IBM Releases Compiler for Power4 and G5 471
davids-world.com writes "IBM offers its optimized XLC compiler not just for Intel CPUs, but also for its own G5 processor (article in German at Heise). Unlike gcc, it is optimized for the G5 and achieves a major boost in speed, as first results show. I guess we will have to compare the new benchmark data (once available) with the data we get with the optimized Intel compiler for Xeon. The compiler is available for download now."
All right! (Score:4, Funny)
Duke Nukem Forever - you don't get it (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry to burst your bobble, but there's a reason why the game name's Duke Nukem *Forever*. That's the amount of time it will take to make it.
Re:All right! (Score:5, Funny)
The speed could be infinite. (Score:5, Funny)
I've also heard that the wishes and dreams can be fairly powerful tools as well. However, results may vary due to unfulfilled wishes and crushed dreams.
Here we go again: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here we go again: (Score:2)
That bandwidth doesn't really matter, only MHz? I don't see PCs beating the interconnects present in the newest Macs for a while.
Re:Here we go again: (Score:2)
Re:Here we go again: (Score:5, Informative)
Let's be objective (Score:3, Insightful)
What's a "real-world" benchmark? Comparing the function of photoshop on mac vs. pc, when it's developed natively for the mac? That's not really fair. It's simply not the same code. We could take any of the many programs made natively on PC (which are then ported to mac) and do the same trick.
so the PC fanboys cried that SPEC benchmarks are the real measurement to gague speed... (probably because the comparisons were much closer when conduc
Re:Let's be objective (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Let's be objective (Score:3, Informative)
Yep. They modified. For better performance on their tests, while the same is not true of the G5. They made that as stock as possible.
Apple did all they could to make the test even, from using the came compiler to making the G5 match shipping units to insuring the Dell box had all the speed tweaks it could. And it *still* lost.
Get over it. x86 hasn't always been the reigning speed
Re:Let's be objective (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let's be objective (Score:3, Informative)
The only place where they have focused on one platform or the other have been in filters (arguably where the real heavy lifting is). They have made altivec enablers, and to a lesser extent MMX filters (I am referring to this as a family.. not the specific implementation).
It is
Re:Let's be objective (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what I thought, and indeed, that's where you need the G5. I can draw circles on an old PPC. ;)
It is true that Altivec has given a bigger boost than the MMX family, but this is simply due to the quality of the Altivec units. Intel actually paid for a 2bit gausian blur filter for MMX for demo purposes. If you stuck with exactly a 2 bit blur (not real common) you got
Re:Let's be objective (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and benchmarks are not? Always take real-life performance test if they are similar to your work before benchmarks.
Certainly - if you can tailor your benchmark to your work, by all means do so. If you use photoshop a ton, and it's faster on the mac, get a mac. But what we're talking about are public benchmarks, applicable very generally to people who supposedly don't have uniform work habits or environments.
Given that, about the fairest comparison is taking a whole lot of different code examples, co
Re:Here we go again: (Score:2, Interesting)
Running OS X.x with MS Orifice seems like the sweet spot for stable OS/file format compatibility in the proprietary world...
Re:Here we go again: (Score:5, Insightful)
I nominate "who gives a shit?"
Anyone who buys a PC because of lame ass benchmarks has no use for said PC, other than to yammer endlessly. If you work with macs, get a mac, if you work with PCs, get a PC, they're two completely different worlds.
I'm sick of X is 30% better at [specific instruction] than Y arguments. It's like "xbox is 33% faster than ps2" or "mac is 21% faster than dell!". Who gives a flying fuck anymore? Xbox has the worlds shittiest lineup of games, and Macs dont run a *lot* of software essential to people.
They're just devices, a means to an end. Quit telling me how your boot polisher is better than my doorstop. Its irrelevant.
Re:Here we go again: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone who buys a PC because of lame ass benchmarks has no use for said PC, other than to yammer endlessly. If you work with macs, get a mac, if you work with PCs, get a PC, they're two completely different worlds.
