G5 in Jan - new info

135678

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 141
    Go to yahoo and type motorola mpc 8500 and scroll down to <a href="http://www.pugglewump"; target="_blank">www.pugglewump</a> etc. it wont go the way I listed..sorry about that.
  • Reply 42 of 141
    [quote]Originally posted by Renan:

    <strong>Go to yahoo and type motorola mpc 8500 and scroll down to <a href="http://www.pugglewump"; target="_blank">www.pugglewump</a> etc. it wont go the way I listed..sorry about that.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Are you retarded, or just plain stupid?



    The following is from the page you gave a link to:

    [quote]3) G5 happies: To quote MOSR (http://www.macosrumors.com/)...



    On Wednesday, MPC 8500 revision 0.6 was received. This revision fixes a cache bug, and has improved altivec peformance to 85% of the 7460 G4's at e...<hr></blockquote>



    Read the bold. Now, let the bold text sink in. This is nothing more than some Mac fan's online diary. He's quoting MOSR in his diary.



    Wow.

    Amazing.

    Holy fscking sh*t!

    I can hardly contain my joy.
  • Reply 43 of 141
    SYN said --

    "6-8x performance increase when compared to a MP800 with a simple recompile is not possible with any chip that is even remotely close to being ready for mass production... Has this ever happened? even the 604e to G3 did not provide such an increase.



    The only case in which this could in fact be true is if the App was heavily reliant on AltiVec... or completely starved of memory bandwidth on current machines...



    6-8x is quite a speed jump."



    On the contrary, I think this jump would be (barely) possible, even leaving AltiVec out of it, with what I expect to be the next machines. Assume that the app fahre451 is talking about runs without MP tasks on a dual-800, and that the sealed-up machine that his new tests were run on was one of the 2.4-GHz G5 models that Architosh.com and other sites mention, then we have SPEC2000 (G4 DP-800) == 480 and SPEC2000 (G5 SP-2400) == 2046, so that the speedup would be 2046/480, or 4.3 x, quite consonant with the subjective "6 to 8 times" reported. See my CPU-characteristics chart at:

    \t<a href="http://www.bayarea.net/~kins/AboutMe/CPUs.html"; target="_blank">http://www.bayarea.net/~kins/AboutMe/CPUs.html</a>;



    On the other hand, the sites and figures that I am relying on are not universally accepted (to say the least). Witness these responses to the Register/MacOSRumors/Geek.com/Architosh.com numbers (Oct - Nov 2001):



    ????????????????????????? ???????

    obvious fakes (Oct 20 2001).

    Those numbers are obviously fake. I predict that the G5 will actually score closer to 50% of those faked scores. The Register got its numbers from MacOSRumors, a site notorious for bogus and wildly over-optimistic performance claims (a site that makes Apple's bogus performance claims actually look conservative).

    ????????????????????????? ???????

    These SPECS are bullshit. Not because I can't have the G5 to be that fast but because such a score would rely on a groundbreaking design. The G5 isn't. It's a nice design, very nice, but it's still human -)

    ????????????????????????? ???????

    The specs are greatly inflated (Nov 07 2001).

    I'm telling you people that the specs are way too good. There is no way the integer and floating point performance is 3X as good as a P4 at the same clock speed. You're all going to be in for a big disappointment when the G5 is finally released and tested. - by Mark

    ????????????????????????? ???????



    But I believe that, based on the public information from Motorola and the "moles" used by the rumor sites, which over the last three years, as far as the G5 goes, have all shown an astonishing degree of consistency and plausibility, the referred-to specs are not fakes.



    To the other issue -- re-compiles or re-writes being necessary for a new chip -- Apple and Motorola have assured us that no recompile will be necessary to run G4 binaries on the G5 (when it comes), though a simple re-compile can greatly speed up 64-bit operations. (Does fahre451's code do 64-bit arithmetic?)



