Talk:Power Architecture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Aggressive editing 1.1 Aggressive Whining 2 What is Power Architecture? 2.1 What different kinds of processors are based on the Power Architecture platform? 2.2 What machines are based on Power Architecture processors? 2.3 WoW Thats really impressive its taken you 15years to understand that the "POWER Architecture" is more than just the cpu

[edit] Aggressive editing

I feel that the editing that 68.15.20.63 has made are somewhat inappropriate and a tad agressive, especially the language and the attitude in the edit summaries. I invite him to discuss his editing here if he's got larger issues with the article. He obviously knows his stuff, and it would be great if he could contribute in a civilized manner but for now all I really want is to know the reasons and sources behind his edits since they contain information tha's not readily available. I want to edit his contributions, since I think they are part wrong, part off topic and part just bad writing, but I fear that I will get unfairly bashed for doing so. I've started a Power.org page that's more appropriate for infromation regarding how that organization is run and I hope that he'll contribute to it. If my wording comes across as biased due to me being a Mac user, I'm so very sorry.. That's certainly not my intention, and I applaud any correction in the right direction. It's really more the opposite since I feel that several PowerPC articles are influenced too much by Apple, like PowerPC G4 and PowerPC G3. Please: let's cooperate! -- Henriok 18:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

ok, i'll respond.

Great. I really appreciate it! -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 1. begins with "Power Architecture is a broad term to describe similar instruction sets for RISC m...." 90% inaccurate.

Care to elaborate? What exactly is inaccurate? How did you calculate that it was 90% inaccurate? Do you have any references to contradict what it says in the article? -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 2. begins with "The "Power Architecture" term sho....." 99.9999% inaccurate.

Care to elaborate? What exactly is inaccurate? How did you calculate that it was 99.9999% inaccurate? It's so extraordinarily wrong that I think that IBM and Freescale would be surprised by our calculation, their marketing have reflected excatly what the paragraph says since a couple of years. Do you have any references to contradict what it says in the article? It would also be interessting to know what's 0.0001% accurate. I might learn something. -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

paragraph 3. begins with "Power Architecture began its life at IBM i...." 45% inaccurate.

Care to elaborate? What exactly is inaccurate? How did you calculate that it was 45% inaccurate? -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 4. begins with "in 1992, Apple, Motorola and IBM formed the AIM alliance to develop a mass market version of the POWER pro...." 65% inaccurate.

Care to elaborate? Did they not form the alliance in 1992? Did they not specify the PowerPC specification? Did they not want to develop a mass market version of the POWER processor? Was the first implementation not the PowerPC 601? Was it not based on the RSC? Did it not end up in PowerMacs and RS/6000? I'm finding it very hard to believe that it is 65% inaccurate. Care to break it down for me? -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

paragraph 5. begins with "IBM expanded their POWER Architecture for the....." 10% inaccurate.

Ooooh.. only 10% inaccurate. I'm honored! How can I make it 0% inaccurate? You are so very precise in your calculations that it must be an easy task to point out exactly what's wrong, not just blurt out that something's wrong. -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

paragraph 6. begins with "In the early 1990s IBM sought to repl...." 75% inaccurate.

Amazing.. but I'm glad that some things are right. Care to elaborate what's wrong with it? It's 75% wrong so it can't be that hard. -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

paragraph 7. begins with "The AIM Alliance kept developing PowerPC in 1995 through 1997 and released the second generation PowerPC process..... 30% inaccurate.

I'm glad that this paragraph was relatively accurate. It is one of the longest. Care to elaborate on what's wrong with it? -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

paragraph 8. begins with "The last effort of the AIM Alliance w..." 20% inaccurate.

Again.. 20%.. I'm stating to belive that this is a good sign. It's better than 99.9999% inaccurate. but it's still one finth wrong. Care to help me get it right? -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

paragraph 9. begins with "In 1998 came POWER3 which unified the PowerPC and POWER2 ar......." 40% inaccurate.

40%. Pretty good, but almost half is wrong. It's a short paragraph and I really had hoped that my lies and my FUD could go unnoticed. Care to point out what it is about it to make it 40% inaccurate? -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

paragraph 10. begins with "2000 saw the last implementation of the Amaz....." 20% inaccurate.

Again.. pretty close, but no cigarr. I realy don't know what's wrong with it. I'm not trying to delude the public, I'm trying to write truthfully. Why is this 20% inaccurate? -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

paragraph 11. begins with "In 2001 IBM introduced the POWER4 which unified an....." 70% inaccurate.

