PDA

View Full Version : AMD lied about 64 bit OPERTON!


The Reaper
Jul 26, 2003, 12:35 PM
i just realized something, after reading several websites. everyone seems to be claiming that the 64 bit Opteron will beat apple to the desktop arena when it it actually released, and that apple misled us. i will show you WHY the G5 deserves the title, regardless of when the Opteron is on market (either tomorrow, or last year, makes no difference: you'll see why). so here's the truth (please be patient):

AMD claims to have 64 bit Opteron chips coming to market soon, and that these chips are able to run 32 bit code in non emulation. this is supposedly so that you can use that 1 new 64bit app with all of your old 32 bit apps, rather than being restricted to just 64 bit apps (not much software is 64 bit, so this backward compatability is important). but here is where things get interesting:

The Opteron CANNOT run 32 bit and 64 bit apps AT THE SAME TIME!

so, if you are using some 64 bit program, and you decide you want to play some unreal tournament, you have to REBOOT your computer in 32 bit mode! this is NOT acceptable for a 'desktop' chip, whose main markets are science or graphics professionals that switch frequently between open programs.

the G5, by contrast, can run both types of apps simultaneously. basically, with the G5, the user never notices whether they are usng a 64 bit app or a 32 bit app (aside from subtle performance differences). an Opteron user has to make a VERY obvious distinction, EVERY TIME they wish to use them. the Opteron is not an effective way of bridging the 32 bit/64 bit gap. the G5 IS.

so if ever a PC user says that the G5 was not the first to be a 64 bit desktop chip, just remind them that the Opteron is pretty much as useless as the Itanium; if they want to run a 64 bit program, they will have to do so in an environment where VERY few other 64 bit apps are developed (this is one reason why the Itanium was a failure). such 64 bit functionality (or lack thereof) is useless to a desktop user. what is useful is an environment that can run all legacy apps with the new 64 bit apps: like running 32 bit iTunes in the background to 64 bit Photoshop.

so apple will be ahead of the industry for some time (until the NEXT generation of chips come from AMD (matbe next year), or when Intel makes their entry into the 64 bit desktop arena (which will be a few years away).

just some thoughts.

P-Worm
Jul 26, 2003, 01:09 PM
If this is true, then I am convinced that Apple covered their bases when they made all of their claims about the G5. Some how this machine seems to look better and better every day.

P-Worm

The Reaper
Jul 26, 2003, 01:17 PM
also, someone on another site referrenced an AMD page which seemed to contradict my statements. so to anyone who looks at the following website:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_8825,00.html (Link)

here is my response.

The AMD Opteron™ processor, enabling simultaneous 32- and 64-bit computing

interestingly enough, this is one way of saying that the Opteron can run both 32 bit and 64 bit processes, to distinguish it from previous chips (32 bit only like the pentium, or 64 bit only like the Itanium). a restart is required to switch between the 2 environments. however, the Operton, in 64 bit mode, is also able to run 32 bit apps in emulation. more on this later.


The AMD Opteron processor is designed to run existing 32-bit applications with outstanding performance and offers customers a simplified migration path to 64-bit computing.

VERY cleverly worded. i'll break it down simply: in 32 bit mode, the chip runs 32 bit software with 'outstanding performance'. as 64 bit software becomes available, you can run it in 64 bit mode on the same chip (of course, only after a restart). NO WHERE does it say that it can run both 32 bit and 64 bit processes at the same time in NON EMULATION. the non emulation 32 bit capabilities the site refers to are in reference to the chip in 32 bit mode - switch to 64 bit, and you're back to emulating your 32 bit code. basically, that 'outstanding performance' advantage is suddenly lost.

what AMD has relied on is readers merging the above 2 quotes and assuming that the chip can run "existing 32-bit applications with outstanding performance" while simultaneously running 64 bit software. Trust me, if it really could do this, they would say it very blatantly everywhere on that page, rather than hinting it.

Catfish_Man
Jul 26, 2003, 01:18 PM
Opteron (NOT Operton) is most definitely a 32/64 bit hybrid (and it's already shipping). It can run both types of apps at the same time (it does switch between modes, but it does so extremely quickly, without a reboot. The G5/970 does a similar thing). The reason Apple claims "first 64 bit desktop computer" is because Opteron is not a desktop chip. Nice try, but get your facts straight first.

Also, Itanium isn't over yet. It's been a failure for the first 13 years of its life because it sucked and didn't have any software. Now it's FINALLY getting past that and providing effective competition against IBM's POWER chips. It should be an interesting battle.

Intel plans to enter the 64 bit desktop market in 2007 at the earliest, from what I've read.

Hodapp
Jul 26, 2003, 01:25 PM
So wait, AMD has released their 64 bit desktop processor first, but Apple still gets the title for having the first 64 bit desktop processor? :confused: The G5 is essentially vaporware right now, regardless of how many have been ordered, the fact remains that the only people who have even seen the G5 are NASA employees and a few other choice individuals...

Where as the Opteron has been out for a while now, working great running 64bit builds of Linux. Some guys I know have an Opteron-powered machine, RIGHT NOW. In fact, I believe they did when Apple first started announcing all this 'the first 64 bit desktop garbage.' It's just Apple marketing hype, they're guilty of it just like about every other company.

You guys just need to accept the fact that the Apple marketing campaigns are usually targeted at people who aren't very computer savvy, so they can make crazy false claims like that and 99% of the people who see the ads will never know the difference :)

On that note, I can't wait until I can go buy a G5 at an APPLE STORE, as oppose to just ordering online from seeing a few pictures. :rolleyes:

Catfish_Man
Jul 26, 2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by io_burn
So wait, AMD has released their 64 bit desktop processor first, but Apple still gets the title for having the first 64 bit desktop processor? :confused: The G5 is essentially vaporware right now, regardless of how many have been ordered, the fact remains that the only people who have even seen the G5 are NASA employees and a few other choice individuals...

Where as the Opteron has been out for a while now, working great running 64bit builds of Linux. Some guys I know have an Opteron-powered machine, RIGHT NOW. In fact, I believe they did when Apple first started announcing all this 'the first 64 bit desktop garbage.' It's just Apple marketing hype, they're guilty of it just like about every other company.

You guys just need to accept the fact that the Apple marketing campaigns are usually targeted at people who aren't very computer savvy, so they can make crazy false claims like that and 99% of the people who see the ads will never know the difference :)

On that note, I can't wait until I can go buy a G5 at an APPLE STORE, as oppose to just ordering online from seeing a few pictures. :rolleyes:

Apple points out that Opteron is not a desktop processor. Some people would say the G5 isn't a desktop either (that it's a workstation). I'm not sure who's right.

Sun Baked
Jul 26, 2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by io_burn
So wait, AMD has released their 64 bit desktop processor first, but Apple still gets the title for having the first 64 bit desktop processor? :confused: The G5 is essentially vaporware right now, regardless of how many have been ordered, the fact remains that the only people who have even seen the G5 are NASA employees and a few other choice individuals... The Opteron is NOT AMD's desktop 64 processor -- it's AMD's server/workstation chip. It's not a processor for joe redneck.

The Athlon-64 is AMD's 64-bit "desktop" processor, and was scheduled for September release.

The Reaper
Jul 26, 2003, 01:45 PM
apple defines desktop processors based on price. the G5 is clearly priced as a high end desktop, as most workstations are significantly more expensive. as for the Opteron being exclusively a workstation chip, i am NOT denying this, i am simply stating common perception (i have heard many PC users claim that the Opteron will be the first 64 bit desktop). everyone knows that 64 bit has been out for some time now, just not in desktops. many PC users will claim that the Operton is a desktop chip, so rather than get into that (relatively futile) argument, i have put forth another.

Hodapp
Jul 26, 2003, 01:49 PM
So the difference between a server chip and a desktop chip is how they market the product? Working in the IT field, I know lots of people who a) make too much money and b) enjoy having INSANE computer equipment. Whether or not the processor is marketed as a desktop processor to people like this is irrelevant. The point of the matter is 64 bit chips have been ON THE MARKET, and EASILY useable in any desktop machine, assuming you're die hard enough and have the funding to afford it.

