PDA

View Full Version : PPC fast enough for today? I say no... Not for DVD encoding




orestes1984
Oct 19, 2012, 10:17 AM
I set up just a basic DVD folder encode on Handbrake 0.94 with Apple TV settings on my dual core G.5 2.3ghz Xserve, just to see what would happen. 7hours later :eek:.

For comparison I also have my Dual Core i5 2.3ghz MacBook Pro encoding a DVD folder using the same settings in Handbrake o.98 will take 1.5 hours.

To DVD encoding, my Xserve says no apparently :rolleyes:. Real world comparison? My MacBook Pro is a bit more than 4.5 times faster for the same CPU clock if we look at time it takes to complete a task.

But this is not accurate, as it does not take into account disk access time, lets look at frames per second where my Xserve is chugging away at 11frames per second and while I'm typing here my MacBook Pro is ticking over 25 frames per second.

Anyway, I am likely to convert 3 or 4 DVDs with Handbrake on my MacBook while doing other tasks while my Xserve will do just 1 with the only thing open being Handbrake in the same time.

Ok, so I have a few DVD folders left to convert and this will make the process a little bit faster, it's the tortoise and the hare, but if I had to do this all with my Xserve? It would take 2 or 3 days for what is going to take 8 hours.

This is an interesting comparison for what a machine with two 2.3ghz physical cores gets you in 2005 from Apple vs. what a machine with two 2.3ghz physical cores gets you in 2011 from Apple. 6 years is an eternity in computer technology.

I do wonder though, can I make this task faster by installing a SATA2 controller? I need to do some more research as to how the drives connect to the motherboard in the Xserve.

I guess with some longer data cables routed to the PCI slots rather than the opposite side of the board where the SATA ports are I could do it. After doing some inspection here.

http://d3d71ba2asa5oz.cloudfront.net/43000231/images/qt42600k4rdnk.jpg

But how much difference would it make and how much of this problem is CPU related.



666sheep
Oct 19, 2012, 12:33 PM
dual core G.5 2.3ghz 7hours.

Dual Core i5 2.3ghz MacBook Pro 1.5 hours.

I do wonder though, can I make this task faster by installing a SATA2 controller?

But how much difference would it make and how much of this problem is CPU related.

SATA 2 won't help. It's CPU thing because CPU does main job. Even RAMdisk won't make it faster. If you have enough RAM to create one on Xserve - test it yourself.

orestes1984
Oct 19, 2012, 12:41 PM
SATA 2 won't help. It's CPU thing because CPU does main job. Even RAMdisk won't make it faster. If you have enough RAM to create one on Xserve - test it yourself.

I have an SSD in it, I'm currently doing a conversion on a platter disk though. I didn't want to dirty up my SSD. I'll test it after this encode finishes though.

666sheep
Oct 19, 2012, 02:50 PM
Also, keep in mind that MBP CPU uses HT. So you have 4 cores available and used, even if 2 virtual ones are running at half speed of physical ones, HB makes a good use of it.

SkyBell
Oct 19, 2012, 03:35 PM
My eMac will take a good 9-10 hours to encode 1 hour of a DVD from Handbrake. I'm doing one right now - Three - 1 hour episodes of a TV show. On Day Three now, almost done with it. Which is perfectly fine with me, I have no desire for it to go faster; ripping DVD's is not really a huge priority of mine, I have all the time in the world to do it.

But I suppose for most people, this isn't an acceptable rate... I say they should slow down and be patient. :p

goMac
Oct 19, 2012, 03:37 PM
An i5 is clock for clock way faster than a G5. The Core Duos were clock for clock faster even.

So this isn't unexpected.

Intel also added Altivec features to their architecture, so even when you take into account special processing on the G5 it doesn't really matter.

orestes1984
Oct 19, 2012, 03:37 PM
Also, keep in mind that MBP CPU uses HT. So you have 4 cores available and used, even if 2 virtual ones are running at half speed of physical ones, HB makes a good use of it.

