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

The 64-Bit Battle

For a model of how Apple might move to the PPC 970, look at the transition from 68k to the PPC ten years ago. If memory serves (and it doesn't always), within a year of the introduction of the PPC 601, Apple wasn't selling any 68k-based Macs.

Anyway, more importantly, does anyone have a grasp on real-world performance gains which might come from moving to 64-bit processors? I'm not just asking about theoretical microprocessor throughput, I'm asking about the performance of OSX vs. Windows. I have heard, but can't verify, that Windows is not 64-bit compliant and will not be for some time, but that OSX can be made so relatively easily.

Confirm, Deny, Reboot?
 
Originally posted by locovaca
However, I would be intrigued to see how a 1.2 GHz 970 performs against a 1.25 GHz G4 in all aspects: the standard CPU speed tests, but also battery life tests, since I would see it being a good drop in for a PB.
Click to expand...
I'd like to seem them with motherboards and components that support the processors to its fullest. Then compare them. The 970 should be the clear winner, but by how much? Does anyone know if Apple has samples of these chips in their labs? Has anyone heard about testing? Maybe it's too early, but I would hope they'd have some samples.
 
Everyone who expects a complete change to PPC-970, even for iBooks, iMacs and eMacs, is just out of touch with the reality of the situation. Not only is the 970 more expensive than a G4, but it is going to require a more expensive system controller, probably including dual channel DDR RAM to feed the fast FSB and processor. 970's may not use much power at 1.2ghz, but a 130nm G4 will use less at that speed (whenever Moto gets those on the market, anyway). :rolleyes:

I very much expect G4 iMacs, iBooks and so on for well over a year after the PPC-970 shows up. I very much expect G4's much like those available today to easily exceed 2.0ghz before Moto retires the design.
 
Originally posted by ddtlm
Everyone who expects a complete change to PPC-970, even for iBooks, iMacs and eMacs, is just out of touch with the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...

I think we have good reason to expect it -- eventually, though clearly Apple will put these processors in their high-end products first, which after all, is where the power demand is great. That being said, Apple can't afford to allow the rest of the product line to lag too far behind. One of the reasons Apple is still shipping a G3 Mac, at retarded clock speeds no less, is so they don't bump into the higher-end products. Once the high end goes up, everything else can be expected to move with it.
 
Originally posted by ddtlm
Everyone who expects a complete change to PPC-970, even for iBooks, iMacs and eMacs, is just out of touch with the reality of the situation. Not only is the 970 more expensive...
Click to expand...

Apparently the 970 is cheaper than a G4, apple are going to move to ibm very shortly... Why would they purchase a pallette of ibm G3's without using them and remember the ibm g3 are supposedly clocked at 1Ghz and out perform the moto g3's so I assume these are in testing and I suspect they have 970's in their hands right now.
 
littlerich:

Apparently the 970 is cheaper than a G4
Click to expand...
Based on what? The 970 is larger, more complex, and sports a more complex FSB which means more expensive system controller and more complex mothboard to deal with the higher clock speed of the FSB. There is nothing cheap about it, except compared to the Power4.

Why would they purchase a pallette of ibm G3's without using them
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Apple has been using IBM G3's for some time, perhaps years.

IJ Reilly:

Once the high end goes up, everything else can be expected to move with it.
Click to expand...
Yes, to G4's, in the near future. If iMacs are running 1.5ghz G4's a year from now that seems pretty good to me. Presuming of course that Apple uses the 970 at all :) once it is available, the iMac and such will be free to move into faster FSB's and DDR-333 or so (though its hard to say how fast Apple would choose to upgrade them).

I imagine that all Apple productes will some day use chips even better than the 970, but that wasn't my point. My comment was aimed at people predicting a year-or-less total switch the 970's, which is just not realistic.
 
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Anyway, more importantly, does anyone have a grasp on real-world performance gains which might come from moving to 64-bit processors? I'm not just asking about theoretical microprocessor throughput, I'm asking about the performance of OSX vs. Windows. I have heard, but can't verify, that Windows is not 64-bit compliant and will not be for some time, but that OSX can be made so relatively easily.
Click to expand...

