IBM PowerPC 970 vs Intel Pentium 4

I'm really excited about the 970. Of course, as many have pointed out, the 970 1.8 GHz chip will be "only" on par with a 4 GHz P4. I can't help but to wonder if anyone has realized that Intel is slowing down on faster chips because they run too hot. Intel is going to sit around 3 GHz for much longer than we'd expect. Meanwhile, the BUS on the 970 is scalable, already moving to smaller process, designed for multiprocessor designs, and is well designed in general. I would venture a guess that the 970 will be outstanding and will out pace the Intel offerings (the P4 is too hot and the Itanium design is not as good as the 970).

I am of the mind that we will be hearing Apple announce the 970 sooner than later. According to the Reuters article I read, the fab is already making chips. IBM has already stated that 1.8 GHz 970 chips will be available this spring. This suggests that maybe 1.4 GHz 970 is already being produced. Certainly Apple already has systems running 970s and will be ready to release them as soon as they are available.

Originally posted by i_b_joshua

Oh yeah, we're all doing that every day!


i_b_joshua

Click to expand...

It's not so much that you do but that you can. In the situation I pose I believe a 2x1.25GHz G4 running 10.2 will beat any current single processor Pentium computer out there.

The demonstration I did to my friends was to rip a cd while burning a cd and playing Unreal Tournament at the same time. There was no noticeable slow down in any of the tasks. This was on my 2x1GHz DDR.

Originally posted by i_b_joshua
I think it's easy to lose sight of reality here.
Statements like seem to sum up how everyone is starting to feel, until you consider the fact that a 970 really will leave the G4 in the dust.

I think some of us should reconsider our priorities. Which do we want most, an awesome new processor in our Macs or an 'Intel killer'? Personally if I had to choose between the two the former would win every time.

i_b_joshua

Click to expand...

One should never try to equal a dual processor to a single processor unless it is proved that the single processor system is twice as fast as the dual processor system (per Digital Video Editing).

A fair comparison would be a dual PowerPC 970 based Macintosh with a dual Xeon of that time.

Originally posted by MacBandit


It's not so much that you do but that you can....... rip a cd while burning a cd and playing Unreal Tournament at the same time.... This was on my 2x1GHz DDR.

Click to expand...

I did understand what you were saying. I was just being sarcastic.
What you describe is truly cool it's just that not too many people need to do it - but I have to admit plenty of people may think they want to do it.

Originally posted by Tenacious B

Unfortunately, you are not the average consumer. When someone sees a computer advertised, the speed is the first thing noticed. Price is the second. When people see that PCs are faster and cheaper than Macs, they see what the better value is in terms of Mhz per dollar. THe ratio is obviously much higher for PCs.

I would like to see both "an awesome new processor in our Macs" and an "Intel Killer" because it is the best way to get people to switch. There was a time when Apple should have capitalized on the megahertz myth idea when PPCs actually had a real advantage over Pentiums.

It may be true that when it comes down to the bottom line, a few hundred megahertz here and there don't matter to the average consumer's tasks. But numbers=power in their eyes, not the operating system. The Switch campaign is helping, but it might be too little too late. Apple needs the power for these consumers (so that they switch) and for us (so that we don't).

Click to expand...

I take your point but I think you misunderstood my mine. What I was trying to say was that this switch from G4 to 970 (if it happens) will be really good for us. These machines will kick arse compared to the G4 and we shouldn't lose sight of that. They just may not be 'Intel Killers' but they will be streets ahead of where we are now. As an 'average user' I think we already have pretty good computers and for the power users these 970 chips should easily satisfy their needs.

If you're still worried about 'switchers' then I'd suggest most PC users can come up with an array of different reasons (some good but mostly bad) for not buying a Mac whether it has an Intel wupping processor or not.

I hate to sound like an optimist but I think things have never looked so good. We have an awsome operating system, masses of open source and proprietary software being ported every day and the promise of a really sturdy processor at the beginning of (what appears to be a long and exciting) development life.

Well done Apple.

i_b_joshua

The average consumer

The average consumer doesn't know much about speed at all. They show up at CompUSA, BestBuy or even WallMart looking to buy either the cheapest computer advertised or the one that Consumer Reports labeled a "Best Buy".

