IBM: Power5 four times faster than Power4
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/31467.html
this bodes well for the rumored 980.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/31467.html
this bodes well for the rumored 980.
Originally posted by hvfsl
But don't expect the PPC980 before 2005. Sony and Nintendo are meant to be also using it for their new consoles to be released at Christmas 2005.
What you have done with their claim is equivelent to taking the statement that "a G5 clocks up to 5 times as high as a first generation G4", and interpreting it as "the G5 clocks 5 times as high as the G4". Thats the difference between a 2.0ghz G5 and a 7.1ghz G5.And it boasted that they're up to four times as powerful as the first generation of Power4 CPUs.
this performance boost doesn't seem to have a lot to do with the clock rate. it won't be clocked four times higher, or even four times higher than the slowest power4:Originally posted by ddtlm
3G4N:
No, they didn't say that. They said something more like this:
What you have done with their claim is equivelent to taking the statement that "a G5 clocks up to 5 times as high as a first generation G4", and interpreting it as "the G5 clocks 5 times as high as the G4". Thats the difference between a 2.0ghz G5 and a 7.1ghz G5.
i would imagine they are using different features (better cache structures, more cache, faster cache, more processing units in the core, and so on) to get the quadrupling of performance. they saidthe Power4+, the Power5 will be fabbed at 0.13 micron. It is expected to ship at 1.4GHz to 2GHz, taking it above the Power4+, which will probably peak at 1.8GHz.
performance=speed, whether that be by doing more things faster, or by doing more things at the same speed at the same time. the net result of performance increase is that more gets done in the same time, meaning a speed boost. 34GN never said anything about clock speeds of any processor.IBM said earlier this year that it expects such a quadrupling of performance.
The PPC970 hardly clocks higher than the Power4+, 2.0ghz in a few months vs 1.7ghz right now.they weaken the chemical bonds between the transistors, allowing the cores to be clocked much higher, just like the PPC970
yes, but i think that the 970 will go mich higher in the end than the Power4 will.Originally posted by ddtlm
The PPC970 hardly clocks higher than the Power4+, 2.0ghz in a few months vs 1.7ghz right now.
hah! good call. well, IBM is a lot bigger than motorola, and they don't piss around in stupid telephone technology at the expense of their business obligations. IBM is an R&D giant, and by being hooked to them, i think we will see a lot better progress. that's the best part of this.Originally posted by ddtlm
At this point that seems to be a matter of faith.
itanium must die, methinks. heh.Originally posted by ddtlm
Yeah, I have a lot of confidence that IBM means buisiness with future desktop PPC chips. I think it fits in very well with a performance-oriented product lineup by allowing IBM to dillute the considerable R&D cost of the Power series, which IBM pretty much needs to do in order to fend off the Itanium. (A new Itanium2 is being launched Monday, I hear.)
Rather than answer that, I'll just confuse things more by telling you that I also run Blackbox on Linux ( http://blackboxwm.sourceforge.net/ ) without any icons or pictures anywhere.off topic, why don't you have an avatar?
lol. does it not have image support? what does macrumors look like?Originally posted by ddtlm
Rather than answer that, I'll just confuse things more by telling you that I also run Blackbox on Linux ( http://blackboxwm.sourceforge.net/ ) without any icons or pictures anywhere.
Originally posted by ddtlm
Rather than answer that, I'll just confuse things more by telling you that I also run Blackbox on Linux ( http://blackboxwm.sourceforge.net/ ) without any icons or pictures anywhere.
Do you even know what MacOS X is? If you do, list ten commands available on Linux that are missing in MacOS X.Originally posted by ddtlm
e-coli:
You might be amazed by the power of the command line. In Linux you can basically live on it, though sadly the OSX version is not so hearty.
Originally posted by ddtlm
e-coli:
You might be amazed by the power of the command line. In Linux you can basically live on it, though sadly the OSX version is not so hearty.
I have them installed, and have since I got OSX 10.1.Install the Developer Tools for more stuff that makes Mac OS X just like Linux.
Yes. I can repeat it if you'd like.Did someone say you can't live with the command line in X?
Yeah I know that too, and I've even used it on occasion, however I find that simple organization of file names and directories makes it rather unimportant. For example, if I want to copy and mishmash of things I just downloaded on my Mac to my Linux machine or the other way, I just use rsych. The need to have all the files and the terminal visible is also a drawback, because it requires a good deal of extra clicking and moving on a busy machine.Actually X even has nice drag and drop of Finder folders to the Terminal window making possible to do command line things to Finder Folders without having to type out the full path.
Originally posted by ddtlm
MisterMe:
What do you think I'm an idiot?
OK, have you looked at /etc under Mac OS X? The names of files may be slightly different but then again the file system is slightly different./etc/init.d/ scripts, there are config files that are actualy used like /etc/raidtab, /etc/fstab, /etc/hosts, and the entire wealth of things in /etc/sysconfig/.
OSX is missing the entire /proc filesystem, which is an awesome way to check on a lot of system statuses. (For example, I can simply cat /proc/mdstat to see what my software raids are up to.)