Apple Switch to Intel Not a Big Loss for IBM 332
KaushalParekh writes "An interesting article about how Apple's switch to Intel chips may not be that bad for IBM after all. "Apple sees an opportunity with Intel. But IBM continues the same chip development that allowed Apple to claim several firsts and fastests. Now, Big Blue will plow its research efforts into processors for game consoles and other consumer products that might one day knock the PC down a rung." Also, "a lucrative avenue for IBM in China, where the marriage of the Linux OS to PCs armed with [IBM] PowerPC chips presents some intriguing possibilities." And, "Large firms like Sony, Microsoft and Comcast are betting that a home-entertainment device, evolved from a game console or set-top box, will replace many of the PC's functions. IBM plans to be inside these new systems.""
Powerhouse (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Powerhouse (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Powerhouse (Score:3, Informative)
2) Download the Adobe's 10Q for 2Q05 and you will see that a significant amount of Adobe's Windows sales are from their Intelligent Document desktop products, which make up 36% of total sales, and that the percenatge of sales for the Mac platform are up from 2Q04.
I anxiously await facts to back up your "argument".
ThinkPad G5? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:ThinkPad G5? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:ThinkPad G5? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:ThinkPad G5? (Score:2)
Yeah, probably not too likely. But it'd still be cool. Especially if someone then hacked it to run OS X.
I'd say the possibilities..... (Score:2)
It's still interesting to ponder that scenario though.....IBM hardware with a factory installed Linux or BSD. I'd get one in a heart beat.
Re:ThinkPad G5? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, and the cost of filling that niche was that the cheapest Tadpole is (or at least was when I last checked) an order of magnitude more expensive than the most expensive Thinkpad. Tadpole's filled a niche - namely Solaris software vendors selling very expensive software who needed a portable demonstration plaform, cost be damned.
To the best of my knowledge there are no niches for a PPC Linux portable that costs far more than an
Re:ThinkPad G5? (Score:2)
It happened because there was no alternative at the time! Had there been a reliable Solaris x86 port before 2003 there would never have been a Tadpole - companies would have used Intel based laptops and saved a fortune. No company is going to purchase expensive PPC laptops to run Linux when a cheap Intel driven one will do the same or better.
IBM (or anyone else bar Apple) will not release a PPC laptop because other tha
Re:ThinkPad G5? (Score:2)
Microsoft could easily port Windows to PPC and use it as leverage against Intel. If they added a cross-compiler to their dev tools, app developers could easily recompile for PPC.
If I recall right Microsoft did put out Windows for PPC, and for Sparcs.
FalconNothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
The demand from Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo is a lot higher so IBM doesn't need to cry
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nothing new (Score:2)
Re:Nothing new (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nothing new (Score:3, Interesting)
I can believe this. An unnamed company that I used to work for found out our long standing talks with Apple were for naught when we saw our competitor on stage with Steve Jobs at a MacWorld in SF.
Oh well...
Re: (Score:2)
The cycle begins (Score:3, Funny)
"Forward into the past!" - Firesign Theater
Most People (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Most People (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as the home market is concerned, I wouldn't be concerned either of Apple since more gaming consoles will find their ways into homes than Macs. How many people I know personally with a mac? One, my girlfriend and it is a laptop. How many people I know with at least o
Re:Most People (Score:3, Interesting)
Intel/IBM Innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
How much of IBM's innovative chip design was pushed forward by Apple? I'm honestly not that familiar with the design/manufacture process but certainly IBM and Apple were working together on new designs for at least Apple hardware.
With Apple and Intel working together now we're sure to (eventually) see some products that Intel wouldn't have developed on their own.
Re:Intel/IBM Innovation (Score:5, Informative)
None. It was all pushed forwards by the high-end server market. The POWER line (which are really PowerPC these days, just to confuse everyone[1]) has seriously high performance. They have been shipping dual-core chips since the POWER4+ (the POWER5 is currently top of the line).
