Since this thread began with bencharks, I would like to propose an idea if anyone else is game. Mind you it is pure speculation for the fun of it.
I am thinking of trying to come up with "very conservative" theoretical numbers for the performance difference between a 1.42 G4 and a 1.4 970 based upon what little we know about them. Now the numbers I am looking for are possible "real world" numbers that might take into consideration the entire system, including bus speeds.
My idea is to try to come up with numbers that would reflect the "least" that we might see in performance gains, and then to apply them to the most recent "Bare Feats" benchmarks between the dual 1.42 PowerMac, P4 3.06 and dual Xeon 2.4.
This is purely for fun. Again the basic performance difference estimates should be "conservative" and on the low side, not the high side. This is not for bragging rights, but a guestimation of the minimal performance gain we might see.
My initial best guess for a starting point is as follows but I want "somewhat realistic" feedback.
same megahertz single CPU
970 integer is 75% faster (due to system and CPU)
Floating point 970 is 200% faster (do to dual FPU and system)
970 Altivec is 75% faster (due to system not the altivec unit)
I am thinking of trying to come up with "very conservative" theoretical numbers for the performance difference between a 1.42 G4 and a 1.4 970 based upon what little we know about them. ...numbers that would reflect the "least" that we might see in performance gains,....
The thing is, the _low_ side is open-ended. That is, I can (at least as a thought experiment make a 1.4 GHz ppc970 run slower than my Apple ][e. Picture 'main memory' as a paper-tape with a hole-puncher & and light sensor. Read: SLOOOOOWWW.
Now, Apple won't do that, but they _can_ skimp enough to really reduce performance. Easily.
I'm not sure what they'll do on the lower-end towers, but I'd expect the top-of-the-line models(where a $50 more expensive MB isn't a big deal) to achieve 95+% of the benchmarks IBM's given.
The thing is, the _low_ side is open-ended. That is, I can (at least as a thought experiment make a 1.4 GHz ppc970 run slower than my Apple ][e. Picture 'main memory' as a paper-tape with a hole-puncher & and light sensor. Read: SLOOOOOWWW.
Now, Apple won't do that, but they _can_ skimp enough to really reduce performance. Easily.
I'm not sure what they'll do on the lower-end towers, but I'd expect the top-of-the-line models(where a $50 more expensive MB isn't a big deal) to achieve 95+% of the benchmarks IBM's given.
This is an exercise in FUN. Presume that the system will adequately support the 970's basic capabilities without any overt crippling or cost cutting and without any special enhancements. If you are concerned with COST then base it on the current pricing scheme.
I looked up toslink and discovered it uses fiber optic cables, which one site was selling for $60 for a one meter cable, $80 for a two meter cable. Why a costly interface such as this would be popular is hard to imagine. Unless, as moki seems to suggested, it is a top end system mainly used by pros.
Since I didn't see it mentioned, Yamaha has a FireWire audio interface called mLAN. Then there is the reference to HAVi FireWire interconnect system which seems more universal and includes video. Now if Pioneer has yet another "iLink" interface, the situation is getting to be a can of worms. (If I am not mistaken, iLink it the name Sony gave to FireWire that has no power take off.)
Nevyn, that actually looks like a good starting point to play from. Spec integer looks like it is about 69% faster, and Spec FP about 90% So because I said I wanted to keep this conservative, I took half of Spec Int or 34.5%, and applied it to the BareFeats test numbers on four of their tests comparing the PowerMac dual 1.42 against against a Pentium 3.06 and Dual Xeon 2.4. The Pentium and Xeon both had hyperthreading turned on. Oh, and the Bryce numbers are for Bryce 5, not a "theoretical Bryce 6 beta.
Here is the graph of the outcome (created using an Appleworks Spreadsheet.) I think it does provide some cautious hope if Apple does utilize the IBM 970 in PowerMacs.
What do you think? And remember this is all in fun. Don't take it too seriously, because there are too many variables and unknowns not yet accounted for.
If you want to play with the numbers on my spreadsheet, you can download it here: http://homepage.mac.com/brdavid/FileSharing26.html Just change the *.655 (34.5%) in the formula for the 970 1.4 ghz, to whatever number or percentage you wish.
8)
Oh and keep in mind that I compared a single 1.4 970 with a dual 1.42 G4 on the graphs.