At this point, the salesman starts selling. Megahertz, RAM, video cards, sound cards, printers, etc. It's a crash course for the consumer who may end up spending way more than they planned to when all they really needed was something to surf the net, do their taxes on and maybe print out crappy clip-art holiday cards.

If you're reading this, you're not an average consumer!

- j

Re: The average consumer

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
The average consumer doesn't know much about speed at all. They show up at CompUSA, BestBuy or even WallMart looking to buy either the cheapest computer advertised or the one that Consumer Reports labeled a "Best Buy".

At this point, the salesman starts selling. Megahertz, RAM, video cards, sound cards, printers, etc. It's a crash course for the consumer who may end up spending way more than they planned to when all they really needed was something to surf the net, do their taxes on and maybe print out crappy clip-art holiday cards.

If you're reading this, you're not an average consumer!

- j

Click to expand...

This is all a good point. Maybe we can benefit from the ignorance of the typical consumer. They've been touting higher MHz for about 3 years now. We will be able to tout twice the bits . I'm not an idiot I know that 64bit Processor doesn't do twice the work. That's not to say that we can't claim that it can because it surely can in the perfect situation.

how long is it untill we are going to see 970s in a mac that we can buy?... and you gotta know that 90% of the people going to buy a computer look for the teh most mhz for the cheapest amount of money, thats by far the first thing they look for.

Originally posted by i_b_joshua
Now that may not be correct but it's something to think about.

Click to expand...

quote:...heavy Photoshop plugin tests while burning a DVD and rendinging in Maya all at the same time

Originally posted by i_b_joshua

Oh yeah, we're all doing that every day!


i_b_joshua

Click to expand...

Okay, how 'bout listening to iTunes, burning a CD while organizing photos in iPhoto with a few browser windows and a mail and a chat and an Office program open.

The first scenario is fully likely in a Pro environment, and the second just as likely in a consumer environment.

My G4 is always running 30-40 applications...always.

Coupla terminals (in turn running any number of command line tools), Flash, Dreamweaver, CodeWarrior, ProjectBuilder, BBEdit, apache, MySQL, Mozilla, Mail, Thoth, SlashDock, Timbuktu, calculator, Xnap, Xtunes, readerware (book, cd & dvd), and Excel, in addition to the apps which comprise OSX, and the daemons not listed above.

My sister's iMac is always running 20-30 apps.

iPhoto, Fire, Timbuktu, XNap, LimeWire, Word, a puzzle game, IE, Mail, Frogblast, iCal, Sherlock, and apache, l, in addition to the apps which comprise OSX, and the daemons not listed above.

So multitasking is ELEMENTAL to modern performance metrics, but seldom measured. I have a Dual G4 867, and a Dual Athlon MP 1600 (much faster in raw metrics), however, under both Linux (Mandrake), and Windows (2000), the Athlon box cannot multitask as well as the slower G4, and can be ground to a total halt by a few instances a FSRaid, a compile & a 10,000 file batch replace, etc. I have serious trouble intentionally freezing the Mac when multitasking.

So, if a reasonably modern Dual G4 can plod through many tasks and a reasonably modern Dual Athlon cannot, a IBM PPC 970 Dual (please let them be duals), should fly through many tasks at once.

Sure, this is more valuable for a pro than a consumer. Sure we may not have the fastest benchmarks. But if a chip is derived from a Power4, it is begging to be abused, and to handle it, and that means best of breed multitasking, serious (but not top) raw processing performance, and a compelling draw for Pro users in studios, print shops, etc.

The consumer can continue to buy at Walmart on the MHz numbers for all I care, because the 970 won't see a consumer machine until mid-2004 anyway.

Re: You Technolusters!!

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
For 95% of the Mac users out there, performance worries disappeared a couple hundered mHz ago. A 1.8 gHz PPC 970 won't be discernably different from an 800 mHz G4 (or even G3 for that matter). Most of the apps that people run are relatively simple and the biggest change may be that the Aqua overhead is no longer noticed, unless Apple makes it even more burdensom to force us into hardware upgrades (does that sound jaded? )

That said, I'd be happy to not have the burden of defending an obviously slower processor to people who think that's the most important attribute in a computing experience.

