Poll:Should Apple port Mac OS X to Intel/AMD Processors?

[MacRumors]

Vote: Poll:Should Apple port Mac OS X to Intel/AMD Processors? (http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=22&ref=forums.macrumors.com)

[vniow]

Ummm...no. The x86 is a dying archtecture while the PowerPC hasn't even come close to its full potential yet. Maybe if Intel didn't pipeline the PIV all to hell, but no x86 for Apple. :)

[SilvorX]

depends, if it was going to use an intel processor, HELL NO, if it was going to use an AMD Athlon X ;) processor with apple branded hardware, then maybe, but not any time soon, maybe apple could switch to x86 at os XI, but not any time soon, and if it were to switch to x86, it would have to be a diff style boot up than a normal x86 system, so that it wouldnt boot up into windows ;)

[iGav]

I tend to agree with what edvniow says....... The PPC is a great architecture, but it's the way it's been handled by the AIM alliance that has slowed development down.....

OSX on Intel or AMD :p :p :p

[Sun Baked]

What's wrong with the Itanic?

It's the future of Intel - at least it used to say that in the old Intel press clippings lining the bottom of the bird cage.

[Bear]

Stick with PowerPC. The Intel/AMD architecture has too much compatability stuff left around for the processors to really perform.
Maybe they should jump on the SPARC bandwagon if they need a new processor. This could give them access to some very large Sun Microsystem servers.

[Mr. Anderson]

Right now OSX is Apple's ace in the hole. They need to hold on to it until their marketshare gets bigger and they have a more solid hardware platform that can out perform the PCs at a processor to processor level.

D

[SilvorX]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
What's wrong with the Itanic?

It's the future of Intel - at least it used to say that in the old Intel press clippings lining the bottom of the bird cage.
sounds like a wintel fan to me ;)
jk

if motorolla ever did quit making processors for apple, amd should be producing the processor since most mac users are anti-intel, and AMD would be the furthest away from intel

should the processor be called AMD Athlon X? lol

[alex_ant]

Whoa... the yessers are outnumbering the no'ers at the moment.

One BIG, LOUD vote for the no'ers. :)

[KingRocky]

As a PC user, I benefit from the competiton between Intel and AMD: Processors approaching 3 GHz, and LOW prices.

If Apple is going to stay in the hardware business, then there needs to be some healthy competition in their processor market. Having your processors come from only one supplier GUARANTEES stagnation and high prices. Motorola is in business to make money, not to help apple's market share.

The prices for the new G4s are OUTRAGEOUS!! Instead of one expensive CPU, now you have to buy TWO!

Should IBM become a supplier in addition to Motorola, we should see speed and features increase, and prices drop.

I can purchase AMD's fastest processor for under $300. An upgrade for my G4 to their fastest processor costs THREE TIMES AS MUCH!!

To use a car analogy, Apple users are driving BMW/Mercedes, and PC users are driving Hondas. Sure, lower resale value and shorter life span, but WAY LOWER initial investment and maintenance.

I WANT TO SWITCH!! I just can't afford it!

[Bear]

Originally posted by KingRocky
As a PC user, I benefit from the competiton between Intel and AMD: Processors approaching 3 GHz, and LOW prices.

Remember MHz/GHz is only meaningful between processors of the same design. This includes number of pipeline stages and such.

Heck, even Intel has admited the MHz isn't everything with a recent announcement.

Where you benefit is lower cost for x86 based processors.

[KingRocky]

Quote:
"Where you benefit is lower cost for x86 based processors."


That's my entire point! It doesn't matter if the G4 is as fast as a PIV, the problem is that it costs 3 times as much.

I can spend $500 and build myself a good PC, or keep saving until I get $1500 to get myself a good Macintosh.

I suppose I could spend my $500 on an old PowerMac, but then I'd be spending more money to upgrade it. Apple didn't put in an AGP slot until the last revamp of the G4. They're still running at ATA66 and using PC100 SDRAM! Yes, I know that the new G4s use DDR, but then you're asking me to spend $1700!! I get all of that, and MORE for my $500 in a PC I can build myself!

I'm still planning on switching to Mac, but it's becoming a painful experience because of the price of entry. Apple needs to find more vendors to build CPUs and chipsets to lower the costs of their machines. And I'm sure that we could save at least $100 more if they ditch that pretty plastic case and stuck the components in something simpler.

