or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › MacBidouille posts PPC 970 benchmarks
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MacBidouille posts PPC 970 benchmarks

post #1 of 666
Thread Starter 
From http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcon...date=2003-05-5 . They offer their own English translation which I've transcribed below. Also, there are a few speed comparison charts at the site I did not post below (to save on loading times); just click the link above to see them.

Quote:
By reading these benchmarks you'll understand that we couldn't publish them before.
Now we know that PM G4 sells are stuck at a very low level, the following test results won't have much incidence. It will however make the ones switching to PC wait for the next generation of Power Macs.

The first benchmarks were done during March 2003 on a preview model running at 1.4 GHz. OS was an alpha version 7B5 and 7B8 of Panther, optimised for 64 bits processor, but the applications tested were only using 32 bits.

Photoshop : PPC 970 mono 1.4 is 87% faster than a Dual 1.42 GHz Final Cut Pro : PPC 970 mono 1.4 is 112% faster than a Dual 1.42 GHz Alias|Wavefront Maya Render : PPC 970 mono 1.4 is 254% faster than a Dual 1.42 GHz.

The second series of benchmarks were done on the same computers that will be sold. There is however a doubt on the presence of the up-market dual 2.0 GHz as the availability of these chips isn't sure. It seems Apple will surely be able to sell Mono 1.4 GHz, Dual 1.6 and Dual 1.8.

The result is that the G4 compared to the PPC 970 is now a secretary computer.

A few explanations to the results:
- The Altivec shows a 80% increase of performances with the 970. This is not due to the chip itself, but to the high speed access between processor and central memory. The Mach 64 motherboard is highly optimised for the use of DDR-SDRAM.
- There is no performance loss when the PPC 970 executes some 32 bits apps.
- The motherboard optimization almost allows dual processors to reach double performance. In fact it's about 90% efficiency gained with the second processor, compared to 50% for the G4.

Looking closely to these results we understand why Apple didn't need to wait for a 64 bits OS to launch the PPC 970. We'll take advantage of a 50% gain of performance between he up-market Pro G4 and the first PPC 970. We can imagine the difference with the top level PPC 970. It will be the best evolution ever between two Mac generations.

Mac fans, our wait will be rewarded. The fight is over and Apple will soon rule the world!

Mods: If this is a duplicate post, feel free to delete/lock.
post #2 of 666
Too many threads with the same material!

It's a good thing its good material!

*runs with glee whilst tearing hair from head*
Ceci n'est pas une pomme. Magritte
Reply
Ceci n'est pas une pomme. Magritte
Reply
post #3 of 666
I'm...still...in...shock...

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #4 of 666
Well, if this is true then fantastic! My primary machine can once again become a Mac. I'm thinking a dual 1.6 with a SuperDrive might just be the ticket!

I wonder what the DVD MPEG-2 encoding speed will be on the new machines (I haven't checked mb.com so if it's there, I apologize) ...

-J
They say that if you play a Windows Install CD backwords, you hear satanic messages. That's nothing; play it forward and it installs Windows.
-TBobMac
Reply
They say that if you play a Windows Install CD backwords, you hear satanic messages. That's nothing; play it forward and it installs Windows.
-TBobMac
Reply
post #5 of 666
I'm so happy my bum is smiling!

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #6 of 666
AFAIK, Bryce 5 doesn't support Multiprocessing... F A K E \
Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
Reply
Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
Reply
post #7 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Fat Freddy
AFAIK, Bryce 5 doesn't support Multiprocessing... F A K E \

Exactly what I spotted too!

The numbers for the G4 and P4 is the exact same as barefeats got, which isn't too bad for the G4 IMHO (but more suspicious, since I doubt macbidouille benchmarks the same way as barefeats). Either I'm overlooking something here, or the DP1.8-number is a clear fake. Which of course makes all of the other benchies just as fake (why fake numbers when you don't need to?) :/

Anyways, I just want to say that these benchmark results are about what I'd expect from a PPC970-mac, I believe that's how they got their "benchmarks results". Find out what kind of operations the apps use, and then estimate by using the again estimated Spec-numbers.

Well, I'll smile happily when I know these benchies are real for sure (when the 970's are officially out, and being tested for real).
post #8 of 666
EDIT: NVM I`m a tool... I didnt notice they had a single 1.4 in their also... Hmm This is odd but they also do not mention anything about the system beisdes its processor speed. For all we know the dual 1.8 might have a faster bus and that would explain the huge speed increase it got over the 1.4 Either that or the extra 400MHz gave it those extra couple of seconds.. Just because bryce doesnt support SMP does not make this fake. Bryce doesnt support Altivec either..
''i'm an extremist, i have to deal with my own extreme personality and i walk the fine line of wanting to die and wanting to be the ruler of all.''
Reply
''i'm an extremist, i have to deal with my own extreme personality and i walk the fine line of wanting to die and wanting to be the ruler of all.''
Reply
post #9 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Mount_my_floppy
Why does it make it fake because bryce does not support SMP? It also does not support Altivec but that does not mean it does not run it.. And that also does not mean a machine thats 2X as fast as the dual 1.42 would not be when in bryce.. The dual 1.42 does not get to use altivec or SMP in bryce either..

