PDA

View Full Version : ANOTHER reason NOT to choose Athlon64 over PPC970


madamimadam
Jul 29, 2003, 01:07 AM
Microsoft Tech Note (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/prka_fea_tfiu.asp )

What a laugh and a half... so many places/people have tried to pretend like the upcoming Athlon64 is a good option for desktop machines but when you look at the facts, you would need to dual boot 32 and 64-bit XP... WHAT A JOKE.

I hope Apple pushes the G5 like they have never pushed a machine before because there is SUCH a brilliant opportunity here to capture a great deal of the market. Maybe Panther is not a "true" 64-bit OS but it allows people to actually use their 64/32 machine in an effective manor while utilising the features of a 64-bit system that desktop users would actually be implementing from day to day.

To finish up, here is a note from Microsoft that you will NOT see associated with the MacOS:
Using an emulation layer, you can run 32-bit applications on Windows_XP 64-Bit Edition. However, such applications run significantly slower on the 64-bit system than on the 32-bit system, because emulation requires additional resources.

GulGnu
Jul 29, 2003, 08:06 AM
Windows XP 64-bit edition is a workstation OS not intended for (or, as far as I know) working with Athlon 64, rather focused on Itanum computers . Supposedly, MS is working on a special version of XP that adds Athlon 64-bit support. There are probably more details on this is you google around a bit.

BillHarrison
Jul 29, 2003, 09:10 AM
Yes, learn what you speak of before you speak.

That version of the OS is for Itanium 64 bit machines, and will not even run on an Athlon64

e-coli
Jul 29, 2003, 09:32 AM
Regardless of whether or not we're talking about the Athlon, I think this is the critical info from the posted link:


Originally posted by madamimadam
Using an emulation layer, you can run 32-bit applications on Windows_XP 64-Bit Edition. However, such applications run significantly slower on the 64-bit system than on the 32-bit system, because emulation requires additional resources.

sturm375
Jul 29, 2003, 10:14 AM
MS is talking about emulation on an Itanic processor which does not have 32-bit emulation built in. Both the Opteron and the Athlon64 have hardware 32-bit emulation, just like the PPC 970.

idea_hamster
Jul 29, 2003, 02:59 PM
Um, after looking at that Microsoft tech note of all the things that Windows XP64 does *not* support, I was left wondering --

Exactly what can it do? Show you a wicked screensaver while it folds in the background?

Even if it's not designed for a single user environment, it says that it doesn't support all kinds of things that seem made for multiple users (ACE Agent, user switching).

Does anyone use this now?

madamimadam
Jul 29, 2003, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by BillHarrison
Yes, learn what you speak of before you speak.

That version of the OS is for Itanium 64 bit machines, and will not even run on an Athlon64

Ok smarty pants, tell me, when is the home users version of XP 64 going to be available. I know the answer to this question but I would like to know if you know. Once you post the answer to that question, tell me when the Athlon64 will be on the market and then, once you have answered that question, tell me when you can buy a PowerMac G5 with 64-bit addressing.

illumin8
Jul 29, 2003, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by idea_hamster
Um, after looking at that Microsoft tech note of all the things that Windows XP64 does *not* support, I was left wondering --

Exactly what can it do? Show you a wicked screensaver while it folds in the background?

Even if it's not designed for a single user environment, it says that it doesn't support all kinds of things that seem made for multiple users (ACE Agent, user switching).

Does anyone use this now?
Actually, anyone that might buy an Itanium machine doesn't care whether they can watch a DVD on it or not. These are big iron servers, not desktops. They are most likely used as a SQL database server or something that actually needs more than 4GB of RAM. I highly doubt anyone running 64-bit Windows right now even cares if they can play a DVD on it.

Also, anyone serious about 64-bit computing will hopefully avoid Windows like the plague that it is and go straight to Linux or Unix. At least with Unix you can just recompile your code for the new processor and most things will work right off the bat. That's why Apple will have a huge advantage moving to 64-bit.

jefhatfield
Jul 30, 2003, 12:24 AM
i would definitely opt for the G5 over the athlon64..but the amd chip is not THAT bad

i have an amd k6-2 laptop and an ibook...and the mac is better, but the k6-2 gets the job done...sometimes slowly though when it heats up...the G3 in the ibook never seems to get that hot

my next mac will prolly be an emac or ibook...and my next pc will most likely be a pc laptop with an athlon-m...definitely over a celeron, overpriced pentium-m, or pentium 4

what would be ultimate in the future would be a G5 laptop and an athlon64 laptop:D

BillHarrison
Jul 30, 2003, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by madamimadam
Ok smarty pants, tell me, when is the home users version of XP 64 going to be available. I know the answer to this question but I would like to know if you know. Once you post the answer to that question, tell me when the Athlon64 will be on the market and then, once you have answered that question, tell me when you can buy a PowerMac G5 with 64-bit addressing.

I never Claimed to be "Mr. Smarty Pants". I simply said that you were wrong, and that you should find out what you are talking about before you talk about it. I too think the G5 is a great chip, and that OS X is a big step in the right direction for apple. But people spreading FUD about the new Athlon is BS, because it is a great chip in its own right. Last time I checked healthy competetition was good for everyone. Unbased rumors, or plain untrue ones such as yours, are not what need to be posted over and over again.

As for windows XP 64 bit, I am guessing mid 04 give or take. Its REALLY not a big deal. Panther is not 64 bit, it supports 64 bit addressing. Whoop de doo! The Athlon64 chip IS faster at 32 bit operations as well, so buying one and installing same ol win XP 32 will still net you an improvement in performance. This will just increase when windows is optimized for 64 bit. It will be the same thing for the G5, so why keep saying over and over that one has something the other doesnt! The thing that one has over the other that matters the most is OS X, and THAT will be the deciding factor I believe!

