Itanium 2 and P4, could they beat the G4?

[MacManiac1224]

I just read this article:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-892187.html
It descrbes the Itanium 2 shipping in high end servers starting at 1Ghz, and the P4 shipping a 3ghz version by the end of the year. What does this mean for Apple? I am not sure, but they better get thier asses moving, considering that the P4 will now be triple the speed of the G4. I know the G4 is superior, but I think a P4 3Ghz most likely can beat a G4 1Ghz in most tasks, which is most likely not going to good with pro consumers. What do you guys think?

[iGav]

I personally couldn't give a stuff if the P4 reaches 3 Ghz......

I don't use PC's so this has absolutely no affect on either me or my work......

I'm not upgrading my TiBook till Feb/March 03, so I'm sure Apple will have some even higher performing chips by then.....

Anyway a Quad processor is always a possibilty for a high end mac...... Vroom Vroom!!!

[Backtothemac]

With the P4 at 3 GHZ and the G4 at 1GHZ it will be much more difficult to convert people to the Mac, but not so difficult to keep those who are here. The majority of us use the Mac because of the OS, not the hardware. Anyway it will be moot in a couple of months when the new G4's come flying into a store near you. ;)

[Mr. Anderson]

Head to head, processor against processor - PC will win most of the time. Apple's solution to this is to add another processor. This can only go on for a little while before they get the G5, so we can only hope it will be soon.

Is it me, or does it seem like the G5 has turned into the 'holy grail' for Macheads?

"Fetchez la vache!"

[agreenster]

a.) Not much can beat the Itanium. It is a 64 bit processor (much like the G5 is rumored to be) and is super-fast. Its biggest drawback was that it really slowed down 32 bit apps (which almost all are) and therefore didnt sail well in the market. I assume that the Itanium2 has managed to address some of these issues. 64 bit processors are cutting egde (at least as far as consumer models go- SGI has been using 64 bit for quite some time) and include the Itanium, AMD's Hammer, and supposedly the G5. I expect the Pentium 4 will either be dropped soon and replaced with the Itanium, or keep their name and just change the architecture to 64 bit eventually. Plus, the mHz rating REALLY doesnt matter near as much with these processors. An 800mHz Itanium will absolutely roast any consumer processor on the market.

b.) The dual 1gHz mac probably couldnt keep up with a P4 @ 3gHz. Thats why its important that the G5 emerges as a 64 bit chip, and I also hope that OSX has been built purposefully to manage this change in architecture. This would have required a lot of foresight on Apple's part, but they are usually pretty good at that.

[iGav]

I'm sure I read somewhere that the Itanium chip was struggling to get clock speed anywhere near P4 standards, hence Intel will have to backtrack with all their advertising about more Mhz's = fastest chip...... It's going to be interesting to see how Intel get around this!!

I still reckon the G5 and Hammer will take it though........

Is it me, or does it seem like the G5 has turned into the 'holy grail' for Macheads?


I think you could be correct there dukestreet, atleast I hope the G5 eventually becomes reality though!!! :p

[ftaok]

You can't compare the 3GHZ P4 to a Dual 1GHZ G4 because of the time-frames. You say the 3GHZ P4 is due to ship at the end of the year. By then, a Dual 1GHZ G4 would be a low-end PowerMac (hopefully).

I expect that by the end of the year, the high end PowerMac would be either a G5 or a Dual 1.4GHZ G4. That should be the comparison.

[agreenster]

I remember being here pre-MWSF and everyone (myself included) pissing ourselves over wanting the G5s then. It didnt help that Apple made statements like "the rumors sites arent even close" and "prepare to be blown away."

It seems like now we are just tired of waiting.

I still predict MWSF 03

[Bradcoe]

If you check out Motorolas Website, and more specifically, their PPC roadmap (http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?nodeId=03M943030450467M983989030230) you will see that the G5 is going to be 32 and 64 bit, backwards compatible. What this means to me is that their next generation of processors will come in two flavors. I'll take a stab at why this is too. Motorola doesn't just sell to Apple, they're quite large in the semiconductor market as far as embedded apps go. Embedded apps don't NEED 64bit (at least not that I can see) and also, it would require a lot of rewriting for embedded products and I don't think every company wants to do this. Therefore they will keep a G5 at 32bit for these customers who want the new technology, but not the doubled bandwidth. As far as Apple goes, they will most likely use the 64bit processor, as their OS can take advantage of it and any application can with a simple recompile (no adjustment to the code). MAYBE Apple will use both the 32bit and 64bit, targeting one to consumers and the other to Pros, but I doubt this (only likely if prices are extreme for a 64bit). Since the 64bit will be backwards compatible with 32bit stuff, it should make the transition easier, and probably flawless. Moto isn't speedy with their marketing and selling, but when it comes to semiconductor quality, I have to say they are truely amazing.
Oh and one more thing to boost your hopes. If you look at the roadmap (link above), you'll notice something about the G1 & G2, G3 & G4, G5 & G6. Each pair has similar starting #'s which could easily mean that the G1 and G2 were simliar just as the G3 and G4 are similar. This means that the G5 will be a very large leap from the G4/G3 systems (7xxx) just as the G3 was a very large jump from the G1 and G2 (5xxx).

[agreenster]

I remember seeing that roadmap way back last year (like, the stone ages ;))

It does seem very promising, and I dont have any doubts that Apple will derive a way to keep their processor working seamlessly with their software. I just want it to be sooner.

Oh, and the biggest complaint from Itanium users wasnt that the chip couldnt work with the 32 bit apps, it was that they ran very slowly.

Im anxious to see what Apple has up its sleeve.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by MacManiac1224
I just read this article:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-892187.html
It descrbes the Itanium 2 shipping in high end servers starting at 1Ghz, and the P4 shipping a 3ghz version by the end of the year. What does this mean for Apple? I am not sure, but they better get thier asses moving, considering that the P4 will now be triple the speed of the G4. I know the G4 is superior, but I think a P4 3Ghz most likely can beat a G4 1Ghz in most tasks, which is most likely not going to good with pro consumers. What do you guys think?

