No apparent speed gains from new powermacs READ!


edesignuk

Moderator emeritus
Mar 25, 2002
19,077
1
London, England
Kinda makes me feel better that I didn't wait all those months and just got my "old" DP1Ghz when I did, it doesn't look like owners of the new ones will benifit greatly over me and my DP1Ghz QS, better lookin' too!
 

King Cobra

macrumors 603
Mar 2, 2002
5,403
0
Don't forget, though, a bigger L3 Cache can do a bigger job. The older dual GHz Macs (original dual GHz PowerMac, Xserve) had a 2MB L3 Cache, while the new dual has a small 1MB L3 Cache (per chip in each case). The dual 1.25GHz has the 4MB total. But, for a price cut of $500 you really don't lose THAT much power.

Besides, you just can't ignore the 18 Gigaflops the fastest Mac can produce now. :)
 

Chryx

macrumors regular
Jul 8, 2002
248
0
Notice how all the tests were relatively small dataset tests...

could someone try a photoshop comparison on a 900MB tiff between the two, the faster bus speed on the new one should give it a clear lead over the old one, even though it has less L3 cache.

(I think photoshop is horrible as a cross platform benchmark, but it's good for like-with-like :)
 

Mr Jobs

macrumors regular
Apr 7, 2002
188
0
London, England
Originally posted by Megaquad
I like the screeming part...so,lets screem!
lets not get all worked up yet after all this is just one view (benchmark) others may find different results. after all benchmarks does seem to vary depending on who's doing them.
 

drastik

macrumors 6502a
Apr 10, 2002
978
0
Nashvegas
hmm, that's too bad, I'd love to see a speed increase. Oh well, at least its $400 dollars cheaper now, price is more in line with performance.
 

Chryx

macrumors regular
Jul 8, 2002
248
0
Originally posted by firewire2001
i guess the ddr ram isnt actually fully ddr and is just a gimic and costs more money to buy more of.. >.<

The ram is fully DDR, the processor <-> memory controller bus isn't though, other hardware can however utilise the bandwidth that the processor can't.

These tests seem to be small dataset things that would seem to mostly operate within the L3 cache, or be CPU bound..

I say we wait for bigger/meaner tests that are more stressing on the overall system.

(Though I'm not entirely familiar with the photoshop test they ran, anyone care to elaborate on it?)
 

Mr. Anderson

Moderator emeritus
Nov 1, 2001
22,407
0
VA
I'm thinking this *new* machine is just a stop gap until they can get a new chip - the Power4 - in the mix. Its unfortunate that they're limited in throughput, but the new machines can be expanded beyond the older ones. So its not a total loss.

I'm going to wait around till the new generation comes out.

D
 

OSeXy!

macrumors regular
Jan 17, 2002
239
0
London (or virtually here)
I had thought the DDR PMac seemed more evolutionary than revolutionary, but those Barefeats numbers even call that into question.

I guess this rev. should be seen as a price-drop rather than a real power-increase (but maybe the 1.25 with its bigger L3 will give a significant boost?). Here's hoping Steve has something really big stuffed up his black jersey sleeve next MW... The natives are getting restless.
 

ShaolinMiddleFinger

macrumors 6502a
Oct 12, 2001
745
0
Originally posted by drastik
hmm, that's too bad, I'd love to see a speed increase. Oh well, at least its $400 dollars cheaper now, price is more in line with performance.
I totally agree with you.

It looks like Photoshop and Bryce are slower, too....what gives? Now I have to re-think about buying the old one instead of the new Powermac.....
 

ffakr

macrumors 6502a
Jul 2, 2002
618
0
Chicago
Originally posted by dukestreet
I'm thinking this *new* machine is just a stop gap until they can get a new chip - the Power4 - in the mix. Its unfortunate that they're limited in throughput, but the new machines can be expanded beyond the older ones. So its not a total loss.
D
The new chip IS NOT A POWER4! Geez.
The blurb that everyone is hanging their hopes on explicitly says that IBM is showing a 64 bit POWERPC chip that was influenced by the Power4 line. If you buy a crappy 1980's Camaro Berneletta (sp?) that DOESN'T mean you are getting an italian sports car.