    Kins Collins
  • Reply 44 of 141
    crusadercrusader Posts: 1,129member
    A 2.4 ghz G5???





    That is insane.



    I doubt the fact that any such chip exists, even in very small quantities.
  • Reply 45 of 141
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    [quote]Originally posted by Kins C:

    <strong>But I believe that, based on the public information from Motorola and the "moles" used by the rumor sites, which over the last three years, as far as the G5 goes, have all shown an astonishing degree of consistency and plausibility, the referred-to specs are not fakes. Kins Collins</strong><hr></blockquote>



    You forget one thing... It's not 'moles' it's 'mole' MOSR and The Register are both being fed 'insider info' from the exact same source... I even remember MOSR saying as much in one of their reports... We also know MOSR and The Register are not being run by the same kinda folks as say 60 Minutes... 2nd source / independant verfication?!?! What-chew-talkin-bout Willis!



    Give em something cool to report on and make it sound even half-way possible (not even sure that's needed any more) and fake some email headers and you too could be the next 'inside source' at MOSR or The Register.



    It's a game the whole family can play! <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />



    Dave



    P.S. Oh I couldn't let this one pass me by either...



    [quote]"To the other issue -- re-compiles or re-writes being necessary for a new chip -- Apple and Motorola have assured us that no recompile will be necessary to run G4 binaries on the G5 (when it comes), though a simple re-compile can greatly speed up 64-bit operations." <hr></blockquote>



    Oh really now... care to provide a link where Apple has stated this? I'm sure quite a few people would love to see it!



    [ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
  • Reply 46 of 141
    [quote]Originally posted by Strangelove:

    <strong>let's face it: do you guys really think maya was coded for this peanut dual-800? c'mon...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    actually maya only uses one processor (for rendering, the most time consuming part of 3d work) -- and god it bothers me!!!



    Mike
  • Reply 47 of 141
    Why bother compiling or writing Maya for a system that will be out of date in 6 months. Think about it for a minute... if you are writing an app that puts the most stress on any CPU you are running it on, why write it to a dated CPU design? Maya is also run by shops who absoutely need to have and buy the latest and greatest hardware. Every ounce of profit is irked out by faster CPU's. Apple has been touting Maya like sliced bread. Doesnt 1 + 1 + 1 add up to something here?
  • Reply 48 of 141
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    I skimmed this pretty fast so I may have missed it, but I did not see a mention of the speed boost by going from a 32 to a 64 bit processor. Why else would a recompile be needed except to put it in optimized 64 bit code? On top of that, it may have a new 256 bit AltiVec unit. On top of that too, it may be a dual G5, running at 1.6 GHz or above. I think it is quite possible to achieve that kind of performance increase. Though possible, I don't count on seeing it at MWSF.
  • Reply 49 of 141
    DaveGee, posted 12-28-2001 06:46 PM, QUOTE

    \tquote:



    \tOriginally posted by fahre451:

    \tApple System Profiler was not installed. I \tdid not bother installing it.





    This one line tells me this whole post is BS...



    First comes human nature... Don't open that box Johnny... What do you think the first thing little Johnny does..



    Next comes the geek factor... What self respecting computer geek wouldn't do his or her level headed best to find out what some Apple branded hermetically sealed box had ticking inside it.



    Finally comes the SUPER geek factor... A gaggle of code hackers recompile a company app and get a 6x to 8x performance pop and NOBODY was tempted to use all of the software tools they could get their hands on to see what may or may not be inside?



    Sorry, but nobody could ever convince me this report was for real...

    END OF QUOTE.



    DaveGee convinces me here that fahre451's report is bogus. But my own argument and that of "Steve's office cleaner" have also convinced me that the figure of "6 to 8 x" is at least POSSIBLE.



    Kins Collins
  • Reply 50 of 141
    A 6-8x speed improvement isn't outside the realm of possibility for non-AltiVec code -- in fact it is probably more likely for non-AltiVec code than for AltiVec code. The AltiVec unit is "only" 2 years old now, and the one in the 7450 is less than 1 year old. The scalar core of the G4/G4+, however, is largely unchanged from the G3 -- which is something like 4-5 years old.