EDIT: I almost forgot to include the link to the BareFeats article that provides the initial comparision starting point numbers. http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html
Digital Coax would be preferable as far as cost is concerned. You can use almost any cable as a digital coax cable, such as the "yellow" RCA cable included with DVD players. Cost: Free to $10 or so. Of course, if you *want* to you can spend $100 or more for super-duper 'Monster' coax cables, but it ain't going to sound any different with a packeted encoded signal like DD 5.1.
Digital Coax would be preferable as far as cost is concerned. You can use almost any cable as a digital coax cable, such as the "yellow" RCA cable included with DVD players. Cost: Free to $10 or so. Of course, if you *want* to you can spend $100 or more for super-duper 'Monster' coax cables, but it ain't going to sound any different with a packeted encoded signal like DD 5.1.
Yes and no. Using a cheap RCA cable could introduce or exacerbate digital jitter.
Digital Coax would be preferable as far as cost is concerned. You can use almost any cable as a digital coax cable, such as the "yellow" RCA cable included with DVD players. Cost: Free to $10 or so. Of course, if you *want* to you can spend $100 or more for super-duper 'Monster' coax cables, but it ain't going to sound any different with a packeted encoded signal like DD 5.1.
The impedance of video and audio RCA cables are different. Using the wrong type can result in ground loops and significant loss in sound quality.
Toslinks are incredibly simple and cheap to produce. They are so cheap to produce that the difference we see in price, between them and RCA cables, is a result of marketing decisions rather than manufacturing costs.
Toslink requires no electromagnetic shielding or expensively pure elements like gold, silver, and copper. A simple clear piece of plastic with no coating whatsoever will often work. I've even used weed-whacker cord just to see if it would work... and it did! I'm sure this softened the edges of the transmitted bits, but apparently my DAC had no problems with it. If there were any timing related issues, they were inaudible to my ear.
Digital coax, in comparison, requires more types of material, more expensive materials, and more labor to produce. If we're talking price, toslink is the cheapest option available. It is even cheaper than using RCA because only one cord is required as compared to 7 cords for 6.1/7.1.
. . . If we're talking price, toslink is the cheapest option available. . .
Does anyone know how toslink compares with mLAN? I thought mLAN would catch on when it was introduced back in '00 since it transfers audio and MIDI both over a single FireWire link.
Does anyone know how toslink compares with mLAN? I thought mLAN would catch on when it was introduced back in '00 since it transfers audio and MIDI both over a single FireWire link.
Toslink is a physical interface for SPDIF Digital Audio. I believe it can transfer Compressed Mulitchannel Audio but it's no match for mLAN which transfers uncompressed multichannel audio, sync/wordclock and Midi.
I believe Audio/Video companies would be happier about supporting Firewire if they could use it to force people into buying their hardware exclusively. Unfortunately they tend to feel that adding nifty interoperable connectivity isn't much of a benefit unless it can used to differentiate the high end(Pioneer) or lock people into their system.
Probably old news? Man, what planet have you been on? Where do you think the 1285 threads in this forum about the 970 have come from?
Snappy aren't we today?
I was reffering to that prticular PDF, there was something pulled off IBM's site when all this craziness started, and i wasn't too sure if that was exactly the same piece, since this contains info only on 1.8GHz PPC970.
Yes and no. Using a cheap RCA cable could introduce or exacerbate digital jitter.
Not very likely over short runs. In fact, I've NEVER seen this happen to an audible extent, and I've seen tests done with an expensive DAC with an error-counting mechanism. In fact, one guy even tested using a COAT HANGER with RCA ends attached to it, and it sent the signal without a single error.
And again, I'm talking about a PACKETIZED audio stream like Dolby Digital 5.1, one that is decoded at the receiving end, not just a PCM bitstream (although even with a bitstream I doubt you'd notice anything). If there was a single bit out of order that couldn't be corrected, you'd hear a DROPOUT, not just a reduction in quality manifested as some goofy audiophile term like "loss of brightness," "lack of punch", etc.
Comments
I am thinking of trying to come up with "very conservative" theoretical numbers for the performance difference between a 1.42 G4 and a 1.4 970 based upon what little we know about them. Now the numbers I am looking for are possible "real world" numbers that might take into consideration the entire system, including bus speeds.
My idea is to try to come up with numbers that would reflect the "least" that we might see in performance gains, and then to apply them to the most recent "Bare Feats" benchmarks between the dual 1.42 PowerMac, P4 3.06 and dual Xeon 2.4.
