Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MovieCutter said:
I did...😀

DIE POWER PC...DIE!!!

Most agreed. I'm using an iBook G4 right now, but I'd practically sell my kidneys (both of 'em!) to convert it to a MacBook Pro.

Let us continue to pray for a speedy death to the Macintosh PowerPC computer.
 
amin said:
Do you have a reference showing that this translates to better performance in real-world application tests in a head to head competition?

Not handy, since a lot of this happened on mailing lists.

The short version is that the memory performance scales in a very sub-linear fashion as a function of the number of cores being used, whereas Opteron scalability is almost linear up to a large number of cores. The good news is that for single dual-core processors the memory performance is on par with dual-core Opterons and their in-cache performance can be better. The bad news is that this performance does not hold as you scale cores in a system. So for some applications (e.g. those that live mostly in cache) the Woodcrest processors will be mildly faster than Opterons, but for most the performance is about even in real app benchmarks.

I've seen fairly comprehensive benchmarks for both databases and scientific computing applications, both of which thoroughly exercise the memory subsystem. Even though a single Intel core theoretically has more bandwidth, the high latency means that the real bandwidth is about the same as the slower Opterons (which have real bandwidth that approaches theoretical) and the cross-sectional bandwidth of Opterons when you get up to 4 cores and higher is much higher since the scaling is almost linear with the number of cores. For Intel, I think it was the case that a bigger cache was a cheaper design choice than a truly scalable memory subsystem. As a result, they will have different competencies. Some types of floating point codes should run very well on Intel.
 
tortoise said:
This will likely suck, because the interconnect Intel is using is just too damn slow. Putting four cores in the same package will just make the situation worse, because a lot of applications are significantly limited by memory performance.

The Woodcrest processors have been put through their paces pretty well on the supercomputing lists, and their Achille's heal is the memory subsystem. Current generation AMD Opterons still clearly outscale Woodcrest in real-world memory bandwidth with only two cores. Unless Intel pulls a rabbit out of their hat with their memory architecture issues when the quad core is released, AMDs quad core is going to embarrass them because of the memory bottleneck. And AMD is already starting to work on upgrading their already markedly superior memory architecture.

In two years' time, Intel will release Nehalem its next micro-architecture - to replace Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest. It is supposed to ditch the FSB in favour of Intel's own interconnect, named CSI. Two years after Nehalem will come another micro-architecture.

In some respects, I'm quite happy to have ordered a Woodcrest Mac Pro, especially if the slow FSB does slow things down when Woodcrest's successor is released. If the Mac Pro can last me three or four years, I'll be in time for the post-Nehalem generation, which should be fairly spectacular.
 
My Quad G5 Is 60° C With Highest ON In The Energy Saver

BJNY said:
If you're willing, you could start up from the Hardware Test disc, and run the test which makes the fans go non-stop except for the rearmost fans.

iStat nano widget
60° Celcius. Can't check Fans. Too much trouble.
 
FF_productions said:
Check it out!

http://barefeats.com/quad06.html


The 3 ghz Mac Pro is neck and neck with the G5 Quad in the Adobe benchmarks, sick considering the fact it's running under rosetta!!

It is worth noting that Barefeats has updated their comparison using much more typical photoshop operations:

http://www.barefeats.com/quad11.html

Which shows a much different picture, with the PowerPC models outperforming the MacPro by a significant margin.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.