Then the clock speeds began to go up as AMD and Intel fought each other
and the
G4 lagged behind except on stuff you could put into vector format for SIMD
processing and it still smoked P3/P4 at twice the clockspeed.

How did it compare when the scales were evened out and the code also
supported the SSE and SSE2 SIMD sets?

Now we get the G5, which I think at least closes the gap.

That does look likely.

Likely, it's probably
going to run ahead on some stuff and a bit behind on other stuff. But it
looks
like it is all in the same ballpark.

Yep.

-S

How did it compare when the scales were evened out and the code also
supported the SSE and SSE2 SIMD sets?

SSE was a complete ****ing joke compared to the vector engine in the G4. No
kidding. It resoundingly smoked the intel family on best-case optimized code
that applied well to this kind of processing.

Like BLAST and the other protein folding number cruncher applications out
there, they run killer on alti-vec. The only challenge is feeding them with
data.


--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

SSE was a complete ****ing joke compared to the vector engine in the G4.
No
kidding. It resoundingly smoked the intel family on best-case optimized
code
that applied well to this kind of processing.

Interesting. Did this include SSE2?

How about AMD CPUs?

-S

Interesting. Did this include SSE2?

How about AMD CPUs?

-S

Yes and yes.

Trashed them all, using best case, most optimized code on all platforms. The
G4 family vector engine is pretty darn good.

The only way to grind it any faster was to spend (a lot) more money on
bigger-iron hardware.


--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

Trashed them all, using best case, most optimized code on all platforms.
The
G4 family vector engine is pretty darn good.

What I'm seeing so far seems to support this...

The question is, can the vector engine be utilized in an audio
environment... and if so, why hasn't it been?

-S

In article , Scott Reams
wrote:

Trashed them all, using best case, most optimized code on all platforms.
The
G4 family vector engine is pretty darn good.

What I'm seeing so far seems to support this...

The question is, can the vector engine be utilized in an audio
environment... and if so, why hasn't it been?

-S


Ummm hello it has been. logic uses it thats how you can get so many of
it's plugins going. i think DP uses it. I even think pro tools le uses
it. a lot of games have to have a G4 bcause of the altivec engine.

BTW...

My point was this:

If the vector engine gives such huge gains in specific scenarios (RC5, the
NASA tests)... and if the same gains are possible in the audio world... any
Altivec-enabled CPU should be hands-down the highest performing out there in
this field.

-S

"Musikboy" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Scott Reams
wrote:

Trashed them all, using best case, most optimized code on all
platforms.
The
G4 family vector engine is pretty darn good.

What I'm seeing so far seems to support this...

The question is, can the vector engine be utilized in an audio
environment... and if so, why hasn't it been?

-S


Ummm hello it has been. logic uses it thats how you can get so many of
it's plugins going. i think DP uses it. I even think pro tools le uses
it. a lot of games have to have a G4 bcause of the altivec engine.

Yeah, that's right. When an Altivec app can pretty much own the whole
machine, it is very much superior technology to SSE2 and 3DNow! The
original SSE was more marketing than legitimate go-juice.

If you take a look at the non-Altivec version vs the Altivec version of
the Distributed.net RC5 client, it's astounding. Altivec improves
performance by about 250%. Nowhere, on no app, does SSE2 come close to
that boost, AFAIK.

But it does seem to me that Altivec does not play nice at all on the
current Macs in multitasking scenarios. Seems like the restricted FSB
bandwidth and memory speeds, plus the way the G4 registers are designed
creates pretty horrific inefficiencies in many cases. Thus, relatively
minor improvement was realized on DAWs and plugins, where the scenario
is inherently multitasking in a big way.

If the G5 can overcome those issues, Altivec could finally have a big
impact of DAWs. Without improved Altivec when multitasking, the G5 will
still be a big boost for the Mac and bring + / - parity with Wintel
world. With Altivec running like it should, G5 could actually prove to
be a worldbeater. Unfortunately, I'm not too optomistic that
IBM/Apple/OSX/compilers/developers will all line up to make it so.
Brilliant technology, with mediocre realworld success to date for the
most part, certainly for DAWs.

