Depends on the OS you will be coding on for each system. The PCC G4 chip would crunch this data faster than anything if you used Altivec. On the Mac altivec support is easy to write. I don't know about Linux PPC, but you could use darwin the base of MacOS X or MacOS X itself if you prefer UNIX.
If the app were properly threaded you could utilise Altivec on both processors of a G4 PowerMac. This would offer performance unbeaten by anyother desktop system, if you want faster buy an SGI or Sparc.
If you want to go with Linux + can't optimise for Altivec then target for AMDs x86 chips. The Athalon is the only x86 chip that gives the G4 a run for your money with number crunching.
G4 Info:
A single G4 contains in addition to its standard 32bit Integer units 2x 128bit Vector processing units, with 64 registers and a heap of cache to keep it fed. Each unit would crunch two of your 64bit Ints one op per cycle. The ops are non destructive - your output register is not one of your inputs. The large number of registers means you can perform very complex algorithms without having to perform load/stores (which slow things down terribly). Using the permute op you can rearrange your data very quickly.
It was this sort of thing that Altivec was specifically designed to handle and it does the job very well.
There is an alternative theory of gravitation formulated by Yilmaz. He theorised that the source of the curvature of space-time is the gravitation field itself. Thus Eisteins equation (1/2.G,mu^v = Tau,mu^v) need modification and becomes: 1/2.G,mu^v = Tau,mu^v + t,mu^v
Using this there are no space-time singularities or event horizons - so no black holes then.
It is sadening that so many people base new theories around the existance of black holes that ultimately could prove to be a waste of time and good minds.
I wouldn't trust a supposed in depth comparison by someone who is obviously ill qualified enough to make this statement:
>Some of the questions answered: Are double
>pumped, hyperpipelined, low latency designs
>the only future for x86?
Low latency & long pipelines in processor design are opposed. You can't have both at the same time.
Example:
G4s have 4 pipeline stages = low latency, low clock speed
PIIIs have 14 pipeline stages = high latency, high clock speed
Hyperpipelines are generally took as those of ~20 stages. There are some big disadvantages to having pipelines that deep. High clock speed means nothing if the processor is wasting cycles emptying a super long pipeline after a branch mispredict.
Apple did not steal the GUI concept from Xerox's Palo Alto Research Centre. They borrowed some ideas but not the complete OS concept. The other key difference is that Apple actually asked Xerox first. Smalltalk really has very little in common with MacOS. Microsoft was given detailed information about the MacOS APIs to aid them in creating apps for the Macintosh. Microsoft used this information when creating windows.
There has been enough misinformation spread about the birth of the GUI and Apple and Xerox part in it all. Microsoft had no part in the creation of the GUI all the concepts were in place when it created its own.
I suggest those who are interested take a look at the following essay linked from here. They were written by people actually involved:
You can actually still run System 1 today using the vMac emulator. If you have too much spare time then you can try it out and see just how advanced it was for its time.
"The one area that Macs have always been appreciated is graphics work. However, with the availability of Photoshop, Lightwave/3D Studio (which do not run on Macs), etc. for the PC has rendered (no pun intended) the Mac inferior."
Erm, all of these applications are available on Apple Macintosh. Photoshop was 1st developed on the Mac plaform and due to the wider array of plug-ins for the platform the Mac remains the best platform to run Photoshop on.
"SGI machines reign at the high-end and Intel/AMD machines control the low end. With the selection of PC 3D cards being far superior to that of Mac cards, I do not see the Mac regaining much market share in the professional graphics market."
The new G4 Power Macs are so powerful that they provide enough power to rival far more expensive SGI boxes. Photoshop is optimised for Altivec and Lightwave is being optimised.
As for 3D graphics cards a large number of PC manufacturers have OEM deals with ATI and use the same cards that are used in Power Macs. Other 3D cards common in PCs such as voodoo based cards are designed for games and not serious 3D work, they have no baring on machines being used in the professional graphics market.
The only major graphics app missing on the Mac is Maya - however the MacOS X port was announced at WWDC 2000.
As for regaining market share in the professional graphics market - they never lost it! a very small number of users switched, most likely due to other company presures and not merits base on computing platforms.
"Unless you are targeting the style-conscious consumer (iMac), image and design will almost be less important than price/performance. C'mon Apple--build a better (and CHEAPER) mouse trap and we will come knocking at your door."
