Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
PowerMac 970 Benchmarks?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Originally posted by cc bcc
I don't believe these benchmarks. Cinema 4d is normaly about 1.7 to 1.8 times faster on a dual cpu system, not here. And it clealy shows that Bryce 5 benifits from dual cpu's, which is not true in real life. Sorry, these are fake.
That is exactly my take as well.
Sorry guys, but these benchmarks are FAKE. Bryce 5 does not take advantage of dual processors, so there is no way that the DP 970 1.8 is so much faster in Bryce 5 than the SP 970 1.4.
Now, I wouldn't be shocked if in general the real benchmarks look like this when the machines are actually released (they are not totally ridiculous, it's just that the person who made them clearly knew so little about the respective applications that s/he didn't even bother to figure out that the Bryce rendering engine isn't multithreaded.)
The "bad" new is thus not that these benchmarks are a completely inaccurate protrayal of the 970's potential, but rather that EVERYTHING that MacBidouille has told us (including schedules, etc.) is HIGHLY suspect. The smart money would bet heavily against MacBidouille's predictions now.
To see how little effect multiple processors have on Bryce performance, you can check out this BareFeats article http://www.barefeats.com/pm1000.html
exactly how I think. why would they make this up, but how come they have access to future machines.
Actually, my money is on these predictions if MacBidouille actually DOES somehow have acess to these machines. If they do or have data about them, it would not be unlikely to also have a Bryce patch that can take advantage of DP. If you think about it, these patches would be made for apple people so they can check these types of benchmarks.
However, going back to whole original debate, i dont really believe these numbers are real. I don't, however, think they can be passed off as fake because of these Bryce issues. I just have a feeling, however wrong it may be, that 970's would not be the types of things that apple would let rumors get through about. Think about it. This would be a HUGE revalation in processing, so don't you all think that it would be kept under heavy secrecy? I think everything that we "think" we know is totally wrong.
Uh... sorry for the long confusing rant.
However, going back to whole original debate, i dont really believe these numbers are real. I don't, however, think they can be passed off as fake because of these Bryce issues. I just have a feeling, however wrong it may be, that 970's would not be the types of things that apple would let rumors get through about. Think about it. This would be a HUGE revalation in processing, so don't you all think that it would be kept under heavy secrecy? I think everything that we "think" we know is totally wrong.
Uh... sorry for the long confusing rant.
I do not believe any of this
I say slow down people. These PPC970 introduction rumors and benchmarks from MacBidouille are so far fetched that they verge on complete science fiction. Come back in about a year and they may be closer to the truth.
[post edited by moderator. Please refrain from attacking other nationalities]
And, of course, all of these rumors they are posting sure doesn't hurt their page views and they've been wrong before but people still keep coming back.
I say slow down people. These PPC970 introduction rumors and benchmarks from MacBidouille are so far fetched that they verge on complete science fiction. Come back in about a year and they may be closer to the truth.
[post edited by moderator. Please refrain from attacking other nationalities]
And, of course, all of these rumors they are posting sure doesn't hurt their page views and they've been wrong before but people still keep coming back.
Yes, you can exclude such a possibility.
The benchmarks are fakes - end of story.
By extension, most of the other stuff that MacB has been posting is probably also fake.
You guys are just way too optimistic.
But on the plus side, I wouldn't be THAT shocked if the real 970 were to perform like that when it is released (at least at the higher clock speeds).
Argh. No. The Power 4 already has multiple cores, so a multicore Power 5 is nothing new. What the Power 5 brings to the plate (among other things) is simultaneous multithreading (SMT), which allows each CORE to appear to the OS to be two or more (in IBM's case, 4, I believe) processors.
So SMT is actually the OPPOSITE of what the guy who started this discussion was talking about. He wanted a technology that makes two processor cores appear as one single core (no such technology exists). What Power 5 (and possibly the "PPC 980", if such a beast comes into existence) will do is make one processor core appear as two cores.