This isn't true for Linux users. I run Debian Linux, so my world is almost exactly the same across x86, PowerPC, Alpha and a whole bunch of other platforms. So, for me, these arguments about relative performance and relative cost *do* matter. At the moment I don't think there's much question
Re:Here we go again: (Score:5, Insightful)
x86 - 2 chip manufacturers
PPC - 2 chip manufacturers
64bit/32 bit chipsets - 2 for Mac, 1 for PC, 1 for Sun, 1 for IBM
Linux - Almost all platforms
BSD - Almost all platforms
Upgradeable with off-the-shelf hw - Mac, PC, Sun
Basic GUI - Most platforms
Complex multi-button mice - Mac, PC, Sun, IBM
Simple one button mice - Mac
FireWire 800 - Mac, PC
FireWire - Mac, PC
Gigabit adapter - Mac, PC
Wireless (bluetooth, 802.11, etc) - Mac, PC
Office software - Most platforms
Image editing software - Most platforms
Video NLE software - Mac, PC, SGI, Sun
Audio NLE software - Most platforms
Rendering software - Mac, PC, SGI, Sun, IBM
NURBS software - Max, PC, SGI, Sun, IBM
Did you get this far? Do you get my point?
You can spend forever arguing about this kind of junk. What it comes down to is almost always personal preference. To respond to: "technical diversity and freedom from proprietary dead-ends." This simply doesn't exist. It is ALL proprietary, and nothing is technically diverse. All code that is written is written to a proprietary platform (until an Open-Source chipset comes along). Sure, you can see the code for the basic software, but what does that do for you? No high-end software comes with open source. I don't see Adobe or Discrete or AutoDesk moving to the OSS model. Funny that. Looks like anyone can reverse-engineer a pretty good word-processor, but it must take work to make a serious (not hobbyist) application.
Pbbbbt.
-WS
Re:Here we go again: (Score:2)
It'll be the tried and true rally: Apple sucks!!
A Question (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Here we go again: (Score:5, Informative)
The 1.8 and dual 2.0 G5 machines support up to 8Gig of RAM when using 1Gig modules. How much RAM does a dual Opteron machine support?
The G5 could also run Linux, and via some emulators, Windows software as well. I think the G5s run plenty of software.
Re:Here we go again: (Score:5, Informative)
However, the G5's documentation shows the memory interface can actually handle 16GB not just 8, so if you can get 2GB DIMMs, you will probably be able to use them.
Re:Here we go again: (Score:3, Funny)
Translation: I heard him on NPR once, while I was flipping radio stations.
"He's a loon. A nutcase."
Translation: He deviates from Common Wisdom in a direction that I find highly disturbing.
"A textbook example of the fact that a person can be both a genius and an idiot simultaneously."
Translation: I wish he'd just go back to being inoffensive and leave my little world alone.
"Only the most superficial sort of moron would assume, because he is well
Re:Here we go again: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Here we go again: (Score:3, Informative)
The G5 is 64bit, too, can address 42bit of memory and provides 64bit virtual address-space.
The Opteron has address-space of 40 bit and 48 bit virtual per CPU.
Not that it currently makes a lot of difference.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Here we go again: (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Here we go again: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Here we go again: (Score:3, Informative)
What people forget when dealing with benchmarking vectorized code is how much the ease of vectorization plays into it. AltiVec is much easier to code for than SSE/SSE2. This matters a lot.
Re:Here we go again: (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm... lets see... you're comparing a processor to a full system. Apples vs. Oranges.
Lets do some real analysis... top server vs. top server:
vs.
And this isn't even from big boys like Dell (who wouldn't be caught dead using AMD)... just a bottomfeeder from pricewatch.
Now, the G5 has all sorts of desktop/workstation goodies built in (Radeon 96/9800 Pro, awesome sound, good looks), and the with AMD server, you can cut corners with things you don't want in a server, like soundcard, highend video card, etc.
My point? im sure we're still comparing apples to oranges. People who want a mainstream kickass workstation will love to buy the G5. People who want beowulf node clusters or inexpensive uberservers will love the Opteron. I just wish I had either :-)
Re:Here we go again: (Score:5, Funny)
great! i'll give you my commodore 64 for FREE. that will have the best $/MHz ratio possible. i'm sure you'll love it.
Re:Here we go again: (Score:5, Informative)
You could probably do a bit better building your own dual Xeon system, but it still wouldn't be cheap. You're looking at probably $1300-1500 just for the motherboard and the chips -- then add a case, RAM, a hard drive, a DVD burner, a video card, etc. and, for most potential buyers, a copy of Windows XP Pro.