This is amazing. Just one sentance, but it's 70% inaccurate. Did they not introduce POWER4 in 2001? Did it not include the instruction sets of POWER3 and Amazon? Wasn't the new instruction set calles PowerPC ISA 2.00? -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

paragraph 12. begins with "In 2002 Apple desperately need a ne...." 65% inaccurate.

OK.. Perhaps, Apple wasn't desperate.. it might be considered biased, and not NPOV. I don't think it was inaccurate though. And the other part of the paragraph is pretty accurate I think. Care to elaborate on what's wrong? -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

WOW! The 13th paragraph was the first that was absolutely 100% accurate! Amazing. It's 100% amazing that that paragraph was 100% accurate. Iäm personally not 100% satisfied with that sentance though.. Oh well. -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

paragraph 14. begins with "Culturecom lice...." 2% inaccurate.

Wow! This is really amazing. I almost got this one exactly right! 2% is almost negligible, but I aim high. I want it to be 100% accurate. What can be done to make it just perfect? just 2 measly percent left! Care to help me get it absolutely right? -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

paragraph 15. begins with "POWER5 from IBM, introduced in 2004, is an evo........" 65% inaccurate.

Oh damn.. now I got hit again. Doh! This paragraph is more inaccurate than it is accurate. Really now? What the h*ll is inaccurate in this paragraph? Can you please help me? Feels like my writing is some kind of russian roulette. -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

paragraph 16. begins with "AMCC buys IBM's 130nm fab, and lic......" 4% inaccurate.

Aah.. a paragraph you yorself wrote, and it's still inaccurate. And.. I really can't find anywhere, not in your extensive reference collection you provided, that AMCC bought IBM's 130 nm fab. And by they way.. Your edit broke the grammar in the sentance. I'm beginning to believe that you are just making the figures up. You can't actually be serious that this paragraph is only 4% inaccurate when paragraph 11 is 70% inaccurate. How did you calculate these numbers anyway? -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

paragraph 17. begins with "Power.org is founded in 2004 by IBM....." 2% inaccurate.

I was about to ignore this paragraph since it got such high grades, but then I readu it again an concluded that it was quite off topic. The date format is wrong, and the last sentance, though it is correct (by my standards), just don't make any sense. And the erference you gave doesn't back up your claims. -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

paragraph 18. begins with "In 2005 Apple announced that it's droppi......" why is this even here... 5% inaccurate.

No, actually. Paragraph 18 begins with: "involved in developing products revolving around the.." and it's what's left of your edit. I'd say that this paragraph is 100% inaccurate since it just doesn't make any sense any more.

You might mean paragraph 19.. While I can't find what's inaccurate about it since Apple DID announce that they were dropping PowerPC in 2005, and begun doing so in 2006. I might agree with you that it is off topic. However.. Since Apple was in the AIM alliance and they did contribute to the adoption and specification of a lot that's Power Architecture, and still sits on patents.. I think it's this paragraph is very relevant. For all I know, Apple is still holding PowerPC licenses and are still able to sell licenses and technology to whomever they please. This might be wrong though. It would be interessting in knowing for sure. -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 19. begins with "2005 also saw the specifications of the Cell processor,[3] jointly developed by IBM, Sony and Toshiba over a four ye...." 7% inaccurate.

I'm content by it being only 7% inaccurate, but I'm still curious of that I did wrong. Care to help me? -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

paragraph 20. begins with "P. A. Semi licenses PowerPC techno....." 20% inaccurate.

Even though I don't know what's wrong with it, I DO know that the date is right, and that they are going to build PWRFicient processors based on the PowerPC spec, using the license that they bought from IBM. So.. what's left? -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice that there are two paragraphs here that either went by unnoticed or are accurate. Great! However.. You leave the paragraph about Rapport without any objections, and still erase Rapport from corporations manufacturing Power Architecture processor. I find that curious. What gives? -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

paragraph 23. begins with "Power.org released the Power ISA version 2.03.[4] in Septem...." 10% inaccurate.

