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 - Page 4

post #121 of 666
and the 970 is a young tike with a bright future where as the p4 can be considered middle age.
post #122 of 666
I'll believe all of this, when I see it in a store
Matyoroy!
Reply
Matyoroy!
Reply
post #123 of 666
Nope!!!!!
I'm pretty sure .... As PROGRAMMER said " The 970 will run 32-bit apps and "G4 code" just fine. The small amount of supervisor code in the kernel needed to make the OS function is (probably) the only exception and as you said that could be taken care of in a small-dot release. These processors all run 32-bit PowerPC code and optimizing it for one or the other doesn't limit which processors can run the code, it just affects their performance in doing so. The one current caveat is that AltiVec code cannot run on non-AltiVec enabled processors."


Think about it

8)
post #124 of 666
oooh, oooh, i get to say it...

*CONFIRMED!* positive news from MacBidouille:

970 will be sold in single and dual config... *CONFIRMED!*

single (low-end) 970 will smoke current dual (high-end) G4... *CONFIRMED!*

Bryce 6 will be multi-threaded... *CONFIRMED!*

rough parity with Wintel world again... *CONFIRMED!*
-


*unCONFIRMED!* possibly sketchy news from MacBidoulle:

low-end 1.4, mid 1.6-1.8, high 2.0...
IBM and other apparent leaks suggest initial ranges from 1.6-2.5

unspecified environment/bus/cache config between models...
history suggests more than just the CPU speed changes between models.
Bus speed/RAM/Mobo/GFX card/L2-vs-L3(size and speed) may differ from single to dual, so logically, benchmarks may seem odd due to non-standard config between test units

--

if Apple Legal jumps all over MB to pull the "rumours", it might validate them a bit, but it might just be seen as jumping on the current "French-bashing bandwagon"

IMO, there is some truth to the view that preaching to the choir means some people will believe because they want it to be true, but given the preponderance of other information that seems to have either leaked out or, by analysis (here and elsewhere), has been theoretically dissected and reverse-engineered in terms of hypothetical pipeline length/FSB/clock/dualFPU/etc to the point of reasonable predictions...

the apparent convergence between these sources of info is a good sign that these predictions are in the ballpark.

it's also possible (and historically precedented) that the benchmark machines are early mules (of which dozens of variations and tweaks are produced), and that the actual shipping hardware is similar in some config, different in others.

(for example, these may have been benchmarked on current DDR RAM and current GFX card... publicly available models may have faster/better/wider/more fragrant options that cause the first widely verifiable benchmarks to differ from those posted here... this wouldn't mean MB has lied, merely that the iron they tested on isn't the same as what ships as "970 Rev. A")

unless we're all guilty of gleefully drinking the kool-aid,
i'm thinking this is damn tasty stuff... got a hankering for more.

ah, the unquenchable thirst for power.
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
post #125 of 666
as for the hypothesized XStation with 16 blades of 4x970 each, for a total of 64 processors, this is also entirely believable and has historical precedent

there was a NeXT model which supported multiple CPUs in multiple slots for, IIRC, a total of 16 x 68030 or 68040 CPUs in a single machine... threaded multiprocessing back in the early 90s.

given the number of former NeXT folks at Apple, it's a no-brainer that the hardware teams have had one of those on the pedestal with a "beat this" sticker on it for motivation.

If "Steve's Old Company" could do it more than 10 years ago, then Steve's Original (older) Company with similar staff should be able to do it now that the technology has caught up.

< rummages around trying to find specs of a multiple-Nitro-boarded MP Cube >
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
post #126 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by kupan787
I was reading a post elsewhere that quoted an Ars post stating that the 970 had a weaker int and altivec units than the G4e ... And can the int performance really be worse?

Like always it's not much left to say after Programmer has answered

The G4e (745X family) with its 4 integer units and feeding 3 of them per beat should perform about 50% faster than a G4 (7400 & 7410) at the same clock speed. But it didn't in real life because the redesign didn't remove other bottlenecks of the G4.