Re:Here we go again: (Score:3, Funny)
Also, if you look at the bottom of this page [laclinux.com], you'll see that the specs on the so-called ULB's don't match what you're saying, and the prices start at about $900 more.
What license is this under? (Score:5, Interesting)
IBM G5 (Score:3, Funny)
Ok, now that's out of the way, let's get back to real comments.
Better scores on Apple's G5 (Score:2, Informative)
The new IBM compiler should rectify the situation. Apple will not need to manipulate the SPEC scores by hiding behind the GCC compiler. In the past, Apple stuck with the GCC compiler because it causes the Pentium to perform much
Single P4 versus DUAL G5's (Score:3, Insightful)
Whats interesting to note that the single pentium machine scored 836 in int performance and the xeons (dual machines) scored 840... Almost no performance increase from going dual here.
Re:Single P4 versus DUAL G5's (Score:3)
What about Xcode? (Score:4, Interesting)
For more information, see Apple's Xcode site [apple.com].
Experience with xLC (Score:4, Informative)
This is very good news for Apple-people.
Questions. (Score:5, Interesting)
It is good to see IBM ending the habit of charging extra for the C compiler. AIX hasn't bundled the compiler since 3.2.5.
Re:Questions. (Score:2)
Who said they were giving it away for free? This is a preview beta download. I suspect it'll be expensive when finally released.
But it would be nice if they learned a lesson from intel and just gave it away.
Re:Questions. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure xlc is used to compile AIX libc.
Can this compiler be used to generate native Mac OS X GUI applications (cocoa)?
No, it's not an Objective-C compiler.
Will the source be released?
No.
Actually you could use it for ObjC today. (Score:4, Insightful)
Also note that David Stes released his POC, which is an Objective-C->C compiler with a runtime he uses (actually it's a bit more than Objective-C) to run ObjC code today.
Apple will probably use this new compiler to recompile their CoreFoundation stuff, which is all C stuff that Carbon and Cocoa tap into. So, a simple recompile of CoreFoundation should net good speed improvements on G4s and MUCH better results on a G5.
So even if IBM chooses not to directly support Objective-C, Apple can still benefit in the short term while they rustle up their very own ObjC->C system (which is NOT a very challenging feat, considering the ObjC runtime is a relatively simple-to-use C library).
I can see it now... (Score:3, Funny)
1) Is it open source, I didn't RtFA?
2) Why isn't it open source?
3) Will they release it for Linux on the ppc?
4) What does this have to do with SCO?
5) Apple is dead and these are flawed stats flamewar.
I'm too lazy to come up with a sig that is good enough to be the same everytime, so you can just read this instead. You can try and rid your braincells of this text, but it's pretty much stuck there now.
Re:I can see it now... (Score:4, Funny)
I, for one, welcome our incompetent moderator overlords.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is actually really important. One of the big reasons that the Intel C compiler spanks every other available x86 compiler is that its SSE/SIMD support is, in the words of one of my assembly-programmer friends, "awe-inspiring." Like, unrolling entire program loops and replacing them with single SIMD instructions.
As far as I know, pretty much all of the AltiVec/VMX support in GCC was contributed by Apple and Motorola, and prior to the ppc970, IBM has never produced a PPC CPU with AltiVec instructions, so prior versions of XLC have never had to support it. So I'll be really curious to hear how it stacks up against GCC's Altivec.
Re:Interesting, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Interesting, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
It used to, but it's a close call these days.
SSE/SIMD support is, in the words of one of my assembly-programmer friends, "awe-inspiring."
No it's not, it's fucking awful. Sure, the hype is good, the docs (which are actually very good) show a loop being unrolled to some SIMD instructions, including a little cleanup at the end in scalar instructions. You code it up, it goes
It's not magic, that's why. You put an exit condition in the loop, you break vectorising. If everything isn't lined up on nice 16 (?) byte boundaries, you break vectorising. Once you've gone through making sure all the conditions are met you realise that it's easier just to use the intrinsics in the first place.
Intrinsics, BTW, are very cool and much easier to code than you would have thought. GCC has them too
Dave
Re:Interesting, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
My understanding was that GCC did little to nothing in the way of AltiVec optimization of "straight" C code. You have to write the AltiVec instructions yourself. The cool thing about AltiVec is that you don't have to write the vector code in assembly, you can do it in C. But still, it's not like you can (for example) flip on the AltiVec support in GCC, compile LAME, and have an AltiVec-enabled MP3 encoder. Somebody still has to come
Re:Interesting, but... (Score:4, Informative)
No.
