Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

erockerboy

macrumors member
Original poster
Jul 25, 2002
92
0
SEA, WA, US
I recently saw the following info posted on Unicornation.com - anyone care to comment? Please understand that I'm in a position of ignorance here, so don't shoot the messenger... the punchline seems to be that for us DAW users, it would be worthwhile to wait for the next rev of the G5's before jumping in.

Thoughts???

The first rev of the G5s may be obsolete before they even hit the streets. There are some serious questions as the the DDR specs Apple has chosen are about to be replaced by a newer and faster standard (and by standard I mean industry standard).

Of course, you are welcome to spend your money on whatever you want, but from a techie perspective the G5s (which are not going to be that much faster in real world apps) miss the mark by quite a bit and we probably won't see them where they need to be until rev b or c.

Having been a former Apple developer and HW tester I speak from experience...rev A = bad news...and I _may_ have already had my hands on one for testing (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more, say no more).

Apple chose the 400Mhz DDR standard which can be addressed at 6.4 GB/s, as of right now has been replaced by a faster standard which can be addressed at 12.8 GB/s. The real issue with this is that Apple is pretending to move to an industry standard, but they are one giant step behind the rest of the industry (which is so unlike Apple). The good points are that, regardless, DDR is the way to go. The RAM will be available & relatively inexpensive. I'm sure they had a reason for choosing a standard they knew was on it's way out (hell we Mac users were using SIMMs longer than any PC user before we finally moved up to DIMMs).

My biggest issue with all of this is that they really need to compete on a speed/price level with the PC world (like Dell) and chosing an older standard is not the best way to do this. Granted DDR RAM is faster than any of the previous standrads (PC100, PC 133), so there is a significant improvement over the current standard (70.6% faster addressing) but the rest of the system bogs that down to a total of about 43% faster than a similarly rated (Ghz to Ghz) G4. That is one major hit to performance, almost 30% of the gain just given up. Not to mention the difference when going to a 64-bit (2^64) system froma 32-bit (2^32) system should be exponetial. And remember Apple's first venture in DDR RAM with the duals? They actually addressed memory *slower* than the SDRAM systems (for instance the DDR 1 GHz dual was 29% slower in memory intensive processes than the SDRAM 1 GHz dual because of this).

These are all issue that Apple need to address. And, yes given the delay in shipment of the current crop the Rev. B machines will probably be a couple months off (December/January?) by my best guess. I doubt they will upgrade the DDR/Memory architecture to take advantage of the new standard but they should at least fully support the DDR standard that they chose to use in their system to get full benefit of the potential speed gain. That alone will benefit us DAW users in a big way.

Also, a point no one seems to has mentioned. Altivec has been updated, meaning all apps that took advantage of the Altivec processor need to be updated (re-coded) to take advantage of the G5s speed. And those that don't take advantage of Altivec at all will not show as much of a gain from the G5 as they could. Case and point: some non-Altivec apps actually run a percent or 2 faster on a G3 than a G4. For instance Bryce on an iBook beats out a G4 TiBook by quite a bit. But that is another issue for another discussion.

To sum it all up: for a system that should be a magnitude of 10 times faster than the previous crop is only about 43% faster on average (again GHz to GHz). Something is wrong.

As a former Apple Developer I can tell you that I would never buy a 1st generation machine. I've seen what gets swept under the rug for "the next update".

Apple has promised that these technologies are fully supported in the new G5s (DDR-400, PCI-X, 64-bit data flow, the new Altivec code, among others), when in reality they will be fully supported at a later date -- some of them dependent upon software developers who are currently struggling to release OS X versions of their software only now -- 2 years after OS X Was introduced). Read the white papers/developer papers, it's there in black & white (black & white geek-speak, but it's there).
 
Faster memory is always coming out; it's a fact of life, just like faster processors come out as well.
 
Originally posted by Moxiemike
*YAWN!*

complain complain complain.

go do something constructive. :D

exactly! Shut up already.

Article was probably written by a closet PC user who is pissed that they still use windows.
 
Well, this part is completely false:

Not to mention the difference when going to a 64-bit (2^64) system froma 32-bit (2^32) system should be exponetial.

and this part:

Apple chose the 400Mhz DDR standard which can be addressed at 6.4 GB/s, as of right now has been replaced by a faster standard which can be addressed at 12.8 GB/s.

is referring to Rambus which will hardly be a widely used replacement for Dual-Channel DDR (IMHO). It certainly won't be an inexpensive option.

Based on the application tests shown at WWDC, I think the performance of these systems will be more than enough for just about anyone's needs.
 
First of all, are 1.0 releases ever completely safe?

How many cars, computers, etc. work without a glitch first time out?

As far as I know, the G5 machines are not perfect but they're impressive. Are they going to reach their full potential right away? No! They're being released with an operating system working in a hybrid 32-64-bit mode.

