How can a company be just about everywhere, and yet nobody knows its name? Just ask Michel Mayer, chief executive of Freescale Semiconductor.
Is the PowerPC Due for a Second Wind?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
They were part of Motorola. Now they aren’t.
Motorola semiconductors IS Freescale, I saw the legal paper – They just changed their name. As for the owners of the company I don’t know if they are the same (I didn’t hear that Motorola semiconductors was sold).
Its just OK. I dont like their processors, thus I have not yet bought a Mac.
Mactels…
Good reasoning that. Is it the color?
actually i plan to pic up a used G5 shortly after mac starts producing the cractel boxes… they should be reasonably priced then, and the PPC CPU is the only thing mac had going for it.
I should hope the prices are the same as they are now… your price made it sound like Apple’s computers are somehow disproportionate the the rest of the industry.
Honestly, they could be $100-$200 cheaper with Intel components. A $300 Mac mini? We can only hope.
I don’t see how you come to that conclusion. PPC is less expensive to produce than x86. In the end, the prices come out to be the same because x86 can come down to the price of PPC due to sheer volume.
The only way Apple would sell you a Mac mini for $300 is if they took out the bundled OS and software… all of which equates to about $300 retail.
in embedded systems!
There are FAR better solutions for the low level microcontroller / microprocessor market
While it isn’t a PC company in anyway, I’d still like to see a hobbyists project where a 8641D SoC is used to build a Mini-ATX/Flex-ATX board or similar.
Yes, yes I’m a huge geek.
two popular companies who build PowerPC computers. IBM and Apple – in one and a half year there will be only IBM left – I think in the classic computer market (non embedded, non server) PPC is doomed to irrelevance. And yes, I count XBox to the embedded market.
Edited 2005-12-06 23:15
PowerPC = POWER (Power.org)
The Power architecture is at the core of XBox, Revolution, and PS3 (each of the cells is a specialized Power core).
This interview gives a lot of food for thought for all those Apple conspiracists.
Here you have it, from a man who partook in a lot of dealings himself, who flat out says that IBM wasn’t going to focus on developping a laptop PPC chip; IBM was focussing on gameconsole chips and the embedded market was much larger than the PPC desktop market anyway. Simply put: what Apple said was half-true: IBM did have a roadmap, it just didn’t involve a lot for Apple since Apple really didn’t matter much for IBM.
It shows a lack of vision from IBM (no surprise). Game consoles 1) are low margin 2) are on their way out. I know my second point is highly controverial, but think about it: you can get a Mac Mini for 500 clams now, and while it isn’t a red-hot game machine, it can do a WHOLE lot more than an XBox or a Playstation. Most computer games NOW are played on game consoles, but it the future? I don’t think so.
“It shows a lack of vision from IBM (no surprise). Game consoles 1) are low margin 2) are on their way out. I know my second point is highly controverial, but think about it: you can get a Mac Mini for 500 clams now, and while it isn’t a red-hot game machine, it can do a WHOLE lot more than an XBox or a Playstation. Most computer games NOW are played on game consoles, but it the future? I don’t think so.”
I think a bit differently….the consoles are probably no longer consoles and should be considered computers with this new generation. All they are really missing is a keyboard.
So , you are assuming MSFT is soon to the abandon X86. That promises to make things interesting. I can’t imagine they will execute such a transition gracefully.
No, a mini will not do a whole lot more than XBox360. The mini is positively a slug next to the triple core 64 bit PPC XBox360:
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-fpfxbox/
I expect the XBox does have somewhat more raw processing power, but can you rip a DVD on it? Send E-mail? Write your thesis? Apply a Photoshop filter? Things are so fast today I doubt a few FPS among friends really makes such a big difference. Certainly, The mini will run a Doom-type game as fast as anyone would really need.
You are kidding right? hahahahahaha Doom 3 fast enough? With what res and what eye candy turned on pray tell?
The mac mini will do a lot more than an XBOX360, just more slowly.
Exactly my point. My second point: games are eminently enjoyable on the Mini. Conclusion: full computers are becoming a better value proposition than Game consoles.
It shows a lack of vision from IBM (no surprise). Game consoles 1) are low margin 2) are on their way out. I know my second point is highly controverial, but think about it: you can get a Mac Mini for 500 clams now, and while it isn’t a red-hot game machine, it can do a WHOLE lot more than an XBox or a Playstation. Most computer games NOW are played on game consoles, but it the future? I don’t think so.
