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

IBM PowerPC 970 vs Intel Pentium 4

Re: You Technolusters!!

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
For 95% of the Mac users out there, performance worries disappeared a couple hundered mHz ago. A 1.8 gHz PPC 970 won't be discernably different from an 800 mHz G4 (or even G3 for that matter). Most of the apps that people run are relatively simple

Let's at least get Apple back in the race!
Click to expand...

Eeeh.. Damn games! I can't stop thinking of them! Doom III, for example... It'll EAT Megaherz! But I am also for the idea to get Apple back into race. But not to the third place! IntelAMDApple
 
Console VS Computers for games

Well first off computer are always ahead of consoles as graphics are concerned. Plus the fact that Doom 3 isn't comming out for console at least anytime around the time that it's released for PC/Mac/Linux, plus, most important for me, if you've ever tried to play a FPS with a joystick VS a keyboard and mouse you're movement ability is greatly restricted and cumbersome with a jotstick. Me with my keyboard and mouse and anyone with a joystick... you're going down!!!* ;)

* not that I'm all that good anyway, just saying it's easier! :)
 
Re: Re: Re: You Technolusters!!

Originally posted by jayscheuerle


I'm not a gamer, but if I was, my first inclination would be to buy a PS2 or an Xbox. What advantages (other than resolution) do computer games hold over these consoles?
Click to expand...

Extensibility. You can modify them! There are several genres which can not be implemented on consoles - RPG (real), Strategy (Good). Consoles are getting old faster. And so on. And computer gives you an opportunity to work (you'd like it to work fast, eh?) and play (leisure. kids love that. Parents buy computers. It is what Apple wants, eh?) at the same time.
 
Console VS Computers for games

I guess I'd give up graphics quality for the ability to play it on the tv with some friends, kind of like how I prefer to play all my CD's as mp3's through my stereo even though they sound inferior.

Sometimes convenience has precidence over quality.;)

I can do all my work on a beige G3, but I don't think I could play many games. The best graphics card I can get is the Radeon 7000 pci... I'd much rather invest $400 in a gaming system than $1600 in a computer!
 
Re: Console VS Computers for games

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
I guess I'd give up graphics quality for the ability to play it on the tv with some friends, kind of like how I prefer to play all my CD's as mp3's through my stereo even though they sound inferior.

Sometime convenience has precidence over quality.;)

I can do all my work on a beige G3, but I don't think I could play many games. The best graphics card I can get is the Radeon 7000 pci... I'd much rather invest $400 in a gaming system than $1600 in a computer!
Click to expand...

Play over the Internet. And there are tons of games for G3... Simple games. As for investment, you are right. But in the country where computer games cost $2, I think we have enough reasons to buy a PC. For $600. (PC not Mac!)
 
Re: Re: Console VS Computers for games

Originally posted by Flickta


Play over the Internet.
Click to expand...

Do you mean as opposed to sitting next to real people?! That's not the same in my book, but that's probably one of the many reasons I don't play video games (console or computer). I will admit to being a big Atari 2600 fan back in Junior High, but that was the last console I was regularly around.

Heck, I'm grateful to gamers though. They're probably 90% of the reason that processor speeds are as high as they are now (especially in the PC world). :) :p
 
I need all the speed I can get, I do a lot of 3D modelling and my Mac is just not fast enough. I have started to use a PC for it now. Also when Apple releases the 970, Intel will be at 4-5Ghz. They already have working 4Ghz prototypes.

But there is good news in these P4 clock speeds. Intel will and is having problems releasing the new P5 because the megahertz gap is so great. I have hearld that the P5 is meant to max out at around 2Ghz at the moment. So sometime in the future, the P4 will come to a point where it can not go any faster and Intel will have to wait to release the P5, until it's clock speeds increase.

Basically the P4 is a slow CPU, but it is able to have very high clock speeds. This is good for Intel in the short term, but not the long term.
 
The one thing that I'd like to point out, is the fact that the 970 reaches another tier of speed that was previously a dream to Mac users (well, it still is just a rumor).

But just think about it:

PowerMac G4
- up to 1250MHz
- 166MHz System Bus
- SDRAM (more or less)
- .18 Micron Manufacturing
- 256K L2 Cache
- 32-bit Processing

IBM 970
- up to 1.8GHz
- 800MHz System Bus
- DDR RAM
- .13 Micron Manufacturing (moving to 90nm)
- 512K L2 Cache
- 64-bit Processing

All-in-all, the 970 KILLS the G4. With a larger L2 cache, an astoundingly fast system bus, actual support for DDR memory, and a more efficient design, the 970 should slaughter the G4. But don't forget, the new 64-bit architecture will allow for insane amounts of memory, further allowing entire programs to run inside the memory, and thus avoid the hard disk as much as possible.

I'm excited, even if the 970 doesn't match up against the Prescot P4/P5.
 
