What the flop!?

applenutapplenut
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
eh, like the catchy title



uhg, anyways......



after all that marketing BS and fuss about gigaflops with the G4 and supercomputer status.... the G5 intro went without any gigaflop talk AT ALL.....



does anyone know how many gigaflops a dual 2Ghz G5 can do?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 7
    power applepower apple Posts: 335member
    good question! It's probably not much higher than the G4, since it was always mostly a measure of AltiVec performance
  • Reply 2 of 7
    catulluscatullus Posts: 4member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by applenut

    eh, like the catchy title



    uhg, anyways......



    after all that marketing BS and fuss about gigaflops with the G4 and supercomputer status.... the G5 intro went without any gigaflop talk AT ALL.....



    does anyone know how many gigaflops a dual 2Ghz G5 can do?





    If I recall the original IBM White papers correctly the peak for a single 1.8Ghz processor was about 14.4 with sustained being 7+. However, GFLOPS, like MIPS, is a meaningless.
  • Reply 3 of 7
    appleexecappleexec Posts: 51member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Power Apple

    good question! It's probably not much higher than the G4, since it was always mostly a measure of AltiVec performance



    Yeah, if it is just a measure of AltiVec performance then the numbers should probably be reasonably close to the Quicksilvers.
  • Reply 4 of 7
    mclmcl Posts: 11member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Catullus

    If I recall the original IBM White papers correctly the peak for a single 1.8Ghz processor was about 14.4 with sustained being 7+. However, GFLOPS, like MIPS, is a meaningless.





    Actually, GFLOPS (millions of floating point operations per second) is quite meaningful, and we use it all the time to evaluate CPUs for possible use in our projects. A CPU capable of more floating point ops/second is more likely to be used by us.
  • Reply 5 of 7
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Power Apple

    good question! It's probably not much higher than the G4, since it was always mostly a measure of AltiVec performance



    Actually, if it is in fact a measure of Altivec, then it should be much higher than a G4 since it should scale linearly with clockspeed.
  • Reply 6 of 7
    stupider...likeafoxstupider...likeafox Posts: 1,618member
    I thought that altivec in the G4 were bottlenecked by the bus speed (or memory bandwidth or summit like that) and that went double for dual configs?
  • Reply 7 of 7
    kupan787kupan787 Posts: 586member
    But the altivec in the 970 is equal to the altivec of the 7400. Many advances were made since then (the alticec on the 7455 is much improved), so comparing "altivec" numbers will be difficult.
Sign In or Register to comment.