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 5

post #161 of 666
For what its worth, I think the benchmarks are on the button.

Six slots? Not in a dektop model, but the XStation rack mount? Now you're talking.

5.1 Audio? Absolutely
post #162 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 . . .


Even if your estimate is correct for standard, non-AltiVec operations, the new dual PowerMacs will exceed the single P4 Windows PCs. We don't see many dual P4 systems, but dual 970 PowerMacs should be common.

With AltiVec enabled code, I believe the single 970 will likely beat the P4 too. The 970 should also scale up in clock rate more quickly than the P4 can, from its present clock rate. This should give the 970 a greater advantage in the future.
post #163 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
200mhz PCI bus unless i am mistaken. the speed in which the cards talk to the motherboard.

But then why in that same sentence would they mention PC3200 RAM? They definatly meant the speed of the RAM or the FSB. Since they mention BUS, it leads me to believe they are talking about the FSB, not the Ram "bus" (is there such a thing?)

Now here is a question for someone more technical. Would it make sene to have the RAM running at half the FSB speed? With Intels 800Mhz (4x200MHz) FSB, what type of RAM are they using, and at what speed?
post #164 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
200mhz PCI bus unless i am mistaken. the speed in which the cards talk to the motherboard.

Yes that was my understanding too. The CPU/memory bus will be as indicated. 1:4 of the CPU speed, double-pumped. i.e 1400 will be 350x4 for total of 700mhx.

What are the current PCI?

Previous Macs were crippled in bus speeds because they had to be, not because Apple wanted them to be. The Motorola processors couldn't support anything better. Now with something well beyond that available, I am confident that Apple will exploit its capabilities to the max.
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
post #165 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by kupan787
But then why in that same sentence would they mention PC3200 RAM? They definatly meant the speed of the RAM or the FSB. Since they mention BUS, it leads me to believe they are talking about the FSB, not the Ram "bus" (is there such a thing?)

Now here is a question for someone more technical. Would it make sene to have the RAM running at half the FSB speed? With Intels 800Mhz (4x200MHz) FSB, what type of RAM are they using, and at what speed?

Sometimes translation between languages can be a bit rough, as certain words and phrasing do not translate easily. Without someone who is truly fluent in both French and American English, things can get a bit confusing.

I think they are trying to say the PCI bus is 200mhz, and that the RAM is PC3200. You have to be a little bit flexible with translations until you can get a real pro on it who is completely familiar with the idioms of both languages.

It would be just as confusing trying go from American English to French or any other language.
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
post #166 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Shaktai
Yes that was my understanding too. The CPU/memory bus will be as indicated. 1:4 of the CPU speed, double-pumped. i.e 1400 will be 350x4 for total of 700mhx.

What are the current PCI?

Previous Macs were crippled in bus speeds because they had to be, not because Apple wanted them to be. The Motorola processors couldn't support anything better. Now with something well beyond that available, I am confident that Apple will exploit its capabilities to the max.

Due to me being technically challenged, can you explain how the bus is 1/4 of the CPU speed but is only double pumped? I thought the bus was 800mhz, that would be quad pumped? Or is it because of duals? I'm missing 400mhz somewhere.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #167 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Shaktai
Sometimes translation between languages can be a bit rough, as certain words and phrasing do not translate easily. Without someone who is truly fluent in both French and American English, things can get a bit confusing.

Ok, but I thought someone here did a translation on there own (not using a translator program).

Quote:
I think they are trying to say the PCI bus is 200mhz, and that the RAM is PC3200.

What is PCI-X? The Xserve has 66MHz PCI slot (right?), so does a jump to 200MHz sound right?

But lets look at the PC3200 Memory. What speed does it run at? 200MHz. So this sounds more and more like they did mean the bus was 200MHz.
post #168 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by KidRed
Due to me being technically challenged, can you explain how the bus is 1/4 of the CPU speed but is only double pumped? I thought the bus was 800mhz, that would be quad pumped? Or is it because of duals? I'm missing 400mhz somewhere.

