Itanium 2 and P4, could they beat the G4?

Discussion in 'Hardware Rumors' started by MacManiac1224, Apr 26, 2002.

  1. MacManiac1224 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2001
    Location:
    NY
    #1
    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?
     
  2. iGav macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #2
    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!!!
     
  3. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #3
    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. ;)
     
  4. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #4
    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!"
     
  5. agreenster macrumors 68000

    agreenster

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Location:
    Walt Disney Animation Studios
    #5
    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.
     
  6. iGav macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #6
    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........

    I think you could be correct there dukestreet, atleast I hope the G5 eventually becomes reality though!!! :p
     
  7. ftaok macrumors 601

    ftaok

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    East Coast
    #7
    Gotta look at time frame

    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.
     
  8. agreenster macrumors 68000

    agreenster

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Location:
    Walt Disney Animation Studios
    #8
    G5

    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
     
  9. Bradcoe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Location:
    Northeast U.S.
    #9
    The G5 Will be 64bit

    If you check out Motorolas Website, and more specifically, their PPC roadmap 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).
     
  10. agreenster macrumors 68000

    agreenster

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Location:
    Walt Disney Animation Studios
    #10
    Roadmap

    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.
     
  11. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #11
    Re: Itanium 2 and P4, could they beat the G4?

    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.
     
  12. iGav macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #12
    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!!!
     
  13. Kethoticus macrumors 6502

    Kethoticus

    #13
    Agreenster wrote...

    "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.
     
  14. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #14
    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.
     
  15. digital1 macrumors 6502

    digital1

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    #15
    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
     
  16. digital1 macrumors 6502

    digital1

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    #16
    I meant that there is nothing wrong with improvements, sorry guys...
     
  17. iGav macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #17
    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
     
  18. bobindashadows macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    #18
    Mac OS X wins :)

    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
     
  19. TypeR389 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Location:
    Seattle
    #19
    Re: Mac OS X wins :)

    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

    [​IMG]
     
  20. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #20

    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.

    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
     
  21. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #21
    Re: Re: Itanium 2 and P4, could they beat the G4?

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

    Alex
     
  22. TypeR389 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Location:
    Seattle
    #22
    Re: Re: Re: Itanium 2 and P4, could they beat the G4?

    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...
     
  23. mc68k macrumors 68000

    mc68k

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2002
    #23
    Re: Itanium 2 and P4, could they beat the G4?

    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.
     
  24. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #24
    Re: Re: Mac OS X wins :)

    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.
     
  25. TypeR389 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Location:
    Seattle
    #25
    Re: Re: Re: Mac OS X wins :)

    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! :)
     

Share This Page