IBM launches POWER6 chip at 4.7 GHz

[bbloke]

IBM has announced the POWER6 chip, running at 4.7 GHz, will be launched next month. Ars technica has an article about the launch, and states that the POWER6 chip has double the performance of the POWER5+ chip.

The details are:

• Top frequency of 4.7GHz
• >790 million transistors
• 341mm2 die size
• 65nm SOI process with ten layers of copper interconnect and a low-k dielectric on the first eight levels
• Dual-core
• Two-way simultaneous multithreading (SMT) on each core
• Two memory controllers
• Manufactured at IBM's 300mm semiconductor fab at East Fishkill, NY

On some sites, people have questioned whether Apple made the right move, switching to Intel, but I think the issue is much bigger than clock speeds alone.

 

[Mikuro]

Well, if it were all about maximum power, then yes, I think Apple made the wrong move. The current Mac Pros are not faster than what the G5 probably would be now if it had continued to evolve. (Despite popular misconception, the G5 actually evolved quite quickly during its lifespan, at a faster rate than any of Intel's or AMDs chips of the time.) They're certainly not better enough to justify the switch.

But what about laptops? There wasn't even a hint of a low-power G5 until after Apple announced the switch. And the current Intel chips are faster than anyone could reasonably expect of an evolved G4.

Almost two years after the announcement, I have pretty much the same feeling as I had back then: It's all about the laptops. Apple sacrificed some desktop power for a lot of portable power. I can't say I really blame them.

 

[Captain Code]

Yeah, I still don't see any PPC laptop chips that compare to the Core 2 Duo. It would be interesting if Apple used the POWER6 in the XServes though.

 

[Lt Major Burns]

POWER6 is a huge-power chip, designed for clusters and servers. not the little man and a workstation. or portable.

and who's to say that IBM would want to invest their money making a PowerPC version of it? remember that the G5/PowerPC 970 was not derived from the POWER5, but from the POWER4.

the reason for the switch was not clock speeds. it was IBM's unwillingness to even show much of an interest in forwarding themselves in the consumer computer market.

the G5 cost IBM a lot of money to constantly research and develop. by comparison, the R+D stopped on their other business about a year ago: the chips destined for the PS3, Xbox360 and the Wii.

IBM basically stopped caring for apple, by the sounds of things. Intel shares a lot of the same interests, and i also don't think that the G5's would be faster than the Mac Pro's now - remember that in nearly two years, the top-level G5 only got speedbumped *twice*, once from 2.5ghz to 2.7ghz, and then from 2.7ghz back *down* to 2.5ghz, albeit dual-core. we would not be seeing much progress. the Core architecture is some of the most impressive seen in the industry for years... and even AMD are pretty much saying "christ, that's good".

 

[Qion]

This chip is impressive, no doubt about it. However, as was said before, it's not consumer-bound. We're talking servers.

We'll see what Intel does down the line. They've been extremely productive so far, haven't they?

 

[macwhiz]

Regarding whether Apple made the right move, switching to Intel.

I think Yes & NO. But they've done a great job by adapting Universal Binary standard, they can use powerful offerings from IBM, Intel & AMD, if they ever want, in their workstations & servers without any binary compatibility issues.

 

[chemistry_geek]

Given Apple's great talent for porting its code to other processor platforms, I think it would have been a better deal for the consumer for Apple to add Intel, not just switch from IBM PowerPC. This way the consumer could reap the benefits of whichever processor was king-of-the-hill either power-efficient or foot-stomping power, and thus incite competition between IBM and Intel in the same arena.

 

[Satcomer]

Well I can feel the heat already from this chip. Intel is mastering the lower heat but faster chip angle. I know my Dual G5 is a heat generating machine. I can't imagine the heat the will come with this new chip. Their past chips heat do not give me confidence in this new chip.

 

[symphonix]

On some sites, people have questioned whether Apple made the right move, switching to Intel, but I think the issue is much bigger than clock speeds alone.

Well, yes. Time to market, cost and production capacity are big issues too, and ultimately put an and to the G5 Mac line. But the thing most people forget is that this isn't entirely a no-going-back transition - *all* of Apple's current generation of code is Universal. I don't expect them to leave Intel in the foreseeable future, however they could quite easily release high-end XServes with PPC based chips without anyone even raising an eyebrow.