Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

rjstanford

macrumors 6502
Oct 30, 2002
272
0
Austin, TX
Re: Re: The Reality

Originally posted by ralphh
Pardon my ignorance, can someone unconfuse me here? I thought that memory space was shared between processors in an SMP system. Otherwise, wouldn't two threads running within the same process have trouble sharing data if they were assigned different processors? Or is such an assignment not allowed?
The original quote should have referred to each process being allocated 4gb, not each processor. Unless I am very much mistaken, which is always a possibility.

-Richard
 

Analog Kid

macrumors G3
Mar 4, 2003
8,985
11,739
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Judging by the 970 pipeline stages these speeds could be

Originally posted by Phinius
According to a article written by David Wang at RealWorldTech.com, a IBM spokesperson informed him that the 970 and Power4 have the same thickness of traces. IBM did not use a more robust process for the Power4 than the 970. So, the argument for a slower or more reliable POWER4 than a 970 due to a different process is mute.

"Although the PowerPC 970 is a part that would cost considerably less to manufacture and sell, its performance actually exceeds the POWER4 processor in many areas. The reason for this apparent paradox is that the POWER4 processor had been designed for the high cost, continuous availability server market, and in some areas, performance had been traded off to obtain near-absolute reliability guarantees. As an example, in an article published in Microprocessor Reports in 1999, IBM described its use of thicker gate oxides in the POWER4 processor to obtain a failure rate that is two orders of magnitude better than comparable processors from most other manufacturers. The cost of the thicker oxides is the reduced drive current of the transistor and consequently slower switching speed of the transistors on the POWER4 processor. In the case of the PowerPC 970, the processor does not need to meet similar reliability requirements as the POWER4 processor, and as a consequence, circuit and process technology can be tweaked to obtain higher performance by trading away the near-absolute reliability required by the POWER4 processor."
--David Wang
RealWorldTech

http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?AID=RWT101502203725

I don't have time to go through all the links... Can you link an article with updated information?

Thanks
 

Analog Kid

macrumors G3
Mar 4, 2003
8,985
11,739
Re: Hmmmmmm....................?

Originally posted by tazznb
The P4 @ 3.2Ghz dissipates up to 100W, and can be used as a second oven.

That's just amazing... The heat dissipation guys really are the unsung heroes of the computing world.

I seem to remember my sister having a Betty Crocker oven of some sort that used a lightbulb as a heat source... I'm sure it wasn't a 100W bulb.
 

Haberdasher

macrumors regular
Jul 24, 2002
142
0
Los Angeles, CA
Re: Re: i want... no, NEED more than 25GHz!!!

Originally posted by soggywulf
Now THAT is a kick ass idea! Here's something related that I've always thought would be incredibly cool. You know how there are some small parts of songs that sound really good to you, like they're hardwired to your soul? Such samples might come from a variety of music, and be unrelated to genre or band/composer. What if you could play those snippets, and your 50 THz machine would be able to search the "iTMS" to find all songs which have large portions of emotionally similar music?

There's already a service for this for cell-phones. Dial the service, put the phone to a song on the radio, or you can whistle/hum the tune. The service searches its database by matching certain peaks and troughs (I think), and returns with a possible match. Apparently it's pretty accurate, and is getting better all the time (able to ignore more and more background noise, softer music, etc.)

Sorry I can't remember the name, but it IS out there (it was on CNN or I read it in Time...) Try looking for it, I remember it sounded wicked sweet. :D
 

beloit08

macrumors newbie
Jul 6, 2003
16
0
I noticed that the article says the G5 is coming into the PB relatively soon. Anyone have a clue as to how they're going to cool the thing? I've heard they already get pretty hot with the G4 inside. Putting a G5 in there that runs at 97w (or whatever)--we'll all end up with 17" CookBooks. Or something cooled with liquid nitrogen...
 

