Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

10.2.7 and the G5

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
51,579
13,194
ZDNet reports on the shipping PowerMac G5s.

As was long rumored, the article reports that the PowerMac G5s ship with Mac OS X 10.2.7 (codename: Smeagol). 10.2.7 provides PowerMac G5 hardware support, as well as 64-bit support.

In particular, version 10.2.7 of Mac OS X has math and vector libraries that are optimized for the 64-bit chip, as well as the ability to address more than 4 gigabytes of physical memory, breaking through a limitation of 32-bit chips.

Readers are reminded that the speed advantages of the PowerMac G5 computers lie primarily in the increased performance of the processor and subsystems rather than the "64-bit"-ness of the computer.
 

arn

macrumors god
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
15,650
4,460
Before anyone says.... "things will be much faster with a true 64-bit version of the OS"

stop right there.

it won't.

There are g5-specific optimizations, but many people will not need true "64-bit" apps.

again, the PowerMac G5 is faster than current macs because it has a faster bus, faster ram, and a faster processor.

arn
 
Comment
E

evilfunkgenius

Guest
Arn, maybe you need to add a new tab to the top to try and explain all the technical information/rumors that go on here. As strange as it might be, I learn more about new technology hanging around this place than anywhere else. You could call the tab "Rumor Technology"....!
 
Comment

Powerbook G5

macrumors 68040
Jun 23, 2003
3,974
0
St Augustine, FL
I don't know why everyone is so hung up on OS X not being "fully 64 bit" and all. As long as it lets the processor flex its muscle and addresses its full memory capabilities, it'll be great. I for one will not have 4 GB of memory, let alone 8...so I don't see a reason for my needing it besides having a faster processor/bus. It's a little sad knowing the bus on my G3 is just under half that of the G4...you'd think after all these years they could get a little faster than 167 MHz.
 
Comment

zoozx

macrumors 6502
Jul 23, 2002
320
218
ca
X.2.7 ..........whooopeee.
Now tell me all of uz guys that bought a G5 early are not going to be penalized / shafted when Panther releases in a month and all G5 ship with it.
Tell me we get a "get out of jail free" upgrade coupon in the box for Panther.
 
Comment

andyduncan

macrumors regular
Jan 21, 2003
172
0
Originally posted by evilfunkgenius
Arn, maybe you need to add a new tab to the top to try and explain all the technical information/rumors that go on here.

Not a bad idea. No need for new content, however, just link it to ars.

Making the same argument over and over is decidedly un-Object-Oriented. Especially when it has been argued better by someone else (ie: ars has a great article debunking 64bitness). Make a pointer out of a link and *this.
 
Comment

MrMacMan

macrumors 604
Jul 4, 2001
7,002
11
1 Block away from NYC.
Hm... so it is finally coming, good for them...


Tho I have had it for a good deal of time, I'd say what 5 days?
:eek:



To get extra speed that comes with '64-bit ness' you need to optomize the code, something that many devolpers will be doing I am sure.

:D
 
Comment

arn

macrumors god
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
15,650
4,460
Originally posted by MrMacman
To get extra speed that comes with '64-bit ness' you need to optomize the code, something that many devolpers will be doing I am sure.

No, you do not - that was the whole point of my first two posts. Please reread them.

64-bit does not equal faster.

arn
 
Comment

chetwilliams

macrumors member
Jul 17, 2002
32
0
Originally posted by zoozx
X.2.7 ..........whooopeee.
Now tell me all of uz guys that bought a G5 early are not going to be penalized / shafted when Panther releases in a month and all G5 ship with it.
Tell me we get a "get out of jail free" upgrade coupon in the box for Panther.

Not me. I'm an ADC member so Panther is free. Not to mention that Panther Server is free so I can test out my web server as well.
 
Comment

eric_n_dfw

macrumors 68000
Jan 2, 2002
1,511
58
DFW, TX, USA
Originally posted by MrMacman
To get extra speed that comes with '64-bit ness' you need to optomize the code, something that many devolpers will be doing I am sure.

:D
Did you read arn's post?

Please tell me what you do that would be sped up by native 64 bit applications? (Really, I am curious!)

The code that needs to be optimized the most is the GCC compiler -- for the G5's scheduling.
 
Comment

chetwilliams

macrumors member
Jul 17, 2002
32
0
Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
Did you read arn's post?

Please tell me what you do that would be sped up by native 64 bit applications? (Really, I am curious!)

The code that needs to be optimized the most is the GCC compiler -- for the G5's scheduling.

Hmmm. I can only think of a ton of things that would be faster. Though day-to-day apps like Word or Mail won't be sped up, pro apps such as Final Cut Pro (faster at HD video w/ 64), Photoshop (faster w/ 64), Mathematica (faster w/ 64), and of course folding would be sped up. Just because most apps won't be helped with 64 does not mean all apps won't be helped with 64.
 