True, I don't consider hyperthreading really CPUs though even if Intel does it well.

OK... 1 encoding fihished and now I will see what happens if I go from my platter disk to my SSD.

Starfighter
Oct 19, 2012, 03:43 PM
Why don't you download them instead? I guess you have your reasons, but I have been curious on this for a while now - why some people convert their whole DVD collection, a process that takes months for someone with a big collection, when it can all be downloaded in a few hours. I mean, a DVD rip even for personal use is as illegal as a downloaded .avi, right?

orestes1984
Oct 19, 2012, 03:54 PM
That depends which country you're in... for both questions.

In Australia DVD copying is technically illegal but not really enforced. For private use VHS/PVR recording of TV broadcasts is quasi-legal.

In Australia we still also have this funny thing called ADSL2+ with a 24mbit theoretical limit and long analogue phone lines that stretch for many kilometres meaning that people often get less than 1/4 of that theoretical limit if they can get it at all. Cable internet is also not prevelant outside of the capital cities. We are only just starting to roll out a fiber-optic network.

In Australia we also have download limits as well and when you start downloading H.264 movies you can eat up your 200gb download limit in a matter of days. Some people buy a lot less data than this per month as well on their internet plans.

GermanyChris
Oct 19, 2012, 03:56 PM
my quad did a blu ray in 8..7 seems awful slow

orestes1984
Oct 19, 2012, 04:01 PM
my quad did a blu ray in 8..7 seems awful slow

Your quad has twice the CPU power though.

GermanyChris
Oct 19, 2012, 04:02 PM
Your quad has twice the CPU power though.

and a blu ray rip is 40gb and a dvd rip is 7ish

orestes1984
Oct 19, 2012, 04:06 PM
and a blu ray rip is 40gb and a dvd rip is 7ish

And 1 G5 CPU is nothing fast let alone 2... I don't know, I'm doing the conversion on 1 disk. I'm only doing it to see how slow it is, or whether its usable.

It's not really useable for anything other than serving files.

GermanyChris
Oct 19, 2012, 04:09 PM
And 1 G5 CPU is nothing fast let alone 2... I don't know, I'm doing the conversion on 1 disk. I'm only doing it to see how slow it is, or whether its usable.

It's not really useable for anything other than serving files.

I still think theres something else going on, that just doesn't seem fast enough..

Maybe it is the conversion on the same disk, I don't do that..

orestes1984
Oct 19, 2012, 04:17 PM
I still think theres something else going on, that just doesn't seem fast enough..

Maybe it is the conversion on the same disk, I don't do that..

It's probably the fact that I'm converting to the same disk at the moment and also the fact that the disks are only SATA 1, not SATA 2.

This had me debating whether I should put a SATA2 card in this machine, but... I don't really use it enough in ways that require more throughput than SATA 1 can provide.

The slowest link is 100mbit ethernet which is a lot slower than SATA1 and with its current configuration it serves data to my Apple TV just fine and also sends data across the network just fine at Gigabit speeds which is also slower than SATA 1.

As a file server I don't need it to be any faster than what it is, it is already to much of a computer for the job it does if I'm being completely honest.

GermanyChris
Oct 19, 2012, 04:18 PM
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1341757&highlight=handbrake

Here is my handbrake thread on my DP 2.0 I was getting 70-90fps on the DP

----------

It's probably the fact that I'm converting to the same disk at the moment and also the fact that the disks are only SATA 1, not SATA 2.

This had me debating whether I should put a SATA2 card in this machine, but... I don't really use it enough in ways that require more throughput than SATA 1 can provide.

The slowest link is 100mbit ethernet which is a lot slower than SATA1 and with its current configuration it serves data to my Apple TV just fine and also sends data across the network just fine at Gigabit speeds which is also slower than SATA 1.

