PDA

View Full Version : Intel stuck @ 3.5 GHz this year...


MacsRgr8
Jan 21, 2003, 03:48 PM
Got it from a Dutch geek site: http://www.tweakers.net/nieuws/25174

Seems like a perfect year for Apple to really catch up! Come on 970!

mac15
Jan 21, 2003, 04:25 PM
I don't see how you can there stuck, sure its a slower year for intel but they are still far infront of any other of the chip makers , not that this matters or contributes to the megahertz myth. But they don't seem stuck to me

iJon
Jan 21, 2003, 04:30 PM
wow, now we have one year to get 2.25 ghz added. although i really dont care because i compare my computers on productivity instead of speed but i do feel intel has everyone beat for a while now. im not gonna get too excited. luckily amd and ibm can bonk heads and come out with a processor that can go in out macs.

iJon

MrMacMan
Jan 21, 2003, 05:00 PM
As I have stated in (countless threads) Intel will not (and for the most part) cannot releas chips with a higher processor speeds.

As I have posted even though Intel has a 3.6 GHZ chip doesn't mean they are gonna realease it, because of countless reasons.
With these higher processor speeds heat becomes a great factor, sure in the good old days fans were great, but now water cooling is better.

But for these chips, water cooling isn't even an option. These are so hot that they need to be kept (very) frozen.
(Check Tom's Hardware)

Sure Intel will only release chips that go .5-.6 GHZ higher but thay only means we really need to take the uper hand.

iJon
Jan 21, 2003, 05:07 PM
i wish that guy who made thermodock would have kept developing for it. i would love to see how hot this dual ghz baby gets.

iJon

will
Jan 22, 2003, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by iJon
wow, now we have one year to get 2.25 ghz added. although i really dont care because i compare my computers on productivity instead of speed but i do feel intel has everyone beat for a while now. im not gonna get too excited. luckily amd and ibm can bonk heads and come out with a processor that can go in out macs.

iJon

I think you'll find that Mhz for Mhz the 970 is about 70% faster than a P4, so a 1.8Ghz 970 can hold its own against a 3Ghz P4.

irmongoose
Jan 22, 2003, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by will


I think you'll find that Mhz for Mhz the 970 is about 70% faster than a P4, so a 1.8Ghz 970 can hold its own against a 3Ghz P4.

where'd you get that info?




irmongoose

Telomar
Jan 22, 2003, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by mac15
I don't see how you can there stuck, sure its a slower year for intel but they are still far infront of any other of the chip makers , not that this matters or contributes to the megahertz myth. But they don't seem stuck to me 400 MHz in a year is a little over 10%. If Apple did that everybody would be throwing a fit. The simple fact is right now the PIV really can't be scaled.

peter2002
Jan 22, 2003, 09:26 AM
Nobody will catch Intel. They have more $ than anybody and the rule of business is whoever has the most $ always wins.

Besides, Intel is holding way back on the clock speed. I have seen sources where Intel could easily jack their upcoming P5 up 10GHZ by the end of 2004, if necessary.

Pete

MacsRgr8
Jan 22, 2003, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Telomar
400 MHz in a year is a little over 10%. If Apple did that everybody would be throwing a fit. The simple fact is right now the PIV really can't be scaled.

Indeed. Intel has hit a wall now and must pay the price for maximizing Mhz no matter the cost.
This year would be perfect timing for Apple to introduce the 970, wouldn' it?

jrv3034
Jan 22, 2003, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by will
I think you'll find that Mhz for Mhz the 970 is about 70% faster than a P4, so a 1.8Ghz 970 can hold its own against a 3Ghz P4.

Yeah, but the problem is that the 3Ghz P4 is available NOW, as opposed to the 970, which MIGHT become available towards the END OF THE YEAR.

It's not a fair comparison. I really want Apple to catch up, and if Intel hits a plateau this year, it could mean good things for Mac users, but I'm not holding my breath. I don't care if my machine is THE FASTEST, as long as it does what I need it to do in a snappy fashion (Photoshop, Final Cut Pro). If you work in 3D animation studios, then you really need all the speed you can get...

Go, Apple, go!!!

will
Jan 22, 2003, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by irmongoose


where'd you get that info?

irmongoose

Sorry made a bit of a mistake as I didn't use latest Intel CPUs, based on lastest figure here's the calculation:

IBM believes the chip can record a benchmark of 937 on SPECint 2000 and a score of 1051 on SPECfp2000, both at 1.8-GHz. http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/A1387A29AC1C2AE087256C5200611780

If you check the offical specbench web site: http://www.specbench.org/osg/cpu2000/results/cint2000.html you'll see that a 3.06 Ghz P4 with HT scores 1099 and 1107.

