So iCal just needs "64-bit sane" to go 2x as fast.
Photoshop will go 2x at "64-bit sane"...
...but be able to access more memory/plugings at "64-bit aware"
Oracle will see a tremendous boost (Greater than 2x) at "aware"
But for all the nitty-gritty things that might see a _little_ improvement, that's going to wait for Apple to put out the "full 64-bit OS".
Will iCal really be twice as fast on a 970 with a 64 bit OS as it would on a 32 bit OS on the same hardware? I thought I read that 64 bit might actually have a slight depreciation in speed for some tasks which dont require 64 "bitness", say adding two real numbers such as 1+1 becouse the registers (?) for the 64 bit version are twice as long to desciribe "1". Wasnt this one of the reasons that Apple/IBM went with a PPC which was fully backward compatable with the 32 bit code?
You aren't being obtuse, this is confusing, and I still don't think I explained it well... but I have to run for now.
Hmmm... how about we call these two kinds of support:
a) 970-enabled OS
b) 64-bit OS
If the 970 hardware arrives before Panther there will be a 970-enabled Jaguar update that is not a 64-bit OS. Panther will be a 64-bit OS and 970-enabled.
Will iCal really be twice as fast on a 970 with a 64 bit OS as it would on a 32 bit OS on the same hardware? I thought I read that 64 bit might actually have a slight depreciation in speed for some tasks which dont require 64 "bitness", say adding two real numbers such as 1+1 becouse the registers (?) for the 64 bit version are twice as long to desciribe "1". Wasnt this one of the reasons that Apple/IBM went with a PPC which was fully backward compatable with the 32 bit code?
No, iCal would be slightly slower if it were a 64-bit app (comparing 64-bit app on 970 to a 32-bit app on 970, assuming both are optimized for the 970).
A 64-bit app will not be faster than a 32-bit app unless it is doing things which are enabled by having a 64-bit machine -- i.e. 64-bit integer arithmetic and 64-bit memory accesses.
No, iCal would be slightly slower if it were a 64-bit app (comparing 64-bit app on 970 to a 32-bit app on 970, assuming both are optimized for the 970).
A 64-bit app will not be faster than a 32-bit app unless it is doing things which are enabled by having a 64-bit machine -- i.e. 64-bit integer arithmetic and 64-bit memory accesses.
Will iCal really be twice as fast on a 970 with a 64 bit OS as it would on a 32 bit OS on the same hardware?
Um. No. Sorry. That should be "Twice as fast compared to a G4". I concur with Programmer, if anything iCal will run slower as a 64-bit app on 64-bit hardware compared to as a 32-bit app on the identical hardware.
If the 970 hardware arrives before Panther there will be a 970-enabled Jaguar update that is not a 64-bit OS.
I suspect that this pre-Panther OS update would not have to be anything more than a few changes needed to duly recognize the presence of a 970, and then make sure that the 970 was placed into, and stayed firmly locked into, its 32-bit mode?
I suspect that this pre-Panther OS update would not have to be anything more than a few changes needed to duly recognize the presence of a 970, and then make sure that the 970 was placed into, and stayed firmly locked into, its 32-bit mode?
The format of the virtual memory page tables is (probably) changed to accomodate 64-bit address spaces. Even if large spaces are not supported the kernel would need to be changed slightly to handle the new format. The supervisor instructions and registers for the 970 are (probably) different than in the Motorola processors as well, requiring changes to other parts of the kernel and possibly some drivers. The motherboard will have a new suite of devices (AGP 8x, new PCI, USB 2, new memory subsystem, possibly VSPs) requiring driver updates. Many of these are similar to other new hardware releases, but the 970 changes will be just a bit more than that. Certainly nothing is stopping Apple from calling it a 10.2.x release, however.
10.3 will probably be more widely recompiled to be optimized for the 970, however, and will see significantly improved performance on the new hardware in addition to having 64-bit support.
Um. No. Sorry. That should be "Twice as fast compared to a G4". I concur with Programmer, if anything iCal will run slower as a 64-bit app on 64-bit hardware compared to as a 32-bit app on the identical hardware.
Frameworks (APIs) can be 64-bit enabled, which allow programs to run in the 64-bit "framework" of the OS. While the hardware may be 64-bit, remember that the 970 is backward compatible with 32-bit OSs and software. That is how Apple is going to be able to get away with releasing 64-bit hardware running 32-bit OS and apps initially. Think of it this way: You buy an HDTV-capable television set. Granted, the HDTV decoder is not included so you are not watching HDTV broadcasts in the true HDTV format, but are capable of doing so with the proper decoder. Same goes for the 970 Powermac. It is 64-bit hardware, but you will initially be running 32-bit OS and apps.
While I agree with people who have said a 64-bit app will not be twice as fast as a 32-bit app, the newer hardware will seem like it is twice as fast because of the inherent improvements in moving information around various hardware subsystems (ie; memory, buses, cpu, fpu, etc...).
i'm going to say they are wrong... in which case I hope I am, but everytime I make a prediction it has never become right... so I'm hoping my bad luck will give me good luck so that this whole 970 happens now... so all I have to worry about is the money to get one but with my luck I will finally be correct but in this case I don't want too.