    A processor clock rate boost from 800 to 1600 MHz, and a memory bus rate increase from 133 to 266, would account for a doubling of performance. Core architectural improvements, greater superscalar execution, wider internal busses, etc could reasonably deliver another 2x improvement -- that gets us to 4x. Depending on the exact nature of the code being executed and the new hardware optimizations built into both the chip and processor, a further 50-100% improvement is not unheard of between processor generations. Alternatively they could just have a quad processor prototype instead of a dual (this assumes that the application in question is multi-threaded, but that is likely considering the benchmarking machine of choice was a dual 800 and not the 867).



    Does this mean the original quote is true? No.

    Does this mean that such a machine will be introduced on Jan 7th? I'll tell you on the 7th.

    Does this bold claim automatically mean that the poster is full of it? No.
  • Reply 51 of 141
    [quote]Originally posted by snoopy:

    <strong>I skimmed this pretty fast so I may have missed it, but I did not see a mention of the speed boost by going from a 32 to a 64 bit processor. Why else would a recompile be needed except to put it in optimized 64 bit code? On top of that, it may have a new 256 bit AltiVec unit. On top of that too, it may be a dual G5, running at 1.6 GHz or above. I think it is quite possible to achieve that kind of performance increase. Though possible, I don't count on seeing it at MWSF.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    It is a common but incorrect assumption that switching to 64-bit code is somehow faster than running 32-bit code. This is

    false! All other things being equal (i.e. there is no performance hit for the 32-bit mode operation), if an application does not need to manipulate 64-bit integers (and most do not), then it will be faster as a 32-bit application. Why? If you are running in 64-bit mode then all of your integers and pointers are twice as big, and your register set is larger and thus you end up hauling more data in and out of memory.



    64-bit processors are typically faster than their 32-bit predecessors because they are newer, not because they are 64-bit. A 32-bit processor can be built (and usually are) with much wider busses, and often with larger-than-32-bit data types (i.e. double precision floating point and vector types). Exceptions are if the application needs &gt;32-bit address space (rare), or if it needs to do &gt;32-bit integer arithmetic (also relatively rare).



    Recompiling for a new (compatible) processor typically shows performance benefits because the compiler can schedule instructions better by using knowledge of pipeline lengths, execution units, the cost of particular instructions, and resource stalls. How much of a benefit depends on how different the processors are -- for the Pentium4 it makes an enormous difference for a whole bunch of reasons.



    The PowerPC spec defined how a 64-bit processor would work back in '94 when it was introduced. The 620 shipped in '95-96 and was a 64-bit processor. The move to 64-bit will be much easier for the PPC world than the x86 world, especially since Intel is off messing around with Merced.



    Lastly, I think it unlikely that we'll see a "256-bit AltiVec unit". There could be enhancements to the spec (I'd like to see a new vector double type, that being a paired double), but I'm not sure that going to larger registers would be a win. A better use of those transistors would be to have more execution units and rename registers.
  • Reply 52 of 141
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    [quote]Originally posted by The Mactivist:

    <strong>

    And why would Apple send out a protoype box without telling people what is inside - what's the point? If, for instance, they were manfucaturing both hardware AND software, wouldn't it be sort of necessary to get inside the box to plug something in if needed? Or do they have special boxes for different developers?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I can't say what happens with hardware developers but I know the company I work for recently got to work with an Apple test box that was not only sealed but had practically no information with it (it could have been a new G3 or G4 for all we were told). We were told just that it met a certain requirement that was set down and that's it.



    Apparently they then got to test the software, which was developed for current hardware, to show it performed and worked.



    The entire event was to serve as encouragement we should be supporting the Mac as they did have hardware suitable.