If you divide by their relative clockspeed you will see that per Ghz they score:

1.80 Ghz PPC 970: 521 and 584
3.06 GHz Intel P4: 359 and 362
Ratio: 1.45 and 1.61

So at the same clockspeed PPC 970 is over 50% faster (taking int and FP into account). Whether it will be faster than Intel/AMD chips in the longer term all depends on how quickly IBM can ramp up clock speed.

Hope that clarifies it for you.

will
Jan 22, 2003, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by jrv3034


Yeah, but the problem is that the 3Ghz P4 is available NOW, as opposed to the 970, which MIGHT become available towards the END OF THE YEAR.



You are right, but we have to compare the PPC 970 with something. Assuming Intel are at 3.5 GHz at end of year, and Apple are using 1.8Ghz PPC 970s then there will only be a small performace gap on single CPU machines, and assuming Apple continue to ship dual machines for their pro line (and hopefully add a quad CPU machine) then performace really won't be an issue. The PPC 970 is also a really nice modern design which should ramp up nicely and it's 64 bit :)

jrv3034
Jan 22, 2003, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by will
You are right, but we have to compare the PPC 970 with something. Assuming Intel are at 3.5 GHz at end of year, and Apple are using 1.8Ghz PPC 970s then there will only be a small performace gap on single CPU machines, and assuming Apple continue to ship dual machines for their pro line (and hopefully add a quad CPU machine) then performace really won't be an issue. The PPC 970 is also a really nice modern design which should ramp up nicely and it's 64 bit :)

Very true. I really hope the 970 is as good as it sounds, and that Apple gets to release it sooner rather than later. I just really hate being in second place next to Wintel.

Wow, Dual 1.8Ghz PPC 970 PowerMac with 2GB RAM, 4 200GB HDD, 128mb Video card, and 2 Formac 2010 LCD's.

Drool...:cool:

lmalave
Jan 22, 2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by peter2002
Nobody will catch Intel. They have more $ than anybody and the rule of business is whoever has the most $ always wins.


Ummm...no, that's not true at all!! You obviously aren't a studen't of history :rolleyes: Are you going to tell me that whoever's #1 will always stay there? Look at who's on top now - they certainly didn't start there!!! They reached the top because of a superior business model and superior execution. Let me give you some examples from the last century:

- G.M. overtaking Ford's market share in the early 30's. If ever there was a juggernaut it was Ford in the auto industry.

- Wal-Mart beating out all other discount retailers (K-Mart, Sears, etc.).

- Dell beating out MUCH MUCH larger players like IBM, HP/Compaq, Packard-Bell, etc.

- Intel and Microsoft beating IBM at their own game (remember IBM was a juggernaut many times Intels size 20 years ago).

So I don't know what world you live in, but the last time I checked we lived in a competitive capitalist economy, and although market inertia of course exists, most companies and people will use whatever technology they think will increase their bottom line.

Look, if Intel is at the end of the road with their x86 architecture, the I don't see their eventual victory as a given. Sure, they have enormous resources, but so does IBM! And IBM has been at the game of building high-performance, low power-consumption RISC chips for a lot longer than Intel. Intel basically had to reinvent themselves with the Itanium, and now they're screwed because it goes against all their marketing for the last 5 years. Intel's next version of Itanium will only be 1.5 GHz, which means we're basically looking at a situation where Intel's next-generation chip and IBM's next-generation chip are running neck and neck in terms of the all-important (in terms of marketing) GHz.

MorganX
Jan 22, 2003, 11:53 AM
You are right, but we have to compare the PPC 970 with something. Assuming Intel are at 3.5 GHz at end of year, and Apple are using 1.8Ghz PPC 970s then there will only be a small performace gap on single CPU machines, and assuming Apple continue to ship dual machines for their pro line (and hopefully add a quad CPU machine) then performace really won't be an issue. The PPC 970 is also a really nice modern design which should ramp up nicely and it's 64 bit

You should remember that the 3.5 GHz PIV will have Hyperthreading and I can tell you XP and 2K Server get a significant boost from Hyperthreading and dual processors in general as a server platform. Even XP pro kicks tail. Applications that are not threaded will not see dramatic performance boosts but multitasking will be much more responsive. Additionally it will be running with an 800MHz FSB and probably 1066MHz DDR.

I don't know the full specs on the PPC 970 but it'll need more than benchmarks to be 50% more productive than the PIV.

However, on the desktop who cares? Play games on an Xbox. New tablet PCs, which are in the Mac's price range are using Pentium IIIs. If you don't play games you don't need all that horsepower and you get diminishing returns. How fast do you need to run Office? The only reason I upgraded my dual PIII 1.13Ghz was to play games. That system was actually much more responsive than a 2Ghz PIV. but the 2GHz PIV was much better at games.