The chips they are selling Apple are cut-down versions of the POWER4 (not POWER4+, or POWER5) with a vector unit bolted on. They are not the fastest chips IBM make, they are the consumer versions of an old IBM design.
[1] Originally, there was POWER and PowerPC. These were two slightly different instruction sets with a large common subset. It was possible to compile code that would run on both, or that would only run on one. More recently, IBM dropped the POWER instruction set, and recent POWER-series chips have been server-grade PowerPC chips.
Re:Apple less than 2% of IBM's PowerPC business (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also probably worth mentioning to all the people who think that IBM's recent 970MP and low-power 970FX offerings are "perfect" for Apple that, while the 970MP may certainly be attractive for the Xserve and Power Mac lines (and may in fact be used), the low-power 970FX can't just be popped into a PowerBook. The support chipsets (e.g., HyperTransport) required for the G5 all generate substantially more heat than the similar support chipsets with the G4 (74xx) family, making the total heat profile of a hypothetical low-power G5-based PowerBook still much higher than even the highest-end G4-based PowerBooks.
As for the Apple/Intel FAQ, I am the author of that site (and it is completely non-commercial, non-profit, not associated with anything monetarily or financially in any way, and is exclusively for informational purposes), so that's why it's described as such. I'll try to confirm whether it is PowerPC, POWER + PowerPC, all CPU products, or all semiconductor products. Ultimately, though, whatever it actually is, Apple was still a very small part of IBM's business, and, as such, was not "driving" PowerPC development in any significant way, and the truth of my statement remains.
I don't think they are crying about it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't think they are crying about it (Score:4, Insightful)
The first thing I thought when I read the Intel CEO's positive spin on their new relationship with Apple is, "Dude, you do not know what you are in for."
If Intel is ignorant, then they are in for a very unpleasant surprise.
But maybe Intel understands what it means to be a partner with Apple and they're figuring that, hell, what doesn't kill me will make me stronger.
Apple is going to push Intel, make demands of Intel, get moody and pout, and bitch, bitch, bitch. BUT... I think that Intel is aware of this and considers it a fair price to pay to be with a cutting edge, free-wheeling company like Apple.
Re:I don't think they are crying about it (Score:3, Interesting)
What, exactly, will they have to bitch about? Seriously. Are they going to tell Intel they need to make faster chips while Dell and HP kick back and say, "you're cool, dude, slow chips are just fine"? Will Apple really think they can wrangle faster chips out of intel then their competitors get?
The only real bitch point will be price and Intel is going to be able to show them bar graphs up the wazoo to poin
Re:I don't think they are crying about it (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the iPod, which it seems is the
Re:I don't think they are crying about it (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, the folks at the wine store give me funny looks now, but they're just a bunch of snooty cheese-eaters.
Re:I don't think they are crying about it (Score:2)
Typo, or solid insight as to what the Apple's Marketing folks plan to do. Now had it been an announcement from Sale - no contest, they were talking booze.
Re:I don't think they are crying about it (Score:2)
Re:I don't think they are crying about it (Score:5, Interesting)
No, IBM may not have particularly liked dealing with Steve Jobs, but they certainly didn't have any desire to lose Apple as a customer.
IBM and Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple and Intel strategically have very little issues (aside from Intel's current partner Microsoft... but that's another story)
Re:IBM and Apple (Score:2, Interesting)
There is only one Mac cluster in the top 500. There are 259 IBM systems. If 'BigMac' is so great, why hasn't anyone done something simitlar? Maybe because they don't want to play the Apply HW premium for a COTS systems. Any way you slice it, the only market that Apple is not a niche player is personal MP3 players. (and that is undeserved. There are tons of better options than the iPod) Apple 'competing' with IBM is ludicrous.
As mentioned in other articles, Apple (and sp
Re:IBM and Apple (Score:3, Informative)
Re:IBM and Apple (Score:2)
My guess is more that with IBM getting out of the personal computer business (and already a decade out of the PC operating system business), there was no major upside to fighting WinTel, and a lot of nuisance. Like with Motorola, keeping Apple moving forward just wasn't a priority for them.
