IBM's hybrid CPU--do you need it?

The announcement has all of the makings of something incredibly significant, despite most folks thinking it's simply a way for Apple to get a faster CPU. But is it?

Here's the deal: The PowerPC 970 will run at 1.8GHz when it's released next year and will probably ramp up to 3GHz soon afterwards. Even at the lower number, it's a potent package because it uses IBM's Power4 "shared core" technology that produces two virtual CPUs on one die. While it won't have a 1.8GHz processor tooling along at a relative 3.6GHz speed, it will make that CPU faster than anything on the market in its class. When the processor hits 3GHz, it will make quite a bit of equipment in the low and mid-range space obsolete.

More to the point, however, the PowerPC 970 is a 32/64-bit CPU. "While supporting 64-bit computing for emerging applications," the last paragraph of the press release states, "the PowerPC 970 also provides native support for traditional 32-bit applications, which can help preserve users' and developers' software investments." That kind of pandering to TCO will always raise an eyebrow. Consider as well: "The design also supports symmetric multi-processing (SMP)," the press release continues, "allowing systems to be created that link multiple processors to work in tandem for additional processing power." Now you have ROI added to the pot. Powerful arguments, each. So why does the PowerPC 970 appear to be a non-issue? Admittedly, I'm borrowing some core logic from an unmentionable source but, once applied, it appears rather credible: The truth is, who cares?

At best, a combo 32/64-bit system is optimally applied to a transitional environment in which you're moving from one platform to the other and want to lose as little functionality as possible in the transition. Is there such a beast? Existing 64-bit applications are already pretty much set in stone. Those who are not already running 64-bit operations have made a conscious decision that 32-bit equipment will suffice. And make no mistake, the majority of these decisions are application-based, not hardware-based. When 32-bit apps migrate to the 64-bit plateau they'll need 64-bit capable hardware. Would you run two versions of the same software at the same time, on the same server?

What will it take to change the scenery? Simple: better performance within the existing application suites, for a start. If the boyz in the silicon 'hood can demonstrate that an application (32-bit or 64-bit) will run better on new hardware than it's running now on existing equipment, someone will immediately become salesperson of the month. To date, however, neither the Opteron nor the PowerPC 970 can do that. (Difficult task to accomplish, really, when neither exists in reality.) In fact, only Intel's Itanium 2 has come close. And while we've all been concerned about the massive work needed to convert to 64-bit apps for Itanium, a little research might reveal that about 90 percent of that work has already been done as of the arrival of the Itanium 2.

So, while the PowerPC 970 could do a world of good for Apple (especially for the Xserve), Intel already has the 64-bit side covered with Itanium 2--and could very well nudge the low-to-midrange 32-bit market with its soon-to-arrive Hyperthreading Pentium 4s. Should someone come up with the ability to mix 32-bit CPU partitions and 64-bit CPU partitions in a single box, it could make both IBM's and AMD's split-personality CPU environments nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Intel's "What, me worry," attitude could well be justified.

Is your company considering dual 32-/64-bit processors as part of its migration plan to 64-bit computing? TalkBack below or e-mail us with your thoughts.