Its like, apple was behind for so many years, now every board I go to has somebody trying to show how much better the G5 is than anything else out there. Its a great chip, and a good move by apple. It has good possibilities, which have yet to be shown. It MAY be the fastest PC at the moment, thats up to some debate. But one thing you need to learn in the FASTEST PC world, is that your time on the throne is VERY short indeed! Everything you post and rant and rave about today is going to change in a short few months. So enjoy what we have, because the fight to be on top of the silicon mountain is a very expensive one.

GulGnu
Jul 30, 2003, 07:23 AM
Yup - people will mostly be getting the Athlon 64 for it's general performance increase in both 64 and 32 bits - not for being able to run a 64-bit OS. People who want to use the 64 bit capabilities of the Opteron / Athlon 64 use some 64 bit Linux/UNIX version, much as IBM will be selling servers / workstations with the PPC970 and Linux / UNIX.

madamimadam
Jul 30, 2003, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by BillHarrison
I never Claimed to be "Mr. Smarty Pants". I simply said that you were wrong, and that you should find out what you are talking about before you talk about it. I too think the G5 is a great chip, and that OS X is a big step in the right direction for apple. But people spreading FUD about the new Athlon is BS, because it is a great chip in its own right. Last time I checked healthy competetition was good for everyone. Unbased rumors, or plain untrue ones such as yours, are not what need to be posted over and over again.

As for windows XP 64 bit, I am guessing mid 04 give or take. Its REALLY not a big deal. Panther is not 64 bit, it supports 64 bit addressing. Whoop de doo! The Athlon64 chip IS faster at 32 bit operations as well, so buying one and installing same ol win XP 32 will still net you an improvement in performance. This will just increase when windows is optimized for 64 bit. It will be the same thing for the G5, so why keep saying over and over that one has something the other doesnt! The thing that one has over the other that matters the most is OS X, and THAT will be the deciding factor I believe!

Its like, apple was behind for so many years, now every board I go to has somebody trying to show how much better the G5 is than anything else out there. Its a great chip, and a good move by apple. It has good possibilities, which have yet to be shown. It MAY be the fastest PC at the moment, thats up to some debate. But one thing you need to learn in the FASTEST PC world, is that your time on the throne is VERY short indeed! Everything you post and rant and rave about today is going to change in a short few months. So enjoy what we have, because the fight to be on top of the silicon mountain is a very expensive one.

Panther and X.2.7 can do 64-bit addressing where as Windows 64 is only good for server use and Win 32 does not do anything 64.

Sounds pretty simple to me, in the desktop market, 64-bit is useless in the PC world and VERY useful in the mac environment

Newdren
Jul 30, 2003, 07:32 PM
Hey everyone at MacRumors.com. This is my first post, but I think Ill make a bit of a splash anyway. THIS WILL PROBABLY BE A LONG POST. SORRY

Fist of all can I say I think Mac OS (both pre 10 and X) are both great operating systems and I have used Macs at School and college for the last 7 years. At home however Im a PC user. (Need my gaming fix :) )

Anyway, back to the point, why oh why is it whenever I read a Mac forum there is always the occasional poster who reports mistruths, badly reaserchered mistakes, or just plain lies occasionaly just to discredit new PC technology.

The G5 is one heck of a chip, and finally gives the Macintosh platform the sort of performance that PC users have had over the past couple of years whilst the PC has had the performance crown. Theres finally some PC - MAC competition again which has to be a good thing! (Lets not forget it was the Mac before the PC, I used to want a PowerPC based machine so much in the late 90's!)

So why oh why since the release of the G5 chip has there been so much blind pro Mac propaganda spread over the Mac community? The whole benchmarks fiasco was one example of this, this thread being a far lesser example. The author of this thread could easily have discovered that XP 64bit edition is Itanuim only and doesnt run on the Athlon64 if any reasearch was put in. Why spread misinformation about new PC technology when its totally unfounded? It could have been easily discovered that the Athlon 64 does not "emulate" (as opposed to just run) x86 instructions as well if any reasearch had been done before putting forth such claims.

By the Way, Panther can do 64bit addressing. Very good! There is currently no mainstream PC operating system that can do that. Windows XP for x86-64 (Athlon 64) is due in early 2004 apparantly though so were talking about a 3 month difference in times between getting 64bit operating systems to market. Most consumer applications utilising 64bits on both platforms probably wouldnt be available until late 2004 (by consumer apps, Im talking non CAD, more games and video creation)

Sorry for any offence caused. Just ad to get that all out after seeing a HECK of a lot of PC misinformation on other Mac forums recently. To be honest at least the author of this thread probably made an innocent mistake and wasnt delibrately trying to mislead people. Ive seen MUCH worse.

topicolo
Jul 30, 2003, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Newdren

Anyway, back to the point, why oh why is it whenever I read a Mac forum there is always the occasional poster who reports mistruths, badly reaserchered mistakes, or just plain lies occasionaly just to discredit new PC technology.


Answer: Macintosh users have the same disgusting bias for macs that PC users have for PCs.

People, if you're going to say something and back it up, make sure your evidence really backs you up!

Fender2112
Jul 30, 2003, 09:09 PM
I have discovered that the best way to research a topic is to post something about it that is incorrect. Say something wrong and folks are quick to set you straight. But this is a good thing. Many of life's experiences are learned by doing something the wrong way. When you touched that HOT stove when your four years old, it really made an impression. :)

Back to the topic: The only reason I need for NOT choosing Athlon (or any other x86) is Windows... one of those things I learned the hard way. ;)

Marble
Jul 30, 2003, 09:25 PM
Maybe if you posted which points you thought were erroneous, their authors would have the opportunity to defend their legitimacy. There is plenty of Mac propoganda, we truly love our Macs, but these threads are here for the discussion of ideas. Tell us in particular what you have a problem with, and maybe you'll end up doing more than shaking a finger.

daveL
Jul 30, 2003, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by madamimadam
Panther and X.2.7 can do 64-bit addressing where as Windows 64 is only good for server use and Win 32 does not do anything 64.

