Developer Transition Kit Benchmarks

[doccutter]

Not to be totally ignorant...

But if I'm not mistaken, my work depends on this "esoteric" Altivec stuff. I work constantly in FCP, with some photoshop and afterfx on the side. The truth is, I've used macs for more than a decade, but what keeps me on macs is the fact that my puny 1.5 ghz laptop can edit full resolution dv with realtime fx and output seamlessly, no driver conflicts, no stutters, to DVCAM, BetaCAM, DigiBETA, DVD MPEG2, and more. I've used this puppy in the field where it was the only computer around, and successfully edited video projects, sometimes working in shifts, 24 hours a day. Now we're shifting to intel, which I agree for most people should be fine, but my concern is how will the video intensive stuff work without intel and with only this "SSE". Is altivec all hype? I'm not entirely convinced. I know most of it is good software design, but in the low- to mid- budget video and film world, mac's have hegemony. Sure Avid's run on PC's, but most of the producers I know bet their reputations not on AVID xpress DV, but on FCP 4.5. So what I'm trying to ask is, what happens to the video intensive stuff? Next year will be time for a new machine, do I need to stay away from the Intel stuff, or do we think the mactels will have what it takes to do RT HD video?

 

[vollspacken]

No, the TRUTH is that only a handfull of applications, mostly Professional apps, take significant advantage of ALTIVEC. The two that I'm familure with is Photoshop and Cubase..but there are a few others.

mawharharhar... try comparing Mp3 encoding with iTunes on a G3 without and on a equally clocked G4 with Altivec...

vSpacken

 

[sbarton]

mawharharhar... try comparing Mp3 encoding with iTunes on a G3 without and on a equally clocked G4 with Altivec...

vSpacken

Compare it to what? A G3 or a OS X on a Pentium-M?? You DO know there is a FP unit on Intel chips too, right?

 

[iMeowbot]

Compare it to what? A G3 or a OS X on a Pentium-M?? You DO know there is a FP unit on Intel chips too, right?

And SIMD too. I suspect that SSE3/PNI will fill Altivec's shoes nicely.

 

[cgc]

If you read the xbench forum they said clearly that the x86 was running xbench via EMULATION which is why it's so slow (cept for GFX).

 

[doccutter]

Altivec on intel

If I'm not mistaken, which I might very well be, Altivec =/= Floating Point, it's specifically for media, and from the apple propaganda, is supposedly much better than the comparable part of intel/amd chips. Hence Mp3 Itunes speed, FCP DV, etc.

 

[SiliconAddict]

just like apple has been advertising for the past few years....

Yah because Apple nor anyone else in the industry has never lied about benchmarks. Ever.

 

[i_am_a_cow]

This is annoying as all hell.

Now the rumors forever are going to be Macs on Intel are slow...blah, blah, bla.

And of course, none of this stuff--hardware, OS, software--has been optimized yet.

This is just noise in the system we don't need.

Um, well, some people are stupid and loud, and that can be a problem in populating the world with misconceptions and bad ideas.

 

[SiliconAddict]

I don't like Windows as much as the next guy, but saying that Windows runs on top of DOS hasn't been true for the last 5 years.

More like 7-8 but close enough.

 

[sbarton]

If I'm not mistaken, which I might very well be, Altivec =/= Floating Point, it's specifically for media, and from the apple propaganda, is supposedly much better than the comparable part of intel/amd chips. Hence Mp3 Itunes speed, FCP DV, etc.

It's an FP unit for all practicle purposes. MP3 encoding is one of those few processes that is almost totally FP dependent. Its nothing special anymore now that SSE3 is available on Intel chips.

 

[mrichmon]

Rosetta on Intel is like Classic in OSX. It is there to ease the transition to the new system, not to make it possible for everyone to continue running old apps forever at full speed ... or like VirtualPC to allow the running of Windows apps (emulated) on a Mac. It is designed to help people through the transition period. An earlier thread talked about Classic being eliminated from the new system. Do we really still NEED to run OS9 applications 5-7 years after OSX? Time to upgrade!!!
...

The issue is that not everyone can upgrade. I still run classic because I need to use Adobe Framemaker. An application that Adobe decided to *not* port to "OS X" even though there is no comparable replacement on the market.

Since I need to use Framemaker I either have the option of running it in Classic or switching to Windows or Solaris. So, yes we do *really* *need* to run OS9 applications. In fact, Framemaker 7.0 for the Mac was only released about 3 years ago and is only an OS9 application. Thus your implicit claim that since OS X was released 5-7 years ago then there is no way any software released within the past 5-7 years would not be OS X-based is plainly false.

Not everyone experiences computation the way that you do.

 

[BlkBear]

You have to sign an NDA in order to rent a kit, but I wonder whether you need to sign anything to use one onsite at WWDC. It's possible that no NDA is being broken here.

All WWDC attendees are bound by an NDA. All session material is covered by the NDA. The keynote isn't covered (obviously). I would think the use of the development machine would be included in the NDA

 

[Zigster]

If you "need" to run Framemake on a Mac then you arent keeping up in your chosen profession.