Re:IBM and Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Intel and Microsoft really haven't been getting along so well lately. Intel has become a big supporter of Linux and open source software; it is one of the founding members of OSDL and has contributed compilers and tons of driver code and specs to the open source community.
On the Microsoft side of coin, Microsoft tapped IBM to produce a custom-made CPU based on the PowerPC architecture for the Xbox 360, rather than using the x86 architecture the original Xbox used. Microsoft continues to work towards a Microsoft PC, which will marginalize Intel's role in the PC business if it succeeds.
No, Intel and Microsoft aren't the partners they used to be. Microsoft wants total domination of the PC industry, and that leaves Intel out in the cold. From what I can see, Intel's partnership with Apple gives it more than just shipping more units to another customer -- it gives Intel a strategic advantage against its growing enemy, Microsoft.
Why don't IBM make PPC linux home pcs? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why don't IBM make PPC linux home pcs? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why don't IBM make PPC linux home pcs? (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, how can you make a killing supplying something at mac mini cost to geeks? That market is very, very small. They exited the PC business, so entering it with a Linux-only offering won't make them anything.
Re:Why don't IBM make PPC linux home pcs? (Score:4, Funny)
They wouldn't make a cent on such a machine, they wouldn't cover development costs.
If you really want a PowerPC box you can get a blade with Dual 2.2Ghz 970s from IBM for US$2259
http://www-132.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/
Re:Why don't IBM make PPC linux home pcs? (Score:2)
By my calculations, then, that would leave us with about 300 geeks worldwide.
This may well be true, but let's try to make at least some effort to come up with reasonable numbers. The geeks-home-computer market is large enough to make *some* money off of, even if it's not large enough to support dirt-cheap hardware made speciall
Re:Why don't IBM make PPC linux home pcs? (Score:2)
Not going to do you much good without the BladeCenter chassis [ibm.com]. The "low-cost" model will set you back another $2000. Don't forget the required integrated switch modules and such you'll be needing as well. And those 2000W power supplies are going to kill your electric bill.
Re:Why don't IBM make PPC linux home pcs? (Score:4, Interesting)
You can get a KuroBox for US$160
http://penguinppc.org/embedded/kuro/ [penguinppc.org]
http://www.kurobox.com/ [kurobox.com]
Or look for a cheap PPC based Wireless Basestation/DSL Router. I know early Nokia ones were PPC based.
Freescale cheers (Score:2, Interesting)
Linux PPC (Score:4, Interesting)
I was inevitable (Score:5, Informative)
The cost of producing new leading edge semiconductor processors has always, and will always, grow at a very high rate. The cost of a chip fab is outrageous. It has been doubling for many years now. A new chip fab today costs about $4 Billion US!!! (For a 65nm fab) Most companies have started renovating there fabs to use ever larger wafers instead of building new fabs. Currently many fabs are using 300mm wafers. Many of the older 150mm fabs that have already upgraded to 200mm don't have the room to upgrade further.
Some big new 300mm fabs are:
D1C in Hillsboro, Oregon
F11X in Albuquerque, New Mexico
F24 in Leixlip, Ireland
The "break even" point for development costs has been skyrocketing!
In the 1980's and early 1990's 50,000 units were required to recoup development costs on a chip. At 130nm, fab costs hit more than $1 billion and the break-even point for chips was about 500,000 units. A chip made with a 65nm process needs approximately 5 million units to break even on development costs. With 45nm processes at the edge of the current horizon for chip manufactures, how many markets are there for a chip that has to sell 50 million units to break even!!!
For many years Motorola, AMD and other chip makers were moving steadily away from having there own fabs. Motorola was outsourcing 7% of its chip manufacturing in 1997, and over 30% in 2003. It seems this might have been a bad idea. Apple sited manufacturing capacity as one of its reasons for choosing Intel over AMD; and well, Motorola it seems just lost the Apple contract... (AMD is expanding its Dresden "Fab 36", and considering building a new fab to be opened early 2008. In the mean time they signed Singapore's Chartered Semiconductor to help make AMD64's starting in 2006.)