Regards,
Brian T


nuke wrote:

How did it compare when the scales were evened out and the code also
supported the SSE and SSE2 SIMD sets?



SSE was a complete ****ing joke compared to the vector engine in the G4. No
kidding. It resoundingly smoked the intel family on best-case optimized code
that applied well to this kind of processing.

Like BLAST and the other protein folding number cruncher applications out
there, they run killer on alti-vec. The only challenge is feeding them with
data.


--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

Yeah, that's right. When an Altivec app can pretty much own the whole
machine, it is very much superior technology to SSE2 and 3DNow! The
original SSE was more marketing than legitimate go-juice.

Interesting, then, that Waves was able to get far, far more out of SSE than
out of Altivec in their optimizations.

If you take a look at the non-Altivec version vs the Altivec version of
the Distributed.net RC5 client, it's astounding. Altivec improves
performance by about 250%. Nowhere, on no app, does SSE2 come close to
that boost, AFAIK.

It does seem, however, that this is a one-of-a-kind example. I haven't seen
anything besides this one thing show such a disparity.

But it does seem to me that Altivec does not play nice at all on the
current Macs in multitasking scenarios. Seems like the restricted FSB
bandwidth and memory speeds, plus the way the G4 registers are designed
creates pretty horrific inefficiencies in many cases. Thus, relatively
minor improvement was realized on DAWs and plugins, where the scenario
is inherently multitasking in a big way.

If the G5 can overcome those issues, Altivec could finally have a big
impact of DAWs.

Perhaps... but I don't think the Distributed.net results can be used as
evidence of that. If there was more evidence to be seen, I might believe it.

Without improved Altivec when multitasking, the G5 will
still be a big boost for the Mac and bring + / - parity with Wintel
world. With Altivec running like it should, G5 could actually prove to
be a worldbeater.

Hmmm... running like it should? What evidence do we have to determine how it
should run?

-S

In article , Scott
Reams wrote:

Yeah, that's right. When an Altivec app can pretty much own the whole
machine, it is very much superior technology to SSE2 and 3DNow! The
original SSE was more marketing than legitimate go-juice.

Interesting, then, that Waves was able to get far, far more out of SSE than
out of Altivec in their optimizations.
Because according to scott reams nothing that says the G4's were better
could possibly be true.
If you take a look at the non-Altivec version vs the Altivec version of
the Distributed.net RC5 client, it's astounding. Altivec improves
performance by about 250%. Nowhere, on no app, does SSE2 come close to
that boost, AFAIK.

It does seem, however, that this is a one-of-a-kind example. I haven't seen
anything besides this one thing show such a disparity.
Because according to scott reams nothing that says the G4's were better
could possibly be true.
But it does seem to me that Altivec does not play nice at all on the
current Macs in multitasking scenarios. Seems like the restricted FSB
bandwidth and memory speeds, plus the way the G4 registers are designed
creates pretty horrific inefficiencies in many cases. Thus, relatively
minor improvement was realized on DAWs and plugins, where the scenario
is inherently multitasking in a big way.

If the G5 can overcome those issues, Altivec could finally have a big
impact of DAWs.

Perhaps... but I don't think the Distributed.net results can be used as
evidence of that. If there was more evidence to be seen, I might believe it.
Because according to scott reams nothing that says the G5's were better
could possibly be true.
Without improved Altivec when multitasking, the G5 will
still be a big boost for the Mac and bring + / - parity with Wintel
world. With Altivec running like it should, G5 could actually prove to
be a worldbeater.

Hmmm... running like it should? What evidence do we have to determine how it
should run?

-S
Because according to scott reams nothing that says the G5's were better
could possibly be true.

you're a hell of an open minded guy there scott

It does seem, however, that this is a one-of-a-kind example. I haven't
seen
anything besides this one thing show such a disparity.
Because according to scott reams nothing that says the G4's were better
could possibly be true.

It's true. The fact that it is the only example is what brings the question.
If you have other examples, please share them.


