CeBit: PPC 970's up to 1.8GHz

[copperpipe]

yeah but

this processor has this advantage, and that processor has that advantage! Blahger flooth!

All I know is I have a duel 867 G4 and it kicks major butt. Design graphics that are 24 inches by 36 inches 300 dpi and I am cruising! Now I imagine a duel 1.42 has got to be unbelievable speed. Now let's say I change the architecture to the next gen, and bump it to 1.8 ghz? Oh my god.

My question to anyone here is this:

What type of work are you doing on a mac that requires more speed than that? There must be something, but I just can't figure out what it is...

 

[Nemesis]

Re: Nemesis

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Duly Noted.

As Arn says IBM has never stated anything about the PPC 970 being anything other than Single Core.

Spec marks are not conclusive and they don't take into effect Altivec but nonetheless it's an important distinction regardless. Note I did say "Estimated" so the actual Spec numbers could be higher or lower.

My personal belief is that the 970 remains single core and perhaps is amended with SMT late 2004.

I believe that if there indeed is a 980 based on a "Lite" version of the Power5. It will have dual cores and hopefully support SMT per core. Now THAT would rock but we're probably talking mid 2005 here. Can't wait to run iMovie 5.5 on that !

970 could be multicore, as stated by Ars Technica, and also according to IBM, but it seems that now it is not. It is more likely it will appear firstly in n-way systems.

Still, Spec marks mean nothing. Real life is something completely different.

Spec marks can be compared on processors that utilise similar design and are running same software. Then you have the nice comparison.

Pentium III and Pentium II running Win98 can be compared in that way, but not 970 and Pentium IV, running OS X and XP, both compiled using completely different compilers.

It's like comparing apples to pears. Similar they are, but they taste different.

 

[nuckinfutz]

What type of work are you doing on a mac that requires more speed than that? There must be something, but I just can't figure out what it is...

I'll be doing Audio on my next Mac and Video. Both require Rendering(Video) and plugins for audio like Altiverb which require some serious horsepower to have them function correctly. Any boost in speed will be beneficial.

Still, Spec marks mean nothing. Real life is something completely different.

True but most benchmarks have serious deficiencies. Spec is no different. For years there were rumors that Intel optimized their Reference Compiler to produce great Spec scores but they didn't necessarily trasmit into better application performance.

However Spec is still a noteworthry benchmark to ascertain a BASE level of performance. And that makes it a valid comparison.

 

[kenohki]

Re: Nemesis

Originally posted by nuckinfutz

My personal belief is that the 970 remains single core and perhaps is amended with SMT late 2004.

I believe that if there indeed is a 980 based on a "Lite" version of the Power5. It will have dual cores and hopefully support SMT per core. Now THAT would rock but we're probably talking mid 2005 here. Can't wait to run iMovie 5.5 on that !

I wouldn't ever look for a 970 with SMT. The POWER5 will have SMT as well as FastPath. Considering that it appears that IBM's strategy is for a trickle-down effect from the POWER series to the PowerPC, I'd expect to see SMT only with POWER5 or a PowerPC variant of it. With POWER5 actually booting code at this point, it doesn't make all that much sense to throw money at the POWER4 architecture when POWER5 is estimated to be multiple times faster than POWER4 and already includes SMT.

 

[scem0]

Forgive me for my lack of microprocessor knowledge, but what
exactly is multicore, and what are the advantages of it (and
disadvantages, if any)? I know there are already multicore
high end chips, but do we really want them in powermacs?
Would they make the price go up so much that it isn't worth
it? I understand that speed is very important when it comes
to computers, but to people like me, price is even more important
and if apple tries to put a very expensive processor, it won't
sell to people who can't afford it - despite having a fast, multi-
cored processor.

Edit: SMT? What exactly is that? Sorry, again, for asking so many
questions, but I just don't know about microprocessors, but I am
very interested to learn.

 

[leo]

SpecFP and SpecInt are designed for single core CPUs. 970 can be multicore, 2 way, 4 way, etc., so all comparisons are in vain.

Stop comparing apples and oranges. Those tests mean absolutely nothing.

nuckinfutz' comparison ist absolutely valid for computationally intensive tasks. Duals can be twice as fast AT MAX. Considering that the Intel Xeon-processors (Pentium 4's SMP-brother) reach up to 3.06 Ghz TODAY...

http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/2107221

...and can be purchased in 2,4,8,16-way configurations TODAY (expensive, though)...

http://www.itworld.com/Comp/1361/021218ibmxeon/

... Apple needs the 970 just to keep the pace in the desktop market, and to survive in the server market.

I have experienced that the SpecInt and SpecFP benchmarks have always been a very reliable measure, at least for my purposes (numerics).

 

[scem0]

And to bring something else up - will apple have the standard,
three configurations? If apple puts a single processor in the 3
models (fast, faster, and fastest) then maybe it would be smart
for them to put dual processors in the 'ultimate' model, which
would be pricey, but very fast.