Game consoles are not on the way out. It’s been 20 years since the NES/Famicom was introduced, and during that entire time, computers have always been able to do more than video game consoles, yet sales of video games continue to increase, while computer game sales have tailed off. A brand new next-gen video game console is cheaper than a top of the line video card, let alone an entire computer setup. It’s really annoying when you have to run out and buy a new video card every year, just so the newest game will play decently on it. Also, even though the computer hardware continues to improve while console technology tends to remain static for about five years, this means that the programmers know exactly what they’re programming for. You might not be able to pile on as much eye candy for the console versions of Doom 3, Wolfenstein, or Quake, but every unit is identical so the programmer can optimize performance. On the PC side, optimizations are limited because a wide range of CPUs, video cards, motherboards, and sound cards need to be supported. If performance sucks on your computer? You usually have to pony up the money for a brand new video card or CPU. Expensive. Also, some people don’t want devices that can do multiple things. There is something to be said for dedicated devices that do one thing well. I just fixed my boss’ home computer, which got screwed up because of his children messing around with it while installing games on it. He’s buying a Playstation 2 for them for Christmas, and they’re only allowed to use the computer for typing papers for school or browsing the internet.
For those who don’t know or just choose to ignore facts, PPC is everywhere. It is NOT obsolete. It is embedded in just about every consumer device that requires a microchip. It’s true that for the PC, PPC is really a non-factor now that Apple is switching architectures. Still, PPC chips are in electronics, phones, cars…probably your cable box, and let’s not forget all three next-gen consoles.
So, in short, PPC is not going anywhere. It OWNS the embedded market. It was never a big part of the PC space, and now it’s basically out of it.
I mean look at the benches. Clock for clock they are as good as AMD Opterons are. It seems to be a lot cleaner than the x86 architecture anyway. Speedy as heck. And Apple hasnt gone wrong with the Quad Powermac have they? That machine is a beast! Except for SLI and dual dvd burners I dont see anything wrong with that machine. The processors are powerful as heck! I honestly dont like Macs but the G5 in a desktop is a damn good setup. The Quad makes my case even more solid. I really really hope that Apple does not maket the Powermacs go the way of the dodo. I hope they keep building those uber machines along with the Mactels.
That’s a blind statement to make. You can’t say “PPC is a great piece of hardware, they are clock-for-clock as good as Opterons!”. PPC is an architecture, not a processor, or even series of processors.
Is the G3 equivalent to the Opteron? G4? No. Are they PPC? Yes.
“x86 is a great piece of hardware … it’s clock-for-clock as good as Alpha!” 😛
Absolutely right. My bad. I should have thought a bit more when writing my post. I stand corrected.
Now, the Alpha was a great chip! He’re a matrix of SPECint/ghz and SPECfp/ghz for four chips families, using the highest scores I saw on the SPEC results form:
SPECint/GHz SPECfp/Ghz
Alpha 21364 764.6 1295.3
Opteron 252 645.3 772.3
PowerPC 970MP 575.2 830.4
Pentium-M 813.7 608.4
Note how the Alpha completely dominates in FP, and loses only slightly to the P-M in integer. And this is with an architecture that has recieves absolutely no attention in half a decade.
OSNews needs a PRE tag!
Edited 2005-12-07 04:26
…………………SPECint/GHz…..SPECfp/Ghz
Alpha 21364…………764.6…………1295.3
Opteron 252…………645.3………….772.3
PowerPC 970MP…..575.2………….830.4
Pentium-M…………..813.7………….608.4
There you go, might be a wee biut more readable now. It lines up nicely in my browser, hopefully it will too for a lot of you.
Yes, the Alpha was an amazing chip. If only Intel could make the technology work for the Itanium line.
You do realize the Itanium 2 does beat the Alpha in both SPECint and SPECfp on both absolute and /GHz…
1.6GHz Itanium2
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2004q4/cpu2000-20041101-0347…
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2004q4/cpu2000-20041101-0348…
1590 SPECint
2712 SPECfp
993 SPECint/GHz
1695 SPECfp/GHz
Can you provide a reference for this.
I remember shortly after it was released reading in several places that the PPC 970 MPs spec’d higher than Opteron. (I don’t remember reading anything about alpha, you may be right about that.)
The results are from spec.org, except for the IBM results, which aren’t published yet.
