Motherboards Memory Storage Cases/Cooling/PSUs IT Computing Displays Mobile Mac CPUs & Chipsets Video Digital Cameras Linux Gadgets Systems Trade Shows Guides Home Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size Change Page Size
No more mysteries: Apple's G5 versus x86, Mac OS X versus Linux
No more mysteries: Apple's G5 versus x86, Mac OS X versus Linux
Date: June 3rd, 2005
Topic: Mac
Manufacturer: Various
Author: Johan De Gelas
Buy the IBM IBM/8104-R Desktop PC ThinkCentre
Blank
 eCost $250.99
 
 

Summary: the cores compared

Below, you find a comparison of the Intel Xeon/Pentium 4, the Opteron/Athlon 4, the G5 and the previous CPU in the Apple Power: the G4 of Motorola.

CPU feature

Motorola G4+

G5 (IBM PowerPC 970)

Intel Xeon P4 Irwindale

AMD Opteron Troy

Process technology

0.18 µ CU SOI

0.09 µ CU SOI

0.09 µ CU

0.09 µ CU SOI

GP Register Width (bit)

32

64

64

64

Number of transistors (Million)

33

58

169

106

Die Size (mm²)

106

66

+/-130 (112   for 1 MB L2)

115

Maximum Clockspeed (MHz)

1400

2700 (liquid cooled)

3800

2600

Pipeline Stages ( fp)

7

16 (21)

31 - 39*

12 (17)

issue rate (Instruction per clockcycle)

3 + 1 Branch

4 + 1 branch

4 ports, max. 6 (3 sustained)

6 (3 sustained)

Integer issue rate (IPC)

3 + 1 Branch

2

4 (3 sustained)

3

Floating point issue rate (IPC)

1

2

1

3

Vector  issue rate (IPC)

2-4 ( Altivec)

2-4 ( Altivec, velocity)

4  Single(SSE-2/3)

4  Single(SSE-2/3)

2 Double (SSE-2/3)

2 Double (SSE-2/3)

Load & Store units

1

2

2

2

"instructions in flight" (OOO Window)

16

215 (100)

126

72

Branch History Table size (entries)

2048

16384

4096

16384

L1-cache (Instruction/Data)

32 KB/32 KB

64 KB/32 KB

12k µops (+/- 8-16 KB)/16 KB

64 KB/64KB

L2-cache

256 KB

512 KB

2048 KB

1024 KB

L3-cache

2 MB DDR SRAM 64 bit at 1/4 th of core clock

none

None

none

Front Side Bus (MHz)

166

1350 (675 DDR)

800 (200 Quad)

N/A

Front Side Bus (GB/s)

1.3 Half Duplex

10,8 Full Duplex

6.4 Half Duplex

N/A

Memory Bandwidth (GB/s)

2.7

6.4

6.4

6.4

Core Voltage

1.6V

1,1V ?

1.38V

1.4V

Power Dissipation

30W at 1 GHz

+/- 59 (Typical) -80 Watt (max)

110 W (Typical)

92,6W (Max)


*31 is branch misprediction pipeline length, 39 is the length of the total pipeline including decoding stages before the trace cache.

Let us summarize: in theory, the PowerPc 970FX is a very wide, deeply pipelined superscalar monster chip, with excellent Branch prediction and fantastic features for streaming applications. And let us not forget the two parallel FPUs and the SIMD Altivec unit, which can process up to 4 calculations per clock cycle.

The disadvantages are the rather coarse way that the 970FX handles the instruction flow and the high latency to the RAM.

Enough theory. Let us see how the G5 2.5 GHz and 2.7 GHz compares to the 3.6 GHz Xeon Irwindale and Opteron 250 (2.4 GHz). The Opteron 852 arrived just a day before my deadline, but I think that you will know how the 252 performs compared to the 250. Before we tackle performance, here are a few quick notes about power dissipation.

Power to the PowerPC

How power thirsty is this PowerPC 970FX? His predecessor, the 0.13µ SOI PowerPC 970 was a pretty cool chip. It consumed about 42W at 1.8 GHz (1.3v). The newer 0.09µ SOI PowerPC 970FX CPU is reported to dissipate about 55-59W at 2.5 GHz. However, a few annotations must be made.

First of all, IBM and Apple tend to increase the core voltage when running at higher clock speed. This makes the needed power increase more than linearly. For example, the 1.8 GHz PowerPC 970 consumed 42 Watt, but the 2 GHz version (both 0.13µ CPUs) needed 66 Watt.

Secondly, the TDP IBM talks about is typical , not maximum like AMD's.

Let us clarify this by checking IBM's and Apple's numbers. For the 90 nm, IBM's own documents tell us that the PowerPC 970FX only consumes 24.5 Watt at 2 GHz (1V). However, the same 0.09µ SOI PowerPC970FX is reported to consume about 55W at 2.3 GHz (1.1V?) in the Xserve, according to Apple's own website. Typically, you would expect the G5 to consume about 28 Watt (24.5 * 2.3 / 2) at 2.3 GHz, when using the 24.5 Watt at 2 GHz as a reference. Apple talks about "at most" (maximum), and IBM about "typical".

