From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

no <no@no.com> wrote:

BTW, what are the quake scores for a DUAL p4 3.2 and a dual xeon (both
with a 9800 pro video card)

According to the WWDC Keynote, there's no such thing as a dual-P4
system.

Jim
--
jim@magrathea.plus.com AIM/iChat:JCAndrew2 GreyArea@mac.com
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 03:16:04 +0000 (UTC), "James Boswell" <JamesBoswell@Btopenworld.com> wrote:

Jim <jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:

no <no@no.com> wrote:

BTW, what are the quake scores for a DUAL p4 3.2 and a dual xeon (both
with a 9800 pro video card)

According to the WWDC Keynote, there's no such thing as a dual-P4
system.

According to me, there's no such thing as a dual "P4" system.

If you wanna run an SMP rig, you need to splash out on Xeons, the silicon >itself is austensibly a P4, but unlike a chip labelled "Pentium 4" on the >box, they'll work in SMP.

-JB

Actually they are labelled Pentium 4. They are called "Pentium 4 -
Xeons" as opposed to Pentium III Xeons and the original Xeons based on
the Pentium II.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

no wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/31600.html
"As previously reported, coding for the G5 requires programmers adopt
the GCC 3.3 compiler.

This is trivially false. If it were so, the G5 would be unable to run software compiled using previous compilers, which is the vast majority
of Mac software.

GCC 3.3 supports flags which allow developers to
generate 970-only code, and to access 64-bit datapaths.

Your post doesn't make this clear, but the "bridge" is in the chip
itself and has nothing to do with the compiler.

As we say, IBM describes the bridge as temporary: "These resources are
not to be considered a permanent part of the PowerPC architecture," it sternly warns."

IBM's 64 bit POWER processors have been able to run 32 bit programs for
a long long time. See
<http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/aix/os/compatibility/> or <http://publibn.boulder.ibm.com/doc_link/en_US/a_doc_lib/aixbman/prftungd/prftungd120.htm

. It's disingenuous to imply otherwise.

The G5 is a very admirable machine, do not get me wrong. So much for
the claim that Apple could of gotten higher scores with another compiler that would of gotten higher scores.

Huh? Non sequiter. How did you get the impression that only code
compiled with gcc 3.3 could run on the G5? Do you think that all
software compiled with other compilers will break if you try to run it
on the G5?

The performance that was done by a
"independent third party" even stated that one of the tests was not done
by them but done by Apple themselves!

Quote, please.

And surprisingly enough this test
showed scores lower for the p4 than what has already been gotten using
the same settings.

No they didn't.

Apple also used a custom malloc library for the spec test for the g5 but
did not for the p4.

Yes. Nobody knows what impact that had.

I am not saying apple cheated for the g5 score, they got the best
results they could get.

That's almost certainly false. There are a number of ways of varying nefarious-ness that Apple could have gotten even better scores.

But it has been shown they didnt get the best
results possible for the pc.

The goal is not to get the highest scores possible for each platform,
but to design a test that isolates the variables you are interested in
and controls for the rest.

BTW, what are the quake scores for a DUAL p4 3.2 and a dual xeon (both
with a 9800 pro video card)

-Peter

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:31:17 -0700, Peter Ammon <pa44@cornell.edu>
wrote:

no wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/31600.html
"As previously reported, coding for the G5 requires programmers adopt
the GCC 3.3 compiler.

This is trivially false. If it were so, the G5 would be unable to run >software compiled using previous compilers, which is the vast majority
of Mac software.

Do you understand the difference between coding for the G5 and writing
code that the G5 can run?

<snip>


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Josiah Fizer wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:31:17 -0700, Peter Ammon <pa44@cornell.edu>
wrote:

no wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/31600.html
"As previously reported, coding for the G5 requires programmers adopt >>>the GCC 3.3 compiler.

This is trivially false. If it were so, the G5 would be unable to run >>software compiled using previous compilers, which is the vast majority
of Mac software.

Do you understand the difference between coding for the G5 and writing
code that the G5 can run?

<snip>

I take it you're interpreting "coding for the G5" to mean "writing code specifically optimized for the G5." So is it your contention (or
"no"'s, I suppose) that the people who wrote SPEC were "coding for the
G5?" That's obviously false as well.

-Peter

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

no <no@no.com> wrote in message news:<no-D03545.13204707072003@newssvr15-ext.news.prodigy.com>...

BTW, what are the quake scores for a DUAL p4 3.2

t'ain't no such thing, P4 does SMT, not SMP.

and a dual xeon (both with a 9800 pro video card)

fwiw:

http://www.barefeats.com/p4game.html

shows a dual 1.42GHz G4 neck-and-neck with a dual Xeon 2.4 (298 vs 302fps).

G5 will be plenT fast enough for me.

=Heywood=
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Josiah Fizer <jfizer@classy.com> wrote:

<JamesBoswell@Btopenworld.com> wrote:

Jim <jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:

no <no@no.com> wrote:

BTW, what are the quake scores for a DUAL p4 3.2 and a dual xeon (both >>>> with a 9800 pro video card)

According to the WWDC Keynote, there's no such thing as a dual-P4
system.

According to me, there's no such thing as a dual "P4" system.

If you wanna run an SMP rig, you need to splash out on Xeons, the silicon >>itself is austensibly a P4, but unlike a chip labelled "Pentium 4" on the >>box, they'll work in SMP.

Actually they are labelled Pentium 4. They are called "Pentium 4 -
Xeons" as opposed to Pentium III Xeons and the original Xeons based on
the Pentium II.

Intel's own Xeon web page makes no mention of the "Pentium 4" brand.
They call the older Pentium III Xeons exactly that, but the current
Xeon processors are just called Intel Xeon processors. All of the
Xeon images I can find in Google Images just say "Xeon", but I'm not
sure if that's faithful to the actual packaging.

In any case, there's no such thing as a dual P4 3.2 system regardless
of whether a Xeon is a P4, which is the main point of Jim's post.

-- Erick
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Josiah Fizer <jfizer@classy.com> wrote in message news:<rbikgv463hglb86bhb7tslfdfkp4np2iap@4ax.com>...

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:31:17 -0700, Peter Ammon <pa44@cornell.edu>
wrote:

no wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/31600.html
"As previously reported, coding for the G5 requires programmers adopt
the GCC 3.3 compiler.

This is trivially false. If it were so, the G5 would be unable to run >software compiled using previous compilers, which is the vast majority
of Mac software.

Do you understand the difference between coding for the G5 and writing
code that the G5 can run?

Yes, I do, and setting the compiler flags to link against the 64bit
memory library falls into the second category - the code will still
run happily on 32 bit machines. The reason for this is that the
library in question is designed to allow 32 bit code to access the
memory range of a 42 bit proccessor (not 64 bit, because that made the
library too complicated). Note that this library has no effect
whatsoever on performance, it simply allows the code to access more
memory.

Bob
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <rbarris-1B7ED2.11014908072003@news.newsguy.com>,
Rob Barris <rbarris@mac.com> wrote:

In article <no-D03545.13204707072003@newssvr15-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
no <no@no.com> wrote:

BTW, what are the quake scores for a DUAL p4 3.2 and a dual xeon (both with a 9800 pro video card)

Who is your preferred vendor for Dual Pentium-4 systems ?

Rob

I do not use PC's, I use Macintosh's.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113