As far as DDR RAM goes, saying that there's a new standard and populating motherboards with actual specimens are two different things. It was surprising to me that Apple chose RAM that was already available instead of helping develop some innovative packaging which contained much faster memory. Then again, in the initial PowerMacs, they used 72 pin SIMMs in pairs. With the PCI PowerMacs, they used DIMMs, ahead of the rest of the industry.

Newer machines will be faster and better--that's the way of things. :)
 
That article is probably written by same person who complained about unfairness of early test comparison between G5 and Pentium PC's.
 
I am confused because if you take just about any high end performance PC, they use DDR 400 RAM, too...so if they accuse Apple of using "out of date" tech, then accuse Dell and Gateway and Toshiba and Sony and etc, too...we just got a brand new top of the line Dell system for the family computer and guess what? It uses DDR 400 RAM, too...I don't see them bashing Dell for using DDR 400.
 
Originally posted by Powerbook G5
I am confused because if you take just about any high end performance PC, they use DDR 400 RAM, too...so if they accuse Apple of using "out of date" tech, then accuse Dell and Gateway and Toshiba and Sony and etc, too...we just got a brand new top of the line Dell system for the family computer and guess what? It uses DDR 400 RAM, too...I don't see them bashing Dell for using DDR 400.

I bet it doesn't used paired DDR 400. Meaning it still runs at half the speed of the memory architecture of that in the G5.
 
Rambus will never become a major player (Heck Intel doesn't even make boards that accept RIMMS anymore, and were the only ones who ever did (In great Quanity)), because they have quirks, act like simms and cost as much as the "Star Wars" Defense Project.

I would like to See DDR-II, but we all know that it may be a while before we'll have them.

With sentiments like that guy's, I know now why the Cube failed.

TEG
 
The most inaccurate part is this:

"Also, a point no one seems to has mentioned. Altivec has been updated, meaning all apps that took advantage of the Altivec processor need to be updated (re-coded) to take advantage of the G5s speed."

I suggest that no-one has mentioned it because it is completely false. The Altivec unit is slightly different, but use the same instructions, I believe.

Apps have to be re-compiled for the G5 to see the biggest speed gains, but that is true of most new processor designs- and I don't think this is because of Altivec being a slightly different in the G5 (more like the older G4's, I believe). It won't be like the jump to PowerPC, where many apps were much slower on a 6100 than they were on a Quadra 840 or 950.
 
When the computer was announced, people looked around and found that there really were not that many large sticks of memory to be had.

It even seemed that Apple was offering memory configurations that the market couldn't supply, yet.

It's a little hard to say that Apple is using a dead standard, when it's hard to buy 1-2 GB sticks of memory for the darn machines at DDR400.

Like, how would you expect to add DDR2 memory to the machine if Apple offered it?

With a home mortgage?
 
Originally posted by AngryAngel
The most inaccurate part is this:

"Also, a point no one seems to has mentioned. Altivec has been updated, meaning all apps that took advantage of the Altivec processor need to be updated (re-coded) to take advantage of the G5s speed."

I suggest that no-one has mentioned it because it is completely false. The Altivec unit is slightly different, but use the same instructions, I believe.

Apps have to be re-compiled for the G5 to see the biggest speed gains, but that is true of most new processor designs- and I don't think this is because of Altivec being a slightly different in the G5 (more like the older G4's, I believe). It won't be like the jump to PowerPC, where many apps were much slower on a 6100 than they were on a Quadra 840 or 950.

Actually, some Altivec commands are extremely slow (slower than it would be without the Altivec) and others don't work at all. So yes, some apps do need to be recompiled due to the change.
 
Originally posted by AngryAngel
The most inaccurate part is this:

"Also, a point no one seems to has mentioned. Altivec has been updated, meaning all apps that took advantage of the Altivec processor need to be updated (re-coded) to take advantage of the G5s speed."

I suggest that no-one has mentioned it because it is completely false. The Altivec unit is slightly different, but use the same instructions, I believe.

Apps have to be re-compiled for the G5 to see the biggest speed gains, but that is true of most new processor designs- and I don't think this is because of Altivec being a slightly different in the G5 (more like the older G4's, I believe). It won't be like the jump to PowerPC, where many apps were much slower on a 6100 than they were on a Quadra 840 or 950.
Not that big of a shift, true. But still... why do you think Adobe was there for the intro? The get to sell new "G5 optimized" stuff, offer minor bug fixes and new feature or two, and watch the faithful upgrade their 1 yr old software! :mad:

*sigh*

What can you do?
 
The PPC970's vector pipelines include all 162 instructions in the AltiVec specification. That said, the vector processor is poorly integrated into the unit. It seems that it was really just sort of shoehorned in there (remember, there is no vector processor in the Power4). As a result, the current version of the 970 is not any better than the G4e at vector processing, and it is even worse at some instructions.
 