Don't bother about how good or how bad a chip design looks on the papers. Only real life performance matters. And a 970 will outperform any G4 for shure (or even two of them at once ).
post #127 of 666
IBM has announced new POWER4+ chips at 1.5 and 1.7 GHz.
POWER4+ 1.7GHz (1 core):
SPECint2000 1077(base) 1133(peak)
SPECfp2000 1598(base) 1699(peak)
Available from july on.

If IBM can get a POWER4 to 1.7GHz then why shouldn't a 970 reach 2GHz right from the start?
post #128 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by smalM
IBM has announced new POWER4+ chips at 1.5 and 1.7 GHz.
POWER4+ 1.7GHz (1 core):
SPECint2000 1077(base) 1133(peak)
SPECfp2000 1598(base) 1699(peak)
Available from july on.

If IBM can get a POWER4 to 1.7GHz then why shouldn't a 970 reach 2GHz right from the start?


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #129 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by smalM
IBM has announced new POWER4+ chips at 1.5 and 1.7 GHz.
POWER4+ 1.7GHz (1 core):
SPECint2000 1077(base) 1133(peak)
SPECfp2000 1598(base) 1699(peak)
Available from july on.

If IBM can get a POWER4 to 1.7GHz then why shouldn't a 970 reach 2GHz right from the start?

Goddamn! IBM impresses!

Quote:
Originally posted by da Pr0grammah
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

!
post #130 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by smalM
If IBM can get a POWER4 to 1.7GHz then why shouldn't a 970 reach 2GHz right from the start?

I don't pretend to be as versed in the nuances of Chip Voodoo that many around here are, but I keep getting this feeling that everyone is expecting a mini Power4 or Power5 (except a lot cheaper) in their next Mac. As it's been stated, a 970/980/whatever is a derivitive of their ultra-parents. What that ultimately means is anyones guess at this point.

To wit: I have two Volkswagons that have a derivitive of the most advanced Porsche engine of their time. Do they go as fast as a Porsche? Hell no. But they are clean, mean and lean (and upgradeable ). They kick ass as far as efficiency, ease of use and user friendliness. Sound familiar?
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
Reply
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
Reply
post #131 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Shaktai
I remember as much as 2 or 3 months ago, 1 or 2 technology writers who (apparently under NDA) couldn't give specifics, mentioned no processors, specific platforms, etc., but indicated in very general terms that the performance of this summers new Macs would bring them into parity and possibly a small jump ahead of current Windows offerings.


That's not anything at all like what the MacDoobie benchmarks describe. The 'Doobie benchmarks show the low end, 1.4 GHz Mac keeping even with and at times surpassing a Pentium IV, while the high end, dual 1.8 GHz Mac decimates the Pentium IV. There is no "performance parity" with the Wintel machine, only a bloody stump ringed in pulpy splatters and driblets.

I sure hope that tech writer you speak of is wrong, because what Apple needs now is a shot in the mainline of 100% pure methamphetamine.
post #132 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
That's not anything at all like what the MacDoobie benchmarks describe. The 'Doobie benchmarks show the low end, 1.4 GHz Mac keeping even with and at times surpassing a Pentium IV, while the high end, dual 1.8 GHz Mac decimates the Pentium IV. There is no "performance parity" with the Wintel machine, only a bloody stump ringed in pulpy splatters and driblets.

Okay, I don't follow Wintel benchmarks that closely but it is my impression is that there was "only a bloody stump ringed in pulpy splatters" partly because they didn't put the dual 970 up against the fastest Wintel machines. How does a P4 stand up against a dual Xeon. Am I wrong in thinking that that would be a little closer?
post #133 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
That's not anything at all like what the MacDoobie benchmarks describe. The 'Doobie benchmarks show the low end, 1.4 GHz Mac keeping even with and at times surpassing a Pentium IV, while the high end, dual 1.8 GHz Mac decimates the Pentium IV. There is no "performance parity" with the Wintel machine, only a bloody stump ringed in pulpy splatters and driblets.

I sure hope that tech writer you speak of is wrong, because what Apple needs now is a shot in the mainline of 100% pure methamphetamine.

Nicely put.

However, it remains to be seem how much the 90nm Prescott P4 improves over 130nm Northwood P4 with the added instructions and, apparently, much better 'hyperthreading' (SMT). This may bring back 'parity' of the top end x86 and PPC in single processor configs.