Currently chip fabs are operating at about 85% capacity; new fabs traditionally start getting built when 90% capacity is reached.
The biggest financial problem that chip manufactures face is the wavelength of light. For several generations of chips we have been using 193nm light. How is this possible you ask when chip feature sizes have been shrinking well below that size for several years now? Well I will let someone else explain:
Quote:
Since the 180nm technology node, the feature size has fallen BELOW the stepper wavelength. How can a 193nm wavelength of light expose gaps and widths that are 180nm wide? The laws of optics tell us that in order to resolve or "see" a gap of X nm in width, we must use a wavelength of light that is itself LESS than X nm in width. Today's feature sizes are down to 65nm and are still being printed with 193nm light! This seeming violation of the laws of physics and optics is being achieved by very clever techniques generally known as RET or Resolution Enhancement Techniques. Since the 180nm technology node, RET has been growing in cost and complexity from simple OPC (optical proximity correction) to PSM (phase shift mask) to the combination of OPC plus PSM, and now on to SRAF (sub-resolution assist features) which is ushering in a new category of RET called X-RET or Extreme-RET. The industry could have reduced the stepper wavelength from 193nm to 154nm, but a detailed analysis showed that simply shortening the stepper wavelength would be cost-prohibitive! Instead, use of 193nm has been extended to the 45nm technology node, but the gap between 193nm and 45nm is quite large and cannot be completely resolved even by the most advanced RET.
Fortunately, something called Immersion Lithography has been introduced. It has been tried before with mixed results, but the need for it has never been as urgent as it is now. By immersing the wafer in water, one can reduce the effective numerical aperture (NA), allowing 193nm light to act as if it were a shorter wavelength. The wafer now has to be immersed in water, however, and this creates new challenges for new types of resist and topcoat materials that can withstand the effects of water contamination. Today, however
Interesting article comment (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Interesting article comment (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Interesting article comment (Score:2)
"This new processor has 77 million transistors implemented on Intel's 0.13 CMOS process, with six levels of copper interconnect. Its die size is 84 mm2 and its peak power consumption is 24.5 watts at 1.6 "
PowerPC
"IBM also announced its low-power 970FX chips, ranging from 1.2 to 1.6 GHz, with power consumption ranging from 13 to 16 Watts, respectively "
Re:Interesting article comment (Score:3, Insightful)
Try to find a shipping date on the 970FX chips. See if the PentiumM is either cooler or faster by then.
Re:Interesting article comment (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Interesting article comment (Score:2)
Re:Interesting article comment (Score:4, Informative)
Intel's Montecito is the first Itanium processor to feature duplicate, dual-thread cores and cache hierarchies on a single die. It features a landmark 1.72 billion transistors and server-focused technologies, and it requires only 100 watts of power.
Now 1.72 billion itself is beyond even IBM but managing power of 100W is definitely commendable. So please, do some research on latest work as well. Thanks
Oooooooohhh... (Score:5, Funny)
And everyone thought IBM was at a loss when it chose the three largest game console manufacturers instead of a computer manufacturer with 4% market share.
Re:Oooooooohhh... (Score:5, Funny)
This post was brought to you by SlashdotLogic(TM).
pc's a dying breed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:pc's a dying breed? (Score:2)
Its just marketing crap! As the PC market gets saturated, the marketers will all try to convince you PC's are dead and you should give them your money for some worthless replacement
Well.... (Score:2)
Having them watch me edit config files using vi on my 52 inch projection screen TV will definitely confirm it.
mac's and pc's aren't ibm's only business (Score:2, Informative)
consi
Been saying this for years... (Score:2)
Come on, big blue, show me the PPC-based linux desktops! I know they're hiding somewhere.