The current 2.4GHz P4 will beat the G4 at most tasks, the 3GHz one will flatten it (especially since it will have hyperthreading). Luckily, it's not going to be competing against the current G4s. Also, the Itanium is $1000+ high end chip, it competes in a completely different market than the G4.

[iGav]

Although it ain't going to happen, a few weeks ago I had a rant about how cool it'd be for Apple to shift everything over to the one chip family, currently G4, so even the consumer models would start at say 600Mhz G4 in iBook, 800Mhz in iMac, the TiBook at 900Mhz to 1Ghz and the Powermacs firmly in the 1.2 to 1.4ghz range, boy oh boy would that be cool...... everyone would be getting a better deal.....

However, what Bradcoe says would be so cool, to move the whole Apple range onto G5's say in 12 months, the 32Bit variation for consumer models in the 1ghz to say 1.4Ghz range, and then the 64Bit High speed models for the Pro range in the 1.5Ghz + range..... I know that it's not likely to happen, but that would certainly make a dynamic and dynamite range of computers.....

Just a thought that's all!!!

[Kethoticus]

"I remember being here pre-MWSF and everyone (myself included) pissing ourselves over wanting the G5s then. It didnt help that Apple made statements like "the rumors sites arent even close" and "prepare to be blown away.""

Ayyyyymen brutha. Apple didn't even come close to blowing me away or going "way beyond" the rumor sites. They were well within the ballpark, actually. And now, after having read a couple of sites recently that tested the dual-G4, a single-AMD and a single P4 system, I'm even more discouraged by the Mac platform. OS X needs to speed up. Unix is supposed to be fast, faster than Windows or the Mac OS. So why is OS X slower?

We really do need a major upgrade in architecture, and not just soon, but NOW. Today. Immediately. The only reasons I stick with the Mac now are comfort with the user environment and a whole lotta apps I'd hate to hafta transfer the licenses of. I actually might be able to get my hands on a used dual-1.4GHz Athlon system with 2-gigs of DDR-RAM for a mere $US900. Seriously thinking about this, although I wish I didn't have to.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by iGAV
I'm sure I read somewhere that the Itanium chip was struggling to get clock speed anywhere near P4 standards, hence Intel will have to backtrack with all their advertising about more Mhz's = fastest chip...... It's going to be interesting to see how Intel get around this!!

What I hope is that Intel starts marketing their chips with some sort of tag line similar to Apple's "MHz Myth" so Apple can sue the socks off Intel! That would be funny.

[digital1]

Personally, I think the Motorola chips have more potential than Intel chips. Speed isn't always everything. If you have a good formula, (awesome processor/ semi-RISC architecture, super stable OS) why mess it up. There is nothing with improvements though, and I think Apple can deliver.

On a side note,has anyone done a contest between a Win XP box and Mac OSX box? When I get my mac, I was thinking about having a competition with a friend of mine to show him how stable OSX is. In his opinion "OSX needs a lot of work". I disagree on that obviously, but has anyone done this? what were your results? :D :) :) :p

[digital1]

I meant that there is nothing wrong with improvements, sorry guys...

[iGav]

What I hope is that Intel starts marketing their chips with some sort of tag line similar to Apple's "MHz Myth" so Apple can sue the socks off Intel! That would be funny.

Heh heh!! :p :p :p

It's going to be interesting to see what they say though!! After all the crap they've been spurting about MHZ matters, and the more MHZ the faster the chip, then they'll go and release chips running at maybe half the speed of the Pentiums, but alot faster......

This is going to be very interesting indeed!!! :D ;) :p

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by digital1
On a side note,has anyone done a contest between a Win XP box and Mac OSX box?

As for performance, me and my friend are doing a seti@home contest. Although the timeframe is of course much higher, seti@home would most likely take full advantage of altivec. Here's the comps stats that relate to the test:

867 Mhz G4
256MB PC133 SDRAM
OS X (of course :-p)

1.6Ghz Athalon XP
512 MB 400Mhz DDR-RAM
Windows XP

not a full set of statistics but not sure what else is that important to the project. So far, the mac is completing each unit about 2-6 hours earlier than the windoze, and is 80% faster. :-D Plus, he has his seti@home using 99% of the available processor power. Should be interesting to see it continue

[TypeR389]

Originally posted by bobindashadows


867 Mhz G4
256MB PC133 SDRAM
OS X (of course :-p)

1.6Ghz Athalon XP
512 MB 400Mhz DDR-RAM
Windows XP


Just out of curiousity, how long does an avg set take you on the 867?

Just curious as you were saying that the mac is 2-6 hours faster than the PC, but my PC only takes about 8 hours for the entire set. Just happened that my current dataset is 99% complete :)

Dual 933 PIII
512MB PC800 Rambus
Windoze XP

http://lauren.servebeer.com/pictures/seti.jpg

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by agreenster
a.) Not much can beat the Itanium. It is a 64 bit processor (much like the G5 is rumored to be) and is super-fast. Its biggest drawback was that it really slowed down 32 bit apps (which almost all are) and therefore didnt sail well in the market. I assume that the Itanium2 has managed to address some of these issues. 64 bit processors are cutting egde (at least as far as consumer models go- SGI has been using 64 bit for quite some time) and include the Itanium, AMD's Hammer, and supposedly the G5.
Actually, in the market in which the Itanium is marketed to compete, a lot of chips can beat it. It is really not a chip for a desktop computer, and it was never intended to be. It's very expensive, there's no software for it, it draws a hell of a lot of power, and performance-wise, it's not too great (decent FP speed; below-average integer speed). It was never intended to run 32-bit software; it is an entirely new architecture that had hardware x86 emulation grafted onto it only to satisfy Intel's marketing department. Nobody who is buys an Itanium plans to run 32-bit software on it.

x86 and the PowerPC are the only two major 32-bit CPUs out there right now; pretty much all the "higher-end" chips (MIPS, Itanium, Alpha, PA, SPARC, and POWER) are 64-bit and have been for the past decade or so, or at least since their inception in the cases of the more recent ones.
I expect the Pentium 4 will either be dropped soon and replaced with the Itanium, or keep their name and just change the architecture to 64 bit eventually. Plus, the mHz rating REALLY doesnt matter near as much with these processors. An 800mHz Itanium will absolutely roast any consumer processor on the market.
Not true. SPEC_CPU2000 scores put the 2GHz P4's FP speed dead even with the 800MHz Itanium's. The P4's integer speed is nearly double the Itanium's.

