Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion => Topic started by: meerschaum on June 25, 2003, 07:41:01 AM
-
I remember a long time ago I posted a thread with the title 'PPC is bad bad bad!!!' or something close to it and in that thread a said my piece about how come I thought PPC sucked... it was expensive I said, it was slow I said, it was non-standerd, its ratio was way off for consumers... etc etc etc...
well like the idiot I am PPC970 has me eating my hat and I'm glad for it!... I really like the looks of the new mac's I intend (money willing) to get one and make it my primary workstation for what I do (graphics and web development) for a long time...
what are your reactions to PPC970?... I personally think that apple did tweak the benchmarks and I still dont care... its only marginal differences...the main thing is its CHEAPER, and more competative... its definitlu within reason...I dont know the price of the chip but anything good for PPC is good for Pegasos and Amiga... so It's a good day for all of us I think...
-
Oh ya, PPC rules, I just can't afford it right now. :/
-
If only it were cheaper.
I look forward to the day in the future when I browse eBay looking for an old second hand 64bit PPC for under £/$ 100....
Until then, there is the dream...........
-
Quite some time ago I posted here that I had seen the future of PPC and that I was impressed.
I was obviously referring to the 970 and the fact that Mai is working on the required chipset to support it as they have now revealed on the IBM PPC developer conference the other day.
The 970 is still somewhat slower that the very fastest x86 CPU's from Intel and AMD, at least in integer performance.
It does however have Altivec which is far superior to SSE2.
It also has far lower power-consumption despite being a Power4 derivative.
Top of the line 3.2 Ghz Intel CPU's consume a "mere 82 Watts".
It offers execution of 32 bit code without any significant speed penalty.
What it will also do is to ignite competition between Motorola and IBM again as IBM is now clearly encroaching on Motorola's turf with the launch of the 750 GX, the prospect of a G3 with Altivec from IBM and now the 970 which gets them the Apple high-end business.
You can expect Motorola to react.
All of this is good for PPC.
-
Whats the expected price for a Blizzard PPC603e then ?
And a BVision gfx add-on thingy as well ? I'm tempted to hunt them out as the final add-on for my A1200D
-Jar.
-
@ meerschaum
I too think the new Mac is really interesting! But remember that it's not only about CPU power alone, the most interesting part of this Mac is IMO the new chipset that provide this great bandwidth and the controller to shovel data around without bothering the processor or the CPU bus. http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html (http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html)
-
For myself, it was never about which hardware was better. You can find reasons to support any platform. I was just tired of what was available on the other systems.
I used Windows for years and never really liked it. Unlike AmigaOS, Windows feels like a tool. Sure.. It'll get the job done, but it's not something you get excited about. Linux? I've tried REAL hard to like Linux. I just can't. There are just too many issues with Linux.
Macs? Nah. I want a computer to use.. I don't want to pay for art that doubles as a computer. (The Apple designs have never appealed to me.)
The only thing left was hoping that the PPC would be better BECAUSE of the operating system. (And while my Pegasos is not faster than my PC in terms of clockspeed, it sure does remind me that Windows uses a lot of resources on junk that I wished they'd never included in the first place.)
-
For artists I think this system will kick a**.
Photoshop and Lightwave should get a great
speed boost, and perhaps OSX will finally
loose its sluggishness. I have a few designer
friends that moved on to dual and quad Xeon's
becasue PPC was just too slow...but now, I think
it's a definate player again.
I'm not an artist, but nevertheless I'm
certainly interested in a "test drive".
-
It's a step in the right direction by IBM methinks, though I wonder if they can continue to catch up with x86.
-
@ HyperionMP
I was obviously referring to the 970 and the fact that Mai is working on the required chipset to support it as they have now revealed on the IBM PPC developer conference the other day.
How can you read "MAI is working" into:
* IBM is actively talking "to memory controller vendors with representatives in this room (Mai Logic and Marvell were exhibiting) and others, who will vend controllers supporting at least dual CPUs."? (Link (http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=3470943335&r=3060960175#3060960175))
Ah well, perhaps you have other information than the rest of us. But they would surely be fools if they don't look into this! But don't hold your breath, Mr Hermans!