At least we're getting into some real comparisons where the 970 is faster at everything than an equal speed P4. No more of that crap about the Mac being twice as fast only in AltiVec-optimized Photoshop.
 
MP Systems

It's not nessesarily the application software that has to be coded for multi-processors - it's the OS's ability to throw different processes and/or threads across those multi-proc's.

As long as your code is multi-threaded, an SMP aware OS will spread the work over the available CPUs.

Some OS's that support SMP:
  • Mac OS X
  • Windows NT/2000/XP Pro
  • Linux
  • xBSD
  • BeOS
  • Solaris, Irix, HP-UX (and most Unix's)
Some OS's that don't support SMP:
  • Classic Mac OS*
  • Windows 3.x/95/98/Me/XP Home
  • MS-DOS/PC-DOS
* Some applications can access the 2nd processor if coded explicitly to do so on classic Mac OS but the OS is not SMP capable. As far as I know, none of the other OS's could even allow that. Although anything is possible, especially if you coded to the hardware directly - but then you are taking the OS out of the picture anyway.
 
That's great, but...

First of all I'd like to say I think that it would be great if Apple chooses to use the 970. It appears that it will be a tremendously better chip than the G4, as it should be. Also, I think this will aide Apple should they use it in future laptop designs considering future competition.

Before I comment on the competition, I would like to touch upon other posts comments, especially those concerning a P4 vs. 970. Let me start by saying you are comparing a chip that is built, shipped, and used everyday to a chip that is to be released in the second half of next year. Also, I'm tired of people saying that it doesn't matter if Intel or AMD have faster chips because people don't need faster computers. That is apologist crap. Call me a heathen, but I don't like seeing the spinnning disk when I open a PDF file while I'm checking my email and listening to MP3s. When I'm able to encode 1080i HDTV fullscreen in realtime while checking my email and listening to an MP3 without a hiccup then I might accept that argument. Until then...

To make the comparison fair of x486 to PPC, it seems you should be comparing the 970 to the unreleased Prescott chip that will be released at 3.4GHz and will feature 1MB of cache as well as Hyper-Threading, allowing certain applications to view the single chip as two chips. Remember, to make two chips substantially better than one chip you need software that is designed to exploit this otherwise the performance improvement is close to nil or, quite possibly, in the negative. Hence the fast movement towards and away from SMP on the PC side of the fence a few years back. Also, by the second half of next year Intel will have released Banias, it's low power consumption, more work per cycle, slower clock chip. (Sounds familiar to some other chip design/philosophy...) The important note about this chip is that it drops power consumption so much that a PC laptop that would theoretically last three hours will now last six. Not too shabby anyway you look at it. Also, it has integrated 802.11a/b dropping the overall price of a laptop. The only thing that looks like it might hinder Intel's total domination is Palladium, but that is another thread on another site...

On the plus side for the 970, it is 64-bit. This would be great for graphics/video/audio folks, but no programs I use would benefit (Word, Chimera, iTunes, emacs, War Craft III, Civ 3). And... um... it will run OS X 10.3. Also, it is a plus that IBM plans to scale the 970 all the way to 6GHz in the next 4? years. It looks like the future is potentially bright. But remember, Intel already has unreleased 4GHz prototype chips, many very bright workers, and very deep pockets. The future looks interesting...
 
Yea....

Did you know that those tests you saw comparing the chips were just RAW processing power?

The 970 will have Alti-Vec, it will have L3 Cache, it will most likely be Dual Processors, it will also be on OS X.

Now, this sounds like your being a hippocrit. The 970 is a fairly new chip, and it dosent have "Hyper-Threading" or any of that crap. If you compare the whole computer to a PC whole computer (as in the P4 with all its doodads to the 970 with Altivec and L3 cache) I believe that the 970 will come out on top.

Oh, maybe not in the newest Warcraft III or whatever. If games were compiled and accelerated for the mac (like Quake III) than the Mac vs PC challenge, well, there wouldnt be one.

Games like Red Faction, WarCraft, *JediKnight II, etc. do not support AltiVec and were not compiled to accelerate on the mac. If they were, the mac would be running up and above par to the PC game world.

(* means im not sure)
 
Re: Yea....

Originally posted by MacAztec
The 970 will have Alti-Vec, it will have L3 Cache, it will most likely be Dual Processors, it will also be on OS X.
Click to expand...
Last time I checked, PowerPC 970 will not have L3 at all.
CreativePro.com
"While the Power4 core has two processor cores and massive caches for MP implementations, the PowerPC 970 has only one processor core, an SIMD unit and a 512K on-die L2 cache. The cache includes error correction. The PowerPC 970, as described today, has no connectors for an L3 cache."
Click to expand...
Therefore, PowerPC 970 will have less cache than its competitors.

