1. Welcome to the new MacRumors forums. See our announcement and read our FAQ

Power5 four times faster than Power4

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by 3G4N, Jun 27, 2003.

  1. macrumors regular

    #1
  2. macrumors 68000

    hvfsl

    #2
    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.
     
  3. macrumors 6502

    #3
    How do you know if Sony/Nintendo or Sony AND Nintendo will be using this chip? Wouldn't it be a little to expensive for a game console?
     
  4. macrumors 65816

    #4
    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.
     
  5. macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    #5
    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:
    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 said
    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.

    and i would imagine that the PPC980, if based on the power5, will be clocked much, much higher than the 2.0 GHz the Power5 is expected to be at. they weaken the chemical bonds between the transistors, allowing the cores to be clocked much higher, just like the PPC970, so we may well see a pretty good clocking boost as well as performance boost.
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    #6
    Shadowfax:

    Yeah I know, I used clockrate as an example because the performance delta between the G4 and G5 is unknown and therefore not suitable.

    The PPC970 hardly clocks higher than the Power4+, 2.0ghz in a few months vs 1.7ghz right now.
     
  7. macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    #7
    yes, but i think that the 970 will go mich higher in the end than the Power4 will.
     
  8. macrumors 65816

    #8
    At this point that seems to be a matter of faith. ;)
     
  9. macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    #9
    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.
     
  10. macrumors 65816

    #10
    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.)
     
  11. macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    #11
    itanium must die, methinks. heh.

    off topic, why don't you have an avatar?
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    #12
    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.
     
  13. macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    #13
    lol. does it not have image support? what does macrumors look like?
     
  14. macrumors 65816

    #14
    I run mozilla in it, launched from a terminal of course, so things look normal. Thats not what I meant by "icons or pictures" though, I was referring to window/file manager types of icons and pictures, which I do lack.
     
  15. macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    #15
    that's pretty interesting. i am a big fan of minimalism, i suppose, but what does that you have no icons on your WM have to do with that you won't put an icon up here?
     
  16. macrumors 68000

    e-coli

    #16
    Doesn't that make things needlessly difficult? It is 2003.
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    #17
    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.
     
  18. macrumors G4

    #18
    Do you even know what MacOS X is? If you do, list ten commands available on Linux that are missing in MacOS X.
     
  19. macrumors 603

    nuckinfutz

    #19
    Also remember the POWER5 will usher in IBM Simultaneous Multithreading as well. They claim up to %80 efficiency. This has to play a big part in the 4x as fast as the POWER4.

    I don't care really I'll be happy with 3x increase on the average. Whenever the 980 comes we'll be in for another suprise. I expect that to be an ass kickin chip. Altivec done right. Hopefully SMT and improved Caching.
     
  20. macrumors 65816

    #20
    http://sourceforge.net/projects/finkcommander

    http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=18034

    http://sourceforge.net/softwaremap/trove_list.php?form_cat=221

    Will give you XWindowing on top of a command line that Linux users would love. And it works in Mac OS X. Install the Developer Tools for more stuff that makes Mac OS X just like Linux. Did someone say you can't live with the command line in X? 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. Goodness, Linux is fine, but it still isn't as simple or friendly as Mac OS X. X is the best of both worlds. It is crossplatform, it integrates tools found on most common Unix platforms, and compatibility with over 20,000 software titles for the Mac.
     
  21. macrumors regular

    #21
    funny how quickly ibm has gone from evil to good for apple. kind of like how apple has gone from flowerpower imac to industrial cheesegrater. go figure.

    i thougt sony was developing their own proc for the ps3, which they said will be crazy-fast, based on 'core' or something? nintendo uses ppc for it's gamecube i htink. also, funny how pc and game consoles are converging so quickly. you can run linux on xbox and ps2, so since linux is such a flexible OS, it is reasonable to think that it would be able to run on a power5-based console, and since linux is like unix is like OS X, WHERE IS MY OS X XBOX? now that would kick microsoft ;) and, uh, off topic a little, sorry
     
  22. macrumors 68030

    Supa_Fly

    #22
    What we all haven't thought about is when the 980 chip arrives, if it does, is what RAM will it use?