As a file server I don't need it to be any faster than what it is, it is already to much of a computer for the job it does if I'm being completely honest.

see my above post

orestes1984
Oct 19, 2012, 04:26 PM
I think that is newer settings designed for larger file outputs on HD devices like the Apple TV, I wouldn't be game enough to state that as a fact.

I don't need to rip on my G5 when my MacBook does it just fine in the background. As I said I could do everything I'm doing on my G5 with a far slower machine. I could be using a NAS device if a jailbreak for ATV3 was released.

As it stands I could be doing everything I'm doing with a Yikes G4 and a couple of PCI cards, just a basic machine that can run 10.5.8 and iTunes, I could do the same on an Atom based computer as well I guess. The G5 is a bit of an overkill because you don't see many Xserves for sale these days particularly in Australia and so I bought it.

My Xserve is not a computer I use for daily purposes and I don't see it as ever being designed that way so it's just fine with me if it doesn't handle ripping duties as other computers on my network handle the task better.

drorpheus
Oct 19, 2012, 07:52 PM
Dude something is not right with your setup. For a normal 1hr 45min dvd rip on my dual 2.3 g5 not dual core, takes about 1hr 20min (getting 38 fps), stretching it to 720p takes about 2hr 30min to 3hr, stretching it to 1080p takes about 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 hours. Either your dvd drive is burning out, you have next to no ram, or your hard drives are super slow, because it should not be taking 8 hours. Converting an iTunes video 30min tv ep, takes about 1hr 20-45 to stretch it to 1080p.

I have only 4gb of ram in and 2) 1tb WD Black in RAID 0 w/no RAID card.

California
Oct 19, 2012, 08:36 PM
Dude something is not right with your setup. For a normal 1hr 45min dvd rip on my dual 2.3 g5 not dual core, takes about 1hr 20min (getting 38 fps), stretching it to 720p takes about 2hr 30min to 3hr, stretching it to 1080p takes about 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 hours. Either your dvd drive is burning out, you have next to no ram, or your hard drives are super slow, because it should not be taking 8 hours. Converting an iTunes video 30min tv ep, takes about 1hr 20-45 to stretch it to 1080p.

I have only 4gb of ram in and 2) 1tb WD Black in RAID 0 w/no RAID card.
I set up just a basic DVD folder encode on Handbrake 0.94 with Apple TV settings on my dual core G.5 2.3ghz Xserve, just to see what would happen. 7hours later :eek:.

For comparison I also have my Dual Core i5 2.3ghz MacBook Pro encoding a DVD folder using the same settings in Handbrake o.98 will take 1.5 hours.

To DVD encoding, my Xserve says no apparently :rolleyes:. Real world comparison? My MacBook Pro is a bit more than 4.5 times faster for the same CPU clock if we look at time it takes to complete a task.

But this is not accurate, as it does not take into account disk access time, lets look at frames per second where my Xserve is chugging away at 11frames per second and while I'm typing here my MacBook Pro is ticking over 25 frames per second.

Anyway, I am likely to convert 3 or 4 DVDs with Handbrake on my MacBook while doing other tasks while my Xserve will do just 1 with the only thing open being Handbrake in the same time.

Ok, so I have a few DVD folders left to convert and this will make the process a little bit faster, it's the tortoise and the hare, but if I had to do this all with my Xserve? It would take 2 or 3 days for what is going to take 8 hours.

This is an interesting comparison for what a machine with two 2.3ghz physical cores gets you in 2005 from Apple vs. what a machine with two 2.3ghz physical cores gets you in 2011 from Apple. 6 years is an eternity in computer technology.

I do wonder though, can I make this task faster by installing a SATA2 controller? I need to do some more research as to how the drives connect to the motherboard in the Xserve.

I guess with some longer data cables routed to the PCI slots rather than the opposite side of the board where the SATA ports are I could do it. After doing some inspection here.

http://d3d71ba2asa5oz.cloudfront.net/43000231/images/qt42600k4rdnk.jpg

But how much difference would it make and how much of this problem is CPU related.

I thought Xserves were dual processor, not dual core?

