PDA

View Full Version : Apple violates Moore's Law


krohde
Sep 16, 2003, 04:37 PM
Steve repeated at the keynote that Apple and IBM would be at 3Ghz by the summer of 2004. Great I thought however when thinking about it something struck me (and hard). Moore's law, which states that computing power will double every 18 months or less has held true in the PC world but never in the mac community. Once in a while we get a leap ahead but it takes less than 3 months and Intel or AMD has a newer better processor that can compete head to head with whatever Motorola or IBM bring us. I'm not saying that the software that runs on the PC's is better, just performance is lacking on the macs. It won't take long before Pro customers will switch. I know they know about the megaherthz myth however some apps just run better on the PC. Web design is one example, and apparently After Effects too...

Dont Hurt Me
Sep 16, 2003, 04:40 PM
moores law is crap, and new g5's are smoking what more you want? wait untill there is software to match that g5

krohde
Sep 16, 2003, 04:42 PM
You are telling me to wait, but now that Panther is coming out we slowly learn more and more and is it a true 64-bit OS? NO! What more do you want to wait for?

Kwyjibo
Sep 16, 2003, 05:05 PM
Alright, Moore's Law is a thoery on processor computing power. I watched something on intel and the essential point was that if Intel was no organized the way it is, moores law wouldn't even exist anymore...not all companies can keep up at that pace unfourtunately...

macpoweruser
Sep 16, 2003, 05:12 PM
Of course, you're also telling us to wait 3 months for Intel to catch up... ;)

But seriously, we can play this bickering game forever as each company leapfrogs over the other. Even though the mac may be behind in speed much of the time (at least in recent history) I still prefer the Mac OS to Windows (I use both BTW).

I also find it impressive that the Mac keeps up at all (and surpasses sometimes) given that they're up against a Wintel world that's more than 20 times as big and has a clear economic advantage.

strider42
Sep 16, 2003, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Kwyjibo
Alright, Moore's Law is a thoery on processor computing power. I watched something on intel and the essential point was that if Intel was no organized the way it is, moores law wouldn't even exist anymore...not all companies can keep up at that pace unfourtunately...

Moores law isn't a theory, it was merely an observation. It was never intended to be anything scientific. All Moore did was say, "hey look, transistor counts seem to double roughly every 18 months". Someone called it a law and we've been stuck with it ever since. It wasn't even something that can be applied to different kinds of chips or different companies. It also tells you absolutely nothing about the chips themselves: their designs, execution units, pipelines, etc, etc, etc. Its a meaningless term that was never intended to mean anything.

legion
Sep 16, 2003, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by strider42
Moores law isn't a theory, it was merely an observation. It was never intended to be anything scientific. All Moore did was say, "hey look, transistor counts seem to double roughly every 18 months". Someone called it a law and we've been stuck with it ever since. It wasn't even something that can be applied to different kinds of chips or different companies. It also tells you absolutely nothing about the chips themselves: their designs, execution units, pipelines, etc, etc, etc. Its a meaningless term that was never intended to mean anything.

Thank god strider42 you posted this... I see people who have just an inkling of EE knowledge attempt to explain or justify opinions with Moore's Law without even having a clue that it all has to do with transistor count. This is, in many ways, the equivalent of the b**stardization of Darwin's observations on evolution being drawn out to mean that he's implying apes are direct ancestors of humans. Gordon Moore made an observation on emerging technology-- one that has more applications than just microprocessor design. That's it. He, himself, is annoyed with the use of his "law" (I've met him many times as a college student since he was a patron of my university-- along with Mr. Jobs, Mr. Gates, Mr. Ellison, and host of other luminaries from Silicon Valley-- you'd be amazed how civil they can be to each other in a trustees meeting)

MrMacMan
Sep 16, 2003, 08:26 PM
Yeah there is a *big* difference with increasing MHZ and increasing preformance.

Moore's law has been 'broken' before, apple has almost never caught up since the G4's release.

And don't plan apple to either.

rainman::|:|
Sep 16, 2003, 10:06 PM
1. moores law has lost it's meaning. too many changes in the research and production, as well as demand.

2. apple holds back speed whereas PC companies do not. since apple doesn't have direct competition (for the Mac OS platform), they can dole out smaller speed increases as they like-- they've probably been a bit behind lately, to stretch time for the G5, but they'll hit that with whatever they can.

pnw

Powerbook G5
Sep 16, 2003, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by krohde
You are telling me to wait, but now that Panther is coming out we slowly learn more and more and is it a true 64-bit OS? NO! What more do you want to wait for?

Panther can run perfectly fine on a 64-bit processor *and* run 64-bit applications natively...what more do you want? There is no advantage to having a full 64-bit OS (Ooo....64 bit Stickies!) and then everyone else who does not have a PowerMac G5 would be stuck without Panther because only a 64-bit chip could run it. So what about Panther prevents it from being dubbed a 64-bit OS? Well, perhaps call it a 64-bit compatible OS?

nuckinfutz
Sep 16, 2003, 11:19 PM
http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.htm


Gordon Moore never said "Computing Power" would double he said "Transistors" You can Double Transistors without doubleing speed. I'm pretty sure Apple has followed Moores law in their processor lineup just fine.

