Professional Web Applications Themes

Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison? - Mac Applications & Software

It it hype or has apple n away the x86 world? Any pointers most appreciated. Thanks Jim...

  1. #1

    Default Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    It it hype or has apple n away the x86 world?

    Any pointers most appreciated.

    Thanks
    Jim
    Jim Kroger Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    To comp.os.linux, comp.sys.mac.advocacy and comp.sys.mac.system
    subscribers,
    > From: Jim Kroger <jimkkREMOVEMEumich.edu>,
    > It it hype or has apple n away the x86 world?
    >
    > Any pointers most appreciated.
    Aside from the hotly-debated SPEC performance comparisons on Apple's
    site and the not-so-hotly-debated application performance comparisons
    at the same location, nowhere as yet.

    Apple has been quoting CPU2000 SPECint and CPU2000 SPECfp benchmark
    results on their site [url]www.apple.com/powermac/performance[/url]. These
    benchmarks have been both criticised as being misleading and hailed as
    being _more_ accurate than the benchmarks from Dell, in both cases for
    the same reasons and with good points all around.

    As yet, Apple's results have not been submitted to SPEC.

    During the WWDC keynote, five different applications were demonstrated
    on both the PowerMac and the Xeon (which had Windows XP, rather than
    RedHat Linux) in which the PowerMac put the boot through the Xeon in
    performance, and application-specific benchmarks are also available on
    Apple's site. Most of these utilise FP and SIMD processing more than
    integer processing, and of course score higher results on the G5.

    The performance of these applications was backed up by representatives
    from the vendors whose applications these were, which lends some
    legitimacy to them, in addition to the fact that SPEC benchmarks have,
    at least in my eyes, proven themselves to be not unreliable, but not
    reliable either.

    When results come in, we will doubtlessly be the first to hear of them.

    digitaleon.
    digitaleon Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    digitaleon <this.isfake.address> wrote in message news:<Vq2dnSG9VNzzFmOjRTvU2Qgiganews.com>...
    > To comp.os.linux, comp.sys.mac.advocacy and comp.sys.mac.system
    > subscribers,
    >
    > > From: Jim Kroger <jimkkREMOVEMEumich.edu>,
    >
    > > It it hype or has apple n away the x86 world?
    > >
    > > Any pointers most appreciated.
    >
    > Aside from the hotly-debated SPEC performance comparisons on Apple's
    > site and the not-so-hotly-debated application performance comparisons
    > at the same location, nowhere as yet.
    yes, the footnote to the "world's fastest PC" claim is on SPEC2000
    *and* "professional apps".

    =Heywood=
    Heywood Mogroot Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    Jim Kroger <jimkkREMOVEMEumich.edu> wrote in message news:<jimkkREMOVEME-0B7A01.23203128062003visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu >...
    > It it hype or has apple n away the x86 world?
    Both!
    > Any pointers most appreciated.
    What you get with the 1.8Ghz tower:

    Features common with Intel's latest & greatest desktop motherboard:
    o Dual-channel PC-3200 DRAM (DDR-400)
    o 1Gbit onboard ethernet
    o 8x AGP
    o Dual Serial ATA (not sure what RAID levels are supported)
    o Onboard 5.1 audio with optical in/out

    Features in common with AMD's Opteron platform:

    o 64-bit CPU architecture / expandable over 4GB
    o PCI-X

    New Features not available on x86 yet:

    o Dedicated 900Mhz (6.4GB/s) HyperTransport interface between CPU and
    the memory controller (the current leading intel desktop, the 875P,
    manages just 4.7GB/s in real bandwidth). For dual G5 systems, *each*
    CPU has its own interface to the memory controller, unlike the dual
    Xeon systems, which have to share a single 533Mhz FSB interface.

    o Onboard support for 802.11g, 1394b


    As far as benchmarks outside of the keynote, there was this one:

    First 10 frames of Adobe After Effects "Night Flight" script:

    Dual 2.66 GHz Pentium Xeon: 1.2 min/frame
    Dual 2.0 Ghz G5: 0.6 min/frame

    [url]www.macintouch.com/g5reader.html#jun27[/url]

    While we'll know more about the relative performance of the new G5's,
    the one comforting thing is that Intel itself really doesn't have
    anything lined up, motherboard-wise, to compete with it until sometime
    next year.

    (this is something of a rarity to catch Intel so flat-footed;
    traditionally they have maintained a 6-12 month lead on Apple).

    AMD, on the other hand, will soon have competitive systems in the
    workstation market segment, eg. from the NVIDIA nForce3 boards, and
    from its "Clawhammer" CPU launch later this summer.

    =Heywood=
    Heywood Mogroot Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    In article <flippo-E843C3.06313729062003news.central.cox.net>,
    flip <flippomac.com> wrote:
    >That is, unless you're willing to believe the Presidents of Adobe,
    >Wolfram, Luxology, and several other apps who presided over side-by-side
    >tests where the G5 kicked a P4's butt halfway to the moon.
    Wolfram I would believe. Adobe? You must be kidding me; believing something
    because Adobe said it would be just plain stupid.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2003, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / [email]seebsplethora.net[/email]
    [url]http://www.seebs.net/log/[/url] - YA blog. [url]http://www.seebs.net/[/url] - homepage.
    C/Unix wizard, pro-commerce radical, spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
    Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: [url]http://www.plethora.net/[/url]
    Seebs Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    In article <seeker1-929275.10415329062003news.comcast.giganews.com>,
    Seeker1 <seeker1mac.com> wrote:
    > > During the WWDC keynote, five different applications were demonstrated
    > > on both the PowerMac and the Xeon (which had Windows XP, rather than
    > > RedHat Linux) in which the PowerMac put the boot through the Xeon in
    > > performance, and application-specific benchmarks are also available on
    > > Apple's site. Most of these utilise FP and SIMD processing more than
    > > integer processing, and of course score higher results on the G5.
    > >
    > > The performance of these applications was backed up by representatives
    > > from the vendors whose applications these were, which lends some
    > > legitimacy to them, in addition to the fact that SPEC benchmarks have,
    > > at least in my eyes, proven themselves to be not unreliable, but not
    > > reliable either.
    >
    > My guess would be that Apple chose five applications that were:
    >
    > 1. floating-point intensive (since the G5 does much better on that than
    > integer)
    Mathematica? Yes.

    Photoshop? I don't think so. I think it's all integer.
    > 2. highly SMP-aware (since this is key for their duals)
    True.
    > 3. very Altivec-enabled (since this is where the G5 shines)
    True.
    > 4. very memory-intensive (since now the shoe is on the other foot, and
    > Apple is actually AHEAD in memory access speed)
    Not necessarily. Mathematica is more computation intensive than memory
    intensive, I would suspect.
    >
    > So, I don't think there was anything misleading about that part of the
    > presentation, but one should realize they cherry-picked applications
    > where they knew the G5 would shine. I don't view that as a distortion,
    > since many people use those applications. However, not all applications
    > will show this level of benefit.
    That's true. HOWEVER, the items above describe exactly the way that
    CPU-intensive apps should be coded. Anyone with an app that could use FP
    but who tries to do it in INT should be shot. Anyone with a CPU
    intensive app who doesn't make it SMP-aware (multithreaded should be
    sufficient) and use Altivec where appropriate doesn't deserve to be in
    the business.

    Fortunately, the majority of very CPU-intensive apps meet those criteria
    - on the Mac, at least.
    flip Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    flip <flippomac.com> wrote in message news:<flippo-E843C3.06313729062003news.central.cox.net>...
    > In article <CptLa.126$1H5.2814newsfeed.avtel.net>,
    > "John" <nospamnospam.com> wrote:
    >
    > > Jim Kroger wrote:
    > > > It it hype or has apple n away the x86 world?
    > >
    > > The usual hype. When independent testing is done in a couple of months
    > > the world will know that Apple once again pulled one.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    > That is, unless you're willing to believe the Presidents of Adobe,
    > Wolfram, Luxology, and several other apps who presided over side-by-side
    > tests where the G5 kicked a P4's butt halfway to the moon.
    I'm not entirely convinced that the dual Xeon systems were the fastest
    P4 desktop systems available last week for those particular apps.

    A 3.0 GHz P4 with its 800Mhz FSB might be somewhat more performant on
    those bandwidth-intensive apps (I get 4.7GB/s with the SSE2 tests on
    this Canterwood system).

    Still, 4.7GB/s is pretty ty compared to the dual 2.0Ghz's 16.0GB/s
    theoretical peak b/w. 3x the b/w for just twice the price!

    Plus we Apple proponents shouldn't ignore AMD's new Opteron platform,
    even if everybody in x86 land apparently is.

    =Heywood=
    Heywood Mogroot Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    On 29 Jun 2003 12:28:56 -0700, [email]imouttaheremac.com[/email] (Heywood Mogroot)
    wrote:
    >Still, 4.7GB/s is pretty ty compared to the dual 2.0Ghz's 16.0GB/s
    >theoretical peak b/w. 3x the b/w for just twice the price!
    You get 4.7GB/s measured performance on the PC. What's your measured
    performance on the G5?

    Oh. I thought so. Well, let us know when you can get a number -
    until then, "theory" isn't very interesting.

    foo Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    In article <flippo-5B6E1C.13032629062003news.central.cox.net>,
    flip <flippomac.com> wrote:
    >In article <seeker1-929275.10415329062003news.comcast.giganews.com>,
    > Seeker1 <seeker1mac.com> wrote:
    >> My guess would be that Apple chose five applications that were:
    >> 4. very memory-intensive (since now the shoe is on the other foot, and
    >> Apple is actually AHEAD in memory access speed)
    >
    >Not necessarily. Mathematica is more computation intensive than memory
    >intensive, I would suspect.
    Symbolic computations can/often have immediate calculations which require
    lots of memory. A trivial example would be computing a binomial
    coefficient 200 choose 100 = 200!/(100!)^2 by multiplying the factorials
    out and doing the long division. By the way, this is also an example
    of an integer calculation in Mathematica. The stuff below is maple,
    but the idea is the same:
    > binomial(200,100);
    90548514656103281165404177077484163874504589675413 336841320
    > factorial(200);
    78865786736479050355236321393218506229513597768717 3263294742533244359449963\
    40334292030428401198462390417721213891963883025764 279024263710506192662\
    49528299311134628572707633172373969889439224456214 516642402540332918641\
    31227428294853277524242407573903240321257405579568 660226031904170324062\
    35170085879617892222278962370389737472000000000000 000000000000000000000\
    0000000000000000
    > factorial(100)^2;
    87097824890894800794165901619444858655697206439408 4013421593253624337999634\
    65833258779670963327549206446903807622196074763642 894114359201905739606\
    77507881394607489905331729758013432992987184764607 375889434313483382966\
    80151515628085416269176619573749317345360351959449 600000000000000000000\
    0000000000000000000000000000

    --
    [url]http://www.math.fsu.edu/~bellenot[/url]
    bellenot <At/> math.fsu.edu
    +1.850.644.7189 (4053fax)
    Steve Bellenot Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    In article <flippo-5B6E1C.13032629062003news.central.cox.net>,
    flip <flippomac.com> wrote:
    > In article <seeker1-929275.10415329062003news.comcast.giganews.com>,
    > Seeker1 <seeker1mac.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > During the WWDC keynote, five different applications were demonstrated
    > > > on both the PowerMac and the Xeon (which had Windows XP, rather than
    > > > RedHat Linux) in which the PowerMac put the boot through the Xeon in
    > > > performance, and application-specific benchmarks are also available on
    > > > Apple's site. Most of these utilise FP and SIMD processing more than
    > > > integer processing, and of course score higher results on the G5.
    > > >
    > > > The performance of these applications was backed up by representatives
    > > > from the vendors whose applications these were, which lends some
    > > > legitimacy to them, in addition to the fact that SPEC benchmarks have,
    > > > at least in my eyes, proven themselves to be not unreliable, but not
    > > > reliable either.
    > >
    > > My guess would be that Apple chose five applications that were:
    > >
    > > 1. floating-point intensive (since the G5 does much better on that than
    > > integer)
    >
    > Mathematica? Yes.
    Mathematica tends to need to do computations to arbitrary precision and
    as such will most likely be using integer math to do it. The strong
    showing by Mathematica is particularly impressive to me.

    >
    > Photoshop? I don't think so. I think it's all integer.
    >
    > > 2. highly SMP-aware (since this is key for their duals)
    >
    > True.
    >
    > > 3. very Altivec-enabled (since this is where the G5 shines)
    >
    > True.
    >
    > > 4. very memory-intensive (since now the shoe is on the other foot, and
    > > Apple is actually AHEAD in memory access speed)
    >
    > Not necessarily. Mathematica is more computation intensive than memory
    > intensive, I would suspect.
    >
    > >
    > > So, I don't think there was anything misleading about that part of the
    > > presentation, but one should realize they cherry-picked applications
    > > where they knew the G5 would shine. I don't view that as a distortion,
    > > since many people use those applications. However, not all applications
    > > will show this level of benefit.
    >
    > That's true. HOWEVER, the items above describe exactly the way that
    > CPU-intensive apps should be coded. Anyone with an app that could use FP
    > but who tries to do it in INT should be shot. Anyone with a CPU
    > intensive app who doesn't make it SMP-aware (multithreaded should be
    > sufficient) and use Altivec where appropriate doesn't deserve to be in
    > the business.
    >
    > Fortunately, the majority of very CPU-intensive apps meet those criteria
    > - on the Mac, at least.
    Vareck Bostrom Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    Arturo Pérez wrote:
    > Well, one could argue that only the above type of applications need the
    > benefit. After all, the current shipping PowerMacs are more than capable
    > of supporting applications that (to negate the above).
    These types of demos/benchmarks always seem to focus on application
    performance, and the applications chosen always seem to be the same.

    What I never see is a comparison of the relative performance of the two
    operating systems in question here: OS X and Windows XP. After all, we
    spend a lot of time interacting with the operating system during the course
    of our work with our machines, so why not compare the performance of the OS
    as well?

    Probably the reason this isn't done is because such comparisons are more
    subjective. With something like Photoshop, one can say that the G5 applied
    a certain filter in x seconds, while the dual Xeon did it in y seconds.
    Hence, a direct comparison is possible. With an OS, this isn't as easy to
    measure.

    In my experience, OS X is nowhere near as responsive as Windows XP (*). I
    have nothing against the Mac, in fact I own an 867 MHz Quicksilver G4. I
    wish OS X were as responsive as XP, but just looking at the way OS X is
    built, I can see why it's so sluggish.

    The way Quartz composites 2D, 3D, and media to a composite buffer, runs it
    all through the OpenGL pipeline, flattens it, and finally writes it to the
    video card is time consuming. The 2D stuff all seems to be based on a PDF
    imaging model, which I'm sure adds to the overhead. Even Quartz Extreme,
    which optimizes this by doing some of the work on the graphics card, still
    eats up processor time. All this results in slow scrolling windows, slow
    window opens and closes, etc.

    (*) My WindowsXP system running on a 400MHz P3 is much more responsive than
    my 867 MHz G4 running OS X 10.2.6.

    --
    Jerry Gardner
    [email]jg2-usenetgardnerclan.net[/email]
    Jerry Gardner Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    In article <flippo-5B6E1C.13032629062003news.central.cox.net>,
    flip <flippomac.com> wrote:
    >That's true. HOWEVER, the items above describe exactly the way that
    >CPU-intensive apps should be coded. Anyone with an app that could use FP
    >but who tries to do it in INT should be shot.
    How quickly times change!
    >Anyone with a CPU
    >intensive app who doesn't make it SMP-aware (multithreaded should be
    >sufficient) and use Altivec where appropriate doesn't deserve to be in
    >the business.
    Multithreading doesn't necessarily buy you much for SMP. Many CPU-intensive
    apps simply don't parallelize well.

    Note also that many CPU-intensive apps can't use Altivec, because Altivec
    is low-precision.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2003, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / [email]seebsplethora.net[/email]
    [url]http://www.seebs.net/log/[/url] - YA blog. [url]http://www.seebs.net/[/url] - homepage.
    C/Unix wizard, pro-commerce radical, spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
    Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: [url]http://www.plethora.net/[/url]
    Seebs Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    In comp.sys.mac.advocacy Heywood Mogroot <imouttaheremac.com> wrote:
    > Jim Kroger <jimkkREMOVEMEumich.edu> wrote in message news:<jimkkREMOVEME-0B7A01.23203128062003visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu >...
    >> It it hype or has apple n away the x86 world?
    > New Features not available on x86 yet:
    > o Dedicated 900Mhz (6.4GB/s) HyperTransport interface between CPU and
    > the memory controller (the current leading intel desktop, the 875P,
    > manages just 4.7GB/s in real bandwidth). For dual G5 systems, *each*
    > CPU has its own interface to the memory controller, unlike the dual
    > Xeon systems, which have to share a single 533Mhz FSB interface.
    Please check again. The hypertransport interface is not between the
    CPU and the memory controller. The hypertransport interface connects
    between the memory/system controller and a quasi south-bridge I/O
    controller.

    The 6.4 GB/s is a "peak" data rate, if either the 875P or the PPC970's
    companion chip can support 4.7 GB/s sustained bandwidth, then that would
    be very impressive. However, I have not seen anything close to that
    figure when using McCalpin's STREAM.


    --
    davewang202(at)yahoo(dot)com
    David Wang Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    In article <bdnpbd$cho$1grapevine.wam.umd.edu>,
    David Wang <foobar.invalid> wrote:
    > In comp.sys.mac.advocacy Heywood Mogroot <imouttaheremac.com> wrote:
    > > Jim Kroger <jimkkREMOVEMEumich.edu> wrote in message
    > > news:<jimkkREMOVEME-0B7A01.23203128062003visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu >...
    > >> It it hype or has apple n away the x86 world?
    >
    > > New Features not available on x86 yet:
    >
    > > o Dedicated 900Mhz (6.4GB/s) HyperTransport interface between CPU and
    > > the memory controller (the current leading intel desktop, the 875P,
    > > manages just 4.7GB/s in real bandwidth). For dual G5 systems, *each*
    > > CPU has its own interface to the memory controller, unlike the dual
    > > Xeon systems, which have to share a single 533Mhz FSB interface.
    >
    > Please check again. The hypertransport interface is not between the
    > CPU and the memory controller. The hypertransport interface connects
    > between the memory/system controller and a quasi south-bridge I/O
    > controller.
    What is the bus between the CPU and memory controller?

    >
    > The 6.4 GB/s is a "peak" data rate, if either the 875P or the PPC970's
    > companion chip can support 4.7 GB/s sustained bandwidth, then that would
    > be very impressive. However, I have not seen anything close to that
    > figure when using McCalpin's STREAM.
    Vareck Bostrom Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    Steve Bellenot <bellenotmath.fsu.edu> wrote:
    >flip <flippomac.com> wrote:
    >> Seeker1 <seeker1mac.com> wrote:
    >>> My guess would be that Apple chose five applications that were:
    >
    >>> 4. very memory-intensive (since now the shoe is on the other foot, and
    >>> Apple is actually AHEAD in memory access speed)
    >>
    >>Not necessarily. Mathematica is more computation intensive than memory
    >>intensive, I would suspect.
    >
    >Symbolic computations can/often have immediate calculations which require
    >lots of memory. A trivial example would be computing a binomial
    >coefficient 200 choose 100 = 200!/(100!)^2 by multiplying the factorials
    >out and doing the long division. By the way, this is also an example
    >of an integer calculation in Mathematica. The stuff below is maple,
    >but the idea is the same:
    >> binomial(200,100);
    > 90548514656103281165404177077484163874504589675413 336841320
    Point taken, but kind of a bad example :). Maple, like any sensible system,
    doesn't compute the factorials for integer binomial coefficients. Instead,
    it computes binomial(200,i) incrementally for i from 1 to 100, each time
    multiplying by a single rational (using iquo to avoid unnecessary gcd
    computations). So at no stage of binomial(200,100) does the intermediate
    result exceed the answer :).

    -- Erick
    Erick Bryce Wong Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    In article <bdnqgo$eo4$1morgoth.sfu.ca>,
    [email]ericksfu.ca[/email] (Erick Bryce Wong) wrote:
    > Steve Bellenot <bellenotmath.fsu.edu> wrote:
    > >flip <flippomac.com> wrote:
    > >> Seeker1 <seeker1mac.com> wrote:
    > >>> My guess would be that Apple chose five applications that were:
    > >
    > >>> 4. very memory-intensive (since now the shoe is on the other foot, and
    > >>> Apple is actually AHEAD in memory access speed)
    > >>
    > >>Not necessarily. Mathematica is more computation intensive than memory
    > >>intensive, I would suspect.
    > >
    > >Symbolic computations can/often have immediate calculations which require
    > >lots of memory. A trivial example would be computing a binomial
    > >coefficient 200 choose 100 = 200!/(100!)^2 by multiplying the factorials
    > >out and doing the long division. By the way, this is also an example
    > >of an integer calculation in Mathematica. The stuff below is maple,
    > >but the idea is the same:
    > >> binomial(200,100);
    > > 90548514656103281165404177077484163874504589675413 336841320
    >
    > Point taken, but kind of a bad example :). Maple, like any sensible system,
    > doesn't compute the factorials for integer binomial coefficients. Instead,
    > it computes binomial(200,i) incrementally for i from 1 to 100, each time
    > multiplying by a single rational (using iquo to avoid unnecessary gcd
    > computations). So at no stage of binomial(200,100) does the intermediate
    > result exceed the answer :).
    >
    > -- Erick


    What?
    Jim Kroger Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    In article <dd5de929.0306291128.4f394084posting.google.com >,
    [email]imouttaheremac.com[/email] (Heywood Mogroot) wrote:
    > Plus we Apple proponents shouldn't ignore AMD's new Opteron platform,
    > even if everybody in x86 land apparently is.
    >
    > =Heywood=


    And that's very curious to me.


    Jim
    Jim Kroger Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    David Wang <foobar.invalid> wrote in message news:<bdnpbd$cho$1grapevine.wam.umd.edu>...
    > In comp.sys.mac.advocacy Heywood Mogroot <imouttaheremac.com> wrote:
    > > Jim Kroger <jimkkREMOVEMEumich.edu> wrote in message news:<jimkkREMOVEME-0B7A01.23203128062003visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu >...
    > >> It it hype or has apple n away the x86 world?
    >
    > > New Features not available on x86 yet:
    >
    > > o Dedicated 900Mhz (6.4GB/s) HyperTransport interface between CPU and
    > > the memory controller (the current leading intel desktop, the 875P,
    > > manages just 4.7GB/s in real bandwidth). For dual G5 systems, *each*
    > > CPU has its own interface to the memory controller, unlike the dual
    > > Xeon systems, which have to share a single 533Mhz FSB interface.
    >
    > Please check again. The hypertransport interface is not between the
    > CPU and the memory controller.
    yes, this makes more sense. Apple does list a 64-bit "bi-directional"
    / dual 32-bit unidirectional DDR FSB running at 1/4 the CPU speed.

    This sounds like IBM's Elastic I/O...
    > The hypertransport interface connects
    > between the memory/system controller and a quasi south-bridge I/O
    > controller.
    yes, this makes more sense, very little PPC-specific stuff once you
    get to the memory controller.
    > The 6.4 GB/s is a "peak" data rate, if either the 875P or the PPC970's
    > companion chip can support 4.7 GB/s sustained bandwidth, then that would
    > be very impressive. However, I have not seen anything close to that
    > figure when using McCalpin's STREAM.
    I was using SiSandra's memory bandwidth tests, which uses SSE2
    apparently.

    =Heywood=
    Heywood Mogroot Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    In comp.sys.mac.advocacy Vareck Bostrom <bostrovmac.com> wrote:
    > David Wang <foobar.invalid> wrote:
    >> In comp.sys.mac.advocacy Heywood Mogroot <imouttaheremac.com> wrote:
    >> > Jim Kroger <jimkkREMOVEMEumich.edu> wrote in message
    >> > news:<jimkkREMOVEME-0B7A01.23203128062003visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu >...
    >> >> It it hype or has apple n away the x86 world?
    >>
    >> > New Features not available on x86 yet:
    >>
    >> > o Dedicated 900Mhz (6.4GB/s) HyperTransport interface between CPU and
    >> > the memory controller (the current leading intel desktop, the 875P,
    >> > manages just 4.7GB/s in real bandwidth). For dual G5 systems, *each*
    >> > CPU has its own interface to the memory controller, unlike the dual
    >> > Xeon systems, which have to share a single 533Mhz FSB interface.
    >>
    >> Please check again. The hypertransport interface is not between the
    >> CPU and the memory controller. The hypertransport interface connects
    >> between the memory/system controller and a quasi south-bridge I/O
    >> controller.
    > What is the bus between the CPU and memory controller?
    Elastic I/O, inherited from the Power4 lineage. A wavepipelined
    interface with built in skew cancellation circuitry.

    Some information may be found here in an article I wrote right
    after Microprocessor Forum. I meant to do a part 2, but the
    numerous delays means that I would end up doing a post release
    product ysis rather than a pre-release technical ysis
    of what the PPC970 sustem architecture must look like.

    [url]http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT011303183140[/url]

    Hypertransport is more of a peripheral to peripheral interconnect,
    except that AMD added the cache coherency aspect to it, so Opteron
    actually uses ccHT, a cache coherent version of Hypertransport.

