Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Archive > Archives of Old Posts > Macintosh Computers

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 21, 2003, 10:59 PM   #1
GeneR
macrumors 6502a
 
GeneR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The land of delusions, CA.
Send a message via AIM to GeneR Send a message via Yahoo to GeneR
Any idea how much faster a Power4 or 970 would be(%-wise) in comparison w/ a G4 chip?

I'm thinking: "Yeah, baby, I really want a faster chip."
I was at the Apple Store today and I liked running FCP3 on the 1GHz 15" TiBook, BUT of course, I wish it was much, much faster (I'm a pretty impatient fellow when it came to rendering transitions and the footage selected in FCP.)

Of course, (in an ideal world: Apple-centric, no such thing as M$ j/k) to be able to have the rendering done lickity-split is the end goal, I'm just trying to figure out what to expect for 2003. If anyone here has any info about this, I sure would appreciate it. Thanks a bunch!

GeneR is offline   0
Old Jan 21, 2003, 11:04 PM   #2
Chaszmyr
macrumors 601
 
Chaszmyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
For normal consumer use, a 970 will be mhz per mhz about the same speed as a current G4, most likely. The RAM access abilities and 900mhz bus of this 64 bit chip give it a lot of potential, and make it for high-level processing. Also, this chip would be absolutely killer if Apple took it and put it into a dual-processor/dual-system bus computer.
Chaszmyr is offline   0
Old Jan 21, 2003, 11:05 PM   #3
Chaszmyr
macrumors 601
 
Chaszmyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
(Also, if you arent aware, the 970 is supposed to launch at 1.8ghz)
Chaszmyr is offline   0
Old Jan 21, 2003, 11:15 PM   #4
janey
macrumors 603
 
janey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: sunny los angeles
970 rules.
__________________
iPad | 15" MacBook Pro | black (iPhone 3GS|MacBook) | Mac mini server
moof!

janey is offline   0
Old Jan 21, 2003, 11:19 PM   #5
Foucault
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Pasadena, CA
speed is everything in a computer. this new IBM chip could propel Apple to the next generation of power computing... I just hope it won't be as slow in progressing through its speed as the G4 chip has been...
__________________
"You scream I'm lazy, you must be crazy, she thought I was a donut, she tried to glaze me.
-- Rakim Allah
I Blog Blaum!
Foucault is offline   0
Old Jan 21, 2003, 11:25 PM   #6
janey
macrumors 603
 
janey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: sunny los angeles
the powerpc 970 rules. apple should have like a quad processor machine when it comes out.
__________________
iPad | 15" MacBook Pro | black (iPhone 3GS|MacBook) | Mac mini server
moof!

janey is offline   0
Old Jan 21, 2003, 11:28 PM   #7
arn
macrumors god
 
arn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Send a message via AIM to arn
Quote:
Originally posted by Chaszmyr
For normal consumer use, a 970 will be mhz per mhz about the same speed as a current G4, most likely.
I think you are mistaken.

If you go by SPECint numbers... and I know you can't necessarily correlate this with real world performance... DaveGee posted these numbers in October

SPECint_base2000
=================
242 G4 800Mhz
259 G4 867Mhz
306 G4 1000Mhz
937 970 1800Mhz
=================

SPECfp_base
=================
147 G4 800Mhz
153 G4 867Mhz
187 G4 1000Mhz
1051 970 1800Mhz
=================

Now don't go crazy over it... as they probably don't correlate to real-world performance... but I do think the 970 will have a higher perforance per Mhz than the current G4s.

arn
arn is offline   0
Old Jan 22, 2003, 12:01 AM   #8
Catfish_Man
macrumors 68030
 
Catfish_Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Send a message via AIM to Catfish_Man
OK, the 970 can dispatch 5 instructions (1 of which has to be a branch) each cycle. It can load 8 (the extra three are, afaict, in case one of the others can't be run immediately. The G4 doesn't do it because it can't rearrange instructions). The G4+ can load and dispatch 4 (1 branch), iirc. The 970 also has 2 floating point units compared to the G4s one. Also, the 970 has twice as much L2 cache and L1 data cache as the G4, but no L3 cache. So:

On purely memory bandwidth limited code, the 970 can go about 4.8 times as fast as a G4.

On purely floating point code, the 970 can theoretically go twice as fast per clock as a G4

On purely integer code, the 970 can theoretically go the same speed per clock as a G4
-----------------------------------------

On Altivec code, the G4+ can go slightly faster than the 970 (the 970's Altivec unit is like a G4s, rather than a G4+s).