While I agree with people who have said a 64-bit app will not be twice as fast as a 32-bit app, the newer hardware will seem like it is twice as fast because of the inherent improvements in moving information around various hardware subsystems (ie; memory, buses, cpu, fpu, etc...).
32-bit apps running on this hardware will gain these same benefits, however. The 64-bit and 32-bit apps will have no significant performance differences unless they are working on 64-bit integers, or require >32-bit address space. There is no question that the 970 will be faster than a G4, but this has nothing to do with 64-bit vs. 32-bit -- it has to do with a modern very superscalar, heavily pipelined out-of-order-execution core with gobs of bandwidth available.
Ok, getting back to what's really important here. How kewl will the next Power Mac look, and what is the slogan going to be? It is AppleInsider after all!
Illustrator is FUN. I kinda hit a brick wall (in terms of functionality) doing mock-ups in AppleWorks Drawing. Some of you may remember my stackable Mac. What do you guys think is better:
I think the system board is going to be longer and narrower as the CeBIT image that "snuck out", and several other recent rumor sites have noted. I am guessing a bit deeper of a system then. I won't even try and work up a mockup as Apple engineers think way ahead of existing or even prototype systems.
Why is there all this excitement about moving to a 64bit OS on a 64bit CPU, when clearly it's not going to run any faster than a 32bit OS on a 64bit CPU?
It's all about getting our 64bit goodness out the door & onto the desktop/laptop before Wintel...
I may have just missed his posts but I haven't seen Moki on these boards for a while. No comments on the MB rumors for dates and benchmarks. You don't suppose he has a test machine and is under a NDA do you?
Comments
Originally posted by Nevyn
Depends on what "is" is. Er, wait.
So iCal just needs "64-bit sane" to go 2x as fast.
Photoshop will go 2x at "64-bit sane"...
...but be able to access more memory/plugings at "64-bit aware"
Oracle will see a tremendous boost (Greater than 2x) at "aware"
But for all the nitty-gritty things that might see a _little_ improvement, that's going to wait for Apple to put out the "full 64-bit OS".
Will iCal really be twice as fast on a 970 with a 64 bit OS as it would on a 32 bit OS on the same hardware? I thought I read that 64 bit might actually have a slight depreciation in speed for some tasks which dont require 64 "bitness", say adding two real numbers such as 1+1 becouse the registers (?) for the 64 bit version are twice as long to desciribe "1". Wasnt this one of the reasons that Apple/IBM went with a PPC which was fully backward compatable with the 32 bit code?
Originally posted by Nevyn
You aren't being obtuse, this is confusing, and I still don't think I explained it well... but I have to run for now.
Hmmm... how about we call these two kinds of support:
a) 970-enabled OS
b) 64-bit OS
If the 970 hardware arrives before Panther there will be a 970-enabled Jaguar update that is not a 64-bit OS. Panther will be a 64-bit OS and 970-enabled.
Originally posted by JCG
Will iCal really be twice as fast on a 970 with a 64 bit OS as it would on a 32 bit OS on the same hardware? I thought I read that 64 bit might actually have a slight depreciation in speed for some tasks which dont require 64 "bitness", say adding two real numbers such as 1+1 becouse the registers (?) for the 64 bit version are twice as long to desciribe "1". Wasnt this one of the reasons that Apple/IBM went with a PPC which was fully backward compatable with the 32 bit code?
No, iCal would be slightly slower if it were a 64-bit app (comparing 64-bit app on 970 to a 32-bit app on 970, assuming both are optimized for the 970).
A 64-bit app will not be faster than a 32-bit app unless it is doing things which are enabled by having a 64-bit machine -- i.e. 64-bit integer arithmetic and 64-bit memory accesses.
Originally posted by Programmer
No, iCal would be slightly slower if it were a 64-bit app (comparing 64-bit app on 970 to a 32-bit app on 970, assuming both are optimized for the 970).
A 64-bit app will not be faster than a 32-bit app unless it is doing things which are enabled by having a 64-bit machine -- i.e. 64-bit integer arithmetic and 64-bit memory accesses.
Thank you Programmer for the clarification.
Originally posted by JCG
Will iCal really be twice as fast on a 970 with a 64 bit OS as it would on a 32 bit OS on the same hardware?
Um. No. Sorry. That should be "Twice as fast compared to a G4". I concur with Programmer, if anything iCal will run slower as a 64-bit app on 64-bit hardware compared to as a 32-bit app on the identical hardware.
Originally posted by Programmer
If the 970 hardware arrives before Panther there will be a 970-enabled Jaguar update that is not a 64-bit OS.
I suspect that this pre-Panther OS update would not have to be anything more than a few changes needed to duly recognize the presence of a 970, and then make sure that the 970 was placed into, and stayed firmly locked into, its 32-bit mode?
