On Mar 23, 12:29 am, "ah...clem" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 22, 11:57 am, Bruce Johnson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Oh puleeeze. You're claiming a dual 1.25 Ghz G4 on a 333 mHz bus can > > compare to a Mac Pro (which at a MINIMUM has 2 2.66Ghz dual core Xeons with > > 667 Mhz memory bus) with a few COMPILER TWEAKS??? (which tweaks, BTW, > > Apple's dev tools pretty much apply automatically when you select PPC as a > > compile target) > > i never claimed any such thing! re-read the post, bruce. if you want > to "win" the discussion so desperately that you will resort to putting > words in my mouth, then you only underscore the weakness of your own > position. what i said was that PPC versus intel of comparable clock > speeds was no contest. given software well written for each, the PPC > was damned near twice as fast as the intel on real world > computationally intensive tasks.
Ok, I'll ask - I am well aware of how AltiVec functioned. And no argument that an Intel-written SW may not properly run on a PPC to take advantage. Honest question though - Doesn't Intel have a similar functioning SIMD unit? Also 128bit wide? If that's the case, I'd expect that a 4x2.8GHz machine to be 4.48X as fast as a 2x1.25GHz machine, given the similarity between both SIMD units. The near 10X improvement I see proves your point, to me, at least, that the code was not optimized for PPC, specifically AltiVec. I have the latest DVD rip I'm sending to a TiVo, will run on both machines to confirm exact ratio I see. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