The machine still has a xxx xxxx 900MHz bus, a better processor architecture and yadi yadi I don`t understand why it cant be 2x as fast in bryce also..

Good point, at least as far as I can see.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #10 of 666
heh you quoted my post while I was editing, either way they both said the same thing.. But In the edit I refered to the 1.4 970 instead of the g4
''i'm an extremist, i have to deal with my own extreme personality and i walk the fine line of wanting to die and wanting to be the ruler of all.''
Reply
''i'm an extremist, i have to deal with my own extreme personality and i walk the fine line of wanting to die and wanting to be the ruler of all.''
Reply
post #11 of 666
I guess I couldn't see the performance difference between the single 1.4 and dual 1.8

Not the first time I jumped too soon.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #12 of 666
D@mn, I should have posted a new thread in the first place. These multiple thread-same discussions are making me dizzy

Anyway, what could explain the big difference in the benchmarks (assuming they're real) if bryce is not SMP capable. Yeah, I know, bus speed +++, but that can hardly explain the difference between the 1.4 and 1.8 dp entirely. [wild speculation mode] Can panther explain some of the difference, making two processors appear as one to certain non-smp avare apps. [/wild speculation mode] Or is there any other possible explanation?
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
post #13 of 666
Fake.


"If it's too good to believe it's probably false"

There's know way we go from a large deficit in processor speed to and large advantage. This is fake .
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #14 of 666
I don't care the Bryce benchmark, but I DO care about Cinema

If these benchmarks are true.....THEN.....Rev B 970.....come to me baby
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #15 of 666
if they are that fast, ill die a happy man
post #16 of 666
Holy Schnikies!!!! (Chris Farley exclamation)

If those are true---IBM wont even sell a PPC 970 that's as slow as the Pentium IV, at least for a little while. And Apple is using them as DUALs, with real DDR support. I've always wondered how much the G4's bus held back altivec--now we know. Motorola suffocates the G4 with it's pitiful bus--only a truly stupid design would saddle such a brilliant technology as Altivec with a bus designed to not supply the right amount of data I/O.

It looks like SPEC benchmarks don't tell the whole story of this monster--fire up altivec and it reams Pentiums! In hindsight the G4 will look like it's purpose was to prepare developers for Altivec support on the almightly PPC 970.

Not even Apple can fsck this one up...unless the numbers are fake. Probably are, but I'm hoping they're close to the truth or even a little conservative.
post #17 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Fake.


"If it's too good to believe it's probably false"

There's know way we go from a large deficit in processor speed to and large advantage. This is fake .

While I share your doubts, would an 80% increase it AltiVec provide an explanation? How Alti-enabled is Cinema 4D or Maya?

Purely an interested layman, here, btw.
post #18 of 666
AltiVec will not affect Cinema's and Maya's renderer. It's the much better FPU and much faster bus that help the speed
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #19 of 666
OMG! I sure hope it's true.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #20 of 666
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by NETROMac
D@mn, I should have posted a new thread in the first place. These multiple thread-same discussions are making me dizzy

Apologies for the disorientation.

I posted a new thread since I didn't see this news mentioned in the two or three other active 970 threads...at least when I looked at the posts dated May 5th earlier today.
post #21 of 666
Presuming these figures are accurate (and I'm not going to jump either way just yet: if those are beta builds of Panther the final numbers should be truly astonishing once the debug code is pulled), the Photoshop bakeoff should be truly hilarious.

It's a shame that wide dissemination of these tests is going to completely destroy PM sales (and hence Apple's cashflow/profitability) until those 970 boxes are out of the door.

And someone's going to get their backside slapped: I don't even want to think what the NDA on that kit is like...
Whatever it is, it ain't rocket science
Reply
Whatever it is, it ain't rocket science
Reply
post #22 of 666
I can't stand the sight of you.
I can't stand what you put me through.
Your life's a lie, that you hide.
Is it that terrible being you inside?
I can't stand, oh, the thought of you.
I can't stand all the things you do.
What do you try to justify?
You were just too scared to be you inside.

Let it all out...
Let it all go...

I look at you, all I see, is a man too afraid to really be...

I can't stand what you put me through.
I can't stand even the thought of you.
Your secret lies that you hide.
Is it that terrible being you inside?

You try so hard to be wanted.
False emotions tells you fronted.
I think being a person relies on one thing:
Be yourself, let you come through.
You're too afraid to really be,
Someone who isn't false, who doesn't care to be.
Be yourself, let you come through!

Fake!

You'll regret it, you'll regret it...
post #23 of 666
I will spontaneously combust if this is true.

Sh!+ meet pants!

