Next generation 64-bit cores

[manitoubalck]

On the Apple web site the the G5 is benchmarked against the obviously out classed P4 and dated Xenon cores, both of which I might add are 32-bit chips. A more telling benchmark against an intel core would have been against the intel Itanium which like the G5 and AMD Opteron runs natively in 64bit.

It is obvios no one has the funds or the drive to conduct a true benchmark between all three different cores, and apple for the time being is only prepared to show results that show that their next generation core is faster than intel's last generation core.

Also Apple claim that the G5 is the first 64-bit personal computer (released in July) while AMD Hammer (Opteron) systems have been available since late may/early June????? Where's the logic in that?? And lets not forget that Hammer proof of concept systems and motherboards were first displayed mid 2002. Apple also claim that the G5 is the most powerful personal computer, yet the don't test the G5 against a compeditors system of equal stature either the Opteron or the server based Itanium.

Also what type of memory does the G5 use with it 1000MHz FSB, DDR, Dual channel DDR (from Nvidia) or the awaited DDR II??

I await any true benchmarks between these truly next-gen cores to set the record straight. In the mean time Apple has a lot to answer for in in its currently unsubstantiated calims...

 

[Fender2112]

These claims have all been addressed and accounted for elsewhere on these boards. You may not agree with Apple's reasoning, but that's their story. As Intell and AMD, about the worst Apple can be acused of is stretching the truth.

 

[Lanbrown]

The Itanic is designed as server/workstation chip. The 970 was designed as a desktop/low-end server chip. Two totally different chip classes. Their construction is even different.

Have you see the price for just an Itanium processor?

What major company is selling Opteron systems? Is Dell? No. Is HP/Compaq? No. Is Gateway? No. Is IBM? No. Well, that pretty much takes all the major brands out of the picture. If you want to get technical, other companies have been selling 64-bit chips in desktop systems LONG before the 970, Opteron or Itanic were ever talked about or even planned.

 

[jouster]

Yep, you're right. Desktop 64 computer have been around for a long time. But they are workstations or high end servers. Apple is claiming that the G5 will be the first 64 bit desktop PC system to ship in volume to non-specialist customers. Of course, someone may well ship a similar system based on AMD procs tomorrow, thus invalidating Apple's claim.

Let's hope not!

 

[Lanbrown]

Yes, they are workstations and Apple has never called the G5 a workstation, but they compare it against a 32-bit XEON workstation.
http://www.apple.com/powermac/
Of course I really despise most of the tests. The Cell processor from Sony/IBM/Toshiba is suppose to be at least 1,000 times more powerful then the PS-2 and 100 more times more powerful then a 2.5GHz P4. All these tests do is test the speed of the chip, and really have little to do with the overall system. Chips with more cache typically perform better, especially in the fp calculations. That's fine, what about getting information to the chip. Most of the time, the chip is waiting for information, being able to use the chip instead of it waiting for data provides more useable performance. Sun is having a difficult time staying in the chip race, but they don't need the best CPU. No one really does. System performance is where it counts, as that is the real world.

I cannot see anyone major peecee maker coming out with an Opteron in the near future if at all. HP/Compaq will not as they are pushing the Itanic, maybe tugging it along would be better. Gateway, well, they have other problems. Dell, they are looking to ride on the Itanic again. All of them have had problems selling AMD chips to corporate clients. The companies just didn't trust them on the desktop and stuck with Intel. Now they have the chip that is more for the server room and they will have a huge fight on their hands trying to get people to adopt it; that's not to say that it won't find an audience, it will, but the size will be small. The question is, who will win? One scenario, AMD will. Another is Intel will. Other possibilities are that AMD and Intel see their market share erode while Apple and others see their market share increase. IBM could sell a PowerPC 970 desktop, just like the sell a Power4 today. Keep in mind, that most users buy what they have at work. If a company switched to the Mac, some home users would as well. If IBM and Sun sold cheaper workstations, that might entice people. You will always have users that want the IA-32/64 platform; others will be willing to go another route. If applications we developed platform independent, which will eventually happen, then the platform used will be up in the air. The Itanic could sink; it is barely staying afloat now.

I know several people that are willing to switch to Apple when they update the rest of their line with faster processors. They have been waiting for almost six months, but I know Apple is doing something; they have too. Some platforms are really dated and some other while not, could benefit from faster processors. The 7457 is also suppose to be cheaper, which gives Apple more reason to switch. All they have to do is get the 7457 in the systems; they raise the profit per machine and the performance in one step.

 

[daveL]

Re: Next generation 64-bit cores

Originally posted by manitoubalck
On the Apple web site the the G5 is benchmarked against the obviously out classed P4 and dated Xenon cores, both of which I might add are 32-bit chips. A more telling benchmark against an intel core would have been against the intel Itanium which like the G5 and AMD Opteron runs natively in 64bit.

It is obvios no one has the funds or the drive to conduct a true benchmark between all three different cores, and apple for the time being is only prepared to show results that show that their next generation core is faster than intel's last generation core.

Also Apple claim that the G5 is the first 64-bit personal computer (released in July) while AMD Hammer (Opteron) systems have been available since late may/early June????? Where's the logic in that?? And lets not forget that Hammer proof of concept systems and motherboards were first displayed mid 2002. Apple also claim that the G5 is the most powerful personal computer, yet the don't test the G5 against a compeditors system of equal stature either the Opteron or the server based Itanium.

Also what type of memory does the G5 use with it 1000MHz FSB, DDR, Dual channel DDR (from Nvidia) or the awaited DDR II??