Originally posted by shetline
I suspect that this pre-Panther OS update would not have to be anything more than a few changes needed to duly recognize the presence of a 970, and then make sure that the 970 was placed into, and stayed firmly locked into, its 32-bit mode?
The format of the virtual memory page tables is (probably) changed to accomodate 64-bit address spaces. Even if large spaces are not supported the kernel would need to be changed slightly to handle the new format. The supervisor instructions and registers for the 970 are (probably) different than in the Motorola processors as well, requiring changes to other parts of the kernel and possibly some drivers. The motherboard will have a new suite of devices (AGP 8x, new PCI, USB 2, new memory subsystem, possibly VSPs) requiring driver updates. Many of these are similar to other new hardware releases, but the 970 changes will be just a bit more than that. Certainly nothing is stopping Apple from calling it a 10.2.x release, however.
10.3 will probably be more widely recompiled to be optimized for the 970, however, and will see significantly improved performance on the new hardware in addition to having 64-bit support.
Originally posted by Nevyn
Um. No. Sorry. That should be "Twice as fast compared to a G4". I concur with Programmer, if anything iCal will run slower as a 64-bit app on 64-bit hardware compared to as a 32-bit app on the identical hardware.
Frameworks (APIs) can be 64-bit enabled, which allow programs to run in the 64-bit "framework" of the OS. While the hardware may be 64-bit, remember that the 970 is backward compatible with 32-bit OSs and software. That is how Apple is going to be able to get away with releasing 64-bit hardware running 32-bit OS and apps initially. Think of it this way: You buy an HDTV-capable television set. Granted, the HDTV decoder is not included so you are not watching HDTV broadcasts in the true HDTV format, but are capable of doing so with the proper decoder. Same goes for the 970 Powermac. It is 64-bit hardware, but you will initially be running 32-bit OS and apps.
While I agree with people who have said a 64-bit app will not be twice as fast as a 32-bit app, the newer hardware will seem like it is twice as fast because of the inherent improvements in moving information around various hardware subsystems (ie; memory, buses, cpu, fpu, etc...).
Regardless, this thing is going to scream!
Originally posted by kraig911
i'm going to say they are wrong... in which case I hope I am, but everytime I make a prediction it has never become right... so I'm hoping my bad luck will give me good luck so that this whole 970 happens now... so all I have to worry about is the money to get one
Wow, after reading this, my head hurts!
Originally posted by tsukurite
Wow, after reading this, my head hurts!
Grammar is becoming a lost art, alas.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Grammar is becoming a lost art, alas.
[irony alert]
Unfortunately, that is the state our society is at.
[/ia]
Originally posted by Rhumgod
While I agree with people who have said a 64-bit app will not be twice as fast as a 32-bit app, the newer hardware will seem like it is twice as fast because of the inherent improvements in moving information around various hardware subsystems (ie; memory, buses, cpu, fpu, etc...).
32-bit apps running on this hardware will gain these same benefits, however. The 64-bit and 32-bit apps will have no significant performance differences unless they are working on 64-bit integers, or require >32-bit address space. There is no question that the 970 will be faster than a G4, but this has nothing to do with 64-bit vs. 32-bit -- it has to do with a modern very superscalar, heavily pipelined out-of-order-execution core with gobs of bandwidth available.
Illustrator is FUN. I kinda hit a brick wall (in terms of functionality) doing mock-ups in AppleWorks Drawing. Some of you may remember my stackable Mac. What do you guys think is better:
Power Mac 9700: A New Golden Age
Power Mac 9700: Back in Black
Hmmmmm?
Barto
Originally posted by MartianMatt
[irony alert]
Unfortunately, that is the state our society is at.
[/ia]
<nitpick>
You are IN a state - not at one. So that would be:
'Unfortunately, that is the state our society is in.'
</nitpick>
<edit: forgot all the smilie thingies>
Kroehl
Originally posted by Messiah
Why is there all this excitement about moving to a 64bit OS on a 64bit CPU, when clearly it's not going to run any faster than a 32bit OS on a 64bit CPU?
It's all about getting our 64bit goodness out the door & onto the desktop/laptop before Wintel...
;^p
Originally posted by kroehl
<nitpick>
You are IN a state - not at one. So that would be:
'Unfortunately, that is the state our society is in.'
</nitpick>
<edit: forgot all the smilie thingies>
Kroehl
Gotcha!
Yup, that was the point of the [irony alert]...
Originally posted by kroehl
<nitpick>
quote:
Originally posted by MartianMatt
[irony alert]
Unfortunately, that is the state our society is at.
[/ia]
<nitpick>
You are IN a state - not at one. So that would be:
'Unfortunately, that is the state our society is in.'
</nitpick>
Kroehl
Ending sentences with prepositons, is, of course, grammatically wrong.
Should be : Unfortunately, that is the state in which our society is.
Churchill showed just how silly this can get with the marvellous phrase "This is something up with which I shall not put."
It's fun to start rumors.