XCPU2 @ 90nm?

Z

zurich

Kendoka
Veteran
TR regular Thresher was the first to point out that Apple's new Xserve G5 systems use 0.09-micron G5 chips from IBM. G5-powered Xserves can be ordered now, which means Apple could be the first manufacturer to ship systems with chips fabricated using 0.09-micron process technology. Of course, IBM really deserves the credit for G5 fabrication, but since the company's own servers use PowerPC 970 processors at only 1.6GHz, it looks like Apple will be the first to bring 0.09-micron to market.
It's encouraging to see that IBM's 0.09-micron fabrication tech is good enough to churn out 2GHz G5s for Apple's Xserve systems, especially considering the cooling challenges presented by 1U chassis. With 0.09-micron G5 production on track, it's probably only a matter of time before Apple brings the G5 to its PowerBook notebook line and starts turning up the clock speed of its PowerMac "desktop" systems. Only time will tell whether Steve Jobs' assertion that G5s will be running at 3GHz this summer was too optimistic, but I doubt the G5s will stagnate at 2GHz for long.
Click to expand...

http://www.techreport.com/onearticle.x/6077

This is ofcourse assuming the XB2 uses a PPC970 (or derivative).
 
Qroach said:
He did say "ship" and "first to market" Vince. PS3 won't be here (north america) until 2006.
Click to expand...

I think that Vince meant that the PSX is already shipping with EE+GS@90nm..
 
He did say "ship" and "first to market" Vince.
Click to expand...
Did he also say travel back in time?
IIRC SCPH-50000 units have been selling in US for a few months now and they were the first models to use 90nm EEGS.

And what Zurich said about PSX :)
 
Well the PSX won't be out here before Apple delivers the Xserve, but yes the SCPH-50000 has been here for a while already. ^_^
 
I think when he says "first to market" he's talking about the market G5 sells in. After all, there are RAM and FPGA chips at 90nm for a long time now, which is no secret.
 
The title of this thread is highly misleading. I really don't see how this relates to the XCPU beyond heavy speculation. All we can do is assume that MS will use the most updated manufacturing process from IBM at the time, what architecture it uses is still not announced as far as I know.
 
Sonic said:
The title of this thread is highly misleading. I really don't see how this relates to the XCPU beyond heavy speculation. All we can do is assume that MS will use the most updated manufacturing process from IBM at the time, what architecture it uses is still not announced as far as I know.
Click to expand...

Sonic,

I think its relevant because IBM has clearly already shrunk the PPC 970 to 90nm. As we all know, die shrinks aren't easy. By 2005, a 90nm PPC 970 will be within MS's price range (perhaps). This would not happen if the shrink had not occured until late 2004, perhaps.
 
Was there any doubt that if MS wanted to be competitive with a .65nm chip (the BE), they would have to at least have a .90nm chip?

And anyway, does anyone have any doubt that something coming out in 2006 will be smaller than 10nm?
 
I've always truly s*cked at unit conversions, but I've since now thought that 0.65 µm (micrometer) is same as 65 nm (nanometer).

Were the PS2 chips manufactured in 1.85 µm ?
Edit: I found the answer, they were manufactured at 0.18 µm... now how many nanometers is that (math is not my strongest ability :oops: ????)
 
rabidrabbit said:
I've always truly s*cked at unit conversions, but I've since now thought that 0.65 µm (micrometer) is same as 65 nm (nanometer).

Were the PS2 chips manufactured in 1.85 µm ?
Click to expand...


Yeah i'm not too sure about conversions either :oops:

The first EE and GS batch i believe were on a huge and hot .25micron (or whatever size it is, i know it's 25 or 23) while by comparison it is now fabricated as a EE+GS on-a-chip at .09micron (90nm)...

I'm sure my numbers are completely off...
 
I know the EE at least (not sure about the GS) started off at .25micron then passed to .18 and are now at .09 unless i dreamt of it...
 
Indeed so many new processes available to gpu companies... since the ps2 launched and prior to the likely launch of ps3....

.18, .15, .13...

next time it likely could be...

45nm in late 2007 to sometime in 2008(optimistic scenario)... add 1 or 2 years for proper software support.... ;)
 
...

What we do know about XCPU2.

1. MS licensed the processor architecture.
2. MS has not licensed the production. MS may choose any fab it wants to make the chip.
3. XCPU2 is supposed to be some kind of Power5 derivative, Power5- or PPC980, I am not sure. I am leaning toward cacheless Power5- because MS would make no use of Altivec, while dual core would be a great plus.
 
I'm a bit more curious as to where they're going with the GPU. TSMC and UMC are going to be late on 90nm (which I imagine translates to late on 65nm as well if they're not really getting into any 90nm volumes until 2005), so where's it going to end up? It would make the most sense to go with IBM, but now I'm just wondering what their fabbing capacity IS in those areas! Hehe... They've brought on a lot more projects because of their strengths down there... (And would Intel even be an option for anything, since the Xbox2 has moved away from a Pentium core and their other associated chips?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
SCE building PS3/Cell-based cluster with Terra Soft; Yellow Dog Linux distro on Cell
2
Replies
26
Views
6K
mckmas8808
M
O
Xbox team joins Virtual PC development
Replies
6
Views
2K
pc999
P
M
Inq article on Xbox 2...old but good
Replies
2
Views
1K
cthellis42
C
H
IBM backstabbing sony and neglected Apple ? (long read)
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
44K
Fox5
F
M
partly ot: Apple to use Cell? Cell PCs?
2 3
Replies
49
Views
6K
London Geezer
L
Back
Top