Comment

snuffub

macrumors newbie
Aug 18, 2003
2
0
Originally posted by arn
No, you do not - that was the whole point of my first two posts. Please reread them.

64-bit does not equal faster.

arn

In all fairness to this guy there is the point that it will be a while before the true potential of the chip will be reached because _both_ compiler optimization as well as app code optimization will have a huge impact. Just look at the new photoshop patch adobe is about to release. That said the optimizations have little to do with the fact that it's a 64bit chip, it has to do with the fact that the 970 has a different pipe line, different execution units and different latencies than the G4. It's no different from when any new architecture comes out, just look at early pentium 4 benchmarks they took a while to mature and their design was more similar to their predecesor than the 970 is to the G4.
 
Comment

acj

macrumors 6502
Feb 3, 2003
345
0
Originally posted by chetwilliams
Hmmm. I can only think of a ton of things that would be faster. Though day-to-day apps like Word or Mail won't be sped up, pro apps such as Final Cut Pro (faster at HD video w/ 64), Photoshop (faster w/ 64), Mathematica (faster w/ 64), and of course folding would be sped up. Just because most apps won't be helped with 64 does not mean all apps won't be helped with 64.

Are the optimizations for these programs specifically 64 bit? Or are they just G5?
 
Comment

TMay

macrumors 68000
Dec 24, 2001
1,520
1
Carson City, NV
it might be possible to divide and conquer

Originally posted by chetwilliams
Hmmm. I can only think of a ton of things that would be faster. Though day-to-day apps like Word or Mail won't be sped up, pro apps such as Final Cut Pro (faster at HD video w/ 64), Photoshop (faster w/ 64), Mathematica (faster w/ 64), and of course folding would be sped up. Just because most apps won't be helped with 64 does not mean all apps won't be helped with 64.
I'm with you on this one.

Since there are many execution units, 64 bit integer, floating point, and vector in the 970, and multiples of these as it were, one could make the argument that concurrent processes carefully matched to the data types would be quite beneficial in multimedia apps.

As an example (in Photoshop), I could see 48 bit color plus 16 bit alpha operations well suited for the 64 bit integer execution units. Similarly, some filters may work quite effectively with the floating point units, leaving the balance to Altivec. I would argue that the memory bandwidth would make it efficient to process these concurrently for maximum performance, especially with multiple processors. That's a lot of simultaneous processing!

That said, I think it is premature to argue that a 64 bit processor won't be faster, when specifically, what needs to be stated is that there are operations that 64 bit processor may be faster at (than the 32 bit), and until we see some developers push the 970 performance envelope and optimize code, we can't really know how much benefit 64 bit provides.
 
Comment

Freg3000

macrumors 68000
Sep 22, 2002
1,914
0
New York
Ok, I am just as likely to say something stupid and have everyone angrily correct me, so, instead of me guessing in the form of a question what the advantages of a 64 bit processor are, can someone just tell me?

If it is not speed, what is it (besides >4GB Ram)?
 
Comment

esheep2001

macrumors member
Jul 22, 2002
92
0
Originally posted by Freg3000
Ok, I am just as likely to say something stupid and have everyone angrily correct me, so, instead of me guessing in the form of a question what the advantages of a 64 bit processor are, can someone just tell me?

If it is not speed, what is it (besides >4GB Ram)?

The most widely accepted reason is the ability to handle twice as much data (64 bits instead of 32) in a single processor cycle.

Ordinarily this does equate to speed but in the case of the G5 (970) the architectural design allows for a transition from a 32 to 64 bit operating system by allowing existing 32 bit applications to run without modification. Hence these apps won't gain the speed advantage (other than through clock speed) until they are rebuit specially for the G5, and the OS will be hampered to some extent until all apps are built for 64 bits. This is the bug bear that people are talking about.

However you only need to look at the lacklustre market performace of the Itanium, which goes straight to 64 bits without the ability for transitioning, to see that the G5 (and AMD BTW) way is the best way as it keeps the largest number of people happy by allowing them to run all their favourite apps immediately. Itanium needs a special OS AND optimised apps (I believe) to run at all.

Basically what Apple have done is the equivalent of the 68k to PPC transition but without any of the pain.

Hope this helps.

e.
 
Comment

snuffub

macrumors newbie
Aug 18, 2003
2
0
Originally posted by esheep2001
The most widely accepted reason is the ability to handle twice as much data (64 bits instead of 32) in a single processor cycle.

Ordinarily this does equate to speed but in the case of the G5 (970) the architectural design allows for a transition from a 32 to 64 bit operating system by allowing existing 32 bit applications to run without modification. Hence these apps won't gain the speed advantage (other than through clock speed) until they are rebuit specially for the G5, and the OS will be hampered to some extent until all apps are built for 64 bits. This is the bug bear that people are talking about.

