If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
PPC 970 = high performance?
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10180
http://www.sandpile.org/impl/pics/am...013_1m_ovr.jpg Above are URLs for die photos of the PPC970 and Opteron dies, both ..13u, 58 million transistors for the PPC and over a hundred million for the Opteron. The easiest way to assure high performance in a modern CPU is to use large caches. The Opteron die uses 60% or more of the die area for caches. The easiest way to cheapen a CPU is to use just a teensy little bit of cache. The PPC970 uses only about 15% of the die area for cache. And yet we have to read all the PR drivel about Apple's G5 being a high performance system! Well, Apple wants a high profit margin (hence a really cheap CPU) and IBM wants to protect its Power CPUs from cheap competition (hence a really slow CPU with a busted cache system). G5 = high performace? Bad joke. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:51:48 GMT, "Felger Carbon"
wrote: And yet we have to read all the PR drivel about Apple's G5 being a high performance system! Manufacturer-designed, proprietary SPEC=invitation to cheat and mislead. RM |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
They add an external L3 cache, as they did with G4s. You are only
partly right: IBM is to blame, Apple is not. Furthermore, software for Apple PCs tends to be more optimized that x86 PC software. Typical optimizations are particularily important when it comes to cache and memory usage. Apple has a good microkernel Unix OS, x86 PCs... well. Uli -- ------- http://grassomusic.de ------- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Manufacturer-designed, proprietary SPEC=invitation to cheat and
mislead. RM Wouldn't that pretty much describe Intel's compiler? I mean it was designed from the ground up and hand tuned to specifically get the best possible results on benchmark tests. gcc is pretty decent on x86. It sucks rocks on PowerPC. I'm amazed that it even turned in a decent result on the 970. IBM's AIX compilers do a far better job on Power and PowerPC architecture than Apple's pathetic choice of gcc. I've never understood why Apple continues to use gcc either. It stinks. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
nuke wrote: Manufacturer-designed, proprietary SPEC=invitation to cheat and mislead. RM Wouldn't that pretty much describe Intel's compiler? I mean it was designed from the ground up and hand tuned to specifically get the best possible results on benchmark tests. gcc is pretty decent on x86. It sucks rocks on PowerPC. I'm amazed that it even turned in a decent result on the 970. IBM's AIX compilers do a far better job on Power and PowerPC architecture than Apple's pathetic choice of gcc. I've never understood why Apple continues to use gcc either. It stinks. It's common between the two compared platforms. One amusing thing, complaints were made about hyperthreading being turned off, Apple said they did a compile with hyperthreading enabled and it gave slower results. I think they did a fine job of refuting any whines. http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl...id=126&tid=181 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Question about performance | The Berzerker | Ati Videocards | 1 | September 27th 04 09:25 PM |
9700 pro poor performance | JD | Ati Videocards | 11 | August 26th 04 09:47 PM |
More brilliance from Sykbuck | Augustus | Nvidia Videocards | 6 | May 18th 04 03:55 AM |
NVidia 6800 --- developer comments from Nvidia news release | John Lewis | Nvidia Videocards | 1 | April 17th 04 12:54 AM |
Memory performance with high FSBs (for P4) | Andy Cunningham | Overclocking | 6 | October 5th 03 03:17 PM |