Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No apparent speed gains from new powermacs READ!
- Thread starter OKComputer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Kinda makes me feel better that I didn't wait all those months and just got my "old" DP1Ghz when I did, it doesn't look like owners of the new ones will benifit greatly over me and my DP1Ghz QS, better lookin' too!
Don't forget, though, a bigger L3 Cache can do a bigger job. The older dual GHz Macs (original dual GHz PowerMac, Xserve) had a 2MB L3 Cache, while the new dual has a small 1MB L3 Cache (per chip in each case). The dual 1.25GHz has the 4MB total. But, for a price cut of $500 you really don't lose THAT much power.
Besides, you just can't ignore the 18 Gigaflops the fastest Mac can produce now.
Besides, you just can't ignore the 18 Gigaflops the fastest Mac can produce now.
i guess the ddr ram isnt actually fully ddr and is just a gimic and costs more money to buy more of.. >.<
Notice how all the tests were relatively small dataset tests...
could someone try a photoshop comparison on a 900MB tiff between the two, the faster bus speed on the new one should give it a clear lead over the old one, even though it has less L3 cache.
(I think photoshop is horrible as a cross platform benchmark, but it's good for like-with-like
could someone try a photoshop comparison on a 900MB tiff between the two, the faster bus speed on the new one should give it a clear lead over the old one, even though it has less L3 cache.
(I think photoshop is horrible as a cross platform benchmark, but it's good for like-with-like
lets not get all worked up yet after all this is just one view (benchmark) others may find different results. after all benchmarks does seem to vary depending on who's doing them.
Originally posted by firewire2001
i guess the ddr ram isnt actually fully ddr and is just a gimic and costs more money to buy more of.. >.<
The ram is fully DDR, the processor <-> memory controller bus isn't though, other hardware can however utilise the bandwidth that the processor can't.
These tests seem to be small dataset things that would seem to mostly operate within the L3 cache, or be CPU bound..
I say we wait for bigger/meaner tests that are more stressing on the overall system.
(Though I'm not entirely familiar with the photoshop test they ran, anyone care to elaborate on it?)
i guess the ddr ram isnt actually fully ddr and is just a gimic and costs more money to buy more of.. >.<
The ram is fully DDR, the processor <-> memory controller bus isn't though, other hardware can however utilise the bandwidth that the processor can't.
These tests seem to be small dataset things that would seem to mostly operate within the L3 cache, or be CPU bound..
I say we wait for bigger/meaner tests that are more stressing on the overall system.
(Though I'm not entirely familiar with the photoshop test they ran, anyone care to elaborate on it?)
I'm thinking this *new* machine is just a stop gap until they can get a new chip - the Power4 - in the mix. Its unfortunate that they're limited in throughput, but the new machines can be expanded beyond the older ones. So its not a total loss.
I'm going to wait around till the new generation comes out.
D
I'm going to wait around till the new generation comes out.
D
I had thought the DDR PMac seemed more evolutionary than revolutionary, but those Barefeats numbers even call that into question.
I guess this rev. should be seen as a price-drop rather than a real power-increase (but maybe the 1.25 with its bigger L3 will give a significant boost?). Here's hoping Steve has something really big stuffed up his black jersey sleeve next MW... The natives are getting restless.
I guess this rev. should be seen as a price-drop rather than a real power-increase (but maybe the 1.25 with its bigger L3 will give a significant boost?). Here's hoping Steve has something really big stuffed up his black jersey sleeve next MW... The natives are getting restless.
I totally agree with you.
It looks like Photoshop and Bryce are slower, too....what gives? Now I have to re-think about buying the old one instead of the new Powermac.....
The new chip IS NOT A POWER4! Geez.
The blurb that everyone is hanging their hopes on explicitly says that IBM is showing a 64 bit POWERPC chip that was influenced by the Power4 line. If you buy a crappy 1980's Camaro Berneletta (sp?) that DOESN'T mean you are getting an italian sports car.
The Power4 uses a {slightly} different instruction set from the PowerPC. We don't want a processor from the Power line, we want a better PowerPC.