Interesting: Xscale's part in the transition... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.maconintel.com/news.php?article=29 [maconintel.com] ( MacOnIntel link )
blakespot
Actually it'll be the PC that will win (Score:2)
-Play games
-Do office functions
-Do web stuff to communicate
-Play music and movies
And most of that needs to be done all at once. A device that switches between modes won't cut it for regular use. It'll be great for families to have a c
Really??!?! Wowzers!!! (Score:2, Funny)
My very guess-based opinion (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately then Motorola lost interest in the CPU market, their CPU group started getting neglected and sucky, Motorola spun off their CPU group into Freescale, and Freescale turned out to be sucky as well. So Apple wound up pretty much having to buy from IBM instead. But IBM never seemed very enthusiastic about this-- for example there were reports they didn't really want to bother with altivec/VMX/"velocity engine", and altivec was the or a cornerstone of Apple's CPU strategy. (Though, ironically, VMX is a really big part of all those new video game CPUs IBM is making, so I guess that kinda turned out well for IBM...) When I heard Apple really was going to Intel, honestly one of my first responses was to wonder whether this happened because Apple was pushing IBM away, or because IBM was trying to push Apple away and Apple was just complying..
I really wonder what's going to happen to Freescale at this point.
Re:My very guess-based opinion (Score:2)
Apple was high profile only (Score:3, Interesting)
Strange logic (Score:2)
Also, "a lucrative avenue for IBM in China, where the marriage of the Linux OS to PCs armed with [IBM] PowerPC chips presents some intriguing possibilities.
The problem is, Apple is (soon to be was) the least expensive and most practical way for hackers and programmers to get machines running PPC Linux. Without Apple making PPC machines, it seems to me that fewer people will be developing software for PPC Linux, at least if we're still discussing traditional PCs.
(
It more than about IBM and money..Big loss for PPC (Score:3, Insightful)
its only a short matter of time (5 years I guess) before gcc and associated free software stuff is not ported to PPC. Linux will be much more expensive, if available at all. You will still be able to buy compilers from IBM/Freescale and development kits and the like, but for the home hobbiest the platform is dead. Nobody is buying POWER boxes from IBM to develop Linux on due to excessive cost.
I work on HPUX which is a platform on the outs. Some gnu tools come our way, but not a lot compared to linux/freebsd/solaris. There are not a lot of HP pa-risc machines floating around that allow development testing and optimization to occur.
Also I know a couple of folks working in the embeded space with PPC. Have a supply of workers that can get up to speed on PPC is much easier when you have a computer platform based on it.
console market means nothing long term (Score:3, Interesting)
IBM loosing Apple is more of a marketing shot to IBM that a $$ one. Now IBM is the only major company producing PowerPC based server/workstations. Not a good sign for the power architecture long term.
It might not hurt IBM but it hurts everyone else (Score:3, Insightful)
But it does paint a bleak picture for the future in locking consumers into one architecture (x86) and this is an extremely dangerous and uncompetitive situation for consumers.
Sure Apple are under no moral responsibility to keep using PPC to avert that outcome, but it hardly represents a step forward for choice.
Whilst someone could theoretically put G5s into a new desktop PC and bundle Linux with it that doesn't seem a very likely outcome, and you have to wonder about IBM's appetite for continuing a line in PowerPCs suitable for a desktop machine when most of their stuff seems to be geared toward consoles these days.
The repurcussions of Apple moving to Intel are, in a wider sense no joke and a very real. Quite frankly customers deserve better.
Sure, IBM won't be hurt... (Score:2)
Still, IBM isn't a powerhouse because it makes lots of chips. Rather, it u
Re:Nothing new to see here, move on (Score:3, Insightful)
Not just that, but IBM is as much a business services company as anything else theese days.
It's more the "death of the PC" thing. (Score:4, Interesting)
To hear IBM, inventor of the "IBM PC" sounding off on the theme that the PC is dead is very signifigant. All us geeks here like the PC chassis for it's customization capabilities... not true of the general public.
Console manufacturers have, I believe, the largest number of non-PC systems sold. They've been pulling their punches as far as turning those systems into a general purpose computing platform, for some unknown reason. This may give them the "go ahead."