If we're going to castigate Apple at least we need to get our shiza correct first.

Powerbook G5
Sep 16, 2003, 11:30 PM
Moores law or not, I am going to enjoy my PowerBook just the same. I don't give a damn as long as I have my new PowerBook and it runs my software exactly the way I need it to.

Catfish_Man
Sep 16, 2003, 11:45 PM
sigh....

64 bit OS: Doesn't run on 32 bit processors, uses 64 bit addressing, uses 64 bit integers

Hybrid OS (Panther): Runs on 32 or 64 bit processors, allows apps to use 64 bit addressing (and uses it internally where its needed, iirc), has 64 bit integer versions of math libraries



What's the difference? The 64 bit one won't run on 32 but processors, and has a very slightly smaller install size. Stop whining.

Powerbook G5
Sep 16, 2003, 11:48 PM
Exactly...everyone complains about Panther not being "true 64-bit" but that would suck for most of us since we wouldn't be able to use it. It has all the capability to run 64-bit programs, handle the 8 gigs of RAM, and run on the 64-bit processor, so what is there to complain about?

krohde
Sep 17, 2003, 05:18 AM
All I'm saying is why build a 64-bit computer, market it as 64-bit and then install an OS that only partly takes advantage of the power in the machine. I know the compatability and all that but I'm sure they could have come up with something better. Apparently they needed this out of the door...

Powerbook G5
Sep 17, 2003, 08:41 AM
So what about Panther exactly is not "good enough" to take advantage of the G5? It has the libraries, the APIs, the memory allocation capabilities, can run the programs, and the chip. It does everything that you need to run in a 64-bit environmnet. What else is there that is holding the G5 back?

nuckinfutz
Sep 17, 2003, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by krohde
All I'm saying is why build a 64-bit computer, market it as 64-bit and then install an OS that only partly takes advantage of the power in the machine. I know the compatability and all that but I'm sure they could have come up with something better. Apparently they needed this out of the door...

Because the whole OS doesn't need to be 64bit to be beneficial. If you run a Database you're happy to be able to take the benefits of the huge increase in available memory for that App. The Whole OS need not be.

MorganX
Sep 17, 2003, 09:36 AM
Should read, Motorola, IBM, AMD, Sun, or Intel violate Moore's Law.

Nemesis
Sep 17, 2003, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by krohde
All I'm saying is why build a 64-bit computer, market it as 64-bit and then install an OS that only partly takes advantage of the power in the machine. I know the compatability and all that but I'm sure they could have come up with something better. Apparently they needed this out of the door...

Krohde, I think you don't understand a damn thing about 16, 32 or 64-bit computing. Panther *is* a 64-bit OS, because it can run on 64-bit microprocessor architecture (which is G5), and it's well aware of all things 64-bit. So stop annoying around...

Lord Bodak
Sep 17, 2003, 10:08 AM
As said above, Moore's Law says transistor density will double. This is evidenced in new chips using smaller manufacturing processes-- you need a smaller process to fit more transistors in the same space.

sparks9
Sep 17, 2003, 10:12 AM
I think Microsoft puts out patches and updates to their programmes to make them slower, so you have to buy a new computer more often. I really do.
When I bought this computer it was as fast as I wanted in browsing all kinds of web pages, now it's lagging a little when fx browsing mess. boards like this.

illumin8
Sep 17, 2003, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by krohde
Steve repeated at the keynote that Apple and IBM would be at 3Ghz by the summer of 2004. Great I thought however when thinking about it something struck me (and hard). Moore's law, which states that computing power will double every 18 months or less has held true in the PC world but never in the mac community. Once in a while we get a leap ahead but it takes less than 3 months and Intel or AMD has a newer better processor that can compete head to head with whatever Motorola or IBM bring us. I'm not saying that the software that runs on the PC's is better, just performance is lacking on the macs. It won't take long before Pro customers will switch. I know they know about the megaherthz myth however some apps just run better on the PC. Web design is one example, and apparently After Effects too...
Sorry, you need to do better at your math. 2Ghz. to 3Ghz. is basically a 50% increase in one year. Extrapolate that out to 18 months and you're looking at Apple's computing power increasing by 75% every 18 months. That's still not even with Moore's Law.

I have a feeling that if you look at Apple 5 years from now you will see that they have more or less kept pace with Intel in the processor speed race. IBM should allow them to reach Moore's Law type speed doubling.

sparks9
Sep 17, 2003, 02:05 PM
So what? Do you really need a 10 gig processor. I don't, it would meltdown worse than the Tjernobyl!

krohde
Sep 17, 2003, 02:39 PM
I agree that Apple and IBM have to work out some stuff in order to gain more experience in building the PowerPC at this stage, i.e. the G5. In the future they may very well be more capable of getting more power out of the small chips, but I think now is more important than ever. They need to gain more market share in order to become a bigger player in the industry. Apple is a respected brand with good hardware but they are loosing ground. Just check Chinese market share (and China is going to be a huge market)...