Maybe one of your processors isn't working? (I have no idea, just guessing here)

Because that kind of work even on a 2.5ghz dual processor G5 didn't take that long.

Yes, I was right, Xserve was DP, not Dual Core. Which one do you have, anyway?

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/xserve/index-xserve.html

thorns
Oct 20, 2012, 03:19 PM
What's the point of stretching low-res material to HD resolutions?

orestes1984
Oct 20, 2012, 07:53 PM
I thought Xserves were dual processor, not dual core?

Maybe one of your processors isn't working? (I have no idea, just guessing here)

Because that kind of work even on a 2.5ghz dual processor G5 didn't take that long.

Yes, I was right, Xserve was DP, not Dual Core. Which one do you have, anyway?

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/xserve/index-xserve.html

Whether or not the cores are located on 1 CPU or 2 CPUs its still equivalent. It's just a way of shrinking technology.

2 CPUs with 1 core on each CPU or 1 CPU with 2 cores, it's the same thing.

Dude something is not right with your setup.

My computer is perfectly fine... Although I should perhaps reformat the disk as it's been in that many different computers and the partition map is MBR and not APM it shouldn't make a difference at all. I will get round to that when my next drive module comes in the mail so I can put a new hard drive in.

The only thing wrong with the Xserve is the crappy VGA video card and the lack of Quartz Extreme but that doesn't affect disk performance.

California
Oct 20, 2012, 09:14 PM
Whether or not the cores are located on 1 CPU or 2 CPUs its still equivalent. It's just a way of shrinking technology.

2 CPUs with 1 core on each CPU or 1 CPU with 2 cores, it's the same thing.


The reason I asked was AFAIK, you can run a G5 Dual Processor (not Dual Core) on one of the processors if the other one fails.

Pretty sure on the DC models this is impossible. So I was wondering if one of your proc. had failed, because I can render quicker than that on a Powerbook G4

Subish
Oct 20, 2012, 09:48 PM
Dude something is not right with your setup. For a normal 1hr 45min dvd rip on my dual 2.3 g5 not dual core, takes about 1hr 20min (getting 38 fps), stretching it to 720p takes about 2hr 30min to 3hr, stretching it to 1080p takes about 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 hours. Either your dvd drive is burning out, you have next to no ram, or your hard drives are super slow, because it should not be taking 8 hours. Converting an iTunes video 30min tv ep, takes about 1hr 20-45 to stretch it to 1080p.

I have only 4gb of ram in and 2) 1tb WD Black in RAID 0 w/no RAID card.

I'm getting about same results as above with my G5

Now I usually use Mac The Ripper to rip the dvd and then use Handbreak. I just do that because I can queue up a bunch of things to encodes. I usually do about 5-10 at a time but since it is not my main machine I'm not really worried about it. I avg between 2-3 hours per each one.

my set up:
Power Mac G5 2.3DP with 8 gigs of Ram and a 1Tb HDD.

orestes1984
Oct 20, 2012, 09:57 PM
The reason I asked was AFAIK, you can run a G5 Dual Processor (not Dual Core) on one of the processors if the other one fails.

Pretty sure on the DC models this is impossible. So I was wondering if one of your proc. had failed, because I can render quicker than that on a Powerbook G4

The processors are working fine, they both show up in activity monitor and system profiler.

http://i.imgur.com/3YT6l.png
http://i.imgur.com/EBv35.png

JCstudios
Nov 4, 2012, 01:10 AM
My PowerBook G4 take over 10 hours to encode a HD mp4 files.

It's just way toooo long.

I'm stressed.

orestes1984
Nov 4, 2012, 02:54 AM
My PowerBook G4 take over 10 hours to encode a HD mp4 files.

It's just way toooo long.

I'm stressed.

What is your source? If they are MKVs. Try using something more modern like iFlicks to do a pass through conversion. Just try iFlicks in general it's more modern yet still runs on PPC.

