Speed of Apple Intel dev systems impress developers

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 133
    Quote:

    If reports are accurate, Mac users have a lot to look forward to in regards to web browsing under Mac OS X for Intel. According to sources, web browsing in general is much faster under Mac OS X for Intel than it is under the shipping version of Mac OS X for PowerPC. Web pages snap to the screen, the same way they do in Internet Explorer running on a new Pentium system, they say.



    Doh - Thats because the Internet is compiled for Windows!
  • Reply 42 of 133
    thatguythatguy Posts: 18member
    This squares with what I've heard about the performance of the boxes, so I wouldn't waste my time being skeptical about it.
  • Reply 43 of 133
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross



    This is one of the biggest problems we've had with the performance over the years. too many developers stick with the lowest common denominator. These days that's the G3. So a G4 or G5 doesn't give impressive speedups on many (most?) programs.





    Which is EXACTLY why the transition will work well - Rosetta mimics a G3. The apps that utilize Altivec will the ones Apple and others are already working on. Hell, Adobe's abstracted their Altivec code from the main codebase and you can be sure that Apple will have been pushing their devs to utilize the Accelerate framework.
  • Reply 44 of 133
    webmailwebmail Posts: 639member
    It might not be an "official" valid benchmark but most of us spend our days in a web browser. a 3.8ghz pc is signifigantly faster than any of my g5 dual 2.5 computers with any browser. i'll be glad when we finally have computers that have ghz that are faster. It makes HUGE noticable differences in things that most of us do daily like, email, web browsing, organizing files, and stuff that's day to day. I could care less if a g5 is 3 seconds faster at calculating some rendering...



    I want a computer that FEELS faster on the front end. That responds to my clicks faster. I don't want some number on a chart to tell me it's faster...



    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    It isn't an indication of how fast the cpu's work. It's an indication as to how more efficient the routines in the OS and program are in an x86 system.



  • Reply 45 of 133
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch

    Doh - Thats because the Internet is compiled for Windows!



    The internet isn't "compiled". It isn't a program. It's OS neutral.
  • Reply 46 of 133
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    Just saw a link to the article on Slashdot. Good to see AI getting some notice.



    This news excites me. I'm definitely anxious to see how the production intel boxes run and when they'll be released. I think my G5 is great, but having used it for two years now I don't feel that its as blazing as it used to be. Maybe its time for another gig of RAM!
  • Reply 47 of 133
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    The internet isn't "compiled". It isn't a program. It's OS neutral.



    Don't you remember the ads? The Pentium makes the internet faster!
  • Reply 48 of 133
    mattbmattb Posts: 59member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch

    Doh - Thats because the Internet is compiled for Windows!



    Haha, brilliant! That's the funniest thing I've seen in ages.



    As to the speed differences that are supposedly being seen, my guess would be that it's the compiler. A Pentium 4 is definitely not faster than a G5 when both are running heavily optimised code vector units or not. Even if Apple is using GCC rather than Intel's optimising compiler (which I don't believe they are), it generates much more efficient x86 code than GCC does for PowerPC but is still nowhere near Intel's own compilers. Personally I had always hoped Apple would use the MPW MrC compiler for MacOS X but I guess it was too much effort to make it compile GCC compatible code which was really essential for OS X. Back in the old MacOS classic days I regularly saw code generated by MrC run 2-6 times faster than GCC generated PPC code and the binaries were smaller too.
  • Reply 49 of 133
    boogabooga Posts: 1,082member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gerardj

    I'm not at all understanding the statement "most computing tasks that are bandwidth limited are unidrectional". I can't imagine bandwidth sensitive applications where you simply suck vast amounts of data IN to a processor and have little to no output. I'd welcome education on that.



    Your also ignoring that the G5 system's each have two independent front-side busses. Each bus is capable of 3.6 up AND down simultaneously. That's a total inbound of 7.2GB/s and total outbound of 7.2GB/s or a grand total of 14.4GB/s of data in-flight to and from the G5s. Compared to the grand total of 6.4GB/s on the P4.