AltiVec isn't Apple's trademark at all. AltiVec is Motorola's trademark for the VMX (Vector Multimedia eXtension) extension to the PowerPC instruction set, which is the PPC world's version of Intel's SSE and SSE2 instructions.
Apple's trademark for the VMX instructions is "Velocity Engine".
No matter what name you use for it, the name refers to something very real: a large section of the CPU die that is dedicated to processing vector math.
Object C Support? (Score:2)
Does it support Obj C though?
Can it compile Cocoa code?
I can definitely believe it (Score:5, Interesting)
The IBM compiler dis some wild instruction reordering which made the optimized compiled code really hard to understand, but somehow better fitted to the processor's pipeline structure. Fortunately the only thing that broke when I turned on the optimizer was the "marching ants" used for selection, and that was the result of some way-too-fancy-casting of Pattern pointers that fooled the optimizer. I suspect the IBM compilers will continue to reign if performance is the goal.
bad benchmarks (Score:3, Interesting)
In my experience, you can usually match the performance of those other "fast" compilers with gcc by using the "-f" and "-m" flags. The main difference is that gcc forces you to be explicit about which semantic changes the compiler is allowed to make, rather than lumping things together under some generic "-O5" setting. That's a good thing.
(Note that my comments apply to gcc; g77 may well be a much worse performer than commercial Fortran compilers even though it shares the same back-end with gcc. That affects the SPECfp2000 scores. Fortran just doesn't seem to be a high priority for gcc.)
Re:bad benchmarks (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, and the output probably would work, too, if you enabled the same optimizations in gcc. That doesn't make the optimizations "semantics preserving".
For example, gcc doesn't use x86 transcendental instructions by default because they give wrong results for large arguments. Most programs never encounter that case for most input data, but the program has different semantics and the optimization is not semantics preserving. The fact that those changes only show up under rare circumstances makes the problem worse.
May I humbly suggested that you stop using the word 'semantics', at least if you don't know the meaning of the word, which you don't seem to.
Yes, you should be quite humble because you erroneously think that "I ran the program and it gave the same answer" means that the compiler compiled it correctly.
Speed is Irrelevant (Score:4, Informative)
If I go from Mac to Intel, or vice versa, and I'm not the type to pirate everything from friends, warez sources, or p2p, then I have to buy (prices from Amazon.com, rounded to nearest dollar)...
So the cost to switch is:
To Mac from Win: hardware + 1883 software
To Win from Mac: hardware + 1857 software
And that's just the basics for a good multimedia development set-up. If you code, create Flash/Shockwave, etc., then you can add on another $500-1000 for other tools... or more.
Bundles and other incentives can bring it down, but this is not an inconsequential cost. Even if you could get a 10% faster PC for the same price as a Mac, or a 10% faster Mac for the same price as a PC, you have to ask yourself how much that 10% is really worth to you.
How often will you utilize all the capabilities of the machine and stretch the system past the capabilities of the alternative? How many hours of labor will the system save you over time?
And when all is said and done, you can scream over benchmarks and which is the better OS all you like. But they're totally meaningless.
(Mac fans can claim Windows has an inherently higher TCO, but let's face it, that's if the user is someone who thinks GNU is a Milton Bradley game that succeeded Gnip-Gnop. The rest of us know that a well-educated Windows user can avoid many of its pitfalls.)
Each time I've upgraded my hardware, there's one question I ask when I consider whether to switch platforms... What's the bottom line? How much more would this cost or save?
When I worked it out in 1993, a 486 DX2/50 by mail-order beat an education priced Quadra 40 from the university. Since then, I've invested much more in software that I had as a student... Even though the hardware costs are becoming less of a factor, the software costs have become more of a factor to compensate.
If I won the lottery, I'd buy a Mac and all the cool software I wanted. But barring that, I'll be looking carefully at Prescott versus Athlon 64 in the coming months, and making my choice in the Wintel world because that's where my software is.
So, though this compiler news is cool if you're a Mac User, because it makes your platform better *for you*, the arguments about whether Mac beats WinTel are a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Re:Speed is Irrelevant (Score:3, Insightful)
Both those guys must be pissed!