Re:It's more the "death of the PC" thing. (Score:5, Informative)
As little as 5 years ago, I would not have said this. Having a handful of PCI slots on board was essential for adding capabilities to a computer. Now, everything I might want to add comes in an external box - including TV capture hardware, sound interfaces, and even hard disks. I have a 500GB hard drive here connected via a FireWire 800 interface.
The only other computers I regularly use are a couple of headless boxes, one where I work and the other in a co-located server room. Neither of these need to be expandable because physical access to them is non-trivial.
Re:It's more the "death of the PC" thing. (Score:2)
1) Stay closed source and replace at least M$ Office and the browser with their own developments. Time-consuming and expensive.
2) Use Open Source and give away control of the platform completely (once you allow Linux and GCC, people can run next to everything).
It would be interesting to see how version 2) plays out, when a big company tries to do it. Think something like the PlayStation3 as a combination of
Re:Nothing new to see here, move on (Score:5, Interesting)
IBM is every bit as Evil as Apple and Microsoft, they're just on our side temporarily. Let the big shots duke it out. What we want is deadlock, no party ending up with a significant advantage over each other, but seeing profit in code portability.
Nerds don't use computers, they sculpt them like artwork. The current generation has warts.
Re:Nothing new to see here, move on (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolute power corrupts
Re:Nothing new to see here, move on (Score:2)
Re:Nothing new to see here, move on (Score:2)
Re:Uh huh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Because Intel/AMD/x86 are not anywhere nearly as entrenched there as they are here, as very few people (percentage-wise) in China *have* computers yet.
This is a (nearly) level playing field for other architectures in China.
Also, if other architectures gain ground in China, they might start cropping up outside of China as well, giving us relief from x86 hell -- and a big boost to IBM's processor division.
Go IBM.
Re:Uh huh... (Score:2)
It doesn't really matter what processor your neighbor has, its what processor does most the software support that matters.
Re:Uh huh... (Score:5, Insightful)
People like to take shots at the x86, but it is hard to deny that there are brilliant people working on it, really making implementations that fly. Intel's development team has a long proud history (they pretty much single-handedly turned the perception of CISC/RISC around with the Pentium Pro after all), and the AMD K8 team looked suspiciously much like the Alpha team at one point.
That is not to say that the POWER4 and derivatives are not impressive, they are, but the performance of chips like the AMD K8 really proves that if you have a competent team small details like the ISA don't matter all that much. I see no easy way for IBM to sneak into China, and it is actually a good thing; We are all better off with:
By comparison the PPC would be a fairly serious case of lock-in, only two companies manufacture chips (Freescale/Motorola and IBM), and Freescale mostly bothers with embedded applications.In summary, having some PPC around is nice, but having it take over a market would be a bad thing at this point.
Re:Uh huh... (Score:2, Insightful)
look at the ten-millions of consoles that sell each year, then look at the (hopeful here) millions of apples that sell each year. which one is the better market to be in? especially considering that whatever next-gen console you buy, you're buying ibm.
seeing how the consoles seem to be a pissing contest for each company in terms of features and speeds, and that ibm's chips are both easier to develop for (i'm a risc fan) and are generally considered better, i think they do have a
Re:Uh huh... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Uh huh... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Uh huh... (Score:2, Informative)
PowerPC is a standard developed jointly by IBM, Apple, and Motorola (now Freescale). It was written in the mid nineties and was based on and extended the instruction set for IBM's POWER series. A processor can is a PowerPC processor if it implements the PowerPC instruction set. So the Revolution will use a PPC chip. The Cell is a PPC chip. The XBox 360 will use a PPC chip. Every processor in the current POWER line is a PPC ch
I'm not so sure... (Score:2)
Most owners of a PC can tell you whether they run an Intel, AMD, VIA, Transmeta or other CPU. The same is not true for game consoles.