I await any true benchmarks between these truly next-gen cores to set the record straight. In the mean time Apple has a lot to answer for in in its currently unsubstantiated calims...

Say what? You're not the most informed person, in my opinion. You should try doing some research before you post brain dead statements like the ones above.

First, although the 970 is a 64-bit CPU, it runs 32-bit code natively and *all* of the benchmarks were 32-bit apps. So, the tests were 970 32-bit vs P4/Xeon 32-bit.
The P4 and Xeon used were the lastest available at the time, so the statement that these are "dated" cores is nonsense.
Furthermore, there aren't any 64-bit versions of most of these apps, and there probably won't be for some time, if at all.
It's fairly clear from your post that you don't have any understanding of the significance of 32-bit vs 64-bit, so go do you're homework.

Second, the apps used in the benchmarks (Photoshop, etc.) *don't even exist for Itanium*. Purhaps you are unaware that the Itanium instruct set is *not* x86 compatible? Or that Itanium performance running 32-bit apps is absolutely dismal? Or that there are virtually no native Itanium apps in the consumer/desktop space? Or that there are no Itanium desktop systems available from mainstream PC companies?

In any case, the tests were done between widely available systems from the leading PC company, i.e. the ones Apple has to compete with in the marketplace. As others have pointed out, Sun Micro has been fielding multi-processor 64-bit Unix workstations for years; they also cost several times as much as the G5. That's not the market/price catagory Apple is competeing in, so that's not the type of system they elected to benchmark against.

Finally, the fact that you are asking what kind of memory is being used on the G5 1 GHz FSB shows your ignorance. Didn't you even read the G5 spec before you posted?

Brain dead people deserve brain dead machines: Go back to your PC.

 

[Lanbrown]

I wouldn't say that multi-CPU systems from Sun cost several times more. They are non-publicly selling the IIIi based workstations right now. The are priced very competitively. They are also having a gigabit Ethernet problem on the server version so that could be one reason for not releasing them publicly, but their supplier will get their end straightened out.

The Opteron can run 32-bit apps natively. But back to my argument, no major player is selling them.

 

[daveL]

Try Again

Originally posted by Lanbrown
I wouldn't say that multi-CPU systems from Sun cost several times more. They are non-publicly selling the IIIi based workstations right now. The are priced very competitively. They are also having a gigabit Ethernet problem on the server version so that could be one reason for not releasing them publicly, but their supplier will get their end straightened out.

The Opteron can run 32-bit apps natively. But back to my argument, no major player is selling them.

A Link for the only dual-cpu Sun workstation available:

http://store.sun.com/catalog/doc/BrowsePage.jhtml?cid=77642

The lowest priced config with 2 cpus is $14k, which does not give you Sun's top of the line graphics or a monitor. A G5 with the same amount of memory and Radeon 9800 Pro graphics is $4049. Looks like "several times the cost" is spot on. Plus the G5 gives you twice the disk space and a superdrive, although the disk is not FC or 10k rpms. I'd wager the G5 would match or beat this machine.

 

[Lanbrown]

Re: Try Again

Originally posted by daveL
A Link for the only dual-cpu Sun workstation available:

http://store.sun.com/catalog/doc/BrowsePage.jhtml?cid=77642

The lowest priced config with 2 cpus is $14k, which does not give you Sun's top of the line graphics or a monitor. A G5 with the same amount of memory and Radeon 9800 Pro graphics is $4049. Looks like "several times the cost" is spot on. Plus the G5 gives you twice the disk space and a superdrive, although the disk is not FC or 10k rpms. I'd wager the G5 would match or beat this machine.

The IIIi based system will be cheaper, but are NOT publicly available. Before you jump on that, neither is the G5. That is also list, only individuals pay list price.

Define beat. If the software you use if for Solaris, you can't use it on the Mac, at which point the SB2000 won hands down.

 

[daveL]

Re: Re: Try Again

Originally posted by Lanbrown
The IIIi based system will be cheaper, but are NOT publicly available. Before you jump on that, neither is the G5. That is also list, only individuals pay list price.

Define beat. If the software you use if for Solaris, you can't use it on the Mac, at which point the SB2000 won hands down.

OK. So you're referencing a Sun system for which there are no public specs or price to discount my price/spec comparison? Interesting approach. The G5 may not be shipping, but the specs and price are well known.

Both prices are list. What's your point? I'm sure Apple and Sun have similar volume discount structures, so comparing discounted prices would yield similar results. I guess I'm missing your reasoning here.

I didn't state a fact, I stated an opinion: I said I wager that the G5 would match or beat the SB2000. I didn't mention a specific app, so what's that about? Obviously you can't compare the performance of an app on two systems if the app isn't available on one of them. Seems like an off the wall statement to me. If you think the SB2000 performs better, great.

 

[Lanbrown]

Use the server as your guide then; SunFire V210 and V240. Price wise they will be about the same, as the server would have things the workstation would not and the workstation would have things the server would not. Basically a fair comparison.

Nope, Sun typically has a higher profit margin; companies also get a high discount as well.

You said the G5 would kill the SB2000. That would depend on what YOU wanted to do. A top fuel dragster will beat a Honda Civic in the quarter mile. Try going 10 miles and the Civic will win, as the dragster will run out of fuel within a 1/2 mile from the start.

In terms of fp, the SB2000 with two processors will KILL the G5 dual 2GHz by about 1/3.

I am just saying compare apples to apples. Application performance is where it counts. No one system can do everything the best.

 

[Anna]

Brain dead people deserve brain dead machines: Go back to your PC.

Ha that is so true, the person who wrote his is nothing more than a PC Skeptic who has nothing between the ears and should be discregarded.