I know, I know, but I couldn't resist. . .
If you are doing serious Photoshop or After Effects work, all the time. No matter how fast the newest machine is, there's an art director out there with a layout which will make the machine choke.
xCode? CodeWarrior? (Score:3, Interesting)
In addition, I wonder what this will do for Metroworks' CodeWarrior compiler?
Typical Slashdot reactions (Score:3, Funny)
Event: Somebody actually does something realted to some Apple product.
Slashdot reaction: Unless it comes in GCC today and fixes me a martini and picks my nose and sings the Hallelujah chorus and comes with a big check, what damn good is it, anyway?
Event: Somebody at Microsoft says that they might do something in a couple of years if they feel like it.
Slashdot reaction: Hah! Luser! See, Microsoft already did it.
Event: Somebody decides that it might be possible to do something cool if they could only get cheap enough buckytubes to wire the brains of ants to the FPU in Python emulated in Perl emulated in ELisp. And it will run on Linux. Except nobody is going to do it, really, but it would be cool.
Slashdot reaction: Linux is ready for the desktop! Linux is ready for the desktop!
Instructions for running SPEC (Score:3, Informative)
oh sweet jesus (Score:4, Insightful)
Can't we talk about Macs on Slashdot without having to talk about whether they're overpriced or slow or whatever? I have a Mac, I like it, I use it for lots of things. I'd like to be able to discuss it, rather than just read x86 users' posts about how much better their platform is & why. This article is about a complier, not comparison shopping. Could we stick to that please??
Gcc still a great compiler (Score:3, Insightful)
In most cases in both FP and Integer, GCC matches XLC up to -O3, sometimes a bit slower, sometimes a bit faster.
I applaud the work of the GCC people. GCC is the most versatile and portable C compiler, and it's not half bad at optimizing either.
Thanks too to IBM. Their compiler will surely prove useful in a lot of cases, and a new compiler to try and benchmark is always good news!
Re:So much for open source at IBM (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they just didn't feel like it. Maybe they just preferred working with their own code. IBM's contributed, a lot, it doesn't mean that they're now servants of the open source community.
Re:So much for open source at IBM (Score:5, Informative)
It would be foolish to scrap all of the work they'd already done, as well as the performance achieved (double the performance of GCC in some cases, from the PDF). There is mention of this compiler supporting SuSe Enterprise Edition however, but not enough detail to tell if it can compile SuSe or just compile *on* SuSe.
If there is a plan to integrate stuff from this compiler into GCC, my guess is that GCC compatibility would be the first step. It would be very difficult to try to integrate the two if they have fundamentally different structures and no common ground to speak of, not to mention that fact that chip manufacturers invariably keep the true capabilities of their hardware more or less secret until launch time, and putting code into GCC from the beginning may tip their hand to others before they're ready to do so.
obDisclaimer: IANACompilerGuru
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So much for open source at IBM (Score:4, Insightful)
Put simply, IBM wasn't that interested in improving the cross-platform GCC this time. They were interested in improving a number of their OWN compilers (not just C/C++, Fortran too!) for their OWN architecture.
Re:So much for open source at IBM (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So much for open source at IBM (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes.
GCC rejected alot of their patches. GCC is a cross paltform compiler, the maintainers can be very picky about adding code that only helps one platform.
IBM has contributed quite a bit to GCC, but GCC is not the proper place for a heavily optimised platform-specific compiler effort.
Re:So much for open source at IBM (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, most companies develop compilers for their hardware/software because they have the behind-the-scenes knowledge necessary to produce a superior product, and therefore, make money off of it. It's called having a competitive advantage, and I see nothing wrong with that.
Second, who says that they won't eventually work to get these performance enhancements included into a future release of GCC? Just because they haven't done so yet does not mean that they never will.
Re:So much for open source at IBM (Score:2, Insightful)
If you really think that all IBM has contributed is some legacy drivers to Linux, I'm guessing you're either out of touch or I've severely misunderstood IBM's involvement. Look at the SCO lawsuit for a good example of many of the IBM developed/owned technologies that are now available as GPL in the kernel.
I think that it comes down to is they didn't use
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So much for open source at IBM (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So much for open source at IBM (Score:5, Interesting)
Plus, the team working on this compiler would probably take several man-decades---if ever---to become as fluent and comfortable with gcc as they are with their own code.