Don't discount the power of the Intel platform, or the usefulness and power of Microsoft's OS'. They have a place and are better suited for many things. Don't discount what the PC platform offers, sell what the Mac platform offers. Raw horsepower isn't needed for most of that.

The Mac offers contemporary style, simplicity, and digital lifestyle integration Microsoft is just now kludging together to competed. My next PC will be a 17", preferably a 19" 1GHz iMac. I don't need more CPU than that (though and easy upgrade option would make me feel better about the investment) to use my iPod which I use daily and which I desire to use iCal with. I've destroyed 2 Palms, hardly used them. All I need is the functionality iCal and my iPod will give me. And I can't get that on the Wintel platform at any Mhz.

Waiting patiently for the iMac speed bump.

JustAGuy
Jan 22, 2003, 12:46 PM
It will be interesting to see how Mr. "MHz is all you need to know" Intel will be marketing these new chips. The greatly increased FSB & addition of HT to a 2.8GHz P4 will dramatically increase performance, but INTC has been setting themselves up so that they can't market this...

yosoyjay
Jan 22, 2003, 02:41 PM
I haven't seen any Intel marketing indicating that computers are all about Mhz. I haveseen silly commercials with aliens and crap that really say absouletly nothing.

If they did do this how in the hell could they sell Itanium 2 chips that run at 900Mhz & 1Ghz?

JustAGuy
Jan 22, 2003, 03:04 PM
Their general marketing indeed has nothing to do with, well, anything. I was referring to their papers attacking AMD's CPU ratings (3000+, etc) and comments by executives to the effect of Mhz being the most effective rating of performance.

hvfsl
Jan 22, 2003, 03:06 PM
A 2Ghz PPC970 is about the same speed as a 4Ghz P4, not the 70% faster people are saying. The G4 is 70% faster than a P4 clocked at the same speed (but only in things like PhotoShop).

It is not the P4 you need to compair, but the AMD K8, which will start out as fast as a 3Ghz P4. The PPC970 will be at the same kind of speed when it comes out, but only in heavily optimised apps.

The reason why games do not run well on Macs is because they are heavily optimised for x86 and programers do not bother to optimise games as much for the PPC. Linux on x86 is actually about 20% faster in games over Windows, so Macs should be faster at games if they switch to x86 chips.

hvfsl
Jan 22, 2003, 03:12 PM
Also you can't really compair those benchmarks of the CPUs because the real world results is always different and the AMD Athlon is already about 50% faster than the P4 in real world tests. Also according to www.tomshardware.com an Athlon XP 2800 is faster at games than a P4 3Ghz HT. The Althon is clocked at about 2.3Ghz.

Greenlightboi
Jan 22, 2003, 03:22 PM
As an die-hard Apple fan in a class that is all about PC's (I goto a Tech School for A+ Certification, which is PC repair and maintence) I'm learning quite alot about real performance. Sad thing is, Apple is QUITE behind. First off, I don't think everyone realises what Hyperthreading is. The new Pentium 4 @ 3.06 Ghz is just about as good as two processors, which is what hyperthreading does... its almost like having two cores on one chip.

What this means is that Apple's Dual Processor scheme isnt gonna hold up much longer (but you knew that anyway), and that was already happening. I havent read the 970 spec recently, but if I remember correctly it doesn't incorparate hyperthreading, which means if apple truely wants to have an edge, it must still ship with 2 processors. I would also like to bring up something everyone, and I mean, I havent seen it brought up anywhere... Front side bus... does everyone realise the current state of the art bus speed of the power macs is 167 Mhz? In the PC world, 533 Mhz is commonplace. This is something that needs immediate attention...

Also, two more things Apple needs to catch up on:
#1. Serial ATA... Apple needs to be on top of tech instead incorperating it after it has been the standerd... Serial ATA isn't widespread, but they should at least include the feature on future motherboard designs and include a Power Mac option with a Serial ATA HD installed. Serial ATA is very impressive and just right for the crowd Power Macs is aimed for.

#2. Ok, does everyone realise there are two graphics cards out there for us to buy? This is truely pathetic... if Apple is aimed for graphics professional, maybe their graphic cards should be up to snuff? I mean, The addition of nVidia Cards would be nice (I mean, not just as a BTO option) and top end cards such as ATI Radeon 9700 is a MUST. But I'm also talking about other Cards... yes, Apple friends, their are more then nVidia and ATi out there. In paticular, the Matrox Paraphilia is quite impressive. While not a polygon pusher, it has 10-bit per color channel technology (or GigaColor as Matrox calls it), which, for graphics professionals, is a super impressive technology, and on top of that, it also has support for three displays.