Barring some sort of unprecedented come-from-behind miracle of miracles on Motorola's part, the G5 will be obsolete upon its introduction. Assuming Motorola is able to pull off a G5 (at any clock speed) that is three times faster than the 1GHz G4 - and that's a big if - its integer speed will still be only barely faster than a 1.3GHz IBM POWER4, and its FP speed will barely be half as fast. Granted those are very different markets, and granted the POWER4 is not currently sold in any computer costing less than $40,000 today, but Motorola's competition is hardly sitting still, and it is likely that by the time the G5 is a year old, the POWER4 will be available in a sub-$6000 IBM Unix workstation and everyone will be salivating over the new POWER5, which will knock the G5's socks right off.

Alex

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
The current 2.4GHz P4 will beat the G4 at most tasks, the 3GHz one will flatten it (especially since it will have hyperthreading).
I'm just curious, but what is hyperthreading? Is it related at all to multithreading?

Alex

[TypeR389]

Originally posted by alex_ant

I'm just curious, but what is hyperthreading? Is it related at all to multithreading?

Alex

Check out

http://developer.intel.com/technology/hyperthread/

Here is a clip

Hyper-Threading Technology will enable the world’s first simultaneous multi-threaded (SMT) processor. Today's processor exploits Instruction Level Parallelism (ILP), but mutually exclusive hardware resources exist. However, by developing an architecture state for two processors which share a single physical processor's resources, two programs or threads can execute simultaneously. Thus, one physical processor looks like two logical processors to the OS and applications.

I wonder if this would crash my machine twice as fast? Then again, I have 2 physical cpu's in my wintel box, and it actually crashes a hair bit less than my machine at work...

[mc68k]

Originally posted by MacManiac1224
I know the G4 is superior, but I think a P4 3Ghz most likely can beat a G4 1Ghz in most tasks, which is most likely not going to good with pro consumers. What do you guys think?

Even if a P4 beat the G4 at 10GHz, the fact remains:

It makes absolutely no difference if your machine is "faster" if you are blankly looking at the screen, trying to figure out what to do next. For most users in most tasks, a consistent interface, ease of use, and easy to learn software are much more important than raw horsepower.

Windows is a poor OS, so end users spend less time utilizing the CPU, and more time fooling around.

The MacOS is a superior OS where you might not have as much power, but you spend more time utilizing the CPU due to the above mentioned facts.

Here is an excellent article about Mac vs. PC performance:

http://homepage.mac.com/mac_vs_pc/6.html

I learned something, I hope you do to.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by TypeR389


Just out of curiousity, how long does an avg set take you on the 867?

Just curious as you were saying that the mac is 2-6 hours faster than the PC, but my PC only takes about 8 hours for the entire set. Just happened that my current dataset is 99% complete :)

Dual 933 PIII
512MB PC800 Rambus
Windoze XP

http://lauren.servebeer.com/pictures/seti.jpg

Why do you have RDRAM hooked to a P3? I have yet to hear of a P3 with a fast enough bus to use a reasonable amount of RDRAM's bandwidth, and RDRAM has much higher latency than SDRAM.

[TypeR389]

Originally posted by Catfish_Man


Why do you have RDRAM hooked to a P3? I have yet to hear of a P3 with a fast enough bus to use a reasonable amount of RDRAM's bandwidth, and RDRAM has much higher latency than SDRAM.

The dual CPU PIII chipset requires RDRAM. I am not 100% on this, but from what I remember reading in a whitepaper somewhere is that even though it has higher latency, the overall bandwith is higher, and the way the configure the CPU to the RAM is the each CPU has a dedicated channel to RAM, which is not supported via SDRAM. This machine is like 9 months old, so the technology may have changed a little, but I really do prefer this machine to a Pee4, at least the Mhz speed of these processors somewhat resembles performance unlike the newer intel chips, that and I got the machine as a new but returned machine (.COM outa business I think since there were like 10 identical machines for sale at the time) for less than half the price this machine would have gone for. And the Quaddro2 card in it with dual CPU's sure makes for some nice wolfenstein playin, though I find myself playing Ms Pacman on MAME more often...

Funny, emulating a 2 MHz game console on this, but Ms Pacman and Galaga rock! :)

[gjohns01]

Originally posted by mc68k


Even if a P4 beat the G4 at 10GHz, the fact remains:

It makes absolutely no difference if your machine is "faster" if you are blankly looking at the screen, trying to figure out what to do next. For most users in most tasks, a consistent interface, ease of use, and easy to learn software are much more important than raw horsepower.

Windows is a poor OS, so end users spend less time utilizing the CPU, and more time fooling around.

The MacOS is a superior OS where you might not have as much power, but you spend more time utilizing the CPU due to the above mentioned facts.

Here is an excellent article about Mac vs. PC performance:

http://homepage.mac.com/mac_vs_pc/6.html

I learned something, I hope you do to.