Console makers have used many processors, among them Z80s, 68000, MIPS, Intel, et al. Users remained blissfully ignorant of the architecture of their systems.
IBM is conquering a market where brand loyalty is not possible. If Intel elects to enter this market and pours r&d mone
Re:I'm not so sure... (Score:2)
Re:I'm not so sure... (Score:2)
IBM's Lock on Game Consoles (Score:3, Funny)
IBM has a lock on the next-generation game consoles. "Computer Business Review" [cbronline.com] reports that Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony (MNS) are collaborating with IBM to build the next-generation processors for game consoles. "PC World" [pcworld.com] reports that MNS will incorporate IBM processors in their next-generation game consoles.
The hidden sub-text is that the future IBM processors will be excellent for pornographic games, providing life-like flesh tones
IBM only one of four? (Score:5, Interesting)
Furthermore, nVidia and ATI are marketing their GPUs as capable of taking over more primary PC functions, thus, thet makes 4 HUGE opponents for this kind of stuff. Personally, I believe this is IBM's attempt at wagging the dog. They're still screwed."
Except that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are already using IBM's PowerPC processors (yes, Sony's Cell has a PowerPC core as the primary processor). Which means that all THREE consoles are using IBM processors, for sure. And that means for the next five years, every console sold (about 150 million were sold this last generation IIRC) will have an IBM processor in it. There's only 10-20 million Macs, on the other hand.
Not only will these hundreds of millions of consoles have IBM processors...but they'll have to CONTINUE to use IBM processors to retain backwards compatability unless there is a massive speed breakthrough enough to get a competing processor and emulate the PowerPC's. That's why the XBox 360 will have to have backwards compatability with 'top selling games' via recompiled patches preinstalled on the hard drive; the processor architecture change. It won't have full compatabilty while PS3 and Revolution will.
So IBM is set for the next five years and unless the console manufacturers DESPERATELy want to change architectures and forfeit backwards compatability, they're set for the next ten.
IBM already is inside these new systems.
And the PS3, btw, may even boot Linux by default when you buy the hard drive, turning it into a full PC with six USB ports, a powerful graphics card, a decent processor, WiFi, Bluetooth, and three gigabit ethernet ports.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/09/news_6127
Re:Uh huh... (Score:2)
And IBM is supplying the current GameCube processor as well.
Re:Uh huh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Especially looking at the game consoles, its a different dynamic. For the PS3, IBM needs to produce a processor that meets requirements A,B and C. In general those requirements won't change for the life of the PS3. IOW, as the years go by, the processor will be cheaper and cheaper to make.
In contrast, for the PC market, nobody's going to be happy with a processor 5 years from now that's essentially the same speed as the one being sold today. That means continuously pushing the envelope, which means continously spending money on R&D. That's a lot of money spent on chips without the volume of the game systems and without the high margins of the servers.
Nobody was saying IBM couldn't do it. The question is did they want to do it for the money they would make?
Re:Uh huh... (Score:2)
If you'd use cells SPE as a 3d accelerator, i would be surprised to see it even reach geforce2 levels.
Re:Consumer PowerPC systems (Score:2)
Re:Consumer PowerPC systems (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Consumer PowerPC systems (Score:3, Interesting)
From Desktop to Grid, the ODW (Open Desktop Workstation) is designed to assume its position and fulfill the missing link of the first true PowerPC Linux Development and Desktop System. The fully configured machine comes bundled with a variety of tools and applications that make the platform the perfect partner for any serious embedded system development based on Linux.
The Open Desktop Workstation is the only GNU/Linux PowerPC solution available on the market today that i
Re:Consumer PowerPC systems (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436 [anandtech.com]
OS X may look nice, but internaly it's a mess...
Re:Scientific computing (Score:3, Informative)
By the time XServe migrates, I believe Apple will be using x86-64-capable CPUs in that line. Also, IIRC SSE3 has support for double-precision float arithmetic in its vector ops, whereas Altivec doesn't.
Also, Apple is pushing their Accelerate.framework, which should make vectorized code somewhat port