SSE2 is not comparable to altivec. Again, read the links I provided to see why. One of them is dedicated to the vertex processing abilities of the processors. Keep in mind that the benches linked to earlier are with an old 7 stage pipeline G4e with only PC133. They now have a faster system bus and ddr333 as well as an integrated chipset and 266mhz PCI bus with gigabit ethernet and firewire not sharing the PCI bus.
7757524 that still doesn't explain why 95% of the personal computer market is non mac based, you're talking about niche markets. what makes us pc users t-ed off is the fact that apple likes to make paritally false claims on performance of there systems. Why don't they show real word benchmarks, like anand does. and if apple is catering to niche markets then why are all their add campagne directed toward the unknowing public.
Ah, no, you still don't get it. The fact that they don't hold more than 5% of the market doesn't matter. As you said, it's a niche market. The market is audio professionals like me (see the other thread - most of us use macs) video editors, etc. Did you know that 8 out of every 10 Magazine was designed on a Mac? You don't understand the FSB either. Yes, it's a SDR bus BUT there are two buses. There are two processors in EACH AND EVERY NEW power mac. Each has a bus of 167 (exc bottom of the line) and DDR333. Each processor gets half of the memory bandwidth. Keep in mind that this is a workstation and in the applications it will be running, both processors will be used. True, the second processor will not be used for gaming. It's not a gaming box. For audio professionals doing 20 track recording at 24/96 the effeciencies of the PCI bus and removal of load on it are a godsend. You're looking at it like a standard PC and it's not. You just don't seem to understand what the architecture is aimed at.
but what i'm getting at is that apple is advertising it for the people who will not use it as a workstation
all they will see is wow 90% faster, which is what xeon was trying to get at, apple is as bad as some politicians
What makes you think they're marketing for people other than the niche market previously mentioned?! The first benchmark they list is photoshop! on their main techspecs followed by final cut pro here. Then they do benches for DVD encodinghere Then they talk about the software built in which makes mac great for this kind of thing here It actually seems pretty clear that they are targeting the creativity crowd. THe systems that are targeting home use are iMacs and they're awesome home systems. No fans=no noise which is great for bedrooms and dorm rooms and they're sleek. Some people are really vain.
ViRGE
Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
- Oct 9, 1999
- 31,516
- 167
- 106
Actually, no, we took a look at it, and it can't be done. There are some improvements going in to the P4 client code(I don't know if it uses SSE1/2 or not) which have boosted speed signifigantly. But then again, those numbers I gave you are based off of projections using the new client. The P4 will never beat the G4 for 1 simple reason, registers. The G4 uses a technique called "bitslicing" to handle RC5, while all x86 chips currently use the slower rotate technique. I don't remember the exact numbers, but the G4 has the extra 128bit General Purpose registers where it counts(32 I believe). Even using the SSE2 registers, the P4 still lacks the ability to bitslice RC5. Unless the Hammer can bitslice, the G4 will probably be the #1 chip for a long time to come.
That's correct, 32 128bit registers in altivec and 16 32bit store registers for them in addition to the registers in the RISC ISA. Can be verified with links provided to architectural comparison above.
Do you have a mac? Cuz when i get my p4 in a few weeks (getting paid ~$200 next week and the following weeks from new job so awaiting upgrade) ill do the Xbit labs photoshop benchmark with the stock 2.53Ghz i845G and 512MB PC2700. HERE is the test they did on the dual systems and its easy, if you know to click the right arrow at the bottom in photoshop to set the timings. And ill bench you against it, I dunno who will win but that is more of a realworld benchmark.
SSXeon
i would very much like to see the results of single 2.53 vs mac hyped up anything 
///EDIT\\\
If you do recording, the Sound Blaster Extigy is phenominal for recording, i do a lot of it with my guitar when im practicing riffs. 24bit 96khz is easy. Make sure you have USB 2.0 for it to run with other USB devices though, it uses about 3MB/sec during recording.