    Don't really know any more than that because I went on holidays the week before so didn't attend *shrug*
  • Reply 53 of 141
    I've dealt with prototype hardware (non-Apple) many times, and it is completely normal to not pry into the box. Not only do you not want to risk your position as a test site, but we're also software geeks -- all we really care about the hardware is how to write software for it and how fast it pushes bits. :cool:
  • Reply 54 of 141
    [quote]Originally posted by Programmer:

    <strong>I've dealt with prototype hardware (non-Apple) many times, and it is completely normal to not pry into the box. Not only do you not want to risk your position as a test site, but we're also software geeks -- all we really care about the hardware is how to write software for it and how fast it pushes bits. :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>



    so, you're saying here and elsewhere that what the original poster said is at least plausible? I thought the g5 was supposed to 100% compatible with the g4. Why would they need to recompile a program in order to run it? Doesn't that defeat the whole point? Does that mean you'd need a whole new version of this hypothetical software in order to run it (as a user?).



    Hmmm.... also, about this 64 vs 32 thing. What kind of software would crunch 64 bit integers? 3d rendering perhaps? Some scientific program? Any ideas?



    Oh fart. I shouldn't get my hopes up, I know, I know.

    <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
  • Reply 55 of 141
    [quote]Originally posted by The Mactivist:

    <strong>



    so, you're saying here and elsewhere that what the original poster said is at least plausible? I thought the g5 was supposed to 100% compatible with the g4. Why would they need to recompile a program in order to run it? Doesn't that defeat the whole point? Does that mean you'd need a whole new version of this hypothetical software in order to run it (as a user?).



    Hmmm.... also, about this 64 vs 32 thing. What kind of software would crunch 64 bit integers? 3d rendering perhaps? Some scientific program? Any ideas?



    Oh fart. I shouldn't get my hopes up, I know, I know.

    <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>





    The quote just said they rebuilt with the newer compiler and the results were astounding. It did not say that it was necessary to recompile. My guess would be that the old code would run, but only see the 2x-3x speed up that you'd expect from the clock rate bump and improved memory bus.





    Pure speculation... clearly Apple thinks it has something big for the 7th. They almost had something big for last summer, but delayed it at what appeared to be a very late stage. I don't think they'd use the word "revolutionary" lightly, so I'm optimistic that Steve is going to wow us with something... whether its a G5 or some new gadget I don't know, but I don't think an assortment of faster busses in yet another G4 machine will be the extent of it. Apollo will arrive as Moto has already announced it, but for a long time now (&gt;1 year) the Apollo has been earmarked as the "consumer machine G4". One possibility I haven't seen mentioned anywhere is that the G5 might arrive but MacOS X will use it only in 32-bit mode until the release of 10.2 which (apparently) is earmarked for next summer.





    One more thing that doesn't seem to be given much consideration: Apple has a lot of engineering talent working away feverishly. They are working on something, and Apple has shown in the last few years that they can and will deliver product. The longer we go without them delivering a major step up, the more likely they are to do so at the next event. I think they've made it pretty clear that this time they are going to deliver something of note.



    [ 12-29-2001: Message edited by: Programmer ]</p>
  • Reply 56 of 141
    [quote]Originally posted by Programmer:

    <strong>





    &lt;snip&gt;



    One more thing that doesn't seem to be given much consideration: Apple has a lot of engineering talent working away feverishly. They are working on something, and Apple has shown in the last few years that they can and will deliver product. The longer we go without them delivering a major step up, the more likely they are to do so at the next event. I think they've made it pretty clear that this time they are going to deliver something of note.



    [ 12-29-2001: Message edited by: Programmer ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Even more significantly, their most recent SEC filings report a 13% increase in R&D. That is a HUGE increase in R&D, especially considering the type of economy we are in.
  • Reply 57 of 141
    [quote]Originally posted by Programmer:

    <strong>[...]One possibility I haven't seen mentioned anywhere is that the G5 might arrive but MacOS X will use it only in 32-bit mode until the release of 10.2 which (apparently) is earmarked for next summer.[...]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Why does everyone seem to think that a 64b version of OS X can't happen before 10.2? Couldn't Apple just check the "64b box" on whatever compiler they're using and give us a 64b version of 10.1.2?



