Slashdot Log In
Intel Developer Macs Outperform G5s
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Jul 13, 2005 05:43 PM
from the good-time-to-own-appl dept.
from the good-time-to-own-appl dept.
bonch writes "Developers working with the new Intel-based, developer-only Macs are impressed with the performance. The machines take as little as 10 seconds to boot from Apple logo to desktop, and apparently run Windows XP at 'blazing speeds.' Rosetta tests demonstrate the PowerPC-native build of Firefox running just as fast as it does on a high-end G5."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Boot times disk/network bound (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how even an order of magnitude increase in CPU power could shorten boot times to the extent described here.
There must be other factors.
--
Toby
Re:Boot times disk/network bound (Score:5, Funny)
It also runs "Windows XP at blazing speeds"? Well, hm, that doesn't sound like a plain old P4 to me.
Parent
Re:Boot times disk/network bound (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Boot times disk/network bound (Score:5, Interesting)
Take XP, load Office 2003, Norton AV, the standard CD burning and DVD viewing apps, and watch the performance (and boot times) degrade considerably.
Parent
fishy numbers (Score:5, Funny)
Well, there is a one in three chance that this study is nonsense.
Parent
Re:Boot times disk/network bound (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, since plugins cannot be emulated, there is no way for anyone to install kernel extensions that slow down the boot times of OS X.
In other words, the speed these people think they're seeing are actually do to a horrific lack of features.
Parent
Or the corollary (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Boot times disk/network bound (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Boot times disk/network bound (Score:5, Informative)
What makes you think they support booting from USB drives?
OSX kernel extensions are very rare. Almost no program uses them except Norton products(anti-virus and disk doctor). I recommend staying away from Norton stuff for this reason and using Alsoft's Disk Warrior. Third party kernel extensions are a bad idea on any OS.
Uhm, I hope you realize that apple includes many as well that aren't exactly usable on these Dev kits. Such as Bluetooth kexts, ATI kexts (or Nvidia kexts), Airport kexts, netboot, FWTDM kexts, Audio kexts (there are 8 audio kexts loaded on my G5), CHUD kexts, fan control kexts, slew, voltage, sensor kexts, and other kinds of kexts that either lack the hardware or software support on the Intel Dev Kits.
Then for third party kexts there are Logitech Drivers, Norton Utilities kexts, Virtual PC kexts, the Ambrosia kext, DiskWarrior kexts, and many other third party drivers and kexts that shouldn't be loading at startup and shouldn't even be kexts but are.
What features are lacking?? The Intel dev Macs have Firefox, iPhoto, iDVD, and Quicktime installed. The average user may install some extra dashboard widgets and a driver or two, but I doubt that would add more than a couple seconds to boot time.
What makes you think these dev kits have either iDVD or Firefox installed on them? Did you see iDVD in use during Steve Jobs' WWDC keynote?
See above for a large list. You don't need to load a kext for hardware that doesn't exist.
Parent
Re:Boot times disk/network bound (Score:5, Interesting)
They do, do they? Where was it confirmed? And at what point in the keynote did Jobs ever show off anything but iPhoto and iTunes? http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/ [apple.com] There's the keynote. Go ahead, tell me where.
and FWIW, I was at the keynote. What's in the dock during the keynote is all that comes with the dev kits.
Parent
Re:Boot times disk/network bound (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not use something more like a resume from hibernation, where you just restore the contents of memory directly from the disc in one go and be done with it?
Actually using hibernation rather than booting is no good, becuase it only restores you to the state that your computer was in last time you used it, which might not be "clean". For example, if you had been running something with a memory leak, hibernation won't fix that.
But the solution is simple - instead of writing the hibernate data to disc just before you shut down, instead store it just after you've finished booting, so that you've got a "clean" system ready.
This way you get a "clean" system every time at the speed of a restore from hibernation. (And if something goes wrong, you still have the option to do a "full" boot.)