Michael Anthony
Nov 4, 2012, 04:48 AM
What is your source? If they are MKVs. Try using something more modern like iFlicks to do a pass through conversion. Just try iFlicks in general it's more modern yet still runs on PPC.
That's because a pass-through doesn't do anything... it literally just passes the feed from the original and into the new file container.

orestes1984
Nov 4, 2012, 04:56 AM
That's because a pass-through doesn't do anything... it literally just passes the feed from the original and into the new file container.

I know how it works... If it's a H.264 file in an MKV container then you're recreating the wheel by running it through Handbrake where iFlicks will do it in the same time it takes to copy and paste the file. It will put it in an M4V container, add the metadata and put it into iTunes for you in 1 step.

iFlicks is the ducks guts for PPC and for most things in general. It's a solution worth paying for especially on PPC where there are limited solutions as it is.

Jethryn Freyman
Nov 4, 2012, 05:04 AM
I know how it works... If it's a H.264 file in an MKV container then you're recreating the wheel by running it through Handbrake where iFlicks will do it in the same time it takes to copy and paste the file. It will put it in an M4V container, add the metadata and put it into iTunes for you in 1 step.

iFlicks is the ducks guts for PPC and for most things in general. It's a solution worth paying for especially on PPC where there are limited solutions as it is.
Yeah I'll admit that whenever I have any video to transcode, I sent it off over Ethernet and use Remote Desktop to Handbrake it. Good setup I have here, I feel.

wobegong
Nov 4, 2012, 11:12 PM
The G5 shows its age really on things like video encoding, if it's casual at home (like mine is) then I don't really mind leaving it running overnight (processing phone video movies into iMovie, stablizing them (if my daughter took them...... ;) ) and then converting the final result (last time 2.5 hours worth of footage plus added chapter markers, iMovie theme etc) using my Elgato .264 USB thingy (which speeds things up quite a bit but still slow by modern standard).

Of course I could use my MBP but I prefer working on a desktop and it's only the final export that drags.

Of course I may not mind waiting (overnight or even longer sometimes depending what the project is) because its personal 'work' and so not time critical.

Of course I do though have to pay the electricity bill that the G5 sucks up for all those processing hours when I could do it on my laptop in a fraction of the time and for a fraction of the cost but I'm happy with that currently.

wobegong
Nov 5, 2012, 02:57 AM
2 CPUs with 1 core on each CPU or 1 CPU with 2 cores, it's the same thing.

Nope. Dual CPU has 512k cache per CPU, Dual Core has 1Mb per core, these days CPU cache is seen as a very important factor (think old school cripplied Celerons (256k), Pentiums (512k commonly) and then Xeons (1Mb or even 2Mb cache) - These days i7's have 8Mb..

Not sure by how much but certainly doubling the cache and having the two CPU's on a single chip will certainly have an impact on work like encoding.

You can refer to this which compares a Dual Core 2Ghz G5 with a 2 x Single Core 2Ghz G5, you'll see the Dual Core outperforms the Dual CPU on everything except those tasks which offload to the GPU.
http://www.barefeats.com/dc20.html

throAU
Nov 5, 2012, 03:27 AM
PowerPC CPUs are now slow. You had 8 years of usage out of them. Its time to let it go... time moves on and the newer CPU architectures have a lot of new instructions and architectural tricks to speed this sort of thing up massively.

For comparison, my 2011 MBP will rip and encode DVDs using handbrake in faster than 2-3x real time.

I.e., 120 minute DVD ripped and encoded in about 20-30 minutes. :)


Expecting an 8 year old machine to get anywhere within 1/5th of that speed is just not realistic.

GermanyChris
Nov 5, 2012, 04:26 AM
PowerPC CPUs are now slow. You had 8 years of usage out of them. Its time to let it go... time moves on and the newer CPU architectures have a lot of new instructions and architectural tricks to speed this sort of thing up massively.

For comparison, my 2011 MBP will rip and encode DVDs using handbrake in faster than 2-3x real time.