There will be a few apps that don't make it over to the x86 side, but all the major ones will. You can just buy an x86 upgrade when you are ready to make your normal upgrade (most people wait a couple iterations).

Steve just saved his company, imo.

 

[cgc]

The issue is that not everyone can upgrade. I still run classic because I need to use Adobe Framemaker. An application that Adobe decided to *not* port to "OS X" even though there is no comparable replacement on the market.

Since I need to use Framemaker I either have the option of running it in Classic or switching to Windows or Solaris. So, yes we do *really* *need* to run OS9 applications. In fact, Framemaker 7.0 for the Mac was only released about 3 years ago and is only an OS9 application. Thus your implicit claim that since OS X was released 5-7 years ago then there is no way any software released within the past 5-7 years would not be OS X-based is plainly false.

Not everyone experiences computation the way that you do.

The answer is simple, stick with your current Mac to run FrameMaker and upgrade when you have a NEED.

 

[vollspacken]

Compare it to what? A G3 or a OS X on a Pentium-M?? You DO know there is a FP unit on Intel chips too, right?

of course, but that was not the point of your initial post... that was about apps using Altivec or not..!

vSpacken

oh, and the comparison was between the non-vector unit G3 and the G4... in case you missed it

 

[mrichmon]

The answer is simple, stick with your current Mac to run FrameMaker and upgrade when you have a NEED.

Yes. I was simply questioning the assumptions being made by the original poster.

And to the poster who claimed that if people need to use Framemaker then they are not "keeping up" then here is proof that it is not about not keeping up. The fact is that with this particular application there is no equivalent product available for OS X.

 

[jauh]

More like 7-8 but close enough.

you do know that winnt/2k/xp and macos x are based on the same mach kernel?.. right?

 

[jauh]

All WWDC attendees are bound by an NDA. All session material is covered by the NDA. The keynote isn't covered (obviously). I would think the use of the development machine would be included in the NDA

having bought (yes, bought) the kit, and apple having my money, i can tell you that i didn't have to sign anything nor was there even a click through agreement, just buy->checkout->enter details->confirm details->charge card->here's your receipt and order number... next day a call from my credit company asking if i authorised the payment and that's it...

 

[mrichmon]

you do know that winnt/2k/xp and macos x are based on the same mach kernel?.. right?

That is patently false.

OS X is based on the mach kernel code with significant modifications made by Apple.

Windows NT 3.5 was based on the microkernel architecture *idea* first implemented in the mach kernel. But Windows NT 3.5 has never shared any code with Mach. For Windows NT 4 and later versions in the same family (2k & XP) Microsoft intentionally moved away from the microkernel idea by moving more and more services into the core kernel.

Many of the modifications made by Apple to Mach involved a similar process of moving various services into the kernel core. Although the Apple approach was more selective than what Microsoft did.

The microkernel idea might be the same but the implementations have never been from the same or even from a related codebase.

 

[hernick]

The power of choice.

Apple now supports both x86 and PPC architectures, and will continue to do so for much longer than 3 years. By default, their development tools will create universal binaries; applications aren't so much ported to x86 as they are made universal. Future applications will not start being x86-only; it's as easy to make a universal application as it is to make a single-architecture application.

Apple now has choice. And it is in their best interest to keep all their options open - this is why they push Universal Binaries, and will continue to do so for many, many years.

Let's take a look at what they'll be able to choose from in 2006:

* IBM: dual-core PPC970MP PPC64
* AMD: dual-core Athlon64/Opteron x86-64
* Intel: dual-core Pentium M x86, dual-core Pentium 4 x86-64
* VIA: ultra-low power, dual-core Isaiah CN x86-64
* Freescale: dual-core G4 PPC32
* Sun: (not Apple compatible but noteworthy) Niagara, 8-core UltraSPARC, 32 thread HT

If we look a little further ahead, in 2007-2008:

* IBM: dual-core POWER5 PPC64 derivative, POWER6
* AMD: quad-core x86-64, dual-core Athlon64 x86-64 derivative
* Intel: dual-core Pentium M x86-64 derivative, 8+1-core server processor
* IBM/Sony/Toshiba: quad-core desktop Cell PPC64+32 SPE units
* Sun: (not Apple compatible but noteworthy) Rock, 8-core 2nd-gen Niagara

Okay. All of this is very speculative, but based on roadmaps provided by the chip makers themselves. One thing is certain: not all of these chips will be released on schedule. Some of them will suck.

However, there will be a couple of awesome chips in there. And Apple will be able to pick. With OS X already running on PPC32, PPC64, x86 and x86-64, with the option of an easy port to POWER... Apple can choose the best chips.

They can pick and use the best notebook chips, the best desktop chips, and the best server chips. As for chipsets, which have often been a problem in past Macs, well... They can now choose between Intel, VIA, AMD, NVidia, SIS and ATI chipsets.