I use both OSes. Why is Windows a poor OS? Because you don't know how to use it? Have you used it? I experience no loss in production switching between the two OSes. You can't figure out how to open an application? Can't make the switch between Command+Q and Alt+F4? You should try not to make blanket statements like that. What makes MacOS so superior? I could point you to a few computer users who would try the MacOS and not have a clue. So much for ease of use. Is it easier for you to read an analog clock or a digital one? The OSes do the same thing; it's all a matter of what you're comfortable with.

I wouldn't read too much into a Mac vs. PC article listed on mac.com. Numbers be damned. "Real World" performance will show you a P4, Athlon, Xeon, Itanium matches or flat out whips the G4 at any task. It will only get worse as they push ahead with clock speed. Btw, Apple should benchmark more than just Photoshop and they should throw their dual against a Dual Athlon (the never use athlons) or a Dual Xeon (not a single processor machine). Then see how many photoshop filter tests they win. You do realize that Intel will be going from 2ghz to 3ghz in a years time. How superior is that G4 again? Seems to have growing pains. Does the G5 even exist? We are talking Motorola here. They can’t manufacture for ******.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by gjohns01


I use both OSes. Why is Windows a poor OS? Because you don't know how to use it? Have you used it? I experience no loss in production switching between the two OSes. You can't figure out how to open an application? Can't make the switch between Command+Q and Alt+F4? You should try not to make blanket statements like that. What makes MacOS so superior? I could point you to a few computer users who would try the MacOS and not have a clue. So much for ease of use. Is it easier for you to read an analog clock or a digital one? The OSes do the same thing; it's all a matter of what you're comfortable with.

I wouldn't read too much into a Mac vs. PC article listed on mac.com. Numbers be damned. "Real World" performance will show you a P4, Athlon, Xeon, Itanium matches or flat out whips the G4 at any task. It will only get worse as they push ahead with clock speed. Btw, Apple should benchmark more than just Photoshop and they should throw their dual against a Dual Athlon (the never use athlons) or a Dual Xeon (not a single processor machine). Then see how many photoshop filter tests they win. You do realize that Intel will be going from 2ghz to 3ghz in a years time. How superior is that G4 again? Seems to have growing pains. Does the G5 even exist? We are talking Motorola here. They can’t manufacture for ******.

i am a microsoft certified professional and windows is how i make my make my living...but i used to be a mac only person who hated microsoft...but if windows was a product as good as the mac os and as easy to use, then i would have to find a different way to make a living

so many professional and intelligent people still do not know how to do the simplest things with windows and even when i charge them less to troubleshoot and tutor my clients on windows than my competition, working with microsoft's operating system is an unlimited source of wealth for people in my field

...i have a friend, self taught in windows and troubleshooting, that bought a house with the money made from his tech business he built around troubleshooting windows and the problems people had with it...before that, he was a broke musician and young theatre artist/actor

and he made that money to get a house in america's most expensive real estate market in 4 years

to be dipomatic, i say windows is good but mac os is better

if windows was truly horrible, then it would not exist in this market or any other

and what the heck do you think the whole government vs microsoft thing was about...besides microsoft shafting netscape with a free ie, the next most common government objection to microsoft was how they copied apple's interface with windows

while i don't consider "pirates of silicon valley" the definitive history of apple and microsoft, the movie did make a good point in showing bill's ripoff of apple's os

in conclusion, windows is "bad" enough to confuse enough people that there is money in tutoring and troubleshooting windows otherwise people would not get rich off of working in and around microsoft's operating system

if i only worked on the mac os, i would not make that much money...so thank god for microsoft's fallible operating system...it pays our bills and 1.5 million microsoft certified professionals love you, bill gates:D

[gjohns01]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


i am a microsoft certified professional and windows is how i make my make my living...but i used to be a mac only person who hated microsoft...but if windows was a product as good as the mac os and as easy to use, then i would have to find a different way to make a living

so many professional and intelligent people still do not know how to do the simplest things with windows and even when i charge them less to troubleshoot and tutor my clients on windows than my competition, working with microsoft's operating system is an unlimited source of wealth for people in my field

...i have a friend, self taught in windows and troubleshooting, that bought a house with the money made from his tech business he built around troubleshooting windows and the problems people had with it...before that, he was a broke musician and young theatre artist/actor

and he made that money to get a house in america's most expensive real estate market in 4 years

to be dipomatic, i say windows is good but mac os is better

if windows was truly horrible, then it would not exist in this market or any other

and what the heck do you think the whole government vs microsoft thing was about...besides microsoft shafting netscape with a free ie, the next most common government objection to microsoft was how they copied apple's interface with windows

while i don't consider "pirates of silicon valley" the definitive history of apple and microsoft, the movie did make a good point in showing bill's ripoff of apple's os

in conclusion, windows is "bad" enough to confuse enough people that there is money in tutoring and troubleshooting windows otherwise people would not get rich off of working in and around microsoft's operating system

if i only worked on the mac os, i would not make that much money...so thank god for microsoft's fallible operating system...it pays our bills and 1.5 million microsoft certified professionals love you, bill gates:D

True. Keeps the bills paid. But I just wanted to throw something in there about MS copying Apple's interface. WinXP and OS X in particular. I used to work for a company that was contracted to design the next Windows interface. They were one of many companies that wer contracted to do so, but I had a chance to look at the interface that we did. First, the design was done on Macs (Blue and White G3s if I remember correctly). Secondly, our IT guy was a big mac head and he had OS X on a machine very close to the designers. Needless to say, there is a reason there are similarities between Windows XP and Mac OS X. MS used a lot of what my company designed. Who knows, same thing could have happened with prior versions of windows.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by gjohns01


True. Keeps the bills paid. But I just wanted to throw something in there about MS copying Apple's interface. WinXP and OS X in particular. I used to work for a company that was contracted to design the next Windows interface. They were one of many companies that wer contracted to do so, but I had a chance to look at the interface that we did. First, the design was done on Macs (Blue and White G3s if I remember correctly). Secondly, our IT guy was a big mac head and he had OS X on a machine very close to the designers. Needless to say, there is a reason there are similarities between Windows XP and Mac OS X. MS used a lot of what my company designed. Who knows, same thing could have happened with prior versions of windows.

wow, lawsuit;)

[spuncan]

Yeah thats defintely evidence for a lawsuit against M$ (since the contract ends this summer) But as for Windows, any GUI OS that u have to go right click then go down to the Rename option to rename is just horrible (May I remind u that u just press enter on a Mac). As for the chips I am really scared I may build my own X86 computer useing the "Hammer" or a DP Athlon if the G5 falls behind. Hmm whats ur fav. Linux flavor (I'd hate to use 98 SE (My Winblows fav.))