///EDIT\\\
If you do recording, the Sound Blaster Extigy is phenominal for recording, i do a lot of it with my guitar when im practicing riffs. 24bit 96khz is easy. Make sure you have USB 2.0 for it to run with other USB devices though, it uses about 3MB/sec during recording.
Uhhh...because there's two G4s versus a single P4?
If they want to proclaim that "megahertz alone is a poor indicator of performance," then perhaps they should at least be comparing two single processor systems or two duals.
Almost everyone knows that the audigy records in 16bit 44,100khz. It has 24 bit converters but what is being recorded is actually downsampled because of the DSP. THE AUDIGY DOES NOT RECORD IN 24BIT!!!!! I know it says it does and soundforge even thinks it does, but it doesn't. I record with a Echo Mia and a Delta 66. 20 Channel recording will easily flood the PCI buss at these levels. 3mb/sec is naive at best. The audigy really is a HORRIBLE card for recording. You might want to read this once the bandwidth limit has been lifted.
Hey all,
Its all a matter of what OS you truly believe in. Your not gonna run Mac OS X on a PC and your not gonna run Windows (without emulation) on a Mac.
I'm writing this on my 867MHz G4. I haven't even bothered to set up my AthlonXP box in my new place yet. Does my Athlon do somethings faster? Yes. Does my Apple? Yes. Are there compromises? Of course. Like, M$ Office is a great example. Does it load slightly faster on the PC? Of course. Do I prefer the interface and feel for the suite on OS X? Yes. I'm willing to give up that fraction of a second for something I like better.
I also have more faith in the Mac OS. I realize this debate is about hardware, but it never really is. Apple could come out with a 15MHz G5 next week, if it did everything I wanted it to, in a speed that justified my owning it, I'd buy it.
As for this line of G4s, this is the transition line, I believe. Remember, when Apple moved from G3 to G4, the first line of G4s weren't that great. No drastic clock advantages, etc. Why's DDR on this board? Because Apple's sick of people saying they want it, so they distributed it as a public beta for their next generation machine. Will the DDR speed things up somewhat? Possibly. I haven't tried one of the new G4s or XServes. Did Apple speed up their I/O, yes.
If you notice, Apple already has special savings promotions on these machines with purchase of monitor, I believe. That's a sure fire sign that Apple doesn't plan to have these machines around long. Considering Apple always has trouble with Motorola meeting their demand for high end G4 CPUs, it seems odd that Apple would be offering ALL dual machines. It seems as if Apple's trying to clear out all the G4 stock for something.
Large rumors are pointing at the new IBM PPC chip. That would be a great thing to see. The specs on it are almost identical to what Apple wanted to have in their "G5". Couple that with the hypertransport (500MHz) bus, IEEE 1394b (FireWire2), Gigabit Ethernet, and DDR and your looking at one extremely impressive machine.
These dual machines will be great for everyone running Mac OS X who wants a DP machine. $1699 isn't horrific for that DP 867 rig. Compared to what $1699 got you 3 weeks ago (single 800MHz, No DDR, No L3 chache), that's a steal. Mac OS X.2 is supposed to have a ton of new speed increases, especially for the DP line.
Steve Jobs is too smart to just randomly throw something out there. Say what you will about him and his past, but he returned to an Apple that was pretty much dead and brought it back. Does it control the market? Of course not. But you'd have to think Bill Gates would be seriously ticked if Apple ported OS X (which they'd never do).
Just my two cents.
Its all a matter of what OS you truly believe in. Your not gonna run Mac OS X on a PC and your not gonna run Windows (without emulation) on a Mac.
I'm writing this on my 867MHz G4. I haven't even bothered to set up my AthlonXP box in my new place yet. Does my Athlon do somethings faster? Yes. Does my Apple? Yes. Are there compromises? Of course. Like, M$ Office is a great example. Does it load slightly faster on the PC? Of course. Do I prefer the interface and feel for the suite on OS X? Yes. I'm willing to give up that fraction of a second for something I like better.