Perhaps... but I don't think the Distributed.net results can be used as
evidence of that. If there was more evidence to be seen, I might believe
it.
Because according to scott reams nothing that says the G5's were better
could possibly be true.

Nothing says either way yet. The systems aren't available. My point was that
I don't think Altivec will save the day from what I've seen. The G5 itself
could save the day, however.

Hmmm... running like it should? What evidence do we have to determine
how it
should run?

Because according to scott reams nothing that says the G5's were better
could possibly be true.

Because, unlike yourself, I need more than one solitary piece of evidence to
draw a conclusion. It doesn't matter of it's a G5, a P5, or a BMW M5.
Also... unlike yourself, I don't believe anything any manufacturer claims
about an unreleased product.

you're a hell of an open minded guy there scott

Sure am. You might try it one day.



-S

I just did a quick search through the distributed.net FAQ.

They mention that the fact that PowerPC and some Intel CPUs score well is
because they impliment 32-bit rotate functions in hardware. (who knows how
much, if at all, this particular thing would benefit an audio plugin).
Interestingly... the P4 dropped this capability... and so all of the
"modern" Intel CPUs fell way behind at that point.

I think we have a freak case here that relies very heavily on a very
specific set of circumstances.

-S

"Brian Tankersley" wrote in message
...
Yeah, that's right. When an Altivec app can pretty much own the whole
machine, it is very much superior technology to SSE2 and 3DNow! The
original SSE was more marketing than legitimate go-juice.

If you take a look at the non-Altivec version vs the Altivec version of
the Distributed.net RC5 client, it's astounding. Altivec improves
performance by about 250%. Nowhere, on no app, does SSE2 come close to
that boost, AFAIK.

But it does seem to me that Altivec does not play nice at all on the
current Macs in multitasking scenarios. Seems like the restricted FSB
bandwidth and memory speeds, plus the way the G4 registers are designed
creates pretty horrific inefficiencies in many cases. Thus, relatively
minor improvement was realized on DAWs and plugins, where the scenario
is inherently multitasking in a big way.

If the G5 can overcome those issues, Altivec could finally have a big
impact of DAWs. Without improved Altivec when multitasking, the G5 will
still be a big boost for the Mac and bring + / - parity with Wintel
world. With Altivec running like it should, G5 could actually prove to
be a worldbeater. Unfortunately, I'm not too optomistic that
IBM/Apple/OSX/compilers/developers will all line up to make it so.
Brilliant technology, with mediocre realworld success to date for the
most part, certainly for DAWs.

Regards,
Brian T


nuke wrote:

How did it compare when the scales were evened out and the code also
supported the SSE and SSE2 SIMD sets?



SSE was a complete ****ing joke compared to the vector engine in the G4.
No
kidding. It resoundingly smoked the intel family on best-case optimized
code
that applied well to this kind of processing.

Like BLAST and the other protein folding number cruncher applications out
there, they run killer on alti-vec. The only challenge is feeding them
with
data.


--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

In article , Scott
Reams wrote:

I just did a quick search through the distributed.net FAQ.

They mention that the fact that PowerPC and some Intel CPUs score well is
because they impliment 32-bit rotate functions in hardware. (who knows how
much, if at all, this particular thing would benefit an audio plugin).
Interestingly... the P4 dropped this capability... and so all of the
"modern" Intel CPUs fell way behind at that point.

I think we have a freak case here that relies very heavily on a very
specific set of circumstances.

-S
Because according to scott reams if anything apple scores better ever
its a freak case. because scott is so open minded.
"Brian Tankersley" wrote in message
...
Yeah, that's right. When an Altivec app can pretty much own the whole
machine, it is very much superior technology to SSE2 and 3DNow! The
original SSE was more marketing than legitimate go-juice.

If you take a look at the non-Altivec version vs the Altivec version of
the Distributed.net RC5 client, it's astounding. Altivec improves
performance by about 250%. Nowhere, on no app, does SSE2 come close to
that boost, AFAIK.