XForge

macrumors member
Jul 25, 2002
99
0
South Florida
Re: Clarification

Originally posted by Shadow_Raptor
As for everyone worrying about the 20-25Ghz 45nm process rest assured that this problem has been expected for some time now. It is true that the theoritical limit for current processors is up around 30Ghz. After that everything gets too small, too fast, too power hungry and too hot.

Okay, liquid-nitrogen-cooled Power Macs!!! Woo!!

[edit] I had no idea beloit08 had posted that about Powerbooks already... jinx!!
 

ralphh

macrumors newbie
Jun 23, 2003
26
0
Lexington, KY
Re: Re: Hmmmmmm....................?

Originally posted by Analog Kid

I seem to remember my sister having a Betty Crocker oven of some sort that used a lightbulb as a heat source... I'm sure it wasn't a 100W bulb.

The Easy Bake Oven!!:D

Yeah, two 100-watt bulbs supplied all heat, one above and one below with a couple of simple right-angle reflectors focused on the cake pan. It really cooked! My sister made a lot of great stuff with hers, including a small but very good apple pie I loved.

Just replace a P4's heat sink with a reflector and rig a sliding tray for the little cake pan and you're all set! ;)
 

XForge

macrumors member
Jul 25, 2002
99
0
South Florida
Re: Re: 25 GHz?

Originally posted by CmdrLaForge
I don't know as well. I even don't know for what I could need a G5. At the moment I have a iBook with 900MHz. It does all I want at a speed that is quite enough for me.

One should note that the US version of Macworld magazine was cryptically saying, in a review of the 900MHz G3 iBook, that G3s may have "compatibility issues" in the future. Due to their publishing cycle they do know stuff ahead of time, and are limited only by their nondisclosure agreement. Wildassed guessing I'd say whatever comes after Panther won't boot on G3s. Wildassed guessing mind you.
 

metamotion

macrumors newbie
Jul 6, 2003
4
0
San Diego County
Marklar: The most important news?

All this speculation about IBM's hardware prowess (and thus Apple's) is very interesting, but I submit that the new architecture carries great significance for those of us who care about Apple's survival and the direction of the PC industry.

I suspect that Mr. Steve is now poised to ramp up Marklar, not put it on the back burner. Here's why: Release of an Intel/AMD compatible operating system would have been suicide for the lucrative hardware operation before now. Some intrepid Wintel users may have been willing to spend $129 for an elegant, crash-resistant alternative to the dark side, but widespread acceptance and real profits will take several years to build, even with the amazing success of the Windows Ipod that we will see this holiday season and next year.

At the same time, a Marklar OS blazing away on a 3.6 Ghz P4 box would have snuffed sales of Apple hardware within five minutes. But now it appears likely that IBM/Apple has nearly equalled the top of the wheezing Wintel combine, and will pull off a minor leapfrog in about 8-12 months.

When G5 boxes appear that can run Panther dramatically faster than Longhorn or Marklar on a top-end Dell, look for Mr. Steve to release the thing with a bet-the-farm marketing campaign. Complete with optimized Adobe products and a serious Office competitor from Apple that combines Keynote, a revamped Appleworks and perhaps even iLife on Intel/AMD boxes. I think that July 2004, in time for Christmas season, is within reach for such a move.

Having, at long last, some speedy architecture means that Apple can launch Marklar and still sustain its outrageous profit margins on boxes --- and still build market share among professional, scientific and the vanity consumer markets that will pay for great industrial design and blazing speed. Why not buy an Apple, if it is demonstrably faster than an Intel/AMD box running the same OS?

For the multitudes, the vast unwashed who don't need more speed until Internet connections get much faster, those lucky folks get to see a real alternative to the Windows monopoly. An operating system that really works. Bundled with applications that work, not just exist to crush competitors and compel bug-laden upgrades. The next Windows XP upgrade will have serious competition. Sadly, any dreams of Linux making it in the consumer/business space will be toast.

The end game for all of this is that Apple has another chance to do what it failed to do in the mid-1980s: make great software for a living, compete with Microsoft and return billions to its shareholders. And let Sony, Dell or Whoever Is Next kill themselves trying to make money building consumer hardware.

