Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
GREAT Link about AMD and Apple....
- Thread starter MacAztec
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's already covered in another thread about this whole issue.
The article is no more than speculation by a Guy who's obviously a big fan of OS X even though he's a Windows guy at heart otherwise he wouldn't be writing a column for a site that deals with processors used on the Windows platform.
If we see anything with an AMD chip by apple it's probably going to be something do with clustering and the Xserve, the x86 version of darwin running on inexpensive AMD based rack mounts would give Xserve owners a cheap way to expand their CPU muscle. That's as far fetched as I'm prepared to take my idea of the situation. I'd be reading it back to myself and laughing out loud if I thought apple were going to roll out AMD based powermacs at the next MW expo and I wrote something about it here
The article is no more than speculation by a Guy who's obviously a big fan of OS X even though he's a Windows guy at heart otherwise he wouldn't be writing a column for a site that deals with processors used on the Windows platform.
If we see anything with an AMD chip by apple it's probably going to be something do with clustering and the Xserve, the x86 version of darwin running on inexpensive AMD based rack mounts would give Xserve owners a cheap way to expand their CPU muscle. That's as far fetched as I'm prepared to take my idea of the situation. I'd be reading it back to myself and laughing out loud if I thought apple were going to roll out AMD based powermacs at the next MW expo and I wrote something about it here
'Originally posted by barkmonster
apple were going to roll out AMD based powermacs at the next MW expo and I wrote something about it here
I dont understand what the big deal about Apple using AMD chips. They are not releasing "AMD" powermacs, just releasing a new computer with a new chip. Do we call the current machines the Motorola PowerMac? Or the IBM iBook?
Its like Appple using IBM for a G4/5, only its AMD.
I know you are all going to start talkign about x86, and AMD only making x86, but you never know...
Can you explain to me...
...why Apple should make a switch to the Opteron and have much trouble in porting the software?The IBM PPC 970 may be out in January and even if it does not give Apple the lead in performance,it will surely be fast enough to be competetive.So why all this hassle with AMD or Intel???
...why Apple should make a switch to the Opteron and have much trouble in porting the software?The IBM PPC 970 may be out in January and even if it does not give Apple the lead in performance,it will surely be fast enough to be competetive.So why all this hassle with AMD or Intel???
OS 9 and OS X although fundamentally different run on the same architecture the PPC neither of them run on x86 although theoretically they both can. In fact they probably do but none of us will ever see them unless we get a job at apple working in the department.
Originally posted by macphisto
The difference is essentially architecture and performance. Have you ever tried using photoshop and illustrator on a pc? It can be unbarably slow.
Its all about the Altivec baby.
Actually, I haven't.
But I have looked at benchmarks with Apple's G4, Intels P4, and AMDs 2600+. Apple seems to be lagging in the Adobe tests, and many PS tests.
Originally posted by macphisto
The difference is essentially architecture and performance. Have you ever tried using photoshop and illustrator on a pc? It can be unbarably slow.
Its all about the Altivec baby.
Have YOU ever tried running photoshop on a new PC? Obviously not. A 3ghz PC is certainly no slouch, and kills a 1.25ghz G4 anyday by a -huge- margin.
I must concede that the newer p4 chips are rivaling and surpasing the g4, but for those of us with older computers, the difference is rather evident.
But everything goes back to the Altivec, that is why everyone thinks that Apple will go with the IBM power4 chip. Because of the instruction set similar to Motorola's Altivec.
Speaking of which, what does everyone think Motorola's problem is concerning R&D and putting out comparable (Mhz-wise) chips to intel and AMD?
But everything goes back to the Altivec, that is why everyone thinks that Apple will go with the IBM power4 chip. Because of the instruction set similar to Motorola's Altivec.
Speaking of which, what does everyone think Motorola's problem is concerning R&D and putting out comparable (Mhz-wise) chips to intel and AMD?
MisterMe
Its a P4 3.0GHz with HyperThreading, a super FSB, like 5.8GB memory thruput, and stuff.
You find the benchmarks, you will see. Everyone knows that no mac can compare to it.
Its a P4 3.0GHz with HyperThreading, a super FSB, like 5.8GB memory thruput, and stuff.
You find the benchmarks, you will see. Everyone knows that no mac can compare to it.
Re: MisterMe
Yes, but all benchmarks are speculative. They are like gallup polls an surveys. They can be manipulated to get the results that you want. Plus, I read an article that said the new 3 GHz is actually slower then its 2.4, 2.5 and 2.8 predicessors.
Just food for thought.
Yes, but all benchmarks are speculative. They are like gallup polls an surveys. They can be manipulated to get the results that you want. Plus, I read an article that said the new 3 GHz is actually slower then its 2.4, 2.5 and 2.8 predicessors.
Just food for thought.
Motorola blew it
Motorola poorly manged their chip division and Intel and AMD raided the best talent. In fact Moto sued Intel over the issue. Nonetheless Moto lost a lot of really talented people because Moto didn't pay well and treated them poorly. That is why Macs have slow processors.