Some might say that you need to go through all the slow processing of a full boot in case anything's changed. Really? Restoring from hibernation seems to cope with that possibility.
More likely, most times, nothing will have changed. And for the times when it has, well, you do the extra configuration necessary after the restore - you're still no worse off.
So why are we still forced to sit through full boot cycles?
Parent
Re:Boot times disk/network bound (Score:5, Insightful)
A resume form hibernation has to read ALL of your memory from disc, as only saving "used" memory frames would just invide bugs from hell. (think about memory windows from drivers, or what is "clean state" ? which autostarts/services,ect)
And with 1GB, even on a very fast HD it would need 20 seconds... Not faster
Also consider that bootup is usually the time to detect new hardware.
In fact, im quite happy with the 20-30 seconds i get with windows xp.
Parent
Re:Boot times disk/network bound (Score:5, Informative)
As for detecting new hardware - that's such a rare event that it should be treated as an exception, rather than the norm. Most days I boot my computer, there's a marked absence of strange new hardware...
Parent
Re:Boot times disk/network bound (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Boot times disk/network bound (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple has really been pushing people to Sleep the machines instead of turning them off. Sleep mode uses a very tiny amount of power, and you get your instantaneous boot (with apps open and windows positioned...). I have been doing this with my Macs since OS X appeared and let me tell you it is the only way to go. Especially on laptops. In fact I am still using a CRT on my G5 and the computer 'boots' faster than the monitor (warm up).
Parent
Re:Boot times disk/network bound (Score:4, Interesting)
Your point makes sense though about making some sort of assumed last known configuration the default. This would require the user to hit a button if they change their config so a full reboot with full PCI scan could ocurr - probably not too user friendly.
Parent
Re:Boot times disk/network bound (Score:5, Informative)
Memory test.
Parent
Re:Boot times disk/network bound (Score:5, Funny)
Nope, I'm damned if I can remember what it's doing for those few seconds. Now will you tell me the damn answer?
J.
Parent
Impressed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Impressed (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Rosetta only translates G3 code, not G4/G5 (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Intel Graphics (Score:5, Funny)
Talk about a 180... (Score:5, Funny)
I should feel vindicated, I suppose.
What the... (Score:5, Funny)
Integer vs. Altivec (Score:5, Interesting)
I think most of us expected the P4 to perform better for Integer like code on applications that don't effectively SMP. So that's not that surprising. I am surprised at the speed of Rosetta, although that will be a mixed bag once again depending upon the application.
What I'm really interested in is speed on stuff that really leveraged Altivec, like A/V programs. I'm curious about Quicktime 7 for instance. Now some of these programs can use some similar functions on the P4. But from what the Altivec folks were telling me some code ought differ by as much as 50%. (i.e. the PPC is twice as fast) A nice simple test is to compare programs like iMovie on both platforms.
Re:Integer vs. Altivec (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Bad news for Mac software (Score:5, Funny)
Not good.
Re:Dual Boot (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Dual Boot (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Dual Boot (Score:4, Informative)
I won't get into the debate about the quality (or lack therof) of Creative's products, except to say that there is a thriving market for aftermarket audio products for the Mac platform (M-Audio being one such vendor).
My point of contention with your post is your assertation that Apple employs the aid of Bang and Olufsen for its built-in audio. While searching on Google reveals others using superlatives that compare Apple's design to the afformentioned company's products, there is no evidence of collaboration. There are aftermarket products made for lines such as the iPod, but that's as close as it gets.
A few more little known facts: Apple uses all Bose speakers even down to the smallest speakers in their systems. And Bose designs the case section where the speaker will be housed in order to provide high quality, room filling sound no matter what system you have.
Furthermore, Bose has only had a limited relationship with Apple, starting and ending with the PowerMac 6400 family. And for the record, the logevity of this particular piece of design has been lacking. Apple has collaborated with other companies on their speaker design, such as utilizing Harman Kardon enclosures/speakers starting with the iMac DV [apple.com].
Your references to startup tones are tangential, more a matter of taste and style than metrics. Apple succeeds in the the fields of arts primarily because of their decent first-party applications, and additionally because of their ISVs and aftermarket hardware. Many creative types still call the Mac home, and I don't think it's because of trendy start-up tones or hardware companies.
As to Apple's success and appeal, I wholly agree it is due in large part to the bottom-to-top control they have of the platform. I may have made mistakes in calling you out on some of these facts you are presenting. I have spent nearly 10 years working in and around Apple's various offerings, and have admired their industrial design (with a number of exceptions). That said, I would like to think that whatever zeal that I may have for them is grounded in reality. If you can find reference to any of your above claims, I would appreciate that they be presented for sake of perusal.
Parent
Re:Dual Boot (Score:4, Interesting)
You would if it was important enough to you. I bought mine so that I could support Apple users. i.e. I saw a very real use for the machine. (Best purchase I ever made, BTW.) With Linux, there's just too much noise and not enough signal to make anyone want to purchase a Linux-built Desktop machine.
Parent
Re:Dual Boot (Score:4, Informative)
No. The version of OS X on the developer Macs may be compatible with other PCs, but the final product will be tied to an special Intel DRM chip that will prevent it from running on other machines.
The developer machines are loaners and will go back to Apple in two years, and will not continue to be supported.
Parent
Re:Dual Boot (Score:5, Insightful)
So stop saying it like it's a fact, please.
Parent
Re:It *has* been stated in an official capacity (Score:4, Informative)
Rather than using DRM, if they use specific altered BIOS and/or a specific chipset then that is all that is necessary. The OS will not have the drivers/ability to work on other hardware.
Apple will most likely still be designing their own MB's, even if they do include Intel chips, so this is a very easy way for them to maintain sales on their own, still technically proprietary, machines. DRM may be used, but if it does then it will probably be a second line of attack, not the primary.
Parent
Re:Dual Boot (Score:5, Interesting)
But seriously, I hate the "Apple makes money selling machines, not software" myth. Apple also makes a killing on software, and there's higher margins than hardware. Steve Jobs said Tiger had already sold a million boxed copies of Tiger at the WWDC. Multiply by $129? That's a lot of cash coming from just the OS. And don't forget about their stance in the professional media market. How much is Final Cut Pro selling for these days? What does Motion cost?
Parent
Re:Dual Boot (Score:5, Insightful)
But by the time they did that, the $500 market had become the $250 market...
Parent
Re:The real question (Score:5, Informative)
so I'm thinking they may see an increase.
-nB
Parent
Re:The real question (Score:5, Funny)
Will you explain that to my girlfriend please? Please?
Parent
Re:The real question (Score:5, Funny)
No, the real point is in relationships you want to avoid the 'boot' process.
Parent
Re:Good news! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
G4 optimized Firefox builds (Score:5, Informative)
http://homepage.mac.com/krmathis/ [mac.com]
Parent
Re:Good news! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Good news! (Score:5, Funny)
Your frame of reference makes me really wonder how the hell you spend your weekends!
Parent
Re:Intel Mac's poor hd performance (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Big-endian vs. little-endian (Score:5, Informative)
It's likely that Rosetta is pulling a lot of tricks, I/O level and otherwise, and when you're reading data from a hard disk or the network, using a few spare CPU cycles to swap some bytes around isn't going to be noticed *at all*, because if you're doing that sort of I/O bound processing, you'll likely have plenty of CPU cycles laying around to swap bytes in memory.
If you're not talking about Rosetta, but about multi-platform applications more generally, the long answer is in the Universal Binary Programming Guidelines [apple.com] PDF. The short answer is that you abstract away from your own code byte-order issues where possible, and where not possible, you otherwise have separate code paths that do the right thing depending on the targeted platform.