Still, that is a huge gap between "typical" and "maximum" power dissipation. The 55 Watt number seems to indicate that the core voltage must have been increased significantly at 2.3 GHz. The maximum power dissipation of the 2.5/2.7 GHz G5 inside the liquid-cooled PowerMacs might thus be quite a bit higher than in the 1U Xserve, probably around 80 Watt for the 2.7 GHz. That is a lot of power for a 66 mm² CPU, and it probably explains why Apple introduced liquid cooling. The liquid cooling system inside our PowerMac wouldn't get warm and wouldn't be necessary at all if the two 2.5 GHz CPUs were only dissipating a 59 Watt maximum.

Benchmark configuration   Next Page

 
  Index

Tools Share
Find lowest prices Find the lowest prices
Digg   del.icio.us   E-mail  
Print This Article Print this article  

112 Comments - Last by edchi, 959 days ago
Username:
Password:
No Subject by Methodical, 1712 days ago
I like anands articles way better.

Your drawing too many conclusions off of data you basically call untrustworthy, but I agree your basic conclusion. The OS still needs more work.

I really think leaving out After Effects was a bad idea. Its a perfect benchmark. Plugins that do the exact same calculations on the exact same workfiles. Its also one of the biggest things these macs are used for, but I understand your article to be a bit more server-oriented.

Reply
No Subject by ailleur2, 1712 days ago
Well that was interesting.

Im a big apple fan myself but even i never thought od putting osx server in a server room.
I think the g5 did quite well and had IBM delivered its promise of a 3ghz g5 (and that was supposed to be a year ago) the g5 would have won a couple of tests by a good margin.

If apple/IBM want altivec optimisations, i think theyll have to do it themselves since the interest level is pretty low.

One question though, why wasnt linux installed of the g5 if this was a cpu test? I dont know if it makes a damn of a difference but it whould have put them on equal bases.

Reply
No Subject by ailleur2, 1712 days ago
Oh and the graph on page 5 doesnt display correctly in firefox.

Reply
No Subject by wessonality, 1712 days ago
No Subject by wessonality, 1712 days ago
What about installing Yellow Dog Linux on the XServe?

Reply
No Subject by porkster, 1712 days ago
"Root Me" in Australian slang is the same as "Fxxk Me" in common language. Some people my find a picture in this review offensive.

Reply
No Subject by StuckMojo, 1712 days ago
yes, it seems you've left out a very good method of testing if OSX is the issue: run a powerPC linux distro with the mysql and apache benchmarks and see what happens!

i'd be _really_ interested in the results. see if you can update the article with them.

Reply
No Subject by StuckMojo, 1712 days ago

hmph. you say it yourself in the last paragraph...how come you didn't try it?

Reply
No Subject by JohanAnandtech, 1712 days ago
Porkster: It is a little geekisch Unix joke. Where is your geekish you man spirit?

Wessonality: Our next project if we can keep the G5 long enough in the labs.

Ailleur2: indeed, I agree. The G5 is a potent CPU with a lot of potential. Just give it a bigger L2 and a better memory subsystem. This is an architecture that could last very long by applying a few tweaks, like the P6.

Methodical: All of the benchmarks are trustworthy, they should be looked upon as a whole to get a good picture, not just pick one. About After affects, I indicate that the G5 does very well here (seen other reports on the web), I just didn't have the software in the lab.

I also warned that this was not about "should I buy an Apple or not?". It is just "if performance is what counts for me, where should I position the G5/Mac os X combiantion compared to x86/Linux/Windows ?".



Reply
No Subject by IntelUser2000, 1712 days ago
People, in case some of you misunderstand, the 10.8GB/sec Full Duplex bus means that its two 32-bit 1350MHz bus, rather than one 64-bit bus in the PCs. Its not, 10.8GB/sec x 2 =21.6GB/sec bus, its 10.8GB/sec bus(or more correctly stated 5.4GB/sec x 2). Plus, it says in Apple site that it has TWO(yes two!!!) of the 10.8GB/sec buses, per CPU.

Summary: Per CPU=10.8GB/sec
Per Dual Processor System=21.6GB/sec


Johan, about the AMD TDP number, they never state that its max power, they say its maximum power achievable under most circumstances, its not absolute max power.

Reply
Comments Page 1 of 12

Unlicensed Software at Your Last Company
Anonymously Report Unlicensed Software with Our Form Now. Get Up to $1 Million.
Special Offer from The Economist
Get 12 issues of The Economist for $12. US subscribers only.
Free Forrester Risk Management Report
Demystifying Enterprise Risk Management. Download Free With Registration.
DOWNLOAD vWire Today - FREE TRIAL
Take Control of Your Virtual Infrastructure. Manage VI Data & Prevent Problems.
Download Microsoft Visual Studio ® Team System
Streamline Dev processes, Reduce time to market. Try Microsoft Visual Studio Team System, FREE!




Latest news by
DailyTech

 February 9, 2010

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank

 February 8, 2010

Blank




pipeboost
Copyright © 1997-2010 AnandTech, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms, Conditions and Privacy Information.
Click Here for Advertising Information