Don't get me wrong, I like the pretty case, but when people go to their local CompUSA and see a Compaq for $499, then see a Macintosh for $1700, they could care less about how pretty it is.
Apple's "Switch" campaign isn't going to work when their G4s cost $1700. And no, I don't want an iMac, thank you. Maybe for the wife and kids, but I'm a hardware junkie and I like to open up my box and put stuff inside. You know, coffee makers, toasters, fusion reactors, stuff like that. . .
:)

[AmbitiousLemon]

x86 no, but i think expanding the AIM aliance would be good. sure amd can amke processors for mac but let them make ppc chips.

as someone said we just need competition. altivec might be the worst thing to happen to apple. apple purposely allied with 2 processor manufacturers (ibm, moto) so that they wouldnt be held at the mercy fo one. but Altivec has locked apple into that situation. Altivec essentially killed the triumvirate by locking ibm out.

Now apple is in a tight place, they are addicted to altivec but moto is pricing the liciencing of Altivec so high ibm is not interested. Apple needs to do something quick, but the stagnation and problems are not with ppc vs x86, and switching to x86 would to nothing for apple.

if apple wants to make a big leap then leaping to ibm and dropping (or moving to an alternative) altivec would be a big enough leap and would yield far better results.

idealing apple would acquire moto's semiconductor dep and would licience out the tech to a new set of partners while also working directly on the processors itself. amd, ibm, ti, whoever just amke sure another moto/altivec situation doesnt come up again.

many of you dont remember this because you have only recently become apple fans or just werent as informed in the past, but apple dominated the pc market in terms of speed for a very long time. x86 was way behind. intel/amd did not catch-up until very recently (remember who hit 500mhz first?). No one even questions whether macs were faster, it was well known and clear cut. Now its so hazy. Apple is slower, but barely, and in some tasks faster, but not most. some benchmarks say one thing others say something else. all of this is new. and all has followed from the g4. and the scariest thing is how quiet cupertino has been on the subject.

[Rajj]

There is no comparison between a $500 Compaq(HP) and a $1700 POWERMAC!!

First off for $1700, you get dual semiconductors;)
Second, you get OS X!! 'Nuff said

As for the $500 Compaq(HP), you get a crappy Celeron aka Pentium 2 with MMX!!;)


One more thing, $1700 for dual semiconductors is grand larceny:D ;)

[KingRocky]

And for under $1000, i can build an AMD box with dual 2GHz processors, 512MB of DDR SDRAM, 100GB UltraATA 100 HD, DVD, CD-RW, yadda, yadda, yadda. Sure, it won't be pretty like a G4, but I think I can live with it, since I just saved over $700.


Apple is tying it's hands behind it's back by not having any competition in their processor/chipset vendors. I bet that IBM's Power4 spanks some G4 arse, AltiVec or no AltiVec.

Get VIA or SiS or somebody else to manufacture PPC processors, and watch how quickly prices will drop and how fast features will get integrated.

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by KingRocky
And for under $1000, i can build an AMD box with dual 2GHz processors, 512MB of DDR SDRAM, 100GB UltraATA 100 HD, DVD, CD-RW, yadda, yadda, yadda. Sure, it won't be pretty like a G4, but I think I can live with it, since I just saved over $700.


Apple is tying it's hands behind it's back by not having any competition in their processor/chipset vendors. I bet that IBM's Power4 spanks some G4 arse, AltiVec or no AltiVec.

Get VIA or SiS or somebody else to manufacture PPC processors, and watch how quickly prices will drop and how fast features will get integrated.

i dont like your tone, but hey you are right.

[KingRocky]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


i dont like your tone, but hey you are right.


Hey, I'm not trying to tick anybody off, I WANT TO SWITCH!! I just don't have the $1700!! Even the G4s on ebay are priced artificially high!

Apple needs to deliver the goods in the mid to low-end PC space to increase market share. They need to have G4 iMacs for $599 sitting right next to those POS boxes from Compaq, HP and the rest.

They need to have G4 towers for $899 sitting next to the mid and high-end PCs.

Marketshare guarantees you more repeat customers than waiting on your loyal fan base to upgrade.