POWER4 = PowerPC-64 implementation
All the material I've seen points to the POWER4 being a PPC-64 chip already, not a POWER chip (aside from the branding)
Including an IBM datasheet than I'm now struggling to find.
No, I think he's saying (hoping?) the 7455 will be short-lived in the new PMac and that the next revision will use the same MoBo, but silently replaces the 7455 with the less restricting 7470. Sort of the opposite of the Yikes! routine (where it was 'right chip, wrong motherboard').
Well no "APPARENT SPEED GAIN" due to the new BUS is upsetting...
But I concider it GOOD NEWS for me....
The only reason i was considering buying a 1ghz over the base model was the new bus. Now i khow its completely useless, so i can just pay $1597 (with a student discount) and fell great about myself.
Thank you Apple for making no "APPARENT IMPROVEMENTS" in architecture since the last year.
But I concider it GOOD NEWS for me....
The only reason i was considering buying a 1ghz over the base model was the new bus. Now i khow its completely useless, so i can just pay $1597 (with a student discount) and fell great about myself.
Thank you Apple for making no "APPARENT IMPROVEMENTS" in architecture since the last year.
All right. I'm not too sure if even half of you guys even paid attention to the article and the little "**" beside the L3 cache, but that can do a lot of help. Reread my post, if you are still worried.
ffakr, READ duke's DAMN POST MORE CAREFULLY before you go and slam him out the damn door. [Settling down...] He stated that the current new chip in the current new PowerMac is supposed to be, basically, a hold over until the newer chip, the Power4, becomes implanted in upcoming PowerMacs.
OSeXy, well put. I'm glad someone understands this whole damn ordeal.
elensil, you are a complete moron. Not to make this sound like a flame post, but...
Apple would have had put in faster chips and kept the old design if Motorola could produce the faster 7470 chips in both fast speeds and in suffecient quantity. But the [censored] there could not perform this duty. The result: Apple had no choice, but to overclock their current chips in order to get faster PowerMacs out the door.
Plain and simple: Apple is in the tightest spot you can think of with these PowerMacs. Once Apple gets the supposed Power4 going you probably won't have to worry about any of these "Yikes!" issues.
ffakr, READ duke's DAMN POST MORE CAREFULLY before you go and slam him out the damn door. [Settling down...] He stated that the current new chip in the current new PowerMac is supposed to be, basically, a hold over until the newer chip, the Power4, becomes implanted in upcoming PowerMacs.
OSeXy, well put. I'm glad someone understands this whole damn ordeal.
elensil, you are a complete moron. Not to make this sound like a flame post, but...
Apple would have had put in faster chips and kept the old design if Motorola could produce the faster 7470 chips in both fast speeds and in suffecient quantity. But the [censored] there could not perform this duty. The result: Apple had no choice, but to overclock their current chips in order to get faster PowerMacs out the door.
Plain and simple: Apple is in the tightest spot you can think of with these PowerMacs. Once Apple gets the supposed Power4 going you probably won't have to worry about any of these "Yikes!" issues.
My post meant to bring up the spirits and offer a different point of view on the whole ordeal.
Ps I wonder why Queeny takes things so personaly
PPS I do not claim to be a hardware expert so corrections are welcome.
Ps I wonder why Queeny takes things so personaly
PPS I do not claim to be a hardware expert so corrections are welcome.
elensil, flat out and simple, this below statement sounded like you were blaming Apple.
>Thank you Apple for making no "APPARENT IMPROVEMENTS" in architecture since the last year.
If I sounded overwhelming, it was because Apple is not the one to blame. Remember, Motorola has been the supplier for Apple's chips and had to be aided once before. Now, Motorola just cannot pull off the faster chips. Apple didn't have a choice, but to increase their chip speeds.
Again, Apple is not to blame, but thoses at Motorola.
>Thank you Apple for making no "APPARENT IMPROVEMENTS" in architecture since the last year.
If I sounded overwhelming, it was because Apple is not the one to blame. Remember, Motorola has been the supplier for Apple's chips and had to be aided once before. Now, Motorola just cannot pull off the faster chips. Apple didn't have a choice, but to increase their chip speeds.
Again, Apple is not to blame, but those
s at Motorola.