The Power4 uses a {slightly} different instruction set from the PowerPC. We don't want a processor from the Power line, we want a better PowerPC.
 

Chryx

macrumors regular
Jul 8, 2002
248
0
Originally posted by ffakr


The new chip IS NOT A POWER4! Geez.
The blurb that everyone is hanging their hopes on explicitly says that IBM is showing a 64 bit POWERPC chip that was influenced by the Power4 line. If you buy a crappy 1980's Camaro Berneletta (sp?) that DOESN'T mean you are getting an italian sports car.

The Power4 uses a {slightly} different instruction set from the PowerPC. We don't want a processor from the Power line, we want a better PowerPC.
POWER4 = PowerPC-64 implementation

All the material I've seen points to the POWER4 being a PPC-64 chip already, not a POWER chip (aside from the branding)

Including an IBM datasheet than I'm now struggling to find.
 

OSeXy!

macrumors regular
Jan 17, 2002
239
0
London (or virtually here)
Originally posted by ftaok
So is he implying that the 1.25ghz PMac will use the 7470?
No, I think he's saying (hoping?) the 7455 will be short-lived in the new PMac and that the next revision will use the same MoBo, but silently replaces the 7455 with the less restricting 7470. Sort of the opposite of the Yikes! routine (where it was 'right chip, wrong motherboard').
 

elensil

macrumors regular
Jul 1, 2002
130
0
Brooklyn, NY
Well no "APPARENT SPEED GAIN" due to the new BUS is upsetting...

But I concider it GOOD NEWS for me....
The only reason i was considering buying a 1ghz over the base model was the new bus. Now i khow its completely useless, so i can just pay $1597 (with a student discount) and fell great about myself.

Thank you Apple for making no "APPARENT IMPROVEMENTS" in architecture since the last year.
 

King Cobra

macrumors 603
Mar 2, 2002
5,403
0
All right. I'm not too sure if even half of you guys even paid attention to the article and the little "**" beside the L3 cache, but that can do a lot of help. Reread my post, if you are still worried.

ffakr, READ duke's DAMN POST MORE CAREFULLY before you go and slam him out the damn door. [Settling down...] He stated that the current new chip in the current new PowerMac is supposed to be, basically, a hold over until the newer chip, the Power4, becomes implanted in upcoming PowerMacs.

OSeXy, well put. I'm glad someone understands this whole damn ordeal. :)

elensil, you are a complete moron. Not to make this sound like a flame post, but...

Apple would have had put in faster chips and kept the old design if Motorola could produce the faster 7470 chips in both fast speeds and in suffecient quantity. But the [censored] there could not perform this duty. The result: Apple had no choice, but to overclock their current chips in order to get faster PowerMacs out the door.

Plain and simple: Apple is in the tightest spot you can think of with these PowerMacs. Once Apple gets the supposed Power4 going you probably won't have to worry about any of these "Yikes!" issues.
 

elensil

macrumors regular
Jul 1, 2002
130
0
Brooklyn, NY
My post meant to bring up the spirits and offer a different point of view on the whole ordeal.

Ps I wonder why Queeny takes things so personaly:)

PPS I do not claim to be a hardware expert so corrections are welcome.
 

King Cobra

macrumors 603
Mar 2, 2002
5,403
0
elensil, flat out and simple, this below statement sounded like you were blaming Apple.

>Thank you Apple for making no "APPARENT IMPROVEMENTS" in architecture since the last year.

If I sounded overwhelming, it was because Apple is not the one to blame. Remember, Motorola has been the supplier for Apple's chips and had to be aided once before. Now, Motorola just cannot pull off the faster chips. Apple didn't have a choice, but to increase their chip speeds.

Again, Apple is not to blame, but those :eek::eek:s at Motorola. :)