I'll just take your word for it. eerrr.. no! Care to provide some more specific arguments about what you believe is wrong? -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that the last three paragraphs did pass the scrutiny. And all the other parts. I'm glad. -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This list you provide doesn't help anyone, and the little help you did provide by editing the article just left it broken and polluted. I'm not trying to be stubborn here, but you aren't really helping. Those inaccuracy figures you have is hilarious, especially since you don't back them up, either with arguments or references. This is just hilarious. Care to be anything other than a troll and malcontent? I'm really trying to make a really good article here, and I really don't want to make it alone, and I really wan't to use accurate and reliable information. However.. This is not intended to be an end all, be all article about all things Power Architecture. Every scrap of information is not wanted and I think it's perfectly OK to cut some corners and condence a lot of boring nit picking to readable paragraphs. It's not about getting the whole truth, cause it's pretty large and it would ammount to books and books of information. I'm not the man to write the compelte book on Power Architecture. I'm satisfied just to write a decent article on wikipedia, a hub for further reading.. Perhaps beeing the one place on the Internet where you get a compelte overview of what's Power Architecture. That includes working on sub pages and it includes making additions to this page. Like.. I'm really cant define the technical specifications. What's the differnece between Power and MIPS, ARM and x86? Stuff like that. Theres really now place on the Internet that provides that information. Wikipedia should though but I'm not qualified. Care to help? -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aggressive Whining

Good to get this out in the open :) I like agressive whining, as long as all parts are living by the same rules. -- Henriok 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Who created the "POWER Architecture"? IBM..

I agree completely! That's why I'm desperately trying to keep "POWER architecture" and "Power Architecture" apart. This article is about the latter, and how it's used today. Today, Freescale, IBM and others are using the camel case "Power Achitecture" to denote PowerPC, POWER and Cell, while the all caps "POWER" is still IBMs sole responsibility. Just adding to the cunfusion. The history of Power Architecture must include the histories of POWER, PowerPC and Cell, but I see no point to delve deeper than I aldready did. If someone want the finer details in PowerPC, POWER and Cell, there are specific articles about that. The mission here is to establish a base of the what and why of Power Architecture. There's a separate article about "POWER architecture" where you probably have a lot of issues.. keep then there though. I'll merge all appropriate sections to this.-- Henriok 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What is PowerPC? it is a subset of POWER, or the 32-bit portions of the 64-bit POWER Architecture.

What PowerPC is isn't really a topic of this article, there's a separate PowerPC where this discussion is more appropriate. However.. I'm not sure that PowerPC is just a subset of POWER. There's some stuff from Motorola 88000 and some things uniquely PowerPC, especially when you include Book E, Altivec and stuff Motorola added like APUs. This is more true than ever since "Power ISA 2.03".

Does AIX run on PowerPC? No.

Well.. yes it does! It do run on PowerPC 604 and 970. They are not POWER, only PowerPC. But that's really not an issue for this article since it most certainly runs on "Power Architecture" -- Henriok 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

But what about AIX v3.??, it ran on the PowerPC 604? The 604 was the first to define the PowerPC ISA v1.{don't forget PowerPC means 32-bit}, which was incompatible with the 32-bit portion of POWER2, Now if your to consider the development cycle of POWER2 which started several years before the thought of PowerPC came to mind you might be able to understand why POWER2 was not 100% compatible with the PowerPC v1. ISA.

How many processors does IBM work on at a time, is it one or forty? Who knows. But IBM has always said even as early as just before the launch of POWER2 that they where currently working on POWER3 and POWER4. And from this we know they work on at least POWERn+1 and POWERn+2. So when IBM said that the "AMERICA Project" would be the platform that would replace there "AS/400 platform" and "System/390" it is evident in there commitment to POWER.

All very interessting! But an non issue of this article. This should be added to IBM POWER or PowerPC. And I mean this in the most positive respect. They shoud be added to their appropriate articles. I'm really not qualified to write that since all documentation is unavailabe to me, and it was so long ago that I wasn't interessted in this stuff then. I'm not sitting with first hand information from back then. -- Henriok 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Does OS/400 run on PowerPC? No.