This is purely for fun. Again the basic performance difference estimates should be "conservative" and on the low side, not the high side. This is not for bragging rights, but a guestimation of the minimal performance gain we might see.
My initial best guess for a starting point is as follows but I want "somewhat realistic" feedback.
same megahertz single CPU
970 integer is 75% faster (due to system and CPU)
Floating point 970 is 200% faster (do to dual FPU and system)
970 Altivec is 75% faster (due to system not the altivec unit)
Feedback please if there is any interest!
Originally posted by Shaktai
I am thinking of trying to come up with "very conservative" theoretical numbers for the performance difference between a 1.42 G4 and a 1.4 970 based upon what little we know about them. ...numbers that would reflect the "least" that we might see in performance gains,....
The thing is, the _low_ side is open-ended. That is, I can (at least as a thought experiment
Now, Apple won't do that, but they _can_ skimp enough to really reduce performance. Easily.
I'm not sure what they'll do on the lower-end towers, but I'd expect the top-of-the-line models(where a $50 more expensive MB isn't a big deal) to achieve 95+% of the benchmarks IBM's given.
Originally posted by Nevyn
The thing is, the _low_ side is open-ended. That is, I can (at least as a thought experiment
Now, Apple won't do that, but they _can_ skimp enough to really reduce performance. Easily.
I'm not sure what they'll do on the lower-end towers, but I'd expect the top-of-the-line models(where a $50 more expensive MB isn't a big deal) to achieve 95+% of the benchmarks IBM's given.
This is an exercise in FUN. Presume that the system will adequately support the 970's basic capabilities without any overt crippling or cost cutting and without any special enhancements. If you are concerned with COST then base it on the current pricing scheme.
Manu. Chip GHz S-INT S-FP GFLOPs Dhrystone RC5 key/s
Mot. G4 1.4 428 428 10.2 3243 11.4 mil
IBM 970 1.4 724 817 11.2 4100 14.0 mil
IBM 4x970 2.5 5835 (just for giggles)
... where 'S-INT' is SpecINT.
So the available benchmarks imply that the 970 is clock-for-clock better than the G4. Possibly due in large part to bus improvements.
But I'd predict Apple is able to coax at least 95% of those number out of the 970 for prices similar-to current hardware. So...
Originally posted by Nevyn
Code:
Manu. Chip GHz S-INT S-FP GFLOPs Dhrystone RC5 key/s
Mot. G4 1.4 428 428 10.2 3243 11.4 mil
The SPECfp number I have for the G4 @ 1 GHz is only 184, so if it scaled linearly that would put it to 258.
SPEC isn't multi-processor so having a quad 970 wouldn't quadruple its SPECfp score.
Since I didn't see it mentioned, Yamaha has a FireWire audio interface called mLAN. Then there is the reference to HAVi FireWire interconnect system which seems more universal and includes video. Now if Pioneer has yet another "iLink" interface, the situation is getting to be a can of worms. (If I am not mistaken, iLink it the name Sony gave to FireWire that has no power take off.)
Originally posted by Nevyn
Ok, this is from straight scaling of the available info then:
Code:
Manu. Chip GHz S-INT S-FP GFLOPs Dhrystone RC5 key/s
Mot. G4 1.4 428 428 10.2 3243 11.4 mil
IBM 970 1.4 724 817 11.2 4100 14.0 mil
IBM 4x970 2.5 5835 (just for giggles)
... where 'S-INT' is SpecINT.
Nevyn, that actually looks like a good starting point to play from. Spec integer looks like it is about 69% faster, and Spec FP about 90% So because I said I wanted to keep this conservative, I took half of Spec Int or 34.5%, and applied it to the BareFeats test numbers on four of their tests comparing the PowerMac dual 1.42 against against a Pentium 3.06 and Dual Xeon 2.4. The Pentium and Xeon both had hyperthreading turned on. Oh, and the Bryce numbers are for Bryce 5, not a "theoretical Bryce 6 beta.
Here is the graph of the outcome (created using an Appleworks Spreadsheet.) I think it does provide some cautious hope if Apple does utilize the IBM 970 in PowerMacs.
What do you think? And remember this is all in fun. Don't take it too seriously, because there are too many variables and unknowns not yet accounted for.
If you want to play with the numbers on my spreadsheet, you can download it here: http://homepage.mac.com/brdavid/FileSharing26.html Just change the *.655 (34.5%) in the formula for the 970 1.4 ghz, to whatever number or percentage you wish.