On normal, poorly optimized code, the 970 can rearrange instructions and use its extra floating point power and cache to go significantly faster.

Overall, I would guess the 970 will average about 3 instructions per cycle (+/- .5 by my guess), while the G4+ averages 2.31. That would put a 1.8GHz 970 at somewhere between 1.56 and 2.19 times as fast as a 1.25GHz G4.

<disclaimer> everything past the dotted line is a guess, everything above it isn't, but may or may not be true. </disclaimer>
Catfish_Man is offline   0
Old Jan 22, 2003, 12:24 AM   #9
ddtlm
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Catfish_Man:

Quote:
The G4 doesn't do it because it can't rearrange instructions.
Actually the G4 does have very limited out of order execution abilities. I believe it can only look at 12 to 16 (I forget) at once when reordering them.

Quote:
On Altivec code, the G4+ can go slightly faster than the 970 (the 970's Altivec unit is like a G4s, rather than a G4+s).
As far as I know, the G4+ really can't issue instructions fast enough to fill all 4 AltiVec functional units anyway. This in addition to whatever memory starvation problems it has. I wouldn't worry much about the reduced number of AtliVec functional units.

Quote:
On normal, poorly optimized code, the 970 can rearrange instructions and use its extra floating point power and cache to go significantly faster.
This is where it's at. The PPC-970 can go faster per clock in ideal cases, but it really pulls away in less-than-ideal cases.

My main concern about the PPC-970 is the poor cache setup. The L2 is OK right now, but this fall 512k is going to be behind the times.
ddtlm is offline   0
Old Jan 22, 2003, 07:40 AM   #10
will
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
I would guess IBM will offer a range of cache sizes in the long term. Remember it isn't just Apple who will be using the 970, IBM will be using it in a range of workstations and servers.

What I want to know is how quickly IBM will be able to ramp up the clock speed of the 970. As the 970 performance per MHz is roughly 70% higher than the P4, if IBM can ramp up the speed the 970 could be significantly faster.

Also it should be noted the 970 is designed for multiprocessor systems, so I hope to see 4x970 workstations from Apple and IBM (imagine rendering on that).

Then there's the 64 bit issue. How quickly can Apple get 64 bit support into OS X, hopefully they're working on it now. That would allow Apple to deliver servers with more than 4GB of RAM and support large applications.

If Apple don't get a modern fast CPU into their machines within a year I think they'll be in serious trouble.

Last edited by will; Jan 22, 2003 at 07:48 AM.
will is offline   0
Old Jan 22, 2003, 08:00 AM   #11
wormy
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
can someone explain the G4+ to me? is that the next generation of G4 chips before the 970 comes out? and will they be in the soon-to-be-released power macs?
wormy is offline   0
Old Jan 22, 2003, 08:07 AM   #12
will
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
The G4+ is the PowerPC 7457 see http://www.macobserver.com/article/2002/10/22.4.shtml
will is offline   0
Old Jan 22, 2003, 08:27 AM   #13
Telomar
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by will
The G4+ is the PowerPC 7457 see http://www.macobserver.com/article/2002/10/22.4.shtml
Actually it's any G4 since they redesigned it (ie. 7450, 7455 and both the cache free counterparts).
Telomar is offline   0
Old Jan 22, 2003, 08:48 AM   #14
will
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
I think it has been used in a variety of confusing ways. Perhaps we should stick to the full Power PC designations?
will is offline   0


 
MacRumors Forums > Archive > Archives of Old Posts > Macintosh Computers

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Woo hoo, Chip & PIN (EMV, Chip Cards, etc) FINALLY IN THE US, and WORKING dontwalkhand Community Discussion 48 Sep 4, 2014 03:34 PM
Publicly funded elections? Good idea? Or Bad Idea? G51989 Politics, Religion, Social Issues 171 May 13, 2014 03:26 PM
Turning off hibernation mode for SSD good idea or bad idea? whitedragon101 MacBook Pro 6 Nov 25, 2013 04:51 AM
Grabbing my iPhone in a night fire: Good idea or bad idea? Please read post 1st. moonman239 Wasteland 23 Feb 22, 2013 07:37 AM
For faster Aperture >Faster CPU or SDD? blanket86 MacBook Pro 1 Nov 25, 2012 11:20 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:06 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC