G5 = IBM Powe4

[DavidRavenMoon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...

Originally posted by Chryx


That's my point exactly, "effective 333Mhz" isn't the same thing as "actual 333Mhz"

and you can't buy "Actual 266Mhz" DDR ram (well, not for system memory, it's available for videocards)


Like I said, it's marchitecture, it isn't actually running at 266mhz, but they claim it is because it "sorta is kinda".. bah

But actually it is running twice as fast as SD Ram, because it's running on both sides of the clock cycle. (Think of a square wave and you will see what that means.)

So for every tic of the clock it's advancing two tics. SD (Single Data) Ram only operates on either the rising or falling (I dont remember which), so PC133 is running at 133MHz, but DDR clocked at 133 is running at 266Mhz. The bus is 133Mhz, but it's reading twice as much data per clock cycle.

266MHz DDR would be 532DDR.

It's not just marketing. Bottom line is it is faster

 

[GPTurismo]

Well, processor speed = gimmick and marketting ploy. The main reason you need such powerful processors is because of the bloat. 95% of people can get by with a 500 megahertz p3 running win2k. Then people bring up games and yet again, the only area needing upgrading is graphic cards. The actual code is usually trash due to being built in Direct X.

As for the processor speed thing, it's an old argument and it seems idiots are still going to fall for it. Processor speed doesn't matter. Performance is what matters.

Also, the BIGGEST deciding factor got Joe Shopper is price, something even now Macs are still having a hard time beating.

I can get a 1.8 gig p4, 40 gig hdd, with a 17 inch crt, gf2, and 256 ram for 699. Sure it's a pos, but guess what, as long as it will surf the web, rip cds, has decent specs, and play games somewhat decently, people will always buy those over a mac.

Second is availability. Until we see macs in walmart (which last year 30% of all good were bought at walmart, from food to car parts) and kmart, the Mac will never dominate.

So neh

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Originally posted by GPTurismo
Well, processor speed = gimmick and marketting ploy. The main reason you need such powerful processors is because of the bloat. 95% of people can get by with a 500 megahertz p3 running win2k. Then people bring up games and yet again, the only area needing upgrading is graphic cards. The actual code is usually trash due to being built in Direct X.

As for the processor speed thing, it's an old argument and it seems idiots are still going to fall for it. Processor speed doesn't matter. Performance is what matters.

Also, the BIGGEST deciding factor got Joe Shopper is price, something even now Macs are still having a hard time beating.

I can get a 1.8 gig p4, 40 gig hdd, with a 17 inch crt, gf2, and 256 ram for 699. Sure it's a pos, but guess what, as long as it will surf the web, rip cds, has decent specs, and play games somewhat decently, people will always buy those over a mac.

Second is availability. Until we see macs in walmart (which last year 30% of all good were bought at walmart, from food to car parts) and kmart, the Mac will never dominate.

So neh

In my field of work, the faster the better. Try editing high res images in Photoshop on a 132Mhz 604e or Pentium. It's painful. It's even painful on this 400Mhz G4. Same holds true for hard disk recording. Faster the CPU, the more effects you can run.

You will never see Macs in Walmark, just like you will never see Bose Wave radios in Walmark. Apple is going for the upscale market and that would cheapen their image.

Also it seems Dell has the market as far as PCs, and they don't sell them in Walmart either. Apple will not dominate anymore than Volvo will. But I'd rather drive a Volvo than a Ford.

 

[GPTurismo]

Well, as for speed, an older sgi running at 300 megahertz will blow anything you do out of the water. You don't understand what's going on under the hood if you think processor speed is the only factor contributing to performance.

Also, even with such a fast bus, PCs can't take full advantage of it because 90% of the components can't even take advantage of it, ranging from ethernet to the standard buses. To much legacy is in there.

As for Dell having the market, the only reason they can brag on that is BUSINESS MARKET, not consumer. Walmart sells so many make shift brands that it's not funny. and honestly, All the make shift brands and home brew comps out there is greater than the dells out there, especially in the consumer market.

As for what you do, I have done high end graphics from large screen video to billboards to photos to eveerything and I have done large scale databases (oracle, db2) to standard server farms. I know whats screwing up computers.

It's like this, SGI runs their workstations at 800 megahertz, with a single processor running 128 bit irix, and they blow the doors off of almost everything in the market, especially a 2.5 gigahertz p4 running a 533 FSB. The only reason SGI still doesn't dominate the graphics market is...

Adobe shafted them by not releasing Photoshop 4 after they said they would back around 96

and

cost. A good machine from the cost 10 - 15 grand.

So don't tell me it's processor speed.

