At the MicroProcessor Forum, Dr. Brad McCredie of IBM continued to tease out particulars regarding the POWER6. The presentation discussed a lot of general microarchitecture features, but did not reveal many specific details; a full revelation of the microarchitecture will likely have to wait till ISSCC, next February. However, from the details that were revealed, it is clear that the POWER6 inherited many characteristics from its predecessors, yet made substantial improvements in others.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-09
Member since:2006-08-09
What I meant was that that you can't just recompile software for PPC and run the thing on a new architecture as you don't have the code to recompile. We're stuck on x86 because of the need to run programs which were only compiled on the one platform. With the the code, then it could be ported to any newer, better architecture without too much of a fuss.
I could have posted the same thing if the article was about Sun's GPLed CPU design. It wasn't meant to be about the openness (or not) of the hardware itself.
Like I said, it may have been a troll post, but that's what came to mind upon reading it.
Member since:2005-08-19
Member since:2006-03-22
Member since:2006-09-19
Well...I don't think you are trolling.
However, I do think you might be mistaken about the true nature of the problem.
You _can_ recompile code for a different processor architecture. It happens all the time. Take a look at gcc some time.
The problem you are talking about, that of using hardware drivers (aka binary blobs) on a different processor architecture -- this is partially a problem of recompiling code, but it is far and away MORE a problem of writing the drivers to fit the driver model of the operating system at hand.
Talk about a nightmare, the driver models for X Window/Unix systems, Windows XP, Mac OS X, and now Windows Vista (which has a completely new and built-from the-ground-up driver model for WIndows) --- all of these are vastly different. So the real problem is how do you write a driver from one OS to the next.
That said, it _IS_ very much a problem that proprietary hardware vendors make it difficult for developers to get the information they need to develop drivers for their products -- for _ANY_ operating system.
This is, I suppose, an unfortunate consequence of fierce competition in markets such as graphics processors. In that regard, it's the hardware vendors such as NVidia that make life difficult (probably) out of necessity. CPU makers like IBM and Intel are generally forthcoming with specs for their CPUs.
Member since:2006-08-13
Member since:2005-07-06
Will they port to it? Nope.
Uhmm, so there's no Linux on PPC ? Uhmm, so there's no os/aix/linux on PPC with working video drivers ? Uhmm, so we now should port video drivers to a processor architecture, and not compilers and kernels instead ? Uhmm, do you smell like a bad morning foss rant ? Uhmm, do you even have anything worthy to say about power6 ?
Edited 2006-10-18 07:58
Member since:2006-01-03
What exactly do you mean? You don't seem to know much about what you're talking about, or have not read the entry you are ranting about, or have not understood what it says.
There is already Linux on PPC, and compilers and kernels are already ported. There are also working video drivers for either ancient video chipsets or Intel video chipsets which have open source drivers available. It is the availability of open source drivers that made it possible to port them to a different architecture than x86.
What's not available is nVidia or ATI drivers for Linux on PPC, because nVidia and ATI provide only binary blobs for x86, which cannot be ported to another architecture.
Anything worthy to say about power6? Please, flood me with your wisdom. The post just said that even if it was 10 times better, it sadly was no competition for the x86 in the absence of good video drivers. A bad morning foss rant? Sure, that is exactly what it was. What was yours? An inarticulate babble about nothing.
Member since:2006-01-12
>>Will it run nVidia or ATI's binary drivers? Nope. Will they port to it? Nope.<<
I don't think IBM particulary cares about ATI/Nvidia, the Power6 is a big Iron chip, basically they are going to migrate all of their big-iron systems to it (i/p/z series) most of these systems don't even have a graphics head let alone a accelarated 3d card. Other then using it for those systems they'll use it in their Unix (AIX) servers, they aren't designed for use in workstation so complaining that nVidia et al won't port their drivers is abit beyond the point don't ye think?
Member since:2006-10-18
Member since:2006-08-09
Whether or not it is good for gaming is not something we will ever be able to find out.
The old Alpha blew away the then current x86 chips in floating point, if I'm remembering correctly. It would have been great for gaming. Actually, you could play an id game or two with it.
Member since:
2006-08-09
One more reason to dislike close source: you become limited as to hardware architectures because your binary blobs won't work. It doesn't matter if POWER 6 costs $3.95, is ten times faster than a Core 2 Duo and it makes a mean cafe mocha with whip cream. Will it run nVidia or ATI's binary drivers? Nope. Will they port to it? Nope.
Is this trolling? Maybe. Didn't intend on doing so, but that is what this article called to my mind.