PDA

View Full Version : Impressive PowerPC 970 benchmarks now available


Array
05-05-2003, 10:41 PM
http://www.macbidouille.com/news-2003-05-05.php#5440

WOW!! :eek: If the price is right on these things, Im switching!!

JA-forreal
05-05-2003, 11:36 PM
Cette publication ne fera plus qu'une chose, inciter les MacUsers qui passent au PC en désespoir de cause à attendre pour acheter un Mac.

And this article will help to change Mac users mind before they switch to a more powerful and cheaper PC? I think not.

My old dual p3 systems can beat a P4 in some render test. P4 is a single cpu and apps that are optimized for multi threads work faster on the dual cpu setups.

Put that sucker up against a dual Xeon setup and then you'll be convinced to buy a dual Xeon rig if that kind of rig moves you.

And no , I don't speak french.

beaker
05-05-2003, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by JA-forreal
[B]My old dual p3 systems can beat a P4 in some render test. P4 is a single cpu and apps that are optimized for multi threads work faster on the dual cpu setups.
/B]
Your a little behind on the times. That was true of the P4 when it first came out a couple years ago(1ghz p3 vs 1ghz p4), but the p4 performance has well passed the speed of the p3 now(3ghz p4).

RealThing
05-06-2003, 03:19 AM
You know what's really surprising to me is how poorly the 970 scales with the dual setup. Especially in the Cinema4d test which has a multi-threaded renderer. Also for a fair comparison they really should have included a dual xeon system in the tests. My guess is that they had one but didn't like the results so they didn't post them.
A few months ago I helped setup a studio for a client of ours and they use Cinema4d. Their workstations were dual 1ghz g4's and their rendering computers were dual 2.4ghz xeon's. From what the guys working there have told me the rendering computers are over twice the speed of the dual g4's at rendering with Cinema4d. And the rendering computers were about 1/2 the costs. Apple has a long way to go to prove to me that buying their hardware is a good investment.

Jimzip
05-06-2003, 04:47 AM
Wow.. Everyone around here is so.... Angry..

Jimzip:D

JA-forreal
05-07-2003, 12:02 AM
behind on the times. That was true of the P4 when it first came out a couple years ago(1ghz p3 vs 1ghz p4), but the p4 performance has well passed the speed of the p3 now(3ghz p4).

Speeds depend on the PC system, type of ram, software, etc. And dual P3's are still being put to work alongside single P4's.

red_oddity
05-07-2003, 10:08 AM
I tend to NOT BELIEVE benchmarks...

Our P3 733 often outrenders our G4 dual 800Mhz Mac...strange but true...
Our Compaq W8000 (dual Xeon 2Ghz) outrenders our dual G4 1.42Ghz Mac (often by a long shot and often the Mac comes really close to the same performance (the new memory/frontside bus makes a lot of difference...but they should have done that 2 years ago))

I'll judge it by the time we actually have oneof those Macs and then i'll compare it to the PCs we have then (probably a 20Ghz Pentium 7 by that time ;) )

manuel
05-07-2003, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by red_oddity
I tend to NOT BELIEVE benchmarks...



..and these are benchmarks from a rumor-site. And even if they're real, they would be the benchmarks of a work in progress (beta version of the OS...), so I wouldn't get too excited about it.

iC4
05-07-2003, 10:43 PM
those benchmarks are really funny.....

remember some gforce fx benchmarks some month ago, they showed the gforce fx 2 times faster then the radeon 9700.....and whats now......

beaker
05-08-2003, 02:08 AM
we only have a month to wait till we hear about the real things from the horses mouth.

Crazzy Legs
05-08-2003, 02:54 AM
The word on the street is Apple has been talking about switching cpu producers. Intel. Thats right. I haven't read any conformation yet, but it sounds fair. The report I read (if I remembered my source I'd tell you, perhaps I'll update this when I find out) a few weeks ago, said that Apple will be offering a hybred multi-proc machine. onehalf Motorola, one half Intel. They will phase out of it over time completely to Intel. Again no conformation, but you just might want to hold back on that $3,000 purchase for now, unless you think you can offord the multi purchase.

beaker
05-08-2003, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by Crazzy Legs
The word on the street is Apple has been talking about switching cpu producers. Intel. Thats right. I haven't read any conformation yet, but it sounds fair. The report I read (if I remembered my source I'd tell you, perhaps I'll update this when I find out) a few weeks ago, said that Apple will be offering a hybred multi-proc machine. onehalf Motorola, one half Intel. They will phase out of it over time completely to Intel. Again no conformation, but you just might want to hold back on that $3,000 purchase for now, unless you think you can offord the multi purchase.
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Tell your friend/sources that he they been listening too way too much Dvorak FUD commentary.