The 970 bus is based on clock speed at a ratio of 1:4. So a 1.8GHz processor would have a bus running at 450MHz which is 1/4 or 1800. However, since the bus is double pumped, it is running at 900MHz effective.

So if you had a 1.4GHz 970, the bus would be 350MHz, or 700MHz effective.
post #169 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Tom West
Not to rain on anybody's parade, ...

That's not rain, that's a monsoon.

Just curious, why do you say 80%?
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 #170 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by kupan787
Now here is a question for someone more technical. Would it make sene to have the RAM running at half the FSB speed? With Intels 800Mhz (4x200MHz) FSB, what type of RAM are they using, and at what speed?

Yes, synchronous bus speeds are best. An athlon with a 333 MHz (166 DDR) FSB runs better with DDR333 (PC2700) RAM than with DDR400 (PC3200) on most things.

Intel's 800 MHz (200 QDR) FSB chipset Canterwood (& I think Springdale) uses a 2 channel DDR400 memory controller.

MM
post #171 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Shaktai
What are the current PCI?

"Standard" PCI (1.0?) is 33MHz and 32 bit giving 133 MB/s.
There are also 66 MHz and 66MHz/64 bit PCI flavours giving 266MB/s and 533 MB/s respectively.
Quote:
Originally posted by kupan787
What is PCI-X?

Going to www.pcisig.org and checking the news page it seems that PCI-X used to be known as 3GIO. It has an "initial bit rate of 2.5 Gigabits per second per lane per direction" and a "16-lane PCI Express interconnect can provide data transfer rates of more than 8 Gigabytes per second". (Here: http://www.pcisig.com/news_room/news...ses/2002_07_23 )

PCI-X 2.0 has 2 flavours: PCI-X 266 and PCI-X 533 which give 2133 MB/s and 4267 MB/s respectively. (These come from here: http://www.pcisig.com/news_room/news...es/2002_07_23b ) I think these must be DDR rates at 64 bit each since they use the phrase "PCI-X 266, runs at speeds up to 266 Mega transfers per second".

MM
post #172 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by KidRed
Due to me being technically challenged, can you explain how the bus is 1/4 of the CPU speed but is only double pumped? I thought the bus was 800mhz, that would be quad pumped? Or is it because of duals? I'm missing 400mhz somewhere.

Don't feel bad. All this stuff still has my head swimming most days.

The PCI bus speed is seperate from the System/CPU bus speed. That is what is mentioned as 200mhz, (the speed at which the PCI can communicate with the motherboard) which is quite a jump up from current PCI bus apparently.

System/CPU bus speed will be vary with the processor speed. A 1400 processor will have a bus ratio of 1:4 or 350 mhz. doublepump that and you have an actual speed of 700mhz, or 1/2 half of the CPU speed. A faster CPU will equate to a faster system/CPU bus. Hope that helps.

PC3200 I believe is 400mhz. Somebody correct me if I am wrong.

I am wondering if the 1800mhz chip will require PC3500 RAM? Is it possible that the system performance may soon outpace the speed of affordable RAM?
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
post #173 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by MartianMatt
"Standard" PCI (1.0?) is 33MHz and 32 bit giving 133 MB/s.
There are also 66 MHz and 66MHz/64 bit PCI flavours giving 266MB/s and 533 MB/s respectively.

Going to www.pcisig.org and checking the news page it seems that PCI-X used to be known as 3GIO. It has an "initial bit rate of 2.5 Gigabits per second per lane per direction" and a "16-lane PCI Express interconnect can provide data transfer rates of more than 8 Gigabytes per second". (Here: http://www.pcisig.com/news_room/news...ses/2002_07_23 )

PCI-X 2.0 has 2 flavours: PCI-X 266 and PCI-X 533 which give 2133 MB/s and 4267 MB/s respectively. (These come from here: http://www.pcisig.com/news_room/news...es/2002_07_23b ) I think these must be DDR rates at 64 bit each since they use the phrase "PCI-X 266, runs at speeds up to 266 Mega transfers per second".