    The G5s can saturate memory, AGP and storage busses with their bandwidth capacity. [/B]



    The bottom line is that the RAM spec used in the PowerMac G5s today would be considered low-end in the Intel world, and the AGPx8 slot is a couple times slower than the PCI-E slots in mid to high end Intel systems, so saturating them is not exactly something to brag about. You can argue all you want about the CPU busses, but real world performance is going to be significantly better on the Intel systems today, and I don't see that changing over the next year or two until Apple ships an actual Intel system. If Apple is using parts on their developer boxes that even come close to being as slow as the PowerMac G5 chipset, it may be an attempt to make them intentionally slower to stem the "current PowerPC machines are obsolete" feelings.
  • Reply 50 of 133
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,419member
    Obi Wand....I sense a disturbance in here...the farce is thick.
  • Reply 51 of 133
    gregalexandergregalexander Posts: 1,400member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by w_parietti22

    Yeah they should! maybe 4GHz??? If people think that the 3.6 GHz PMs are fast just wait till they sport Dual 4GHz processors.



    Intel has had problems boosting the Mhz of their chips, just like IBM.



    So Intel has refocussed on their Pentium-M chips - which have lower Mhz but can do more with it (the NEW Mhz myth!). The Yona 2.2 Ghz dual core chips will be very good - both because of the Pentium M design, and the dual cores.



    What I'm saying is - forget 4Ghz. It's unimportant.
  • Reply 52 of 133
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kim kap sol

    Don't you remember the ads? The Pentium makes the internet faster!



    Uh, yeah.
  • Reply 53 of 133
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    I'm not surprised at all the P4 is faster for everyday consumer tasks. The big question is the professional apps
  • Reply 54 of 133
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    The internet isn't "compiled". It isn't a program. It's OS neutral.



    HTML is. The stuff they add to it like flash and Java is not.
  • Reply 55 of 133
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BenRoethig

    HTML is. The stuff they add to it like flash and Java is not.



    HTML is HTML. It's the same on every platform. totally transportable. It's not the internet.
  • Reply 56 of 133
    I think that's what he meant.

    HTML is OS neutral, Flash and Java is not.
  • Reply 57 of 133
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by GregAlexander

    I think that's what he meant.

    HTML is OS neutral, Flash and Java is not.




    Then that's a problem because both are. Java in particular has scared the bejeebus out of MS. You might remember it was so bad that they added their own Win specific API's to it. Sun sued and won.
  • Reply 58 of 133
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    If you folks think the post about the internet being compiled for Windows was serious, there's something wrong with you in the head.
  • Reply 59 of 133
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    If you folks think the post about the internet being compiled for Windows was serious, there's something wrong with you in the head.



    I was just about to quote all those guys who actually saw the ironi and write "They got it!"
  • Reply 60 of 133
    bigmigbigmig Posts: 77member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    Don't worry...buy a Yonah Powerbook instead! For most things, a dualcore Yonah PowerBook should outrun Apple's quad-PPC PowerMacs. It will be the first time in 7 years that PowerBooks are faster than PowerMacs.



    Nice try. A well-speced Yonah PB will only outrun a well-speced quad-core G5 as long as the application you're using does NOT make significant use of any of the following things:



    Multithreading (i.e. written for multiple processors/cores)

    Vector operations

    Floating point operations

    Memory bandwidth (the Yonah PBs are unlikely to be dual channel)

    Disk access

    Graphics card acceleration



    So the quad-core G5 will be faster at applications like:



    Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, Mathematica (5.2 and later), Logic, Maya, Cinema 4D, Halo, Quicktime, Doom, iPhoto, Lightwave, iDVD, After Effects, Motion, Unreal 2K4, etc.



    The Yonah PB will be faster at applications like:



    Safari, Word



    I seriously doubt that most buyers of quad-core 970MP machines will be purchasing such machines because they want Safari or Word to be really, really super-duper "Teh Snappy." It is more plausible that they are interested in performance when running applications like the ones in the first list.
Sign In or Register to comment.