Thalaxis
05-08-2003, 04:54 AM
Originally posted by beaker
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Tell your friend/sources that he they been listening too way too much Dvorak FUD commentary.

It is, ironically, not even a new idea... it's been done before. Naturally, Apple sued the company that produced said machine into bankruptcy before they could get off the ground, so it didn't last very long.

Array
05-08-2003, 10:12 AM
I have pity for the programmers who wouldve had to write the kernel for an OS for said machine.....:eek:

red_oddity
05-08-2003, 11:24 AM
Those rumors have been going on for years, first AMD, then Intel, and now back to IBM...

Heck, even C|Net had some on this i believe...
But whatever Apple does, they better steer clear of anything Motorola produces, or something similar...One thing the G processor line wasn't was scalability, nor could it be pushed as far as Intel and AMD manage with their processors (then again, with an Apple you don't need a 10000RPM fan on your processor in order to keep it from melting your entire computer case:p )

silvergun
05-08-2003, 02:29 PM
I don't see the reason why apple should move to x86 line of processors. First theyl have to rewrite the whole os again. With ibm you can still run the 32 bit apps and a little tinkering for 64 bit support.. Personaly I think the IBM macs will make mince meat of the pentiums. Whether those benchmarks are true or not, the new range of macs are gonna have something special.

Thalaxis
05-08-2003, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by silvergun
Personaly I think the IBM macs will make mince meat of the pentiums.

I wouldn't set your expectations so high if I were you.

Meshbuilder
05-08-2003, 10:28 PM
Apple have now all the right products to become one of the biggest player in the Video, Music software industry. They have only one, yes one real big problem. And that's their hardware and Apple knows that.
I'm pretty shure we will see new Macs before the end of this year.
I don't think the new Macs with IBM PPC will "crush" all the PCs out there. But it will keep up with it alot better than with the current G4 from Motorola. It's a bright future for all Macusers. :)

But for 3D, the PC will always be the choice of platform.

red_oddity
05-11-2003, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Meshbuilder
Apple have now all the right products to become one of the biggest player in the Video, Music software industry. They have only one, yes one real big problem. And that's their hardware and Apple knows that.
I'm pretty shure we will see new Macs before the end of this year.


Lets' hope not, that damn OS-X drives me nuts more every day...with every update they break something critical, a lot of the 'i will help you' OS features go right against my workflow (CTRL-F1 anyone?...Lightwave user here Apple...Hellooooooo...wake up...), Annoying interface, and worst off all, no decent OpenGL...Still no decent mouse support, no power user features (without paying for haxies or hacking Unix), and the file requester (the popping too small column view) is downright crap...
Ahwelll....who cares...i'm not using that dual 1.42GHz, 400GB harddisks, 1.5 GB memory, nVidia TI4600 G4 my boss bought me, and just because of those reasons, which is a real shame...Right now i'm still using my 800Mhz Wintel machine...and it still can keep up in production...

They better make this new itteration of the Mac a whole better or i'm even willing to quit my job just to get away from these machines...:annoyed:

matty429
05-12-2003, 06:35 AM
How come there's no dual Intel or AMD in theese benchies...

Rendering is just about the only thing that uses 2 cpu's
Theese reviewers magically got this new PC killing machine

Yet mysteriously theese people couldn't get thier hands on a dual pc?

Apple is good at one thing for sure....

Releasing the most biased benchmarks time and time again...

I see a lifetime achievement award coming....

Array
05-12-2003, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by matty429
How come there's no dual Intel or AMD in theese benchies...

Rendering is just about the only thing that uses 2 cpu's
Theese reviewers magically got this new PC killing machine

Yet mysteriously theese people couldn't get thier hands on a dual pc?

Apple is good at one thing for sure....

Releasing the most biased benchmarks time and time again...

I see a lifetime achievement award coming....

yeah but these benchmarks arent from Apple. theyre from an independant source.

CGTalk Moderation
01-15-2006, 01:00 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.