Cheating da Apple!

"voces ainda acreditam em tudo o que dizem? lá vem um que diz que a apple está a cheatar e todos acreditam ?"

Tu é que não perdes tempo a ler o que
os outros escrevem. Se tivesses acompanhado
a discussão sobre este assunto noutra
thread descobririas que há pessoas que
tem neurónios, percebem do assunto e tem
capacidade para criticar aquilo que lem
apresentando provas.
 
-mfpmath=sse

Generate floating point arithmetics for sse. Use scalar floating point instructions present in the SSE instruction set. This instruction set is supported by Pentium3 and newer chips, in the AMD line by Athlon-4, Athlon-xp and Athlon-mp chips. The earlier version of SSE instruction set supports only single precision arithmetics, thus the double and extended precision arithmetics is still done using 387. Later version, present only in Pentium4 and the future AMD x86-64 chips supports double precision arithmetics too.
Clicar para expandir...
 
Originally posted by bl4cK4md
Até a própria ADOBE, diz que o photoshop é mais performante nos PC's do que nos MAC's...
Clicar para expandir...

Duh! Isso é com os G4s. Aliás, a Adobe ainda ñ teve acesso a um G5, por isso ñ pode fazer nenhum comentário acerca da performance dele em relação à dos outros processadores.
 
Bolas :D

Já agora, tens mesmo a certeza que a Adobe não teve acesso a (pelo menos) um G5.

Ia ficar muito surpreendido se fosse esse o caso.
 
Originally posted by Nemesis11 Já agora, tens mesmo a certeza que a Adobe não teve acesso a (pelo menos) um G5.

Ia ficar muito surpreendido se fosse esse o caso.
Clicar para expandir...

Bem, certeza absoluta ñ tenho, mas...
 
LAST MONDAY, the Portland Group, which has been working on compilers and other tools that have been optimized for AMD64, should have gone gold with PGI Workstation 5.0, which includes those optimizations, but instead announced a delay until on or before July 7.
For its unreleased product, the Portland Group is making performance improvements claims averaging 34% over PGI Workstation 4.1 on several industry standard benchmarks. Now that is a huge hike in performance from just compiler optimizations. The SPEC2000 floating point benchmark shows one Opteron result improving by almost 375%.

I can't predict the performance improvement gains that we'll see from recompiled applications, but they should be good. As Douglas Miles, director of the Portland Laboratory, has said :

"Porting our software, which represents well over a half million lines of code, from 32-bit X86 processor-based systems to 64-bit AMD Opteron processor-based systems has been very straightforward. We have also been extremely impressed with the performance of both legacy 32-bit applications and 64-bit applications re-compiled to take advantage of the new features of the AMD Opteron processor."

If we see large performance gains from recompiled apps, then the Portland Group would have delivered, and what I said in an earlier INQUIRER article would also have come to pass (Future Opteron enhancements, 3rd paragraph):

"Even though Opteron's performance has been nothing short of spectacular, I would characterize it as also being raw. Remember how SSE2 turned the P4 from an ugly duckling into a swan? Compiler optimizations that are being done by the Portland Group might change Opteron from being the best x86 server processor to one that looks beyond reach. The beta was released last April, so when it's ready for prime time this month, Intel had better taken out its Xeon and Itanium insurance cover. If the Portland Group delivers, Opteron's aftershocks may just push Santa Clara's enterprise group into the sea. OK! I'm being a little facetious, but you get the point I'm making."

AMD announced yesterday the immediate availability of its AMD Core Math Library (ACML) for its AMD64-based platforms, which will greatly aid the HPC community. This development tool helps increase code accuracy and speed of delivery for improved performance of 32-bit and 64-bit x86 applications and systems. With this announcement and the imminent AMD64 compiler debut, the AMD64 development tools have started to fall into place.

A raft of new benchmark results may also accompany the AMD64 compiler debut. If that is true, then this will be something to look forward to. If AMD's 2 GHz Opteron debuts as well, then that would be the icing on the cake. µ
 
Só uma pergunta:
É de confiar nesse aumento no SpecCPU-FP 2000?
Se bem me lembro à uns tempos....o score dos UltraSparc III aumentou de forma igual a essa e descobriu-se que era um hack no compilador.

Não estou a dizer que é o que se passa aqui, mas é melhor esperar para ver.
 
Even though Opteron's performance has been nothing short of spectacular, I would characterize it as also being raw. Remember how SSE2 turned the P4 from an ugly duckling into a swan? Compiler optimizations that are being done by the Portland Group might change Opteron from being the best x86 server processor to one that looks beyond reach.
Clicar para expandir...

:eek:

Esse Portland Group é uma cambada de xiters no payroll da AMD :D

Dubbed "Red Storm," the supercomputer is expected to be the fastest supercomputer in the U.S. It will be powered by AMD's (NYSE: AMD - news) Opteron 64-bit processors featuring hypertransport technology.


The prestigious contract is a major feather in the cap of SuSE, who competes head to head with Red Hat (Nasdaq: RHAT - news), widely regarded as the leading Linux vendor. SuSE was a natural choice for Cray in this project because "we've been working with Opteron 64-bit for three years," SuSE marketing vice president Joseph Eckert told NewsFactor.


"We started working with AMD before there was [an Opteron] chip," he said. "We were the only operating system at [the chip's] launch -- of any type -- available on 64-bit."


Administering Nuclear Stockpile


Red Storm, to be housed at the Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, will be used for computer simulations of the U.S. nuclear stockpile, among other applications.


It is due to be completed by the end of 2004. In addition to being the fastest supercomputer in the U.S., Eckert noted that Red Storm -- depending on the status of a pending project by the NEC (Nasdaq: NIPNY - news) -- "will be the second-fastest supercomputer in the world."