However you only need to look at the lacklustre market performace of the Itanium, which goes straight to 64 bits without the ability for transitioning, to see that the G5 (and AMD BTW) way is the best way as it keeps the largest number of people happy by allowing them to run all their favourite apps immediately. Itanium needs a special OS AND optimised apps (I believe) to run at all.

Basically what Apple have done is the equivalent of the 68k to PPC transition but without any of the pain.

Hope this helps.

e.

Errr... i feel like this is a futile battle to be fighting but I think youve got the wrong idea about how the 970 handles 32 bit legacy code. Rewriting apps is not a matter of making them 64bit apps so that they’ll run in native mode. It’s a matter of making the type of instructions, as well as the order of instructions conducive to fully utilizing all the parts of the processor so your task finishes in the fewest cycles. On the 970 a 32bit add takes the same number of cycles as a 64bit add if im not mistaken.

Now to answer that guy’s question as to the benefits of 64bit processors imagine this situation. You can only comprehend numbers up to 9 and you want to add the numbers 13 and 25 in this situation you would have to do the following steps.

Look at the last digit of the first number.. look at the last digit of the second number. add the two. write down whether the two numbers “overflowed” or added up to a number more than you can comprehend. Write down the part that didn’t overflow, ie if they added to 6 write down six if they added to 16 also write down six. Look at the next digit of the first number. Look at the next digit of the second number. Add the two. Write down if they overflowed….
You see where this is going

Now imagine you can comprehend numbers up to 1000. to add 13 and 25 you would look at the two numbers add then and write down the result.

So that’s the very long, very convoluted way to say that 64bit processors are much faster at operations which you need to work with big numbers. Mathmatica could be one of those apps, certain physics calculations, encryption, and a whole bunch of other apps that no one’s thought of making yet because up until very recently 64bit processors weren’t available to enough end users.
 
Comment

Edot

macrumors 6502
Jan 29, 2002
432
0
NJ
64bit is a big deal!?

Here is the way I undertand it. Correct me if I am wrong.

64bit processors will not increase the speed of code written for 32bit processors, nor will code written for 8bit processors increase on a 32bit processor. (excluding speed increases) However, 64bit processors allow for more complex applications to be written. These apps aren't functional on a 32bit processor because of the speed at which it would run (Like OS X on a 128k). A 64bit app can process more instuctions at a time compared to 32bit apps. Applications and OSes will fill the processor sooner or later. More eye-candy for all!

I believe the issue is Speed vs Volume, which seem to be getting confused.
 
Comment

Wonder Boy

macrumors 6502a
Feb 18, 2003
835
0
South Windsor, CT
Originally posted by Powerbook G5
Well...I've heard nothing but good things about the 64-bit enhanced Stickies! :)

HAHA. I read somewhere that Clock is much faster now, too. Though I still haven't figured out the benifits of that yet.
 
Comment

visor

macrumors 6502
May 13, 2003
341
0
in bed
Originally posted by arn
There are g5-specific optimizations, but many people will not need true "64-bit" apps.


Oh well, who needs extremely large floating point operations anyway...

thank god all rendering and Gaming Apps won't need floating point operations... All those high end apps that do real time processing -surely they won't need floating points...
Thank god we don't need large memory. My god, designing a poster ought to be good enough at a resolution 640*480, right?

It makes far more sense to optimize on 8 bits - for backwards compatibility, you know.
 
Comment

visor

macrumors 6502
May 13, 2003
341
0
in bed
Re: 64bit is a big deal!?

Originally posted by Edot
Here is the way I undertand it. Correct me if I am wrong.

I believe the issue is Speed vs Volume, which seem to be getting confused.

You've got a point there. On ADTV there is a free clip that focusses on optimizing on a G5.
The original code was about 13 times slower on the same maschine as the optimized one, using more threads, and using the Velocity angine.
In fact - data bandwith was still only used half - so with more optimizing, you could possible get a few more multipliers out of the maschine.

So, it's true, if you run old unoptimized code - it will only scale with the processor frequency. If however, you write optimized code - you can get exponential speed increases.
 
Comment

leo

macrumors member
Mar 5, 2003
30
0
Cologne
Disadvantages of the 970

I can think of a few situations where 64-bit integer operations built in hardware will result in a performance boost. But, as others have pointed out, this is rarely the case.

But I can also think of situations where the long pipelines of the G5 will result in rather poor performance. Some algorithms have a complicated branching scheme and the processor doesn't do much other than handling pipeline stalls. And on the G5, these really hurt.

Also, the G5s relative memory latency is longer than that of the G4 (i.e. more cycles to access memory). Algorithms that make massive use of global data can be relatively poor in performance, especially with big data blocks and when the access scheme is really "random"/non-consecutive, thus leading to cache misses. The higher clock might compensate this to some extent, but you get the point.

I just want to point out: don't expect the G5 to excel in *every* situation.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.