[AmbitiousLemon]

actually i think apple's current prcining is just right. yes you can build a pc for less (takes some skill to make something good though), but when comparing apples to pre-built pcs you find that apple has the price right. many times the apple is cheaper. This has come up many times on these boards and people eventually go to dell and gateway spec out a machine that has most of the features of the apple and find the prices are very close.

as for used macs, thats actually something to be thankful for. high resell value is something that is always good. it means when it is time to trade up you dont have to spend much. reselling pcs is difficult, and you dont get much (especially if you built a nice system).

[KingRocky]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
actually i think apple's current prcining is just right. yes you can build a pc for less (takes some skill to make something good though), but when comparing apples to pre-built pcs you find that apple has the price right. many times the apple is cheaper. This has come up many times on these boards and people eventually go to dell and gateway spec out a machine that has most of the features of the apple and find the prices are very close.

I agree with you that prices are the same when compared to the "Big Two" manufacturers. However, when you talk to hardware junkies like myself, you'll find that Dell or Gateway couldn't GIVE us a machine. We like to grow our own PCs.

These are the same people who will spend $300 or more on a new video card, but won't give a dime to the big manufacturers. We frequently put together 1 to 2GHz machines for considerably less than what the big manufacturers offer.

Its true that this group represents a minority in the PC buying public. But if us junkies can convince our friends and families just how cool our shiny new G4s are. . .

The other half of the market (actually, I'd say over 60%) strictly buys in the low-end. They don't want to have to pay ANYTHING for their PCs, so when they see an HP for $499 at Best Buy, they buy it. They don't care that the iMac is better, faster, or has better value in the long run. These folks buy on PRICE. Period. It's those customers that Apple needs to reach and hang onto.

[shadowfax]

i gotta say... you can't exactly put together a truly good computer for as little as they sell brand newbies. my grandpa built an amd athlon 1800+ with 1 GB of the DDR, put it in a nice box with a 400 watt power supply, and... maybe it did cost less than a comparable dell at the time. but that computer can raise the temperature in the room by about 8 degrees... and i don't mean with the monitor on either. itis unfathomably insane. he will never buy and AMD processor again. and my grandpa's put together a lot of boxes... it's a lot to spend when something like that totally screws you over. apple wouldn't get much more market share at all if they decided to try to sell their motherboards by themselves or sell bundles... practical wisdom tells me they would lose a lot of money in that market.

it furthermore contradicts apple's founding principle. they don't make computers for geeky techies (i am one, it's not an insult to anyone). they make computers for people who don't want to spend 3/4 of their waking lives working on them and building them.

i still don't get how you can get a comparable (to G4) system on PC at a much cheaper price by building it. you would need to buy a box w/ a powersupply (over 100$, often in the 300$ range), a motherboard bundle with firewire and gigabit (oohh you can't get that onboard a PC) ethernet, an athlon with about 2.4 GHz to compare to a GHz G4... and since they don't have L3 cache, you are going to have to get all DDR to make the RAM compare... that's getting up there too... i'll be reasonable, about 550$? then you need a good radeon/geforce, that's another 250-300$... then a sound card... 50-100 for a decent one... oh, a 40 GB hard drive, 130$... CDRW/DVD... 70$ or more... so for the system that's like 1300$.... and then you have to buy a monitor (to compare with PCs; i don't think powermacs come with monitors at base price).

even if you could get all that stuff for 1000$, though (i have not seen such a deal), you forgot about an operating system... unless you want linux... XP pro: 300$... and how about 3rd party stuff? what would it cost to get the stuff that compares to iPhoto, iMovie, and so on...

i think powermac G4s are even more competitively priced compared to built from scratch systems, not to even get into the dells and compaqs.

of course, the place where apple really shines is on laptops... they are astronomically better than their competitors from a design standpoint, and still priced competitively. yes, powerbooks are very well compared to a souped up thinkpad t30.

as far as your 60% of the market that buys on price.... you can still get imac g3s very very very cheap. yes, they are worthless, just like 500$ celerons and durons...

i would hate apple, though, iff they pitched themselves to people foolish enough to buy a computer that is going to bother the hell out of them in less than six months when something they want for their computer comes out and their computer is too darned slow to run it. that's for backwards companies to sell to. you don't see best buy's emachines making a big scramble on nasdaq. no significant company in their right mind would expend much of their market on such people. i think apple's marketing goes a long way for disgruntled windows users who buy said 500$ computers, realize that this is not how life really works, hate IBM compatibles, and turn to mac to have a satisfactory experience.

but this is all my opinion, written from a Dell keyboard... don't get me wrong though, my dell didn't come with a 40 GB hard drive, 512 MB RAM, or a geforce card... i bought all those later, as things demanded. techie, as i said...