But at the end of the day, Bryce 5 still wouldn't run any faster with SMT, because it still doesn't talk advantage of multiple processors!
wow, I saw one little message about the benchmarks a few hours ago, made a quick webarchive of the whole page just incase it's taken down and within minutes it made it to the main page on here!!
That's really quick, I havn't been able to post for an hour or so because the site has been so slow and I was watching a cool show about spy technology and stuff!
I don't think the results are that far off what you'd expect given the fact that on paper a PPC970 is around twice as fast as a G4 of the same clockspeed, add the huge increase in memory bandwidth (an obvious big speed increase the case of the dual 970 system and Altivec performance) and it seems quite realistic.
The bryce result seems very suspect. Even though the dual 1.8Ghz system CAN allocate an entire CPU to the task, it certainly seems over the top to expect
I don't actually think a 1.4Ghz PPC970 would be either equal to or faster than a 3Ghz P4. We need more info about the specs.
How much RAM did each system have installed ?
Is the RAM in the 970 systems dual channel DDR3200 giving 6.4Gb/s or is it some other configuration only supplying 3.2Gb/s or maybe even less ?
What kind of P4 system ?
There's the newer 800Mhz FSB (200Mhz x 4) versions now, you'd assume the tests would be against the older 533Mhz FSB (133 x 4) version unless they specifically mentioned it.
I just hope we get some seriously cool systems coming out that really do perform that much faster, we need it, apple needs it, not to mention those ads with the burning intel geeks are just plain funny!!
That's really quick, I havn't been able to post for an hour or so because the site has been so slow and I was watching a cool show about spy technology and stuff!
I don't think the results are that far off what you'd expect given the fact that on paper a PPC970 is around twice as fast as a G4 of the same clockspeed, add the huge increase in memory bandwidth (an obvious big speed increase the case of the dual 970 system and Altivec performance) and it seems quite realistic.
The bryce result seems very suspect. Even though the dual 1.8Ghz system CAN allocate an entire CPU to the task, it certainly seems over the top to expect
I don't actually think a 1.4Ghz PPC970 would be either equal to or faster than a 3Ghz P4. We need more info about the specs.
How much RAM did each system have installed ?
Is the RAM in the 970 systems dual channel DDR3200 giving 6.4Gb/s or is it some other configuration only supplying 3.2Gb/s or maybe even less ?
What kind of P4 system ?
There's the newer 800Mhz FSB (200Mhz x 4) versions now, you'd assume the tests would be against the older 533Mhz FSB (133 x 4) version unless they specifically mentioned it.
I just hope we get some seriously cool systems coming out that really do perform that much faster, we need it, apple needs it, not to mention those ads with the burning intel geeks are just plain funny!!
Hi all, a few words from the MacBidouille's team.
- We don't make any money out of the number of visitors.
- The tests results are not invented, they were sent by a very good source.
- However if this source was 100% reliable it wouldn't be a rumor but a news.
Re: I do not believe any of this
Uh, okay, the MacBd rumors are clearly false, but your whole French conspiracy theory is equally ridiculous. Pot, kettle, black.
Uh, okay, the MacBd rumors are clearly false, but your whole French conspiracy theory is equally ridiculous. Pot, kettle, black.
Re: Re: Re: Two things jump out at me...
They didn't. But, in order to get any benefit out of a 167MHz FSB, they would have to get SDRAM that was faster than PC133. PC 166 *does* exist, but is wildly expensive and rare. The solution, then, is PC2700 (DDR333), which would remain synchronous (on every other RAM clock pulse) with the FSB on the G4. Notice that on the models that have a 133MHz FSB (such as the original XServe or the 12" Powerbook) and includes DDR, that they run PC2100 (DDR266). Again, synchronous on every other RAM clock pulse.
This is the other reason they put DDR in there... Marketing. (like you said) Peecees have it, so you sound like a dinosaur if you're not sportin'. But as I understand it, having your memory synchronous (or evenly divisible by) with your FSB is optimal for throughput.