As for me, I can't wait to buy that $800 system running an Apple OS with a 19 inch LCD and plenty of expansion ports. And real competition will mean that my art department can make that spinning beachball go away without bankrupting the company.
 

Frohickey

macrumors 6502a
Feb 27, 2003
809
0
PRK
a small history lesson...

PowerPC, the architecture is derived from IBM's POWER architecture (Performance Optimized With Enhanced Risc). Apple approached IBM and got Motorola into the partnership to make PowerPC chips. It borrowed heavily from the POWER architecture.

The first ones were the PPC601, then the PPC603, and PPC603e. Then the PPC604 came along, which allowed multi-processor configurations. There is a PPC604e, IIRC. There is a bastardized one from Exponential, which never did pan out, but that was just a process change instead of any chip architectural improvements.

After this, the PPC750 came out, which is also known as the G3. There are still variants of these out since its a pretty good low power and decent performer. Along this time, the PPC7400 was in the works and its claim to fame is the addition of vector instructions to the PowerPC architecture. It was around this time that Amelio tried his hardest to crashdive Apple to the ground. At least, he made a good decision to bring el Stevo back. :)

This crash-diving made IBM antsy, and so they decommitted from the PPC7400 (G4). This left Motorola doing most of the development and bug fixes. When the iMac using the G3 took off, el Stevo was able to convince IBM back into the fold, but they were now behind. Since they decommitted, Motorola was not going to let IBM back in so easily. Here is where the bad feelings came in.

When the G4 came out, Apple convinced Motorola and IBM to play nice, and there were a few agreements signed, and IBM was back making PPC, this time the PPC7400 variant. Some of these actually came out into Macs.

IBM wanted back in, but Motorola likes being the only supplier of chips, so this left IBM playing second-fiddle. What they needed was a way to get back into the leap-frogging development style, since following Motorola's lead means that they will always be behind Motorola.

While all of this is happening, Motorola came out with the PPC7410, which was supposed to give the G4s a shot in the arm as far as clock speeds, but this was not to be. It did give a little lower power, at the same speeds, same power, at slightly higher speeds, but it wasn't the substantial clock speed increase. But it so happens that the PPC7450 was just around the corner anyway.

This was to be a 4 core processor. Similar to what the Power4 is, only with vector instructions that IBM thinks only makes a chip larger and more complicated. But the 4 core version was not meant to be. It was too expensive, and not suitable for placement into the inexpensive iMac and iBook. So, it had to go on a diet. First, it became a 2 core processor, and finally, became the single core processor that we know is the PPC7450.

The PPC7450 didn't get a substantial increase in speed either. It was larger, with 7 stage pipes, but it topped out at 733MHz. The PPC7400 with its 4 stage at 500MHz (PPC7410 at 550MHz).

So, as usual, the next chip is coming from Motorola, the PPC7455. This is the PPC7450 with a new process and a few tweaks, not a new architecture. So, this is where things sat until IBM finished working on the PPC970.

And this is where we are at now.

As to what the future will bring? I'm not supposed to say or else the people in the black helicopters are going to get me. :p

*shhhh*
What's that?
*CRASH*
NOoooooooooo! I swear I didn't say anything!
I know my rights, you can't make me do anything!
GET YER HANDS OFF OF ME, YA FILTHY APES!!!
 

MarkCollette

macrumors 68000
Mar 6, 2003
1,559
36
Toronto, Canada
Re: Re: the future is bright

Originally posted by Wonder Boy
thats what they said all those years ago about 60mgz and 120k computers...

I think that we do have to acknowledge that there are different markets for computing power, and that while we do know that there will always be a market for the utmost processing power, that general consumers way well cease to be a part of that market.