Apple now has a choice of many suppliers for every single component. No longer will they be affected by supply problems. This move gives them the assurance that no matter what, they'll be able to use the best hardware out there, and that'll make them more competitive than ever.

 

[steeldrivingjon]

1. Intel won't want to spend the money on a small run of specialized CPU's, since Apple will only be buying a small percentage of Intel's product. No reason to make a separate Pentium M + Altivec when no one else will want it.

They probably would want it, but then it wouldn't be unique to Apple, so that'd be kind of a wash.

And an Apple-only feature would put Apple in the same place they're in now with IBM... they'd be a tiny part of Intel's business, trying to get more support than they're worth.

They will want Apple to just take their pick of what they have available. Having said that, I could imagine Intel being influenced by Apple's innovation pressure to come up with further new ideas, but likely those would be used across the board, not just for Apple.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple influenced the design of SSE4, should there be one.

2. Unfortunately, we can all point to great technology that Apple developed and pushed hard, then just walked away from (mostly due to Steve's business decisions). Apple has been pushing developers more and more to take advantage of Altivec lately, and now will just say "too bad, get over it".

If developers used AltiVec via the APIs provided by Apple, then Apple can smooth the transition by rewriting those APIs to use Intel equivalents (where possible). Ideally, developers wouldn't have to change anything, but they probably will because that degree of low-level optimization usually gets pretty specific to the processor. Altivec-oriented functions probably need datatypes of a certain format or alignment, which may be different from what SSE needs. But it shouldn't be too bad.

It would be a bit trickier where assembly code is used to call the Altivec instructions directly.

So, if a developer was using the vecLib or Accelerate libraries from Apple, it might not be so bad. CoreImage and CoreVideo ought to make excellent use of SSE3 in place of AltiVec, without needing to change much, or any, code. And any investment in AltiVec code will still keep your G4 and G5 customers happy probably to the next decade ( I wouldn't be surprised if Apple ships universal-binary operating systems for PPC and Intel until 2010, if not longer. I wouldn't be surprised if 10.5 and 10.6 are each shipped as one DVD that covers both kinds of Mac).

On the plus side, there's probably a lot more information about using SSE3, than there is about using AltiVec. Your local Borders probably has a few books about using SSE, but almost certainly has none about AltiVec.

 

[steeldrivingjon]

* Sun: (not Apple compatible but noteworthy) Niagara, 8-core UltraSPARC, 32 thread HT

When Apple bought NeXT, one of the things they got was NeXT's operating system for SPARC.

I seriously doubt Apple has had OS X running on SPARC for five years as well, but it probably wouldn't be very hard to get there.

The fact is, Apple can move OS X to most any CPU without much trouble. NeXT had their OS on at least four different CPU architectures (and one or two extra in the lab).

The real difficulty is moving everybody else's software. Everything that makes it over to Intel will be that much easier to move to whatever's next.

It might not be a bad thing if Apple switches CPU architecture every few years, just to keep everybody on their toes. ;^)

 

[steeldrivingjon]

having bought (yes, bought) the kit, and apple having my money, i can tell you that i didn't have to sign anything nor was there even a click through agreement, just buy->checkout->enter details->confirm details->charge card->here's your receipt and order number... next day a call from my credit company asking if i authorised the payment and that's it...

If you bought it, then you're a member of ADC at a level which receives software seeds, which requires that you sign an NDA. The kit would be covered under that NDA.

 

[steeldrivingjon]

"Faster" intel Macs

One possible way for Intel Macs to have a speed advantage, however brief, would be if Intel provided Apple with early access to new, faster chips before production ramps up to scales required by Dell.

For example, I think NeXT may have shipped 68040-based machines before Apple did, because of NeXT's much smaller volumes. A year's worth of chips for NeXT would probably be a day's worth for Apple, so Motorola could afford to give them to NeXT while production was too low for Apple to feed their manufacturing lines.

The only problem with this strategem is the possibility that this period of time might be too short to be useful, in the case of Intel. Also, Apple may not sell few enough machines, compared to the PC cloners, for this to be viable.

 

[Peace]

One possible way for Intel Macs to have a speed advantage, however brief, would be if Intel provided Apple with early access to new, faster chips before production ramps up to scales required by Dell.

For example, I think NeXT may have shipped 68040-based machines before Apple did, because of NeXT's much smaller volumes. A year's worth of chips for NeXT would probably be a day's worth for Apple, so Motorola could afford to give them to NeXT while production was too low for Apple to feed their manufacturing lines.

The only problem with this strategem is the possibility that this period of time might be too short to be useful, in the case of Intel. Also, Apple may not sell few enough machines, compared to the PC cloners, for this to be viable.

While that seems reasonable my thought is this.

Intel is getting beat by AMD.MS,Sony and Nintendo are switching to the PPC core..Intel is in dire need of some great PR and what better way than to introduce the new Mac on the Intel..This way Intel can say (in 2 years) look here!! Apple Computer uses the new P*** chips.Wouldnt YOU want one?.

I think Intel will spend the money in R&D with Apple just to give them a better name in 2 years.