Alpha:
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2004q3/cpu2000-20040622-…
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2004q3/cpu2000-20040622-…
Opteron:
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/cpu2000-20050711-…
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/cpu2000-20050711-…
Pentium-M:
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/cpu2000-20050805-…
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/cpu2000-20050805-…
PowerPC 970MP:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1877406,00.asp
Edited 2005-12-07 07:08
Note how the Alpha completely dominates in FP
How did they do that? Did they simply throw lots of transistors in the form of FP execution units at it? How big was that chip in comparison to a G5 or Athlon 64?
Yea,
if only it was possible to built 2.5 Ghz Alpha without lenghtening the pipeline …
I Guess Alpha was the the Greta Garbo of cpu architectures, they choose the finest moment to withdraw
“That’s a blind statement to make. You can’t say “PPC is a great piece of hardware, they are clock-for-clock as good as Opterons!”. PPC is an architecture, not a processor, or even series of processors.
Is the G3 equivalent to the Opteron? G4? No. Are they PPC? Yes.”
way to get off.. he’s talking about PowerPC cpu’s obviously. i’m glad you wasted space on this page waving your dick around.
please, if you’re going to flame people, at least have a REASON. go after him about the “as good as opterons” comment or something instead of what your definition of PPC is. sure its a platform, but the cpu’s are typically referred to as powerpc/ppc chips… we can do better than this guys.
please mod this down
You are an idiot.
No sh*t he’s talking about PPC CPUs, just like I can talk about x86 CPUs and say “they’re clock-for-clock with _____”!
What else would “PPC” mean other than “CPUs utilizing the PPC architecture”?
Shit, some people are so stupid. Why did you even bother posting this? Friggin’ nugget. Go compile a kernel and STFU.
oh i know right.. how dare someone call you out on being a tool for no reason! and to answer your question:
“What else would “PPC” mean other than “CPUs utilizing the PPC architecture”?”
i know, its a big duh isn’t it.. well, here’s what you said:
“You can’t say “PPC is a great piece of hardware, they are clock-for-clock as good as Opterons!”. PPC is an architecture, not a processor, or even series of processors.”
yes, some people are so stupid.
And you wonder why people consider you a troll?
In integer performance (server space), the G5’s are clock-for-clock maybe 80% as fast as an Opteron, and maybe 70% as fast as a Pentium-M. The SPECint of the 970MP at 2.5GHz is similar to the SPECint of the Opteron at 2.0GHz. And that’s with IBM’s compiler. Using GCC, you’re looking at 75% or less. On SPECfp, the 970MP at 2.5GHz benches like an Opteron at 2.8GHz. With GCC, the two are about equivalent clock-for-clock.
It’s a decent chip, but again, nothing to get excited about. It’s a Pentium-4 generation chip, designed in a time when power usage wasn’t a concern, and meant to utilize a long pipeline to increase clockspeed. It has no particularly outstanding qualities, aside from an extremely fast vector unit.
In integer performance (server space), the G5’s are clock-for-clock maybe 80% as fast as an Opteron, and maybe 70% as fast as a Pentium-M. The SPECint of the 970MP at 2.5GHz is similar to the SPECint of the Opteron at 2.0GHz. And that’s with IBM’s compiler.
Given the alleged inferiority of the x86 architecture that’s all rather disappointing. I wonder whether Intel or AMD could do a better PowerPC implementation than IBM themselves, or whether it isn’t actually held back by its RISC architecture, in particular the cache-busting fixed 32-bit instruction encoding.
There is nothing particularly inferior about the x86 architecture. It adds to the die space of the design (an Opteron dual-core is 20% larger in die area than a 970MP, even though the only difference in cache sizes is 32KB of L1 data cache). It adds some stages to the beginning of the pipeline, but not a tremendous number. The 970 spends quite a few stages on decode as well.
One of the advantages of x86 is that it is an extremely compact format. Not only are its instructions smaller, but they can do more. For example, they can have implicit memory loads/stores. The Opteron uses this not only to increase code density, but to increase dispatch rate (it can only dispatch 3 x86 ops per cycle, but each can have an associated load/store as well). A RISC processor not only has to encode these loads/stores seperately, but has to dispatch them seperately as well (the PowerPC 970 can dispatch 5 instructions per cycle, but two of them may be loads). In practice, PPC64 code is a *lot* bigger than amd64 code.
