Poster | Thread |
BigD
| |
IBM paying to get rid of their Chip Fab business! Posted on 20-Oct-2014 19:50:24
| | [ #1 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 11-Aug-2005 Posts: 7305
From: UK | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
BigD
| |
Re: IBM paying to get rid of their Chip Fab business! Posted on 20-Oct-2014 19:54:52
| | [ #2 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 11-Aug-2005 Posts: 7305
From: UK | | |
|
| @Thread
I guess not:
IBM News Room - GlobalFoundaries ownership of fabrication facilities
Quote:
GLOBALFOUNDRIES will also become IBM's exclusive server processor semiconductor technology provider for 22 nanometer (nm), 14nm and 10nm semiconductors for the next 10 years.... ...The Agreement, once closed, enables IBM to further focus on fundamental semiconductor research and the development of future cloud, mobile, big data analytics, and secure transaction-optimized systems. IBM continues its previously announced $3 billion investment over five years for semiconductor technology research to lead in the next generation of computing. |
_________________ "Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art." John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
BigD
| |
Re: IBM paying to get rid of their Chip Fab business! Posted on 20-Oct-2014 19:58:32
| | [ #3 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 11-Aug-2005 Posts: 7305
From: UK | | |
|
| @Thread
Phew!! That got me worried!
It's a shame that no new PPC or Cell IBM based desktop CPUs are likely to come our way at reasonable prices Can't see how IBM can ever compete with Intel head to head again without its own fabs Last edited by BigD on 20-Oct-2014 at 07:58 PM.
_________________ "Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art." John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
minator
| |
Re: IBM paying to get rid of their Chip Fab business! Posted on 20-Oct-2014 22:34:04
| | [ #4 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 23-Mar-2004 Posts: 989
From: Cambridge | | |
|
| @BigD
Quote:
Can't see how IBM can ever compete with Intel head to head again without its own fabs |
All but one of Intel's competitors are fabless, doesn't hurt them.
_________________ Whyzzat? |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
itix
| |
Re: IBM paying to get rid of their Chip Fab business! Posted on 21-Oct-2014 3:39:23
| | [ #5 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 22-Dec-2004 Posts: 3398
From: Freedom world | | |
|
| @BigD
You are slow. It was already discussed here. _________________ Amiga Developer Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
KimmoK
| |
Re: IBM paying to get rid of their Chip Fab business! Posted on 21-Oct-2014 7:47:44
| | [ #6 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 14-Mar-2003 Posts: 5211
From: Ylikiiminki, Finland | | |
|
| @BigD
>no new PPC ... desktop CPUs are likely to come our way at reasonable prices
The cheapest Intel chip from local shop might be Intel Core i5 3570K 3.4 GHz 242,90 €
And PowerPC prices from freescale: T1042 USD65...USD80 T2081 USD130 T2080 USD142 (+ TAX)
So, PowerPC is not expensive. (only "problem" is that they are not as powerfull as intel) Last edited by KimmoK on 21-Oct-2014 at 07:48 AM.
_________________ - KimmoK // For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA // // Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer? |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Rob
| |
Re: IBM paying to get rid of their Chip Fab business! Posted on 21-Oct-2014 12:48:58
| | [ #7 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 20-Mar-2003 Posts: 6344
From: S.Wales | | |
|
| @KimmoK
Intel have cheaper ranges, i3 and Pentium branded stuff etc.
Problem with PPC is that nobody is producing hardware suitable for desktop purposes in volume. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
KimmoK
| |
Re: IBM paying to get rid of their Chip Fab business! Posted on 21-Oct-2014 13:37:31
| | [ #8 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 14-Mar-2003 Posts: 5211
From: Ylikiiminki, Finland | | |
|
| @Rob
Had to re-check. The cheapest intel on local shop is Intel Celeron G1610 2.60 GHz 40eur (motherboard for that is 70eur)
Anyway, my point for BigD was/is remains the CPU price does not make PowerPC devices expensive.
Amiga niche devices become expensive when one tries to cover R&D cost with small sales + small production runs.
