MacBidouille posts PPC 970 benchmarks

1246734

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 665
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    One more thing about the Bare Feats thingy. If you look at their site, there are fairly exact information about how the benchmarks are done, so that anyone easily can replicate them on their own system, and compare them with the ones posted on the site.
  • Reply 62 of 665
    markusmarkus Posts: 17member
    Ok Are the benchs reilables in comparaison with your thinkings Lemmon? Thanks....

    ...
  • Reply 63 of 665
    markusmarkus Posts: 17member
    => Programmer = same question..... Do you think MB's prediction reliable?? Thanks....
  • Reply 64 of 665
    artcatartcat Posts: 19member
    Quote:

    Unfortunately you have made a bad assumption -- the 1.85 number will change between different processors and different memory architectures. The 970 and Apple's chipset & memory system could result in a higher or lower multiplier.



    I thought 1.85 has been consistent within processor families (G4 to G4, Intel to Intel, etc.) in Cinema. (I certainly wasn't trying to use it on a G4 number to predict a 970 number.) What I noticed was that the MB benchmark showed a dual 1.8 970 seemingly underperforming as compared to the the single 1.4 970 using the same test file.



    However, as I said in an earlier post, Mash (formerly of Maxon) wrote on another forum that such short renders can have really skewed results and aren't reliable. So. Ticking the days 'til WWDC, saving the pennies, hoping.
  • Reply 65 of 665
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,467member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Markus

    => Programmer = same question..... Do you think MB's prediction reliable?? Thanks....



    I don't know.
  • Reply 66 of 665
    markusmarkus Posts: 17member
    OK so do you think the Power PPC 970 will appear This year On all the range of Mac Gears?.... Sorry my english is not fluent!!



    BTW, I like your posts....
  • Reply 67 of 665
    markusmarkus Posts: 17member
    Programmer=> Why no answers, Please? TIA
  • Reply 68 of 665
    jobjob Posts: 420member
    [offtopic]

    How far will prices fall?



    This is a serious question here.



    If Apple does release the 970s in the Powermac line, how much will the dual-1.25Ghz or 1.42Ghz towers fall in price?



    Is there any possbility of picking up a dual 1.25Ghz tower for around $1200?



    [/offtopic]



    Personally I think that the estimations of performance (excluding the Bryce results) and speed in Ghz are spot on. Hopefully we will see these towers by WWDC.
  • Reply 69 of 665
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    Quote:

    If Apple does release the 970s in the Powermac line, how much will the dual-1.25Ghz or 1.42Ghz towers fall in price?



    Is there any possbility of picking up a dual 1.25Ghz tower for around $1200?





    be nice to pick up a spare web server at these prices huh?
  • Reply 70 of 665
    jobjob Posts: 420member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by keyboardf12

    be nice to pick up a spare web server at these prices huh?



    no kidding.



    i'm on a 400Mhz G3 right now. hell, at those prices, that thing would become my main machine.
  • Reply 71 of 665
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by job

    [offtopic]

    How far will prices fall?



    This is a serious question here.



    If Apple does release the 970s in the Powermac line, how much will the dual-1.25Ghz or 1.42Ghz towers fall in price?



    Is there any possbility of picking up a dual 1.25Ghz tower for around $1200?



    [/offtopic]



    Personally I think that the estimations of performance (excluding the Bryce results) and speed in Ghz are spot on. Hopefully we will see these towers by WWDC.






    Let's use the B/W G3 and Sawtooth G4 as example



    At least in western Canada....back to 1999 after the G4 started shipping in our region the price of the B/W got 30%-35% price cut due to excessive stock......I even saw a mid end G3 sold in Costco for $1700 CDN!



    But this time the performance gap between the 970 is G4 is very wide (much much wider than G4 to G3).....so I expect the price cut will go a bit more......



    With Canadian dollar going up.......that means we Canucks can get the Mac for CHEAPER!
  • Reply 72 of 665
    Today.. My Apple stock went.. UP UP UP!!!! *YEAH!*



    Awesome!! *Drooling*
  • Reply 73 of 665
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch

    Today.. My Apple stock went.. UP UP UP!!!! *YEAH!*



    Awesome!! *Drooling*




    Let's play Shania Twain's "UP"
  • Reply 74 of 665
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Markus

    Programmer=> Why no answers, Please? TIA



    Because, unless you're an insider, you wont know if thse are fakes or real.
  • Reply 75 of 665
    dcqdcq Posts: 349member
    Just thought of something funny: if Apple intros the 970 soon (which I don't think will happen...I'm betting on end of 2003/beginning of 2004), the bus in its PowerMacs will be as fast as the processor in its iBooks.