 

[nuckinfutz]

Originally posted by scem0
Forgive me for my lack of microprocessor knowledge, but what
exactly is multicore, and what are the advantages of it (and
disadvantages, if any)? I know there are already multicore
high end chips, but do we really want them in powermacs?
Would they make the price go up so much that it isn't worth
it? I understand that speed is very important when it comes
to computers, but to people like me, price is even more important
and if apple tries to put a very expensive processor, it won't
sell to people who can't afford it - despite having a fast, multi-
cored processor.

Scem0-

Multiple Cores are the basically two CPU cores on the same die. They generally will share cache. Multiple Cores are beneficial and in many way preferrable to two seperate chips. Since the cores are on the same die the packaging is smaller. Cache Coherency is more efficient(not Motherboard traces needed).

Rather than trying to build a behemoth motherboard with Quad Processors a System Designer can duplicate the same thing using two Dual Core proces in a SMP configuration. Saves MB real estate and complexity.

Next you add in Multithreading to each core and you've damn near doubled again! Think about that. 4 total cores...multithreadin...you know have almost a 8 CPU(logical) system!!! yet you're only using Two physical chips.

This is the future. Intel, IBM, Sun and anyone else serious about CPU's will be attempting to go multicore and thread the cores like mad.

 

[kenohki]

Originally posted by scem0
Forgive me for my lack of microprocessor knowledge, but what
exactly is multicore, and what are the advantages of it (and
disadvantages, if any)? I know there are already multicore
high end chips, but do we really want them in powermacs?
Would they make the price go up so much that it isn't worth
it? I understand that speed is very important when it comes
to computers, but to people like me, price is even more important
and if apple tries to put a very expensive processor, it won't
sell to people who can't afford it - despite having a fast, multi-
cored processor.

Multicore just means that there are two processor cores on one "chip".

And in regard to the comments about the PowerPC 970 moving to multi-core...

I sincerely doubt that will happen. If you've actually seen the block diagram of the POWER4, there is a hell of a lot of interconnection fabric (die to die and chip to chip) as well as cache control logic. That logic, combined with the massive cache needed to feed a dual core chip, is what keeps the price so prohibitively expensive. And that stuff is the kind of stuff you would need for a dual-core PowerPC 970 that isn't crippled as hell. It would be a POWER4 with VMX/AltiVec and it would be out of our price range.

 

[Snowy_River]

Re: yeah but

Originally posted by copperpipe
What type of work are you doing on a mac that requires more speed than that? There must be something, but I just can't figure out what it is...

Well, I do 3D modeling design work (as in CAD, not animation), and molecular interaction simulations. These are slow on the fastest machines. So, I'm definitely looking forward to being able to buy a faster machine.

 

[scem0]

Another thing I would like to add-
I hope they change the name when they release it. It won't be
a g4 so don't be saying that there are 'new G4's'. While calling
it a G5 isn't exactly true, it would follow the current naming
scheme, and raise some eyebrown, and open some people's
wallets.

 

[copperpipe]

so lets get this straight...

we need the speed of the upcoming 970 to be faster than 1.8 ghz for programs like:

Really, REALLY crazy sound stuff (my roomate is really into sound with his G4 867 and reports no problems)

Making professional movies, or computer animation (which, if you're into that, you probably run on a server)

maybe intense 3D rendering? maybe?

I'm just curious about what the huge fuss is about...

 

[arn]

Re: so lets get this straight...

Originally posted by copperpipe

I'm just curious about what the huge fuss is about...

obviously for home users, benefits of much faster processors are less apparent.

But there are many proffesional users... where saving time is the same as saving money. Whether that be running photoshop filters, rendering 3d scenes... anything that takes longer than "instantaneously" presently can be speeded up with faster processors.

arn

 

[pilotgi]

scem0

SMT: simultaneous multithreading

webopedia.com for all your tech terms.

 

[job]

Re: so lets get this straight...

Originally posted by copperpipe
I'm just curious about what the huge fuss is about...

See that's my dilemma too.

I'm looking for a new tower, but won't be able to buy one until October.

All I currently do on my machine is basic text stuff, light Photoshop and Dreamweaver work, and games. A lot of games.

Do I really need a 970 for that? No, a dual G4 system with enough RAM and decent GPU would be more than enough.

For me it's a price issue. If they release 970s within my budget, I might go for one (pure bragging rights ) but as it stands right now, I'm not sure if a)Apple will actually use the chip, and b) if the pricing sceme will stay the same.

 

[arn]

Re: Re: so lets get this straight...

Originally posted by hitman

For me it's a price issue. If they release 970s within my budget, I might go for one (pure bragging rights ) but as it stands right now, I'm not sure if a)Apple will actually use the chip, and b) if the pricing sceme will stay the same.

regardless of whether or not they drop prices... you will be able to get a faster computer for the same price when new machines come out...

this is always going to be true however, the longer you wait.

arn

 

[nuckinfutz]

The PPC 970 Would benefit us all

I don't plan to be in a position to be able to afford a PPC 970 system if they become reality.