I.e., 120 minute DVD ripped and encoded in about 20-30 minutes. :)


Expecting an 8 year old machine to get anywhere within 1/5th of that speed is just not realistic.

To many factors at play to make a statement like that..

throAU
Nov 5, 2012, 05:47 AM
OK find me an 8 year old desktop machine that gets within 20% of that encoding speed...

orestes1984
Nov 5, 2012, 06:00 AM
OK find me an 8 year old desktop machine that gets within 20% of that encoding speed...

That's easy, get me a Socket 754 Athlon 64 3700+. It is essentially a single core version of the current intel CPU arch and it's pretty much the turning point that got us to where we are now with the current AMD/Intel CPUs, it's well known that when AMD killed off the Itanium, Intel basically copied the Athlon 64 CPU arch and its pretty much the same arch we're using now with Intel Macs.

The only issue is the lack of SMP due to it of course being a single core CPU and it being the last processor you could really lock with a single rogue process. But for a per core CPU Athlon 64s were blisteringly fast and will handle everything including encoding and playing 1080p, you just don't have a fallback CPU core when you max out your single core. This means everything basically grinds to a halt rather then having load balancing through SMP with a multi-core system. However, the Athlon 64 was a game changing desktop CPU.

The only thing that's really been changed since then is the addition of Hyper Threading to the arch and reintroduction of Turbo Boost technology, but a single core Athlon 64 basically destroyed everything including the G5. 2003 was the year when I made the wrong bet of jumping from my G4 iMac and going with Windows XP without knowing that Apple would soon follow with Intel on the same CPU arch we're still on 8 years later.

Jethryn Freyman
Nov 5, 2012, 06:42 AM
That's easy, get me a Socket 754 Athlon 64 3700+. It is essentially a single core version of the current intel CPU arch and it's pretty much the turning point that got us to where we are now with the current AMD/Intel CPUs, it's well known that when AMD killed off the Itanium, Intel basically copied the Athlon 64 CPU arch and its pretty much the same arch we're using now with Intel Macs.

The only issue is the lack of SMP due to it of course being a single core CPU and it being the last processor you could really lock with a single rogue process. But for a per core CPU Athlon 64s were blisteringly fast and will handle everything including encoding and playing 1080p, you just don't have a fallback CPU core when you max out your single core. This means everything basically grinds to a halt rather then having load balancing through SMP with a multi-core system. However, the Athlon 64 was a game changing desktop CPU.

The only thing that's really been changed since then is the addition of Hyper Threading to the arch and reintroduction of Turbo Boost technology, but a single core Athlon 64 basically destroyed everything including the G5. 2003 was the year when I made the wrong bet of jumping from my G4 iMac and going with Windows XP without knowing that Apple would soon follow with Intel on the same CPU arch we're still on 8 years later.

Sorry I must call out on this; I remember six months ago when I sold a quad core 3.1GHz Athlon FX that was nearly outperformed in CPU performance by Sandy Bridge <2GHz Macbook Airs.

orestes1984
Nov 5, 2012, 06:52 AM
Sorry I must call out on this; I remember six months ago when I sold a quad core 3.1GHz Athlon FX that was nearly outperformed in CPU performance by Sandy Bridge <2GHz Macbook Airs.

However that is an intel CPU what your asking is 8 year old comparisons and what I can tell you is the Athlon 64 was light years ahead of the G5, sure a more modern CPU on the same arch is going to be faster but that's not what you asked.

If you want something that's 20% as fast as modern CPUs and faster than a G5 get me a socket 754 motherboard and a single core Athlon 64 3700+ I will even tap dance to fiddler on the roof's "If I were a rich man" about the fact that it's going to be at least 20% as fast as modern CPUs and a whole lot faster than a G5.

Jethryn Freyman
Nov 5, 2012, 07:06 AM
However that is an intel CPU what your asking is 8 year old comparisons and what I can tell you is the Athlon 64 was light years ahead of the G5, sure a more modern CPU on the same arch is going to be faster but that's not what you asked.