I also have more faith in the Mac OS. I realize this debate is about hardware, but it never really is. Apple could come out with a 15MHz G5 next week, if it did everything I wanted it to, in a speed that justified my owning it, I'd buy it.
As for this line of G4s, this is the transition line, I believe. Remember, when Apple moved from G3 to G4, the first line of G4s weren't that great. No drastic clock advantages, etc. Why's DDR on this board? Because Apple's sick of people saying they want it, so they distributed it as a public beta for their next generation machine. Will the DDR speed things up somewhat? Possibly. I haven't tried one of the new G4s or XServes. Did Apple speed up their I/O, yes.
If you notice, Apple already has special savings promotions on these machines with purchase of monitor, I believe. That's a sure fire sign that Apple doesn't plan to have these machines around long. Considering Apple always has trouble with Motorola meeting their demand for high end G4 CPUs, it seems odd that Apple would be offering ALL dual machines. It seems as if Apple's trying to clear out all the G4 stock for something.
Large rumors are pointing at the new IBM PPC chip. That would be a great thing to see. The specs on it are almost identical to what Apple wanted to have in their "G5". Couple that with the hypertransport (500MHz) bus, IEEE 1394b (FireWire2), Gigabit Ethernet, and DDR and your looking at one extremely impressive machine.
These dual machines will be great for everyone running Mac OS X who wants a DP machine. $1699 isn't horrific for that DP 867 rig. Compared to what $1699 got you 3 weeks ago (single 800MHz, No DDR, No L3 chache), that's a steal. Mac OS X.2 is supposed to have a ton of new speed increases, especially for the DP line.
Steve Jobs is too smart to just randomly throw something out there. Say what you will about him and his past, but he returned to an Apple that was pretty much dead and brought it back. Does it control the market? Of course not. But you'd have to think Bill Gates would be seriously ticked if Apple ported OS X (which they'd never do).
Just my two cents.
Their tests appear flawed. They are using processor intensive tests instead of memory bandwidth tests. The improvements in the new Macs are almost entirely memory and bus related, not processor. Here is a post from another discussion group of another test:
I too have run some benchmarks. I write computational physics codes (N-body problems) that are very sensitive to the overall throughput of memory. They can go hours (or days) without performing an I/O operation.
My codes also scale well with the number of processors. For instance, a problem with run 1.95+
times faster on two processors than one one. I've
also got Altivec and scalar codes to test with.
In my first quick test I benchmarked one of my codes
- my 667 Mhz G4 machines (PC133 memory) against the
new dual GHz machine (PC2700 DDR).
The results were slightly higher than 3 times faster.
That's almost perfectly linear - 2 processors, each 1000/667 faster.
I was happy with the 3X since it will serve me well but I would have like to see something closed to 3.5.
I plan to formally run all of my codes (including
ones that are virtually all Altivec instructions
with no I/O) and see what I can learn.
I also ran the HINT benchmark which is very memory sensitive (on the right for those familar with it).
Again I need to do some formal checking but the quick
check showed that memory performance was improved. It looked like about 20% but this needs to be verified.
I will be publishing the results at xlr8yourmac.com in the near future.
So here we can see that the new systems, when comparing memory/bus improvements, are 3x faster.
"So here we can see that the new systems, when comparing memory/bus improvements, are 3x faster."
Uhh..no. He's comparing the performance of a single 667 to a new dual 1GHz system. That's 2000MHz vs 667MHz which not coincidently is 3x the clock speed. Now read what he said:
"My codes also scale well with the number of processors. For instance, a problem with run 1.95+
times faster on two processors than one one."
So what's that about 5% boost in performance from the memory?
Uhh..no. He's comparing the performance of a single 667 to a new dual 1GHz system. That's 2000MHz vs 667MHz which not coincidently is 3x the clock speed. Now read what he said:
"My codes also scale well with the number of processors. For instance, a problem with run 1.95+
times faster on two processors than one one."
So what's that about 5% boost in performance from the memory?