The Reaper
Jul 26, 2003, 02:02 PM
So the difference between a server chip and a desktop chip is how they market the product? Working in the IT field, I know lots of people who a) make too much money and b) enjoy having INSANE computer equipment. Whether or not the processor is marketed as a desktop processor to people like this is irrelevant. The point of the matter is 64 bit chips have been ON THE MARKET, and EASILY useable in any desktop machine, assuming you're die hard enough and have the funding to afford it.

well, in many (not all) cases, the workstations of today are the desktops of tomorrow. the G5 is basically offering workstation features with desktop pricing. they are not trying to compete with other workstations, they are competing with high end desktops. i have no doubt that both markets will have some use for the G5, but if apple wanted to compete with workstations full on, they could have racked up the price big time and maybe allow for quad systems, more PCI slots, more HDs etc.

i think that apple has taken 64 bit processing, which was previously reserved for people who a) make too much money and b) enjoy having INSANE computer equipment and made it available to the mainstream. '64 bit computing... for the rest of us.'

cubist
Jul 26, 2003, 02:14 PM
As far as the "first 64-bit desktop" claim goes, both DEC and Sun shipped 64-bit desktop machines years ago. They may have been a little more expensive, but the Sun Ultra 5, for example, is in the same price ballpark as the G5, has a smaller case, runs commercial software, etc.

That being said, I think the "most powerful personal computer" claim is still valid. The G5 will run circles around any of Sun's desktop machines.

As for the Opteron, one company claims to have shipped one machine. I haven't seen any Opteron machines for sale. The Athlon 64 will probably not be available until well into 2004.

As for the Itanium, aka the Itanic ... prices are absurdly high, and performance is terrible. It is the return of the IAPX-432. Shut the door, the corpse is beginning to smell.

Hodapp
Jul 26, 2003, 02:19 PM
Err... you guys realize you can build your own PC right? From parts? That's the easiest/cheapest way get a 64bit PC Desktop... Unlike Apple you don't have to wait until Dell puts it in a case for you.

Catfish_Man
Jul 26, 2003, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by cubist

As for the Itanium, aka the Itanic ... prices are absurdly high, and performance is terrible. It is the return of the IAPX-432. Shut the door, the corpse is beginning to smell.

2000+ SPECfp is terrible?

Hodapp
Jul 26, 2003, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Catfish_Man
2000+ SPECfp is terrible?

Meh, just let the Apple extremists stretch any biased facts they can to prove that Apple is the best and everything else is a load of horse crap. It's standard operating procedure for anyone who spells Microsoft 'Micro$oft' and Itanium 'Itanic'

:rolleyes:

edesignuk
Jul 26, 2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by cubist

As for the Opteron, one company claims to have shipped one machine. I haven't seen any Opteron machines for sale. The Athlon 64 will probably not be available until well into 2004.

As io_burn has just said, just because no one is selling pre-built systems with them, doesn't mean you can't have your own 64-bit desktop NOW.

http://www.dabs.com/2N77
http://www.dabs.com/2N7H

There is such a thing as building your own system, in the PC world anyway.

edit: For links to work u need to have any pop-up blocking disabled.

straphound
Jul 26, 2003, 02:40 PM
The Athlon 64 processor will be out in Sept and there will be different versions with the top end essentially being the same as the Opteron being a 1 MB cache processor that runs in the same socket as their "workstation" processor. They will be very similar processors it appears.

The Reaper
Jul 26, 2003, 02:44 PM
Err... you guys realize you can build your own PC right? From parts? That's the easiest/cheapest way get a 64bit PC Desktop... Unlike Apple you don't have to wait until Dell puts it in a case for you.

but you don't get:

9(!!!) fans to keep the noise down

lower power costs (cooler chips) - it makes a difference!

1ghz frontside bus

Highest bandwidth system controller

Altivec (and the x86 equivalents do not count!)

the G5 itself: it may well be the fastest commercial chip, period.

although i would like to add that a DIY PC cannot run OSX, i do not want to 'taint' this particular post with a strong mac bias. also, some important workstation apps do not run on OSX.

it is likely that you will find some of the above features/components (or equivalents), but you will probably not be able to combine them all to make a berrer/equal deal than what apple is offering. many 3rd party manufacturers do not have the R&D resources that apple can put into elements such as their 9 fan design. also, factor in the time you spend hunting down the right 3rd party products and assembling them yourself.

a lot of what makes the G5 so appealing is it's functionality: look at the inside of one to see what i mean. everything has an allocated space. the system has order. the handles on the case are another example of this functionality. even if you were to succeed in assembling your proposed 'value workstation', i doubt it would approach the functionality and elegance of the G5.

The Reaper
Jul 26, 2003, 02:48 PM
Err... you guys realize you can build your own PC right? From parts? That's the easiest/cheapest way get a 64bit PC Desktop... Unlike Apple you don't have to wait until Dell puts it in a case for you.

oh, wait, now i get what you were saying... you mean that you don't have to wait for dell (or whoever) to begin selling Opteron PCs because the chips themselves are already available, and that you can just build your own with them. in that case, sorry about the long 'G5 is good' post just above.

sparkleytone
Jul 26, 2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by io_burn
Meh, just let the Apple extremists stretch any biased facts they can to prove that Apple is the best and everything else is a load of horse crap. It's standard operating procedure for anyone who spells Microsoft 'Micro$oft' and Itanium 'Itanic':rolleyes:

yeah yeah, you took the trouble to register and post at macrumors.com, so you need to be well aware that this is going to happen.

that being said, the Itanium has yet to prove itself as a viable processor in ANY market. Its price : performance is ridiculously bad, and its a black sheep in the high end market because intel has yet to be successful with a high end server chip. Also, Itanium talk in the same breath as the G5 is flawed by principle, being that their target markets couldn't really be more different.

Yes, we can build PCs with parts bought individually. BUT, as the old retort goes, will it run OS X? No, it won't. I will therefore be staying away from said PC. Also, you don't get any real warranty from building your own PC, something important to non-hobbyists.

overall, i think its great the 64bit has come to the desktop and I could care less who was 'technically' first. The viable options are coming at around the same time, and I prefer the G5. The total package blows everything else away. Hardware can only be as good as the software that runs it.

P-Worm
Jul 26, 2003, 03:24 PM
sparkelytone is right, it doesn't make any difference at all who was first. But I'm sure that the price/performance of the G5 far outweighs the Optersuck. Oh sorry io_burn, I meant Opteron. :rolleyes:

P-Worm

Hodapp
Jul 26, 2003, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by sparkleytone
yeah yeah, you took the trouble to register and post at macrumors.com, so you need to be well aware that this is going to happen.

Meh, I registered here because I'm interested in purchasing a G5 and a PowerBook (as soon as the're revised) in the next few months to replace my PC's. It's just amazingly disappointing to see the complete Apple fanboys I'd be allying myself with. According to these forums, this is the only benchmark Apple needs to provide for the G5 to sell it to you guys:

http://urkel.langasm.com/osx.gif

And that's just kind of sad.

sparkleytone
Jul 26, 2003, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by io_burn
Meh, I registered here because I'm interested in purchasing a G5 and a PowerBook (as soon as the're revised) in the next few months to replace my PC's. It's just amazingly disappointing to see the complete Apple fanboys I'd be allying myself with. According to these forums, this is the only benchmark Apple needs to provide for the G5 to sell it to you guys:

http://urkel.langasm.com/osx.gif

And that's just kind of sad.

hehe thats pretty good. nice image.

look, there are fanbois everywhere. thats pretty much the way the entire world is. if we can't find something to argue about, then what are we supposed to do with ourselves?

If you buy something else, then great for you. For me, OS X is the reason I switched. The hardware looks like its inferior on paper, but I bought this 600MHz processor iBook when I had a Celeron running at 900MHz on my desktop, and the P4 was just surfacing in the notebook world. I was skeptical, but I wanted OS X. Its the best computing purchase I have ever made. AND, it has gotten FASTER in the two years since I bought it; definitely something you don't see in the Microsoft software update world.

I like Linux but its not viable for me outside of being a cheap server. I can barely stand Windows, but its a mealticket when the going gets rough. OS X gives me a great and CONSISTENT user experience, an enormous amount of open source projects at my fingertips, and great stability.

For me personally Apple sells the best computers available. Only you can decide whats best for you.