Sounds pretty simple to me, in the desktop market, 64-bit is useless in the PC world and VERY useful in the mac environment
I'm sorry if I offend you, but you really don't have any idea what you are talking about. There are a number of threads here that, if you had read them and their references, would have kept you from making such inaccurate statements. Panther is an OS. How the hell can Panther do 64-bit addressing when it runs on G3 and G4 32-bit machines?

Panther is *not* a 64-bit OS, yet. This has been stated, in public, by Apple. There is *no* support, yet, for 64-bit pointers. Each process is limited to 4 GB of address space. Other OSes can do this, as well. It's simply address segmentation, which has been used for eons, and does *not* require a 64-bit CPU.

Last, but not least, there are very few desktop problem sets that would benefit from true 64-bit addressing, yet.

You might notice that I repeatedly use the word "yet". Apple is putting themselves ahead of the curve, as is their nature, so that when the need for true 64-bit computing arrives, they will already have a mature solution.

Man, this is getting lame. DO.YOUR.HOMEWORK.

Newdren
Jul 31, 2003, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Marble
Maybe if you posted which points you thought were erroneous, their authors would have the opportunity to defend their legitimacy. There is plenty of Mac propoganda, we truly love our Macs, but these threads are here for the discussion of ideas. Tell us in particular what you have a problem with, and maybe you'll end up doing more than shaking a finger.

On this thread or just points that have come up over the last few years of being abit of Mac fan? (I think Macs are great, I really do, I just think there a bit overpriced to get a system for the uses I would require, and I really dont think I could give up being able to play the very latest games as soon as they are released at 1600x1200)

jefhatfield
Jul 31, 2003, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Newdren
On this thread or just points that have come up over the last few years of being abit of Mac fan? (I think Macs are great, I really do, I just think there a bit overpriced to get a system for the uses I would require, and I really dont think I could give up being able to play the very latest games as soon as they are released at 1600x1200)

to me, a mac is worth the money

but when apple got stuck with a stalled motorola G4 bottleneck and was stingy with RAM for a long time, the PCs looked better and better as many PC manufacturers offered blazing fast machines and oodles of RAM

for a mac, it is two purchases these days...the machine, then extra RAM

steve...listen up...add more RAM:p

Mav451
Jul 31, 2003, 03:52 PM
i think the ram issue has ALWAYS been there for Mac's and PC's.

If my memory is correct, my dad was shopping around for the "top of the line" 90mhz 486 about 8-10 years ago. Most of them only shipped with 16MB, but my dad really wanted 24, or even 32. 32 was an expensive commodity back then however, as hard drives weren't even half a gig back then. Star Control 2 alone took up 50 megs (practically half of the hard drive).

Newdren
Jul 31, 2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Mav451

If my memory is correct, my dad was shopping around for the "top of the line" 90mhz 486 about 8-10 years ago. Most of them only shipped with 16MB, but my dad really wanted 24, or even 32. 32 was an expensive commodity back then however, as hard drives weren't even half a gig back then. Star Control 2 alone took up 50 megs (practically half of the hard drive).

That cant be right. When I brought my Pentuim 166 back in 1996 the average memory shipping at the time was 8mb. I went all out and got 16mb (Whoa, I thought that was loads!) My hardrive at the time was about a gig which was also top of the line.

A 486 or Pentuim 90 would have been lucky to ship 8mb never mind 16. Most 486's shipped with 4Mb If my memory serves me correct. One thing is for certain however, and that is 10 years ago 32Megs of Ram would have cost about half as much as your PC would have!

solvs
Jul 31, 2003, 05:02 PM
I've seen this information about the Athlon64 and Opteron before. Apparently it's incorrect, but there is still a question of performance. They can do all the benchmarks they want on either system, but the Opterons don't seem to be selling very well. Is there even anywhere other than Boxx, or a build-you-own, where you can buy them?

I want to wait until both the G5 and AMDs are widely released to see if they stack up against the latest P4 in real world performance. I'm thinking the AMDs will excel at some things, and hoping the G5 is faster on a lot of things. We'll see.

Originally posted by topicolo
Answer: Macintosh users have the same disgusting bias for macs that PC users have for PCs. I'm guessing you meant PC users bias for Macs (otherwise, that's pretty funny)

People, if you're going to say something and back it up, make sure your evidence really backs you up!

Except that most Mac users have had to use PCs. Most of us hate Windows because we've had to use it.

This is a common myth about the new Athlons and Opterons. Maybe one of the reasons they aren't selling so well. That, and the top end was kind-of expensive. AMD has lowered prices, but these systems seem to be hovering between too expensive for home use, not enough power for a workstation/server.

The G5 seems to fit in there pretty nicely, but it would be nice if Apple had something a little cheaper.

ColdZero
Jul 31, 2003, 05:32 PM
Thats because the desktop version of the Opteron hasn't been released yet. The only ones availible are the Workstation/Server line. The Athlon-64 will be released in september, thats the desktop version. In the same way you can say that the G5 is too expensive for mainstream home use, so is the Opteron. They aren't targeted at those markets.

sturm375
Jul 31, 2003, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by solvs
I've seen this information about the Athlon64 and Opteron before. Apparently it's incorrect, but there is still a question of performance. They can do all the benchmarks they want on either system, but the Opterons don't seem to be selling very well. Is there even anywhere other than Boxx, or a build-you-own, where you can buy them?

Here is a partial list of vendors for the AMD Opteron Workstations:

http://www2.amd.com/us-en/sbl/searchresults/1,,,00.html?fpSystemType=3&fpBuyerType=6&fpSellMethod=3&fpRange=&fpZipPostCode=&fp_pagenum=1

"Is the Opteron selling?"


http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10758

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10711

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10652

With the above three confirmed purchases, AMD is suspected to have already surpased the total sales of the Itanic and ItanicII.

