in order to provide more space for electron mobility, through the structure.
This new technique seems to do the opposite: it squeezes a silicon layer, in order to provide... better electronic mobility, as well! Puzzling, isn't it?!
By the way, POWER 7 is coming off the drawing board, briefly...
Quote:That's a bit like Kia saying they're going to make a V-8. It's great, but who the hell is going to use it?
I've got to agree.
But I'd even take that one step further.
Intel had to castrate the IPC of their design in order to ramp up the clockspeed. So even if the PowerPC6 can reach the clockspeeds mentioned, how castrated is its design? Will it actually perform?
And that's even assuming that they can actually deliver what they've said, which is doubtable in itself.
And again, I agree, even if by some miracle it is all that, who really cares?
Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea if k2000k edited this thread's title.
See, there's really a "V8", on the left; where's "Kia", now? Of course, nobody (not even IBM's CEO) is going to use one in his desktop! Certainly, if you don't care, who's going to blame you for that?
But i find it useful to shed some light on the issue: the PowerPC architecture (which was, is and is going to be used by Apple, for a long, long time, in its Gx line), is based upon the POWERx architecture. But, that's where the similarities end. The POWER line of processors (mainly used in "Blue Gene-like" implementations) are not PPC G3, G4 or G5s; they're an entirely different species, allover.
The "beast" pictured in the left, is an IBM POWER5+ MCM (Multi-Chip Module), with four dual-core processors & L3 caches showing. It measures 90 by 90 mm (8100 sq mm!) and it hardly fits in the palm of your hand.
So, this thread title should be changed to something like "I dont' care about the doubled performance of the POWER6" (compared to this POWER5+).
Post Scriptum: took a while to find out how to 'post pictures', directly...
Quote:(How can i post pictures directly, without having to upload them into some "URL"?)
Quote:Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea if k2000k would edit his thread?
Joest how is this comment pertinent to this thread? If it is about the typo, yes I goofed, I was in a hurry and have been gone for a week without computer access, poor excuse yes but there it is. If it is about the title of the thread itself then all I can say is that I took the word out of the IBM executives mouth and put it as the thread title? Either way what does your comment have to do with this thread?
First off, i beg your pardon for MY mistake: i should have said "Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea if k2000k would edit his thread's TITLE"!
Second, you don't have to excuse yourself: It's obvious that you misread/mistyped the article's title.
Thirdly, i wasn't addressing you, specifically; if you care to have a look, i was addressing everyone in general and mpjesse, slvr_phoenix & K8MAN, in particular.
Lastly, the comment you refer as «...how (...) pertinent to this thread?» was intended to address those who said they didn't care about the subject; it was - by no means - intended to imply the quality (or lack thereof) of your post. You merely transcribed a [small] part of the article & added a comment which i hardly find arguable.
Aside from the [involuntary] error in the title - which i felt pertinent to correct - it was never my intention to be offensive towards you or your post, unless by using a bit of irony...