No it doesn't, but it does run on Power Architecture, which is the topic of this article. -- Henriok 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

But what about OS/400-AIX on the PowerPC 620? First we know that PowerPC is a 32-bit arch(but 620 is 64-bit}, so the 620 was PowerPC compatible. And the 64-bit aspect of 620 was classified just in the same way as the [POWER Architecture, POWER3, POWER4] because it was being refined through various projects {PowerPC 620, POWER3, Apache, RS64, RS64II, RS64III, RS64IV, POWER4}. So you have to realize that OS/400 started on CISC and has been migrating to RISC {RSC-PowerPC620-Apache-RS64-RS64II-RS64II-RS64III-RS64IV-POWER4}

PowerPC 620 was NOT classified in the same way as POWER or RS64 class processors. 620 was jointly developed by the AIM alliance in Somerset, just as 601, 603 and 604 was, by Motorla (who manufactured some) and IBM. It was offered publicly and used by third parties, something that no POWER nor RS64 processor have been. AND.. PowerPC was a 32/64 bit architecture always. So says all documents that I've read and it's the official truth that's been communicated through the AIM-alliance since day one.

Does AIX run on POWER? yes.

Does OS/400 run on POWER? yes.{starting with POWER4}

Can any code compiled for POWER run on PowerPC? No.

Can any code compiled for PowerPC run on POWER? yes.{with the exception of POWER1}

Can any code compiled for Power run on POWER? Yes.

Can any code compiled for POWER run on Power? No.

what is the difference between PowerPC and Power? PowerPC is a 32-bit architecture and Power is a 64-bit architecture.

This is just wrong, or as you might call it, "100% inaccurate". POWER was a 32 bit architecture (before POWER3), and PowerPC is, and have always been 64 bit even if it wasn't implemented until 620. -- Henriok 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between Power and POWER? It similar to how PowerPC was defined, IBM said all code written to the PowerPC ISA v1. specification would be supported in future processors, so now IBM has release the Power ISA v2. Which means all code written to the Power ISA v2. specification will be supported in future POWERn processors.

How stable is the PowerPC ISA? very, there's been little change since being define almost 13 years ago.

How stable is the Power ISA? Even though the Power ISA is fairly new its been a work in progress at IBM for over 17 years thru research applied towards the "POWER Architecture"

How stable is the POWER ISA? POWER is volatile it may break compatibility from one generation to the next, yet IBM creates the tools to maintain code transportability. POWER has maintained the constant PowerPC ISA compatibility and now that IBM has defined the Power ISA as an open standard it's assumed that the Power ISA will be a constant within the POWER ISA.

When will System/390|zOS, run on POWER? Who know, but POWER5 incorporated field-gate-programable-logic. And zOS Systems use POWER5 processors alongside CISC. So we might see POWER6 taking on more responsibilities in zArchitecture.

Does IBM guaranty that code written to POWER will compile on PowerPC or Power? No.

Does IBM guaranty that code written to PowerPC will be compatible with future processors? Yes.

Very fascinating! And I'd VERY MUCH appreciate a sub section to this article which specifies the ins and outs of precicely this, what exacltly is Power Architecture from a technical standpoint. A description of the RISC arcitecture, and so one might separate it from similar description of ARM, Sparc, MIPS or x86 for that matter. But in a more narrative manner perhaps. -- Henriok 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Since 'PowerPC' means "Power Performance Computing" and all POWER processor are PowerPC compatible and POWER means Performance Optimization With Enhanced RISC and PowerPC are RISC processors optimized for performance, and PowerPC was enhanced with AltaVec Then aren't all PowerPC's enhanced RISC optimized for performance computing, and the distinction between PowerPC and POWER is trivial, and even Frank Solitis said "When is PowerPC not PowerPC" and did not mention POWER, so are POWER processors just ways for IBM to trick people in to thinking that by buying a POWER processor that has a few hundred-million more transistors then PowerPC that those extra few hundred-million transistors are there just to drive up the cost, and drive up the heat dissipation, and Power does this mean 'Performance optimization with enhanced risk' and does IBM just charge more because 'POWER' is in all CAPS. Or am i to believe that ever company who has a PowerPC license can make any processor which would be compatible with POWER, so the distinction between a Power license and a PowerPC license amounts to nothing more then less typing that i have to do, right? and if there compatible then there the same, almost. But more same then different, right. I'm right, right. Because nothing matters more to me then being right, right. If you don't think so then your not confused enough, let me go on. So IBM-Motorola-apple created PowerPC, and it matters not that engineers form Motorola-apple went to IBM's research campus, and the chief Architect for Somerset was an IBM Fellow. And it so much easier to call PowerPC a creation by IBM-Motorola-apple, and will totally disregard the idea that IBM was only to help Motorola with three designs {601,603,604}, and that Motorola-IBM got together again to work on the PowerPC 700 series, and we forgot just why they got together again, or did we. So from this we got AltaVec{and for those apple-user who didn't know what POWER was in 1996, its called VMX on this side of the fence}, but that doesn't matter it gave us a supercomputer on the desktop, and forever and ever apple injected into every mention of POWER. oh, to hell with all this PowerPC/Power/POWER/RS64/RSC/CELL crap lets just call them all GeMcPOWER, ok ;)

OMG, that's was an incoprehensible rant. Do you mind if I just ignore it? -- Henriok 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

umm, well if you keep using the wrong context your surly to burr the lines between fact and opinion.