IMHO the Opteron is selling, and will continue to sell due to continueing evidence that it routenly whips the Xeon at any level, and is very competitive in performance with the Itanic, and for thousand$ less. I can't wait to see a true user level comparison between the G5 and AMDs offerings.

madamimadam
Jul 31, 2003, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by daveL
I'm sorry if I offend you, but you really don't have any idea what you are talking about. There are a number of threads here that, if you had read them and their references, would have kept you from making such inaccurate statements. Panther is an OS. How the hell can Panther do 64-bit addressing when it runs on G3 and G4 32-bit machines?

Panther is *not* a 64-bit OS, yet. This has been stated, in public, by Apple. There is *no* support, yet, for 64-bit pointers. Each process is limited to 4 GB of address space. Other OSes can do this, as well. It's simply address segmentation, which has been used for eons, and does *not* require a 64-bit CPU.

Tell me you didn't just say that... both X.2.7 AND Panther can handle 64-bit addressing. This does not make them 64-bit operating systems but it does mean that it can handle addressing the full 8GB. Apple has said this! Maybe you should recap what Apple has actually said because they tell me that they have done some work that allows this. I would trust Apple over something I read here any day.

Also, how did you manage to link G3s and G4 into a topic about G5s and Athlon64s?

madamimadam
Jul 31, 2003, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by Newdren It could have been easily discovered that the Athlon 64 does not "emulate" (as opposed to just run) x86 instructions as well if any reasearch had been done before putting forth such claims.

Windows XP for x86-64 (Athlon 64) is due in early 2004 apparantly though so were talking about a 3 month difference in times between getting 64bit operating systems to market. Most consumer applications utilising 64bits on both platforms probably wouldnt be available until late 2004 (by consumer apps, Im talking non CAD, more games and video creation)

What does it matter whether the Athlon64 can run x86 code... it is usless to have a 64-bit chip if you don't have an OS that can do anything with it. Also... there is no Athlon64 YET and it won't be out and useful for a while to come. And don't get to ready for this "early" 2004 release of Windows, there is already worry that it might be pushed back a bit. Either way, you can buy a mac now or you can wait until 2004. I would like to see some facts about this copy of Windows everyone is talking about anyway. What will it do.. how will it work?
The only easy to find info on their site is about the Itanium windows so what else is there to base a laugh around?

What is most important about a 64-bit chip is the memory addressing (at least in the desktop/workstation arena)... 64-bit integers are not something most of us deal with in day to day life but there are MANY MANY people out there that would like to address more RAM. Don't be fooled, it is a HUGE market.

ColdZero
Aug 1, 2003, 12:06 AM
There is no G5 either "yet". They haven't shipped. Same as the Athlon-64, which will be shipping in September. And who says the 64 bit OS has to be Windows, Linux has had 64 bit support since like kernel 2.0 or something like that. Don't be fooled, the Athlon 64 will be a lot more systems than the G5 will be. Not because one is better over the other, but because of market share and price.

ColdZero
Aug 1, 2003, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by madamimadam
Tell me you didn't just say that... both X.2.7 AND Panther can handle 64-bit addressing. This does not make them 64-bit operating systems but it does mean that it can handle addressing the full 8GB. Apple has said this! Maybe you should recap what Apple has actually said because they tell me that they have done some work that allows this. I would trust Apple over something I read here any day.

Also, how did you manage to link G3s and G4 into a topic about G5s and Athlon64s?

Addressing 64 bits of memory and using them are 2 very different things. Sure the OS may be able to address 64 bits of memory, but that doesn't mean it can assign them.

Think about it this way. I have 5 glasses (processes), each glass can hold 1 cup of water(memory). I can hold 20 cups of water in my jug(OS Addressing). No matter how hard I try I won't be able to put more than 1 cup of water into each glass.

G3s and G4s came into the discussion because the poster stated that if Panter is a 64 bit OS, it will not run on these computers. The same way you can't run OS 9 on a 64k. Because it is almost certain that apple will have panter running on G4s and G3s, that means it has to be 32 bit.

madamimadam
Aug 1, 2003, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by ColdZero
There is no G5 either "yet". They haven't shipped. Same as the Athlon-64, which will be shipping in September. And who says the 64 bit OS has to be Windows, Linux has had 64 bit support since like kernel 2.0 or something like that. Don't be fooled, the Athlon 64 will be a lot more systems than the G5 will be. Not because one is better over the other, but because of market share and price.

Firstly, PowerMacs ship this month

Secondly, if people buy an Athlon64 in Sept they still don't have any 64-bit capabilities in Windows

Thirdly, as if everyone is suddenly going to switch to Linux, there are MANY reasons while Linux is still no where near ready for most people

Lastly, it was never stated that the G5 would sell more than Athlon based machines just that there is continually more reasons why people should switch to Apple.

madamimadam
Aug 1, 2003, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by ColdZero
Addressing 64 bits of memory and using them are 2 very different things. Sure the OS may be able to address 64 bits of memory, but that doesn't mean it can assign them.

Think about it this way. I have 5 glasses (processes), each glass can hold 1 cup of water(memory). I can hold 20 cups of water in my jug(OS Addressing). No matter how hard I try I won't be able to put more than 1 cup of water into each glass.

G3s and G4s came into the discussion because the poster stated that if Panter is a 64 bit OS, it will not run on these computers. The same way you can't run OS 9 on a 64k. Because it is almost certain that apple will have panter running on G4s and G3s, that means it has to be 32 bit.

EDIT: for those who read what I wrote, I have found error in the logic without help. :)

Isn't, as a starting point, that plug-in from Adobe going to fix this problem?

