PPC is better better better!!!!

[dammy]

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

[jeffimix]

I am wondering what are the clockspeeds for all the fastest 64 bit computers out there today?

[Jose]

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.

[Joshua]

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

[iamaboringperson]

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

[iamaboringperson]

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

[Hammer]

@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

[Hammer]

 

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.  

[Darth_X]

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

[strobe]

Apple's prices are competative with dual Xeon systems.

[Hammer]

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.

[jahc]

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?

[iamaboringperson]

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

[dammy]

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

[Waccoon]

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.

[meerschaum]

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! ...