But I do know that I could still be the indirect beneficiary of them being announced and shipped.

Apple, by moving the Pro Macs to PPC 970s, would be able to increase the speed of their G4 based machines without the fear of treading and cannabilizing sales of Powermacs.

iMacs suddenly could use the fastest G4's available bumping the low end units nicely.

eMacs and iBooks all could benefit. I'd still accept a G4 based machine. I just want it as fast as possible for the money.

 

[PyroTurtle]

so, get the 970 over, pixar ports RenderMan over to OS X, and buys a ton of XServes and Ultimate PowerMacs and that covers R&D
i just wish i had renderman period...i love that app, too much money for me though...and yes, pixar would need that much render speed...heck, you do for audio alone, and then add in video?!
just my thoughts...

 

[MOM]

Re: yeah but

Originally posted by copperpipe

My question to anyone here is this:

What type of work are you doing on a mac that requires more speed than that? There must be something, but I just can't figure out what it is...

I play around with Studio Artist. Once you start working with video, rotoscoping/re-drawing each frame, no computer is fast enough. Its a great program and the things it can do are amazing, but slow.

 

[dongmin]

Surprisingly, we found out that the PPC presentation announced in advance [of CeBIT] was cancelled. When we asked, we learned that the expected processor (2.3 to 2.5 Ghz) was actually the generation after the next [i.e. post initial 970], and that we should thus not expect an introduction [of the 2+ Ghz iron] anytime soon. According to IBM, "current" PPC 970 processors (still produced with a .13 micronc process, which applies to the upcoming 2.3/2.5 Ghz processor as well), clocking up to 1.8 Ghz, could be used by Apple in the future. As always, however, it has been impossible to optain more detailed information.

What kind of track record does this MacGuardian have? I´m skeptical that IBM would be so forthcoming in detailing their current development to a rumor organization.

Assuming that all this is true, that Apple indeed is releasing a 1.8 ghz PPC970 system this summer/fall, the next big question becomes What´s the rest of the motherboard gonna look like? Will Apple go all out and put in a 900 mhz bus or cripple it in order to save costs? What kind of memory will Apple put in?

 

[MOM]

Originally posted by scem0
And to bring something else up - will apple have the standard,
three configurations? If apple puts a single processor in the 3
models (fast, faster, and fastest) then maybe it would be smart
for them to put dual processors in the 'ultimate' model, which
would be pricey, but very fast.

I hope Apple keeps the dual processors. The only way software is going to be optimized for dual processors is that Apple consistently provides dual processors. If they drop back to single chips (they did this before remember) then the software companies are not going to bother optimizing for duals.

 

[3G4N]

many (myself included) need the 970 for
2D and 3D rendering, video compositing,
editing, and compression - all time-intensive.
...and a professional-strength 3D video card
(nVidia Quadro or better) for 3D modeling.

 

[scem0]

Originally posted by MOM
I hope Apple keeps the dual processors. The only way software is going to be optimized for dual processors is that Apple consistently provides dual processors. If they drop back to single chips (they did this before remember) then the software companies are not going to bother optimizing for duals.

yeah, I hope they keep dual processors, unless that gets too
expensive. THey should always have a cheat sub $1500 model,
for 15 year old computer lovers who are forced to buy their own
computers . Dual processors are great, but if Apple
has to raise the price by a lot, then I say dump them. But if
the price just goes up by a little, keep them.

 

[BenRoethig]

Originally posted by dongmin
What kind of track record does this MacGuardian have? I´m skeptical that IBM would be so forthcoming in detailing their current development to a rumor organization.

Assuming that all this is true, that Apple indeed is releasing a 1.8 ghz PPC970 system this summer/fall, the next big question becomes What´s the rest of the motherboard gonna look like? Will Apple go all out and put in a 900 mhz bus or cripple it in order to save costs? What kind of memory will Apple put in?

Hopefully Apple will use PC3200 or PC3500 for RAM. As for motherboards, I would expect 1 8x AGP slot, 4 PCI slots, mini-PCI for Airport Extreme, 2 FW400, 2 FW 800, 4 USB 2.0, highend on board sound. I wouldn'y be surprised to also see 2 USB 2.0 and 1 FW400 port in front.

 

[ryan]

Originally posted by MOM
I hope Apple keeps the dual processors. The only way software is going to be optimized for dual processors is that Apple consistently provides dual processors. If they drop back to single chips (they did this before remember) then the software companies are not going to bother optimizing for duals.

I'd like to see them adopt more of a Dell approach, where the machines come with single processors and then you can add an additional processor for a couple, to several hundred dollars more. I would suspect that some people would be willing to have two slower processors, while some would like to have a single faster processor.

For the kind of development work I do, Java/Web/database, I don't push any one program real hard but I always have several programs going. So, I've found that I get a greater amount of benefit from having multiple (relatively) slower processors than a single fast one.