    So far the fastest ram available is the DDR3200. And just like the problems of carrying high data across a parallel (my god I spelt it wrong I think, lol) path in ATA HDD, so does the problem occur in RAM. DDR II might be around but nobody knows for sure.
     
  23. macrumors 65816

    #23
    MisterMe:

    What do you think I'm an idiot? There aren't just ten, there are hundreds of command line abilities in Linux not found on OSX. Being able to compile command line tools in OSX means squat. In OSX some things appear to only be possible in the GUI, in Linux everything is easily accessed from the command line (well some KDE/Gnome stuff may not be, but I don't use those, and they aren't actually part of Linux besides).

    Consider, for a moment, the entire suite of commands and configuration files in Linux intended for system management. In Redhat there are vital tools such as rpm and up2date, there are the /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.)

    I can run a fair number of Linux GUI tools in OSX by using the X11 server, at a reduced speed compared to my older Linux machine. However this really fails to do the trick, because now I have two whole classes of GUI tools which don't work well together, that don't launch the same or look the same, and because the X11 tools are at a severe window manager disadvantage. I've tried running apps that way, but if I launch very many the X11 "desktop" becomes a lost cause.

    OSX GUI tools dissapoint me because I can't easily launch them from the command line. Sure there's an executable a few layers down into the .app file, but I'm not gona waste my time digging for that when all I wanted to do was type "iCal" in any terminal and have it launch the correct program.

    Lastly, I'd like to point out that top on OSX is far inferior to top on Linux, and I can't just compile the Linux top on OSX because the Linux one relies on the /proc filesystem. Oh, lets not make that the last complaint. I'd like also add that OSX has an inferior version of tar, one that does not support the j parameter. This annoys me often. How many other OSX tools are inferior? Who knows, I've had enough bad experiences that I mostly stick to the Linux command line.

    gopher:

    I have them installed, and have since I got OSX 10.1.

    Yes. I can repeat it if you'd like.

    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.
     
  24. macrumors 65816

    #24

    No...just uninformed of what's in Mac OS X. Some stuff appears under the home directory, some stuff only appears in the command line because Apple makes a lot of files invisible under the GUI.
    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.

    It isn't like Mac OS X doesn't support RAID. It uses the Disk Utility to support RAID under Mac OS X 10.2.

    While many of your objections are definitely valid, I suggest looking more closely at the Mac OS X developer community on Apple's discussion board http://discussions.info.apple.com/ and discussing with them what you desire, and I think you'll be surprised how accomodating they can be. The discussion board is down today as far as posting, but you can look through the Developer and Unix boards below:

    http://discussions.info.apple.com/WebX?13@47.ER1takKsnir.0@.eeeb8d4

    http://discussions.info.apple.com/WebX?13@47.ER1takKsnir.0@.eee3b3a

    Also don't forget Apple has two points of feedback for Mac OS X:

    http://bugreporter.apple.com/ (free membership required)

    and

    http://www.apple.com/macosx/feedback/

    Mac OS X gives you a lot of things under the hood you don't know are there, and it takes talking with people who have used it extensively to find out what those are.

    http://www.osxfaq.com/

    http://www.macosxhints.com/

    are also good places to learn what people have done.

    I've got more links on http://www.macmaps.com/macx.php

    I've seen some power users who can do some pretty incredible things with X like enable PHP, and use MySQL. There is a lot there, just not where you always expect it.
     
  25. macrumors 68030

    Supa_Fly

    #25
    ddtlm...

    ddtlm, man your a wealth of freekin knowledge.

    I'm assuming you still only use OS X 10.1 and haven't made the move to OS X 10.2 and compiled the Linux things you've currently done. Is it possible to install the "For example, I can simply cat /proc/mdstat to see what my software raids are up to.)" along with the Proc system file onto OS X 10.2 and have it run or execute.

    I'm really interested in more software RAID tools to be used on OS X (i.e. via BSD Unix Terminal). ALso I want to be able to see whom is logged into my machine, what software they are using, what files they've modified, and what other resources they're using, remotely via VPN over IP. Is this supported comprehensively in a shell or program?

    Again how can IBM state that the performance of the PowerPC5 is much higher than the PowerPC4 if the same ram isn't used? let alone the memory bandwidth and bus speeds.
     

Share This Page