I wrote this elsewhere:
So *if* there will come something out of this, it means real life end-user products ... when?
[Developing a new chipset, bugtesting that, make necessary modification and go back to the manufacturing plant, developing a new motherboard around this architecture, bugtesting that, making necessary modifications and start production ...]
In 2+ years from now?
Pegasos III ? :-o :-)
Well, I'm not holding my breath! The Peg I is here today, the Peg II in a near future ...
The IBM NB (only single processor support?) will possibly come earlier; IBM *should* have some lead, one thinks ... ;-)
Anyway, there will surely be some choice of chipsets for motherboard designers to choose from ... in some time. By then, the CPU will have matured and advanced even further, prices may have dropped, and things might be generally better. But that is then, and this is now. Perhaps we shouldn't be hyping some future technology, instead we should focus on what we have today and make some OS'es and software ready for this! ;-)
-
@HyperionMP
To be honest, I'm not sure if Motorola cares about the desktop processor market anymore. Even if they released a new 64-bit CPU, who would use it since Apple's gone to IBM.
Sure, the 970 is a great step forward for the PPC desktop platform. But will sales from Apple alone be enough to ensure ongoing 970 development so it's competitive and on par with the x86 alternative in 6 to 12 months time?
Maybe things would have been different if Apple focused only MacOS, and the concept of PowerMac 'compatibles' existed?
-
The 970 is not only intended for Apple, IBM also plans to sell it into the workstation and low-end server market and possibly even for certain embedded applications.
Writing off Motorola is a mistake. Sure, their CPU's are primarily intended for embedded systems but let's face it, a 1.3 Ghz G4 is nothing to sneeze at.
Especially not when it only consumes around 10 watts.
Ideal for multimedia embedded systems.
-
@ HyperionMP
Good points! :-)
-
Around a £160 to £170 pound on ebay. :-)
-
by HyperionMP on 2003/6/25 7:03:46
Writing off Motorola is a mistake. Sure, their CPU's are primarily intended for embedded systems but let's face it, a 1.3 Ghz G4 is nothing to sneeze at.
For people paying the big bucks, it is. Figure that A1 G4 is ~$950 USD, then add in the cost of RAM, mid to upper end GFX, case, CD/DVD, hard drive, modern sound card, the price jump to the low end 970 Mac is not that big of a financial jump for such a big tech upgrade. That should be worrying Eyetech, alot.
Dammy
-
I am wondering what are the clockspeeds for all the fastest 64 bit computers out there today?
-
Yes, and it's damn cheap!!!.
Buying one of these babes will even make sense economically. I really hope this oportunity gets pushed into markets.
The only problem is that now I'll have to wait tiill there's an AmigaOne that supports it. I'll just buy AOS4 version fro BPPC now.
-
dammy wrote:
Figure that A1 G4 is ~$950 USD
Just a slight correction -- the A1 XE G4 is available in the US for $800. I don't want to turn this into an advertisement, so I wont say where ;)
-
meerschaum wrote:
I remember a long time ago I posted a thread with the title 'PPC is bad bad bad!!!' or something close to it and in that thread a said my piece about how come I thought PPC sucked... it was expensive I said, it was slow I said, it was non-standerd, its ratio was way off for consumers... etc etc etc...
well like the idiot I am PPC970 has me eating my hat and I'm glad for it!... I really like the looks of the new mac's I intend (money willing) to get one and make it my primary workstation for what I do (graphics and web development) for a long time...
what are your reactions to PPC970?... I personally think that apple did tweak the benchmarks and I still dont care... its only marginal differences...the main thing is its CHEAPER, and more competative... its definitlu within reason...I dont know the price of the chip but anything good for PPC is good for Pegasos and Amiga... so It's a good day for all of us I think...
not wanting to sound like an arrogant prick or somthing...
but... told you so! :-P
-
HyperionMP
The 970 is still somewhat slower that the very fastest x86 CPU's from Intel and AMD, at least in integer performance.
its only the integer results that are slower... and then only slightly
there were some interesting benchmarks
and i really wonder what the cause of the slower integer rate is
technicly the ppc should kick ass in this area
-
@HyperionMP
Note that Intel has IPC bias “Pentium M” for “thin and light” and embedded markets. It's available from 400Mhz to 1.6Ghz. From tech news sites (e.g. ZDNET),“Pentium M” @ 1.6Ghz is said to be equal with Intel's Pentium 4 @ ~2.2Ghz-2.5Ghz on integer performance (benefits office type applications).
"Pentium M" @1.1Ghz, it consumes ~12 watts.
Just keeping things into perspective in relation to Motorola’s G4 targeted market.
Reference;
http://www.intel.com/design/intarch/prodbref/25269601.pdf
-
It does however have Altivec which is far superior to SSE2.
Which version of SSE2 implementation (i.e. Opteron’s SSE2 or Pentium 4’s SSE2)?
The 970 is still somewhat slower that the very fastest x86 CPU's from Intel and AMD, at least in integer performance.
In SPECfp rate context, 2P Opteron @1.8Ghz was ahead** of 2P PPC 970 @2.0Ghz.
-
Joshua wrote:
Just a slight correction -- the A1 XE G4 is available in the US for $800. I don't want to turn this into an advertisement, so I wont say where ;)
How are your plans going to becoming a Pegasos reseller? :-D
-
Apple's prices are competative with dual Xeon systems.
-
strobe wrote:
Apple's prices are competative with dual Xeon systems.
I don’t recall current Xeon prices being static (e.g. June 2003 -> August/September 2003) …
Comparing the current Xeon prices to August/September release of Apple’s PowerPC 970 is inherently flawed.
-
It offers execution of 32 bit code without any significant speed penalty.
Cool!!!!!! That just made my day! I was wondering wether AmigaOS would be able to use this chip, now we know. :)
Prices for existing PPC chips will probably come down a lot as well, yeah?
-
jahc wrote:
It offers execution of 32 bit code without any significant speed penalty.
Cool!!!!!! That just made my day! I was wondering wether AmigaOS would be able to use this chip, now we know. :)
Prices for existing PPC chips will probably come down a lot as well, yeah?
jahc the PowerPC was always designed to eventually be 64 bit
all the 32 bit versions were designed with this in mind
basically the 32bit instructions are still included, and will work with 64 bit registers
-
by strobe on 2003/6/25 21:01:26
Apple's prices are competative with dual Xeon systems.
Pity you could just about build a 3 GHz dual Xeon system for just over $2.1K
Dammy
-
PPC vs x86 is pretty much a no brainer. PPC is a better architecture, overall. The cost of the chips also isn't much of a problem, although supply can be an issue, which does affect price.
My problem is with the system architecture. Having a high-end PPC sounds really sweet, but having to shell out hundreds of dollars just for a motherboard that supports PC standards several years old is not my taste. The only PPC systems I've seen that are competitive with any modern x86 PC are Macs, and even then, you're paying a big premium. Just tell me a Mac tower doesn't get it's butt kicked by a PC roughly half the cost.
One of the computers I use at work is a Sun workstation (I presume it is 10 years old). If it breaks down, it costs over $2,000 to have it replaced. It's attached to an 8 year old 8.5x11 scanner, too, which is about the same size as a modern 12x18 scanner. The quality of the scans is awful, and if it breaks, a replacement is $1,200. That's the world of low-volume hardware. I really don't understand why my boss bought the damn thing. He gets all kinds of stuff I tell him NOT to buy. :angry:
I still think a proprietary x86 system would have been a better platform for the Amiga, but of course there's no point bringing it up, now.
-
X86 is a fine architecture its solid, its stable (relatively), its very very cheap...and components are everywhere... I know its a generally a better price/performance ratio...and when people talk of watts and power consumption I often find myself thinking 'well yeah thats true, BUT if 1 3ghz X86 is doing the work of two or more PPC's and it's initial cost is less then a quarter the price, and its more reliable because if it breaks it can be replaced 4 times over and not cost more there, then the power consumption argument is bunk' ...
The reason thing that makes PPC viable is its reliability/stability its low noise (noise bothers alot of computer users), its clean assembler (so I'm told),...it has its merit ... OSX/MorphOS are the two reasons I will go PowerPC... I want a PPC970 to run OSX (good stable, mainstream Unix) and MorphOS (fast/lite amiga compatible OS)... I hope by this time next year I'm running a Peg2 and Dual G5 2ghz mac!... thats my dream for later this year!... I can keep hoping! :) ...