I think, though, we'll see some interesting RAM configurations for the new 970 machines. Since there is no "Front Side Bus" per se (Hypertransport isn't a bus), we'll be hearing more and more about troughput speeds (gb/s) than MHz now. HT offers a max thruput of 6.4GB/s of dedicated bandwidth to each processor (since HT is point to point and not a bus, the P4 *shares* it's bus bandwidth). 6.4GB/s is a lovely high number... and just happens to be the bandwith provided by Dual channel DDR400.
hrmmm... sounds like a no-brainer to me.
Dharvabinky
They didn't. But, in order to get any benefit out of a 167MHz FSB, they would have to get SDRAM that was faster than PC133. PC 166 *does* exist, but is wildly expensive and rare. The solution, then, is PC2700 (DDR333), which would remain synchronous (on every other RAM clock pulse) with the FSB on the G4. Notice that on the models that have a 133MHz FSB (such as the original XServe or the 12" Powerbook) and includes DDR, that they run PC2100 (DDR266). Again, synchronous on every other RAM clock pulse.
This is the other reason they put DDR in there... Marketing. (like you said) Peecees have it, so you sound like a dinosaur if you're not sportin'. But as I understand it, having your memory synchronous (or evenly divisible by) with your FSB is optimal for throughput.
I think, though, we'll see some interesting RAM configurations for the new 970 machines. Since there is no "Front Side Bus" per se (Hypertransport isn't a bus), we'll be hearing more and more about troughput speeds (gb/s) than MHz now. HT offers a max thruput of 6.4GB/s of dedicated bandwidth to each processor (since HT is point to point and not a bus, the P4 *shares* it's bus bandwidth). 6.4GB/s is a lovely high number... and just happens to be the bandwith provided by Dual channel DDR400.
hrmmm... sounds like a no-brainer to me.
Dharvabinky
My general impression is that MacB has some good sources. Past experiences have proved this.
This being said it is not completely out of question that these results are false (either faked by MacB or their source). SpyMac started its empire by concocting a similar fraud. Despite everyone knowing SpyMac created this fraud (iWalk) it has still grown into a very valuable site. The Mac web has put out the impression that you can lie and cheat and spit in our faces and we will love you for it. The recent entry of MacWhispers (created to funnel traffic into a fraudulent mac company) and their very poor rumor record has shown that people have learned that they can make money lying and cheating Mac enthusiasts and rumor followers.
I do not get this same feeling from MacB (they seem like good guys) but considering the other creeps out there, and the success of their schemes, i would not discount the possibility that yet another person (either MacB or their source) is lying to us for fun, fame, or profit.
That would really makes no sense at all (for Corel to have MP optimizations for Bryce 5 that they never bothered to release). But to your credit, at least you don't believe (in the end) that the MacBd benchmarks are correct.
I GUARANTEE that these benchmarks are fakes. Why? Well, first of all, the Bryce issue that many of us have already noted.
Second, the results for the DP 1.42 G4 and the PIV 3.06 are just COPIED DIRECTLY from results on BareFeats. Just look here, [url]http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html[/URL]
Even if the MacBd testers managed to run the exact same test suite that BareFeats did, there would still be a testing deviation that would make the numbers not exactly the same (e.g. MacBd might get 35 sec or 32 sec for the same test that Barefeats times at 33 secs). But instead, in a feat of bizarre statistical coincidence, they get the exact same numbers for all of the tests! Plus it is infinitely improbable that the MacBD testers would choose the exact same tests as BareFeats...it's not like they were running a standardized test suite or anything.
Basically, what has clearly happened here is that whoever made this up went over to the BareFeats site, copied the results for the DP 1.42 G4 and the 3.06 P4, made up their own numbers for the 970 processors, and then sent these files off to MacBd.
If you still think that these benchmarks are real at this point, you are smoking some seriously strong stuff. Get over it - they're fakes.
I haven't made final judgement on these specs, but I do have a couple of comments here:
1. Regaurdless of what you think of MacB, even if you think ridiculous nonsense about them being French. Ruors do not typically make it to the front page of this site unless there is some coioberating evidence, that's why Macrumors is the best of all the rumor site.