Let's at least get Apple back in the race!

Click to expand...

Believe me, resizing in X would be remarkably faster on the 970, along with menus, app switching, etc. Anyone who uses the mac to work, will notice the difference. I can't wait to update my dual gig

Originally posted by i_b_joshua
Now that may not be correct but it's something to think

Click to expand...

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw

Click to expand...

What that meant was that I'm too lazy to find the article as 'proof'. The claim may be unsubstantiated but my guess is that it is just some basic mathematics applied to a single home and then extrapolated out to cover the nation.

The point is it's something to think about. The accumulative effect of millions of people's actions really does matter. A single coal or gas fired power station uses a lot of fuel and outputs large amounts of poisonous waste. And we're talking about 7 or 8. Therefore if we use low power devices we're doing more than just saving ourselves a few dollars in power bills.

i_b_joshua

Re: Re: True...

Originally posted by bluecell
I agree, but isn't the 970's bus at 900MHz?

Click to expand...

Yes, but due to the complexity of the bus protocol (it's some funky packet based one) it's effectively an 800MHz bus.

2 = 2

i find it very strange over here at macrumors...
people compare a dual g4/dual 970 to a single 3ghz p4

hello!!!
intel's run dual processors all the time

in a wintel platform, you can get dual p4, dual athlon, or dual xeon... and your choice of sdram, ddr ram or rdram and motherboard, etc...

how about making a FAIR comparision... the best apple can offer (dual 1.25ghz g4) versus the best wintel can offer (dual 3.2gig p4).

6.4 gigs of p4 CRUSHES 2.5gigs of g4 any day of the week.

i use macs and pc's and have no loyalty to anything other than high performance and the truth.

apple is REALLY looking silly right now asking for $3800+ for a "top of the line" system that really is a joke compared to what you can put together on a wintel system for half the cost.

I also do not quite understand why people are saying that the 970 will blow Intel out of the water? When will this happen? It won't happen when the 970 is first released, and may not happen for several speed bumps. Intel has already planned a new processor >4GHz P5, while the 970 will not reach comparable speeds. No way. At best, the Apple-PC speed gap will be reduced. Well, on the other hand, we can say, "Geez, at least its better than nothing. At least the speed gap isn't embarrassing anymore!" I guess that's something. I think that in 3 years, the difference will be negligible, but only if IBM spends the $$$ and effort to develop the chip.

Anyway, I see the 970 playing a good game of catch-up after its release, hopefully reducing the performance difference to something negligible.

And for you people who say things like, "I'd like to see a PC user burn DVD's while playing mp3's and Unreal Tournament, etc...", I hate to tell you that PC users can do this. Heck, a knowledgeable PC user, like my brother, can build a PC with a AMD Athlon 1.3GHz and do all of this. And he didn't need to overclock or anything.

I'm not a Mac user (yet), but I'm definitely going to switch to an iBook, but the more I learn about the performance gap, the more difficult it is for me to justify spending that kind of money on an iBook, especially when my prof's new Fugitsu laptop is fast, and can last for 4.5 hours, all for the same price. WinXP doesn't crashed on my home PC, either. Although, individual programs crash on occasion, but this happens on a Mac too, right? I can't defend my "switching" choice, especially to my brother who thinks its an absolutely ridiculous to pay THAT much money for 3 year old technology.

Be afraid, Mac users. Dual battery PC laptops are quite a trend now, and they get 5-9 hours of batterly life.

PS: I'm switching anyway.

PPS: If the Power4 has 4 cores, why don't they just use a pared-down Power4 with 2 cores instead of making a Mac with dual processors? I don't know much about computers, so forgive me if its a stupid question.

no one uses dual P4's --- EVER

Woah, sudden apple bashing.