    Ok, I'm sure it's not quite that simple, but I really don't see any reason why they couldn't do it. Am I way off base here?
  • Reply 58 of 141
    [quote]Originally posted by Whisper:

    <strong>



    Why does everyone seem to think that a 64b version of OS X can't happen before 10.2? Couldn't Apple just check the "64b box" on whatever compiler they're using and give us a 64b version of 10.1.2?



    Ok, I'm sure it's not quite that simple, but I really don't see any reason why they couldn't do it. Am I way off base here?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'm afraid you are somewhat off base, yes. A simple recompile will give you a working programme, so long as nothing in the programme is dependent on the size of items in memory, especially pointers. Currently all pointers are 32 bits, and a lot of structures used in the OS assume this, so you need glue code to adjust this in a 64 bit environment.

    However, I believe that OSX was written with 64 bitness in mind, so most of the work has already been done, but for certain no one will be sure until after they have actually run a large number of existing programmes on 64 bit hardware and software, as with most development of existing code, the vast majority of the time is spent testing.



    Michael
  • Reply 59 of 141
    [quote]Originally posted by mmicist:

    <strong>



    However, I believe that OSX was written with 64 bitness in mind, so most of the work has already been done, but for certain no one will be sure until after they have actually run a large number of existing programmes on 64 bit hardware and software, as with most development of existing code, the vast majority of the time is spent testing.



    Michael</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Okay, assuming all that's needed is an update along the lines of 10.2, what would a 64 bit processor actually do for a program like, say, after effects - where there is a lot of rendering involved? Does it actually make anything at all faster? What's the point of making a 64bit chip at all?



    <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
  • Reply 60 of 141
    [quote]Originally posted by The Mactivist:

    <strong>



    Okay, assuming all that's needed is an update along the lines of 10.2, what would a 64 bit processor actually do for a program like, say, after effects - where there is a lot of rendering involved? Does it actually make anything at all faster? What's the point of making a 64bit chip at all?



    :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>



    After Effects and its ilk (image processing) are typically AltiVec optimized and thus operate on 128 bits of data at a time already. Each piece of data is 32 bits or smaller, but they work on 4 or more pieces at a time. A 64-bit processor's ability to do 64-bit integer math would probably not benefit them at all. Having a 64-bit address space might help -- they could work on data sets &gt;4 gigabytes without worrying about fitting it into memory. Virtual memory would handle it all for them, unless of course you really had that much RAM (rumoured to be up to 16 Gb in the new machines!).



    What kind of apps need 64-bit math? Very few, that's why we've been using 32-bit processors since the mid-80s and haven't pushed up to 64-bits. Each bit you add doubles the size of the number the processor can work on in a single operation so as the machine's word size increases its capability increases dramatically.



    8-bit = 256

    16-bit = 65356

    32-bit = ~4.5 billion

    64-bit = ~18.44 billion billions



    As you can imagine it is pretty normal to have to deal with numbers that are beyond what a 16-bit machine can deal with, but well within what a 32-bit machine can handle. And I'm just talking about what a machine can handle in one single native operation -- with more work a processor can operate on larger numbers, it just becomes less efficient and slower. Moving beyond 64-bit is even less likely, instead there will more likely be a more fundamental shift in the processor design paradigm at some point in the future.



    Note that all I'm talking about here is the processor's word size. Bus sizes, math register sizes, vector register sizes, etc are all measured in bits as well and these vary independently of the word size. If these are included the G4 can be considered a 32-bit 64-bit 128-bit, and maybe even 256-bit processor for a variety of reasons based on its internal architecture.
Sign In or Register to comment.