Apple macines have had a reputation for being expensive. Though this was once true it is no longer the case. True you can get cheaper PCs, than Macs but for price/performance you can't beat a PowerMac.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on the OS you will be coding on for each system. The PCC G4 chip would crunch this data faster than anything if you used Altivec. On the Mac altivec support is easy to write. I don't know about Linux PPC, but you could use darwin the base of MacOS X or MacOS X itself if you prefer UNIX.
If the app were properly threaded you could utilise Altivec on both processors of a G4 PowerMac. This would offer performance unbeaten by anyother desktop system, if you want faster buy an SGI or Sparc.
If you want to go with Linux + can't optimise for Altivec then target for AMDs x86 chips. The Athalon is the only x86 chip that gives the G4 a run for your money with number crunching.
G4 Info:
A single G4 contains in addition to its standard 32bit Integer units 2x 128bit Vector processing units, with 64 registers and a heap of cache to keep it fed. Each unit would crunch two of your 64bit Ints one op per cycle. The ops are non destructive - your output register is not one of your inputs. The large number of registers means you can perform very complex algorithms without having to perform load/stores (which slow things down terribly). Using the permute op you can rearrange your data very quickly.
It was this sort of thing that Altivec was specifically designed to handle and it does the job very well.
There is an alternative theory of gravitation formulated by Yilmaz. He theorised that the source of the curvature of space-time is the gravitation field itself. Thus Eisteins equation (1/2.G,mu^v = Tau,mu^v) need modification and becomes: 1/2.G,mu^v = Tau,mu^v + t,mu^v
Using this there are no space-time singularities or event horizons - so no black holes then.
It is sadening that so many people base new theories around the existance of black holes that ultimately could prove to be a waste of time and good minds.
>We have published an in depth comparison...
I wouldn't trust a supposed in depth comparison by someone who is obviously ill qualified enough to make this statement:
>Some of the questions answered: Are double
>pumped, hyperpipelined, low latency designs
>the only future for x86?
Low latency & long pipelines in processor design are opposed. You can't have both at the same time.
Example:
G4s have 4 pipeline stages = low latency, low clock speed
PIIIs have 14 pipeline stages = high latency, high clock speed
Hyperpipelines are generally took as those of ~20 stages. There are some big disadvantages to having pipelines that deep. High clock speed means nothing if the processor is wasting cycles emptying a super long pipeline after a branch mispredict.
Apple did not steal the GUI concept from Xerox's Palo Alto Research Centre. They borrowed some ideas but not the complete OS concept. The other key difference is that Apple actually asked Xerox first. Smalltalk really has very little in common with MacOS. Microsoft was given detailed information about the MacOS APIs to aid them in creating apps for the Macintosh. Microsoft used this information when creating windows.
There has been enough misinformation spread about the birth of the GUI and Apple and Xerox part in it all. Microsoft had no part in the creation of the GUI all the concepts were in place when it created its own.
I suggest those who are interested take a look at the following essay linked from here. They were written by people actually involved:
http://www.apple-history.com/horn1.html
You can actually still run System 1 today using the vMac emulator. If you have too much spare time then you can try it out and see just how advanced it was for its time.
http://www.nd.edu/~jvanderk/sysone/
Erm, all of these applications are available on Apple Macintosh. Photoshop was 1st developed on the Mac plaform and due to the wider array of plug-ins for the platform the Mac remains the best platform to run Photoshop on.
The new G4 Power Macs are so powerful that they provide enough power to rival far more expensive SGI boxes. Photoshop is optimised for Altivec and Lightwave is being optimised.
As for 3D graphics cards a large number of PC manufacturers have OEM deals with ATI and use the same cards that are used in Power Macs. Other 3D cards common in PCs such as voodoo based cards are designed for games and not serious 3D work, they have no baring on machines being used in the professional graphics market.
The only major graphics app missing on the Mac is Maya - however the MacOS X port was announced at WWDC 2000.
As for regaining market share in the professional graphics market - they never lost it! a very small number of users switched, most likely due to other company presures and not merits base on computing platforms.
Apple macines have had a reputation for being expensive. Though this was once true it is no longer the case. True you can get cheaper PCs, than Macs but for price/performance you can't beat a PowerMac.