-
Hammer said:
Note that Intel has IPC bias “Pentium M” for “thin and light” and embedded markets. It's available from 400Mhz to 1.6Ghz. From tech news sites (e.g. ZDNET),“Pentium M” @ 1.6Ghz is said to be equal with Intel's Pentium 4 @ ~2.2Ghz-2.5Ghz on integer performance (benefits office type applications).
I have a brand spanking new centrino 1.6Ghz laptop, and I can say quite definately that 1.6Ghz on these new Pentium Ms match a P4 2.2Ghz. :)
Runs bloody hot tho...
-Jar.
-
Jaruzel wrote:
Hammer said:
Note that Intel has IPC bias “Pentium M” for “thin and light” and embedded markets. It's available from 400Mhz to 1.6Ghz. From tech news sites (e.g. ZDNET),“Pentium M” @ 1.6Ghz is said to be equal with Intel's Pentium 4 @ ~2.2Ghz-2.5Ghz on integer performance (benefits office type applications).
I have a brand spanking new centrino 1.6Ghz laptop, and I can say quite definately that 1.6Ghz on these new Pentium Ms match a P4 2.2Ghz. :)
Runs bloody hot tho...
Note that, @ 1.6Ghz it jumps to 24.5 watts from 1.1Ghz's 12 watts. Other factors may contribute with the heat generation.
-
PPC vs x86 is pretty much a no brainer. PPC is a better architecture, overall.
Refer to http://ars-technica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html
Modern X86 processors are merely post-RISC like CPU with a hardware decoders/translators/emulators. You will also notice that PPC 970 has a crush/decode stage.
Referring to http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/x86-64/x86-64-4.html
In addition to fattening up the x86 ISA by increasing the number and sizes of its registers, x86-64 also slims it down by kicking out some of the older and less frequently used features that have been kept thus far in the name of backward compatibility.
When AMD's engineers started looking for legacy x86 features to jettison, the first thing to go was the segmented memory model. Programs written to the x86-64 ISA will use a flat, 64-bit virtual address space. Furthermore, legacy x86 applications running in long mode's compatibility sub-mode must run in protected mode. Support for real mode and virtual-8086 mode are absent in long mode and available only in legacy mode. This isn't too much of a hassle, though, since, except for a few fairly old legacy applications, modern x86 apps use protected mode.
//AMD's clean up of X86 ISA. It will not affect most WinNT/Win32/Linux based applications. **It can still run at least from DOS 3.30 to DOS 7.
-
meerschaum wrote:
The reason thing that makes PPC viable is its reliability/stability its low noise (noise bothers alot of computer users), its clean assembler (so I'm told),...it has its merit ... OSX/MorphOS are the two reasons I will go PowerPC... I want a PPC970 to run OSX (good stable, mainstream Unix) and MorphOS (fast/lite amiga compatible OS)... I hope by this time next year I'm running a Peg2 and Dual G5 2ghz mac!... thats my dream for later this year!... I can keep hoping! :) ...
I wouldn't be so sure about the noise issue, my G4 eMac is by far the noisiest computer I've ever owned. I've also heard complaints about G4 PowerMacs causing too much noise as well. Personally for a Pegasos or A1 I'd go for a quieter G3 model as you don't need the same grunt that OS X requires with an Amigaiod OS.
My main reason for going for a G4 computer was nowt to do with PPC or harware design, but rather OS X and the whole "lifestyle computer" package Apple are so good at. Similarly I'd only get an PPC amiga if OS 4 turns out how I hope it will, if not I'd be better off going for x86 and AROS and UAE.
-
by meerschaum on 2003/6/26 4:09:07
The reason thing that makes PPC viable is its reliability/stability its low noise (noise bothers alot of computer users),
The CPU itself is not noisey, it's the fans that are used. Start using Zalman's very low noise cooling fans (or better yet, their flower design) and their low noise PSU and I think you would be greatly suprised on how quiet a X86 can be for an extra $50 or so dollars. Liquid bearings for the HD, and your set.
Zalman (http://www.zalman.co.kr/english/intro.htm)
Dammy