If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 06/03/2005 2:52:46 PM PDT by Bush2000
Workstation, yes; Server, no.
The G5 is a gigantic improvement over the previous CPU in the PowerMac, the G4e. The G5 is one of the most superscalar CPUs ever, and has all the characteristics that could give Apple the edge, especially now that the clock speed race between AMD and Intel is over. However, there is still a lot of work to be done.
First of all, the G5 needs a lower latency access to the memory because right now, the integer performance of the G5 leaves a lot to be desired. The Opteron and Xeon have a better integer engine, and especially the Pentium 4/Xeon has a better Branch predictor too. The Opteron's memory subsystem runs circles around the G5's.
Secondly, it is clear that the G5 FP performance, despite its access to 32 architectural registers, needs good optimisation. Only one of our flops tests was " Altivectorized", which means that the GCC compiler needs to improve quite a bit before it can turn those many open source programs into super fast applications on the Mac. In contrast, the Intel compiler can vectorize all 8 tests.
The server performance of the Apple platform is, however, catastrophic. When we asked Apple for a reaction, they told us that some database vendors, Sybase and Oracle, have found a way around the threading problems. We'll try Sybase later, but frankly, we are very sceptical. The whole "multi-threaded Mach microkernel trapped inside a monolithic FreeBSD cocoon with several threading wrappers and coarse-grained threading access to the kernel", with a "backwards compatibility" millstone around its neck sounds like a bad fusion recipe for performance.
(Excerpt) Read more at anandtech.com ...
Get ready to get flamed by the "Mac Clan"
> Interesting read.
Indeed. Conspicuous by its absence is any mention of
multi-core Power. Looking at the "server" performance
may indicate why - it wouldn't help, at least on OSX.
Given that the GHz/MooresLaw race is on extended
suspension, dual-core, and later multi-core, will be the
buzzword for the near future, esp. on real servers.
Of course, given the positioning of Apple, raw performance
isn't that big a deal. As long as they are at least 75%
of x86, they'll retain the loyal customers. And they'd
need 200%, plus a credible story of maintaining that for
some years, to gain new converts.
To be fair, Anandtech did give kudos to G5 for workstation perf.
No doubt, Apple appreciates the free consulting job by these guys -- and that they isolated several points where performance can be improved via compiler tweaks. Ex: when Altivec is cranked in -- the G5 flies...
I have a G5. I think it's a great machine. I prefer the interface to Windows or Linux.
Interesting test results, and I hope Apple takes them as a basis for further improvements to an already powerful system.
Man, that article hurt my head! Good info, thanks.
Till NEXT month! The quickest way to make a thing obsolete is to BUY it!
I wouldn't put a database on a mac server...
However, for file sharing, it's a much better choice for small businesses. $1000 for unlimited users...
But I still don't think I'd run a multi-million record DB off it.
I would expect both platforms to perform better on the low-level benchmarks by using a better compiler. gcc, frankly, sucks performancewise - performance is not a major goal of gcc - this notion that icc isn't used much in the real world is bananas, and I expect that IBM/Moto/Apple/someone has a better in-house compiler than gcc. As it is, what's mainly being tested is how well gcc optimizes for some given platform, which is "not very well" in most cases.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
?
I doubt it. The "Mac Clan" is mostly gungho for stability, security, and ease of use in comparison to Wintel boxes.
I've got Linux (with the KDE GUI with a Mac-like desktop configuration) on my desktop at my office, and Mac OS X on my laptop at home. I don't have a dog in the fight over which makes a better OS/Hardware configuration for servers.
Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5731398.html
Mac OSX in Intel hardware, that the games begin!!!
= Mac OSX on Intel hardware, let the games begin!!!
(Fat Fingers on keyboard).
Thank you, Bush. Interesting read.
It seems any criticism of Apple or its products, justified or not really gets them riled up. I have been in several conversations with members of Free Republic about Apples need to use dual processor units. They will not concede that Apple has to use dual CPUs to maintain performance parity with a single Intel CPU.
I’ll be the first to admit that MS and Intel have problems with security, but much of the negative publicity is not justified and that any combination of OS and Processor is going to have short comings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.