But it does seem to me that Altivec does not play nice at all on the
current Macs in multitasking scenarios. Seems like the restricted FSB
bandwidth and memory speeds, plus the way the G4 registers are designed
creates pretty horrific inefficiencies in many cases. Thus, relatively
minor improvement was realized on DAWs and plugins, where the scenario
is inherently multitasking in a big way.

If the G5 can overcome those issues, Altivec could finally have a big
impact of DAWs. Without improved Altivec when multitasking, the G5 will
still be a big boost for the Mac and bring + / - parity with Wintel
world. With Altivec running like it should, G5 could actually prove to
be a worldbeater. Unfortunately, I'm not too optomistic that
IBM/Apple/OSX/compilers/developers will all line up to make it so.
Brilliant technology, with mediocre realworld success to date for the
most part, certainly for DAWs.

Regards,
Brian T


nuke wrote:

How did it compare when the scales were evened out and the code also
supported the SSE and SSE2 SIMD sets?



SSE was a complete ****ing joke compared to the vector engine in the G4.
No
kidding. It resoundingly smoked the intel family on best-case optimized
code
that applied well to this kind of processing.

Like BLAST and the other protein folding number cruncher applications out
there, they run killer on alti-vec. The only challenge is feeding them
with
data.


--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

I just did a quick search through the distributed.net FAQ.

They mention that the fact that PowerPC and some Intel CPUs score well
is
because they impliment 32-bit rotate functions in hardware. (who knows
how
much, if at all, this particular thing would benefit an audio plugin).
Interestingly... the P4 dropped this capability... and so all of the
"modern" Intel CPUs fell way behind at that point.

I think we have a freak case here that relies very heavily on a very
specific set of circumstances.

Because according to scott reams if anything apple scores better ever
its a freak case. because scott is so open minded.

Because... unlike yourself... one solitary piece of evidence -is- a freak
case until there is at least one more piece of evidence to confirm it as
meaningful. You might try being more thorough when trying to understand
performance... and not lean on -any- singular piece of evidence to draw
conclusions from.

You'll get there some day. I believe in you, MusikGuitarboy.



-S

Scott Reams wrote:

Because... unlike yourself... one solitary piece of evidence -is- a freak
case until there is at least one more piece of evidence to confirm it as
meaningful.

I just posted a link to a NASA tst of the G5. I found it interesting,
though as usual, it may not mean squat to a DAW. I try to restrain
laminar airflow calcs in my music. g See "NASA Tests Apple G5" in this
forum. Or not. Whatever.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

In article , Brian Tankersley
wrote:

Unfortunately, I'm not too optomistic that
IBM/Apple/OSX/compilers/developers will all line up to make it so.
Brilliant technology, with mediocre realworld success to date for the
most part, certainly for DAWs.



Mediocre realworld success for DAW's? Huh??





David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island


www.CelebrationSound.com

Altivec, not Macs. Read carefully what I said. Ask Logic users how much
difference Altivec made in the realworld on their DAW. Not a lot,
unfortunately.

Brian T

david wrote:

In article , Brian Tankersley
wrote:



Unfortunately, I'm not too optomistic that
IBM/Apple/OSX/compilers/developers will all line up to make it so.
Brilliant technology, with mediocre realworld success to date for the
most part, certainly for DAWs.





Mediocre realworld success for DAW's? Huh??





David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island


www.CelebrationSound.com

david wrote:

In article , Brian Tankersley
wrote:

Unfortunately, I'm not too optomistic that
IBM/Apple/OSX/compilers/developers will all line up to make it so.
Brilliant technology, with mediocre realworld success to date for the
most part, certainly for DAWs.

Mediocre realworld success for DAW's? Huh??

On the one hand, PT on the Mac rules the market; on the other hand,
Brian's rig completely outstrips any known PT rig in terms of
simultaneous hardware I/O, number of tracks, plugin instantiation, etc.
It's that old "Well, he can't sing for **** but his face is everywhere"
versus "Man, how come nobody has ever heard of _this_ guy, who sings
loops barrel rolls around the rest of the pack??"

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"