Daveman Deluxe
Aug 1, 2003, 12:39 AM
Panther will not be a 64-bit OS, but it will have libraries that enable properly compiled applications to use 64-bit RAM addressing. Not EVERY process will be able to use the addressing because not all will be compiled to do so. Many won't even need it--does AppleWorks really need 512 GB of RAM (which I believe is the theoretical maximum with 64-bit addressing. Correct me if I'm wrong). To refine ColdZero's analogy:

I have five glasses (processes), each of which can hold one cup of water (4 GB RAM). I have a one-cup pitcher (4 GB system RAM). My head (the operating system) can only handle working with one cup of water at a time.

Then, suddenly, I gain the insight to handle more than one cup of water! Now I can handle 128 cups of water (512 GB of RAM), and I was given a nice pitcher that can handle that much water to boot! Not only that, but the manufacturers of some of the glasses sent me new glasses. Now I have three glass that can still hold one cup of water, but two of them can hold 128 cups.

Maybe the refined analogy still doesn't tell the picture (and if it is so, please tell me what's wrong with it) but that's my understanding as gleaned from Apple's own sources.

Furthermore, were Panther a true 64-bit OS, it would not run on any 32-bit processors (i.e. the G3 and G4) since it would be compiled for sixty-four bit instructions, integers, FPs, and so on.

I will not speak about XP64 or Athlon64 since I don't know anything about them.

solvs
Aug 1, 2003, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by sturm375
Here is a partial list of vendors for the AMD Opteron Workstations:

http://www2.amd.com/us-en/sbl/searchresults/1,,,00.html?fpSystemType=3&fpBuyerType=6&fpSellMethod=3&fpRange=&fpZipPostCode=&fp_pagenum=1

"Is the Opteron selling?"


http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10758

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10711

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10652

With the above three confirmed purchases, AMD is suspected to have already surpased the total sales of the Itanic and ItanicII.

IMHO the Opteron is selling, and will continue to sell due to continueing evidence that it routenly whips the Xeon at any level, and is very competitive in performance with the Itanic, and for thousand$ less. I can't wait to see a true user level comparison between the G5 and AMDs offerings.

I've read the same info. Just because it's selling better than the Itanium, doesn't mean it's selling well. I would expect the Athlon64 to do better. If it's any good.

And if it ever comes out (feel that way about the G5, too).

I did a search for high end Opterons, and didn't see too many available. I'm sure there are plenty of places, but what I meant was that AMD should be out there more. You barely hear of it. I'm sure there are ads somewhere, too, but I haven't seen any. You can buy them, you can find them, but it's not as easy as it should be.

People call Apple a niche product, at least I've seen some exposure.

Mav451
Aug 1, 2003, 12:48 AM
yeah the exposure the opteron gets...it's crap. Though this one magazine i was reading in Borders the other day, some kind of mag talking about how Linux and AMD 1600xp's in a renderfarm made Hulk.

That SAME magazine had at least 2-3 ads of BOXX opteron blader servers. I was surprised b/c i almost never see AMD ads in magazines...but more than one, in the same magazine? crazy.

Tomshardware, a predominantly intel website, made the same point about the lack of exposure that the Opteron is getting...

here's the link:
http://www.tomshardware.com/business/20030730/index.html

madamimadam
Aug 1, 2003, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
Panther will not be a 64-bit OS, but it will have libraries that enable properly compiled applications to use 64-bit RAM addressing. Not EVERY process will be able to use the addressing because not all will be compiled to do so. Many won't even need it--does AppleWorks really need 512 GB of RAM (which I believe is the theoretical maximum with 64-bit addressing. Correct me if I'm wrong). To refine ColdZero's analogy:

I have five glasses (processes), each of which can hold one cup of water (4 GB RAM). I have a one-cup pitcher (4 GB system RAM). My head (the operating system) can only handle working with one cup of water at a time.

Then, suddenly, I gain the insight to handle more than one cup of water! Now I can handle 128 cups of water (512 GB of RAM), and I was given a nice pitcher that can handle that much water to boot! Not only that, but the manufacturers of some of the glasses sent me new glasses. Now I have three glass that can still hold one cup of water, but two of them can hold 128 cups.

Maybe the refined analogy still doesn't tell the picture (and if it is so, please tell me what's wrong with it) but that's my understanding as gleaned from Apple's own sources.

Furthermore, were Panther a true 64-bit OS, it would not run on any 32-bit processors (i.e. the G3 and G4) since it would be compiled for sixty-four bit instructions, integers, FPs, and so on.

I will not speak about XP64 or Athlon64 since I don't know anything about them.

I prefered the other analogy... sorry

I thought it was MUCH more than 512GB... maybe I'm wrong, though.

benixau
Aug 1, 2003, 01:08 AM
64bit addressing has a theoretical limit of:

4TB

Daveman Deluxe
Aug 1, 2003, 03:31 AM
That's four teraBITS, not teraBYTES. Four terabits is 512 gigabytes. Yes, I KNOW Apple's website says four terabytes, but 2^42 gives you the number of bits (not bytes) that can be addressed. My calculator says that 2^42 = 4.398046511 x 10^12. That's four terabits. Then again, my calculator says that 2^32 is good for only 512 MB of RAM, so the lesson learned is that I suck lots, or at least that I'm missing a crucial element to figuring out how much RAM can be addressed. :confused:

As for my analogy sucking, yeah, it's a pretty bad analogy (it's too complicated), but technically it's more accurate than the original water analogy. The fact remains that apps recompiled for 64 bits in Panther will be able to address the full load of RAM.

ColdZero
Aug 1, 2003, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by madamimadam
Firstly, PowerMacs ship this month

Secondly, if people buy an Athlon64 in Sept they still don't have any 64-bit capabilities in Windows

Thirdly, as if everyone is suddenly going to switch to Linux, there are MANY reasons while Linux is still no where near ready for most people

Lastly, it was never stated that the G5 would sell more than Athlon based machines just that there is continually more reasons why people should switch to Apple.