MM

NO

Do not confuse PCI-X and PCI express, they are completely different beasts. What used to be called 3GIO (amongst many other names) is PCI express is a new physical interface, essentially serial, and very fast, with small connectors. PCI express is not yet available.

PCI-X is an extension to PCI that enables it to run at higher speeds, and much higher bandwidths. PCI-X is widely available already (at least at it's slower speeds).

michael
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
post #174 of 666
Quote:
I am wondering if the 1800mhz chip will require PC3500 RAM? Is it possible that the system performance may soon outpace the speed of affordable RAM?

RAM does not have to run at the same speed as the FSB (current PowerMacs being an example). I'd hope that Apple would use two channels of DDR SDRAM in the faster 970s' case rather than have RAM with bandwidth lower than the FSB.
Stoo
Reply
Stoo
Reply
post #175 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Shaktai
PC3200 I believe is 400mhz. Somebody correct me if I am wrong.

It is 200MHz, but double pumped so it is 400MHz effective. So if you were thinking the 400MHz was doubled to 800, you were wrong. However if you were quoting the effective figure, you were right
post #176 of 666
Since nobody else has pointed it out, I will: the clock rate of the 970's FSB is completely independent of the speed of memory, AGP, PCI, etc. It is locked to half the processor clock rate, and that's it. You can't even directly compute the bandwidth it has at a given clock rate without knowing more about the protocol because it does not have seperate address/data lines -- it uses a packet protocol on the seperate read and write busses. This is a very different animal, don't apply what you know from MPX (or even the AMD & Intel busses) to the 970's FSB. It is more akin to HyperTransport or RapidIO.

My guess is that the rumour is bogus. The benchmarks could be bogus too, we simply don't know at this point.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #177 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Since nobody else has pointed it out, I will: the clock rate of the 970's FSB is completely independent of the speed of memory, AGP, PCI, etc. It is locked to half the processor clock rate, and that's it. You can't even directly compute the bandwidth it has at a given clock rate without knowing more about the protocol because it does not have seperate address/data lines -- it uses a packet protocol on the seperate read and write busses. This is a very different animal, don't apply what you know from MPX (or even the AMD & Intel busses) to the 970's FSB. It is more akin to HyperTransport or RapidIO.

My guess is that the rumour is bogus. The benchmarks could be bogus too, we simply don't know at this point.

Thanks programmer. A simple straightforward explanation that actually almost makes sense to me. Sounds like when the 970 does come out, we will all have to get used to a new way of thinking about how it all works together.
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
post #178 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by kupan787
It is 200MHz, but double pumped so it is 400MHz effective. So if you were thinking the 400MHz was doubled to 800, you were wrong. However if you were quoting the effective figure, you were right

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but PC3200 memory IS 400mhz. DDR400. Double pumped (as in the new P4 chipset) makes it 800mhz effective.
Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of... -TMBG
Reply
Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of... -TMBG
Reply
post #179 of 666
Naw. PC3200 memory is 200MHz, doubled to 400MHz effective.
post #180 of 666
How do we know it the benchmarks are fake?

Perhaps the most obvious problem with the benchmarks was the fact that Bryce, which does not use multiple processors, sped up substantially using a dual. There are numerous other somewhat questionable aspects to the benchmarks.

The 80% figure is an educated guess based on the speculative SPEC benchmarks that IBM posted.

There are hundreds of different metrics that can be used to compare processors. IBM has almost certainly advertised its strongest rating, so I'm assuming that it's probably somewhat weaker in the non-advertised aspects and in a real world situation (i.e. Apple is not going to supply unlimited cache, fastest possible memory, etc.). The p4 with 800 MHz front side bus is a pretty hefty creature and is significantly faster than the previous P4.