Red Storm is expected to deliver either 20 teraflops or 40 teraflops of peak performance.


Eckert said the ramifications of this project go beyond supercomputing. "This is about the heart of what Linux can do. I mean -- c'mon, using 64-bit to do clustering -- that is just amazing."
Clicar para expandir...


Ta na hora de comprar acções da amd :D
 
Última edição:
Julgo que há uma diferença que ninguem aki está a referir que é extremamente importante!! Os MAC's são efectivamente mais estaveis que os PC's mas não é uma questão de qualidade de hardware. É mm de quantidade LOL. Pensem nas variações de hardware que uma software house tem de ter em conta quando programa qq coisa p PC em comparação com MAC's!!! Graças a isso os drivers e software p MAC são sempre muito mais afinados pq tem mt menos variaveis para controlar k num pc. É claro k essa questão de estabilidade fika muito mais relativa qd comparas um mac com um pc de marca. Não tenho a minima duvida k se programassem um SO, Software e Drivers para um PC em especial ( considerando que o hardware é x,y ,z.... fixos!! ) o MAC seria completamente comido de cebolada... Entao se fosse uma distribuiçao de linux coitadinho do mac... Era preciso um burakinho pekenino p ele!! LOL :001: :-D

:cool:
 
Originally posted by miguas
Não tenho a minima duvida k se programassem um SO, Software e Drivers para um PC em especial ( considerando que o hardware é x,y ,z.... fixos!! ) o MAC seria completamente comido de cebolada... Entao se fosse uma distribuiçao de linux coitadinho do mac... Era preciso um burakinho pekenino p ele!! LOL :001: :-D

:cool:
Clicar para expandir...

Tipo a X-Box... :) (como mts consolas, apenas disse x-box pk tem uma arquitectura mt parecida aos pc, e utiliza msm hardware "disponivel" para pc)
 
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2003/06_jun/editorials/cw_editorial79.htm

<table>
<tr><td bgcolor="#0000FF" bordercolor="#FFFFFF"><b>Test</b></td> <td><b>Apple G5 2GHz</b></td> <td><b>AMD Opteron 244 (1.8GHz)</b></td> <td bgcolor="#800000"><b>Opteron % faster</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#0000FF" bordercolor="#FFFFFF"><b>SPECfp_rate_base2000 </b></td> <td>15.7</td> <td><b>24.7</b></td> <td bgcolor="#800000"><b><font color="#CC0033">57%</font></b></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#0000FF" bordercolor="#FFFFFF"><b>SPEComt_rate_base2000</b></td> <td>17.2 </td> <td><b>25.0</b></td> <td bgcolor="#800000"><b><font color="#CC0033">45%</font></b></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#0000FF" bordercolor="#FFFFFF"><b>SPECfp_base2000</b></td> <td>840</td> <td><b>1122</b></td> <td bgcolor="#800000"><b><font color="#CC0033">34%</font></b></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#0000FF" bordercolor="#FFFFFF"><b>SPECint_base2000</b></td> <td>800</td> <td><b>1095</b></td> <td bgcolor="#800000"><b><font color="#CC0033">37%</font></b></td> </tr></table>
 
Última edição:
Originally posted by Nemesis11
<table>
<tr><td bgcolor="#0000FF" bordercolor="#FFFFFF"><b>Test</b></td> <td><b>Apple G5 2GHz</b></td> <td><b>AMD Opteron 244 (1.8GHz)</b></td> <td bgcolor="#800000"><b>Opteron % faster</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#0000FF" bordercolor="#FFFFFF"><b>SPECfp_rate_base2000 </b></td> <td>15.7</td> <td><b>24.7</b></td> <td bgcolor="#800000"><b><font color="#CC0033">57%</font></b></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#0000FF" bordercolor="#FFFFFF"><b>SPEComt_rate_base2000</b></td> <td>17.2 </td> <td><b>25.0</b></td> <td bgcolor="#800000"><b><font color="#CC0033">45%</font></b></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#0000FF" bordercolor="#FFFFFF"><b>SPECfp_base2000</b></td> <td>840</td> <td><b>1122</b></td> <td bgcolor="#800000"><b><font color="#CC0033">34%</font></b></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#0000FF" bordercolor="#FFFFFF"><b>SPECint_base2000</b></td> <td>800</td> <td><b>1095</b></td> <td bgcolor="#800000"><b><font color="#CC0033">37%</font></b></td> </tr></table>
Clicar para expandir...

Se Apple fizesse os benchmarks com um compilador optimizado em vez do GCC, os numeros ñ seriam esses.
 
Originally posted by KhAoTiK_TaChYoN
Se Apple fizesse os benchmarks com um compilador optimizado em vez do GCC, os numeros ñ seriam esses.
Clicar para expandir...

AltiVec?

Installed a high performance, single threaded malloc library. This library implementation is geared for speed rather than memory efficiency and is single-threaded which makes it unsuitable for many uses. Special provisions are made for very small allocations (less than 4 bytes). This library is accessed through use of the -lstmalloc flag during program
Clicar para expandir...

http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/apple/apple_performance.pdf

While I don't claim to be an expert in hardware architecture, it appears that Apple actually modified the CPU registers to enable an optimized special-case scenario, and one that is not indicative of real-world performance. Lionbridge's notes regarding the malloc library also indicate that Apple included an optimized library. I think it's significant that Lionbridge, under contract to Apple, felt compelled to note that the library implementation was "unsuitable for many uses".
Clicar para expandir...

http://www.extremetech.com/print_article/0,3998,a=43914,00.asp

E que numeros o G5 teria sem as "optimizações"?
 
Inicie sessão ou registe-se para poder participar.
Back
Topo