Let's see what the G5 does to public awareness. The iPod is properly the most unique Apple product that has gotten Apple the most branding...

And for the reply to the guy who said panther *is* a 64-bit OS, check this out. The G5 runs 32 AND 64 bit natively. What does that tell you? You go figure it out... The OS might have some libraries that are optimized for the G5 but that doesnt mean the ENTIRE OS is written in 64 bit optimized code. If you thought so I'm sorry to disappoint you.

P.S. Nemesis...you know what I want to say.

Rower_CPU
Sep 17, 2003, 02:49 PM
Do you think Apple is stupid enough to update their OS to alienate 90+% of their user base?

Panther has to run on older 32-bit machines. Period. Quit making it sound like Apple is intentionally handicapping the G5.

Once the G5 architecture is further dispersed into the user base, they can consider taking the extra dev time to produce separate versions for 32 and 64 bit.

Lord Bodak
Sep 17, 2003, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by illumin8
Sorry, you need to do better at your math. 2Ghz. to 3Ghz. is basically a 50% increase in one year. Extrapolate that out to 18 months and you're looking at Apple's computing power increasing by 75% every 18 months. That's still not even with Moore's Law.

I have a feeling that if you look at Apple 5 years from now you will see that they have more or less kept pace with Intel in the processor speed race. IBM should allow them to reach Moore's Law type speed doubling.

Moore's Law has nothing to do with clock speeds! Moore's Law states that the density of transistors we can squeeze onto a given piece of silicon will double every 18 months. On some architectures, that leads to big clock speed jumps, on some it doesn't. Clock speed really is a meaningless comparison between two processors-- sometimes even in the same family (i.e., we know the new 7457 G4 outperforms the older ones at the same clock speed).

Makosuke
Sep 17, 2003, 03:15 PM
Meaningless Moore's "law" arguments aside, I still find it baffling how many people still seem to think that fully 64bit OS = greater user-space speed. I've never read a single informed tech document anywhere that made that comparison. Roughly speaking, 64bit OS = ability to address way more memory than a 32bit OS. Not double speed, not the ability to process twice as much data at once (in a handfull of cases cases, possibly, but not for the average app). More memory. Which Panther, and even 10.2.7, can already do (among other specific 64bit optimizations).

What we DO want is an OS that is optimized for the G5. That does not mean pure 64bit--it means optimized for the style of programming that takes full advantage of the PPC970 architecture. That will mean a huge speed increase over unoptimized or G4 optimized code.

And, considering that every developer and his brother seems to be talking about G5 speed increases on the order of 30% with Panther, it looks like Apple has that under control.

I buy my computers based on what makes me more productive--which would be my G4 533DP over an Opteron box--but the G5s are exciting chips, and we may well see an ongoing speed parity, or even lead, with them given time. Whether Panther is a 64bit OS or not.

MrMacMan
Sep 17, 2003, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by krohde
All I'm saying is why build a 64-bit computer, market it as 64-bit and then install an OS that only partly takes advantage of the power in the machine. I know the compatability and all that but I'm sure they could have come up with something better. Apparently they needed this out of the door...

This will screw everyone w/o a G5...


So its either 'Get a G5' or Don't get the next OS?

:confused:

Your logic is not only flawed, it has a big gapping hole.

:eek:

See
Nov 23, 2003, 12:20 PM
First, thanks to the Intel guy who has time to contribute to this mac forum. You seem concerned about g5, 64 bit and panther. I work with both macs and pc's. Rendering is what makes me wait. Rendering video, and 3d animations. Stability is a major concern. I tell you this only to remind everyone what the point is. We use these machines to do things. This is not the socks versus the yankees. The only microsoft system that has even been stable for me was dos 1, which Bill didn't write. The best windows operating system from microsoft for me was 3.1. XP pro crashes all the time. It trashes hard drives. Now, for games, windows office and photoshop; XP pro works great and a system is cheap and fast; but, for 3d, video ..., XP pro can't cut it. As for 64 bit, i need it first of all, because 1 gig (512 x 2) of ddr is not adequate. (I could get my pc to 2, or 3 gigs, but the chips would cost twice what the whole system cost.) 4, 8 or 16 will do my work fine. (I can get to 5 gigs cheap on the g5 dual.) AMD 64 processors have no 64 operation system, yet. Intel says we don't need 64 bit. They are 95% right: for office programs, photoshop or games there is no need. I have to get things done so I got a dual 2 g, g5. I am moving everything i can from my 3g amd XP pro system to the g5. So far, i have noticed a major improvement. Again thanks to all the pc, microsoft employees and friends, who never use macs, but makes such useful contributions to mac message boards.