"Most People" aren't who 64 bit computers are targeted at. My mom doesn't need to run 64 bit panther or linux with 8gb of ram. She runs windows with 256 mb of ram. A server on the other hand, which could very well be running linux, and a large number do, need 64 bit addressing and more than 4gb of ram. By the time 64 bits is targeted at "most people" both Apple and Microsoft will have true 64 bit operating systems to work with it.

whooleytoo
Aug 1, 2003, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
That's four teraBITS, not teraBYTES. Four terabits is 512 gigabytes. Yes, I KNOW Apple's website says four terabytes, but 2^42 gives you the number of bits (not bytes) that can be addressed. My calculator says that 2^42 = 4.398046511 x 10^12. That's four terabits. Then again, my calculator says that 2^32 is good for only 512 MB of RAM, so the lesson learned is that I suck lots, or at least that I'm missing a crucial element to figuring out how much RAM can be addressed. :confused:


What you're missing is that's 2^42 addresses, but each address points to a byte of memory, not a bit.

Mike.

sturm375
Aug 1, 2003, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by solvs
I've read the same info. Just because it's selling better than the Itanium, doesn't mean it's selling well. I would expect the Athlon64 to do better. If it's any good.

And if it ever comes out (feel that way about the G5, too).

I did a search for high end Opterons, and didn't see too many available. I'm sure there are plenty of places, but what I meant was that AMD should be out there more. You barely hear of it. I'm sure there are ads somewhere, too, but I haven't seen any. You can buy them, you can find them, but it's not as easy as it should be.

People call Apple a niche product, at least I've seen some exposure.

In defence of AMD, there have been some really tough barriors put up by Intel in opening the Opteron Market. Case in point, at the release of the Opteron (The event several months ago), many vendors that were expected to be there got a threatening phone call from Intel just before the event. Even now many motherboard manufactures are being heavily pressured by Intel into downplaying any Opteron offering they have. Also, keep in mind, this was truely ment to compete against Xeons, not P4s. The people in the know, have seen the benchmarks, and the real world preformance, and are slowely buying the Opterions. Heck, even IBM, maker of the Power4, Power5, PPC 970, bought Opterons instead of in-house stuff. It's just a matter of time before the FUD coming from Intel is ignored.

Apple controls the manufacturing of most of the board level details for producing G5 Powermacs. Therefore I am not suprised that it is much easier for them to get to market before AMD, which only controls the CPU, and some, not all, of the Chipset.

Daveman Deluxe
Aug 1, 2003, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by whooleytoo
What you're missing is that's 2^42 addresses, but each address points to a byte of memory, not a bit.

Mike.

Well, that would do it, wouldn't it? :D Thanks.

acj
Aug 1, 2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by madamimadam
Either way, you can buy a mac now or you can wait until 2004.

Well you can buy a Mac now but nobody knows for sure when you will get it. Think of Apple's history in this matter.

Some rumors suggest the Athlon 64 will be shipped so it arrives to customers on its release date.

My oppinion is that both the Athlon 64 and G5 are just the beginning, and we will just have to wait for it to all make sense.

I think a standard will emerge on the PC side, and something, like the Athlon 64, will fade away into the wasted purchase catagory (like the 23" CD the day before it dropped $1500 in price:p )

I think Apple is already starting a new standard with the G5, but I wouldn't be surprized if they went to a new architecture or dropped native 32 bit support soon. Slow emulation would be fine for the programs you don't need speed on, and the software upgrade cost would be worth it on 3D, video, and image editing software.

Cubeboy
Aug 1, 2003, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by benixau
64bit addressing has a theoretical limit of:

4TB

By theoretical limit do you mean flat addressing?
32 bit=2(binary)^32(bit) bytes= 4 billion bytes= 4 GB
64 bit=2(binary)^64(bit) bytes= 4 quintillion bytes= 18*10^9 GB

If I still remember my numerical terms right, that would be 18 exabytes. Which translates into 18 billion GB.

Most 32 bit processors after the Pentium Pro have PAE or Physical Address Extensions which allows them to address 2^36 bytes of memory (but still limits them to 4 GB/thread). This goes along with the segmentation mentioned before (creating multiple independent address spaces).

Daveman Deluxe
Aug 1, 2003, 12:57 PM
The G5 cannot address 18 exabytes of RAM because the address itself is only 42 bits long. The other 22 bits are reserved for (I think) an initialization vector. Not positive about the nature of the vector, but I am positive about only 42 bits per address. http://www.apple.com/g5processor/architecture.html

Edit: So while it is reasonable to say that 64-bit addressing has a theoretical limit of eighteen exabytes, the G5 can only address four terabytes.

Cubeboy
Aug 1, 2003, 01:16 PM
He was posting about the theoretical limit of 64 bit addressing, not the G5. ;)

sturm375
Aug 1, 2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by Cubeboy
By theoretical limit do you mean flat addressing?
32 bit=2(binary)^32(bit) bytes= 4 billion bytes= 4 GB
64 bit=2(binary)^64(bit) bytes= 4 quintillion bytes= 18*10^9 GB

If I still remember my numerical terms right, that would be 18 exabytes. Which translates into 18 billion GB.

Most 32 bit processors after the Pentium Pro have PAE or Physical Address Extensions which allows them to address 2^36 bytes of memory (but still limits them to 4 GB/thread). This goes along with the segmentation mentioned before (creating multiple independent address spaces).

Just to be nit-picky

32-bit = 4294967296 Bytes Addressing (4 GB)
64-bit = 1.8446744074e+19 Bytes (16 Exabytes)

Remember 1 Kilobyte = 1024 bytes

yottabyte = 1 yottabyte
= 1024 zettabytes
= 1048576 exabytes
= 1073741824 petabytes
= 1099511627776 terabytes
= 1125899906842624 gigabytes
= 1152921504606846976 megabytes
= 9223372036854775808 Megabits
= 1180591620717411303424 kilobytes
= 9444732965739290427392 Kilobits
= 1208925819614629174706176 bytes
= 2417851639229258349412352 nibbles
= 9671406556917033397649408 bits

http://my.execpc.com/~sfritz/stuff/memory.txt

Physiognome
Aug 1, 2003, 11:09 PM
Why don't we nitpick more and note that according to the IEC recently, factors of 1024 should be metricised in kibibytes (KiB), mebibites, (MiB), etc. 'bi" is short for binary.

Megabits (Mb) and such are generally proper factors of 1000- another way to make the numbers look bigger then they really are. Heh heh.

legion
Aug 2, 2003, 01:47 AM
FYI, Windows does have a native 64bit version. I've been running it since 1994 on a desktop class machine. The only caveat is that it runs on an Alpha machine (not Intel, not AMD, etc...) I find it humourous that all these companies are throwing around statements that are factually untrue for the sake of marketing and then marginalizing any other (past) products. (Sites such as the Inquirer have mentioned Apples inaccuracies in passing)

If anyone's interested, the Alpha processor architecture can run x86 code through a very unique (transparent) emulation which actively compiles code in segments and stores that recompiled code each time the application is run. Eventually you end up with about 80% native code from original x86 code. (It's called FX!32) It's a process that has been attempted to be duplication by Apple for quite some time.

DeadlyBreakfast
Aug 2, 2003, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by Newdren
(Lets not forget it was the Mac before the PC, I used to want a PowerPC based machine so much in the late 90's!)




While we are all have our correction hats on I figured I'd chime in...


The above statement is totally incorrect...

IBM PC = 1981
Apple Lisa = 1983
Apple Mac = 1984

Newdren
Aug 2, 2003, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by DeadlyBreakfast
While we are all have our correction hats on I figured I'd chime in...


The above statement is totally incorrect...

IBM PC = 1981
Apple Lisa = 1983
Apple Mac = 1984

You misinterpreted what I said, lets not forget the Mac had the performance crown before the PC had it. Not the Mac was around before the PC. It was refering to the PowerPC architecture when it was first used in Macs and how many in the industry thought the architechture would be then end of x86. (Hence why there was a version of Windows NT4 for the PowerPC)

Sorry if you got the wrong end of the stick

DeadlyBreakfast
Aug 2, 2003, 06:36 AM
Ahhh.....I dig it...



** Borrows stick from Newdren and beats self **

jefhatfield
Aug 2, 2003, 07:03 AM
OMG

that rabbit has got to be one of the cutest things i have seen here on macrumors...he he

i used to babysit for a lop eared bunny and that thing tore up the house and tried to eat thru a concrete wall...i should also chime in to this computer talk but this pix made my day

bunnies have a weird way of making computer people digress though

i am on the crazy life path of working on my PhD in computer engineering and whenever i get together with my PhD computer science teacher friend, we pop open some bottles of wine and before we know it, all talk becomes related to bunnies

our wives join into the banter and before we know it, we are all in bunny land

thank you, deadlybreakfast for the picture...you don't eat bunnies for breakfast, do you?

anyway, bunnies rule:p

jefhatfield
Aug 2, 2003, 07:33 AM
anyway, back to the topic at hand

but before we get into athlon64 vs G5, check this out:

www.rabbit.org

wait, what is this thread about?:p :p :p

DeadlyBreakfast
Aug 2, 2003, 07:26 PM
:)

Appears its about rabbits now.

Physiognome
Aug 2, 2003, 08:00 PM
That bunny was from getalife dot com, right? Apparently it was bought by an investment company.

If the stock market is your life, you committed suicide a few years ago.

jefhatfield
Aug 2, 2003, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by DeadlyBreakfast
:)

Appears its about rabbits now.

i will tell you it's a darn good thing i didn't say dot.com behind the url

they should be sued:p

Jagga
Aug 2, 2003, 11:22 PM
Just curious to what are the features of the Athlon64 compared to what we all know of the G5?!

Yes I know its a 32-bit chip operating like a 64-bit chip
Yes I know it can be paired in a Dual system setup but any higher? Also can the G5 be paired upwards just like the Opteron?

Should we feel threatened by a WInblows/linux setup with the Athlon64 towards a G5 with OS X?! In terms of Photoshop/AG Blast or like apps?

personally I feel that the average user whom uses photo editing apps like iPhoto, games (single-threaded), DVD authoring (FCE or iMovie), web-surfing, or email and Office apps, won't need a 64-bit chip. But from what I can tell of most of the members or even all OSX users for that matter that host their own sites via Apache/MySQL/PHP/HTML/etc can hugely benefit from a 64-bit chip supported by the OS. 64bit chips are king when it comes to database servers!

I'm still trying to learn XML, PHP, and MySQL to build my first site--a long endeavor I assure you--using what is already included with OSX!;)

jefhatfield
Aug 3, 2003, 12:36 AM
..but what does that have to do with rabbits?:confused:

sturm375
Aug 4, 2003, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by Jagga
Just curious to what are the features of the Athlon64 compared to what we all know of the G5?!

Yes I know its a 32-bit chip operating like a 64-bit chip
Yes I know it can be paired in a Dual system setup but any higher? Also can the G5 be paired upwards just like the Opteron?

Should we feel threatened by a WInblows/linux setup with the Athlon64 towards a G5 with OS X?! In terms of Photoshop/AG Blast or like apps?

personally I feel that the average user whom uses photo editing apps like iPhoto, games (single-threaded), DVD authoring (FCE or iMovie), web-surfing, or email and Office apps, won't need a 64-bit chip. But from what I can tell of most of the members or even all OSX users for that matter that host their own sites via Apache/MySQL/PHP/HTML/etc can hugely benefit from a 64-bit chip supported by the OS. 64bit chips are king when it comes to database servers!