(Disclaimer: I work for IBM. In fact, I work on a compiler for IBM, though it's neither this compiler nor gcc. My opinions don't reflect those of IBM.)
Re:So much for open source at IBM (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe because, oh, they didn't want to? Just because a company participates in Open Source projects doesn't mean that they have to participate ONLY in OS projects. In this case, they built a chip, then they built a compiler for that chip, and have freely distributed it. I, for one, think that's pretty nice of them. After all, there's NOTHING stopping
Re:can it compile the kernel? (Score:4, Insightful)
Believe it or not, people DO sometimes run singular tasks on hardware which they want highly optimized...and believe it or not, you can actually install more than one compiler on your system at a time(yes, I know, amazing!)
Re:can it compile the kernel? (Score:2)
Re:can it compile the kernel? (Score:5, Insightful)
GCC's primary virtue is that it exists. For practically every computing platform on the planet, there's a famliar, stable toolchain that produces repeatable results. You can't optimize a program that doesn't exist in the first place, and GCC is the tool that's allowed many if not most of the programs we use on a daily basis to exist. There's value in that.
Re:can it compile the kernel? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's best to approach GCC like Java: use it to prove the correctness of your app, then profile profile profile and insert inlined assembly into your bottleneck points. Remember your Brooks: 90% of all optimization is premature.
Re:why don't they just improve gcc? (Score:5, Funny)
Why can't they just give them away for free?
Re:why don't they just improve gcc? (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:why don't they just improve gcc? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is there any reason that gcc maintainers dont just improve gcc? Isn't that what they're supposed to do?
Gcc may be a complete compiler suite. Whee. It's hardly optimized for any platforms besides x86 and Alpha, though.
Re:why don't they just improve gcc? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why don't they just improve gcc? (Score:2)
Why didn't they just submit some patches?
It could be that GCC's architecture really isn't intended for highly platform-specific optimization but for portability. Portability is more valuable to Open Source and Free software, ultimately.
Perhaps because they can't!..... (Score:2)
Second, the people involved in that compiler are not exactly "clean-room" when it comes to submitting patches to gcc without intimate knowledge of those other methods/IP....
Last thing IBM needs now is a REAL case of leaking information which is co
Control Perhaps? (Score:2)
But I guess they could of just released a fork of gcc how they wanted it though. Who knows.
Cuz gcc is not the compiler for AIX, duh (Score:2)
This is IBM's product. IBM doesn't sell MacG5's, they sell AIX based workstations based on their POWER and PPC chips. XLC is the compiler for AIX, so it makes sense for them to optimize the compiler for their products. If Apple gets a side benefit, than good for Apple, but it's not like IBM did this for the primary benefit of Apple.
Re:why don't they just improve gcc? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:why don't they just improve gcc? (Score:3, Interesting)
One must also point out the obvious that simply adding to someone else's code isn't always possible. You can't always just pick and choose like that. If you've never had t
Re:A Discussion over at Ars... (Score:5, Informative)
Type of Code G4 G5
Scalar +70% +210%
Vector +40% +70%
If this holds that places his 2.0GHz G5 (single)=254 at 787
Re:A Discussion over at Ars... (Score:4, Informative)
I'll hit preview this time instead of just blindly clicking. Sorry bout that.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, that's the point. IBM cooks up code to make the G5 look as fast as possible. Intel cooks up code to make the Xeon looks as fast as possible. Now compare. Fastest code/chip against the competition's fastest code/chip. The complaint in the past was that it was always the fastest code/chip of one side against a non-optimized code on the other side. Now we can have a fair shootout.
-T
Re:G5 upgrade woes (Score:5, Funny)
Re:G5 upgrade woes (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyways, back to your problem. If you copy with the shell or with any other file manager on the Mac it will be considerably faster.
As for Adobe Acrobat,
Re:You didn't even comprehend the post, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Open sourcing a compiler for a CPU wouldn't automatically make the Xeon compiler any better. It would make gcc compile for that processor better.
Either way.. where's my super-duper Athlon and Athlon64 compilers!!
Re:How is Apple's G5 going to run older G4 apps? (Score:3, Informative)
What is different is the performance you may get when targeting a processor. The compiler can optimize your code to a particular processors physical implementation. For example, cod