[KingRocky]

When you compare "apples to apples" (LOOK! I MADE A FUNNY!), Apple is indeed comparable to the mid to high-end PCs. I don't disagree with that at all. And that Powerbook. . .

hang on a second. . . I need to wipe the drool off of my keyboard again. . .mmmmmmmmm. . .Powerbook. . . .mmmmmmmm. . .

And since when did Apple stop making computers for geeky techies? If I recall, Apple's FIRST computer was a geeky techies DREAM. Along with the Apple II and IIe. It's that confounded LISA that screwed everything up!!!
:)

And as for the "built from scratch" argument, most techie geeks ALREADY HAVE some of the hardware they already need, it having been cannibalized from their OLD scratch-built PC.(Ka-CHING!) They don't bother with pretty, acrylic cases, keyboards and mice. (unless they are hardcore overclockers and customizers)

And since when did Apple put GeForce 4tis and Radeon 8500DVs in their PCs? I don't think so! Apple puts GeForce4 MXs (significantly slower) in their boxes.

I'm not arguing that Mac doesn't give you more for your money--I'm arguing that Mac still costs more. Period. Higer price of entry and higher upgrade costs (although nobody but a geek bothers to upgrade his processor nowadays anyway)

Your idea of Apple not wanting to market to the lower-end masses sounds elitist. I hope that the friendly Mac face smiling at you during boot-up isn't reserved just for people who can afford it!!

And eMachines makes their $ through VOLUME. I bet they sell at least 5 eMachines for each iMac. And it has NOTHING to do with quality, as we all know. People buy them, use them and then throw them away.

[hvfsl]

What about AMD making the chips for apple. AMD, Apple and Moto could do a deal so that AMD would take over production of PPC chips. Moto can't be making much money on selling PPC chips to Apple. Also what people might not know is that the AMD Althon is a RISC chip, it just converts CISC instructions to RISC and then back again. AMD could do a special version of their 64bit chip that works in Macs.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by hvfsl
What about AMD making the chips for apple. AMD, Apple and Moto could do a deal so that AMD would take over production of PPC chips. Moto can't be making much money on selling PPC chips to Apple. Also what people might not know is that the AMD Althon is a RISC chip, it just converts CISC instructions to RISC and then back again. AMD could do a special version of their 64bit chip that works in Macs.
Why AMD? Isn't AMD pushing the limits of its production capacity as it is, with only one fab to its name? If Motorola isn't making money selling PPCs to Apple, why would AMD? If outsourcing is the goal, there are companies much better equipped than AMD to handle that. Toshiba, Samsung, VIA(?), IBM, NEC, etc. I don't think an Apple-customized Hammer is very realistic.

Alex

[Cappy]

I find it funny the number of people who think that Apple's prices on their Powermacs are competively priced even with systems from Dell and such. That is simply not true these days. It used to be once you make the systems pretty much apples to apples in configurations it was close but now? Forget it.

And to the people recommending that VIA or SIS get involved and watch the prices drop. You need to get out more. VIA has too many quality control issues with their chipsets and SIS is just getting back into things. As for cost specifically the market isn't anything close to the x86 market so the same that holds for the cpus with supply/demand holds true for chipsets as well. If there was a PC based chipset manufacturer that I would like to see do a PPC based chipset, it would be nVidia but the PPC has to be able to take advantage of the cool technology that they would incorporate.

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by KingRocky
I hope that the friendly Mac face smiling at you during boot-up isn't reserved just for people who can afford it!!.

they got rid of the smiley face in 10.2

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
they got rid of the smiley face in 10.2
Congratulations, you refuted his point entirely. :)

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by alex_ant

Congratulations, you refuted his point entirely. :)

:) just trying to lighten the mood.

those of us who have been on the boards for a long time know that the powermacs are priced right. we have seen far too many people go to the dell and gateway websites and build a comparable machine. the dells and gateways cost roughly the same. not really a point worth arguing.

dell and gateway maintain the impression they are cheaper by ads that claim they ahve computers selling at $500 or $600 but when you go in and actually get something useful it will cost you ~1000-3000. Apple doesnt do that, and so people get the impression that the apple costs more.

but i think it is cost of entry that has pc users scared (especially those that build their own). its no different from mac to pc or pc to mac. cost of entry is a problem. but when you are standing there on the pc side looking in at the mac world the cost of entry si still a deterrent (regardless of the fact that its the same havinga mac and switching to a pc). and i have to agree with the guy. sometimes it just doesnt feel right so you wait. just because macs are better than pcs doesnt mean he should jump in asap. i honestly dont feel apple builds a mac i would want to buy. why should he feel any different. there is nothing wrong with the current macs, but they are just not my style. so i wait. and if he wants to wait thats cool, but i just think his facts are a little distorted (smiley mac? i mean come on! :))

[KingRocky]

QUOTE:
" just trying to lighten the mood."