Windows will be 64-bit compliant and running on the AMD Opterons before Mac OS X is 64-bit compliant and running on the IBM PowerPC 970 processors.

Contrary to what some are saying, you don't magically get more performance by going 64-bit. It completely depends upon your application and the underlying processor. The PowerPC 970 is a large step up from the Motorola 75xx series not just because it is a 64-bit processor. It has better memory bandwidth, more L2 cache (for the time being) and higher Ghz potential (2+Ghz is easily within reach). Those are the things that will affect the speed for most of the Mac community. People doing image editing, desktop publishing and so forth will see a speed up due to these benefits. However the processor will still only make the gap smaller as the Pentium 4 still has the best SPECint 2000 rating of any processor available (see http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?AID=RWT012603224711 ). As Adobe and others tune their products for the SSE2 SIMD instructions, the AltiVec engine won't be enough. My guess is that Adobe has already done this to a significant extent with Photoshop 7 because the Pentium 4 has been able to trounce the dual G4s in every published benchmark I have seen.

Where you see a speed increase going from 32-bits to 64-bits is when your application needs to address more than 4GB of memory. For example, large Oracle database applications will greatly benefit from 64-bits. I would assume that high end rendering, audio and video applications (not iTunes and iMovie) will benefit greatly because more work can be done in memory as opposed to disk. That is why 64-bit processors kick ass in the enterprise space even though they are slower than the Pentium 4 in SPECint (and sometimes SPECfp) benchmarks. These systems often have RAM the size of our disk drives.:)
 
Re: Re: maybe

Originally posted by springscansing


What's a labtop?
__________________
I still say Pollock is the most kickassiest painter ever. Eh?
Click to expand...

Something like kickassiest, wrong.
 
Originally posted by ktlx


Windows will be 64-bit compliant and running on the AMD Opterons before Mac OS X is 64-bit compliant and running on the IBM PowerPC 970 processors.

Contrary to what some are saying, you don't magically get more performance by going 64-bit. It completely depends upon your application and the underlying processor. The PowerPC 970 is a large step up from the Motorola 75xx series not just because it is a 64-bit processor. It has better memory bandwidth, more L2 cache (for the time being) and higher Ghz potential (2+Ghz is easily within reach). Those are the things that will affect the speed for most of the Mac community. People doing image editing, desktop publishing and so forth will see a speed up due to these benefits. However the processor will still only make the gap smaller as the Pentium 4 still has the best SPECint 2000 rating of any processor available (see http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?AID=RWT012603224711 ). As Adobe and others tune their products for the SSE2 SIMD instructions, the AltiVec engine won't be enough. My guess is that Adobe has already done this to a significant extent with Photoshop 7 because the Pentium 4 has been able to trounce the dual G4s in every published benchmark I have seen.

Where you see a speed increase going from 32-bits to 64-bits is when your application needs to address more than 4GB of memory. For example, large Oracle database applications will greatly benefit from 64-bits. I would assume that high end rendering, audio and video applications (not iTunes and iMovie) will benefit greatly because more work can be done in memory as opposed to disk. That is why 64-bit processors kick ass in the enterprise space even though they are slower than the Pentium 4 in SPECint (and sometimes SPECfp) benchmarks. These systems often have RAM the size of our disk drives.:)
Click to expand...

True. However, when you're comparing a 32bit 1.42GHz against a 64bit 2.0GHz there really isn't any comparison.

I'm not concerned with the bit as much as the speed. Apple via IBM or whoever needs to get competitive again. A 1GHz G4 Tower for $1499 is a ****ing joke. Hell I can get a 2.8GHz P4 for that much, and if you believe a 1GHz G4 can outperform a 2.8GHz anything your high as a kite.

I will seriously evaluate moving my servers to OS X Server when it is a stable 64bit platform (yes I'm on a stable 64bit platform now/ Solaris 8 on Ultra SPARC IIi SMP). I am really impressed with the admin tools and software offerings available. Speed is an issue. Apple can make their mark when Oracle 9i gets out of Release Candidate stage and goes Gold.
 
Originally posted by ktlx


Windows will be 64-bit compliant and running on the AMD Opterons before Mac OS X is 64-bit compliant and running on the IBM PowerPC 970 processors.
Click to expand...