The above assumes the MB data is roughly correct, which I hope it is.

MM
post #134 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
That's not anything at all like what the MacDoobie benchmarks describe. The 'Doobie benchmarks show the low end, 1.4 GHz Mac keeping even with and at times surpassing a Pentium IV, while the high end, dual 1.8 GHz Mac decimates the Pentium IV. There is no "performance parity" with the Wintel machine, only a bloody stump ringed in pulpy splatters and driblets.

I sure hope that tech writer you speak of is wrong, because what Apple needs now is a shot in the mainline of 100% pure methamphetamine.

Very true. I still can't find those links, and will have to keep looking. My comments were deliberately understated until I can find the links, because I cannot remember the exact descriptive adjectives used by the writers, but they were a bit more optimistic although neccesarily vague at the time. I just don't wish to misquote them.

I was very surprised by the macbidouille benchmarks. I expected a big performance increase, but nothing that great. I really hope it is true. This is just the beginning, and the road map looks good for the future, no matter what Intel brings out. I actually look forward to seeing how a dual 1.8 970 does stack up against a dual 3.06 Xeon.

It is no longer a scary proposition.
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
post #135 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by curiousuburb
IBM and other apparent leaks suggest initial ranges from 1.6-2.5

You won't see 2.5 GHz initially.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #136 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Shaktai
I actually look forward to seeing how a dual 1.8 970 does stack up against a dual 3.06 Xeon.

Want any tests run? I just got in a Dual Xeon 3.06 DP machine. I'm running 6Gb RAM, RAID 320 0+1 I don't have Windows for it but I do have RH Linux Ent AS 2.1.
post #137 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike
Want any tests run? I just got in a Dual Xeon 3.06 DP machine. I'm running 6Gb RAM, RAID 320 0+1 I don't have Windows for it but I do have RH Linux Ent AS 2.1.

Could you please install Doom II or something? I like framerates!
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
post #138 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike
Want any tests run? I just got in a Dual Xeon 3.06 DP machine. I'm running 6Gb RAM, RAID 320 0+1 I don't have Windows for it but I do have RH Linux Ent AS 2.1.

I was going to purchase a Dual Xeon for 3D right before IBM started talking about the 970, and they (Cebit folk) all figured out that it would go into a Mac. From Much Older Speculations on the speed of the 970's. I came to a conclusion that a dual 1.8 would match a Dual 3.GHZ Xeon machine in raw speed based on early cebit crowd Speculations. I was not taking into account for Altivec because I am not sure how to rate this new Altivec unit. nor do I know what else the motherboard will include. Needless to say I put off that purchase until I saw what these new Machines would be truly able to do.

So one of two things could happen. We could put together some good showdown #'s at a later date, or we will be talking about how nice my render speeds are on that Dual Xeon I was talking about getting.
Truth is I can put off this purchase only for so long before I have to get on a faster boat.
But my boat of choice has always been a Mac, and I'd like it to stay that way.
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 #139 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Telomar
You won't see 2.5 GHz initially.

That is correct. All that has been announce is 1.2 to 1.8. Reliable word has slipped out that IBM is experiencing higher then expected yields of faster chips up to 2.5 ghz.

The key words are higher then expected. This does not mean that the yields are production level. If their expectation was to have a yield of one 2.5 ghz chip per 100 (random speculation), and they ended up with 2 per 100, that would be a higher then expected yield. It would still be far shy of producing enough chips in that range to meet demand.

Even MacBidouille indicates that the availability of the dual 2.0 is uncertain, because of chip yields. Expect 1.4 to 1.8 ghz machines in single and dual configurations. Speed bumps will come quickly when yields improve. I would expect at least one or 2 speed bumps before January.
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
post #140 of 666
onlooker, i just did a quick check and on pricewatch i found a no name xeon system for 2k which i do not think was dual?!?

What sort of prices are you seeing for dual?

If its in the $2500 range and a dual 1.6 970 system is in the $2200 range then things should get intresting soon.
post #141 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
onlooker, i just did a quick check and on pricewatch i found a no name xeon system for 2k which i do not think was dual?!?