8)
Oh and keep in mind that I compared a single 1.4 970 with a dual 1.42 G4 on the graphs.
EDIT: I almost forgot to include the link to the BareFeats article that provides the initial comparision starting point numbers. http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html
Originally posted by Auream
Digital Coax would be preferable as far as cost is concerned. You can use almost any cable as a digital coax cable, such as the "yellow" RCA cable included with DVD players. Cost: Free to $10 or so. Of course, if you *want* to you can spend $100 or more for super-duper 'Monster' coax cables, but it ain't going to sound any different with a packeted encoded signal like DD 5.1.
Yes and no. Using a cheap RCA cable could introduce or exacerbate digital jitter.
Originally posted by Auream
Digital Coax would be preferable as far as cost is concerned. You can use almost any cable as a digital coax cable, such as the "yellow" RCA cable included with DVD players. Cost: Free to $10 or so. Of course, if you *want* to you can spend $100 or more for super-duper 'Monster' coax cables, but it ain't going to sound any different with a packeted encoded signal like DD 5.1.
The impedance of video and audio RCA cables are different. Using the wrong type can result in ground loops and significant loss in sound quality.
Toslinks are incredibly simple and cheap to produce. They are so cheap to produce that the difference we see in price, between them and RCA cables, is a result of marketing decisions rather than manufacturing costs.
Toslink requires no electromagnetic shielding or expensively pure elements like gold, silver, and copper. A simple clear piece of plastic with no coating whatsoever will often work. I've even used weed-whacker cord just to see if it would work... and it did! I'm sure this softened the edges of the transmitted bits, but apparently my DAC had no problems with it. If there were any timing related issues, they were inaudible to my ear.
Digital coax, in comparison, requires more types of material, more expensive materials, and more labor to produce. If we're talking price, toslink is the cheapest option available. It is even cheaper than using RCA because only one cord is required as compared to 7 cords for 6.1/7.1.
Originally posted by Transcendental Octothorpe
This thread seems to have wandered just a tad....
Yep... but in an welcome turn of events it hasn't touched on religion or politics so we're luck!
probably old news, but still interesting read:
PPC 1.8GHz pdf
This mean a further price drop or is the price of the other components gonna keep the current price range?
Originally posted by dfiler
. . . If we're talking price, toslink is the cheapest option available. . .
Does anyone know how toslink compares with mLAN? I thought mLAN would catch on when it was introduced back in '00 since it transfers audio and MIDI both over a single FireWire link.
Originally posted by piwozniak
Hi,
probably old news, but still interesting read:
PPC 1.8GHz pdf
Probably old news? Man, what planet have you been on? Where do you think the 1285 threads in this forum about the 970 have come from?
Originally posted by snoopy
Does anyone know how toslink compares with mLAN? I thought mLAN would catch on when it was introduced back in '00 since it transfers audio and MIDI both over a single FireWire link.
Toslink is a physical interface for SPDIF Digital Audio. I believe it can transfer Compressed Mulitchannel Audio but it's no match for mLAN which transfers uncompressed multichannel audio, sync/wordclock and Midi.
I believe Audio/Video companies would be happier about supporting Firewire if they could use it to force people into buying their hardware exclusively. Unfortunately they tend to feel that adding nifty interoperable connectivity isn't much of a benefit unless it can used to differentiate the high end(Pioneer) or lock people into their system.
Originally posted by Programmer
Probably old news? Man, what planet have you been on? Where do you think the 1285 threads in this forum about the 970 have come from?
Snappy aren't we today?
I was reffering to that prticular PDF, there was something pulled off IBM's site when all this craziness started, and i wasn't too sure if that was exactly the same piece, since this contains info only on 1.8GHz PPC970.
....geeks....
Originally posted by - J B 7 2 -
Yes and no. Using a cheap RCA cable could introduce or exacerbate digital jitter.
Not very likely over short runs. In fact, I've NEVER seen this happen to an audible extent, and I've seen tests done with an expensive DAC with an error-counting mechanism. In fact, one guy even tested using a COAT HANGER with RCA ends attached to it, and it sent the signal without a single error.
And again, I'm talking about a PACKETIZED audio stream like Dolby Digital 5.1, one that is decoded at the receiving end, not just a PCM bitstream (although even with a bitstream I doubt you'd notice anything). If there was a single bit out of order that couldn't be corrected, you'd hear a DROPOUT, not just a reduction in quality manifested as some goofy audiophile term like "loss of brightness," "lack of punch", etc.