PLEASE LET THIS BE TRUE

I too, have the ability to kill a yak at 200 yards... with mind bullets!
Reply
I too, have the ability to kill a yak at 200 yards... with mind bullets!
Reply
post #24 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Overhope


It's a shame that wide dissemination of these tests is going to completely destroy PM sales (and hence Apple's cashflow/profitability) until those 970 boxes are out of the door.


More so than they are now? PM sales have already tanked. People only want to upgrade to the same hardware a limited number times, especially when the same hardware continues to fall behind the competition.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #25 of 666
When I say "completely destroy", I mean utter flatline: I have seen a few folks purchasing PMs recently, but this could sound the death-knell even for that trickle.
Whatever it is, it ain't rocket science
Reply
Whatever it is, it ain't rocket science
Reply
post #26 of 666
It's too bad the article makes no mention of the graphics cards used, or anything other than it's a beta Panther, and those #'s. I'd like to know exactly what we are dealing with here.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #27 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
It's too bad the article makes no mention of the graphics cards used.....

Rage 128 with 8MB VRAM
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #28 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by LudwigVan
Apologies for the disorientation.

I posted a new thread since I didn't see this news mentioned in the two or three other active 970 threads...at least when I looked at the posts dated May 5th earlier today.

No hard feelings
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
post #29 of 666
Quote:
Mac fans, our wait will be rewarded. The fight is over and Apple will soon rule the world !

Oh, and...

"There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"
post #30 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by NMR Guy
Oh, and...

"There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"

onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #31 of 666
"Even as I speak to you, the Richmond hordes are dying in their Wintel boxes: their mothers will be burying them in ATX cases"
Whatever it is, it ain't rocket science
Reply
Whatever it is, it ain't rocket science
Reply
post #32 of 666
People. I just mailed Lionel of Macbidoullie about the Bryce benchmarks. Here's the answer I got:

Quote:
It seems there was a problem with this bench. However I didn't want to modify my source's information to stick to reality. The results are the ones sent to me.

Perhaps Dual 970 Works like a dual core CPU.
If it was a fake, i didnt make a so big mistake

Best regards

Lionel
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
post #33 of 666
hehe this has just made the front page of /.
post #34 of 666
Quote:
I don't care the Bryce benchmark, but I DO care about Cinema

The Cinema benches don't look right either. The dual 1.8 970 should have a render time of 10-13 seconds, not 18 (based on the single 1.4 970 score of 29). Something's wrong here.
post #35 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by artcat
The Cinema benches don't look right either. The dual 1.8 970 should have a render time of 10-13 seconds, not 18 (based on the single 1.4 970 score of 29). Something's wrong here.

Some scene files also affect rendering speed.....

As far as I can tell. Rendering in Cinema is divided into two parts. Preparation and Rendering. Each frame has to be prepared before rendering. The preparation part is NOT MP aware. If there are lots of texture maps and shadows and lights......there will be a huuuuuuuuge slow down in the preparation before it actually starts the rendering
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #36 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by artcat
The Cinema benches don't look right either. The dual 1.8 970 should have a render time of 10-13 seconds, not 18 (based on the single 1.4 970 score of 29). Something's wrong here.

based on what logic?

remember there are diminishing returns to multiple processors, especially with apps which are not explicitly optimized for them...
post #37 of 666
Quote:
based on what logic?

Something like this:

Cinema gets ~1.85x improvement with dual processors (according to CineBench). So 29 sec. for single 1.4 970 would translate to ~15.6 seconds for a dual 1.4. A dual 1.8 970 should score better than 15.6 sec. (I did a rough horseback guesstimate to get 10-13 sec.)

edit: Cinema is most definitely optimized for dual. It's even optimized for hyper threading where supported (some of the Pentiums?)
post #38 of 666
just one other comment: shouldn't a single 1.8 970 be ~25% (or a bit more) faster than a single 1.4 970? I'm not a programmer or a math whiz by any means, but this seems right. So a single 1.8 ought to bench at 21 sec or so, so a dual 1.8 ought to bench at 11 - 13. I dunno, I just make pictures
post #39 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by artcat
Something like this:

Cinema gets ~1.85x improvement with dual processors (according to CineBench). So 29 sec. for single 1.4 970 would translate to ~15.6 seconds for a dual 1.4. A dual 1.8 970 should score better than 15.6 sec. (I did a rough horseback guesstimate to get 10-13 sec.)

edit: Cinema is most definitely optimized for dual. It's even optimized for hyper threading where supported (some of the Pentiums?)


Please read my response above regarding preparation and rendering. Dual CPU system on short render isn't very efficient compare to huge rendering that takes at least 2-3 minutes.....

Or maybe those people accidentally swapped the Cinema and Bryce benchmarks
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #40 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Marcus
hehe this has just made the front page of /.

And, between this and the Music Store numbers today, Apple's stock was up over $2 at some points today.
The people are so happy now, their heads are caving in.
Reply
The people are so happy now, their heads are caving in.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › MacBidouille posts PPC 970 benchmarks