    How embarrassing!



    -DCQ
  • Reply 76 of 665
    markusmarkus Posts: 17member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch

    Because, unless you're an insider, you wont know if thse are fakes or real.



    Well Dear T'hain Esh Kelch, I ain't an INSIDER. But Programmer IS.... 8)
  • Reply 77 of 665
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Markus

    Well Dear T'hain Esh Kelch, I ain't an INSIDER. But Programmer IS.... 8)



    Programmer has never, to my knowledge, claimed to be an insider.



    My own unsolicited appraisal of the rumors is that assuming they're based on real information, some wires got crossed. A 64-CPU workstation (which is what the name "Xstation" implies) is nonsense. The thing would be huge. It would more likely be a conflation of: a 4-CPU workstation (which is about the hottest box I could imagine Apple engineering); a blade-like set up that can take up to (say) 16 blades, each with up to 4 CPUs, for a total of 64 CPUs; and/or a VMS-style clustering capability in OS X Server that's able to efficiently present up to 64 CPUs in various boxes as a single logical machine, and distribute the work appropriately. (Actually, that version of Server would be a natural compliment to the blades).



    There's a snowball's chance in Hell that Apple's releasing a single, 64 CPU machine. That's just not their ball game, and it's not the direction the high performance computing field is heading in anyway.
  • Reply 78 of 665
    Indeed progarmmer never did claim to have "insidership" AFAIK , he's just "providing grist for the rumor mill"



    and doing a good job at it too, apparantely
  • Reply 79 of 665
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Markus

    Well Dear T'hain Esh Kelch, I ain't an INSIDER. But Programmer IS.... 8)



    Okay let's try and look at this clearly Markus...



    Programmer isn't an insider... Smart yes, well informed yes, has some connections or contacts with folks who are 'insiders'? *maybe*...



    Moki (another forum member) also isn't an insider... Smart yes, well informed yes, develops some kick ass game for sure, has some connections or contacts with folks who are 'insiders'? Yea.



    Only TRUE INSIDERS would know for sure if any of this stuff is true or not.



    Define TRUE INSIDER:



    - Apple employee that works in HARDWARE development

    - Apple employee that works in OS development

    - IBM employee that works in the 970PPC chip group (anyone else @ IBM is prob. in the dark too)

    - Some 'blessed' early testers that work @ specific 3rd party OS X development houses.



    The only other group that might know something more would be ATI and/or nVidia and finally the folks Apple is using to build the motherboard.



    The rest of the 10k+ Apple employees, ???k IBM employees and all of the 'less than blessed' OS X software developers know little more than we do... (okay maybe a little more but I'll tell you right now, not much).



    Most of the chit-chat you'll read on this board is as follows...



    - Inital Rumor reports

    - Lusting over said rumor reports

    - Bashing said rumor reports

    - Repeat ...



    All this really does is fill the time till Apple is ready to make the real announcement.



    Finally ... with few exceptions rumor reports get more and more reliable the closer something is to being officially announced, usually more realistic too... Why? Simple! The closer a product is to being announced the more people @ Apple (and elsewhere) have to know about it... The more people that know something the easier it is for that something to leak without fear of getting busted.



    In the end, just go with the flow and have fun. Remember 99% of what you'll read on ANY rumors board is just fluff.



    Dave
  • Reply 80 of 665
    chilleymacchilleymac Posts: 142member
    So I guess noone is really able to confirm this MB info... That is to be expected. But combined with the fact that they posted the leaked pics of the MDD PowerMac it sure makes for some interesting if not droolworthy speculation. I just don't know how they could have access to these machines long enough to run benchmarks. Are these machines expected to be produced by the same people who produce the MDD PMs. I remember the picture of the MDD being so crappy that everyone believed they were obviously fakes, like someone ran through snapped a pic and ran out. Could the same person leak this kind of info?



    I know this is just wasted speculation but this is exciting.
Sign In or Register to comment.