Program that still runs faster on G5 than Intel.

Discussion in 'PowerPC Macs' started by takeshi7, Jan 17, 2014.

  1. takeshi7 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2014
    #1
    I just recently got a G5 Quad and I've been researching software for PowerPC. I found that distributed.net RC5-72 client, core for core is still faster than modern Intel processors.

    Benchmark page: http://cgi.distributed.net/speed/

    Each core of my G5 gets about 18.5M Keys/s. Can anyone explain to me How the G5 can keep up with every non-overclocked modern Intel CPUs? I thought the G5 only has around 60 million transistors per core.
     
  2. Intell macrumors P6

    Intell

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Location:
    Inside
    #2
    That program utilizes optimizations that are not available to x86 chips. Namely the shorter execution pipeline. Those number show a synthetic benchmark. In real world processes such as transcoding a DVD or modeling a protein, most 2007+ Intell chips will show a large speed gain over the a G5 PowerPC. Even the 68K CPUs beat a faster clocked 486 and even most Pentiums. Mostly as a result of Intell and other x86 chip designers' use of a longer execution pipeline. This follows the same basic principle as the megahertz myth.
     
  3. eyoungren macrumors P6

    eyoungren

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Location:
    Phoenix • 85037
    #3
    There's one app that having worked in day in and day on on both a G5 and now a Mac Pro I can say confidently is FASTER on the G5.

    Finder.app

    The Finder on the G5 at work is much snappier and more responsive than the Mac Pro.

    Personally, if I didn't have to stay current with apps, I'd have my boss just get another G5.

    Yay Mavericks! Not…
     
  4. takeshi7 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2014
    #4
    I think the small simple caches and slow memory subsystem(relatively high latency AND low MHz) hold the G5 back in applications like the ones you mentioned. It's a shame because the actual CPU is great. It's too bad Apple gave up on PowerPC. It had lots of potential. I would have liked to see a Power Mac G6 5GHz in 2007.
     
  5. mayuka macrumors 6502a

    mayuka

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    #5
    ... yeah... and the enormous cooling facility alongside with it... :(

    Don't get me wrong. I'm still convinced that PowerPC is a great architecture. Every time I use the Finder or some apps (that are already loaded into memory) on my Powerbook G4 I'm surprised by the snappiness some of those apps respond when compared to a 2013 Macbook Air. But what IBM really messed up with was efficiency. Those processors were not designed to run cool. Slim and silent notebooks as we know them today simply would not have been possible with PowerPC.
     
  6. ifrit05 macrumors regular

    ifrit05

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Location:
    Near Detroit, MI. USA
    #6
    Well, the G5's were based on the POWER4 Arch., so a G6 would of been based off POWER5 (theoretically, if they stuck with IBM and not Motorolla/FreeScale who did all their earlier cores).

    The only real improvement would of been the massive L3 cache capabilities (36MB on some models) and simultaneous multithreading (think HyperThreading for PowerPC).

    5GHz for PowerPC didn't come until the POWER6 Arch., ~3-5GHz (at least for IBM).

    PowerPC is really meant for High End Workstations and huge computational tasks (there are exceptions, like set top boxes and routers). It was a good thing Apple transitioned to intel (with their then new Core Arch, power vs efficiency), there was no way to put any newer core at the time into a slim box. But I do still love PowerPC.
     
  7. takeshi7 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2014
    #7
    Screw slim boxes. I want a super powerful POWER6 5GHz apple desktop (which would have been possible in 2007). They should have kept PowerPC on their Power Macs, and transitioned all of their "efficient" computers to ARM.
     
  8. ifrit05 macrumors regular

    ifrit05

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Location:
    Near Detroit, MI. USA
    #8
    Two problems with that.

    1. Having two CPU's on the market (instead of focusing on transitioning to a new one) would cause massive headaches for developers and Apple themselves.

    2. ARM at the time didn't have any CPU's that even could compete with intel.
     
  9. jrsx macrumors 65816

    jrsx

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Location:
    Tacoma, Washington
    #9
    Would't it also take twice as long to release each OS, since they would have to compile it twice, once for each processor?

    I suppose they did it for Tiger and Leopard...
     
  10. mayuka macrumors 6502a

    mayuka

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    #10
    This only makes sense if you can make use of all the power... Most people can not, especially when it comes to hyper/multi threading. Even most applications do not. So in most cases this won't bring you any advantages except a higher electricity bill.
     

Share This Page