Forgive me for sounding harsh; I dont' mean to. However, a lot of the posts I have read have an elitist ring to them, as if NOTHING is good enough for peoples' precious Macs, and Steve is some sort of demigod. Perhaps I am being a little defensive in my replies. :D

Thank you for clarifying my point--it is indeed the cost of entry that keeps me from running out and buying a G4.

I can choose to either upgrade my PC with AMD's latest processor for $200, or save my pennies to buy a G4. From that perspective, a G4 looks very far away.

And I should also say that what attracts me to Apple is NOT the hardware. It's the OS. I wouldn't have considered a Mac until OS X came out, regardless of what processor it was running on. After seeing it in action at my local Apple store, I decided it was time to defect.

Micro$oft is acting more and more like the Evil Empire with each update to Windows, and Linux isn't ready for prime-time on the PC desktop unless you're a card-carrying geek. I know this because I'm typing this post on my IBM ThinkPad running LinuxMandrake 8.2. Getting it to do what I want has been the equivalent of being sodomized by an elephant.

So, that leaves Apple. I guess it's time for me to start saving my pennies. . . :)

[shadowfax]

yeah, sorry for instigating any kind of heat to the argument, KingRocky... it wasn't intentional. i have enormous respect for both PCs and Macs (though not much for M$)... but i just think that an emachine grade computer is not where you want your image to be. i think that apple has imac g3s that are very comparable... G4s are kind of the supermac, the p4 and then some of the mac world... it's not really elitism that i am having, i just think that a typical emachines user experience is going to be abject hatred of the computer. on any platform, if you really want to love your computer, you're going to have to open your checkbook.

however, if you're good, you can really do some magic with a little money. it won't be as good as using that same magic on a more expensive system, naturally, but it still goes.

on the techie thing though... of course techies have always loved macs. but whereas x86 types have more typically ONLY/mostly appealed to techies, apples try to (and now unbelievably successfully) have a user friendly interface that also appeals and is intuitive for graphics workers etc who don't want to mess around with command line and other various great things us linux/unix/win 3.1 users have all been forced to use on some level in the past. just a little misunderstanding, methinks; i am sorry i wasn't clearer on that.

all in all, though, i am a recent convert, i have vehemently dissed macs about all my life, and any apparent elitism is just a great enthusiasm for the Powerbook i am slated to get for graduation... that sounds pretty elitist too. i love my 933 MHz P3, it runs very smoothly with XP, i am not dissatisfied, you can get these things really cheap now.... like in the 700$ range or way less... you have that point. but it won't last as long, competitively, as a new G4, and i think maybe apple has that in mind.

no ill will from me, man. i guess i am still debating, but i can admit to you right now that you'll probably differ with me still, and that's cool, i know we aren't debating an issue that can be won... as thousands of mac and x86 lovers have demonstrated "throughout the PC ages." there's little agreement on marketing, even, not to mention all that performance stuff.

lol... just had to mention that photoshop test apple does. of course they are 90% faster than the leading P4 on their tests... they rig the tests. not as in, false values, but the test is designed to give the advantage to G4s... kind of like comparing a tobacco company's lab results on smoking to an activist group's, PC photoshop tests put PCs in the lead on a lot of PS operations.. how can we compare?

[KingRocky]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
. . .i just think that a typical emachines user experience is going to be abject hatred of the computer. on any platform, if you really want to love your computer, you're going to have to open your checkbook.

I don't know about hatred--they seem to keep buying them!! I do agree, however, that if you want to love your computer, you're going to have to open your checkbook.


. . .apples try to (and now unbelievably successfully) have a user friendly interface that also appeals and is intuitive for graphics workers etc who don't want to mess around with command line and other various great things us linux/unix/win 3.1 users have all been forced to use on some level in the past.