I'll show where I got the 1% figure (although it is a guesstimate based on relative expenditures, since IBM doesn't break out microprocessor research by chip type) in another post when I have the time. Suffice it to say, the 970 was done very cheaply.

This is a good thing, by the way. If IBM had spent a billion on research, just amortizing the R&D would make the chip cost $500 before even getting to production expenses. If Apple is going to use a few million a year of these, they'd better not have spent more than $100 million on chip R+D. Compare this to the 10 billion that Intel has spent over the last few years (roughly $4 billion/year).
Tom West - Resident Realist
Reply
Tom West - Resident Realist
Reply
post #181 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Tom West
How do we know it the benchmarks are fake?

Perhaps the most obvious problem with the benchmarks was the fact that Bryce, which does not use multiple processors, sped up substantially using a dual. There are numerous other somewhat questionable aspects to the benchmarks.

I'm not saying I believe the benchmarks but I haven't seen a really compelling reason why they are blatantly false. Most of the reasons are just as weak as the benchmarks. They offered the explanation that a more recent (beta) version of Bryce was used -- given that the rumour stated that Apple was doing these benchmarks this is entirely plausible since Apple commonly has pre-release versions of software for testing on new hardware.

Quote:

The 80% figure is an educated guess based on the speculative SPEC benchmarks that IBM posted.

There are hundreds of different metrics that can be used to compare processors. IBM has almost certainly advertised its strongest rating, so I'm assuming that it's probably somewhat weaker in the non-advertised aspects and in a real world situation (i.e. Apple is not going to supply unlimited cache, fastest possible memory, etc.). The p4 with 800 MHz front side bus is a pretty hefty creature and is significantly faster than the previous P4.

IBM is usually fairly conservative with things like estimated SPECmarks for a processor they don't yet have silicon for. They've gotten in trouble with things like this before so I wouldn't necessarily discount their estimates, nor would I assume that Apple will come to market with a significantly weaker system. Looking at the processor's specifications, clock rate, and the performance of the POWER4 I'd say that the estimate were entirely reasonable. There were also Moki's comments about some sandbagging going on, and the various rumours of IBM being pleased with how the 970 has turned out.

On the other hand you're right that the new P4 is a beast. The 970 might only be 80% of its performance, but its possible that Apple will beat that number. We just don't have enough information to make a reasonable guess, but even 80% of the new Intel hardware is going to be a lot better than we've got right now!

Quote:

I'll show where I got the 1% figure (although it is a guesstimate based on relative expenditures, since IBM doesn't break out microprocessor research by chip type) in another post when I have the time. Suffice it to say, the 970 was done very cheaply.

This is a good thing, by the way. If IBM had spent a billion on research, just amortizing the R&D would make the chip cost $500 before even getting to production expenses. If Apple is going to use a few million a year of these, they'd better not have spent more than $100 million on chip R+D. Compare this to the 10 billion that Intel has spent over the last few years (roughly $4 billion/year).

I think you're pretty much right on the money here. IBM is using some advanced circuit design tools to build the POWER series, and the 970 directly leverages the POWER4 work. This has already served IBM very well and it will allow them to continue to compete with Intel into the future on a far more cost effective basis. It may cost them some potential performance, but it might also allow them to focus on high level improvements rather than getting bogged down in detail improvements. If the tools they are using can stay on the bleeding edge it'll allow IBM to take advantage of new techniques & processes faster, but if the tools don't evolve quickly this could turn into a liability. The single biggest advantage in IBM's approach is that they should be able to build massive processors much more quickly than Intel can -- when chips reach into the hundreds of millions of transistors, IBM will be able to do more interesting things with that sooner. Unless, of course, Intel adopts the same strategy.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #182 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by mmicist
NO

Do not confuse PCI-X and PCI express, they are completely different beasts. What used to be called 3GIO (amongst many other names) is PCI express is a new physical interface, essentially parallel, and very fast, with small connectors. PCI express is not yet available.