The Reaper
Jul 26, 2003, 03:51 PM
If you buy something else, then great for you. For me, OS X is the reason I switched. The hardware looks like its inferior on paper, but I bought this 600MHz processor iBook when I had a Celeron running at 900MHz on my desktop, and the P4 was just surfacing in the notebook world. I was skeptical, but I wanted OS X. Its the best computing purchase I have ever made. AND, it has gotten FASTER in the two years since I bought it; definitely something you don't see in the Microsoft software update world.

just to clarify sparkleytone's point, each version of Mac OS X gets significantly aster. he wasn't claiming that macs just magically get better with age (no mac fanatic is that crazy). but i can say that every new version of windows i have ever used has always been progressively slower (ie they tend to need newer hardware). ever since OSX 10.0 (which, admittedly, was a joke), each progressive OSX version has run much faster on the same hardware. for exaple, apple optimized OSX 10.3 Panther to run even faster on old (5 years) hardware that would be outdated by now if it was in the windows world. it's nice to know that th purchases you make now will last you that long.

this post was made mainly for io_burn's benefit.

trusted_content
Jul 26, 2003, 04:18 PM
We have enough trouble with you trolling the Something Awful forums. Please don't bring it here.

GetSome681
Jul 26, 2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by trusted_content
We have enough trouble with you trolling the Something Awful forums. Please don't bring it here.

P.S. - The Reaper - Partly the reason why OS X has been getting faster is because 10.0 was pretty ****ty to begin with.

orangefoodie
Jul 26, 2003, 05:39 PM
Yeah, the progressive optimization of each incarnation of OS X makes you wonder if it's a grand scheme to get the new versions sold... you know. Speed benefits always perk the ears of the customer (myself included) :D

QCassidy352
Jul 26, 2003, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by io_burn
Meh, I registered here because I'm interested in purchasing a G5 and a PowerBook (as soon as the're revised) in the next few months to replace my PC's. It's just amazingly disappointing to see the complete Apple fanboys I'd be allying myself with. According to these forums, this is the only benchmark Apple needs to provide for the G5 to sell it to you guys:

http://urkel.langasm.com/osx.gif

And that's just kind of sad.

wait, wait, let me see if I understand what you're saying. It's sad to base computer purchasing decisions on what operating system the computer runs???

Ok, I've got a computer for you... a P4 at 5 Ghz with 4 gigs of RAM... but it can only run Windows 95. Do you want it? :rolleyes:

Hodapp
Jul 26, 2003, 06:47 PM
No, my point is that it's silly that every aguement on these forums no matter how wrong or right either side may be is "Well can (whatever) run Mac OS X?"

Reminds me of back in gradeschool when the end-all of any quarrel was "Well my dad can beat up your dad."

Mac Kiwi
Jul 26, 2003, 07:06 PM
Personally I just wish "Apple" would come out and say if they are going to write drivers for the Pro graphics cards for the G5 or not.If the answer is no then the 3D pros and studios are not going to buy the G5 anyway,and SJ is not going to elbow his way into that market.



Stu.

patrick0brien
Jul 26, 2003, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by io_burn
No, my point is that it's silly that every aguement on these forums no matter how wrong or right either side may be is "Well can (whatever) run Mac OS X?"

Reminds me of back in gradeschool when the end-all of any quarrel was "Well my dad can beat up your dad."

-io_burn

Actually, it's a very viable argument. As most persons here will attest, myself included, we live in a Windows world, and many of us own Windows machines. We've been there. We have an understanding that Windows-only persons can't - it's just logic.

OS X is only a part of the equation, but it's a good one. If you are really interested in a purchase of a G5 and not just trolling, you will find yourself snacking (happily) on the words you've laid out here.

I then ask you this: If most Mac users also us PC's, why do we prefer the Mac?

Hmmm...

-Mac Kiwi

What 3D cards are you referring need Apple to make drivers for? If you are talking OpenGL's like nVidia or ATI, they already exist at the OS level, not tack-ons like drivers.

Cubeboy
Jul 26, 2003, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by sparkleytone
that being said, the Itanium has yet to prove itself as a viable processor in ANY market. Its price : performance is ridiculously bad, and its a black sheep in the high end market because intel has yet to be successful with a high end server chip. Also, Itanium talk in the same breath as the G5 is flawed by principle, being that their target markets couldn't really be more different.


Can you prove that Itanium lacks price/performance? UltraSPARC III, Alpha, Power4, PA-RISC, and MIPS cpus all cost just as much if not considerably more than a Itanium 2 but I've yet to see any examples of any better performance on standard applications and benchmarks. What I do see is Itanium 2 outperforming most or all these chips in many areas commonly associated with these kinds of cpus (High Performance Computing, Database Transaction Processing, Computer Aided Engineering to name a few) and we're definitely not just talking about SPEC mind you.

Also, Intel's Deerfield Itanium processor will be a dual processor mid range-high end workstation slated for release mid-late this year so their will be some competition between it and the G5 considering that both systems will be used in similar tasks.

Cubeboy
Jul 26, 2003, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by io_burn
No, my point is that it's silly that every aguement on these forums no matter how wrong or right either side may be is "Well can (whatever) run Mac OS X?"

Reminds me of back in gradeschool when the end-all of any quarrel was "Well my dad can beat up your dad."

Have to agree with Patrick on this one, overall user experience is the one of the key points to consider when buying a personal computer (price being the other) and Macs have been well known to offer the best user experience out of all the desktop/laptop vendors. OSX being a solid, reliable, robust, and generally very well thought out OS (unlike Windows XP, which I use regularly for programming) has alot to do with this and I think thats the reason most of us feel so attached to it.

ColdZero
Jul 27, 2003, 12:45 AM
I agree with cubeboy, the Itanium has it's place. Playing games on it, running windows, stuff 99% of this board does on their computer, is not what it is designed to do. Regardless of what people on this board may think, Intel isn't stupid. They are very good at designing chips and fabricating them. The itanium has its place and does well for its price.

trusted_content
Jul 27, 2003, 03:43 AM
The main problem with the Itanium, as I see it, is not that it isn't sufficiently fast/powerful, as it is both. It is more to do with the fact that its architecture is so advanced compared to the majority of chips that it will be a good long time before a compiler is available that makes full use of its optimizations; the Itanium's VLIW (i hope I got my buzzword right) architecture depends on a lot of decisions formerly made at the CPU level being made during compilation; it is only with full usage of its architecture that the Itanium can really shine and as long as that remains elusive (as it is right now), the Itanium will be little more than a "could-be" processor, as with unoptimized code it behaves like the 1 ghz CPU it is.

Likvid
Jul 27, 2003, 04:42 AM
You don't have any freedom with a PowerMac.

Let's try add some SCSI drives inside the G5 tower, not possible.

You have to buy some lame external SCSI enclosures to make it happen.

Well in my tower i can have up to 9 SCSI drives.

What you buy from Apple is what you get, and that's, don't touch, please can i add some more RAM?

Yes but you have to ship the PowerMac to us.....

I don't really like the attitude of Apple, do they think all Mac users are dumb?

Well, the majority non-Mac users think so if you ask, is it the users fault? No, it's Apple's fault.


You buy expensive Apple hardware that they built, later on if you want something faster you buy something called "Overdrive" or something....

In x86 world you just buy the motherboard and CPU that fits you best and you install it yourself, and voila! you have a new computer.

If my powersupply get burned i just buy a new PSU, i don't need to call stupid Apple Support hotline that tells me that i am stupid and wait for the PSU in 4 weeks or more.

With x86 hardware i can run any OS nearly, i can make FreeBSD act and work like MacOSX, you just need brains then it's up to you.

Opteron is nice CPU and it's the same performance as the G5, so you are totally wrong.

Opteron is better because you can run 64-bit Linux with it, specially SuSE 64-bit.

I am really frustrated as you can see but i am really tired of reading all messages and almost all here seems so friggin handicaped when it gets more advanced and Apple can't help you.

Now i'm telling myself to shutup before i get any further.....;)

Cubeboy
Jul 27, 2003, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by trusted_content
The main problem with the Itanium, as I see it, is not that it isn't sufficiently fast/powerful, as it is both. It is more to do with the fact that its architecture is so advanced compared to the majority of chips that it will be a good long time before a compiler is available that makes full use of its optimizations; the Itanium's VLIW (i hope I got my buzzword right) architecture depends on a lot of decisions formerly made at the CPU level being made during compilation; it is only with full usage of its architecture that the Itanium can really shine and as long as that remains elusive (as it is right now), the Itanium will be little more than a "could-be" processor, as with unoptimized code it behaves like the 1 ghz CPU it is.

You are essentially correct in your understanding of VLIW, basically, the compiler breaks down program instructions into very basic operations (of which the CPU can perform many simultaneously). The operations are than put into a Very Long Instruction Word (hence the term VLIW) and sent to the CPU where it is taken apart and passed off to the appropriate device.

HP and Intel compilers both do a pretty good job of producing code for the Itanium, hence the excellent showings in SPEC/Linpack/Lapack, I would doubt that 2000+ points on SPECfp is possible with a compiler that produces hostile code especially considering how much VLIW depends on the compiler.

I don't think it's as much Itanium reaching it's full potential as it is beating it's RISC competitors which it does a pretty good job of already. As long as it continues to provide top notch performance in areas associated with these chips, the Itanium market can only grow.

cb911
Jul 27, 2003, 07:13 AM
AMD don't sell the Opteron in a single processor config do they? just wondering about that...

about the Itanium... if it is a dual-processor system can it use one processor to run in 32-bit mode and the other proc to run in 64-bit mode? would this allow 32-bit and 64-bit apps to run at the same time without any emulation?

Cubeboy
Jul 27, 2003, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by cb911
AMD don't sell the Opteron in a single processor config do they? just wondering about that...

about the Itanium... if it is a dual-processor system can it use one processor to run in 32-bit mode and the other proc to run in 64-bit mode? would this allow 32-bit and 64-bit apps to run at the same time without any emulation?

Yes their is the Opteron 140 (140, 142, 144) series which are designed to run in single processor configurations.

Itanium can be used in single, dual, quad and larger configurations, their is support for IA32 but it's fairly bad right now and I doubt it can run one processor in 32 bit and the other in 64 bit by default.

BigJayhawk
Jul 27, 2003, 09:45 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by io_burn
http://urkel.langasm.com/osx.gif

Actually, I use both PC's (at work) and Macs (at work and at home) of varying speeds. I would MUCH RATHER use a 600Mhz G3 than a 3GHZ P4. Why you ask? My very educated, long-term experience (which in no way is simply following a herd) leads me the simple conclusion that for DESKTOP USE (ie MULTIPLE simultaneous application use) there is no comparing the user experience of Windoze to the user experience of Mac OSX AT ANY SPEED.

To each their own, but THANK YOU very much for a clear, concise benchmark graphic that demonstrates very intelligently why the phrase "but will XX run OS X" appears here on a regular basis!

patrick0brien
Jul 28, 2003, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Likvid

Now i'm telling myself to shutup before i get any further.....;)

-Likvid

You've said quite enough. Clearly you have zero experience with Macs.

Let's try add some SCSI drives inside the G5 tower, not possible.
You're right, I'll grant you, one has room for only two drives in this enclosure. That's not to say one cannot be a SCSI though.

You have to buy some lame external SCSI enclosures to make it happen.
Umm. No. But you can if you really want. Are you that married to SCSI?

Well in my tower i can have up to 9 SCSI drives.
That's great, how's your power supply? If it can, in fact, handle 9 drives plus the MoBo, how's the heat? And if you machine can handle the power requirements of the drives and the fans to manage the heat, I hope you have a 20-amp circuit breaker on that outlet, and not just a 15.

What the H*** are you doing with 9 SCSI drives?!? Oh, right. You don't have 9 drives - nor have any plans to own that many. You're trying to make a point, but using false pretenses.

What you buy from Apple is what you get, and that's, don't touch, please can i add some more RAM?
Patently wrong here. Sure, go ahead.

Yes but you have to ship the PowerMac to us.....
What are you talking about?!?

I don't really like the attitude of Apple, do they think all Mac users are dumb?
Not all, but there are dumb people everywhere ;)

Well, the majority non-Mac users think so if you ask, is it the users fault? No, it's Apple's fault.
Can you clarify this? Clear as mud.

You buy expensive Apple hardware that they built, later on if you want something faster you buy something called "Overdrive" or something....
Wow. I don't know where you get your info, but I think it's about 10 years old - at least in this case. I just buy a new Processor card.

In x86 world you just buy the motherboard and CPU that fits you best and you install it yourself, and voila! you have a new computer.
Oh, right, I forgot, that processor card allows me to go from one processor to two. Can the Wintel world do that? No. And forget running XP on a DP system anyway.

Explanation of the Processor card: It's called a Processor Daughtercard and has the caches on board. It's more than a ZIF processor slot (Macs have been there - done that)

If my powersupply get burned i just buy a new PSU, i don't need to call stupid Apple Support hotline that tells me that i am stupid and wait for the PSU in 4 weeks or more.
Neither do we. But if we are under warranty or Applecare, we will call to get a FREE one. And we'll get it in three days.

With x86 hardware i can run any OS nearly, i can make FreeBSD act and work like MacOSX, you just need brains then it's up to you.
Riiiight. Sure you can. Calling Apple for IP violations...

Opteron is nice CPU and it's the same performance as the G5, so you are totally wrong.
Totally wrong about what? Same performance? No.

Oh, and don't forget the 1ghz busses, two processors, and AltiVec.

Opteron is better because you can run 64-bit Linux with it, specially SuSE 64-bit.
Better because I can run 64-bit Linux with it? Ok, clearly you have an issue. You were just saying you could write your own version of OS X - now you want 64-bit Linux?

How do you know it won't run on the G5?

I am really frustrated as you can see but i am really tired of reading all messages and almost all here seems so friggin handicaped when it gets more advanced and Apple can't help you.
Handicapped. This wasn't even a good trolling. Thanks for playing, don't smack yourself with the door.

G4scott
Jul 28, 2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Likvid
You don't have any freedom with a PowerMac.

Let's try add some SCSI drives inside the G5 tower, not possible.

You have to buy some lame external SCSI enclosures to make it happen.

Well in my tower i can have up to 9 SCSI drives.

What you buy from Apple is what you get, and that's, don't touch, please can i add some more RAM?

Yes but you have to ship the PowerMac to us.....

I don't really like the attitude of Apple, do they think all Mac users are dumb?

Well, the majority non-Mac users think so if you ask, is it the users fault? No, it's Apple's fault.


You buy expensive Apple hardware that they built, later on if you want something faster you buy something called "Overdrive" or something....

In x86 world you just buy the motherboard and CPU that fits you best and you install it yourself, and voila! you have a new computer.

If my powersupply get burned i just buy a new PSU, i don't need to call stupid Apple Support hotline that tells me that i am stupid and wait for the PSU in 4 weeks or more.

With x86 hardware i can run any OS nearly, i can make FreeBSD act and work like MacOSX, you just need brains then it's up to you.

Opteron is nice CPU and it's the same performance as the G5, so you are totally wrong.

Opteron is better because you can run 64-bit Linux with it, specially SuSE 64-bit.

I am really frustrated as you can see but i am really tired of reading all messages and almost all here seems so friggin handicaped when it gets more advanced and Apple can't help you.

Now i'm telling myself to shutup before i get any further.....;)

You should've told yourself to shut up before you started to type.

The G5 has no need for SCSI. Instead of supporting that, they went with serial ATA, and if I am correct, they are the first computer manufacturer (I'm not talking about build-it-yourself systems) to include serial ATA standard. Serial ATA is much better than SCSI, and Apple is really helping you out, to get you to migrate from an older, slower system to a newer, faster one.

Adding RAM in any Mac these days is a no-brainer. If you have to send your computer to Apple to put RAM in, yet you can build your own PC, you are just plain stupid. You can also upgrade using the PCI card slots (and with the last PowerMac G4, I believe you could add 4 SCSI drives with a PCI card...)

As for the processor upgrades, the latest PowerMacs use zif sockets to hold the processor card. Want to upgrade? Just take out the old processor and put in the new. As long as the new processor is designed to work with you're system, everything will work.

The reason you can't just rip out the mobo in your PowerMac, and put in a new one, is called quality control. Apple builds the computers with certain parts, knowing that they will work together properly. This lets Apple squeeze more performance out of almost every part of the system. Instead of designing their OS to run on many different types of systems, they can design their OS to run on their hardware, offering you a level of compatibility hardly seen in the windows world. Besides, only Apple, and a few other companies use or even make PowerPC motherboards and processors.

Once again, with the power supply, Apple wants to ensure that you are using the right parts with their product. While you may know what you're doing, there are people out there who might not know that messing with different power supplies can seriously screw up their computer, or cause even more problems. This again, is called quality control.

The purpose of Apple is not to make a computer that you can rip apart and put back together. For that type of thing, go build your own PC.

Apple makes computers that people like graphic designers, artists, movie makers, teachers, students, businessmen, and tons of other people can use without having to worry about what's under the hood, or setting up hardware, or configuring the BIOS to work with your CPU. These things, while almost normal in the PC world, are a pain in the ass, and if you're actually trying to get work done, you don't want to have to be screwing around with your computer's settings.

Just a couple of days ago, I was at a LAN party, where there was a computer that blew a power supply. Why did it blow? Because he was using it incorrectly. He put too much strain on it, and it just died on him. While he was able to put in another power supply, he also had to tinker with his BIOS settings, since his processor wasn't working right, and his computer wouldn't recognize some of his hardware. This guy was A+ certified, and so was another guy who was helping him. They also had to re-install windows at a LAN party!. This would've never (ok, so maybe there's a one in a hundred-million chance) happened with a Mac, because Apple puts in the right parts so that they can work together without any problems, so you can do what you want to with your computer, and I know for sure that I want a computer I can use, not just take apart and put back together again.

Now, can anybody tell me where this swarm of n00b trolls has come from?

BigJayhawk
Jul 28, 2003, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by G4scott
Now, can anybody tell me where this swarm of n00b trolls has come from?

No kidding!

I think from now on if you haven't made at least 20 productive posts to this forum then you simply cannot post at all!

heh :D :confused:

patrick0brien
Jul 28, 2003, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by G4scott
Now, can anybody tell me where this swarm of n00b trolls has come from?

-G4scott

Methinks they are compelled to flood the Mac boards from the Land of Wintel Sour Grapes since the anouncement of the upcoming recrowning of the Mac with the Speed/Power mantle.

Personally, I find it kind of funny that that come at us with such drivel - rumor at worst, outdated information at best.

I actually had a little evil fun debunking Likvid's trolling.

I almost fee dirty. Almost. :D

ColdZero
Jul 28, 2003, 12:08 PM
17 monkeys locked in a room throwing their ***** at the answer key could pass the A+ exam. Its not really a measure of how much somebody knows about a computer. As for all that other stuff that happened at the LAN party.....***** happens. And it was his fault for running too many things on the P/S. I think its a dumb thing to say that "there is a hundred million in one chance that this would happen on a mac" because macs run within specifications too, if you run them outside of those, they will break. Its not a PC or a Mac problem if I put 10 scsi drives a P4 and an AGP Pro card on a 150 watt powersupply....its me being dumb. If you use the right parts in a PC, quality ones like apple does, then it will happen once in a hundred million times as well.

cubist
Jul 28, 2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Catfish_Man
2000+ SPECfp is terrible?

No, that's fine. What's poor is performance on Itanium machines running regular applications, not hand-tweaked benchmarks using compilers unavailable to the public.

How does Photoshop perform on an Itanium production shipping computer, running Windows? Anyone know? Come on, out with it.

As for the Opteron fans, I think the Opteron will be a good processor. It will run both 32- and 64-bit code at acceptable speeds, and will be the processor of choice for the Windows crowd. But I have yet to see one, whereas I have seen dozens of G5s... and I don't expect to see an Opteron machine, whether custom-built or Dell, anytime soon. If you think you can get a mobo, go ahead.

ColdZero
Jul 28, 2003, 12:20 PM
But the Itanium isn't designed to run photoshop or desktop applications. It was designed to deal with large databases and hand tweaked applicatons, not the visual effects in iTunes.

ColdZero
Jul 28, 2003, 12:41 PM
http://www.accupc.com/itemDetail.jsp?pid=mbmsk8dmft&refer=PriceGrabber

Opteron Motherboard

BigJayhawk
Jul 28, 2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by ColdZero
But the Itanium isn't designed to run photoshop or desktop applications. It was designed to deal with large databases and hand tweaked applicatons, not the visual effects in iTunes.

The point of this thread (or one of them) is to differentiate between the DESKTOP (i.e. multiple uses like Word Processing, Photoshop, email, etc., etc.)

Your point is precisely appreciated in the fact that the Itanium is NOT a Desktop processor due to software optimization issues. This may change in the future but it is not a competitor to the G5 as of now.

bertinman
Jul 28, 2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by ColdZero
http://www.accupc.com/itemDetail.jsp?pid=mbmsk8dmft&refer=PriceGrabber

Opteron Motherboard

you to be seem very helpful ;),

can you find an Opteron board that has an AGP slot?

If I upgrade, I want to keep my 9700 pro card.

tia

Cubeboy
Jul 28, 2003, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by cubist
No, that's fine. What's poor is performance on Itanium machines running regular applications, not hand-tweaked benchmarks using compilers unavailable to the public.

How does Photoshop perform on an Itanium production shipping computer, running Windows? Anyone know? Come on, out with it.

First of all do you even know what "hand tweaking" means? I mean my god, if I could "hand tweak" SPEC why the heck would I need to spend millions on a compiler to look for optimizing opportunities for my processor? Especially considering how bad compilers are at finding opportunities in code these days. This is just flat out wrong, you can't "hand tweak" SPEC even if you tried due to the very nature of SPEC's source code (large data blocks instead of little snippets).

Second, exactly when was ICC not available to the public? If your a developer and want to look at technical documentation for ICC or buy a copy by all means go ahead! Exactly who's stopping you? Intel? they've got a specific section of their site dedicated to explaining and marketing ICC/IFC. The fact is, ICC is a production software compiler, just like GCC or VC or BCC, and their are many developers (IBM, Oracle, Newtek, Wavefront/Alias, CERN, Music Match, SGI to name a few) who use it to produce production software (DB2, Lightwave, Maya, Jukebox, ROOT to name a few) for various reasons (performance mostly).

Third, have you even seen how Itanium performs compared to a Alpha, Power4 or any other RISC cpu in *ANY* software associated with these kinds of high-end server chips. Oh I don't know, any engineering apps (MCAE, CAE etc) HPC apps (NAS Parallel, Gaussian, MM5, Star-CD, NW Chem etc), various enterprising apps, java business apps, transaction processing etc etc. If you must know how Itanium does in video editing et al, a 1 GHz Itanium renders complex scenes in POV-ray well over 3 times faster than a Opteron or Xeon.

http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=55000263

Now tell me exactly where did you get the idea that the Itanium is slow?

Cubeboy
Jul 28, 2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by BigJayhawk
The point of this thread (or one of them) is to differentiate between the DESKTOP (i.e. multiple uses like Word Processing, Photoshop, email, etc., etc.)

Your point is precisely appreciated in the fact that the Itanium is NOT a Desktop processor due to software optimization issues. This may change in the future but it is not a competitor to the G5 as of now.

Actually Cubist's original claim (and the reason Catfish Man brought out the 2000+ SPECfp) was that Itanium performance is terrible. Which is just so obviously wrong considering how well it does in applications associated with these kinds of chips.

BigJayhawk
Jul 28, 2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Cubeboy
Now tell me exactly where did you get the idea the Itanium is slow?

I don't think the question is whether or not the Itanium is SLOW. The question is whether or not using the Itanium as a comparison in this discussion is remotely RELEVANT.

The G5 comes in a COMPLETE TOP TO BOTTOM package ranging from less than $2K to about $3K -- system, OSX, all the iApps, hardware, etc.

The Itanium is not in this market.

Cubeboy
Jul 28, 2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by BigJayhawk
I don't think the question is whether or not the Itanium is SLOW. The question is whether or not using the Itanium as a comparison in this discussion is remotely RELEVANT.

The G5 comes in a COMPLETE TOP TO BOTTOM package ranging from less than $2K to about $3K -- system, OSX, all the iApps, hardware, etc.

The Itanium is not in this market.

You should really pay attention to previous posts. He claimed that Itanium performance was "terrible" and several people including myself refuted it, simple as that.

As I've wrote in one of my previous posts, Deerfield Itanium 2s (which will cost only slightly more than a Pentium 4/processor) will be used for midrange-highend workstations as in between $2K and $5K complete systems. Considering that both systems (G5 and Deerfield) will be used for workstation type tasks and can be priced similarly, I'd say this is very much RELEVANT.

Cubeboy
Jul 28, 2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by cubist
As for the Opteron fans, I think the Opteron will be a good processor. It will run both 32- and 64-bit code at acceptable speeds, and will be the processor of choice for the Windows crowd. But I have yet to see one, whereas I have seen dozens of G5s... and I don't expect to see an Opteron machine, whether custom-built or Dell, anytime soon. If you think you can get a mobo, go ahead.

Boxx has been shipping Opteron workstations/desktop units for quite a while now. Nforce 3 Opteron motherboards produced by mobo makers Asus, MSI, Tyan, and Arima are sold by vendors for around $250.

jayscheuerle
Jul 28, 2003, 03:31 PM
I wouldn't trade my 400mHz beige box for a top of the line PC running Windows. Why would I? I'm not a gamer and all my software is for OSX. For what I'm using the machine for, it's fast enough to get the job done. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be supported in 10.3, so I may be in the market for a low-end AGP G4, but that's only so I'll be able to run the OS.

As machines get absurdly faster and faster, the OS is going to be the only choice that matters.

- j

ColdZero
Jul 28, 2003, 04:55 PM
There will always be something that takes advantage of the speed. Its not like there wasn't the programming know how to make OS X back in the 80s. People knew how to program, but there was no computer that would have run it. There are games today that would not have run even 3 years ago. There will always be more to choosing a computer than just the OS.

BigJayhawk
Jul 28, 2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by ColdZero
There will always be more to choosing a computer than just the OS.

There will always be more than the OS -- true.

HOWEVER, the OS will always be the ABSOLUTE TOP REASON for the selection of a computer. Not speed. Not processor. Not the number of SCSI drives a particular box has. These are all simply side issues (which are meaningful to each individual) that are NOT the TOP REASON for a group of individuals to choose a particular computing platform.

There are Mac sites and Windows sites and Linux sites and Unix sites and even Amiga sites and Commodore Sites, etc., etc. People don't rally around a processor or a speed issue, they rally around an OPERATING SYSTEM.

In this regard there are two or three major OS camps (with others around as well). There is Unix/Linux for those with the know-how and specific tasks at hand to warrant such a choice. There is Windows for the masses (many of which are no longer even involved with the selection of the OS with which they must live). Then there is OS X for those who do not want to second guess our choice of OS due to the many things that cause over 5% of Windows computers to CRASH at least TWICE A DAY (admission of Bill Gates himself). This would be the OS "for the rest of us."

So, once again refer to my post earlier in this thread that refers to the OS Benchmark to see the number one reason why a Dual G5 wins over ANY PeeCee AND why my 600 Mhz iBook wins the same comparison with EXACTLY the same Benchmark results.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by io_burn
http://urkel.langasm.com/osx.gif

ColdZero
Jul 28, 2003, 10:03 PM
I'm gonna have to disagree, evidenced by the mass amount of people who state that they WILL NOT use OS X if it came to the Intel platform. Refer to comments made by people "CISC weenies" and such. People don't rally behind processors? Have you ever read a PC discussion board and the wars people have between AMD and Intel? Why does intel ramp clock speed so quickly? Why does AMD use PR number instead of actual MHz? Because thats what people look for when they go to computer stores. I'm talking about the "I don't know about computers" person. They will go into a store and look at processor speeds. Apple has 1GHz on the consumer end.....PCs have 3.06GHz. Who do you think wins in their mind?

There are fan sites for processors, video cards, operating systems, this doesn't mean that any of these are the "ABSOLUTE TOP REASON" to pick a platform over the other.

5% isn't a bad number when you consider all the things that Windows has to deal with. Microsoft makes this OS then gives it to people, without knowing the exact specifications of the computer it will be running on. And out of all of those, 95% don't crash 2x a day. Yesterday I put a TV Card into my digital audio and I had 3 kernel panics. How many Windows systems aren't crashing? I know mine doesn't.

I'm sorry, but if I had to choose between running OS X on some 300Mhz G3 or running Linux or Windows on a P4 3.06, the PC is gonna win every time because I need to get stuff done. As much as I like OS X, if it takes me 5x longer to get something done than on a PC, I'll use the PC. Photoshop is photoshop and dreamweaver is dreamweaver, I really don't care what OS I'm using it on as long as it is fast.

Wow, you called it a "PeeCee" that shows maturity. *sigh* Why am I even typing this response. You should post that graph a few more times, maybe it will actually mean something then.

patrick0brien
Jul 28, 2003, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by BigJayhawk
There are Mac sites and Windows sites and Linux sites and Unix sites and even Amiga sites and Commodore Sites, etc., etc. People don't rally around a processor or a speed issue, they rally around an OPERATING SYSTEM.

-BigJayhawk

Y'know, that was one of the best illustrations I've seen in a while.

I'm stealing that.

Sun Baked
Jul 28, 2003, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by io_burn
http://urkel.langasm.com/osx.gif [/B]:confused:

Guess he must have missed early Rhapsody versions.

MacOS X on Intel... kinda (300kB pics) (http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=9710915675)

Although the released version of Rhapsody (Mac OS X Server ver 1.0) and OS X v 10.0 are light years apart.

I didn't see a version number in his chart. :p

Mav451
Jul 28, 2003, 10:41 PM
wow interesting link there...it's a crazy thought, wut with all the associations of the Mac OS being "ONLY" for Mac.

(Kinda like the made only for N64 that Nintendo pushed)

Heh, actually when i think about it, there are similarities. Nintendo had been pushing quality over quantity--much is the same with Mac software (lots of good...not much filler). PC has tons of it, but only a relative few are useful.

Again, thanks for the good link Sun Baked--though i saw some blatant Apple fanboyism in one of the central posts (i.e. Beeru who somehow thinks that Mac's have somehow gotten cheaper)...but skipping around it, all in all a good read :)

BigJayhawk
Jul 28, 2003, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by patrick0brien
-BigJayhawk

Y'know, that was one of the best illustrations I've seen in a while.

I'm stealing that.

The irony is that I "stole" it as well. However, I give credit where credit is due. This was io_burn's image from earlier in this thread. It does prove a point and it's humorous that he THOUGHT he was proving how silly the argument "but does it run OS X" was. In actuality, I agree that he did a VERY GOOD job demonstrating our BEST POINT.

As for the "maturity" of calling a Windoze based Computer a "PeeCee," I THANK YOU. You may have felt it was sarcasm but I have been around long enough to know that 22 Macs later (and "PeeCees" supported at work too numerous to count), I am not ABOUT to give up the PC (Personal Computer) world to the likes of Microsoft. Therefore the DEROGATORY "PeeCee" fits my point just fine thank you.

Don't assume that I don't know what speed is either. If you'd like to be sarcastic and compare a 300 Mhz G3 to a 3 Ghz P4 then go right ahead. You disprove NOTHING. I've got a couple of Windoze based CASH REGISTERS we can compare to my Mac Cube if you'd like. (We could take your approach and compare them to a Dual G5 but my Cube will trash them plenty enough on its own.) The sites devoted to Processors within the Windoze world are just that -- within the Windoze world. All computers have their place and all discussions have theirs.

My point is simply that if you are on a website that has an address beginning with MAC then you should expect to hear the phrase "but does it run OS X" very often. And, yes HERE it means a WHOLE LOT. Too bad being the Devil's Advocate doesn't pay well here. There are about 5 MR members that seem to follow around every OS discussion here and throw in their 2 cents. I just don't think you understand that to most of us here you may be completely correct about your Windoze info but yet your statements are STILL completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

panphage
Jul 29, 2003, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by io_burn
So the difference between a server chip and a desktop chip is how they market the product? Working in the IT field, I know lots of people who a) make too much money and b) enjoy having INSANE computer equipment. Whether or not the processor is marketed as a desktop processor to people like this is irrelevant. The point of the matter is 64 bit chips have been ON THE MARKET, and EASILY useable in any desktop machine, assuming you're die hard enough and have the funding to afford it.

But you have to roll your own. Thus, the G5 is the first commercially produced desktop 64-bit system. Apple is not competing with building your own system. Apple is competing with other companies that ship pre-built systems, Dell, Alienware, Compaq, HP, SGI, Sun, umm...who else? Did you want steve to use the unwieldy but technically more correct "First commercially produced complete computer system using a 64-bit processor, which processor was designed for the desktop market rather than the server market"? Because regardless of what you use it for, the Opteron was designed as a server chip, and don't claim it wasn't, or else what is the Athlon 64? An embedded chip? The same goes for the Itanium, as has been proven by the fellow who noted that the Itanium wasn't meant to run itunes visualizations.

If I wanted to, I could grab a tyan mobo and put dual-xeons in my desktop machine. That doesn't make a xeon a desktop processor. Hell, if I was smart enough, I could probably boot a tower with a POWER4 in it. DESKTOP in computer manufacturer marketing speak does not refer to "fits in a tower". It's a market segment. Desktop, Workstation, Server. And I don't even know what they think differentiates a desktop and a workstation, but differentiate the manufacturers do.

Now, lets hope Steve doesn't claim the G5 powerbook as the "First 64-bit notebook" because everyone knows they got beat already.

ColdZero
Jul 29, 2003, 01:04 AM
As for the "maturity" of calling a Windoze based Computer a "PeeCee," I THANK YOU. You may have felt it was sarcasm but I have been around long enough to know that 22 Macs later (and "PeeCees" supported at work too numerous to count), I am not ABOUT to give up the PC (Personal Computer) world to the likes of Microsoft. Therefore the DEROGATORY "PeeCee" fits my point just fine thank you.

Sorry to tell you, but Jobs himself refers to Macs as PeeCee. Winblows, PeeCee, Microsuck and all those comments do nothing but make you look like a 6 year old who's gonna have his daddy beat me up. As soon as I see those words I realize that I'm not dealing with somebody who is objective and their posts get chalked up to wasted bandwidth.

If you'd like to be sarcastic and compare a 300 Mhz G3 to a 3 Ghz P4 then go right ahead. You disprove NOTHING. I've got a couple of Windoze based CASH REGISTERS we can compare to my Mac Cube if you'd like.

Maybe I should have made this a little clearer. The purpose of that statement was to show that I'm not an Apple fanatic. I will use what gets my work done faster. For example: I have a dual 1ghz g4 and a P4 3.06. I don't fool myself into thinking WarCraft 3 runs faster on my G4. I use the P4 even tho it uses that "yucky" windows. In day to day things, I will use the G4 because I prefer OS X and like having a unix shell to play with.

Cube will trash them plenty enough on its own.

Sure bring it on over, I'll test it against my little 3.06 Shuttle cube. I'm willing to bet that mine will slaughter your G4 cube in every single test. You know what, I'll even run the benchmark 2 times before you finish. Oh except for that "Runs OS X one". But you look at those graphs, I'll get work done.

The sites devoted to Processors within the Windoze world are just that -- within the Windoze world. All computers have their place and all discussions have theirs.

Oh thats good, lets just ignore the rest of the world. I guess its ok if Apple gets lasy on development because after all.....it runs OS X.

Too bad being the Devil's Advocate doesn't pay well here.

Who's playing devil's advocate? I'm replying with real world experiances I've had that others could find useful. If ya don't like it....don't read.

There are about 5 MR members that seem to follow around every OS discussion here and throw in their 2 cents.

And I bet they are some of the most level headed ones around when it comes to objectivity.

but yet your statements are STILL completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I must have missed the posting that said you became the ruling authority on whats relevant and what isn't. People that make comments like that make me want to take my G4 and throw it out the window.

Windoze

Damnit, I did it again, I responded to a post that I chalked up to wasted bandwidth. I gotta stop that.

madamimadam
Jul 29, 2003, 02:36 AM
So, this thread was started by someone saying you need to reboot to get true, unemulated 32-bit and then someone said that this is not true but no one actually finalised the details on whether you need to reboot or not.

BigJayhawk
Jul 29, 2003, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by madamimadam
So, this thread was started by someone saying you need to reboot to get true, unemulated 32-bit and then someone said that this is not true but no one actually finalised the details on whether you need to reboot or not.

Exactly. No point left here anyway. This is, afterall, a Mac site. We've heard plenty (that most of us already know) about a topic that doesn't interest many of us anyway. As long as Apple continues to show that they are keeping us competitive (thank you IBM!) then we're set. I look forward to NOT HAVING TO REBOOT to switch applications (whether the windows world has to or not -- I no longer care.)

Thread -- unsubscribed.

Lanbrown
Jul 29, 2003, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by Catfish_Man
Also, Itanium isn't over yet. It's been a failure for the first 13 years of its life because it sucked and didn't have any software. Now it's FINALLY getting past that and providing effective competition against IBM's POWER chips. It should be an interesting battle.

If you really want to get technical, the architecture of the Itanic has been a failure since the 70's. EPIC was invented in the 70's and it failed back then. It was resurrected for the Itanic for it to fail/sink again. SPEC performance scores are not everything. Sun took the UNIX crown when they had the worst performing chip. Total system performance, software, technical support and a road map is what matters most.

Look at the sales number for Itanic, can you honestly say its not over yet.

patrick0brien
Jul 29, 2003, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by ColdZero
Shuttle cube.

(sorry guys, momentarily OT)

-ColdZero

I've been looking at one of these. What are your specs (Hardware, OS)? Where did you wind up getting it? And what do you think of it?

MorganX
Jul 29, 2003, 09:28 AM
>>Instead of supporting that, they went with serial ATA, and if I am correct, they are the first computer manufacturer (I'm not talking about build-it-yourself systems) to include serial ATA standard.<<

Since Intel manufactures the chipsets for 90% of PC manufacturers I'd have to say that is incorrect. Anyone manufacturing an 865 or higher chipset-based motherboard has included SATA. SATA drives are an option at Dell, depends on how much you want to pay for your drive. One should argue that once Intel includes it in a mainstream chipset it is standard.

>Serial ATA is much better than SCSI<

That's a pretty broad statement to make without qualifying it.

>>How does Photoshop perform on an Itanium production shipping computer, running Windows? Anyone know? Come on, out with it.<<

Runs Windows 2003 and 64-bit SQL pretty damn good. There is no Itanium verison of Photoshop. So without seeing it, you're probably right to assume performance sucks. However the Pentium IV system is still probably the best machine for Photoshop. Dual Xeons Workstations even. It remains to be seen if that will change when the G5 ships.

I don't think it's far-fetched to think that when low-power Itaniums arrive for workstations in 4thQ that Photoshop may be one of the first mainstream applications to arrive for it.

Not that it matters. The Mac platform is the one with speed problems. They're catching up. Isn't technology great... Mac-lovers should be happy, everyone else should be indifferent or happy for them.

Lanbrown
Jul 29, 2003, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by G4scott
Serial ATA is much better than SCSI

SCSI is faster and requires less CPU time. How many devices can you hook up to a Serial-ATA bus? Compare that to SCSI. Some SCSI drives also run at 15,000 RPM. They also had more cache then their ATA counterparts. What's the BUS speed on Serial-ATA?

Adding RAM in any Mac these days is a no-brainer. If you have to send your computer to Apple to put RAM in, yet you can build your own PC, you are just plain stupid. You can also upgrade using the PCI card slots (and with the last PowerMac G4, I believe you could add 4 SCSI drives with a PCI card...)

Some people do not like taking apart electronics. In case of the iMac, there are two places to put memory. One is easily accessible, the other is not.

Just a couple of days ago, I was at a LAN party, where there was a computer that blew a power supply. Why did it blow? Because he was using it incorrectly. He put too much strain on it, and it just died on him. While he was able to put in another power supply, he also had to tinker with his BIOS settings, since his processor wasn't working right, and his computer wouldn't recognize some of his hardware. This guy was A+ certified, and so was another guy who was helping him. They also had to re-install windows at a LAN party!. This would've never (ok, so maybe there's a one in a hundred-million chance) happened with a Mac, because Apple puts in the right parts so that they can work together without any problems, so you can do what you want to with your computer, and I know for sure that I want a computer I can use, not just take apart and put back together again.

Just because someone has a piece of paper (which is what a certification is) doesn't mean they know anything. How much hardware did they install themselves in the box? A PS has a rating, reach that or go over and you are asking for problems. PS failures are fairly common, even in a PS costing several thousand dollars. Did they have the system over clocked? They probably did.

ColdZero
Jul 29, 2003, 10:30 AM
Patrick:

I actually like it a lot. The specs of the shuttle I have are:

Shuttle SB51G
Intel P4 3.06GHz
Intel 845G Chipset
Firewire 400
USB 2.0
1GB Corsair DDR 2700
80 GB Western Digital Hard Drive
30 GB Western Digital Hard Drive
Pioneer A05 DVD-RW Drive
ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro

I run Windows XP Pro on the 80 gig drive and Gentoo Linux on the 30 gig drive. I ordered it from newegg.com originally. I'm very happy with it, the limited expansion that you get can be a little annoying, but being able to put it in a duffel bag and go to a LAN party makes up for this. There is a new version the SG62G2 (I think is the model #) that has dual channel DDR ram, I'd look at this newer one if you are gonna get one. It also supports the P4c processors and 800MHz FSB. I take the expansion thing back, there really isn't anything I can think of that I'd like to add to make it better. I still have a PCI slot free and the shuttle has USB 2 and Firewire 400. Its pretty quiet, there are 2 fans in the whole system, one on the video card and one that cools the processor and internal components. The system actually works pretty well, as I've left it on in my Attic (where I keep my computers) without the AC on and it got to 100 degrees up there, and it was still working without a hitch. I'd reccomend one if you're looking for a PC that you don't want to have take up a lot of room. The only thing I'd trade it for is a SB62G2 with dual channel DDR and a new 3.0 GHz P4 with 800MHz FSB.

Mav451
Jul 29, 2003, 11:51 AM
quote: Just a couple of days ago, I was at a LAN party, where there was a computer that blew a power supply. Why did it blow? Because he was using it incorrectly. He put too much strain on it, and it just died on him. While he was able to put in another power supply, he also had to tinker with his BIOS settings, since his processor wasn't working right, and his computer wouldn't recognize some of his hardware. This guy was A+ certified, and so was another guy who was helping him. They also had to re-install windows at a LAN party!. This would've never (ok, so maybe there's a one in a hundred-million chance) happened with a Mac, because Apple puts in the right parts so that they can work together without any problems, so you can do what you want to with your computer, and I know for sure that I want a computer I can use, not just take apart and put back together again.

hah, well tell me when's the last time you've heard a Mac head talking bout playing with his Vcore/Vdimm/VDD in bios? I doubt even a single Mac head would even CARE to OC like that. PSU failures will also occur more with non-brand names, i.e. case bundles, not individually retailed ones like Antec/Enermax.

I had a friend who blew his PSU. He didn't have to reinstall windows. And a processor is NOT required to recognize hardware. Only a working/functional motherboard is with a clean bios. Do you even know what you're talking about? Unless he needed a newer BIOS to recognize the cpu (old motherboard forcing an unsupported CPU e.g. A7V original 1.02 with a palomino) then this has no relevance to the story.

A+ certification does not include OCing certification :)

The day that Mac's become OCable (i.e. ensuing enthusiast market) -- tell me...it is also the day that pigs will be flying unfortunately :(

kungfu
Jul 29, 2003, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Mav451
The day that Mac's become OCable (i.e. ensuing enthusiast market) -- tell me...it is also the day that pigs will be flying unfortunately :(

This site has many articles relating to OCing your mac:

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/

pigs? ;)

Mav451
Jul 29, 2003, 12:43 PM
wow i never woulda known. thanks for the link...haha i can't believe they have a Mac Vs. PC section in their forums *_*

[edit]
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/G4CARDS/GigaDesigns_1.4GHz_review/index6.html

that link really suprised me as i had never given the thought initially of the Mac cpu upgrades being any diff than PC's...quite interesting to see that 3pin connector, along with the whole kitchen sink is included on the card.

Catfish_Man
Jul 29, 2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Lanbrown
If you really want to get technical, the architecture of the Itanic has been a failure since the 70's. EPIC was invented in the 70's and it failed back then. It was resurrected for the Itanic for it to fail/sink again. SPEC performance scores are not everything. Sun took the UNIX crown when they had the worst performing chip. Total system performance, software, technical support and a road map is what matters most.

Look at the sales number for Itanic, can you honestly say its not over yet.

Yup. If the sales numbers were going DOWN it would be over. As it is, they're going up (from what I've read). They're still abysmal, and Intel expects to spend until 2007 just trying to break even on the damn thing, but they're going up. Also, they've finally got something that doesn't perform like crap, so people actually have a reason to port to IA-64. I think Intel is fairly likely to succeed in pushing the chip to some success by brute force, similar to what MS is doing with the XBox. Just keep pouring dollars into it and buying talented engineers for it (the Alpha EV8 team, in this case) until it performs well.

Lanbrown
Jul 29, 2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by panphage
But you have to roll your own. Thus, the G5 is the first commercially produced desktop 64-bit system. Apple is not competing with building your own system. Apple is competing with other companies that ship pre-built systems, Dell, Alienware, Compaq, HP, SGI, Sun, umm...who else? Did you want steve to use the unwieldy but technically more correct "First commercially produced complete computer system using a 64-bit processor, which processor was designed for the desktop market rather than the server market"?

IBM created the 970 for use in blade servers. IBM just put AltiVec on it as well for Apple. It was an easy addition to make and the additional sales they will generate will more then pay for it. I wouldn't say the 970 was solely designed for use as a desktop. It was designed as a low-end chip to compliment Power4. Not everything needs to have a dual core CPU with loads of cache. The 970 was needed for Apple as well as IBM.

Lanbrown
Jul 29, 2003, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Catfish_Man
Yup. If the sales numbers were going DOWN it would be over. As it is, they're going up (from what I've read). They're still abysmal, and Intel expects to spend until 2007 just trying to break even on the damn thing, but they're going up. Also, they've finally got something that doesn't perform like crap, so people actually have a reason to port to IA-64. I think Intel is fairly likely to succeed in pushing the chip to some success by brute force, similar to what MS is doing with the XBox. Just keep pouring dollars into it and buying talented engineers for it (the Alpha EV8 team, in this case) until it performs well.

Have you seen some of the sales numbers? IBM sells the machines, but didn't sell any in the first quarter. Dell has entered, left and no reentered the Itanic space and sold 14 in the first quarter. Here's an example, if they sold seven more in the second quarter, it would be a 50% increase in sales. The only one selling in volume is HP. IDC has shown Itanic sinking in terms of Q1 sales.

Once again, performance is not going to sway people. If you could do the same job with your current platform but need a few extra processors, that is far cheaper then porting and testing. Rewriting code of EPIC is a very big undertaking, that won't be cheap or easy. Not to mention the Itanic servers cost more to run. They use considerably more power and generate much more heat. This makes the servers bigger to provide better cooling thus taking up more room, which costs money. The additional heat generated also requires the DC refrigeration units to run more, increasing the amount of power used.

Exactly how successful is the XBOX? It hasn't sold as many as the PS2, and if you look at global sales, they have gotten slaughtered.

Brute force won't work. They can sell the machines cheaper, but if the total bill to get everything ported over, users trained, support personnel trained, as well as all the testing that is required far exceeds the costs of upgrading you current system with more or faster processors, companies won't be looking to switch. All Intel can hope for is that they will use it for new installations. If a company uses Sun SPARC or IBM Power4, the chances of them migrating are pretty slim. If they use the Alpha or PA-RISC, they have a better chance of succeeding.

Juts because they have a good performing chip, doesn't mean that will be the case next year. Sun is readying some much-improved systems and Ti has started fabrication using the .09-micron process. Both of these will increase the performance of Sun systems.

You still haven't addressed that Sun took the crown when they didn't have the best performing processor. They still hold the crown as well.