What is the basis for this statement? It contradicts what I'd heard previously.
 
Originally posted by IJ Reilly

Originally posted by ktlx
Windows will be 64-bit compliant and running on the AMD Opterons before Mac OS X is 64-bit compliant and running on the IBM PowerPC 970 processors.
Click to expand...
What is the basis for this statement? It contradicts what I'd heard previously.
Click to expand...

AMD is delivering their 64-bit processors before IBM does and Microsoft has already said they will support the processor. Microsoft already supports the 64-bit Itanium processor http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/default.mspx with is Advanced Server, Limited Edition version.

Apple has not even said they are going to use the PowerPC 970 let alone get a 64-bit version of all of Mac OS X (not just the part inherited from FreeBSD) in the hands of testers.

The real question though is when will there be any usefull 64-bit applications under either Windows or Mac OS X. Who cares which OS is first if the applications aren't there.

My guess is the first one there for Windows will be SQL Server and the first one there for Mac OS X will be Oracle. Which one ships first is beyond me. Oracle seems to me to have less total work to do so if Apple can deliver a 64-bit version of Mac OS X shortly after they may win the application race.
 
Yes, I realize that AMD is already shipping a 64-bit processor, and that Microsoft has a 64-bit version of Windows -- but these are high-end workstation products strictly and I can't find any suggestion a 64-bit consumer-level version of Windows even on the horizon. It still seems to me that Apple has the opportunity to be the first to ship a 64-bit platform for non-workstation level tasks.

Right, Apple hasn't publicly announced a commitment to the 970 -- but what others options do they have? I also think we should know by now not to look for hints of future Apple products in what Apple has said, or has leaked out. The best stuff never does.

I'm with you on the question of whether it really matters if Apple is first to this particular market, which is why I asked if real-world performance will show any major gains with 64-bit processors.
 
IJ Reilly:

Yes, I realize that AMD is already shipping a 64-bit processor, and that Microsoft has a 64-bit version of Windows -- but these are high-end workstation products strictly and I can't find any suggestion a 64-bit consumer-level version of Windows even on the horizon. It still seems to me that Apple has the opportunity to be the first to ship a 64-bit platform for non-workstation level tasks.
Click to expand...
My how funny Apple Rumorvision is. AMD is not actually shipping their 64-bit processor yet and I don't see where anyone said they were. AMD will, however, ship their 64-bit Opteron before Apple ships a PPC-970.

AMD's consumer 64-bit chip (Athlon 64) has been delayed till Septemper 2003, but still may still ship before the PPC-970. At this point we cannot declare a winner for the consumer race.

Microsoft is definately developing a 64-bit consumer Windows to go along with AMD's x86-64 chip. There is no question about this.
 
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Yes, I realize that AMD is already shipping a 64-bit processor, and that Microsoft has a 64-bit version of Windows -- but these are high-end workstation products strictly and I can't find any suggestion a 64-bit consumer-level version of Windows even on the horizon. It still seems to me that Apple has the opportunity to be the first to ship a 64-bit platform for non-workstation level tasks.
Click to expand...

You never made a distinction earlier about consumer versus non-consumer. Since Apple does not make the distinction that Microsoft does, I expect Apple to beat Microsoft easily in delivering a consumer version of a 64-bit OS. There really isn't a reason for a 64-bit Windows XP Home edition. It may be years before Microsoft brings a 64-bit OS to the consumer. They don't even support two processors or hyperthreading under Windows XP Home.

Right, Apple hasn't publicly announced a commitment to the 970 -- but what others options do they have? I also think we should know by now not to look for hints of future Apple products in what Apple has said, or has leaked out. The best stuff never does.
Click to expand...

Currently a 64-bit Mac OS X running on a PowerPC 970 in the next few months is pure speculation. While is seems logical, there have been other rumors (i.e. the G5) that were just as logical at the time that have not come to pass. And look how long Apple has taken on things they are in sole control of such as Mac OS X and other software items.

I hope Apple has a 64-bit Mac OS X running on a PowerPC 970 before the end of the year. But the lack of information from anyone, IBMs delivery dates and Apple's past performance, make me skeptical.