[Rower_CPU]

I was intrigued by the SETI@home comparison done above, and since I have the luxury of having both OSX and XP machines here at home I decided to perform my own test. I set them up last night and let them have a go at it, with no background programs running. So far here's what I've got:

PowerBook G4:
G4 400 MHz
640 MB PC100
Airport
1 unit ~ 18 hours and 20 minutes

Athlon rig:
1.33 GHz T-bird
768 MB PC1600 DDR
Hardwired to network
90% ~ 19 hours and 10 minutes, and counting

So, what do you think about this one? The G4 is 1/3 of the speed of the Athlon, and yet it manages to beat it out in a CPU test...

Say it with me now: "The megahertz myth is a reality."

[Rower_CPU]

Here's a screenie of the G4. I'll post the PC results once it finishes. ;)

[mc68k]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
So, what do you think about this one? The G4 is 1/3 of the speed of the Athlon, and yet it manages to beat it out in a CPU test...

Say it with me now: "The megahertz myth is a reality."

I agree. There's not too many cross-platform CPU taxing apps that you can truly say "test the CPU's performance". This I think is one of those few apps that you can use as a benchmark. Not like the Photoshop test that are skewed in the macs favor.

This is just pure, unadulterated number crunching that's the same as it's counterpart on the PC. The only real variable is the system (moslty CPU) that it's running on.

Your Mac machine would seem "way slower" because of the high MHz ratio, but the fact that your TiBook beat out your XP system is amusing, to say the least. Or even reassuring. :)

[Catfish_Man]

...gives it the advantage. For that type of repetetive task Altivec is amazing. It's a G4 400 so it only has one Altivec pipeline ( I think, it might be two), that's still the equivalent of running a normal pipeline at 1.6GHz, also (I'm guessing here) the stuff it's working on might be able to fit into its oversize cache, but not into the Athlon's smaller one. A DP1GHz (if it could keep all it's Altivec pipelines fed) would have the equivalent of 8 4GHz pipelines. Also, Altivec has special intructions that make it ideal for signal processing.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
...gives it the advantage. For that type of repetetive task Altivec is amazing. It's a G4 400 so it only has one Altivec pipeline ( I think, it might be two), that's still the equivalent of running a normal pipeline at 1.6GHz, also (I'm guessing here) the stuff it's working on might be able to fit into its oversize cache, but not into the Athlon's smaller one. A DP1GHz (if it could keep all it's Altivec pipelines fed) would have the equivalent of 8 4GHz pipelines. Also, Altivec has special intructions that make it ideal for signal processing.

So Altivec allows a chip 1/3 as fast to beat one without it? Interesting...
Please provide some tech docs that show how the programs differ on each platform.

Here's the pic of the PC, which just finished:

18 hours and 20 minutes on the Mac
20 hours and 45 minutes on the PC

[TypeR389]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
So, what do you think about this one? The G4 is 1/3 of the speed of the Athlon, and yet it manages to beat it out in a CPU test...

Say it with me now: "The megahertz myth is a reality."

Excellent, thanks for doing a comparison, my LC580 I have isn't really a fair test with my DP933 ya think? :D

I was looking around at the Seti@Home website, and they sorta track this, but looks like there is a ton of weird data. Anoyone out there care to run a test on a 667 TiBook? I am REALLY itching to get a Tibook when this next release goes out, but since I don't live in photoshop or places where there are tons of optimazations, I just want to make sure that the 'perceptible speed' of using the OS to write code, doing basic office stuffis close to what my 1 year old desktop PC is. If a 400 is roughly half the speed of my current desktop rig, that means that the 800 (or maybe faster :p) would theoretically be about the same, OS not withholding.

Question for you recent OSX converts, my LC580 is the last mac I bought, so I am still running 8.1 on it (yea I know...) but how long did it take you to to get use to the OS either coming from traditional MacOS or from a windoze side (been mainly running that for a few years now) But from playing with a 667 running OSX at the local apple store, I WANT ONE, just curious how long people think it took to 'think in OSX' I do use Solaris at work, so at least I am pretty familiar with UNIX...

Thanks for listening to my babble

[TypeR389]

I was just reading the FAQ at http://setiathome.ssl.berkley.edu/fax.html at in there is goes on that Seti does not have any specific Altivec,MMX,3dNow etc and is also not SMP aware, so it will only run on one processor...

Just curious that it doesn't inherently use Altivec and the 400 G4 is still doin pretty good again a fast athalon...

Somebody going to write Steve a email? Looks like good marketing to me! :D

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by TypeR389


Just out of curiousity, how long does an avg set take you on the 867?

Just curious as you were saying that the mac is 2-6 hours faster than the PC, but my PC only takes about 8 hours for the entire set. Just happened that my current dataset is 99% complete :)

Dual 933 PIII
512MB PC800 Rambus
Windoze XP

http://lauren.servebeer.com/pictures/seti.jpg
Actually, it takes you about 16 hours for each one. I ran the numbers, and I got an average of 16.88 hours per unit. Now, seti@home is a difficult program to benchmark because the data units come in different sizes, however you have completed over 400 units so the average is going to be pretty accurate. I finished one in 16 minutes (no joke) and that's why in my benchmark we're using many, many units, and not just one.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by bobindashadows
Actually, it takes you about 16 hours for each one. I ran the numbers, and I got an average of 16.88 hours per unit. Now, seti@home is a difficult program to benchmark because the data units come in different sizes, however you have completed over 400 units so the average is going to be pretty accurate. I finished one in 16 minutes (no joke) and that's why in my benchmark we're using many, many units, and not just one.

