The PIII Intel's Secret Weapon?!

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by topgunn, May 26, 2005.

  1. topgunn macrumors 65816

    topgunn

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2004
    Location:
    Texas
    #1
  2. Electric Monk macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    #2
    AFAIK Intel deliberately removed half (or more, it's been a while) of cache from the last PIII release because it was performing too well against their new favorite PIV. I believe the 1.5 GHz PIII was showing up a 2.0+ GHz PIV.

    It's nice to see the better architecture resurrected in the Pentium M.

    The other cute thing is that IBM and Intel have switched places. Intel is using the cycle efficient P-M while IBM has the high clocked Cell. Of course Cell is way better then Netburst ever was, but still…
     
  3. mgargan1 macrumors 65816

    mgargan1

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    Reston, VA
    #3
    Well, Tom's Hardware did a guide a while back on the 1.26GHz PIII "tualatin". Which was the latest core of that processer. It was based on the 130nm design and had 512k of cache. The 1.26GHz PIII was on par with a 1.8GHz P4. So a 1.4 (the fastest clockspeed) is gonna be on par with a 2.1GHz P4 with 256k of cache.
     
  4. Platform macrumors 68030

    Platform

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    #4
    What is it with CPU's......for every new generation that comes they become less sufficient.....

    G4 clock = better than G5 at same clock speed.
    PIII clock = better than P4 at same clock speed. :confused: :confused: :eek: :eek: :mad:
     
  5. caveman_uk Guest

    caveman_uk

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    Hitchin, Herts, UK
    #5
    Maybe because the marketing people have got everyone believing that the faster the processor clock speed the faster it will be so the engineers make processors that can run at faster clockspeeds regardless of how efficiently they do it.

    And of course a P4 must be better than a P3 as it's got a 4 in it :rolleyes:
     
  6. Platform macrumors 68030

    Platform

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    #6
    Well Intel yes.........but apple too :(
     
  7. caveman_uk Guest

    caveman_uk

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    Hitchin, Herts, UK
    #7
    To be honest whilst the G4 and G5 are comparable at the same clock speed, I very much doubt that we'd be up at 2.7GHz if we'd waited for Motorola/Freescale to get the G4 there. The current G4's only reach the speeds they do because they have no L3 cache and that is what made the last of the G4 powermacs so competitive....

    There's a lot of people thinking that a G5 powerbook will automatically be much better than a G4 one. Unless there's a real difference in clock speeds I think people are going to be disappointed.
     
  8. Pedro Estarque macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    #8
    This is simply not true. The G4 is a nice chip ( I use them every day ) but the G5 has a much better Floating Point unit, it is capable of doing more instructions per cycle and is not crippled by a 167 bus. A 1Ghz G5 would blow my 1Ghz G4. check this out Unless by "better" you mean cooler, and even this would be questionable. We have never seen a 1.5 Ghz G5

    The P4 was an architecture intended to clock really high with bigger pipelines and a nice branch prediction ( above 4Ghz ) and that high frequency would compensate for its design "failures". However, it didn't scale as nice as intel imagined.
     
  9. caveman_uk Guest

    caveman_uk

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    Hitchin, Herts, UK
    #9
    Interestingly on that chart, I see the results for the Dual 1.4G4s as very competitive for the dual G5 2.0s (chips running with a much higher FSB and 50% higher clock speed). The only time the G4s really suffer is on the graphics intensive tests which says a lot more about the AGP system than it does the CPU core.

    I would take a dual G4 1.4 with 2MB L3 cache over anything less than a dual G5 2Ghz any day. Those dual G4s are a lot cheaper as well as a more flexible form factor.
     
  10. Platform macrumors 68030

    Platform

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    #10
    I know that....just that the actual performac you showed was not at the same clock speeds....[upgraded] And in matter of effieiency the G4 IS better ;) But in BIG caclulations and thing the G5 is better ;)
     
  11. Pedro Estarque macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    #11
    The dual 1.4 G4 is very close to the dual 2.0 G5 in Photoshop because it's one app that uses AltiVec as heavily as possible, one thing that the G5 always sucked at. Its altivec implementation was a last minute add on. And of corse, one massive L3 cache to compensate for the embarrassing 167Mhz bus.
    You would get similar results with any highly Altivec optimized apps such as BLAST. Unfortunately these aren't the majority of them.
     
  12. superbovine macrumors 68030

    superbovine

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    #12
    why make a faster one that cost more when you can sell a slower one for the same price? ;)

    I suspect you are going to correct, once the benchmarks come out. i think the big test will be video encoding and audio encoding with freescale.
     
  13. Xapplimatic macrumors 6502

    Xapplimatic

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2001
    Location:
    California
    #13
    I remember the embarassment of Intel that P3s were faster than P4s, given..

    But a G5 slower than a gee-4.. um.. NO.. remember 64-bit versus 32.
    To start with that's twice the bandwidth at any given same clockspeed, not to mention the buss is multiples of times faster.. You can engineer a test to advantage a G4 in one area, but you can't fool me and say that any 32-bit slug-speed FSB G4 is gonna give anything even close to similar overall system speed than a Hyper Transport-equipped 64-bit G5.. It just isn't possible. The G5 will kick the G4's buss every time.. (and I don't even have one yet ;(
     
  14. superbovine macrumors 68030

    superbovine

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    #14
    http://developer.apple.com/document...ing/index.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40001064

     
  15. Platform macrumors 68030

    Platform

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    #15
    Ok, but we can't even use 64Bit today so that is nearly irrelevant ;)

    But as I said in some apps that require a lot of CPU power the G5 wind because of the FSB, but normal apps the G4 can be just as fast if not faster...don't know where but I saw somewhere the 1.67 beating the SP 1.8 PM ;)
     

Share This Page