I agree 100%. Since turning the ripe old age of 30, I have discovered that I have no more patience for command-line interfaces. If I can't point to it and click on it, I don't want to have to deal with it anymore. That's what annoys me so much about Linux. Linux prides itself on being flexible because it has so many little applets that perform 1 or 2 functions, thereby avoiding bloatware. On the negative side of that equation, however, is the fact that you have to REMEMBER all of those stuipd little applets, where they are, how to use them with all of their switches and how to install them (if they didn't come with your distro). Not to even mention that NOBODY has written a real competent instruction manual in plain english yet.


. . .all in all, though, i am a recent convert, i have vehemently dissed macs about all my life, and any apparent elitism is just a great enthusiasm for the Powerbook i am slated to get for graduation... that sounds pretty elitist too.

No, it's not. That Powerbook is KICK ASS!! I start drooling whenever I see one. . .

Windows XP is, finally, an OS that works well, is user-friendly, stable, and competent (if a bit bloated).

However, M$s recent moves to strengthen its grip on the computer market and its users has turned me off. So, I am hacking away at Linux until I can afford "UNIX Done Right," better known as OS X.

Anyways, GETTING BACK TO THE FORUM TOPIC, (how did we get off on THIS tangent??),

Apple should use whatever PPC processor that gives them the performance and value they require. MOTO doesn't seem to be too interested in making CPUs. I'm sure that they get much more revenue from their cell phone/pager business.

There needs to be some competition in the processor vendor arena. Competition is what drove the X86 market to 3GHz in 3 years. It can do the same for Apple and the PPC.

[shadowfax]

glorious reconciliation... lol. yes, quite a tangent.

i've heard a lot of people in the x86 world say that 128 bit processing is better than 32 bit (obvious), but that they also need to up the megahertz on them. i mean, technically, if you put in 128 bit instructions through a processor at 1 GHz, if should be four times faster than a 1 GHz 32 bit processor (barring fancy instruction sets and efficiency of use)... but i have heard that the 1 GHz is only about 2-2.3 times as fast as pentiums with the same clock speed... so... do they need a new processor, or wouldn't it be ok to just get the clock speed up?

if someone can explain how pentium 4's compare with G4's on a basic level... that'd be cool. almost a new topic, but still seems kind of close.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
i've heard a lot of people in the x86 world say that 128 bit processing is better than 32 bit (obvious), but that they also need to up the megahertz on them. i mean, technically, if you put in 128 bit instructions through a processor at 1 GHz, if should be four times faster than a 1 GHz 32 bit processor (barring fancy instruction sets and efficiency of use)...
No processor in existence (that I know of) supports 128-bit instructions. AltiVec is the only part of the G4 that's said to be "128-bit," but when Apple/Motorola says that, they really mean 4x32-bit (four 32-bit instructions processed at once).

Bitness has nothing to do with how fast a processor performs. If a 128-bit processor existed, all things being equal it would be no faster or slower than its 32-bit brother.
but i have heard that the 1 GHz is only about 2-2.3 times as fast as pentiums with the same clock speed... so... do they need a new processor, or wouldn't it be ok to just get the clock speed up?
It varies depending on the task at hand. For most integer tasks, clock for clock, the G4 is almost dead even with the Pentium III (according to SPEC2000). Which would make it, I don't know, about 25% faster than the P4 clock for clock (the P4 is still much faster overall). For non-AltiVec floating point, the G4 is miserable, barely more than half as fast as a PIII with equivalent clock. AltiVec can change the picture quite a bit, but it can't accelerate everything. The boost AltiVec can provide varies drastically depending on the application.

I guess the reason the clock speed of the G4 isn't being pushed higher is because Motorola isn't interested in pushing it. Increasing the clock speed won't do a whole lot for the G4 right now, because the big performance bottleneck is in the system bus.

Alex

[KingRocky]

Originally posted by Shadowfax

if someone can explain how pentium 4's compare with G4's on a basic level... that'd be cool. almost a new topic, but still seems kind of close.

Unfortunately, that comparison is like comparing Apples to "Oranges." The X86 architecture traces its roots back to Intel's 8088. Through the years they've added instructions, features, cache, etc., but its instruction set is still based on that old 8088.

The PPC architecture is newer and more efficient. It can execute more instructions per clock cycle, and those instructions are executed very quickly, due to its RISC architecture. However, it's very design limits its clockspeed. This is my understanding of it, anyway.