PCI-X is an extension to PCI that enables it to run at higher speeds, and much higher bandwidths. PCI-X is widely available already (at least at it's slower speeds).

michael

Sorry, you are right - PCI-express used to be 3GIO but it is a serial technology: "PCI Express is a new serial I/O technology compatible with the current PCI software environment" (from my first link above). I had a pretty quick scan of the press releases for the tech data and missed the difference in the 2 standards.

It looks like either one could be used as a replacement for PCI in different environments but that PCI-X is the one intended for desktop computer use. Sound right?

From the throughput numbers I quoted though it doesn't look like the "200MHz bus" snippet from MB could refer to the card bus. It seems, if true, it must be the memory bus which would be at 200MHz for DDR400 (PC3200).

MM
post #183 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

I wouldn't be betting on that number being accurate.
"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 #184 of 666
I honestly doubt that Apple is going to release a serial product based on DDR400 SDRAM, simply because DDR400 SDRAM is not a JEDEC standard specification and is still only widely used by hardware fanatics and so far by no commercial manufacturer, as far as I know.
I consider it much more likely that the machines will be based on DDR-II standard, but I don't know how clockspeeds will look like on that.
I'd be honestly suprised to see Apple ship DDR400 machines.

G-News
Matyoroy!
Reply
Matyoroy!
Reply
post #185 of 666
DDR400 will be certified within the next month or 2. Micron is meant to have certified ram out by midyear and I imagine several other manufacturers are planning the same.
"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 #186 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by G-News
I honestly doubt that Apple is going to release a serial product based on DDR400 SDRAM, simply because DDR400 SDRAM is not a JEDEC standard specification and is still only widely used by hardware fanatics and so far by no commercial manufacturer, as far as I know.
I consider it much more likely that the machines will be based on DDR-II standard, but I don't know how clockspeeds will look like on that.
I'd be honestly suprised to see Apple ship DDR400 machines.

G-News

When JEDEC fails, the computer industry can hardly decide "oh well, let's keel over and die". JEDEC failed by expecting DDR-II to replace DDR333 last year. They were wrong, and the computer industry has gone foward without them. I would have no problem with Apple doing the same, rather than being puritanical.

Barto
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #187 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by MartianMatt
Sorry, you are right - PCI-express used to be 3GIO but it is a serial technology: "PCI Express is a new serial I/O technology compatible with the current PCI software environment" (from my first link above). I had a pretty quick scan of the press releases for the tech data and missed the difference in the 2 standards.

It looks like either one could be used as a replacement for PCI in different environments but that PCI-X is the one intended for desktop computer use. Sound right?

MM

When I said essentially parallel, I meant essentially serial, I'm too tired and old for this.

PCI express is the probable future of most machines, but just isn't here yet. It has much greater, and more scalable, bandwidth, smaller connectors, easier board layout etc. PCI-X is just a stop gap improvement on PCI, which is reasonably compatible,

michael
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
post #188 of 666
but even 80% of the new Intel hardware is going to be a lot better than we've got right now!

Damn right! If the fastest Apple machine can (overall) match (or beat) 80% of the fastest Intel P4 machine, I will be one *ecstatic* camper. I'm hoping (and growing more confident) that IBM has pulled a miracle on a shoe string.

My main worry is that IBM/Apple will have done the near equivalent of coming second in the Marathon while missing one leg and the response from Apple fanatics will be, "Apple's so lame... Intel came in first...".

Of course, being from Canada, maybe I'm just used to gauging progress by whether gap between us and the front runner is shrinking or expanding. The idea of actually closing the gap is too absurd to contemplate and I'm certainly not going to set myself up for disappointment by expecting the impossible.

