more on Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips | CNET News.com

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Newmedia () aol com
Date: June 5, 2005 2:47:29 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: shap () eros-os org
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips |  
CNET News.com


Jonathan:

> One reason for this is that Sun's attempts to develop high
> performance SPARC chips have failed.

Just as Intel is now switching to dual-core (to be followed by quad,  
etc.), 64-bits, encryption (LeGrande), virtualization (Vanderpool),  
imbedded management and so one -- they call it *Technology, the rest  
of us might simply call it "architecture" -- since the Megahertz Race  
has slowed due to heat/power problems at 90/65nm (and Itanium has  
been niched at the high-end) . . . so one should expect IBM, Sun, AMD  
and others to turn to more sophisticated system design features also.

Since annoucing their division of labor with Fujitsu earlier this  
year, Sun's design efforts for SPARC are almost entirely focussed on  
CMT (Chip-level Multi-Threading.)   The upcoming "Niagra" design --  
with parts that are regularly flashed around at Sun meetings -- will  
handle 4 threads per core and sport 8 cores per die.  32 threads per  
chip clearly isn't intended to win at SpecInt benchmarks.  Mips isn't  
the goal of this design . . . obviously.

What Sun (and many others like Azul Systems, etc) have begun to  
tackle is the fact that many widely differing workloads are starting  
to congeal out of the "Network Computing" cloud and that it probably  
makes sense to build machines that can specialize on one or another  
group of these workloads.  Hey, we've got plenty of transitors to  
throw around so why not?

Today none of this can be done with AMD64s . . . or any other  
"standard" microprocessor.  This is also, by the way, one of the  
reasons why Sony and Microsoft are using custom designs for their  
next-generation game consoles.  If you know your workload, then you  
probably don't want a standard part -- or so the logic goes.

Will the next generation "K-10" AMD parts -- now being designed by  
Charles Moore, ex-IBM architect of the Power 4 -- be able to handle  
this level of systems "customization"?  Will Andy Bectholsheim be  
able to build "structured ASICs" that incorporate AMD64 cores the way  
that Apple, Sony and Microsoft can now do this with PowerPC cores?   
Will Transitive's emulation technology adequately bridge from SPARC  
to x86?

My guess is that analysts and investors -- as well as customers --  
will have plenty of exciting new systems technologies to talk about  
over the next 4-5 years . . . which is what makes all this  
interesting for me.

Best,

Mark Stahlman
New York City



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/