 

[GPTurismo]

Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon
In my field of work, the faster the better. Try editing high res images in Photoshop on a 132Mhz 604e or Pentium. It's painful. It's even painful on this 400Mhz G4. Same holds true for hard disk recording. Faster the CPU, the more effects you can run.

Well, put a full speed system bus on there, or even eliminate that bus, with full speed ram, and everything else running a 133 Mhz, and guess what, that machine will FLY.

As for the volvo for thing, i find that ironic since Ford owns volvo now

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Originally posted by GPTurismo
Well, as for speed, an older sgi running at 300 megahertz will blow anything you do out of the water. You don't understand what's going on under the hood if you think processor speed is the only factor contributing to performance.

It depends on the model. I used to use a few SGI systems. At one shop I worked we had a high end Indigo and a hand full of Indys. We ran Photoshop on the Indys (Dual 250Mhz If I remember correctly) and our 9500s (132Mhz) were much faster!

The only reason SGI still doesn't dominate the graphics market is...

Adobe shafted them by not releasing Photoshop 4 after they said they would back around 96

Yeah, but Photoshop was sucky on Irix anyway.

and cost. A good machine from the cost 10 - 15 grand.

Yep, and the 6 grand Indys couldn't compete with the 3 grand 9500s

So don't tell me it's processor speed.

I never said it's all about processor *clock* speed. Memory throughput and hard disk access are just as important... probably more so, since they are much slower than the CPU.

But for some tasks it's all CPU, so every bit helps. But as your said, for your average Joe, most PCs are faster than they need.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Originally posted by GPTurismo
As for the volvo for thing, i find that ironic since Ford owns volvo now

Ha! I forgot that. I drive a BMW anyway

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by GPTurismo
Well, as for speed, an older sgi running at 300 megahertz will blow anything you do out of the water. You don't understand what's going on under the hood if you think processor speed is the only factor contributing to performance.

Agreed, but I think that's a massive exaggeration. I have a 150MHz SGI (R4400SC) and it sure doesn't blow anything out of the water except maybe a 150MHz Pentium. The current MIPS R14000As have a good performance/MHz ratio, but since they only reach 600MHz, that doesn't count for much. A modern Athlon 2100 is faster in both integer and fp than a 600MHz R14000A.

Also, even with such a fast bus, PCs can't take full advantage of it because 90% of the components can't even take advantage of it, ranging from ethernet to the standard buses. To much legacy is in there.

What do you mean by this? Ethernet controllers have nothing to do with the system memory bus.

It's like this, SGI runs their workstations at 800 megahertz, with a single processor running 128 bit irix, and they blow the doors off of almost everything in the market, especially a 2.5 gigahertz p4 running a 533 FSB. The only reason SGI still doesn't dominate the graphics market is...

But the fastest CPU used in SGIs today is 600MHz. Were you overclocking? IRIX/MIPS is 64-bit, btw.

Adobe shafted them by not releasing Photoshop 4 after they said they would back around 96

and

cost. A good machine from the cost 10 - 15 grand.

So don't tell me it's processor speed.

Adobe discontinued Photoshop for IRIX because it wasn't selling. It wasn't selling because SGIs have an insanely poor price/performance ratio compared to Macs and PCs. SGI owns the high-end graphics market, where PCs and Macs can't scale to, but why run Photoshop on a $15k SGI when you can run it on a Mac or PC costing 1/3 as much and get better performance?

Alex

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon

It depends on the model. I used to use a few SGI systems. At one shop I worked we had a high end Indigo and a hand full of Indys. We ran Photoshop on the Indys (Dual 250Mhz If I remember correctly) and our 9500s (132Mhz) were much faster!

Just a minor correction, the fastest Indy was 180MHz, and that one was rare. Most common models were 133 and 150MHz. None were dual-processor. Especially in their early years, they were weighed down heavily by IRIX (which was very bloated, and still is, but you can't tell as much because the hardware is so fast now).

Alex

 

[Chryx]

Re: Regarding Athlon compatability with Windows

Originally posted by Marianco
Athlon-based motherboards are not totally compatible with certain hardware and software packages like the Intel Pentium-based motherboards.

For example, I do a lot of videoconferencing. The videoconferencing hardware/software for a 3-ISDN line 380 kbps setup I have specifically excludes Athlon compatibility. I thus have to use a Pentium-based motherboard, despite how great the Athlon is.

Yes, perhaps it is the fault of the motherboard makers, but for this niche, the hardware surrounding the Athlon is different enough to make a big difference.

In other words you ARE blaming AMD for VIA's incompetance.

Here's a hint, there are chipset makers OTHER than VIA, and they manage to make chipsets that actually work.

the Athlon "boards" have NOTHING to do with software compatability either.