Yeah, yeah. I spend all Sunday out in the sun and my reading comprehension skills go out the window. Still, it's an interesting analysis that isn't just a knee-jerk reaction to some numbers that someone posted on a site somewhere. (Unlike my reaction.
)For the record, I'm no Apple fan. I use their products and feel they have much to offer, but I've also been burned by them so many times that MS seems nice in comparison.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the new Dual 1Ghz machine only got 1MB of L3 cache and the old one has 2MB of L3? Couldn't that account for some disparity in the marks?
Quite right. Apple does this quite often. They "refresh" the lineup with new models that have higher processor clocks, but to make it cost effective they often go with a part that has some tradeoffs. The question in this case will be how much do people do that is processor-intensive vs. bandwidth intensive? Something like Photoshop is very processor intensive. Video though should benefit from more bandwidth (not that fast processors don't help it as well.)
Well, I got the opportunity to use the new DP 1GHz set up with OS X.2. Wow. That had some speed to it! I did a force quit on the finder, it restarted in under 1 second! It was almost instantaneous!
I didnt get to do a whole ton with it, but it looked quite speedy.
Mike D
I didnt get to do a whole ton with it, but it looked quite speedy.
Mike D
Ive heard the speed increase is even noticable on older g3 iBooks
Ill post a report when I get a copy....
Originally posted by: Go3iverson
Hey all,
Its all a matter of what OS you truly believe in. Your not gonna run Mac OS X on a PC and your not gonna run Windows (without emulation) on a Mac.
I'm writing this on my 867MHz G4. I haven't even bothered to set up my AthlonXP box in my new place yet. Does my Athlon do somethings faster? Yes. Does my Apple? Yes. Are there compromises? Of course. Like, M$ Office is a great example. Does it load slightly faster on the PC? Of course. Do I prefer the interface and feel for the suite on OS X? Yes. I'm willing to give up that fraction of a second for something I like better.
I also have more faith in the Mac OS. I realize this debate is about hardware, but it never really is. Apple could come out with a 15MHz G5 next week, if it did everything I wanted it to, in a speed that justified my owning it, I'd buy it.
As for this line of G4s, this is the transition line, I believe. Remember, when Apple moved from G3 to G4, the first line of G4s weren't that great. No drastic clock advantages, etc. Why's DDR on this board? Because Apple's sick of people saying they want it, so they distributed it as a public beta for their next generation machine. Will the DDR speed things up somewhat? Possibly. I haven't tried one of the new G4s or XServes. Did Apple speed up their I/O, yes.
If you notice, Apple already has special savings promotions on these machines with purchase of monitor, I believe. That's a sure fire sign that Apple doesn't plan to have these machines around long. Considering Apple always has trouble with Motorola meeting their demand for high end G4 CPUs, it seems odd that Apple would be offering ALL dual machines. It seems as if Apple's trying to clear out all the G4 stock for something.
Large rumors are pointing at the new IBM PPC chip. That would be a great thing to see. The specs on it are almost identical to what Apple wanted to have in their "G5". Couple that with the hypertransport (500MHz) bus, IEEE 1394b (FireWire2), Gigabit Ethernet, and DDR and your looking at one extremely impressive machine.
These dual machines will be great for everyone running Mac OS X who wants a DP machine. $1699 isn't horrific for that DP 867 rig. Compared to what $1699 got you 3 weeks ago (single 800MHz, No DDR, No L3 chache), that's a steal. Mac OS X.2 is supposed to have a ton of new speed increases, especially for the DP line.
Steve Jobs is too smart to just randomly throw something out there. Say what you will about him and his past, but he returned to an Apple that was pretty much dead and brought it back. Does it control the market? Of course not. But you'd have to think Bill Gates would be seriously ticked if Apple ported OS X (which they'd never do).
Just my two cents.
The 7470 should replace these aging 7455s. It should take advantage of the DDR without problems.
Apple will never switch to any procecssor based on x86, if they do, they lose atleast one customer.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter