Can the G4 beat the Pentium 5?

[MacManiac1224]

Can the G4 beat the Pentium 5? You are probably scratching your heads on this one. Yep, the Pentium 5 is very real, and it is coming soon. 2nd quarter of 2003, the Pentium 5 debuting at 3.2GHZ is going to come out. It will have 100 million transistors on it and it will be manufactured at .09 microns. Also, here is the doozy, it will have 1 mb of L2 on die cache, and it will support 333mhz bus speeds, with the addition of DDR, that is a possible 667mhz bus speeds. By the way, if you were wondering, the Pentium 4 has 42 million transistors.

Now, for the G4: I am not sure how many transistors the G4 has, but I imagine it is way less then 100 million, or even 42 million, considering the P4 came out after the G4. Anyway, the cache on the G4 is higher on the high-end, 2mb of cache. But: the speed: 1.25Ghz? Can that really stand up to a P5 with 333mhz bus, and 3.2Ghz clock speeds? My opinion: most likely not.

Let's be honest, the P4 basically can beat the G4 in most tasks today, so a new faster version of the P4, the P5 can easily beat the G4, most likely in 95-99% of all tasks.

Ok, we have established that the G4 is, well, to slow against the P5, even though we don't know about it yet, I imagine it will be. Well, Apple just pulled the plug on OS 9 for January, what could this mean? I am not sure, only Steve knows. But Apple better come out with something that can at least compete with the Pentium 5, and it better come soon. I would not be surprised if Apple comes out with the G5 in January, just to say they were the first to have a generation 5 possessor, but I could be wrong.

Ok, I made my case, now, what do you guys think? By the way: I got this information about the Pentium 5 from eWeek, so it is reputable.

[Mr. Anderson]

you got the link, I'd like to read more. Regardless of what happens with the Wintel world, Apple needs to do something about getting faster processors, period.

Blah!

D

[MacManiac1224]

eweek is a magazine for enterprise customers, there is no link i can provide, but you can take my word for it.

[vniow]

This has nothing to do with Macs, or it might depending on which rumors you believe, but AMD's Clawhammer is coming out in the first quarter of 2003 and will likely be marketed as a 3400+ which would be higher than the PV at 3.2 Ghz. However, unless this chip gets used in the next Powermac revision (not likely, I know, but possible) then IBM better get that almost-too-good-to-be-true-Power4-mini-me out fast. I'm going to wait until October to see IBM's roadmap for any further speculation though. :)

click or I'll hammer you (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-957757.html)

[big]

can we jump ship already? would this effectively turn apple into a microsoft like corp?

in any instance, they certainly are doing well, apple just can not seem to beat this speed thing.

anyone remember an article about the difference between risk & sisk processors? It talked about windows boxes the windows processors doing just what they are no...getting enough speed to keep going, but will be limited in pushing ghz further than they really are now (ie, they could never get to 8-10 ghz with them)

[jefhatfield]

truth is pentium 1 is a 5th generation processor
pentium pro thru pentium III is 6th generation
athlon from amd is 7th generation...the first 7th generation chip

and pentium 5 would be considered at least 7th generation and perhaps 8th generation pc processor

but no way can any G4 beat a pentium 5 at over 3 ghz...but then again, but 2nd quarter 2003, we may hve the G5 which can beat pentium 4 but maybe not pentium 5, but that is all speculation into the future

who really cares, after 3 ghz, if pc is faster or macs are faster...point is, both will be fast enough for vast majority of users

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
truth is pentium 1 is a 5th generation processor
pentium pro thru pentium III is 6th generation
athlon from amd is 7th generation...the first 7th generation chip

and pentium 5 would be considered at least 7th generation and perhaps 8th generation pc processor
All correct. Make note, though, the desktop Hammer, which is supposed to be called the 8th generation Athlon, is obviously as stated, 8th generation.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

All correct. Make note, though, the desktop Hammer, which is supposed to be called the 8th generation Athlon, is obviously as stated, 8th generation.

that sounds cool and a decent processor to replace my old amd k6-2 running laptop...8th gen laptop is what i would want but i will wait it out like i do with all gear until it is reasonable to buy

remember when first pentium 3 1 ghz machines came out...3 grand...way too much for mid 2000?

not long after, prices practically crashed:p

[tjwett]

guys, don't sweat it. by 2nd quarter of 2003 we will cruising along on 1.4 and 1.6 ghz overclocked G4s. oh man...

[big]

>guys, don't sweat it. by 2nd quarter of 2003 we will cruising along on 1.4 and 1.6 ghz overclocked G4s. oh man

<sarcasm>oh yeah</sarcasm>, that'll be consolation, though our bus speed will be @ 133mhz for the next 5 years

[Jeffx342]

I know Steve has some kind of plane to take on the Pentium world hes a smart guy especially if he got this far.




I have 2 Pc's yes still no mac....

Comp 1: P3 700Mhz w/ 256mgs, Geforce 2

Comp 2: p4 2.4 Ghz w/ 512mgs, Geforce 3

Let me tell you I was so excited about the "new Pentium 4 Processor" when it came out. To tell you the truth there is not a whole lot difference between Pentium 3 700Mhz, and Pentium 4 2.4Ghz. I was actually dispointed because everybody made such a big deal about it. The Mhz numbers looked nice on p4 but I waisted my money!

[big]

KOOL, my alarm I set for an event from iCal just went off, that was neat! it also just went off on my iPod too! how cool is that?

anyways

>The Mhz numbers looked nice on p4

most of my die hard PC friends who know the PC also know about the mhz myth, and understand the Mac is great at some things....& can hold its on against a quicker pentium processor,

however, I remember buying my B&W G3, when apple could actually tout it as the fastest machine in the world.

man we have fallen behind so damn fast, until I see 2. something ghz with ddr ram and a bus speed from here to amazing, I will not be buying a new mac.

I use to say I'll wait till dual 1.6 ghz, but I've decided to make apple work for the money I have to work for

anyone else tired of being left behind? I realize our OS is fantastic, the machines (design) and the way they work are amazing (especially with compatibility)

[big]

the double post is appreciated, that was the first time I have chuckled all day....

[Jeffx342]

I wouldn't buy a pc again because of the OS

I baught windows XP Pro $200
let me tell ya not even worth a penny

1. Microsoft has rights to access your computer (disclaimer)
2. Internal errors in IE 6 (no line found 140)
3. Windows Xp Uses too much recourses
4. Something always screws up
5. you delete a system file by accident windows wont log you in
6. you have to download Drivers for every little thing
7. Movie maker Sucks on XP
8. Media player isn't really that good
9. I feel like I am handicaped when im using XP, (goofy looking Icons)
10. Setting up a network can be a biatch*
11. not responsive enough
12. Ms Office Xp sucks compared to Mac edition
13. Freezes alot
14. Doesn't look pretty like Os X


Looking forward to getting a Mac...

[Gatorman]

Originally posted by big
the double post is appreciated, that was the first time I have chuckled all day....

That's a little scary if you ask me. A little Big Brother-ish? Or how about something out of Robert Ludlum's Promethus Deception. Tell me that isn't about Bill Gates.:D

[Gatorman]

Originally posted by Jeffx342

1. Microsoft has rights to access your computer (disclaimer)
[/B]

WHOOOPS.....wrong quote used above. This relates to my statement above.

[Telomar]

Just a few details. I can verify the subject of the post is genuine and as far I recall it has been pretty well talked about by Intel and planned for some time. It certainly hasn't been kept secret.

I would however be a touch surprised if it is called the PV. It really is very much an evolution of the PIV and nothing new.

The 1MB Level 2 cache is expected it roughly doubles every fabrication generation improvement at the moment. AMD has already planned the same for the Hammer series. The faster FSB is also nothing new or surprising.

The current PIV has ~55 million transistors though and a rough doubling over a fabrication generational change isn't unexpected.

Really there's nothing new there that Intel hasn't had roadmapped since early 2002 and before.

On the Apple side I have said this before and I will say it again. The G4 core has life. Improvements can be made to easily lift its performance substantially and there are things worth note coming :) Whether they will arrive on time is another matter and whether they will satisfy everybody I can't say but given people are rarely pleased I'd say probably not :p

[ddtlm]

The Pentium5 is to the Pentium4 what the Pentium3 was to the Pentium2. It is not a new core. It sports a few new bells and whistles, twice the L2, the potential for a faster FSB, but it is still essentially the same chip as before.

This is not to say that the G4 will be able to keep up, or anything. :)

2 to 3 weeks till the dual 1.25's ship, and I'm still really temped to get one.

[big]

>and I'm still really temped to get one

nope, again Apple better surprise me with something amazing

[scem0]

I am mad at apple, their processors suck right now... not to mention their price. Im not gunna spend 3,000 for a computer that I could get with -yes - a worse os, for 1,000. Macs just arent worth it right now. Until they have something that can compete speed wise, my next comp is a PC.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by scem0
I am mad at apple, their processors suck right now... not to mention their price. Im not gunna spend 3,000 for a computer that I could get with -yes - a worse os, for 1,000. Macs just arent worth it right now. Until they have something that can compete speed wise, my next comp is a PC.


You don't need to spend 3,000 to get an extremely fast mac right now try 1,600-1,700.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by MacManiac1224
Can the G4 beat the Pentium 5? You are probably scratching your heads on this one. Yep, the Pentium 5 is very real, and it is coming soon. 2nd quarter of 2003, the Pentium 5 debuting at 3.2GHZ is going to come out. It will have 100 million transistors on it and it will be manufactured at .09 microns. Also, here is the doozy, it will have 1 mb of L2 on die cache, and it will support 333mhz bus speeds, with the addition of DDR, that is a possible 667mhz bus speeds. By the way, if you were wondering, the Pentium 4 has 42 million transistors.

Now, for the G4: I am not sure how many transistors the G4 has, but I imagine it is way less then 100 million, or even 42 million, considering the P4 came out after the G4. Anyway, the cache on the G4 is higher on the high-end, 2mb of cache. But: the speed: 1.25Ghz? Can that really stand up to a P5 with 333mhz bus, and 3.2Ghz clock speeds? My opinion: most likely not.


Not to be criticle but the G4 does not have 2mb of L2 cache on the high end model it only has 256k. It does have 2mb of L3. The 1MB of L2 in my oppinion will be a lot faster then any L3 cache because it's accessed at full CPU speed. But we all know this doesn't really make a nickels worth of difference because we all know the current cpu at the current speed would be absolutely trounced by this new pentium. I also know feel that we will not be stuck at this slow progression of speed for the next year.

I personally though am in no way dissapointed in the new macs they are extremely fast. Yes faster then the Quicksilvers they just need to be used in the right application i.e. video editing, gaming, etc.. Anything that requires large amounts of data to be moved from the hard drive to the Ram and the same for the PCI and AGP cards to the Ram or Hard drive.

[nuckinfutz]

This nextgen Processor is codenamed "Prescott"

Yes it looks like a 1MB L2 Cache is likely. Xeons are already at 512k so this is the next logical step.

The doubling of the L2 of course raises the transistor count so don't be shocked that the P4 is going from roughly 40million to 100 million. The larger cache is adding many. Prescott is going to be fabbed on 90 nanometer tech so these transistors will be physically smaller.

http://www.chip-architect.com/news/2002_04_16_Prescott_Prospects.html for "over your head info" good stuff

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1677 Nice also.

The FSB of Prescott will probably be 667mhz but this is NOT Double Pumpled 333mhz. This is still a Quad Pumped bus which now starts out at 166mhz.(166.66 x 4 I believe).

Remember Apple's Top Line G4 supports 166 mhz but it doesn't Double or Quad pump the bus.


How does Apple compete? Well here's my guess.

Perhaps at Macworld San Fran or soon after Apple announces the next G4 based machines. These Computers will be based on 130 nano G4+ chips(the current G4+ are 180 nano chips) . This will allow the G4's to clock to as high as 1.6Ghz.

This allows Apple to prepare for what I think everyone knows is coming. The IBM GPUL Power4 based Proc which should hit late 2003. This Proc would start at 1.8ghz and depending on yields Apple could always offer a Dual Configuration. We'll know how quickly IBM will drop from 130 to 90 nano tech on these procs as soon as Oct 15. So there you have it.

Intel will be shipping 4Ghz P4's

AMD will have 3.4Ghz Rated chips

And shortly after Apple will be at 2Ghz with a 64bit proc.


Will we be faster. Who knows. The IBM Proc is 8way Superscalar with 5 dispatch, It supports 6.4Gbps throughput which puts it on par with where Intel and AMD will be as far as Bandwidth. Apple is clearly not freaking out about this. They're calm and cool so you know something good is coming.



I am mad at apple, their processors suck right now... not to mention their price. Im not gunna spend 3,000 for a computer that I could get with -yes - a worse os, for 1,000. Macs just arent worth it right now. Until they have something that can compete speed wise, my next comp is a PC.

Can you please explain why Apple's using G4's suck? And please since you have it ALL figured out. Tell me what Apple needs to do to fix this. I'm sure we're all ears. ;)

[bullrat]

I'm a potential "switcher" that wants to buy an iMac now but I keep reading all the posts on the various Mac boards about how even the latest 17 inch iMac looks "choppy" or "jerky" when resizing or moving windows and how much slower browsing the Web is than bad old MS on Wintel.

I'm so bored reading all the MHz doesn't matter blather. It does matter. When a brand new $2000 computer looks choppy using a brand new OS, then something is not right. It should be blazing on all basic functions. Flame away if you like, I see a lot of that on the Mac boards whenever someone happens to disagree with the party line but I'd wager I speak for a lot of potential switchers.

I guess what really blows me away is that Apple appears to be *purposely* cripppling their systems. From what I understand it's possible for Apple to upgrade the processor, bus, memory and other components without any technical difficulties.

Okay, you can flame away now -- but all I'm saying is there are a lot of potential switchers waiting to plunk down their hard earned cash if Apple would get it together. I see more and more Apple folks waking up, no longer satisfied to let Apple off the hook for getting further and further behind the rest of the computer world.

The best OS deserves the best hardware or at least a lot better hardware than being currently used. You want premium prices? Then give us premium hardware. Geez, drop Motorola if they can't deliver the goods and go with IBM (don't go with Intel or AMD to keep that Apple distinction). But pul-leeze do it soon. I want to buy!

-bullrat

[big]

bravo bullrat

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by bullrat


Okay, you can flame away now -- but all I'm saying is there are a lot of potential switchers waiting to plunk down their hard earned cash if Apple would get it together. I see more and more Apple folks waking up, no longer satisfied to let Apple off the hook for getting further and further behind the rest of the computer world.

The best OS deserves the best hardware or at least a lot better hardware than being currently used. You want premium prices? Then give us premium hardware. Geez, drop Motorola if they can't deliver the goods and go with IBM (don't go with Intel or AMD to keep that Apple distinction). But pul-leeze do it soon. I want to buy!

-bullrat

you have a lot of valid points as i notice the excuses get more and more ridiculous as to why apple machines are behind in speed

dropping motorola has been something more mac users here have pondered, but we will have to wait and see if ibm can truly deliver

the latest powermacs may not be as fast as was rumored but they are a good step in the right direction

when apple has no more machines in the sub 1 ghz range, then the complaints will definitely slow down, and once apple has a machine over 2 ghz sometime next year, then the speed issue will not be at the top of the list...of course, the pc world will be over 3 ghz at that time but hopefully not at 4 ghz...so it's our dual 1.25s vs. wintel's 2.5 ghz p4s and that does not look too good

so if we can scale up to 2 ghz while pcs are not at 4 ghz yet, then it won't look as bad or matter that much...and maybe then the major switching will start to begin en masse...i will keep my fingers crossed

i think apple's goal is to get more users, not to beat microsoft...at this point, no one could beat microsoft

when asked who would be the next microsoft, one of the financial brothers of the motley fools (business book series) said the next microsoft is microsoft...pretty obvious stuff

at one time, i thought dot.com would grow even more placing much more IT/IS emphasis on WAN making cisco systems become the next microsoft but that did not happen and cisco is not in any position to take on the mantle of a microsoft

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by bullrat
I'm a potential "switcher" that wants to buy an iMac now but I keep reading all the posts on the various Mac boards about how even the latest 17 inch iMac looks "choppy" or "jerky" when resizing or moving windows and how much slower browsing the Web is than bad old MS on Wintel.

I'm so bored reading all the MHz doesn't matter blather. It does matter. When a brand new $2000 computer looks choppy using a brand new OS, then something is not right. It should be blazing on all basic functions. Flame away if you like, I see a lot of that on the Mac boards whenever someone happens to disagree with the party line but I'd wager I speak for a lot of potential switchers.

I guess what really blows me away is that Apple appears to be *purposely* cripppling their systems. From what I understand it's possible for Apple to upgrade the processor, bus, memory and other components without any technical difficulties.

Okay, you can flame away now -- but all I'm saying is there are a lot of potential switchers waiting to plunk down their hard earned cash if Apple would get it together. I see more and more Apple folks waking up, no longer satisfied to let Apple off the hook for getting further and further behind the rest of the computer world.

The best OS deserves the best hardware or at least a lot better hardware than being currently used. You want premium prices? Then give us premium hardware. Geez, drop Motorola if they can't deliver the goods and go with IBM (don't go with Intel or AMD to keep that Apple distinction). But pul-leeze do it soon. I want to buy!

-bullrat


Here's the problem right here with all these nonsensical rants. The G4 iMac is in now way jerky when it comes to window resizing. Whoever has posted this a)doesn't know whay they're talking about b) if they owned this iMac had something wrong with it.

All we're doing by pissing and moaning about Mhz is hurting ourselves an Apple and the whole debate with the PC switchers.

I don't know how many of you have actually spent time on a dual ghz mac but they are blazing fast. I currently own and am using a dual ghz/DDR and this thing flys with everything.

[Rajj]

Get Jaguar, and all your problems will be resolved!!;)

[kaneda]

We all know MAC can't compete with Hardware, but we have some of the best programs on the market. That is how Steve going to use it for his ads campaign.

I read article at macworld.com the other, Apple will never make OS for PC. Check out this article: http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0209/11.haddad.php

I am not complaining with the speed of the new Powermac, but I wouldn't mind to be faster. Faster is always better.

With ipod release for PC. Apple will make tons of money. And maybe use that money and invest in developing new Hardware.

Anybody has a stat. sell of Gateway Profile 4 and Apple imac? I want to see who is winning...

[kaneda]

Everybody needs to UPGRADE from 10-10.1 to 10.2 JAGUAR!! IT IS FAST!

[kaneda]

MACBANDIT [B]I don't know how many of you have actually spent time on a dual ghz mac but they are blazing fast. I currently own and am using a dual ghz/DDR and this thing flys with everything.



I agreed with you. The new dual ghz is FAST, but the noise in the hot summer day. I can use my new Powermac as heater in the winter season. :)

This baby can heat up your room nice and warm!:) if you are looking for heater and something to compute, Apple dual is a machine to get!

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by bullrat
I'm a potential "switcher" that wants to buy an iMac now but I keep reading all the posts on the various Mac boards about how even the latest 17 inch iMac looks "choppy" or "jerky" when resizing or moving windows and how much slower browsing the Web is than bad old MS on Wintel.
I have not seen those posts, but then I have seen a lot of other bitching and moaning about one thing or another. Point No. 1: Although I don't have access to a 17" iMac, I do have Jaguar installed on my 2000 Firewire PowerBook G3. I don't see any of that choppiness and jerkiness that you mentioned. I would be astonished to find it on a faster machine like the 17" iMac. Point No. 2: Don't take anybody's word for it. Drive down to your nearest Apple retailer. Look at the machines yourself. That should end all arguments.

I'm so bored reading all the MHz doesn't matter blather. It does matter. When a brand new $2000 computer looks choppy using a brand new OS, then something is not right. It should be blazing on all basic functions. Flame away if you like, I see a lot of that on the Mac boards whenever someone happens to disagree with the party line but I'd wager I speak for a lot of potential switchers.
Again, have your actually seen this "choppiness" on that $2000 machine with the brand new OS? Now for the issue of MHz, browse the web sites of the expensive UNIX workstations and servers. Look at the clock speeds of the offerings from IBM, HP, SGI, and Sun. For the most part, you will see that their machines have clock speeds in the sub-GHz range. Yet these are the machines of choice when price is no object and the job must get done. Just think about this: these boards are filled with laments that effectively tell you that you need substaintially higher clock speeds to run a computer game than you need to simulate the gas flow in a jet engine. Don't you think that something is just a bit warped here?

I guess what really blows me away is that Apple appears to be *purposely* cripppling their systems. From what I understand it's possible for Apple to upgrade the processor, bus, memory and other components without any technical difficulties.
Think. Think. Think. Apple does not "appear" to be purposesly crippling its systems. The entirity of the corporation orbits about the Macintosh. No company would purposely cripple its central product. The fact that Apple is only one of two profitable personal computer manufacturers serve as loud testimony to the contrary. Just because a bunch of idle college students post things on the Internet does not make them so.

Okay, you can flame away now -- but all I'm saying is there are a lot of potential switchers waiting to plunk down their hard earned cash if Apple would get it together. I see more and more Apple folks waking up, no longer satisfied to let Apple off the hook for getting further and further behind the rest of the computer world.
If you are serious, then nobody wants to see you flamed. But again, think. Exactly how is Apple behind? If you are talking about the race toward bankruptcy, then I would agree with you. Apple is second to last in that race among personal computer makers.

The best OS deserves the best hardware or at least a lot better hardware than being currently used. You want premium prices? Then give us premium hardware. Geez, drop Motorola if they can't deliver the goods and go with IBM (don't go with Intel or AMD to keep that Apple distinction). But pul-leeze do it soon. I want to buy!

-bullrat
I cannot agree more that the best OS deserves the best currently available hardware. However, the machine has to be affordable. For many years, Apple has ranked among the highest quality hardware manufactures. I am not just talking about microprocessors. I've endured conditions that put Dells out to pasture while my Mac chugged along like a champ.

As for all this business about Motorola this, IBM that, and AMD the other thing, I will leave it to Apple to make the best decision. It knows the players and its own business better than any nitwit posting on an Internet bulletin board.

[onemoof]

Someone asked the difference between RISC and CISC.

First thing, there isn't that distinction anymore. RISC originally meant that the processor had fixed width instructions (so it wouldn't have to waste time asking the software how big the next instruction will be). CISC mean that the processor had variable width instructions (meaning time would have to be taken to figure out how long the next instruction is before fetching it.) However, Intel has addressed this problem by making it possible for the processor to switch to a fixed-width mode for special processor intensive purposes. The PowerPC is stuck with fixed-width and has no ability to enjoy the flexibility of variable-width instructions for non-processor-intensive tasks. This means that CISC is now better than RISC. (Using the terms to loosely define Pentium as CISC and PowerPC as RISC.)

Apple will never switch to IA32 (Pentium) because 32 bit processors are a dead-end and maybe have a couple years left. The reason is because they can only have a maximum of 4 GB of RAM [ (2^32)/(1 Billion) = 4.29 GB ]. This limit is very close to being reached in current desktop computers. Apple MAY at some point decide to jump to IA64 in my opinion, and I think they should. Obviously the Intel family of processors is unbeatable unless they have some sort of catastrophe happen to them. If Apple jumped on they'd be back on track. Unfortunately I don't believe IA64 is yet cheap enough for desktops.

[MacBandit]

[/B]I agreed with you. The new dual ghz is FAST, but the noise in the hot summer day. I can use my new Powermac as heater in the winter season. :)

This baby can heat up your room nice and warm!:) if you are looking for heater and something to compute, Apple dual is a machine to get! [/B]


Compared to every high end PC I've seen of late is not only louder but makes any Mac look like a refrigerator in comparing the amount of heat they exhaust.

[nixd2001]

Originally posted by onemoof
Someone asked the difference between RISC and CISC.

First thing, there isn't that distinction anymore. RISC originally meant that the processor had fixed width instructions (so it wouldn't have to waste time asking the software how big the next instruction will be). CISC mean that the processor had variable width instructions (meaning time would have to be taken to figure out how long the next instruction is before fetching it.) However, Intel has addressed this problem by making it possible for the processor to switch to a fixed-width mode for special processor intensive purposes. The PowerPC is stuck with fixed-width and has no ability to enjoy the flexibility of variable-width instructions for non-processor-intensive tasks. This means that CISC is now better than RISC. (Using the terms to loosely define Pentium as CISC and PowerPC as RISC.)

Originally it was Reduced versus Complex instruction set computer. Making simpler processors go faster is generally easier than making complex processors go faster as there is less internal state/logic to synchronise and keep track of. For any given fabrication technology, this still generally holds true. Intel managed to sidestep this principle by investing massive sums in their fab plants, effectively meaning that the fab processes being compared weren't the same.

The opposite end of the spectrum from RISC is arguably the VAX line. With this instruction set, massive complexities arose from the fact that a single instruction took so long and did so much. It was possible for timers, interrupts and "page faults" to occur midway during an instruction. This required saving a lot of internal state so that it could later be restored. There were examples of performing a given operation with a single instruction or a sequence of instructions that performed the same effect, but where the sequence achieved the join quicker because the internal implementation within the processor was able to get on with the job quicker because it was actually a simpler task being asked of it.

The idea of fixed sized instructions isn't directly coupled to the original notion of RISC, although it is only one step behind. One of the basic ideas with the original RISC processors was that an instruction should only take a single cycle to complete. So a 100MHz CPU might actually achieve 100M instructions per second. (This was often not achieved due to memory latencies, but this isn't the "fault" of the processor core). In this context, having a variable length instruction means that it is easy for the instruction decoding (especially if it requires more than one "word") to require for effort than any other aspect of executing an instruction.

There are situations where a variable width instruction might have advantages, but the argument goes that breaking the overall task down into equal sized instructions means that fetching (including caching, branch predicting, ec) and decoding these instructions becomes simpler, permitting optimisations and speed gains to be made elsewhere in the processor design.

Intel blur RISC and CISC into gray by effectively executing RISC instructions internally, even if they support the apparent decoding of CISC insructions. They only do this for legacy reasons.

Apple will never switch to IA32 (Pentium) because 32 bit processors are a dead-end and maybe have a couple years left. The reason is because they can only have a maximum of 4 GB of RAM [ (2^32)/(1 Billion) = 4.29 GB ]. This limit is very close to being reached in current desktop computers. Apple MAY at some point decide to jump to IA64 in my opinion, and I think they should. Obviously the Intel family of processors is unbeatable unless they have some sort of catastrophe happen to them. If Apple jumped on they'd be back on track. Unfortunately I don't believe IA64 is yet cheap enough for desktops.

I think this "unbeatable" assertion requires some qualification. It may be that Intel will achieve the best price/performance ratio within a suitable range of qualifications, but this is different from always achieving best p/p ratio whatever. Indeed, IA64 versus Power4 is going to be an interesting battle because Intel has bet on ILP (instruction level parallelism) whereas IBM has bet on data bandwidth. Ultimately (and today!), I think IBM's bet has more going for it. But that's if you want ultimate performance. The PC space is often characterised by people apparenntly wanting ultimate performance but actually always massively qualifiying it with severe price restrictions (such as less than 5 digits to the price).

[big]

>onemoof

thanks...I knew anyone who could dissasemble their mac and turn it into leftovers would know about this stuff...

half that I had forgotten, the other I just couldn't remember

[scem0]

Originally posted by MacBandit



You don't need to spend 3,000 to get an extremely fast mac right now try 1,600-1,700.

But for 1,600-1,700 dollars I can get a hell of a lot faster PC. Nobody can deny that.

[big]

yeah, but in the end you have a dell "dude". for what its worth, I am very very happy with my mac, I just will not buy a new one until they again are the fastest in the world.

all my PC friends constantly are reformatting their drives, worried about viruses etc

OSX is the best out there, even my tried & true PC friends know it...

[onemoof]

Apple must have a 5 GHz chip lying around somewhere. I bet Motorola has produced at least one or two by luck in some of their production runs. Apple should slap them into a Mac and sell it for $100,000 just to say Macs are the fastest. Some rich people would love to have the fastest Mac around.

[scem0]

Dont you think that chip would be a little to hot... :D . Well, I fully agree with OS X being the best. But the OS and the quality apps are all that is going for apple. Apple lacks speed, but I cant blame apple for that (stupid moto :rolleyes:), but I can blame them for not dumping moto a long time ago. If apple computer were just as fast as PCs there is no way I would think about getting near a 'peecee', but they arent as fast :(...

[shadowfax0]

For everyone ccmplaiing about speed, go here:

http://store.sun.com/docs/specials/workstations/sunblade2000.jhtml

This is Sun's highest-end workstation, it runs with 2x1020 MHz processors. Also, Sun chips are based on RISC.

[nuckinfutz]

Dont you think that chip would be a little to hot... . Well, I fully agree with OS X being the best. But the OS and the quality apps are all that is going for apple. Apple lacks speed, but I cant blame apple for that (stupid moto :rolleyes, but I can blame them for not dumping moto a long time ago. If apple computer were just as fast as PCs there is no way I would think about getting near a 'peecee', but they arent as fast ...

What are you doing that requires so much speed. Do you bill clients by the hour? Do you continually render files that take hours? I'm curious to know why people who harp about speed really need it.

It's one thing to be able to attach earning to the speed of a computer but quite another to want a fast computer just for bragging rights.

[big]

I personally do a lot of rendering...Vector based specifically, and billing clients is an issue when it comes to architectural work.

A lot of clients view an architect as being overpaid anyways, so when they see a 100 hour bill they can get a little uneasy.

I pride myself on being able to produce the "best" & most completed set of drawings available, at the absolutely quickest time (ie, I draft like a bat out of hell, and do it accurately, though my spelling is atrocious)

often I find I must boot into 9 just to produce...however, for mid level drawing 10 is "ok" on a 450 G4, its all about simulation I'm sure (using classic)

once engsw.com releases Powercadd OSX native, I will be all over that...that should change my booting habits. Though I know a faster machine would make a world of a difference as well.

[atomwork]

Originally posted by scem0
I am mad at apple, their processors suck right now... not to mention their price. Im not gunna spend 3,000 for a computer that I could get with -yes - a worse os, for 1,000. Macs just arent worth it right now. Until they have something that can compete speed wise, my next comp is a PC.


Hi scem0,

how do you do this to keep up with the programs if you switch every couple years from one system to the other. And isn't it confusing in your workflow or are u just a consumer user. If so then the power ain't matter my friend.

Cheers,
Dave

[scem0]

Originally posted by atomwork



Hi scem0,

how do you do this to keep up with the programs if you switch every couple years from one system to the other. And isn't it confusing in your workflow or are u just a consumer user. If so then the power ain't matter my friend.

Cheers,
Dave

I am definitelynot a 'power user', but I am a hardcore gamer. And when I see a friend with a year old PC playin Warcraft with less jumpiness then my 6 month old powermac, it makes me want to switch. Power does matter to me, and you cant get much power for the amount of money I have when it comes to computers from apple.

[iGav]

I don't think the situation will arise where we are comparing the speed of the G4 Vs the P5 actually...... ;)

[iGav]

I am definitelynot a 'power user', but I am a hardcore gamer. And when I see a friend with a year old PC playin Warcraft with less jumpiness then my 6 month old powermac, it makes me want to switch. Power does matter to me, and you cant get much power for the amount of money I have when it comes to computers from apple.

So what do you use your mac for except for playing games???

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by iGAV
I don't think the situation will arise where we are comparing the speed of the G4 Vs the P5 actually...... ;)

i hope by the time pentium 5 hits the shelves, there will be a G5 on the shelves

btw, igav, i see that you are on akira's site...i should go there and join up and give the old alphatech a hard time...i miss alphatech and his intelligent comments...even when he gets unintelligent and flames newbies:eek: :p ;)

[Pants]

Originally posted by MisterMe

I have not seen those posts, but then I have seen a lot of other bitching and moaning about one thing or another. Point No. 1: Although I don't have access to a 17" iMac, I do have Jaguar installed on my 2000 Firewire PowerBook G3. I don't see any of that choppiness and jerkiness that you mentioned. I would be astonished to find it on a faster machine like the 17" iMac. Point No. 2: Don't take anybody's word for it. Drive down to your nearest Apple retailer. Look at the machines yourself. That should end all arguments.


I have a recent ibook running jaguar - it has had a clean install (twice) and, quite frankly, its annoyingly slow. This is a current mac, running its current os, and its hardly acceptable - running illustrator? expect the beach ball, the same with large word documents. And I still see the beachball with annoying frequency in the finder. I don't care that this isnt the top of the range 3,000 quid machine - it is stupid to only expect acceptable performance in Word on the top of the line machine. No, don't take my word for it, go have a look at a fully loaded i-book


Again, have your actually seen this "choppiness" on that $2000 machine with the brand new OS? Now for the issue of MHz, browse the web sites of the expensive UNIX workstations and servers. Look at the clock speeds of the offerings from IBM, HP, SGI, and Sun. For the most part, you will see that their machines have clock speeds in the sub-GHz range. Yet these are the machines of choice when price is no object and the job must get done. Just think about this: these boards are filled with laments that effectively tell you that you need substaintially higher clock speeds to run a computer game than you need to simulate the gas flow in a jet engine. Don't you think that something is just a bit warped here?


these machines are 64-bit, with floating point performance that widdles all over apples current offerings. The reason they are used is for this feature alone - and yepI would rather run my simulations on a sparc box than a pc, although the cost of a cheap linux box is pushing us down that route. At some point there is a balance between cost and performance. Yes it is odd that I need the fastest box around to run ut2k3 acceptably, and i agree there is something wrong with the way the market is being driven, but I suppose if thats what customers want (and are prepared to pay for), this is what they'll get....

Think. Think. Think. Apple does not "appear" to be purposesly crippling its systems. The entirity of the corporation orbits about the Macintosh. No company would purposely cripple its central product. The fact that Apple is only one of two profitable personal computer manufacturers serve as loud testimony to the contrary. Just because a bunch of idle college students post things on the Internet does not make them so.


never intentionally 'crippled' a machine? what about teh video card on teh ibook?

[MacBandit]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by scem0
[B]

I am definitelynot a 'power user', but I am a hardcore gamer. And when I s

[MacBandit]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by scem0
[B]

I am definitely not a 'power user', but I am a hardcore gamer. And when I see a

[MacBandit]

Previously posted by Scem0

. I am definitelynot a 'power user', but I am a hardcore gamer. And when I see a friend with a year old PC playin Warcraft with less jumpiness then my 6 month old powermac, it makes me want to switch. Power does matter to me, and you cant get much power for the amount of money I have when it comes to computers from apple.

I'm sorry about the previous two posts. When they posted they did not display right even after editing and then they wouldn't let me delete them so here is my third try. Copy and paste rather than pressing the quote button.


What PowerMac your profile says you have an iMac 333. Also I would like to see a $1600 PC beat a Dual 867/DDR. It wouldn't have a chance when you started heavy multitasking and other real world tests. Then go ahead an move on to your games and if you had a real graphics card in the 867 it would beat the PC in that to all while it was burning a cd, getting mail, surfing the net, and making an iMovie. The biggest thing though is that even at 1600 most PC's do not include all the standard hardware that you get in a Mac.

[shadowfax0]

I have a dual 450, and I play WCIII all the time, if anything, it's faster than my friends Athlon 2100+. I notice no choppiness and my computer is 3 years old. I have 2x AGP and PC100 RAM, and my computer is still fast, not fastest, but I have a fast computer, no doubt about it. And one other thing, yeah my friend might be able to say, crunch more SETI blocks, but as for actual usefullness, I do week-long calculations in Mathematica for my patent (when I can give up WCIII :) But they're a week long, because they're a week long, not because the computer is slow, it would still take a fast computer 4 days to do) and can still USE my computer while it's calculating. So as it doing that I can still check my mail or come here once in a while, without having to worry about jeopordizing my calculation.

[nuckinfutz]

I've heard reports of WC3 playing well on Macs and playing like crap but this is not a suitable indicator of Computer performance.

Blizzard is target PC's and in their port they'll optimize somewhat for Macs but it's not as efficient as if if was written for Mac from it's inception.

Slow performance...your issue is with Blizzard..not Apple.

[jadam]

Originally posted by MacManiac1224
Can the G4 beat the Pentium 5? You are probably scratching your heads on this one. Yep, the Pentium 5 is very real, and it is coming soon. 2nd quarter of 2003, the Pentium 5 debuting at 3.2GHZ is going to come out. It will have 100 million transistors on it and it will be manufactured at .09 microns. Also, here is the doozy, it will have 1 mb of L2 on die cache, and it will support 333mhz bus speeds, with the addition of DDR, that is a possible 667mhz bus speeds. By the way, if you were wondering, the Pentium 4 has 42 million transistors.

Now, for the G4: I am not sure how many transistors the G4 has, but I imagine it is way less then 100 million, or even 42 million, considering the P4 came out after the G4. Anyway, the cache on the G4 is higher on the high-end, 2mb of cache. But: the speed: 1.25Ghz? Can that really stand up to a P5 with 333mhz bus, and 3.2Ghz clock speeds? My opinion: most likely not.

Let's be honest, the P4 basically can beat the G4 in most tasks today, so a new faster version of the P4, the P5 can easily beat the G4, most likely in 95-99% of all tasks.

Ok, we have established that the G4 is, well, to slow against the P5, even though we don't know about it yet, I imagine it will be. Well, Apple just pulled the plug on OS 9 for January, what could this mean? I am not sure, only Steve knows. But Apple better come out with something that can at least compete with the Pentium 5, and it better come soon. I would not be surprised if Apple comes out with the G5 in January, just to say they were the first to have a generation 5 possessor, but I could be wrong.

Ok, I made my case, now, what do you guys think? By the way: I got this information about the Pentium 5 from eWeek, so it is reputable.

dumb ass, no theres no P5, P5 wont come out for a LOOOONG Time, PIV is expected to Scale up to 10ghz, this is just an upgraded PIV f00

[void]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


i hope by the time pentium 5 hits the shelves, there will be a G5 on the shelves


Doubtfully. It would be more likely a Power4. the G naming scheme is getting old really fast. It never takes this long to make a processor. Apple must really have something big up their sleves.

[iGav]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


i hope by the time pentium 5 hits the shelves, there will be a G5 on the shelves

btw, igav, i see that you are on akira's site...i should go there and join up and give the old alphatech a hard time...i miss alphatech and his intelligent comments...even when he gets unintelligent and flames newbies:eek: :p ;)

I would think that by the time Intel do inflict the P5 upon that we'll be if not running machines with Apples next generation PPC at that time, then they'll be right around the corner......

And yep I joined akira's site...... although I won't be using it like I do mr...... and as akira said, it's not a rumour site, it's a discussion and problem site about current technical issues and hardware and software...... I thought Alphatech was funny...... sure he sometimes got a little heated, but there was alot of people that deserved it, and hey it spiced things up...... :p

He seem alot more chilled over at his site..... so that's cool.... :)

P.S It's good to have you back Jef....... ;) :)

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by iGAV


I would think that by the time Intel do inflict the P5 upon that we'll be if not running machines with Apples next generation PPC at that time, then they'll be right around the corner......

And yep I joined akira's site...... although I won't be using it like I do mr...... and as akira said, it's not a rumour site, it's a discussion and problem site about current technical issues and hardware and software...... I thought Alphatech was funny...... sure he sometimes got a little heated, but there was alot of people that deserved it, and hey it spiced things up...... :p

He seem alot more chilled over at his site..... so that's cool.... :)

P.S It's good to have you back Jef....... ;) :)

thanks

since akira/alphatech has started his site, i have only seen him once on macrumors...he is probably really busy getting everything up and going in the early stages...once it's there, i hope to see him pop in here every now and again