By the way, I will not be at all suprised if the 970 can actually beat a P4 on a few tests. As I said, the metric of CPU measurement is nowhere near one dimensional.
Tom West - Resident Realist
Reply
Tom West - Resident Realist
Reply
post #189 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Barto
When JEDEC fails, the computer industry can hardly decide "oh well, let's keel over and die". JEDEC failed by expecting DDR-II to replace DDR333 last year. They were wrong, and the computer industry has gone foward without them. I would have no problem with Apple doing the same, rather than being puritanical.

Actually, standards like JEDEC's are crucial to any commodity market. JEDEC-compliant RAM has a good chance of being compatible between vendors. DDR 400 appeared because DDR II took a bit too long to show up, but as yet it's still uncommon, and since it relies on a 200MHz real clock, it's not ideal. DDR II is quad-pumped, so the real clocks are still 100, 133 and 167. Lower is better from an engineering standpoint, and the presence of an independent standard will make OEMs less nervous about adopting the tech, so I expect DDR II to supplant DDR 400 rather quickly.

Also, once you engineer for DDR II 400, it's a quick and easy path up to 533 and higher.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #190 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Barto
I would have no problem with Apple doing the same, rather than being puritanical.

Except that going off the beaten track means costs go through the roof, comparatively speaking. [Edit here - DDR400 memory is not quite as rare as I thought. It's only about 50% more than DDR333. Still, it's a pretty big jump in costs]

It's why Apple has to fight so hard for everything. It used to be that if you used the industry standard, your cost might be 'x', and if you did it yourself, your cost might be '2x'. But because of the incredible economies of scale and the vast amount of investment in process, the industry standard now costs '0.1x', while doing it yourself still costs '2x'. Small wonder that Apple has to abandon just about any technology that is unique to it.

It's why innovation is so tough. You don't have to be a factor of 2 better, you have to be a factor of 20. Small wonder that its the Dell's of the hardware world that are still making money.
Tom West - Resident Realist
Reply
Tom West - Resident Realist
Reply
post #191 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Tom West
[I]By the way, I will not be at all suprised if the 970 can actually beat a P4 on a few tests. As I said, the metric of CPU measurement is nowhere near one dimensional.

Heh, you're not kidding -- more likely "infinitely dimensional" is more like it.

Even if a single 970 comes in at 80% the performance of a top-of-the-line P4, Apple will be shipping SMP machines and the 970 + OSX will do better in terms of price/performance in a multiprocessor environment than the P4.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #192 of 666
where is he getting this 80% number?

the oct 970 presentation?

I thought the numbers were MUCH closer than that.

Not that it matters since i am firmly camped in the

"It's not the megahertz Its THE motherboard stupid!"

camp.
post #193 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
where is he getting this 80% number?

the oct 970 presentation?

I thought the numbers were MUCH closer than that.

Not that it matters since i am firmly camped in the

"It's not the megahertz Its THE motherboard stupid!"

I haven't checked myself, but if you look at the SPECint of the upcoming P4s (or the Opterons) and the IBM 970 estimates it'll probably be around 80%. Keep in mind that the G4 would be about 20% so the 970 is a huge leap forward.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #194 of 666
oh ok. Upcming machines. prob. true.

course the upcoming 980 and 990 will trounce those numbers.


and they don't include a 2.0ghz , 2.3, or 2.5 ghz 970 so his argument seems shallow.
post #195 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by MartianMatt
"Standard" PCI (1.0?) is 33MHz and 32 bit giving 133 MB/s.
There are also 66 MHz and 66MHz/64 bit PCI flavours giving 266MB/s and 533 MB/s respectively.

Going to www.pcisig.org and checking the news page it seems that PCI-X used to be known as 3GIO. It has an "initial bit rate of 2.5 Gigabits per second per lane per direction" and a "16-lane PCI Express interconnect can provide data transfer rates of more than 8 Gigabytes per second". (Here: http://www.pcisig.com/news_room/news...ses/2002_07_23 )

PCI-X 2.0 has 2 flavours: PCI-X 266 and PCI-X 533 which give 2133 MB/s and 4267 MB/s respectively. (These come from here: http://www.pcisig.com/news_room/news...es/2002_07_23b ) I think these must be DDR rates at 64 bit each since they use the phrase "PCI-X 266, runs at speeds up to 266 Mega transfers per second".