I think that general users may have an interest in real-time encoding of DVDs, which will lead to further processing demands when we go to HD-DVD, but I don't see the media companies going beyond HDTV for several decades. Tthink how many decades it's taken for HDTV to come, and it's not even pervasive yet. So that means we'll need more than 5X the computing power, that we currently have, available at consumer price points, maning we will need almost 10X the computing power available to the consumer, prosumer and workstation markets. That would mean running at 20GHz, or dual 10GHz, or quad 5Ghz. That would mean, according to Moore's Law, we would reach a significant consumer drop-off point between 2005-2008. Since IBM might not keep up with Moore's Law for the processors it provides to Apple, that schedule might slip to 2009.

Try to remember I'm only talking about consumers, not professional. I expect a combination of a continuous drop-off in demand, with a refocussing on making parts cheaper, more reliable, more portable, and better able to interface with external systems. These external systems might include faster storage, new wireless technologies, or even things like direct access to our brains. Whatever. That might push the schedule for a few more years. None-the-less, by 2015 the consumer market will no longer be pushing innovation, and thus innovation will receive less financing, and so will slow. Further advancement will return to the area of big companies, militaries, etc.

I know based this all on video encoding, but I believe that that one demand is representative of consumer demand for CPU processing, in general. Ie, a game or word-processor need not be that fast, in general.

Just look at other industries, like flight, where early developments were involved with the military, then the consumer market pushed developments for a while, and then the majority of development returned to the folds of the military, once consumer cost/benefit objectives had been met. Of course we'll probably all be flying supersonic ten years from now, but that just supports my point that progress continues, it just doesn't trickle down quickly to the consumer area, after consumer markets aren't the primary focus.

This is all very good for Apple, since they already focus on other issues than raw speed. One might argue that once computers can process everything we'd need them to, then maybe we'll have a chance of them beginning to do what we actually need them to do - suck less.
 

Cappy

macrumors 6502
May 29, 2002
394
7
I just want one fast enough to take over the world. I don't think that is too much to ask for, no? It's not like I'm asking for a tank of sharks with laserbeams on their heads. ::sigh::
 

stingerman

macrumors 6502
Jul 6, 2003
286
0
Re: a small history lesson...

Originally posted by Frohickey
PowerPC, the architecture is derived from IBM's POWER architecture (Performance Optimized With Enhanced Risc). Apple approached IBM and got Motorola into the partnership to make PowerPC chips. It borrowed heavily from the POWER architecture.

Nice history. However, I don't like the expression that PowerPC was derived from Power. The AIM group completed the Architecture and they selected parts from the Power platform to help expedite the actual first PowerPC implementation which found it's way first in the Power2 processor. A subset of Power turns out to be an even further subset of the PowerPC architecture, and then IBM initially added only the 32-bit parts of the PowerPC Architecture (which was actually 64-bit architecture on paper.) They basically took a mustang stripped it to its frame kept some of the parts and rebuilt a Corvette on top of it.

Neither Power nor Power2 were 64-bit processors though PowerPC specs were. And Power is not binary compatible with PowerPC, Power2 is however. The Power3 finally implemented in 1996 the full 64-bit architecture and was binary compatible with the Power2 and any other PowerPC processor. The Power3 went through three planned major enhancements. Then the Power4 added dual cores, higher parallelism, superscalar clocking and a very advanced processor interconnect technology that allowed IBM to include 8 processors in one Power4 module.

The Power5 will add a hyperthreading type capability allowing each core to come very close to doubling its processing capability. The Power5 will also feature a redesigned shorter wiring between parts and better internal organization. It will also implement advanced power management that will allow it to turn off and reduce power to unused or infrequently used processor sections. An even higher degree of parallelism, larger caches, and a .09 process.

The 980 (G6) will be a further superset of a single 980 core, with an enhanced and better integrated Altivec unit, as well as Apple's Proprietary Processor Interconnect technology.
 

stingerman

macrumors 6502
Jul 6, 2003
286
0
Steve Jobs promised 3 GHz within 12 Months, that allows for less than 12 months. This will have to happen with the G5 (970). Expect the G5 to hit 2.4 GHz by October. Apple needs to erase the past image due to the Motorola crap and the only way to do this is to beat their targets and continually surprise the markplace. They need to prove that the G5 was not a fluke but a real change in direction and accelleration. This is the only way business will commit large investments in the G5 platform, they need to have the comfort that the platform will not die on the vine.