I'm still trying to learn XML, PHP, and MySQL to build my first site--a long endeavor I assure you--using what is already included with OSX!;)

It doesn't "act" like a 64-bit chip, it is a 64-bit chip with the ability to "act" like a 32-bit chip.

-Natively (without any chipset additions) the Opteron can support up to 8-way processing. The athlon64, according to the amd website, will not support multi-processor natively, however since they will be introduceing it in the 940-pin chip (the same as the Opteron) I suspect it will support multi-processor. BTW, the Hypertransport that the G5 has, is borrowed tech from AMD.

Find out more here: www.amd.com

As with all things in this realm, if the person is already inclined to purchase Apple, they will. The Athlon64, I predect, will be great for gamers, and linux enthusiests. It's still iffy as to whether or not M$ will produce a version of XP natively 64-bit for the Athlon64. We know that there is an Alpha of the XP-64, we know that it is very easy to port applications to 64-bit for the Athlon64, the main question is: will there be a market here. I personally hope so, because I want to take as much money from Intel as possible.

bobindashadows
Aug 4, 2003, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by sturm375
BTW, the Hypertransport that the G5 has, is borrowed tech from AMD.


Now, that isn't a very fair statement! Nor is it true. I'd like you to pay a visit to the Hypertransport Consortium, at www.hypertransport.org.

There, you will learn the wonders of Hypertransport, such as how the Consortium that developed it is actually made up of 47 members, including Apple, and was not solely developed by AMD. GYGYF! (Acronym replacing something rather impolite. If you got it, then you know it applies.)

I'm sure some of those companies didn't actually design the functionality of Hypertransport, but it wasn't just AMD. Who can guess what Apple put down as their company description? That's right, it's:

Originally posted by some Apple PR Person
Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Apple is committed to bringing the best computing experience to students, educators, creative professionals and consumer around the world through its innovative hardware, software and Internet offerings.


Can anyone confirm how old that statement is? Is it like their mission statement from the early 90s?

sturm375
Aug 4, 2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
Now, that isn't a very fair statement! Nor is it true. I'd like you to pay a visit to the Hypertransport Consortium, at www.hypertransport.org.

There, you will learn the wonders of Hypertransport, such as how the Consortium that developed it is actually made up of 47 members, including Apple, and was not solely developed by AMD. GYGYF! (Acronym replacing something rather impolite. If you got it, then you know it applies.)

I certianly didn't mean any disrespect by my statement, it's just that every tech document I've ever read concerning HyperTransport gives the vast majority of credt to AMD for it's development.

bobindashadows
Aug 4, 2003, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by sturm375
I certianly didn't mean any disrespect by my statement, it's just that every tech document I've ever read concerning HyperTransport gives the vast majority of credt to AMD for it's development.

Hehe, I just messin around dude. I don't really care. I just like to play up the drama of little things like that to make my life seem more interesting.

legion
Aug 5, 2003, 02:17 AM
bobindashadows, you crack me up!:D

sturm375, you're right about AMD doing most/all of the work. Almost all of the other members of the consortium were there to provide funding, spread risk, and make sure there was going to be a market after the tech was developed.

of course, fun fact, the AMD processor is being manufactured at the East Fishkill plant (next to the 970)

sturm375
Aug 5, 2003, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by legion
of course, fun fact, the AMD processor is being manufactured at the East Fishkill plant (next to the 970)

I don't think so. I am pretty sure it is being manufactured at their Fab30 in Dresden, Germany.

legion
Aug 5, 2003, 08:27 AM
sturm375, you are most likely correct.

My info is based on currently unsubstantiated info (the Register posted in December, SJ Mercury News in June, about the move to IBM to do AMD's production) The WSJ also posted in June that IBM is to produce AMD chips (pre 65nm, pre 45nm process) at Fishkill to fill out the space. However, at the moment, there is no concrete info (mostly business strategies) and Fab30 is AMD's only microprocessor fab (at 130nm/300mm), so it makes sense. Development for the chip, though, seems to have been soundly done at Fishkill (see press releases from both AMD and IBM.)

Along this thread, I don't know if arn has/will post this but the Register in today's edition is touting the possiblity of IBM just buying AMD (and also recapping the two companies' synergy)

sturm375
Aug 5, 2003, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by legion
sturm375, you are most likely correct.

My info is based on currently unsubstantiated info (the Register posted in December, SJ Mercury News in June, about the move to IBM to do AMD's production) The WSJ also posted in June that IBM is to produce AMD chips (pre 65nm, pre 45nm process) at Fishkill to fill out the space. However, at the moment, there is no concrete info (mostly business strategies) and Fab30 is AMD's only microprocessor fab (at 130nm/300mm), so it makes sense. Development for the chip, though, seems to have been soundly done at Fishkill (see press releases from both AMD and IBM.)

Along this thread, I don't know if arn has/will post this but the Register in today's edition is touting the possiblity of IBM just buying AMD (and also recapping the two companies' synergy)

I have heard these rumors as well (Business Stratagy Guesses). I think, I could be wrong, but I think the Dresden facility is pretty new, so I don't think they will be leaving anytime soon. Also Germany just gave AMD, and other companies, a substantial sum of money for helping to build up thier economy.

My predection for the future of IBM, and AMD is this: IBM will not directly buy out AMD. What they may do is have IBM do the majority of the R&D, while they outsource manufacturing to AMD. I know that AMD has pretty much dismanteled much of their R&D, to form a joint R&D team with IBM, in Fishkill.

Cubeboy
Aug 5, 2003, 08:57 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't AMD manufacture it's Opteron and future Athlon 64 chips at TSMC? :confused:

sturm375
Aug 5, 2003, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by Cubeboy
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't AMD manufacture it's Opteron and future Athlon 64 chips at TSMC? :confused:

Nope, looks like all processors are done at Dresden:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/AboutAMD/0,,51_52_502_505,00.html