Originally posted by iPC
Not that big of a shift, true. But still... why do you think Adobe was there for the intro? The get to sell new "G5 optimized" stuff, offer minor bug fixes and new feature or two, and watch the faithful upgrade their 1 yr old software! :mad:

*sigh*

What can you do?

Not make a purchase?
 
Oh come on, we have the fastest bus on the planet now. 1 Ghz! Dual independent buses at that meaning data doesn't get crammed waiting to go in while other data goes out! Apple developer specs say with 2 GB PC-3200 modules (about $1100 through Pricewatch.com) you can get 16 GB of RAM into the machines. The system runs so much cooler because of the great design of the locations of the fans. Cooler means faster. To top it off, no longer are we limited to ATA/133 ATA, we have Serial ATA at 1.5 GB a second on the hard disk. The biggest slowdown on any machine is the hard disk, not the chips. The 1.6 Ghz G5, nice entry level machine, but not the one I'd get. I'd either get the 1.8 Ghz or the 2 Ghz. The 1.6 doesn't even have PCI-X. This coming off Macs that had buses at a maximum of 167 Mhz while all the people on this board were whaling that the bus made a huge difference. You got your faster bus, you got your faster hard drive, you got your memory capacity, you got your faster PCI slots, you got your faster AGP slot. You even got your digital audio ports. The way people carry on in here, they are expecting the M-5 from Star Trek to actually have been made 30 years ago and available in the desktop today. PCers are just jealous. We have the most secure system on the planet, and now the fastest for under $3000 with built-in developer tools. The tests were run at 32 bit. Imagine what it will be like at 64 bit. Oh and did you notice, the Opteron has to be rebooted to switch from 64 bit to 32 bit applications. The G5 does not. Imagine the time savings there!
 
Yeah whoever wrote that article is out of touch. But anyway, since everyone already knew that...

MacBandit:

I bet it doesn't used paired DDR 400. Meaning it still runs at half the speed of the memory architecture of that in the G5.
Dual channel DDR isn't unusual in PC land, and in fact dual Opterons can support 4 channels of DDR (although current dual Opteron boards only have 2 channels). Tyan has such a board coming, but all those DIMM slots (16) make it huge and, I bet, expensive.

TEG:

Rambus will never become a major player.
Rambus lost their first battle for the desktop, but the war isn't over yet.

crazzyeddie:

Actually, some Altivec commands are extremely slow (slower than it would be without the Altivec) and others don't work at all. So yes, some apps do need to be recompiled due to the change.
I think they all work, just some memory commands require that the pipeline be flushed, as far as I know.

gopher:

Cooler means faster.
A processor at a given clockspeed is exactly the same "fast-ness" at every temperature that it can run at without error.

Oh and did you notice, the Opteron has to be rebooted to switch from 64 bit to 32 bit applications.
No, it does not. At this link you can see AMD making repeated claims about "simultaneous 32- and 64-bit computing".

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_8826_8832,00.html
 
Most of the article is crap but he does have a point about the memory, the G5's 1 GHz bus (8 GB/s peak) is going to be "bottlenecked" by Dual Channel DDR-400 (6.4 GB/s peak). Not that it matters much as the G5 is fast enough already. It's just that it (the G5) will become significantly faster when Apple implements PC4000 DDR-500 (which is out by the way) or Quad Channel RDRAM. Remember, more speed is always a good thing. :)
 
Originally posted by crazzyeddie
Actually, some Altivec commands are extremely slow (slower than it would be without the Altivec)

How does a processor without an altivec execute an altivec instruction?

and others don't work at all. So yes, some apps do need to be recompiled due to the change.

I've never heard anything to that end: link?

Lots of the "970 is crap at altivec" comments are from people who have heard comments from people who read the first two Ars Technica 970 articles. There were mistakes in their discription of the unit, which are corrected here:
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/03q2/ppc970-interview/ppc970-interview-2.html

But the original article was just criticising how the unit managed dispatches- not that it couldn't handle some of the altivec instruction set. If it wasn't compatible with the existing instructions from the G4, then it would be pretty useless to Apple. The 970 was designed by Apple and IBM together. I think Altivec compatibility was a major target for them.

The recompiles are for optimisation for the new (to the Mac) architecture of the rest of the chip that evolved from the POWER4- not for the only part of the 970 which came from the Mac's existing processors.
 
Not sure that this is a pertinent, but... I sometimes use my parents' Pentium4 which is 1.4 ghz. It has the aforementioned rambus memory, and is ridiculously slow. I had to order the RIMM from the internet b/c nobody in town sells it. It is complete garbage. Thankfully, I have my 400 mhz imac right next to it on the same desk. I am so much more productive thanks to Apple and OSX. I can't wait till my G5 ships so I can see just how pitiful the pentium really is.
 
Don't believe everything you hear.

A lot of what you just said is completely false.
Rambus sucks, altivec hasn't changed in the G5 (it's only gotten more room to work with it now), etc etc
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.