Far to late to be germane to the thread, but... (if your question isn't a rhetorical one) emphatically yes. I post this less out of love for lawyers (one too many in my family who are successful in their careers yet mediocre human beings) than an overall respect for what an effective legal system affords the citizens it serves. Redresses against organizations of compelling influence and overwhelming power (state or commercial) are accommodated in court (under an English-derived legal system, at least). Doesn't always work, isn't always pretty, but, aside from convincing legions or nations that yours is a righteous cause, it is the place one has to contend for justice. Makes you wonder just who is so emphatically anti-lawyer as to rescind such avenues, masquerading under the project of a more equitable society.
Now to drift off with too much red wine and too much time on my hands...
I understand the excitement over these machines, so I won't get all pissy about this, but...
Until these machines are widely available, each and every thread concerning the performance of the PPC 970 will run the risk of degenerating into a heated debate over whether the figures being offered are reliable. In other words, a flamefest.
Don't we already have enough of those around here?
Sorry 'bout the formatting on that quote... damn that sneaky preview button, boosting my false confidence that I can look "leet" even posting in Plain Old Test. Curses.
>>Vector performance of the G5 remains excellent, and is inline with current G4 systems on a per clock cycle >>basis. As a result, raw vector performance of the G5 will be boosted simply by its higher clock speeds relative >>to current G4 systems.
This would seem to be one of the more interesting points made, actually. Prior to the announcement of the G5s, speculation on the PPC 970 suggested that it would be stellar with FP & so-so with integer; the real question surrounded how well IBM would implement SIMD. Many were pessimistic. Given that it seems like they've managed to add it efficiently a scaled-down POWER4 core, future refinements could make this series of chips (PPC 9X0s) real monsters.
But the future viability of that roadmap (given how ruthless the company as a whole tends to be when faced with departmental money losses) depends as much upon the success of IBM's Linux strategy as it does on its success in the PowerMac line.
[With apologies to BadAndy of the Ars Technica boards; thanks for sharing your insights.]
Re:Can't find SPEC results at spec.org for Apple??
on
G5 Benchmark Roundup
·
· Score: 1
>>[missing the "www." some browsers add this if it's missing - others don't]
Christ, had you pressed one key three times and another once you could've saved yourself and the rest of us this lame attempt at +5 Funny.
Except that this is merely pooling efforts on the porting side, so that one's choice of package management tool won't restrict availability of a given piece of software anymore than one's choice to use PPC Darwin.
>>You know when AMD comes out with a new Opteron >>I don't go all frothy, I think, "That's cool."
As someone who has grown deeply weary of aggressive platform proselytizing, it's always struck me odd precisely how, erm, threatened the anti-Mac crowd seems. I'm sure there are Maclots who venomously disparage the x86 universe, but they do seem fewer and farther in-between.
What accounts for this? [he asked with the greatest of naÃvety]
From Quebec, actually. They're a considerably less noxious export than Celin Dion, though still worthy of the ridicule implicit in any comparison to SCO;p
Slashdot Mirror
Far to late to be germane to the thread, but... (if your question isn't a rhetorical one) emphatically yes. I post this less out of love for lawyers (one too many in my family who are successful in their careers yet mediocre human beings) than an overall respect for what an effective legal system affords the citizens it serves. Redresses against organizations of compelling influence and overwhelming power (state or commercial) are accommodated in court (under an English-derived legal system, at least). Doesn't always work, isn't always pretty, but, aside from convincing legions or nations that yours is a righteous cause, it is the place one has to contend for justice. Makes you wonder just who is so emphatically anti-lawyer as to rescind such avenues, masquerading under the project of a more equitable society.
Now to drift off with too much red wine and too much time on my hands...
Have we met, or was that just a lucky guess?
I understand the excitement over these machines, so I won't get all pissy about this, but...
Until these machines are widely available, each and every thread concerning the performance of the PPC 970 will run the risk of degenerating into a heated debate over whether the figures being offered are reliable. In other words, a flamefest.
Don't we already have enough of those around here?
"Too-Rye-Ay", released in '82. I didn't use google. But I do feel like a loser for having such disposable information at the ready...
Sorry 'bout the formatting on that quote... damn that sneaky preview button, boosting my false confidence that I can look "leet" even posting in Plain Old Test. Curses.
>>Vector performance of the G5 remains excellent, and is inline with current G4 systems on a per clock cycle >>basis. As a result, raw vector performance of the G5 will be boosted simply by its higher clock speeds relative >>to current G4 systems.
This would seem to be one of the more interesting points made, actually. Prior to the announcement of the G5s, speculation on the PPC 970 suggested that it would be stellar with FP & so-so with integer; the real question surrounded how well IBM would implement SIMD. Many were pessimistic. Given that it seems like they've managed to add it efficiently a scaled-down POWER4 core, future refinements could make this series of chips (PPC 9X0s) real monsters.
But the future viability of that roadmap (given how ruthless the company as a whole tends to be when faced with departmental money losses) depends as much upon the success of IBM's Linux strategy as it does on its success in the PowerMac line.
[With apologies to BadAndy of the Ars Technica boards; thanks for sharing your insights.]
>>[missing the "www." some browsers add this if it's missing - others don't]
Christ, had you pressed one key three times and another once you could've saved yourself and the rest of us this lame attempt at +5 Funny.
Except that this is merely pooling efforts on the porting side, so that one's choice of package management tool won't restrict availability of a given piece of software anymore than one's choice to use PPC Darwin.
>>You know when AMD comes out with a new Opteron
>>I don't go all frothy, I think, "That's cool."
As someone who has grown deeply weary of aggressive platform proselytizing, it's always struck me odd precisely how, erm, threatened the anti-Mac crowd seems. I'm sure there are Maclots who venomously disparage the x86 universe, but they do seem fewer and farther in-between.
What accounts for this? [he asked with the greatest of naÃvety]
A civil discussion? On Slashdot?
Hear my words: The End Is Near!
>Raelians:
;p
>From France, prefer outer space.
From Quebec, actually. They're a considerably less noxious export than Celin Dion, though still worthy of the ridicule implicit in any comparison to SCO
(Hope I'm not adding anything redundant to the thread)
As I understand it, the (raw) bus speed on these chips scale to the processor's clock at a 2:1 ratio.
The 900MHz figure is commonly used, I suppose, because everyone has expected the 970 to debut at 1.8GHz.
(Did I get that ratio the right way round; I'm sleep deprived and right ripped at the moment.)