Good point. Since it would take me months to get that kind of comparison, anybody have a lot of Mac hours logged?

[mc68k]

Originally posted by TypeR389
I was just reading the FAQ at http://setiathome.ssl.berkley.edu/fax.html

Here's (http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/faq.html) the FAQ link.

[TypeR389]

Originally posted by mc68k


Here's (http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/faq.html) the FAQ link.

Oops! Cant type :rolleyes:

[TypeR389]

Originally posted by bobindashadows

Actually, it takes you about 16 hours for each one. I ran the numbers, and I got an average of 16.88 hours per unit. Now, seti@home is a difficult program to benchmark because the data units come in different sizes, however you have completed over 400 units so the average is going to be pretty accurate. I finished one in 16 minutes (no joke) and that's why in my benchmark we're using many, many units, and not just one.

That is also because I have been running this program for over 2 years, my old machine took over a day to process a aset, but the last 4 units or so have been averaging about 8.5 hours or so. I know what my numbers are now, I am going to see how it avg's out over the next week...My last machine was a PII 266, so no real spead demon...

[Rower_CPU]

Thanks to GeeYouEye we now have a pretty definitive table of system performance based on OS:
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/stats/platforms.html

Windows = 21 hr 03 min 21.3 sec
Mac OS X = 18 hr 10 min 17.5 sec

[Choppaface]

SETI times
dual G4 500, 1 gig ram, radeon, 16gb cheetah 15k rpm, OSX= 10-11 hours per workunit per command line client, using one GUI client 11 to 12 hours

dual athlon 1900+ XP, 1 gig DDR RAM, geforce ti 4400, 100gb WD w/ jumbo buffer, win XP pro= 4.5 hours per work unit using GUI client, have not tried running two command line clients

I also ran cinibench once on the pc but I forgot the scores. it was a lot faster than when I've run it on my dual 500. one thing I do remember is that my dual 500 got 1.7 I think on the dual processor factor. the PC got 1.6

its not exactly a fair comparison, but I'd estimate my PC is far more than 2 to 3 times faster doing normal tasks than my G4. IE is especially fast, probably because its so closely integrated into the OS, and I'm getting near-instantaneous page rendering even with SETI running in the background. there's a really big difference between the two running hi-end flash sites. i've been meaning to do a framerate test to see the difference between the two, but the PC really screams through like mjau-mjau.com and other sites listed on styleboost.com.
photoshop seems a little bit faster, but it's really hard to switch over to the win keystrokes...I keep on hitting the alt key thinking its command :D :D :D
although I havent put the stopwatch to it, overally PS doesnt seem that much quicker, at least not fast enough to make me start using the PC just for the speed.
so far I've had a lot of problems with XP, starting with numerous crashes after putting in bad CD burner drivers, and now I still am having some problems with drop down menus and things after I fixed it. one thing I have to say: XP is hella fugly >_<

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by TypeR389
I was just reading the FAQ at http://setiathome.ssl.berkley.edu/fax.html at in there is goes on that Seti does not have any specific Altivec,MMX,3dNow etc and is also not SMP aware, so it will only run on one processor...
As far as SMP goes, the client does not support more than 1 CPU, but you can run more than 1 client at the same time, thus taking advantage of more than one CPU. At least that's how I understood it.

Where on the FAQ page does it say Seti@home does not use AltiVec, MMX, SSE, etc.? I couldn't see that question listed... If it does not use MMX or SSE, the seti@home developers must have gone to extra trouble to make it that way, or else used a crap compiler, since (AFAIK) most common Windows compilers out there optimize for both of these automatically. I don't see why the seti@home people would be interested in having people use poorly-optimized clients, especially when it's so easy to make them much faster (e.g. by using AltiVec)...

The seti@home client HAS to use AltiVec. It just has to. There is simply no other explanation for the performance results Rower_CPU got. I'm sorry, I don't care if you're checking your e-mail or doing protein analysis, but if you're not taking advantage of AltiVec, there is no way in hell a 400MHz G4 can beat or even come close to a 1.33GHz Athlon at ANYTHING. None at all.

Alex

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Say it with me now: "The megahertz myth is a reality."
The megahertz myth is a reality... but only when running AltiVec-enabled software. :)

I wonder what's keeping Intel and AMD from implementing a vector processor into their chips. It doesn't seem like it would be a very tall order, plus Intel certainly has the expertise to write a decent compiler that could auto-vectorize code, unlike whoever is in charge of writing Apple's compiler, which would make said VPU transparent to software developers. Can you imagine what would happen to Apple if Intel implemented PentiVec? A very dark day for Mac users everywhere... I don't even want to think about that.

Alex

[TypeR389]

Originally posted by alex_ant
Where on the FAQ page does it say Seti@home does not use AltiVec, MMX, SSE, etc.? I couldn't see that question listed... Alex [/B]

I didn't mean to say that it didn't use, but there is not specific enhancements for a G4,MMX, SMP etc. Here is a snip of the FAQ I was referring to:

Are you planning on optimizing the SETI@home client for the G4/3DNow/etc instruction set?

As of yet, there are no plans to optimize the SETI@home client for any particular platform or processor. Future versions of the client may be optimized, but there are no plans for doing so in the immediate future.

The compiler is going to do some stuff, and if FF transforms use matrix operations, which they do, the compiler might natvily do this, but there are no specific enhancments. I agree though, Altivec has to be used for a 500Mhz G4 to keep up with a much faster pc processor (Mhz-wise anyway)

[jefhatfield]

thanks for the interesting data!

do you think there really is life out there?