What sort of prices are you seeing for dual?

If its in the $2500 range and a dual 1.6 970 system is in the $2200 range then things should get intresting soon.

Not only with the Xeon either. The Opteron and Athlon64 will make the next 12 months a very interesting time for Apple fans. Why? Because once Apple get 'parity' with Wintelon they will want to see that stay that way or improve but they will be aiming at a moving target since Intel and AMD aren't standing still.

Very interesting times to be thinking of an upgrade.

MM
post #142 of 666
Bare feats has just posted a comparision update between a dual Xeon 2.4, Pentium 4 3.06 and the Current Apple dual 1.42.

While I haven't done a detailed analysis of the data, on initial glance it appears that a 970 dual 1.8 may stand up very well against the dual Xeon (extrapolated out to 3.06), and then some.

http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html

I really hope that this comes together and becomes reality by early July. Can't wait to see some hard real world numbers.

As it stands right now however, I am doubtful I will be able to afford a new top line machine.

Sadly my 800mhz single might have to be replaced by a low end 970 that is only a little over 4 times or so faster or maybe a "slightly" faster mid-range machine.

Oh the things we must prepare to suffer with!
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
post #143 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Shaktai
As it stands right now however, I am doubtful I will be able to afford a new top line machine.

I think they will be afordable. Let me express my logic why...

Apple need customers. If I walked into an Apple Store and I asked a Mac Specialist to show me what Apple has to offer in the pro arena and said "well sir, our highend machine, PowerMac blah blah is not sold in stores because it is to expensive" then I would walk out and not look back.

If Apple do not carry Shake in their stores because it is to expensive (which they should at least have on their demo units...) then they would not carry hardware that is to expensive...

Besides, like I said, Apple need customers.
post #144 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Shaktai
Bare feats has just posted a comparision update between a dual Xeon 2.4, Pentium 4 3.06 and the Current Apple dual 1.42.

While I haven't done a detailed analysis of the data, on initial glance it appears that a 970 dual 1.8 may stand up very well against the dual Xeon (extrapolated out to 3.06), and then some.

http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html

I really hope that this comes together and becomes reality by early July. Can't wait to see some hard real world numbers.

As it stands right now however, I am doubtful I will be able to afford a new top line machine.

Sadly my 800mhz single might have to be replaced by a low end 970 that is only a little over 4 times or so faster or maybe a "slightly" faster mid-range machine.

Oh the things we must prepare to suffer with!

Thanks for the link - it is interesting data. I certainly shows that the G4 could be better with a faster FSB. Pity the RapidIO 7457-RM is still a way off. But I agree the 970 will more than make up for it!

I don't think I will ever buy the fastest machine available. (Say) 20% performance improvement or less rarely justifies a 40 % premium for all the 'best' stuff (pulling #s out of the air - no time to check actuals for PC or Mac). I think it is really only the people who have high end apps and critical work schedules that need the top end stuff. I buy at the 'sweet spot' at the time I want to upgrade to get the best bang/buck and so I know I got a good value system. Sure I get over taken a little faster but if I always buy at the same point in a product range I'm not losing anything. So, assuming the new machines are 1.4, 1.6 & 1.8, I'd most likely get a 1.6 machine (and buy extra RAM from someone other than Apple... ).

MM
post #145 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch
Could you please install Doom II or something? I like framerates!

I'm not sure a ATI-Rage XL controller w/ 8MB of SDRAM would do very well
post #146 of 666
The latest from MacBidouille (google translation). Hopefully one of our many readers, fluent in French, can provide a clearer english representation.

Quote:
Before coming to the heart of the subject, 3 small things.

1) If you belong to the anti rumour, DO NOT READ WHAT FOLLOWS!
2) Essentially, a rumour is unfounded! Do not make as some which require of me to provide them evidence.
3) the source of these infos is completely different from that of preceding information on the 970. Until now all its information proved to be verdic.

Let us pass to the serious things.

