[yo-mike]

Fixstars is offering YDL PowerStations featuring Quad-core 2.5GHz PowerPC processors.


-Mike

[teflon]

They've been selling that type of machine for yonks!
of particular interest is the Cell on an expansion card. Obviously you can't run PS3 games, but its still pretty nifty.

[Frost]

Been around a while, actually. It's basically a quad G5 like I've got, but Linux and non-Apple.

I like that they've got that new version of the Cell available on there too... the G5 line of PPCs with a Cell tacked on for AltiVec-style tasks would make a BEAST of a machine.

One thing of note is just how poorly Apple made use of their own hardware becoming apparent in the years after the switchover. Quad G5s running Linux were able to crack 76 gigaflops pretty easily, besting all of the pre-Nehalem Intel offerings. As I always say, PPC is a much better technology... that's with 2005 machines using hardware that had a tiny fraction of the R&D budget that Intel puts into x86.

Of course we won't even get into what Power hardware can do now that IBM unified POWER and PowerPC.

[teflon]

Fixstars have an interesting piece of software. A video encoder which can leverage a PS3 via gigabit ethernet.
Suffice it to say that the encode speeds are very fast at high bit rates. You can practically throw any bitrate you'd come across in real life at it and it'll take care of it no problem. The higher the bitrate the slower, but Ive read somewhere it can handle about 35Mbps encoding in near real time, and thats probably just the beginning... Now that there is hugely impressive as far as Im concerned. No wonder it kicks ass as a BluRay player...

The cheapest version is $200, though, so its not exactly cheap, and that is limited to 15Mbps video. The next step up is $2000.....
I just find it cool to see what the PS3 can do with the Cell processor. I remember when everyone was harping on that Apple should have waited for the Cell instead of going intel.

[Sneaky Snake]

I miss my "man's" computer. I owned the original dual 2.0 G5 when it was 1st released. Imagine what mac pros could be doing right now with dual Cell's

[Frost]

IMHO we'll probably be moving back to PPC in the future, though it won't be for a while yet. A few leaked internal IBM documents on "Quasar" suggest IBM's project is essentially trying to unify straight up PowerPC with the Cell, and then integrate photonic signaling rather than electronic as is the case now, which would mean a pretty amazing leap in heat generation (almost none) and speed.

If they pull that off, that chip is going to be like the Enterprise next to a bunch of Apollo capsules. Wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of switchover starts occurring in the computer market the way Power has taken over the embedded, console, and server markets. I think that might be what IBM has in mind too, with purchasing Transitive. From what I've heard PowerVM emulates x86 code on the POWER7s extremely smoothly now.

[alldaveallen]

Frost, on August 21st 2009, 03:06 PM, said:

IMHO we'll probably be moving back to PPC in the future, though it won't be for a while yet. A few leaked internal IBM documents on "Quasar" suggest IBM's project is essentially trying to unify straight up PowerPC with the Cell, and then integrate photonic signaling rather than electronic as is the case now, which would mean a pretty amazing leap in heat generation (almost none) and speed.

If they pull that off, that chip is going to be like the Enterprise next to a bunch of Apollo capsules. Wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of switchover starts occurring in the computer market the way Power has taken over the embedded, console, and server markets. I think that might be what IBM has in mind too, with purchasing Transitive. From what I've heard PowerVM emulates x86 code on the POWER7s extremely smoothly now.

Parts of that looked like English.

[the Battle Cat]

alldaveallen, on September 8th 2009, 03:47 PM, said:

Parts of that looked like English.

Technobabble is based on English you know. I was able to identify a number of words.

[alldaveallen]

the Battle Cat, on September 8th 2009, 04:50 PM, said:

Technobabble is based on English you know. I was able to identify a number of words.

ICBM we'll probably be moving back to BFG in the future, though it won't be for a while yet. A few leaked internal SMERSH documents on "Pulsar, the Ultimate man of Adventure" suggest KGB's project is essentially trying to unify straight up MILF with the Comintern, and then integrate phased-plasma signaling rather than electronic as is the case now, which would mean a pretty amazing leap in tribble generation (almost none) and speed.

If they pull that off, that chip is going to be like Maskatron next to a bunch of Venus Probes. Wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of Flashpots start going off in the heavy-metal club scene the way Whitesnake has taken over the undead, congo, and succubus markets. I think that might be what IMF has in mind too, with purchasing Metallica. From what I've heard Megadeth emulates Anthrax code on the Slayer extremely smoothly now.

Now it closely matches my constant internal mishmash of spy fiction, video games, toys I had when i was a kid, metal bands from high school, and horror lingo. Makes a lot more sense to me.

[yo-mike]

Since Apple bought PPC PA Semi over a year ago, there's no telling what things we may see in the future.
Though there's some good threads on the topic that possibly shed some light on it.

-Mike

[teflon]

Well, Apple are doing pretty well since the intel switch, so I doubt we'll be seeing PPC, let alone custom designed PPC chips in Macs any time soon (if ever).
iPhones are quite happy running ARM based CPUs at the moment, and switching would require rewrites of all 65,000 apps in the store...
iPods are quite happy with their limited functionality. The addition of cameras later today could be something indicative of a CPU change.

Basically, everything is currently seemingly set in its own routine.
Except for the standard iPods and..... Apple TVs.
ATVs are due a big overhaul, with support up to 1080p being the main big feature that they need. Now Apple might as well grab some off the shelf parts again, since things like the WD TV can handle 1080p with absolutely no problems. But Apple might want to try out their new chip designers on a 'hobby' before taking them mainstream... And good performing low power chips are exactly what the ATV needs.

[Dark_Archon]

Frost, on August 21st 2009, 06:06 PM, said:

IMHO we'll probably be moving back to PPC in the future, though it won't be for a while yet. A few leaked internal IBM documents on "Quasar" suggest IBM's project is essentially trying to unify straight up PowerPC with the Cell, and then integrate photonic signaling rather than electronic as is the case now, which would mean a pretty amazing leap in heat generation (almost none) and speed.

If they pull that off, that chip is going to be like the Enterprise next to a bunch of Apollo capsules. Wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of switchover starts occurring in the computer market the way Power has taken over the embedded, console, and server markets. I think that might be what IBM has in mind too, with purchasing Transitive. From what I've heard PowerVM emulates x86 code on the POWER7s extremely smoothly now.

One of my professors does work with silicon waveguides. We are still very far away from on-chip optical signal transport.

PowerPC isn't coming back to the desktop. IBM's POWER chips are very large, very expensive, very high power chips, and the money just isn't there for them to make a desktop version. The Cell processor looks great on paper, but the fact of the matter is that most code doesn't lend itself well to parallelizations. If the tasks need to be arranged serially, (i.e. result from one task is the input from next task), adding more cores won't speed it up.

[PeopleLikeFrank]

I'm a little curious why it would mean an automatic return to the PowerPC anyway. Intel is working on asymmetric multi-core chips and optical/silicon hybrids as well. AMD has been talking the same way, at least about integrating different processing cores on one chip. Unless IBM is somehow way ahead in developing this stuff (and I doubt Intel, at least, would be that far behind), why should we bother going through the architecture switch once again?