We will probably see a new single processor line released this fall for the rest of us as the PowerMac G5 is really a Power User/workstation class machine that will eventually only be dual processing powerhouses. (Take a look at the Apple Store, everyone is mainly buying the dual G5's.)

The single processor G5 PC will be geared for the corporate/enterprise and small business office productivity user. Display sold seperately. Apple simply does not have a computer for this target audience. The eMac for education and budget PC, the iMac for the consumer market, the PowerMac for the Power User / Workstation market. It's a big hole Apple needs to fill and the reason why they do not have general corporate marketshare, they currently simply do not sell a product for that space. With all the changes in Panther to appeal to the corporate types, a Mac must be in the wings that complements Panther. And some office productivity software to reduce the cost of switching, since no one wants to pay yet again for Office.
 

Phinius

macrumors regular
Mar 15, 2003
196
0
Los Angeles
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Judging by the 970 pipeline stages these speeds could be

Originally posted by Analog Kid

I don't have time to go through all the links... Can you link an article with updated information?

Thanks

Unfortunately I could not find the statement. But as I recall David Wang stated in Arstechnica or at Realworldtech.com that a IBM engineer informed him that the traces were left the same on the POWER4 and 970 because IBM could find only a neglible performance boost by changing it. So David stated that he was incorrect in assuming that IBM reduced the RAS for the 970 by making the wiring thinner.
 

jettredmont

macrumors 68030
Jul 25, 2002
2,731
328
Re: Re: Bill Gates

Originally posted by daRAT
Ahh yes he did, do a web search for that phrase. All the famous quote sites list him as the author. He made it in 1981.

And at that time, it WAS enough :p

Yes, but they aren't primary sources. Show me a primary source. The only primary source for that quote that is well known is Mr Gates himself, and he flatly denies ever having said such a thing (in fact, makes a fairly convincing argument that at least between MS and IBM said quite the opposite, and that 640k was a compromise between IBM's proposed 512k and what he wanted, which was presumably much larger).

No matter how many times someone is misquoted, it is still a misquote ...
 

GregA

macrumors 65816
Mar 14, 2003
1,249
15
Sydney Australia
Re: Marklar: The most important news?

Originally posted by metamotion
I suspect that Mr. Steve is now poised to ramp up Marklar, not put it on the back burner. Here's why: Release of an Intel/AMD compatible operating system would have been suicide for the lucrative hardware operation before now.<snip>

Having, at long last, some speedy architecture means that Apple can launch Marklar and still sustain its outrageous profit margins on boxes<snip>. Why not buy an Apple, if it is demonstrably faster than an Intel/AMD box running the same OS?
Most people seem to say Apple has huge margins on their hardware - yet they seem to assume a $0 cost for MacOS X? Shouldn't we assume the OS cost is AT LEAST the upgrade cost of $129? Any $800 PC with Marklar would have to make Apple at least that ($200?).

Maybe Steve will consider selling OSX on IBM's blades? or for AMD's 64bit chips. It gives Apple a tamer entry to 'alternate' hardware, and still differentiates them as a 64bit OS. AMDs chip may emulate some PPC code easier too.0

I've given up on Marklar - much as I like the idea of Apple everywhere (even an MS Office alternative on Marklar AND Windows). I'm still considering trying to load Darwin on an old PentiumII I have lying around... but I might just Redhat it.
 

eric67

macrumors 6502
Oct 17, 2002
271
0
France, Europe
Re: Re: Re: The Reality

Originally posted by stingerman
Yes the 970 will achieve 3.2 easily before the 980 is released.

Intel's hyperthreading ideally is 30% faster but it also causes 30% speed reductions as well. It depends on the software. And most Wintel software does not behave well. That is why hyperthreading is usually turned off during benchmarks as it usually slows down the system. As far as its name, I prefer to use the same terminology to avoid confusion, the very thing the marketers try to create by renaming each others technologies. Actually an old IBM trick.