...actually, that sounds like a good thread for when things slow down again;)

[barkmonster]

Photoshop can gain reasonable speed increases if you give it 100s of MBs of RAM and fast RAID drive for the scratch disk. It's not realtime, it's no test of a computer's true potential, it's just number crunching, no photoshop user including myself looks for a new computer to render the filter previews, it's the amount of time spent staring at progress bars that matters, same with seti, Bryce, Cinema 4D and any other application that renders or otherwise processes digital information in a non realtime sense.

Audio applications such as protools and logic are where the realworld tests show off a computer in it's true light, emulation. in particular arcade emulation is another field that the mac falls way behind the wintel boxes at.

Just check out a few REAL benchmarks for yourself:

This test from the Digidesign User Conference is based on the number of tracks (audio & aux) loaded with plug-ins that can be played back without running out of CPU power in protools LE. The plug-ins used were Compressor, 4 Band EQ, Slap delay, medium delay & long delay. All the test settings were the same so no one could cheat and use larger buffers and other tweaks to swing the results in their favour. I wouldn't change from mac os to windows regardless of how fast PCs are personally, but a little truth about cpu speed isn't going to hurt.

733Mhz G4: 26 tracks.
800Mhz G4: 27 tracks.

The PC benchmarks arn't really all that impressive when you concidering they're spinning a lot faster with those GHz speeds but only work out at most 30-40% faster than the macs.

P3 1GHz : 22 tracks.
P4 1.6Ghz : 18 tracks.
P4 1.8Ghz : 25 tracks.


Athlon 1.2Ghz : 26 tracks.
Athlon 1.4Ghz : 32 tracks.
Athlon XP1800+ : 40 tracks.

I put more PC results than mac results because there were more tests in the PC thread and it shows how trivial clock speed is even within PC vs PC tests.

I don't want to be flamed for this, but I know a lot of people are more interested in the less than everyday use benchmarks where you sit watching progress bars for minutes or hours and the computer that bores you the least is the winner :-)

For realtime number crunching on just 1 CPU these protools test results are perfectly valid and one reason why I won't stop saving for a new mac till I can get at least a used dual 800 model later in the year.

Here's (http://duc.digidesign.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=003054) the most recent results thread for the macs and the other thread with results from both Macs and PCs is here (http://duc.digidesign.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=32&t=001474).

Just for people who arn't into protools, there's a site I found with logic benchmarks but the mac results arn't from anything more recent than a 500Mhz G4 so I didn't bother putting them in the message.

[Firestormf]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Windows = 21 hr 03 min 21.3 sec
Mac OS X = 18 hr 10 min 17.5 sec

Good God, what is wrong with your computers? An Athlon XP taking 21 hours to do a workunit?? Even your G4 numbers look a little high if the G4 scales the same as a G3 when running SETI.

Here are MY numbers (approx)

PC running GUI SETI: 6.5-8 hours
PC running cmd line SETI: 6 hours

Mac running GUI SETI OS 9: 28 hours
Mac running GUI SETI OS X: 50+ hours
Mac running cmd line SETI OS X: 24-25 hours

Specs:
Micron PC
Athlon Thunderbird 1.2 ghz
384mb 266mhz DDR
Gigabye GA7DX motherboard
40GB 7200 RPM HD
Win 2000 SP 2

Blueberry iBook (original)
G3 300mhz
160mb SDRAM


note: woohoo 2 posts!

[bobindashadows]

Just to mention that I used a home-made win comp with a 500 Mhz AMD K62 and some other old crappy hw. The times i got the computer to start up, it couldn't run seti@home without crashing after 25 minutes or so. Of course, it only cost 400 dollars so at least its a lot cheaper than a mac :rolleyes:

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Firestormf
Good God, what is wrong with your computers? An Athlon XP taking 21 hours to do a workunit?? Even your G4 numbers look a little high if the G4 scales the same as a G3 when running SETI.

Those numbers are from SETI's database, taking into account MANY different processors.

If SETI is Altivec aware, then that explains the jump in performance on the G4.

BTW - My results above (18 hours and 20 minutes on the Mac,
20 hours and 45 minutes on the PC) on my personal machines are running the OS X and Windows XP GUI clients. Based on your lower numbers with a slower CPU, it sounds like maybe XP is slowing things down considerably. Hmmmm...

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Those numbers are from SETI's database, taking into account MANY different processors.


Thus the necessity for a benchmark providing separate info on each CPU.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by bobindashadows
Thus the necessity for a benchmark providing separate info on each CPU.

We're definitely going in circles here. :D

If you want to, you can look at the platform numbers to see how the OS performs in general on all the hardware available. Then you can look at the CPU numbers to see how a particular CPU performs.

But, I agree that the SETI benchmark is imperfect as an indicator of overall system performance...but what else do we have right now to compare Macs and PCs?

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
But, I agree that the SETI benchmark is imperfect as an indicator of overall system performance...but what else do we have right now to compare Macs and PCs?
SPEC? :D

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by alex_ant
SPEC? :D

AAAAAARRRRGGHHH!!!

Don't get that one started again! :p

[IndyGopher]

Originally posted by gjohns01


I use both OSes. Why is Windows a poor OS? Because you don't know how to use it? Have you used it? I experience no loss in production switching between the two OSes. You can't figure out how to open an application? Can't make the switch between Command+Q and Alt+F4? You should try not to make blanket statements like that. What makes MacOS so superior? I could point you to a few computer users who would try the MacOS and not have a clue. So much for ease of use. Is it easier for you to read an analog clock or a digital one? The OSes do the same thing; it's all a matter of what you're comfortable with.

Blah, blah, blah...