MM

It seems that PCI Express is winning "hearts and minds" in the PC development community over PCI-X, but, unfortunately, PCI-Express also appears to have slipped in its intended deployment from fall of '03 to fall of '04.

Is there any actual indication whether Apple is moving away from the existing PCI bus? What about AGP 8X in the mean time (one or two AGP 8X slots are permitted under the spec)?

I also wonder if Apple will adopt serial ATA on the new logic boards. At the present time the performance difference between serial and parallel ATA is not large, but the configuration and cabling is said to be simpler and better. It would also open the way for the improved performance serial ATA drives that will undoubtedly be available during the manufacturing life cycle of the new boards.
post #196 of 666
This seems to come down to the old argument of which is more important. Total power or the complete package. If the 970 upon initial introduction was only 80% of the fastest Pentium or AMD overall, but provided a "complete" package, that functioned cohesively and reliably, day in and day out. I will take the complete package.

What we will see, is the same thing as is currently seen in the Wintel world. The Power PC will win out at certain tasks, and the P4 3.06 and AMD 3000's will win out at certain tasks. The differentiating factor will be the total package including the OS. It is there that Apple will win hands down. Intel and AMD will bring out faster chips. Apple and IBM will bring out faster chips. Based upon a pragmatic roadmap, they will each periodically leapfrog each other, with each platform having specific areas where it excells. Due to Motorola's mis-managment and shortsightedness, Apple was left in the lurch, falling further behind each year. If they attain overall parity or near parity in performance, then the rest of the package will drive them forward.

I suspect that Apple and Big Blue will now lead the charge, and will become the driving forces for growth and innovation in an industry that was stagnating.

And contrary to many younger Mac users, I never want to see Apple as #1. I would like to see them grow to about 20-25% market share, and then continue to be the driving and innovative force behind the industry.

I don't want what everyone else has. I don't want to have some ficticious bragging rights. I want to be out on the leading edge. That is where Apple belongs.
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
post #197 of 666
Right on, brother! I hope Apple never becomes another Microsoft. Power has a insidious way of corrupting humans.
post #198 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Shaktai
...I don't want what everyone else has. I don't want to have some ficticious bragging rights. I want to be out on the leading edge. That is where Apple belongs.

wise words
Quote:
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Right on, brother! I hope Apple never becomes another Microsoft. Power has a insidious way of corrupting humans.

power corrupts everything
coöperations
country's
religions
to use their power to corrupt people
(being the corruptor or the corrupted)
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #199 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Shaktai
And contrary to many younger Mac users, I never want to see Apple as #1. I would like to see them grow to about 20-25% market share, and then continue to be the driving and innovative force behind the industry.

I don't want what everyone else has. I don't want to have some ficticious bragging rights. I want to be out on the leading edge. That is where Apple belongs.


I dunno. My AAPL holdings would certainly appreciate Monopoly status!
post #200 of 666
Quote:
Originally posted by Shaktai
And contrary to many younger Mac users, I never want to see Apple as #1. I would like to see them grow to about 20-25% market share, and then continue to be the driving and innovative force behind the industry.

Agreed. Imagine if Microsft was all that was left invoating. When Apple inovates we get iPods, and other cool software and hardware. When Microsoft innovates we get portable toilets with internet access. I think it speaks voulmes.

And if you think I am making that up about Microsoft, read here: http://www.inq7.net/brk/2003/may/07/brkinf_1-1.htm or http://wireless.ziffdavis.com/articl...059589,00.asp. It has also been mentioned on Letterman and Leno as well (both of course makign jokes about the move).
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