The mother charts PPC 970 would have 6 NCV (PCI slots?) in addition to the AGP and can be a chart Its 5.1. The Bus would be well given rhythm to 200 MHz with support of GDR 3200. (note except rumour: the 6 NCV can explain information on a chart all in length)

According to an internal source with IBM, the PPC 970 much will surprise the public. (the collection of this information is former to the publication of the benchs)

Do I understand this correctly? 6 slots at 200 mhz bus in addition to the AGP when used with PC3200 RAM?

Yousa!!!!!! Apple is getting serious.
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
post #147 of 666
it doesn't really seem like apple could serve a cease and desist order like they usually do. this is just a recounting of benchmarks, not an actual photo or diagram of one of their products. of course, they've done things that they didn't have the right to do before.
post #148 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Shaktai
The latest from MacBidouille (google translation). Hopefully one of our many readers, fluent in French, can provide a clearer english representation.



Do I understand this correctly? 6 slots at 200 mhz bus in addition to the AGP when used with PC3200 RAM?

Yousa!!!!!! Apple is getting serious.

I'll give it a stab...

Quote:
Avant d'en arriver au coeur du sujet, 3 petites choses.

1) Si vous faites partie des anti rumeur, NE LISEZ PAS CE QUI SUIT !
2) Par essence, une rumeur est infondée ! Ne faites pas comme certains qui me demandent de leur fournir des preuves.
3) La source de ces infos est totalement différente de celle des précédentes informations sur le 970. Jusqu'Ã* maintenant toutes ses informations se sont avérées vérdiques.

Passons aux choses sérieuses.

Les cartes mères PPC 970 auraient 6 PCI en plus de l'AGP et peut être une carte Son 5.1. Le Bus serait bien cadencé Ã* 200 MHz avec support de la DDR 3200. (note hors rumeur: les 6 PCI peuvent expliquer les informations sur une carte toute en longueur)

Selon une source interne Ã* IBM, le PPC 970 va beaucoup surprendre le public. (la collecte de ces informations est antérieure Ã* la publication des benchs).

Before we come to the heart of the matter, three small items:

1) If you don't care for rumors, DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING!
2) Essentially, any rumour is unfounded! Don't be like some who insist we provide them proof.
3) The source of this info is completely different from that of the preceding information on the 970. Until now all the information provided by this source has proved to be accurate.

Let us move on to the serious things.

The PPC 970 motherboard will have 6 PCI slots in addition to the AGP and can support a 5.1 (audio?) board. The Bus will be well clocked at 200 MHz with support for PC3200. (Note about the rumor: The 6 slots may explain the information about the motherboard being longer than wide.)

According to an internal source with IBM, the PPC 970 will surprise people very much. (This information was gathered before we published the benchmarks.)
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
post #149 of 666
Oh and for what it's worth, I don't believe any of it.
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
post #150 of 666
6 PCI (and the AGP)
years ago 6 PCI slots was perhaps needed. 2 PCI video cards, a faster SCSI for external drives and so on. Later also IDE cards, USB cards, FW cards... those 6 slots can be filled quite easy.

However, if the AGP support 2 monitor and the motherboard support multchanel sound, 4 IDE disks and two optical drives as well as a resonable number of FW and USB ports, I really have a hard time imagine that you need more than say 3 PCI cards...
post #151 of 666
Quote:
Originally from DrBoar: I really have a hard time imagine that you need more than say 3 PCI cards...

Although we're a minority, those of us who work in Audio/Video for TV and Film industry have been dying for more PCI slots for years.
Just with a simple Pro Tools Mix+ System (2 slots), Mix Farm (1 slot), SCSI card (1 slot) we're maxed out - no room for more DSP or a video capture card.

We have a lot of systems like this where I work (75+) and each one of them requires a PCI expansion chasis.
If Apple really wants to continue to court Hollywood, six slots would be a very welcomed thing.
post #152 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by DrBoar
However, if the AGP support 2 monitor and the motherboard support multchanel sound, 4 IDE disks and two optical drives as well as a resonable number of FW and USB ports, I really have a hard time imagine that you need more than say 3 PCI cards...