    Apple has a PowerMac G5 "technology overview" that describes the role
    that Hypertransport plays in its system. It seems clear that
    Hypretransport is used as the the connection from the northbridge
    to the rest of the world.

    [url]http://a352.g.akamai.net/7/352/51/e93ca6b90038b4/www.apple.com/powermac/pdf/PowerMacG5_TO_062303.pdf[/url]

    Page 11.


    --
    davewang202(at)yahoo(dot)com
    David Wang Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?

    In comp.sys.mac.advocacy Heywood Mogroot <imouttaheremac.com> wrote:
    > David Wang <foobar.invalid> wrote in message news:<bdnpbd$cho$1grapevine.wam.umd.edu>...
    >> In comp.sys.mac.advocacy Heywood Mogroot <imouttaheremac.com> wrote:
    >> > New Features not available on x86 yet:
    >> > o Dedicated 900Mhz (6.4GB/s) HyperTransport interface between CPU and
    >> > the memory controller (the current leading intel desktop, the 875P,
    >> > manages just 4.7GB/s in real bandwidth). For dual G5 systems, *each*
    >> > CPU has its own interface to the memory controller, unlike the dual
    >> > Xeon systems, which have to share a single 533Mhz FSB interface.
    >>
    >> Please check again. The hypertransport interface is not between the
    >> CPU and the memory controller.
    > yes, this makes more sense. Apple does list a 64-bit "bi-directional"
    > / dual 32-bit unidirectional DDR FSB running at 1/4 the CPU speed.
    > This sounds like IBM's Elastic I/O...
    It is Elastic I/O.

    [url]http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT011303183140[/url]

    I did refer to "900 MHz" in the article, which ofcourse should be
    900 mbps. 1/9 of the bits goes to the packet protocol overhead.

    "64 bit bi-directional" bus? I'm not sure what's 64 bit and
    bidirectional in there. The PCI-X bus? It's a bit removed from
    the CPU interface...
    >> The hypertransport interface connects
    >> between the memory/system controller and a quasi south-bridge I/O
    >> controller.
    > yes, this makes more sense, very little PPC-specific stuff once you
    > get to the memory controller.
    Apple could *almost* use stock AMD64/Opteron controllers, except
    AMD64/Opteron needs an AGP port in its southbridge chipset (the
    CPU contains the AGP-less northbridge)

    It would be interesting if Apple did use an AMD chipset later.
    There'd be 2 AGP ports. One in the northbridge, one in the
    southbridge.
    >> The 6.4 GB/s is a "peak" data rate, if either the 875P or the PPC970's
    >> companion chip can support 4.7 GB/s sustained bandwidth, then that would
    >> be very impressive. However, I have not seen anything close to that
    >> figure when using McCalpin's STREAM.
    > I was using SiSandra's memory bandwidth tests, which uses SSE2
    > apparently.
    It would be very difficult for a PPC970 system to match that bandwidth,
    since much of that "4.7 GB/s" is probably just streaming prefetched
    reads. PPC970's read bandwidth is capped at 1/2 of the total bandwidth,
    since the ports are unidirectional.

    I haven't seen any 875P results for McCalpin's stream. I am guesssing
    that it would report somewhere between 3.2 and 3.6 GB/s. If you can
    run the stock STREAM, and report the results to McCalpin, you can
    be (in)famous.

    [url]www.cs.virginia.edu/stream/[/url]

    --
    davewang202(at)yahoo(dot)com
    David Wang Guest

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. flashpaper with the new pro mac dual-core Xeon
    By skowhegan in forum Macromedia Contribute General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 25th, 09:19 PM
  2. Dual mail delivery from scheduled task on dual-instanceCFMX7 Enterprise system
    By imag_je in forum Coldfusion Server Administration
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 17th, 10:59 AM
  3. How would I set up a dual bt w linux n XP
    By KW in forum Linux Setup, Configuration & Administration
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 17th, 01:03 AM
  4. how to put linux in 98/xp dual boot
    By Madhur in forum Linux Setup, Configuration & Administration
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 20th, 06:19 AM
  5. x86 Hardware-Single P4/800 FSB or Dual Xeon 533 FSB?
    By FSICorporate in forum Adobe Photoshop 7, CS, CS2 & CS3
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: August 15th, 10:04 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139