If you want something that's 20% as fast as modern CPUs and faster than a G5 get me a socket 754 motherboard and a single core Athlon 64 3700+ I will even tap dance to fiddler on the roof's "If I were a rich man" about the fact that it's going to be at least 20% as fast as modern CPUs and a whole lot faster than a G5.

I'm talking about what was current in November 2011, my 3.1GHz quad core AMD Athlon FX x64 score around 3,900 in Geekbench, current MBAs were scoring in the high 5K+, can't recall the exact stats though.

Not that it really mattered; the fact that my AMD PC had a Radeon 6770 meant it completely trounced the ****** Intel integrated stuff in a MBA.

wobegong
Nov 5, 2012, 08:16 AM
Just out of curiosity I tried this tonight :-

PM G5 DC 2.3Ghz (as per my signature)
Elgato Turbo 264 USB Encode Accelerator

Used a (unencrypted) DVD with a running time of 1hour 49 minutes.

Just dragged the DVD icon to the Elgato Turbo App. Didn't wait for it to finish but I know the estimate on this is always pretty accurate so waited for 10 minutes for it to settle down.

Source : DVD Drive (standard one)
Destination : SATA HD
Encoded to : AppleTV H.264
Estimated Completion time (total) = 1 Hour
Settled FPS = 55+

Not bad for a G5......Sure beats this guys 7 hours....

throAU
Nov 5, 2012, 08:53 AM
If a single core athlon 64 is 20% the speed of my i7 2720 running 8 threads at near on 100% in handbrake, I'll be very, very surprised.


geekbench is a synthetic benchmark, and doesn't measure reality perfectly. compare for example a core2 which does not have AES acceleration instructions to a core i5 that does - geekbench will perhaps show a 2-3x improvement. the AES instructions improve throughput on AES encryption by 25-30x.

There are other similar improvements to other tasks with other new CPU instructions.

----------

Sorry I must call out on this; I remember six months ago when I sold a quad core 3.1GHz Athlon FX that was nearly outperformed in CPU performance by Sandy Bridge <2GHz Macbook Airs.

Exactly... the core i7 in my MBP totally smokes the Core2 Quad in my previous desktop. So much faster its not even close.

orestes1984
Nov 5, 2012, 10:17 AM
I remember going from my Athlon 64 3500+ (Apparently competitive with a 3.5ghz P4 of the time) to my Q6600 Core Quad, the difference was night and day, but I suspect it wouldn't have been as much going from an Athlon 64x2 a lot of the issues I ran into with the Athlon 64 in the end was hard locking the CPU which was capable of more, but could only deal with 1 thread with nowhere else to offload to. As you say synthetic benchmarks aren't really accurate one way or another so not really a gauge. Going from my core quad to my i5 dual with HT, yeah it was noticeable but not so much.

The big transition was somewhere around 2006 when people started seeing the benefits of SMP and Hyper Threading on a decent CPU like the Core 2 rather than the P4s. It also was where Intel took over AMD substantially and Apple jumped ship.

Jethryn Freyman
Nov 5, 2012, 02:33 PM
The big transition was somewhere around 2006 when people started seeing the benefits of SMP and Hyper Threading on a decent CPU like the Core 2 rather than the P4s. It also was where Intel took over AMD substantially and Apple jumped ship.
Yeah that's what I think is the issue with PPC Macs, they were ditched by Apple before that transition took place so they never really got to take explicit advantage of their multiple CPUs.

wobegong
Nov 5, 2012, 09:22 PM
Bloomberg is reporting today that Apple may plan to switch again in 2017 from Intel to their own ARM based chips following their purchase of PA Semi...

Jethryn Freyman
Nov 6, 2012, 02:58 AM
Bloomberg is reporting today that Apple may plan to switch again in 2017 from Intel to their own ARM based chips following their purchase of PA Semi...
With that time frame it seems more likely, so long as ARM improves enough to match Intel.