New benchmarks available
Head over to<a href="http://swox.com/~tege/results.html" target="_blank">GMP Bench</a> to see a direct comparison of G4s to P4s , Althons, Itaniums, Alphas, Power3s, and Power4s.
These benchmarks are not the same as SPEC, but part of me thinks that they are more honest as it is completely open source. For the base functions, i.e. multiply, divide, add, subtract, and a few others, developers (or manufacturers for that matter) can supply assembly versions of those functions to eke out better performance. Granted, at this time there are only a small number of benchmarks available, but that will be expanded over time.
BTW, the Power4 1.1 GHz is only surpassed by an Alpha 21264 at 1 GHz and an Althon 2200+. The P4 at 2.4 GHz falls behind it. The G4 667 MHz is 1/4 the speed of the listed Power4.
Enjoy.
These benchmarks are not the same as SPEC, but part of me thinks that they are more honest as it is completely open source. For the base functions, i.e. multiply, divide, add, subtract, and a few others, developers (or manufacturers for that matter) can supply assembly versions of those functions to eke out better performance. Granted, at this time there are only a small number of benchmarks available, but that will be expanded over time.
BTW, the Power4 1.1 GHz is only surpassed by an Alpha 21264 at 1 GHz and an Althon 2200+. The P4 at 2.4 GHz falls behind it. The G4 667 MHz is 1/4 the speed of the listed Power4.
Enjoy.
Comments
<strong>Yay! We have the worst proccessor on the list! </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ummm they were benching a 667Mhz G4... Does Apple even use those any more?
The reason I posted this link was to give everyone a better idea of how the 970 will compare to other CPUs as it is based on the Power4.
BTW: I've used platforms that utilize several of these chips. Most aren't impressive. SPARC 1GHz is crap, for one thing. This test is BS. I'll tell you as a firsthand witness. . . . And make sure to download my damn-fast compressor when it's ready this summer. :cool:
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: Splinemodel ]</p>
One last thing about Altivec, it doesn't support doubles, so GIMPS (Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search) can't use it.
BTW Splinemodel, are you the same person behind the Altivec version of irred.c? I ask because I know that the person who wrote that is writing an Altivec enhanced version of bzip.
in the words of jon stewart
"whaaaaaaaaaa?"
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>
BTW Splinemodel, are you the same person behind the Altivec version of irred.c? I ask because I know that the person who wrote that is writing an Altivec enhanced version of bzip.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nah, but I've read about that. I'm actually more concerned about writing a Burrows-Wheeler based assymetric lossless compression. Writing BZIP isn't too much different, but it uses Huffman, which isn't great for the altivec in it's normal incantation. My compression is somewhat different, and is more "vectorizable." Even my version of BZIP arrives at the output quite differently than the GNU version. . . in theory. It's a side project, so I'm still working on it at a slow-ish pace.
But I guess the bottom line here is that there's more than one way to skin a cat, or in our case, to write an algorithm that takes X and makes it Y. Most of the time there's a clever way to do it in vectors.
[ 03-16-2003: Message edited by: Splinemodel ]</p>