Yeah.. as if your last blurb didn't blurr the lines enough. Is it OK that I just touch up the article to my standards ans disregard almost everything you've said since it doesn't contradict, clarify or add anything that was already written? -- Henriok 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is Power Architecture?

Ok.. the debate continues. Mr 68.15.20.63 seems to have quite a dim view of this. Let's hear what IBM have to say since they ought to know. Quote from ibm.com/power:

"About Power Architecture: It’s PowerPC, POWER4, POWER5."

–– Aha! Both POWER and PowerPC is Power Architecture.. who would have known? Wait! I want so learn more. Let's follow the link! Learn more

"Power Architecture™ technology is an instruction-set architecture that spans applications from consumer electronics to supercomputers. Power Architecture encompasses PowerPC®, POWER4™ and POWER5™ processors."

––Aha! There we have it again! Power Architecture is PowerPC AND POWER. Still not convinced? What about all the other POWER processors, and Cell? What about it? Let's continue digging. Let's follow the link New to Power Architecture technology. <-- Even Power.org links to this page.[1]

[edit] What different kinds of processors are based on the Power Architecture platform?

"Power Architecture family members are stealthy chips, and they like to go by many different names. They can be hard to keep track of because they don't all use the Power or PowerPC trademark." and "..the Cell Broadband Engine™ (Cell BE) processor (which is to power the upcoming Sony PlayStation 3.."' and "The chips in the POWER line are numbered 1 through 5, with POWER6™ anticipated somewhat soonish.".

––So.. Processors are called "Power" and "PowerPC". And "Cell Broadband Engine" and even POWER1 through POWER6, anticipated soonish. Check.. I've included all those in the Power Architecture.

[edit] What machines are based on Power Architecture processors?

"While the POWER line of chips is found only in high-performance servers and workstations from IBM, PowerPC chips are found in everything from embedded devices to supercomputers." and "Contrary to popular belief, IBM mainframes (or "System z™ ") are not based around Power Architecture technology."

––Well.. I did know the latter, and that's why you won't see any mentioning of z9 or Series z anywhere on Power Architecture pages on Wikipedia. There you have it! Power Architecture is PowerPC, it is POWER and it is Cell. Just as I write it, but not as 68.15.20.63 would want you to believe. Hey.. don't take my word for it, take IBM's. Wikipedia is not a place to do original work. Go to the sources. I think they know best. What do you think, Mr 68.15.20.63? -- Henriok 22:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WoW Thats really impressive its taken you 15years to understand that the "POWER Architecture" is more than just the cpu

first and foremost i'm not trying to prove anyone wrong, because that would be a wast of time{i've tried three years ago}, yet trying to enlighten you. So you will stop slandering "IBM" and the "POWER Architecture". I'll never understand how you equate 'based on' as 'equal too', continuously you try to muddy the waters of logic between POWER and PowerPC and also Power. Over and Over again the emphasis of the "AMERICA Project" is repeated, this is the platform that IBM will build there business upon, The "POWER Architecture". This is a perfect example of why the "IBM POWER" article needs to be in chronological order, so people can see for themselves how the "POWER architecture" has evolved/funded/enhanced. Through the partnerships with with IBM and these Companies{Motorala,Cisco,Xilix,Sony,Microsoft,Nentindo,etc..} for example IBM+MOTO=AltaVec/VMX,IBM+Ciso=7??NP/97?np,IBM+Sony=cell,IBM+Nentindo=VMX128,IBM+Xilix={programable logicTo POWER5/POWER6, etc. instead of having someone argue that PowerPC=POWER because they have no concern for the history, but would rather rewrite history every week to get more WikiPOINTS at the detriment of society. I suggest to all those apple users who knew nothing about POWER in 1993, only of PowerPC. Find material about POWER between the years 1988-1992{hardcover}, and also be mindful of the revision numbers if your reading redbook's because I've seen names change from one revision to another.