So, in simplified terms, the X86 is the "brute force" approach, while the PPC is the efficient approach. This makes comparing processor speed difficult.

The X86 has somehow managed to outlive the predictions of all the pundits. Just when we all think that it's reached the limits of it's design, Intel's engineers find a way to squeak more performance out of it. Of course, Intel has way more $ for R&D. . .

I haven't studied the PPC architecture, so I'm no authority, but I would think that the PPC would be more scalable, in the long run, than the X86. If anyone out there has a more in-depth knowledge. . .

[KingRocky]

Originally posted by alex_ant
Increasing the clock speed won't do a whole lot for the G4 right now, because the big performance bottleneck is in the system bus.

Alex

You are exactly right, as recent tests with the new Dual G4 machines shows. Even with DDR RAM, the new Dual G4s don't perform. The system architecture and chipset are keeping the G4 hobbled. Maybe instead using AMD's processor, Apple should be using AMD's HyperTransport technology.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by KingRocky
Unfortunately, that comparison is like comparing Apples to "Oranges." The X86 architecture traces its roots back to Intel's 8088. Through the years they've added instructions, features, cache, etc., but its instruction set is still based on that old 8088.

The PPC architecture is newer and more efficient. It can execute more instructions per clock cycle, and those instructions are executed very quickly, due to its RISC architecture. However, it's very design limits its clockspeed. This is my understanding of it, anyway.

So, in simplified terms, the X86 is the "brute force" approach, while the PPC is the efficient approach. This makes comparing processor speed difficult.

The X86 has somehow managed to outlive the predictions of all the pundits. Just when we all think that it's reached the limits of it's design, Intel's engineers find a way to squeak more performance out of it. Of course, Intel has way more $ for R&D. . .
X86 used to be really crappy, but it has evolved to the point where it has very little in common with what it once was, and is fully able to compete with the more elegant architectures like PPC, MIPS, etc. X86 tends to take the brute-force approach - ramping up the clock speed as fast as possible - because that's what the marketing departments of Intel and AMD want. It used to be less efficient than its competitors, although that has changed (with the P4 being an exception). It is now very high performing and has for the most part beaten its competitors into submission.
I haven't studied the PPC architecture, so I'm no authority, but I would think that the PPC would be more scalable, in the long run, than the X86. If anyone out there has a more in-depth knowledge. . .
The most scalable architecture, I would think, is the one with the most money behind it. :) That's why Intel's chips are scaling faster than everyone else's.
You are exactly right, as recent tests with the new Dual G4 machines shows. Even with DDR RAM, the new Dual G4s don't perform. The system architecture and chipset are keeping the G4 hobbled. Maybe instead using AMD's processor, Apple should be using AMD's HyperTransport technology.
Well, it's actually the G4 that is keeping the G4 hobbled - it doesn't support DDR. The new Power Mac chipset is a workaround to that. Before Apple adopts a next-generation bus, it needs a processor that will be compatible with that bus. The 7470 G4 is supposed to have support for DDR, but that chip is almost as vaporous as the G5 at the moment...


Alex

[KingRocky]

Originally posted by alex_ant
Well, it's actually the G4 that is keeping the G4 hobbled - it doesn't support DDR. The new Power Mac chipset is a workaround to that. Before Apple adopts a next-generation bus, it needs a processor that will be compatible with that bus. The 7470 G4 is supposed to have support for DDR, but that chip is almost as vaporous as the G5 at the moment...


Alex [/B]

Hardly sounds like a workaround from the performance tests I've seen comparing the new Dual G4s with the old single G4s. There's barely a difference in performance!

I don't think that the processor has anything to do with it, unless the Mac architecture is really that different. In PCs, its the chipset and system bus that determine whether or not DDR works, not the processor. My AMD Duron will work with PC100 as well as with DDR PC2100.

[Cappy]

Originally posted by KingRocky


Hardly sounds like a workaround from the performance tests I've seen comparing the new Dual G4s with the old single G4s. There's barely a difference in performance!

I don't think that the processor has anything to do with it, unless the Mac architecture is really that different. In PCs, its the chipset and system bus that determine whether or not DDR works, not the processor. My AMD Duron will work with PC100 as well as with DDR PC2100.

Not true. The cpu has to support it.

[shadowfax]

wow, that's a lot to think about... thanks for all your answers, guys...