One: The average person doesn't use Dual P4's. But on the other hand, many Apple users use Dual processors.
Second: Intel said that 4GHZ processors will not be ready for some time. Years.
Third: Apple's money should be put to things like new processors, sure it probably will not BLOW Intels CPU's out of the water, but it is a very nice start.
4th: Apple might look into dual bateries but that aint a huge point most apple laptops can run for some time doing non-extensive use. Plus they need 2 because the processors suck up so much money.

i find it very strange over here at macrumors...
people compare a dual g4/dual 970 to a single 3ghz p4

hello!!!
intel's run dual processors all the time

in a wintel platform, you can get dual p4, dual athlon, or dual xeon... and your choice of sdram, ddr ram or rdram and motherboard, etc...

how about making a FAIR comparision... the best apple can offer (dual 1.25ghz g4) versus the best wintel can offer (dual 3.2gig p4).

6.4 gigs of p4 CRUSHES 2.5gigs of g4 any day of the week.

Click to expand...

Note: Dual processors never equal the same amount.
Example: 2, 1 GHZ processors normally beat out something like 1x2processor computer.
Never, DARE Mutiply with comp parts.

Re: no one uses dual P4's --- EVER

Originally posted by MrMacman

Second: Intel said that 4GHZ processors will not be ready for some time. Years.

Click to expand...

Do you have something to back up that statement? Various sites on the Internet have claimed that Intel already has them at 4Ghz in the lab. Other sites (places like Tom's Hardware Ace's Hardware, AnandTech, etc) have claimed they can already take the 3.06Ghz part up to 4Ghz with good memory and sufficient cooling.

The only thing getting in the way of faster processors from Intel is the economy. There simply is no economic justification for pouring the development dollars into faster processors right now. AMD is still behind and loosing money. Intel is spending a lot of effort right now updating their chipsets so that the next set of processors can be connected to memory that allows them to shine.

There is no point in bringing out a 4Ghz part and attaching it to PC1066 RDRAM or PC3200 DDR memory. Those will not provide sufficient memory bandwidth to make the processor worth the money.

Re: no one uses dual P4's --- EVER

Originally posted by MrMacman
One: The average person doesn't use Dual P4's. But on the other hand, many Apple users use Dual processors.
Second: Intel said that 4GHZ processors will not be ready for some time. Years.
Third: Apple's money should be put to things like new processors, sure it probably will not BLOW Intels CPU's out of the water, but it is a very nice start.
4th: Apple might look into dual bateries but that aint a huge point most apple laptops can run for some time doing non-extensive use. Plus they need 2 because the processors suck up so much money.

Note: Dual processors never equal the same amount.
Example: 2, 1 GHZ processors normally beat out something like 1x2processor computer.
Never, DARE Mutiply with comp parts.

Click to expand...

Geez. Assumptions. Assumptions. Assumptions.

The average person doesn't use dual P4s, neither does the person use dual G4s. I know many, many people who own dual Xeon and dual Athlon PCs--far outweighs the number of people I know who even own Macs with dual processors [read: they're too darned expensive and slow].

Point is, it doesn't matter if the average Joe doesn't use dual Pentium 4s, what matters is that the choice is available. People who need the choice take advantage of it and have a system [way] faster than the top-of-the-line G4.

Yes, you are correct that dual 3.2 GHz != 6.4 GHz total. But come to think about it... dual 3.2 Ghz with HyperThreading, I can't imagine how fast that computer would run the FPMathTest. I tested the Dual 1.25 G4 at an Apple Store today--65 seconds. My Athlon XP 2100+ (1.733 GHz) does the same thing in three seconds.

Two processors also help when running more then one app at once. This is certainly the case in OSX 10.2 at least. I would like to see real world tests comparing the 2xG4 1.25GHz against any single processor P4.

Click to expand...

Ask and ye shall recieve...
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/Htm/DVEditHomeSet1.htm

It's not even close. P4 wins, hands down. Does everything the Dual G4 does in half the time. Let me repeat: half the time. And this for a machine that costs $630 less than the Mac, and that's after Apple's generous discounts and rebates. Otherwise, the Dell comes in a cool $1,000 under the Mac.

What really is tantilizing is the thought of Intel getting its act together and making the P4 SMP-capable, like the P3 is. We SMP fans would love to have a Dual P4 HT system... 2 CPU's that show up as 4 in NT... Photoshop and other processor-hungry apps would really fly under that scenario.