I wouldn't read too much into a Mac vs. PC article listed on mac.com. Numbers be damned. "Real World" performance will show you a P4, Athlon, Xeon, Itanium matches or flat out whips the G4 at any task. It will only get worse as they push ahead with clock speed. Btw, Apple should benchmark more than just Photoshop and they should throw their dual against a Dual Athlon (the never use athlons) or a Dual Xeon (not a single processor machine). Then see how many photoshop filter tests they win. You do realize that Intel will be going from 2ghz to 3ghz in a years time. How superior is that G4 again? Seems to have growing pains. Does the G5 even exist? We are talking Motorola here. They can’t manufacture for ******.

wank, wank, wank...
With a little editting, and a whole lot of common sense, that post could ALMOST be worth the electrons it's printed on.

They don't benchmark against AMD's because businesses don't USE AMD's. I know you don't want to believe that, it hurts your little gamer feelings.. but it's the truth. Big mean world out there. Cope.

As for why they don't benchmark against Dual Xeon's, the answer is equally simple. They want to win. That's marketing. It's what real grown-up type companies do. We aren't using Macs because we're stupid... we aren't all innumerate feebs in here... And no amount of muck-raking by a troll such as yourself is likely to change that.

Wanna know the ONE thing that all the dual and quad Xeons and Itaniums in the world CAN'T do, that keeps us from using them? They can't run MacOS. That's really what it boils down to. I don't know why you, and others like you, have so much trouble with that.

[alex_ant]

I would just like to point out that if things keep progressing at the rate they are now, in about 5 years the PC will be able to run Mac OS X in EMULATION faster than the Mac itself will be able to. :)

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by alex_ant
I would just like to point out that if things keep progressing at the rate they are now, in about 5 years the PC will be able to run Mac OS X in EMULATION faster than the Mac itself will be able to. :)

It has to emulate it at all first. When do you see that happening? ;)

[alex_ant]

Shut up Rower, I'm only trying to rile up the Mac zealots. :)

[Rower_CPU]

Sorry to spoil your fun...let me try again...

WTF!?!? No Intel sucks86 proc will EVER beat a Mac! Tha G4 gots too much gigaflops! The PeeeeeFor don't even got'em at all! Who wants to do emalation anyways? Only lamer PeeCheese users 'cause they want to use Macs but are scared to go buy one and get teased by their stoopid hacker buddies! I got one for you right here: Macs ownz j00!! Emalate that!!!

[bobindashadows]

Heh alex is right, but actually why hasn't there been a decent powerpc emulator out there? I mean obviously the market of windoze users wanting to use macs is much smaller then the reverse, but honestly i know a number of PC users who would love to use a mac, but they can't afford to just buy one without selling their windoze. And then they wouldn't be able to use their win software w/o paying for vpc5. so why isn't there a mac emu?

[Rower_CPU]

Interesting note on VPC:
Price for VPC5 plus Windows XP Home = $199

Price for Windows XP Home on its own = $199

Suddenly, VPC5 doesn't sound like such a bad deal. :p

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Interesting note on VPC:
Price for VPC5 plus Windows XP Home = $199

Price for Windows XP Home on its own = $199

Suddenly, VPC5 doesn't sound like such a bad deal. :p

Lol so we can get a windoze comp + windoze xp for the price that they pay for the OS :D

[mc68k]

Originally posted by gjohns01
I use both OSes. Why is Windows a poor OS? Because you don't know how to use it? Have you used it? I experience no loss in production switching between the two OSes. You can't figure out how to open an application? Can't make the switch between Command+Q and Alt+F4? You should try not to make blanket statements like that. What makes MacOS so superior? I could point you to a few computer users who would try the MacOS and not have a clue.

Don't want to burst your bubble, but I do have an A+ cert, and work with PC's on a daily basis at work. Think first before you try to rile up trouble, or go to another site that doesn't like macs.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by alex_ant

The megahertz myth is a reality... but only when running AltiVec-enabled software. :)

I wonder what's keeping Intel and AMD from implementing a vector processor into their chips. It doesn't seem like it would be a very tall order, plus Intel certainly has the expertise to write a decent compiler that could auto-vectorize code, unlike whoever is in charge of writing Apple's compiler, which would make said VPU transparent to software developers. Can you imagine what would happen to Apple if Intel implemented PentiVec? A very dark day for Mac users everywhere... I don't even want to think about that.

Alex

They did. It's called MMX/SSE/SSE2/3dNOW!/Enhanced 3dNOW!/3dNOW! Professional. However, the screwed up on it (it uses the FP pipelines instead of dedicated ones, doesn't have enough registers, doesn't have the spiffy new instructions Altivec does, MMX can pretty much only been done in assembly, and the processor has to switch states to do MMX/SSE instead of FP). Altivec is what MMX/etc... should have been.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
They did. It's called MMX/SSE/SSE2/3dNOW!/Enhanced 3dNOW!/3dNOW! Professional. However, the screwed up on it (it uses the FP pipelines instead of dedicated ones, doesn't have enough registers, doesn't have the spiffy new instructions Altivec does, MMX can pretty much only been done in assembly, and the processor has to switch states to do MMX/SSE instead of FP). Altivec is what MMX/etc... should have been.
Well, why can't they just get it right? Does x86 prohibit an AltiVec workalike? You can never have too many marketing buzzwords. Why not add yet another? :)

Alex

[TypeR389]

Originally posted by alex_ant

Well, why can't they just get it right? Does x86 prohibit an AltiVec workalike? You can never have too many marketing buzzwords. Why not add yet another? :)

Alex

I think it comes down to most people in general don't really understand computers, and while adding some cool names/marketing jargon is ok, 3GHz sells much better. I actually think it is sorta funny, I have always thought mac were a little mot intuitive to use, but in general, the avg C.Q. (computer quotient) amoung mac users is higher than windows. I still think some poeple buy macs because they heard they are easier to start with, but most people who buy them buy them because they actully know the advantages if using 'em.

My $.02...