Instruction set is fairly low down in the list of performance parameters. Opteron is fast not because of (or in spite of) x86, but because its got a short pipeline, extremely low memory latency, a tight scheduling loop, and a good number of execution units. What’s really amazing is the Pentium-M, which has an almost primitive execution core by today’s standards, yet, a primitive ISA (8 architectural registers and all), yet gets incredible integer performance. Chalk it up to a combination of an extremely clever frontend, great branch prediction, and a supremely tuned compiler.
This is why SPEC is so disliked; real-world apps so the PPC winning most benchmarks easily.
What exactly do you think SPEC is? They’re a bunch of real-world codes, everything from GCC to computational fluid dynamics. In real apps, the G5 can win (simetimes), when it is running code specially optimized for it, but most of the software you use every day isn’t even compiled for the G5, much less hand-tuned for it! In my own usage, my G5 runs TeX slower, Matlab slower, and GCC slower.
The G5 is, clock for clock, simply a slower chip than an Opteron or P-M, at least for integer code (it’s great for running artificial FP benchmarks like LINPACK, however). I don’t know why anybody is so surprised by this. The G5 has a fairly long pipeline (33% longer than an Opteron), some odd instruction latencies (1 cycle penalty on dependent integer operations), some odd scheduling restrictions, and pretty crappy memory latency.
Edited 2005-12-07 22:40
OK, Apple wasn’t selling a lot of processor, but does it takes into account the sales prices of those CPU?
I bet that those processors were much more expensive than 16bit PPCs used to control an injection engine..
Sure IBM is still producing high-end POWER CPUs for their own usage, but now there is quite a gap between low/middle end CPUs used in embedded, and high-end..
In regards to IBM; what they’ve done, which is quite smart; is break the POWER architecture into small building block components, and from there, customers can then build up a POWER based processor, based on those components.
In the case of Microsoft, they kept some parts, threw out others, and voila, you have a POWER processor custom built from the ground up using existing architecture components – the cost would be next to nothing for IBM; push that off to the fab and voila, a processor for the XBox.
How IBM works, which I have found out, they create the technology, and customers come to IBM and say, “ok, this is what I want my widget to do” and IBM will say, “well, we can through these components together and this is the result”.
In the case of Apple, they were unwilling to work under such a scheme – they weighed up Intel vs having a more ‘hands on’ approach with IBM and in the end, it probably worked out better to be part of a larger eco system that had a large focus on the desktop and laptop market than trying to push sh*t up hill in regards to their low priority on IBM and Motorola’s processor priority list.
I bet that those processors were much more expensive than 16bit PPCs used to control an injection engine..
What is a 16bit PPC?? I thought the PowerPC architecture specifications were 32bit and 64bit only.
If you’ve driven an automobile, you’ve used a Freescale processor.
Just where in my 1977 911S would I find it?
PowerPC powers Macs (At least now), AmigaOne and the Pegasos I and II boards, which in my humble opinion are the only fun computers arround since I am a little tired of linuxes
“wind” as in “flying fart”? get over it. it’s dead.
Just curious here. I know that the Z80 used to be the undisputable king of embedded microprocessors. As it now been pushed away by the PPC cpus?
Maybe the Z80 was king like 20 years ago, for embedded apps chips like the AMD 29K series had larger production than the Z80. Then the 960 took over. Recently ARM, MIPS and PPC are probably the most widely employed embedded parts. Even the 68K was more popular than the Z80 (the coldfire family)….
Just curious here. I know that the Z80 used to be the undisputable king of embedded microprocessors. As it now been pushed away by the PPC cpus?
PPCs are rather big embedded processors. There are plenty of popular smaller ones around: PIC, Atmel AVR, the Freescale 68HC series, the Intel 8051 and its many cousins, and so on. Some have quite appalling architectures, while others are really neat.
And on the 32-bit embedded front the big fight is with ARM, although others like Freescale’s own 68k-based CPU32 or Renesas’ SuperH are around as well.
If Freescale/IBM want to keep making PPC CPUs maybe they should throw some money at someone to make them their own user appealing OS (*cough* Amiga *cough*).
Alternatively maybe they should get into the x86 (possibly with a partnership with AMD) and increase competition in that space (it would at least be good for the user).
If Freescale/IBM want to keep making PPC CPUs maybe they should throw some money at someone to make them their own user appealing OS (*cough* Amiga *cough*).
Yeah right, AmigaOS is going to attract the millions of users that the totally unappealing MacOS couldn’t persuade.
Alternatively maybe they should get into the x86
They’ve got no experience with x86, so unless they came up with something very special they’d simply waste an awful lot of money trying to play catch-up with Intel and AMD.