Seasoned developers who coded applications under NeXTStep have been through this once before, remember. This is not a new problem. We've been here before... I avoid binary data formats where it's reasonable to do so.
Parent
no (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe G5s are not so fast. But:
"It's fast," said one developer source of Mac OS X running on Intel's Pentium processors. "Faster than [Mac OS X] on my Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5."
So, uh, a 3.6 Ghz P4 is faster than two 2 Ghz G5 - 4 Ghz? - SMP, but 4 Ghz.
Sorry, I don't buy that. Even more if you take into account that Intel isn't exactly the performance/Hz leader - in fact it's the worst performer these days, Opteron and PM beats the sh*t out of that P4 at much lower speeds from what I've read.
There're lots of factors that can change things - freebsd algorithms, are, for one, optimized for i386 variants. Also, Mac OS X is compiled with -Os - optimized for size, no for speed. (Paranoic mode on=Hey, maybe this switch was planned and it's not a coincidence)
And then there's the Placebo effect [wikipedia.org]. IOW: Show me numbers, don't tell me "it's fast", I don't trust you. In Linus' words: "If we can't measure it, it doesn't exists". Unless someone writes a decent comparative, I'll take this article as Apple Marketing - Apple has been very critized for this change, I wouldn't be suprised that Apple is interested in articles like that, showing how good move has been the switch to intel
Parent
Transparency (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:64bit and vector code (Score:5, Insightful)
Compare this to the G4, another weak linear performer that Apple more or less specialized in getting to fly through good use of the excellent Altivec unit. The G5 on the other hand has a somewhat weak Altivec unit but a much beefed up set of single-element FPU units, yielding so-so vector performing but good linear performance. IBM did probably not focus much energy on the Altivec unit but instead threw it in since Apple required it (after all, the single-element FPU performance of the G5 almost puts the Altivec unit to shame).
Some might now be quick to point out that Altivec is a nicer instruction set than SSE2/SSE3, this is by most standards true, but if you are hand-coding assembly you can make do with either. On the flip side Intel has quite impressive auto-vectorization support in their compiler.
So, what does this add up to? The G5 is in a good place for beating the P4 on unoptimized unvectorized code, but the P4 really screams if things are tuned up a bit. Considering Apples history with Altivec I think we can safely assume that they won't be afraid of doing some hand-tuning to get good perfomance.
This all ends up looking quite favorable for the P4, I still don't think we will see a commercial Mac with a P4 derivative in it, but anyone who thinks the P4 is a weak performer has another thing coming. For a bit more on my opinion on the state of the x86 vs. PPC today see my earlier post in the "Apple Switch to Intel Not a Big Loss for IBM" story [slashdot.org].
Parent
Re:reports like this will impact sales (Score:5, Funny)
What overall effect will this have on Mac sales?
It will reduce total sales by one.
Parent
Not more than they are already (Score:4, Informative)
I bought a 15" Powerbook in September 2003 - this system is a G4 at 1.25 GHz. I love it but I would really like something faster (and with a better graphics chip) so it could be a real desktop replacement. But, this simply doesn't exist. Today's fastest powerbooks are still G4s at 1.67 GHz - an increase of just 34% in nearly 2 years. This isn't enough to make me buy a new machine. The way it was looking, I was waiting for Powerbook G5s - but it wasn't happening (and now, of course, it won't happen).
I am guessing that the significantly faster machines (both desktops and notebooks) with significantly help Apple sales, but will not hurt them more than the lack of speed was already. Increases in performance will correlate to sales, and if IBM was unable to deliver but Intel can, than I think it will help Apple immensely. If people need an Apple box they'll buy one, but right now they're just too slow or too expensive for people to consider (i.e., the fast machines are too expensive).
I look forward to finally replacing my Powerbook with a nice speedy Intel-powered machine in a year or two, and I bet many Apple users will be with me. The new speed will then make it a lot easier to get new switchers on board.
Parent