And as for responsiveness? Those new HT P4's are amazing. Toms Hardware (http://www.tomshardware.com) has some videos you can watch that compares a HT P4 to a non-HT P4, both running at the same speed. The HT P4 kicks all sorts of ass on the non-HT P4, even in apps that aren't multithreaded and thus are non-SMP optimized. The OS (WinXP) manages the threads and distributes the workload appropriately across the HT.

And you're right... CPU speed is just one part of the equation. But even in that case, the PC's architecture is still kicking the Mac's ass. It has faster FSB speeds, AGP speeds (AGP x8 is appearing on mobos and AGP x8 graphics cards are now becoming available), faster memory speeds (both DDR and RAMBUS), etc. Sure, Mac will probably crib some of those technologies from the PC like they have been doing in the past, but the fact remains that Intel and AMD invest billions of dollars into CPU and chipset R&D a year while Motorola and IBM don't seem to care that much about CPU development.

Originally posted by Shadowplay
What really is tantilizing is the thought of Intel getting its act together and making the P4 SMP-capable, like the P3 is. We SMP fans would love to have a Dual P4 HT system... 2 CPU's that show up as 4 in NT... Photoshop and other processor-hungry apps would really fly under that scenario.

Click to expand...

Yep. Pentium 4 Xeon MP has HyperThreading.

They even have L3 caches up to 2 MB.

http://www.intel.com/products/server/processors/server/xeon_mp/index.htm?iid=ipp_srvr+proc_xeonmp&

Yeah, those are the P4 Xeons, though. They're pricey 'cause they're meant for servers. But if Intel could reinstitute SMP capability in the consumer-level P4's, then we're talking. I know a lot of SMP'ers just drooling at the thought. Most of them have to make do with Athlon MP's or P3's if they want to SMP.

Also, the link I posted went to the general Digital Video Editing site... here's the link to the actual review...
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm

I'm a PC desktop user, because I like the platform, the OS, the speed, and the sheer size of the software library. I grew up on it, I know how to use it, and my PC is a great machine.

I use a PowerBook because laptops are the one area where Apple is competitive on a price/performance ratio. Besides which, i don't need an overpowered laptop as a desktop replacement, and I just use the PowerBook for basic tasks like researching in the library or checking my email at Starbucks. And I really like the elegance of the black G3 PowerBook's minimalist design. That's something PC laptop designers never understand. My dad has a ThinkPad and it's a solid machine, but it has weirdo buttons everywhere that have absolutely no use.

But for desktops, Apple is seriously outgunned. And it is annoying how Mac fanatics keep moving the goalposts. All those times Steve Jobs was up on stage doing a side-by-side comparison of the PPC versus the latest Intel chip, speed was king. But now that the shoe is on the other foot and the PPC is sucking the exhaust from the P4/Athlon XP as it gets left behind in the dust, Steve is awfully quiet about speed nowadays. I think it's overdue for Gates or Barrett to have a nice side-by-side Photoshop comparison during their next keynote.

Seriously, when corporate buying officers look at the options, there's really no question what to go with. The PC is twice as fast and is considerably less expensive. With XP, stability, security, and compatibility are there. Plus its the platform they already use and it has all the software they want to use, whether they work in legal, media, or just plain office work. PC companies such as Dell offer superior service and bend over backwards to work with companies to tailor the systems to their needs, and they're there for years afterward with service and support. Now you may argue that "they'll need the service in three years," but the fact remains that they're still there and nurturing the relationship so they'll be the first ones the corporate IT guys call when it's time to upgrade again.

Apple's Switch campaign is just going after the moms and pops of the world, but they're making no inroads with corporate America. And they won't until they get their act together in both processor speeds and service. The former is up to IBM, and everyone seems to have this belief that Intel will sit still while IBM takes the next year to get it's next generation chip out; but the fact is that Intel is still screaming ahead and plunking billions into R&D. It's Intel's bread and butter, while IBM has a gazillion other things on its priority list. And I don't see Apple doing much about the latter in terms of working with corporate America.

A Sober Mac User.

To ShadowPlay and Others;

I would have to agree with Shadowplay on many levels in the comparison of present G4 chips vs P4 chips.