(possibly with a partnership with AMD)
AMD could probably do with a bit more fab capacity, but it’s doubtful Freescale could contribute much to the processor design.
If Freescale/IBM want to keep making PPC CPUs maybe they should throw some money at someone to make them their own user appealing OS (*cough* Amiga *cough*).
Yeah right, AmigaOS is going to attract the millions of users that the totally unappealing MacOS couldn’t persuade.
Apple has always been seen as an elitist product (partly intentionally) whilst Amiga was a more mass market product (a lot of kids had Amigas in their bedrooms). They don’t need to start out big, for example they could go for light PCs specialising on web surfing/word processing (Amiga Minis). There’s also MorphOS which is looking smart (but could obviously do with the kind of marketing that someone as large as Freescale/IBM can provide).
Alternatively maybe they should get into the x86
They’ve got no experience with x86, so unless they came up with something very special they’d simply waste an awful lot of money trying to play catch-up with Intel and AMD.
Any more money than they’ve wasted on developing the PPC? At least with x86 they’ll have a much larger potential market.
(possibly with a partnership with AMD)
AMD could probably do with a bit more fab capacity, but it’s doubtful Freescale could contribute much to the processor design.
They must have some ideas/patents from all their work on PPCs that may come in useful. They probably also have more money than AMD have to spend on R&D.
From the article:
Mayer: In my previous job, I ran IBM’s semiconductor business. So I’ve seen both sides of the Apple story, because I sold the G5 to Steve (Jobs) the first time he wanted to move to Intel.
That would have been a year or two before the first silicon for 970. 1999? 2000? Gee, only a few years after Steve-o took over. Oh yeah, every version of OS X ran on Intel, just like NeXT ran on Intel. Could it be he planned to move to Intel all along?
Motorola (now freescale) made all their money on embedded processors, they left the desktop market a long time ago. This is something they should have told Apple, I have suffered the Pain of running desktops on low power consumption embedded chips, from a 75Mhz 603 to a 1.4Ghz G4 and god knows why it took Apple so long to switch.
PPC is not on the way out. If you want to see a technology that is on the way out, look at Itanium. PPC architecture is very pervasive, only that you usually do not know about it, as most gadgets and peripherals actually have a PPC processor.
One of the main reasons that x86 architecture as well as the Alpha architecture is so fast is because the engineers actually manually tweak the chip to perform, where as the PPC architecture is NOT. It is as far as I know, actually tweaked using computerized methods. This being the reason why sometimes it performs and sometimes it doesn’t, depending on the schema and code generated by the hardware compilers. This is also the reason why IBM is able to customize processors for entities that need a customized processor and in a sufficiently timely manner.
Tweaking a chip manually is an extremely delicate process and also expensive. Allowing this process to be done automatically by computers is not.
most gadgets and peripherals actually have a PPC processor.
Nah, there’s plenty of successful competition around. Smartphones and PDAs mostly use ARM for instance. And there are probably still far more 8-bit micros around then anything else.
I’ve read that B Gates has a vision, to see an inexpensive computer in every home, a number of services available to the public, (via the internet), and MS will supply those sevices for a monthly fee, or on demand fee, much like your local cable service.
Those services are basically a trouble free computing experience, and entertainment media, supplied by MS via server.
No more screwing with viruses etc, they do it all for you.
The XBox 360 is the beginning.
The next type of modem.
(MS for Dummies)
Since MS is so huge, I think S Jobs saw the light, and got away from IBM while the gittin was good.
It’s obvious that MS and IBM have been negotiating for for quite awhile, and the sheer volume of XBox production, would make Apple a low priority customer, and cause delays to Apple’s future success.
I think Steve is still a little angry because of the broken 3 Ghz promise by IBM, and rightly so.
I would almost be willing to bet, that Freescale and Apple have some secret involvement with one another, and you will continue to see Apple’s with PPC as well as X 86.
Freescale is probably working on the next latest and greatest PPC processor for Apple computers, right now.
Probably a10 Ghz, 8 core, super efficient, microscopic thinga ma jig, designed for a computer the size of an iPod.
Me thinks Steve is more sly than egotistical, has learned his lessons well, and has a pretty clear vision of where Apple is going.
When you battle a giant, you have to choose your moves wisely, if you wish to survive.
Sure wish I had bought shares in Apple when they were $10.58 per.
(stupid stupid stupid……….)