|
|
OGR estimate for Quad G5
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Out West Somewhere....
Status:
Offline
|
|
I do ~60 nodes per second on my Dual 1.8.
Can any of you smart people estimate nodes per second with a Quad 2.5?
TIA.
|
iMac - Late 2015 iMac, 32GB RAM
MacBook - 2010 MacBook, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
4x 2.5GHz / 2x 1.8GHz = 2.77~
~60 x 2.77~ = 162~
And say minus 10% for latency = 145.8
Yayz, I win!!!11
|
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: God's Country, The South
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Lateralus
4x 2.5GHz / 2x 1.8GHz = 2.77~
~60 x 2.77~ = 162~
And say minus 10% for latency = 145.8
Yayz, I win!!!11
Given the speed quotes I have seen on some news sites, specifically that a Dual Core 2.3 was faster than an existing dual processor 2.5, I think it "might" be around 10-20% higher. Don't forget that the new machines also have significantly faster memory I/O. They are now using DDR2 memory.
|
Chappaquidick 1, Cheney 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
The only benchmarks I have seen done on the new machines were Xbench. Xbench hardly ever translates to real world performance.
|
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Germany
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Lateralus
And say minus 10% for latency = 145.8
Yayz, I win!!!11
I don't think so.
First:
System controller
This fast application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) uses a lower-latency memory subsystem with support for ultrafast DDR2 SDRAM.
Source: Apple
Second: 1MB Level 2 cache
Thrid: Quad Benchmark *drool*
dual 2.8 Xeon: 49 seconds
dual 2.5 G5: 38 seconds
quad 2.5 G5: 17 seconds
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
We'll see.
|
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Germany
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yes we will
I second my statement: Faster Chip-to-Chip communication
And DDR2, see XBench (XBench isn't that bad )
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
The new G5's may have a faster memory controller, but DDR2 533 isn't any faster than DDR 400 because of the higher latency. To acheive any real performance gain with DDR2 over DDR 400, you need to go with DDR2 667.
Which Apple didn't do, for whatever reason...
|
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Germany
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|