Mac Users (myself included) would have to be completely delusional to think our systems(Macs) even come close to P4 box's in speed. Sure Ghz is not the be all/end all of speed, it just happens that most P4 boxes beat Apples G4 in every other category as well. My Grandma rides a System Bus faster than me!!!

Also, why would Big Biz want to run Apples? It is a lot cheeper and faster to run Linux Servers than an Apple Xserver.

As for Operating systems, I could understand using XP for the Above reasons (if Linux takes too many brain Cells to figure out...) and if Windows was all I knew. However, a small population finds Windows very unintuitive, glitchy (although stable in XP), highly propietory(yes even more so than Apples OS's) and Commercially Swamped to the nines.

I do not use a Mac because I have been brainwashed into believing they push more 'bits' than Athlons or P4s. I and many others use Macs because of the OS and quality of software developed for Mac OS. Also, the Hardware is dependable and Apple has been great to me on any Warrantee concerns.

I would like to point out that this forum is in fact trying to compare the new 64bit 970 (which will hopefully breathe new life into Apples Desktops) vs. todays fastest P4 (although Intel will surely be 3 steps forward by the time the 970 is 'ever' introduced in Macs)

Personally, if Apple does not address the ever increasing speed gap I will be forced to use a P4 box to 'finish' items prepared on my Mac to remain competitive.

If the 970 can compare, bring it online now. If not let's talk "Marklar!" ... but that's a different discussion.

Cheers Happy New Year!

OSX is built better

go download mobydock. it is a dock program for windows 2000/xp.

i have it on a pc cause my brother likes my dock (jag.3)

all i have to do is run the mouse over it from start to end and watch CPU usage go up to 100% it even cant finish without laging.
this is on a AND XP 1800+ w/256 PC2100 GF2MX 32 DDR

a G3600 calssic imac uses 5% more to do the same task. try printing a pdf from any program that can print in 2k/xp? you need an add-on program


OS X is better than win in every way except one, it doesnt natively run counterstrike. oh well, have to use VPC for that

There are less % of Dual P4 Users that Dual G4 users.

Originally posted by ktlx


Do you have something to back up that statement? Various sites on the Internet have claimed that Intel already has them at 4Ghz in the lab. Other sites (places like Tom's Hardware Ace's Hardware, AnandTech, etc) have claimed they can already take the 3.06Ghz part up to 4Ghz with good memory and sufficient cooling.

Click to expand...

I like the part where you posted that Intel has them in Lab's. I'm sure apple has labs with a few 970's, but do I say that apple is ready to release them tommorow, NO.
Intel cannot get the P4 in its current condition to 4 GHZ. Intel has stated tha in 2003 the highest possible they will release is 3.6 GHZ. And look what it took for Tom's Hardware to get it to 4 GHZ, not monster fans, not water cooling. LIQUID NITROGEN. THEY BASICALLY FROZE THE CHIP.
What was it - 52 degrees Celcius?

Any-how, inless you are operating a server or extreme graphics/EXTREME gaming you don't see many people using Dual Xeon's look at that Dell commerical (*ech*, sorry seen it too many times) they advertise it as a server, Which it was made for doing. Xeon's are nice, but only if you are willing to pay the price.

Edit: UBB code not working...

Server ownership

Also, why would Big Biz want to run Apples? It is a lot cheeper and faster to run Linux Servers than an Apple Xserver.

The XServe is a very new product and I think time will show wich platform is actually the cheapest and most reliable.
Recent survey's show that Linux servers are no cheaper in cost of ownership than windows servers. This is largely because linux servers require a lot more professional and expensive care. Windows servers however are expensive in the way that Microsoft charge quite alot in licensing of their server and client software. Apple however has made a brilliant, easy to use and powerful operating system with a cool GUI and a BSD/Unix command line. Also the XServe comes with unlimited client license for Mac OSX Server.
As for the part about performance. I do not believe a linux server in the same price range as the XServe is any faster. keep in mind that NASA chose the XServe for a cluster of 33 servers.

Xserve

Here is the link for those of you unfamiliar with it : http://www.daugerresearch.com/fractaldemos/JPLXServes/JPLXServeClusterBenchmark.html