Apple
CD Drives
G5
Hard Drive
Internet
iPhone
iPod
Laptop
MacBidouille
Mac Intel
Mac OS X
Network
Overclock
PC
Peripheral
Software
Sound
Video
| Hello, Today, visiting the Fnac in the Champs-Elysées, I unexpectedly came to find a G5 there. it was a 1.6 (with FX5200, well, bottom of the line model) with two small (so to speak) Apple flat screens linked on it. The storekeep was a real nice guy, we talked along for 10 mn, he let me see the inside and all, pretty clean, a really beautifully crafted machine :))) As for the noise, he told me (hard to make one's mind in the Fnac) it was just a bit noisier than an iMac. GGRRR, WHEN WILL THEY ARRIVE ! PS: I asked him when they would ship, he didn't know for sure, but didn't believe Apple's schedule would be right |
| In bold terms, a G5 1.6 GHz keyrate levels the one of a G4 1 GHz (a 1.25 G4 reaches 13.3 MKeys/s per CPU). Besides that, I tried to write a specific core for the G5, but I have to admit it wans't taken into account (slower than core G4e). I need to do a new cruncher for the G5 (much more complicated). As my code generator actually doesn't enable me to do this, it will take a longer time. |
| The G5 AltiVec units have a slightly longer pipeline, which makes them very sensible to interacting instructions. Thus with a classic AltiVec cruncher, the G5 runs to a 60% level in regard of a G4 of a same frequency. To counteract those interactions, I'll have to write a much more complicated cruncher (which I call a 4-pipe/3 stages pipelined core). |
| The G4 gives one AltiVec instruction per clock cycle, whereas the G5 is closer from an instruction every 2 cycles. This new cruncher's aim is to eliminate the dependence links between instructions to reach full-speed. If I do my job as I wish, the G5 speed should overcome a same frequency G4. |
| Almost no time :) I wrote a tool to generate ASM code for G4s crunchers. I just modified a few tricks to try to fill the G5 pipeline, but this stuff didn't work as expected :-/ |
| Yes, a failed adaptation. My goal was to improve perfs, as much as possible, without writing a new cruncher. An almost impossible task when you don't have a G5 actually :-) I did this blindly, after the 970 specs. That is to say, the current 970 cruncher is a modified G4e one, thus a non-optimum one |
| As soon as the G5s will be delivered, I'll try to write a new, specific cruncher. I'll just have to give s.o. owning a G5 a test purpose client to launch a bench. From that point, I'll analyze those results with regard to the code and theoretical specs. I dunno how long this will take... everything has to be done again, this may require more than a month to complete. |
| Nothing at all (on the contrary). The algorithm is made for 32 bits. In 64 bits mode, the resul of each operation has to be reduced so it is modulo 2^32, whihc means loads of time lost. |
| As the challenge consists in decrypting a message using a formula based on exclusively 32 bits calculations, it would take RSA to initiate a new challenge with a cryptage based on modulo 2^64 calculations. |
| In my view, a big G4 already does pulversih any thing. Just watch the stats on distributer.net to get aware of thta. So the G5 might only improve that result (even thru the sole frequency gain). |