Lol, ok, and a 3rd thing I'll add... Sound Blaster Anyone?

yzedf
Jan 22, 2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman
As I have stated in (countless threads) Intel will not (and for the most part) cannot releas chips with a higher processor speeds.

As I have posted even though Intel has a 3.6 GHZ chip doesn't mean they are gonna realease it, because of countless reasons.
With these higher processor speeds heat becomes a great factor, sure in the good old days fans were great, but now water cooling is better.

But for these chips, water cooling isn't even an option. These are so hot that they need to be kept (very) frozen.
(Check Tom's Hardware)

Sure Intel will only release chips that go .5-.6 GHZ higher but thay only means we really need to take the uper hand.

That is why Intel is doing this (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t275-s2128551,00.html) work now. 3.2GHz with a 800MHz bus.

That is why Intel owns Motorola hardware-wise right now. Motorola was caught with their pants down in homage to the "Megahertz myth" while Intel was worried about not only CPU speed but bus speed as well. A 133MHz or 167MHz bus (current Apple) versus a 533MHz (soon to be 800MHz) is a huge disadvantage. We are talking size of the pipe here...

It was not until the 2nd half of 2002 that you could get DDR RAM for your Mac. Ouch! Add to that that the benchmark results comparing the 167 vs 133 shows little difference.

Of note, AMD suffers the same problem as Motorola, just not to such extreme measures.

*sigh*

MorganX
Jan 22, 2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by yosoyjay
If they did do this how in the hell could they sell Itanium 2 chips that run at 900Mhz & 1Ghz?

The people who the blue aliens are Intended for, and who shop at Best Buy, don't know Itanium from Idaho.

MorganX
Jan 22, 2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by hvfsl
The reason why games do not run well on Macs is because they are heavily optimised for x86 and programers do not bother to optimise games as much for the PPC. Linux on x86 is actually about 20% faster in games over Windows, so Macs should be faster at games if they switch to x86 chips.

I don't know how optimized they are, the graphics are written to DirectX and OpenGL.

Little software is "optimized" for x86. Almost none for PIII and even less for PIV. PCs run as well as they do mostly on sheer horsepower.

Clock, bus speed and memory are probably more responsible for the superior gameplay on the PC. 3D accelerator is also an issue. All the MXs are low end, cheap, throw aways. Yet in the $2000 17" iMac a Geforce4 MX is considered really hot.

Now having said that, with Aqua and Quartz extreme fully utilizing hardware acceleration for the UI, the Mac UI feels much more responsive and the user gets more of a sense of "speed" working in the UI than on Windows. This is very funny to me. So while an MX is worthless in the PC world, it provides superior UI performance. Something very much the source of Mac envy.

Most PC 3D accelerator sales in the PC world are for the sole purpose of managing resolutionitis. MS has failed to accelerate the UI and artists need more colors, not necessarily more resolution. The XBox works at VGA resolution 640x480 with a 700MHz "optimized" Celeron. It's really too bad. I think the PC 3D accelerator/CPU game market is a sham.

Apple should find a way to support the Xbox. The more gaming moves to Xbox and well, PSucks2, the brighter the Mac shines.

hvfsl
Jan 22, 2003, 04:01 PM
About Hyper Transport, there is problems with it. It can actually make the cpu faster and slower at the same time. What I mean is that the P4 HT will only be faster with optimised code, when the code is not optimised, the P4 can sometimes be slower. Look at the benchmarks on www.tomshardware.com fpr more details.

Also lots of new cpus are going to include hypertransport in them. I think the PPC970 is one of them. Also what HT basically does is make sure that none of the cpu's proccessing power is gone to waste. It does not provide the same speed improvements as using 2 cpu's. So HT is not a real worry for Apple, it really just speeds up the computer when it is doing many things at the same time.

MorganX
Jan 22, 2003, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by hvfsl
What I mean is that the P4 HT will only be faster with optimised code.

Also what HT basically does is make sure that none of the cpu's proccessing power is gone to waste. It does not provide the same speed improvements as using 2 cpu's.

Windows XP pro is optimized for SMP. It really is much more responsive with dual processors and HT. This makes all applications more responsive.

If PIV HTs proliferate, more ISVs will take time to optimize for SMP.

HT is here, no one is even sure when, if, or in what models Apple will use the 970. On top of that there's the cost. One thing I'm not going to be happy about is after I purchase the high end of the bumped iMacs, I won't be able to upgrade to the 970. If I do, the cost will be... high. This is a benefit to the PC world. Even if changing families you can swap a mobo, get new CPU, RAM usually for a couple hundred bucks. Compatibility and upgradeability are still areas I believe Apple lags way behind in.