Yes, but expansion slots are good precisely for the things that are hard to imagine you'll need/want. My Beige G3 is getting a quite an extension on life with the FireWire/USB2.0, 10/100BaseT Ethernet, and SCSI cards I've shoved in there, not to mention the additional 48x CD burner. Thanks to its expansion ability, this machine is still a workhorse years after it might have been put out to pasture.

Who's to say what technologies are coming down the pipe? Even faster FireWire and USB, SerialATA (if we don't get it in the next PM revision), new networking options, etc. And that's in addition to all of the audio/video options the previous poster talked about. 3 PCI slots would certainly be doable, but if Apple feels the need to give us 6, I say bring it on!
--
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so.
Reply
--
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so.
Reply
post #153 of 666
Not to rain on anybody's parade, but the Benchmarks are obvious fakes with any number of mistakes. I'm not sure whether MacBidouille hates Apple, or is just in it to make as much money off the hits as it can before reality rears its ugly head, but if you're taking any of their rumors seriously, prepare for *major* disappointment.

IBM really has pulled off a miracle with the 970. The miracle is that it looks like it will have 80% of the performance of a P4 (depending on which benchmark you look at) for less than 1% of the research investment. *That* is massively earthshaking. I cannot think of an chip engineering achievement that even comes close!

The fact that the 970 will not provide the material to allow us to sneer at the P4 users who sneer at us should not be of concern. A better, faster Macintosh will appear in the next 3-8 months and that is cause for celebration.

If the rumour boards are any sign, I wouldn't be suprised if Apple's most significant product announcement since the iMac (whenever it is made) is met with disdain for failing to match impossible expectations.
Tom West - Resident Realist
Reply
Tom West - Resident Realist
Reply
post #154 of 666
Where did you get the 80% and 1% figures?

5.1 Audio: about time, if it's true. Even if the next PowerMac architecture was awesome, stereo only would let it down.
Stoo
Reply
Stoo
Reply
post #155 of 666
I dont get it... 200 Mhz FSB or 200 Mhz PCI?
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
post #156 of 666
Quote:
The Bus will be well clocked at 200 MHz with support for PC3200.

If the bus is only 200Mhz, that would be sad. It has the potential to be double that (450MHz real, 900 double pumped). Everyday these guys post more, I start to believe them less.
post #157 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Tom West
IBM really has pulled off a miracle with the 970. The miracle is that it looks like it will have 80% of the performance of a P4 (depending on which benchmark you look at) for less than 1% of the research investment. *That* is massively earthshaking. I cannot think of an chip engineering achievement that even comes close!

1% research investment? *cough*
I'd like to see some documentation on that.

The 970 is no miracle at all. It's the result of alot of R&D done on the POWER 4 (which is nothing to scoff at), and R&D done on itself, helped by motorola, and probably Apple too (anyone?). By comparision to the G4 (which is very real and un-miraculous, as you know), it's a desktop PPC-processor done right. Let's say the G4 offers 40% the performance of a P4. By much less R&D too, and now the G4 is old and almost archaic. It employs a slow, and choking FSB, and is made on an outdated fabrication process, at 180nm.

Now, alot of work has been put into the development of the 970, and they've fixed most that makes the G4 so slow. Deep Out-Of-Order Execution, very fast FSB, a better FPU and double the number of units, and an altivec-unit (which is known to kick P4 ass on code that isn't choked by the FSB). All in all this should double the performance of the G4 in alot of cases, to be conservative.

Still a miracle? I don't think so. I think you should be prepared to be surprised
post #158 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by kupan787
If the bus is only 200Mhz, that would be sad. It has the potential to be double that (450MHz real, 900 double pumped). Everyday these guys post more, I start to believe them less.

I believe they mean the memory bus. That is, DDR400 memory.

michael
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
post #159 of 666
200mhz PCI bus unless i am mistaken. the speed in which the cards talk to the motherboard.
post #160 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
200mhz PCI bus unless i am mistaken. the speed in which the cards talk to the motherboard.

Ya know, Toshiba has a 400 mhz PCI slot already... (just mentioning)
I never get tired of being right all the time... but I do get tired of having to prove it to you again and again.
Reply
I never get tired of being right all the time... but I do get tired of having to prove it to you again and again.
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