(wish we had hobbytime + strength to design open source PPC board, so that we can get affordable HW to gain little more PowerPC users, a possible baby step towards better future.) _________________ - KimmoK // For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA // // Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer? |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Hypex
| |
Re: IBM paying to get rid of their Chip Fab business! Posted on 22-Oct-2014 13:25:11
| | [ #9 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 6-May-2007 Posts: 11180
From: Greensborough, Australia | | |
|
| @KimmoK
So by comparison how many cores and what speed do the PPC chips have? Yes I could look it up but you know the source. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
KimmoK
| |
Re: IBM paying to get rid of their Chip Fab business! Posted on 23-Oct-2014 6:21:40
| | [ #10 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 14-Mar-2003 Posts: 5211
From: Ylikiiminki, Finland | | |
|
| @Hypex
Out of my head: T1042 Four 64bit e5500 cores @ 1.4Ghz (3MIPS/Mhz/core) T208x Four 64bit e6500 cores / 8 virtual cores @ 1.8Ghz (3MIPS/Mhz/virtual core, 4*Altivec) ... T4240 Twelve e6500 cores @ 1.8Ghz (24 virtual cores, etc...) around 550USD + tax
(for rough comparissons -PA6T has 2 cores @ 1.8Ghz, 2.2MIPS/Mhz/core, 2*Altivec -Cyrus+ with P5020 has same e5500 core as T1042, but a higher clock frequency)
UPDATE: When considering system or motherboard price: -southbridge was mandatory for nemo board, not so for more modern PPC SoC chips, makes board design a little simpler, components and production a little cheaper -with T1042 one might be able to use the chip even without separate GPU for some basic stuff, like on a tablet to get 1280x720 resolution without 3D acceleration or on a multimedia information kiosk system
UPDATE2: My main work task now is to do tests according to Intel plan for a 1.3Ghz (turbo 1.8Ghz, 4cores) based system, the speed is enough for almost every app that I've used. (for some slower apps, you can find faster app instead, like here maps instead of google maps) So, 1.4Ghz should be ok for Amiga low end (IMnsHO). (especially if multicores are unleashed one day) Last edited by KimmoK on 24-Oct-2014 at 06:36 AM. Last edited by KimmoK on 23-Oct-2014 at 11:35 AM. Last edited by KimmoK on 23-Oct-2014 at 11:33 AM. Last edited by KimmoK on 23-Oct-2014 at 06:26 AM. Last edited by KimmoK on 23-Oct-2014 at 06:25 AM.
_________________ - KimmoK // For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA // // Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer? |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Chuckt
| |
Re: IBM paying to get rid of their Chip Fab business! Posted on 23-Oct-2014 12:50:57
| | [ #11 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 22-Feb-2008 Posts: 445
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @BigD
Quote:
It is all about money these days.
I believe it effects their credibility because they're in the business and not really wanting to be in the business.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
billt
| |
Re: IBM paying to get rid of their Chip Fab business! Posted on 24-Oct-2014 5:52:56
| | [ #12 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 24-Oct-2003 Posts: 3205
From: Maryland, USA | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
Hypex
| |
Re: IBM paying to get rid of their Chip Fab business! Posted on 24-Oct-2014 14:10:42
| | [ #13 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 6-May-2007 Posts: 11180
From: Greensborough, Australia | | |
|
| @KimmoK
Thanks for the info. Some of those pros are looking good! Provided you can split up your running programs into threads.
Looks like we need the e6500 cores with AltiVec. For no other reason.
I wonder what is meant by virtual cores? Is this Power speak for hyper-threading? |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
cdimauro
| |
Re: IBM paying to get rid of their Chip Fab business! Posted on 25-Oct-2014 7:19:45
| | [ #14 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 29-Oct-2012 Posts: 3619
From: Germany | | |
|
| @billt
Quote:
Does it prevents IBM to sell his fabs? Couldn't the government simply make a deal with a national vendor which has fabs?
@KimmoK: there are complete x86 systems with less than $99.
Anyway, can you explain me how a processor that can decode and retire only 2 instruction per clock cycle make 3MIPS/Mhz?
IMO it's better to wait and see some benchmark with real-world applications. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
billt
| |
Re: IBM paying to get rid of their Chip Fab business! Posted on 25-Oct-2014 8:01:29
| | [ #15 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 24-Oct-2003 Posts: 3205
From: Maryland, USA | | |
|
| @cdimauro
Quote:
Does it prevents IBM to sell his fabs? Couldn't the government simply make a deal with a national vendor which has fabs? |
It can possibly halt the sale.
There are some picky things when you look at military/defense or other sensitive things. ITAR does n otallo wme to take data out of th ecountry, or show it to a foreighner while they are visiting in USA. If the whole thing is owned by Abu Dabbi (sp?) then that is a problem for such categories of things. Classified things, ITAR things, defense/military things, etc.
It is not trivial to change to a different domestic fab. You design to a process, and thus someone else needs to have the exact same process. (only very miniscule variations to stay compatible) Fabs are not often in the habit of making sure that other fabs can make the same stuff, and it is quite an effort and expense to start your design over, verify, qualify, test, and get to production on a different process. It is possible that DOD says no they don't want to have to do that.
And it can be quite an ordeal to get a foreign located or foreign owned thing qualified as permitted to make such sensitive things, even with friendly countries/allies.
_________________ All glory to the Hypnotoad! |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
cdimauro
| |
Re: IBM paying to get rid of their Chip Fab business! Posted on 25-Oct-2014 18:57:18
| | [ #16 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 29-Oct-2012 Posts: 3619
From: Germany | | |
|
| @billt: I understand those problematics, but IBM is a private company, which is trying to sell a division that causes (big) losses. If the government is interested in keeping the fab owned by an US company, it can cover the losses with fresh money, and maybe buying the fab. If not, IBM can decide to split the fab division, creating an ad-hoc society, and let it go in bankrupt: problem solved, but many families will be put on the road. Certainly the government cannot force IBM in continuing losing private, and not public, money. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|