Try AMD's 760/762 chipsets (the 762 is the SMP variant)
or SiS 735/745 chipsets (cheap 'n' very cheerful) (I'm using an SiS 735 here)
or Nvidia's Nforce.

I'd place money on ALL of them working with your video conferencing hardware. if it declares itself Athlon compatible or not.

(and for the record, Intel's chipsets aren't perfect, their current generation have a PCI bus bug that cramps the maximum PCI transfer rate to about 85MB/s )

 

[Chryx]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...

Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon


But actually it is running twice as fast as SD Ram, because it's running on both sides of the clock cycle. (Think of a square wave and you will see what that means.)

So for every tic of the clock it's advancing two tics. SD (Single Data) Ram only operates on either the rising or falling (I dont remember which), so PC133 is running at 133MHz, but DDR clocked at 133 is running at 266Mhz. The bus is 133Mhz, but it's reading twice as much data per clock cycle.

266MHz DDR would be 532DDR.

It's not just marketing. Bottom line is it is faster

It IS faster, but it's still not 266Mhz
(and there's evidence that it's not 100% faster either, a few companies released Geforce 2MX cards with DDR / 64bit memory and the SDR / 128bit cards ate them alive at the same clockrates..)


Also, IIRC, It's "double DATA rate" the command rate is still tied to the initial rising part of the clock pulse. (so it can fetch data faster, but it still takes the same amount of time to start fetching it.)

(oh yeah, poke around for posts by me, I posted ascii diagrams of SDR/DDR/QDR for someone else )

 

[stripes]

Originally posted by DarkNovaMatter
I do admit this doesn't seem possible because of the work required to make the chip (get it to do ppc- unless it is the ppc coding).

The POWER4 does the POWER instruction set, the PowerAS instruction set, and also the PowerPC instruction set. It does not do AltiVec. IBM did finally licence AltiVec from Moto though, so maybe if they design a "cut down" POWER4 they will add AltiVec to it.

Of corse that takes time, so unless they started that about a year ago when they licenced AltiVec, we won't be seeing it this week!

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Ha! Now we're all talking about the 970!

THIS CAME TRUE! MOSR OWNZ ALL!!!!

 

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Mr Jobs
no the Gx is an Apple trade mark, G3 was originally a internal code name but everyone know about it and it was so popular Apple kept it as a release name.

i think it's about time the naming convention be changed to something more creative than "generation 3 chip", generation 4 chip, generation 5 chip, etc

i like the names athlon and duron...it beats pentium 1, 2, 3, 4, etc

 

[cr2sh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...

Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon
266MHz DDR would be 532DDR.
It's not just marketing. Bottom line is it is faster

It is faster, but it's certainly not twice as fast. I felt a bigger difference going from a pc100 system to a pc133, than I did a pc133 to DDR. Why is that?

 

[BenderBot1138]

lotsa talk about cost, but what's the damage, especially in a larger production grid.

 

[Steradian]

well

Cr2sh which system where you using when you didn't notice the differance between DDR and PC-133? was the computer a PM?
The PM's we have now use some sort of castrated motherboard that doesn't take full advantige of the DDR ram speed's.

PowerBook G4 1ghz

 

[ELYXR]

Do you guys know anything about QDR (Quad-Data-Rate) memory. Isn't that what Rambus uses in their RDRAM product?

Is that the next step for SDRAM?

 

[cr2sh]

Re: well

Originally posted by Steradian
was the computer a PM?

No, both were Pc's.

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Ha! Now we're all talking about the 970!

THIS CAME TRUE! MOSR OWNZ ALL!!!!

MOSR doesn't make up its own rumors, it gleans them off of others. They likely copped this one from me, since I, being the prescient genius I am, predicted the 970 way back in April (almost 2 months before word broke of this chip). Nyah

 

[Dr. Distortion]

Whoa! Did we really have to dig up this old thread?

 

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Dr. Distortion
Whoa! Did we really have to dig up this old thread?

i think there are a lot of mac power users who are desperate for a new chip

...especially since the pentium 4s are flying around 3 ghz

 

[nallu]

what if ibm buys g5

There are rumors that g5 exists but yeilds are too low and hence Moto was forced to abonden it
dont you think it will be cool if IBM bought what is remaining of g5 and developed it. they have both the funds and tecnology.
It was said that the g5 gave 40-80 gflops with 5 built-in altivecs even at 1.6 ghz.
thats is almost 5-10 times the top current performance. imagine the same chip at 2.4 ghz!!!.

well atleast it may be worth a try.

and i seriously think its time to think big apart from diffferent.
a processor way above competition, software way above competition. then people will buy the machine for more than its design. "these are hard targets so is survivial"