It gets even worse when you figure that a lot of the application developers just burned through a lot of resources going to Mac OS X during a recession. They are not likely ready yet to go through another significant software and hardware upgrade.
 
ktlx:

There really isn't a reason for a 64-bit Windows XP Home edition. It may be years before Microsoft brings a 64-bit OS to the consumer.
Click to expand...
AMD and MS have confirmed in press releases that a x86-64 (as in, 64-bit) version of Windows is being created, as far as I know for both "home" and "professional". What is not clear is when they will finish it, perhaps in 2003, perhaps not.
 
Originally posted by ddtlm
AMD's consumer 64-bit chip (Athlon 64) has been delayed till Septemper 2003, but still may still ship before the PPC-970. At this point we cannot declare a winner for the consumer race.

Microsoft is definately developing a 64-bit consumer Windows to go along with AMD's x86-64 chip. There is no question about this.
Click to expand...

I have not seen this. So far I have only heard of the server and workstation versions of Windows going 64-bit. The consumer versions already have other server and workstation features neutered out, so I just assumed it would be the same for 64-bit. You would have to go with Windows XP Professional or Windows 2003 Advanced Server in order to run 64-bits.
 
For those of you who're wishing that Apple move all their macs to the 970 in no time flat, look at the current state of things. Apple is currently supporting two generation of processors. They've been doing that since October 1999. That's over three years, people.

Please get a bit of a reality check before making such outlandish claims. My bet is that they're not going to abandon the G4 until they've at least taken the 7457 to its limits which have been rumored to be 1.8 mhz. iMacs are currently at 800 mhz. The G4 still has a lot of life left in it...
 
ehhh.... we need to be releasing at 2.5 ghz for the 970s, not 2 ghz. 2 ghz would be 'alright' for now, but by the time they actually shove them into a computer it will be christmas, when Intel is at 4.2 ghz or something rediculas. we should have had the g5 a year ago, not a year from now. The only hope we have now is that we'll be seeing sledgehammers in powerpc's come april.
 
Re: Windows XP 64 Bit Edition

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
http://microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.asp
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this.

This squares with what I have heard. If you want to do 64-bits, then your choices from Microsoft are a 64-bit edition of Windows XP Professional or a 64-bit edition of Windows Advanced Server. Just like there will not be a 64-bit version of Windows Server, there would not be a 64-bit version of Windows XP Home.

At least not for the time being. I would assume that if AMD really has significant market penetration in the consumer space with the x86-64, Microsoft would change their mind. But so far everything I read is that there is no 64-bit consumer version of Windows on the horizon.
 
Originally posted by DeusOmnis
ehhh.... we need to be releasing at 2.5 ghz for the 970s, not 2 ghz. 2 ghz would be 'alright' for now, but by the time they actually shove them into a computer it will be christmas, when Intel is at 4.2 ghz or something rediculas. we should have had the g5 a year ago, not a year from now. The only hope we have now is that we'll be seeing sledgehammers in powerpc's come april.
Click to expand...

Something that will help in the short term is that Intel will not take the Pentium 4 above 3.6Ghz until it switches to the 90nm process. I have read that this is harder than previous process changes. So with any luck, dual 1.8Ghz 64-bit PPC 970s will not look too shabby compared to a 3.6Ghz or 3.8Ghz Pentium 4.

Of course that only helps for a short time. Once Intel gets the kinks worked out of the 90nm process, then the race to 5Ghz begins. IBM might probably have to do a process change early next year to have any hopes of keeping up. :(
 
intel might have trouble keeping up the steam on thier processors. Dont they cost twice as much as anyone else's at the moment? If the price gap continues....
 
970 May be in place.

Talking with a rep, this is what I believed I heard about the new IBM Chip:

It's already in the dual 1.42. This fellow says you will hear nothing from Apple about it, but if you do enough searching in IBM literature, you'll see the new IBM chip is already in.

He goes on to say this is why the new Dual 1.42s are priced so low. Apparently the new chip is much cheaper to produce. And we may be seeing 2.0 Gig by this fall.
 
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