The Power4 and Power5 cores are ideally suited to hyperthreading will will in many cases double the number of instruction being processed in the same clock cycle!

you are wrong and right,

wrong about the gain due to HT, actually it has been widely proven on pc web sites that HT enable processor vs HT disable processor have a gain around few % (5-7%) maximum obtained for specific application : +15%. but this when applications have been written to take advantage of the HT, when it is not the case, actually HT leads to a decrease of the performance...

you are right the Power4 and 5 and derivates are ideally suited for HT, but it might require to have applications written specifically for HT.
 

MarkCollette

macrumors 68000
Mar 6, 2003
1,559
36
Toronto, Canada
Originally posted by stingerman
...
We will probably see a new single processor line released this fall for the rest of us as the PowerMac G5 is really a Power User/workstation class machine that will eventually only be dual processing powerhouses. (Take a look at the Apple Store, everyone is mainly buying the dual G5's.)
[/B]

One of the main strengths of the G5 is its ability to do SMP better then P4s. Anyone who's carefully read over the benchmarks would be cheating themselves to buy a single 970 system. Well, except for those who just can't afford them :rolleyes:

Anyways, I agree with everything you've said, but I think you've forgotten about the 1.4 GHz chips that we haven't seen in use yet. These might never be seen in an Apple (ala 68060), or they could be the basis of an iMac or an Xserve revamp. The Xserves ( 1U ) probably don't have the leisure of cooling space that the PowerMacs have, yet have even more need (being servers) of the 64bit address space (or 40 some odd bits as of now). In many instances it is better for a server to have more, cheaper, cooler CPUs than a single, faster, hotter CPU. This is the whole reason why IBM is making the 970s, for blades.

I would expect a use of the 1.4 GHz chip in the next few months, perhapse in a redo of the previous strategy of releasing the OS X Server software before the regular OS X, since there is a lesser focus on the GUI in the server products? By this I mean an Xserve with Panther Server, before September, when the regular Panther release will occur.
 

stingerman

macrumors 6502
Jul 6, 2003
286
0
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Reality

Originally posted by eric67
you are wrong and right,

wrong about the gain due to HT, actually it has been widely proven on pc web sites that HT enable processor vs HT disable processor have a gain around few % (5-7%) maximum obtained for specific application : +15%. but this when applications have been written to take advantage of the HT, when it is not the case, actually HT leads to a decrease of the performance...

you are right the Power4 and 5 and derivates are ideally suited for HT, but it might require to have applications written specifically for HT.

I was being generous, but I agree with your %, I mentioned that 30% was an ideal number, should have been clearer.

HT on 980 will not require special coding. The OS sees it as dual processors and will give each virtual processor its own thread. This will work great with Cocoa apps which naturally lend themselves to being very well threaded. OS X itself is designed as a highly threaded OS and will take great advantage of the multi-threading for all its work. Couple this with Quartz Extreme for handling many of the visual aspects and we got ourselvse one highly parallel processing machine and OS.
 

jettredmont

macrumors 68030
Jul 25, 2002
2,731
328
Originally posted by Rincewind42
Sure, it's great to be able to put an app together without writing more than a handful of code - but if you can do it so can thousands of others and your app really isn't all that distinctive in that sense then is it? A distinctive app requires a programmer to take full advantage of all of the tools available to him or her - including optimizing.


I disagree. A distinctive app requires more than programming prowess. It requires intelligent design, from the UI to the inner workings.

Programming bottlenecks in assembler can often buy you 10-20% performance improvement overall. If you're crunching numbers, that's awesome. But then again, if you're crunching numbers and you put the same amount of effort into improving the overall algorithms of your application at a higher level, you might find yourself gaining 50%-100% performance.

If your app isn't about raw number-crunching, then the user is far more likely to benefit from an intuitive interface than even a 20% performance gain. 20% sounds like a huge performance gain, and it looks great on a bar chart, but the simple fact rules performance optimizations:

Users generally do not notice less than a doubling of performance (ie, 100% gain).