2. It took awhile for the leaked DD powermac pictures to get slapped down, that would explain a delay from apple legal, it is international afterall.
PS. There is a tornado about 15 miles from downtown here in Nashville, and I am now offically stuck at work.
1. Regaurdless of what you think of MacB, even if you think ridiculous nonsense about them being French. Ruors do not typically make it to the front page of this site unless there is some coioberating evidence, that's why Macrumors is the best of all the rumor site.
2. It took awhile for the leaked DD powermac pictures to get slapped down, that would explain a delay from apple legal, it is international afterall.
PS. There is a tornado about 15 miles from downtown here in Nashville, and I am now offically stuck at work.
IBM... IBM... IBM...
We've all seen some of our last G4s from motorola... wave bye bye... *grin*
Look at my pure genius.
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22170
You read it here first.
Dharvabinky
We've all seen some of our last G4s from motorola... wave bye bye... *grin*
Look at my pure genius.
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22170
You read it here first.
Dharvabinky
I find it mildly amusing that almost everyone who posts saying that these are fake benchmarks also say that they expect the real numbers to be somewhat similar. Hedging our bets?
As to the question of Bryce 5, I don't know much about this, but I'd like to chime in with the fact that I know of a piece of professional software which, in the latest beta, supports dual processors. Heretofore, this software has not, so the existence of some kind of dual proc support in Bryce 5 that isn't available to the public isn't an instant indication of fake.
Now, about the barefeats numbers, I could easily see the following situation. A guy at Apple who has been a source for MacB sees the numbers on BareFeats, and runs similar tests on 970 based machines that he has access to, using software that he has access to (including, presumably, a new beta of Bryce that supports dual processors). He then copies the G4 and P4 results from BareFeats, tacks on his results from his impromptu 970 test, and sends them off to MacB. Sure, this wouldn't be a great, perfectly accurate test situation, but it would get a general idea across, and I'm sure that would be his intention.
Now, all of that said, I have no opinion, one way or the other, about the legitimacy of these rumors. I certainly hope they are real, as they would be really great news for the Mac community - back to the days when Macs were the fastest personal computers around. But, I have no basis from which to judge these numbers. I must simply wait and see...
As to the question of Bryce 5, I don't know much about this, but I'd like to chime in with the fact that I know of a piece of professional software which, in the latest beta, supports dual processors. Heretofore, this software has not, so the existence of some kind of dual proc support in Bryce 5 that isn't available to the public isn't an instant indication of fake.
Now, about the barefeats numbers, I could easily see the following situation. A guy at Apple who has been a source for MacB sees the numbers on BareFeats, and runs similar tests on 970 based machines that he has access to, using software that he has access to (including, presumably, a new beta of Bryce that supports dual processors). He then copies the G4 and P4 results from BareFeats, tacks on his results from his impromptu 970 test, and sends them off to MacB. Sure, this wouldn't be a great, perfectly accurate test situation, but it would get a general idea across, and I'm sure that would be his intention.
Now, all of that said, I have no opinion, one way or the other, about the legitimacy of these rumors. I certainly hope they are real, as they would be really great news for the Mac community - back to the days when Macs were the fastest personal computers around. But, I have no basis from which to judge these numbers. I must simply wait and see...
Arn,
Honestly, you should consider moving this rumor to Page 2 (if not dropping it altogether). As I pointed out in an earlier posting, the benchmarks for the G4 and the P4 are clearly just copied from the BareFeats website. This stuff is worse than just made up - it's plagiarized. There is really no question at this point that the 970 numbers are faked.
(see http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html)
Mike
that's it, i'm gonna start saving for a new powermac!!! i wont expect it too soon because i dont want to be disappointed so i say they'll have it by jan. 2004. i should have a few grand by then....
If Apple did that, it would be obvious that it's true. Maybe Apple is ignoring it so we won't know whether or not it's true. If it is, I'll be happy because of the 970, but upset, cuz I just bought a G4 a couple months ago.