I wonder what Apple would say about that.
Apple Marketing Department
"Oh we were wrong, L3 doesn't matter when you have physical RAM to processor bus that's faster than the L3."
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by pgwalsh
I read in the paper the most home computers only increase your electric bill between $3 and $6 dollars a month, if left on all the time.
Click to expand...

That seems a tad unacceptable to me.
If only 1 million people decided to do that then you'd be wasting $3-$6 million worth of energy a month.

i_b_joshua
 
Games, if written for 64-bit mode, will scream.

Perhaps we can get the OpenGL system layers written in 64-bit (or altivec-optimized) and that will help the existing games, too.

Also one poster mentioned an "xlc" compiler from IBM which has substantially better optimization. Apple ought to license that and include it with the developer tools. I personally won't mind paying for it, if it's not absurdly expensive.
 
Re: Games, if written for 64-bit mode, will scream.

Originally posted by cubist
Perhaps we can get the OpenGL system layers written in 64-bit (or altivec-optimized) and that will help the existing games, too.

Also one poster mentioned an "xlc" compiler from IBM which has substantially better optimization. Apple ought to license that and include it with the developer tools. I personally won't mind paying for it, if it's not absurdly expensive.
Click to expand...
Yes, Unreal Tournament 2003 ported to 64 bit AMD Hammer got a 15 % increase in performance versus 32 bit version running on AMD Hammer.
 
Originally posted by i_b_joshua


That seems a tad unacceptable to me.
If only 1 million people decided to do that then you'd be wasting $3-$6 million worth of energy a month.

i_b_joshua
Click to expand...
I think your comment is funny. :p In terms of someone pointing out how much you save it's nbd. However, if you're folding or doing seti at home your helping a great cause at 3 to 6 million.

Considering my monthly bill averages around $200 a month I don't think 3 bones is going to make all the difference in the world to me. Most of my appliances are energy star compliant. I don't use a blow dryer and I always turn off the lights so maybe I save 2 or 3 bones here and there.
 
Originally posted by pgwalsh
I think your comment is funny. :p In terms of someone pointing out how much you save it's nbd. However, if you're folding or doing seti at home your helping a great cause at 3 to 6 million.
Click to expand...

Funny or not it was meant to be serious.

I've heard somewhere that if the US turned off all its appliances that sit around in 'standby' mode the nation would need 7-8 fewer power stations. Now that may not be correct but it's something to think about.

i_b_joshua
 
If the 970 came out now, it would kick, but the fact is that even overclocked chips can beat the 970.
It IS a step in the right direction but...
Hm... Does THIS ring a bell, BTW this will not come out in 2003, most likely mid-late 2004
*dies*
OMFG, Super-Mega Overclock.
4.1 GHZ. :eek: :eek: :eek: (sorry soo many but really)
The 970 can go head-head with the P4's Now but when they get mass-produced to compare with the future we will need dual-quad setups. Maybe matching the preformance of the newer processors.
 
Originally posted by bluecell
Yes, dual processors help apps like FCP, Logic, Maya, etc, but making everything dual processor to compensate for lack of speed is probably something Apple isn't too happy about. I've seen some pretty upsetting benchmarks that show that even the top end dual processor PowerMacs fall behind in performance compared to a single top end P4 or Xeon machine.
Click to expand...

Two processors also help when running more then one app at once. This is certainly the case in OSX 10.2 at least. I would like to see real world tests comparing the 2xG4 1.25GHz against any single processor P4. The test should include heavy Photoshop plugin tests while burning a DVD and rendinging in Maya all at the same time.
 
I think it's easy to lose sight of reality here.
Statements like
...the PowerPC 970 will surely be underwhelming--less of a "WOW" and more of a "Whew, just made it," and that's assuming all goes well.
Click to expand...
seem to sum up how everyone is starting to feel, until you consider the fact that a 970 really will leave the G4 in the dust.

I think some of us should reconsider our priorities. Which do we want most, an awesome new processor in our Macs or an 'Intel killer'? Personally if I had to choose between the two the former would win every time.

i_b_joshua
 
I think some of us should reconsider our priorities. Which do we want most, an awesome new processor in our Macs or an 'Intel killer'? Personally if I had to choose between the two the former would win every time.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, you are not the average consumer. When someone sees a computer advertised, the speed is the first thing noticed. Price is the second. When people see that PCs are faster and cheaper than Macs, they see what the better value is in terms of Mhz per dollar. THe ratio is obviously much higher for PCs.

I would like to see both "an awesome new processor in our Macs" and an "Intel Killer" because it is the best way to get people to switch. There was a time when Apple should have capitalized on the megahertz myth idea when PPCs actually had a real advantage over Pentiums.

It may be true that when it comes down to the bottom line, a few hundred megahertz here and there don't matter to the average consumer's tasks. But numbers=power in their eyes, not the operating system. The Switch campaign is helping, but it might be too little too late. Apple needs the power for these consumers (so that they switch) and for us (so that we don't).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back