So, yes, when you have the most perfect algorithms and you have the most perfect UI then it is time to move on to bottleneck-busting. It is even time to bust bottlenecks when you can't think of any more fundamental improvements. But if you buy that 20% improvemtn by moving everything to hand-tuned and hard-to-maintain assembly then you've traded a vast amount of fundamental future improvements for a single immediate improvement.

Which brings us back to the question: what does 25GHz buy us? It doesn't buy us Photoshop rendering the same old scenes twenty times as fast. It doesn't buy us MS Word being able to spell-check in a hundredth of a second instead of a fifth of a second.

Greater hardware buys the ability to take applications to the next level. It allows developers to think in larger terms, to avoid having to worry (as much) about the nigley details. It allows the use of garbage collection schemes that work instead of pedantic allocation-deallocation rules and constraints. It allows reuse of code in ways the original developer may well have never foreseen and certainly not optimized for.

Or it just makes Quake run really really fast and get like 20,000 frames per second.
 

h'biki

macrumors regular
Jan 14, 2003
193
1
Sydney, Australia
Originally posted by Analog Kid
Yup, and being able to read Latin is the sign of a good scholar, but very few people actually speak it... My metaphor is complete.:)

And its a curious fact that the decline of latin has gone hand in hand with the rise of mass literacy.

Similarly, the decline of assembly as a programming language has gone hand in hand with the democratisation of computing and programming.

I don't think its necessarily an indicator of the quality of someone's code if they can program in assembler. Good code is good problem solving. You could recode into assembler and make the thing execute faster but your code can still be ineffecient.

If you want to continue with your language analogy, knowing latin doesn't guarantee that you're going to be a good writer.
 

eric67

macrumors 6502
Oct 17, 2002
271
0
France, Europe
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Reality

Originally posted by stingerman
I was being generous, but I agree with your %, I mentioned that 30% was an ideal number, should have been clearer.

HT on 980 will not require special coding. The OS sees it as dual processors and will give each virtual processor its own thread. This will work great with Cocoa apps which naturally lend themselves to being very well threaded. OS X itself is designed as a highly threaded OS and will take great advantage of the multi-threading for all its work. Couple this with Quartz Extreme for handling many of the visual aspects and we got ourselvse one highly parallel processing machine and OS.

I agree with you, but I still think that all the G5 revision and follow up (based on 980 and behond) should be dual processor machine by default, even if in the futur we will have HT....
 

mproud

macrumors regular
Mar 3, 2003
164
0
Clocks, Buses, Rams, Cash, Discs, Seek Time, Reading Speed...

Remember when manufacturers would boast how fast their CDs could read? 2x CD-ROM, 4x CD-ROM! Some games would actually require a quad speed CD-ROM to take advantage of it...

...and so today, about 10 years later... does anyone really care anymore how fast a CD reads? Perhaps writing and rewriting - but, that'll be irrelevant soon too - you'll see...

But what I'm trying to get at is, there will be more technologies that will take advantage of new stuff, but only so much. At some point, gradually, the clock speed will matter less (home users in mind anyway).

Although companies will continue to play up the numbers for as long as they can, the focus will generally shift towards features, ease of use, experience, support, price, and overall value - stuff that truly plays a little bigger part today than people let it have - and also qualities that Apple currently excels at.

Just like CD reading speeds or general HD seek time have become unimportant, the same could go for any speed indicator on computers - or at least when 25 GHz computers come out (or whenever cinematic-quality graphics can render near-instaneously).
 

mproud

macrumors regular
Mar 3, 2003
164
0
Re: Re: Re: the future is bright

Originally posted by MarkCollette
I think that we do have to acknowledge that there are different markets for computing power, and that while we do know that there will always be a market for the utmost processing power, that general consumers way well cease to be a part of that market.
...
This is all very good for Apple, since they already focus on other issues than raw speed. One might argue that once computers can process everything we'd need them to, then maybe we'll have a chance of them beginning to do what we actually need them to do - suck less.

...and then I read your post.

Exactly :)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.