IBM to the rescue!
Motorola poorly manged their chip division and Intel and AMD raided the best talent. In fact Moto sued Intel over the issue. Nonetheless Moto lost a lot of really talented people because Moto didn't pay well and treated them poorly. That is why Macs have slow processors.
IBM to the rescue!
Re: MisterMe
springscansing claimed that a 3 GHz P4 runs Photoshop faster than the Mac. In case you didn't get it, I asked him to produce his benchmarks. Clearly he has none. He has none because no one is selling a 3 GHz P4-based computer. He likely couldn't afford one if they were available.
I notice that you are not referencing a real shipping product either. I just wish that you people who slobber at the prospect of this or that Intel processor would stay focused on computers that I can actually buy and get real work done. Those other machines do me no good.
springscansing claimed that a 3 GHz P4 runs Photoshop faster than the Mac. In case you didn't get it, I asked him to produce his benchmarks. Clearly he has none. He has none because no one is selling a 3 GHz P4-based computer. He likely couldn't afford one if they were available.
I notice that you are not referencing a real shipping product either. I just wish that you people who slobber at the prospect of this or that Intel processor would stay focused on computers that I can actually buy and get real work done. Those other machines do me no good.
P4
Alienware sells it.
And, if you go to apples website and look at their benchmarks, they pick out ONE SPECIFIC TEST and filter that is just MADE for Altivec, and tell everyone the mac is 300 percent faster....
Alienware sells it.
And, if you go to apples website and look at their benchmarks, they pick out ONE SPECIFIC TEST and filter that is just MADE for Altivec, and tell everyone the mac is 300 percent faster....
pardon me, mister, i hope this doesn't disappoint you...
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm
Oh no, not the machead in denial routine again!
Here's some benchmarks about the 3Ghz P4 vs 1.25Ghz G4 :
Mac Slaughtered Again - Of interest are these figures (just incase you're in total denial that a P4 can thrash a G4) :
Photoshop Benchmark
Layer styles & transformation :
Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 : 7.1 secs
Intel P4 3.06 GHz : 4.5 secs (4.8 secs w/o Hyperthreading enabled)
Filter Effects :
Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 : 62 secs
Intel P4 3.06 Ghz : 35.1 secs (35.9 secs w/o Hyperthreading enabled)
Manipulations and adjustments :
Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 : 4.5 secs
Intel P4 3.06 Ghz : 3.4 secs (3.6 secs w/o Hyperthreading enabled)
After Effects Benchmarks
Data Project :
Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 : 3:47 secs
Intel P4 3.06 Ghz : 2:05 min (2:32 min w/o Hyperthreading enabled)
Source Shapes :
Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 : 7:06 secs
Intel P4 3.06 Ghz : 4:14 min (4:59 min w/o Hyperthreading enabled)
Virtual Set :
Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 : 8:15 secs
Intel P4 3.06 Ghz : 4:24 min (5:49 min w/o Hyperthreading enabled)
That proves 2 things to me, the dual 1.25Ghz G4 is no speed king, Hyperthreading is overhyped but offers a reasonable speed boost to some things (pretty much like MP support on the mac really), not showing how tests are performed leads to suspiciously favourable results to whatever platform the reviewer is leaning towards. Why not use PS Bench ? no manipulation can go on there like only using single CPU filters to make the PC look faster or only dual cpu aware filters to make the mac look faster.
Oh, it's shipping already, a few mail order companies in the UK are already listing the 3.06Ghz P4 chip as available.
Don't forget the whole windows issue either, it's no OS X or even OS 9. Plus who really uses a platform with an sRGB color gamut (small) and no colour management on an OS level and expects it to result in accurate output ?
Here's some benchmarks about the 3Ghz P4 vs 1.25Ghz G4 :
Mac Slaughtered Again - Of interest are these figures (just incase you're in total denial that a P4 can thrash a G4) :
Photoshop Benchmark
Layer styles & transformation :
Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 : 7.1 secs
Intel P4 3.06 GHz : 4.5 secs (4.8 secs w/o Hyperthreading enabled)
Filter Effects :
Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 : 62 secs
Intel P4 3.06 Ghz : 35.1 secs (35.9 secs w/o Hyperthreading enabled)
Manipulations and adjustments :
Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 : 4.5 secs
Intel P4 3.06 Ghz : 3.4 secs (3.6 secs w/o Hyperthreading enabled)
After Effects Benchmarks
Data Project :
Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 : 3:47 secs
Intel P4 3.06 Ghz : 2:05 min (2:32 min w/o Hyperthreading enabled)
Source Shapes :
Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 : 7:06 secs
Intel P4 3.06 Ghz : 4:14 min (4:59 min w/o Hyperthreading enabled)
Virtual Set :
Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 : 8:15 secs
Intel P4 3.06 Ghz : 4:24 min (5:49 min w/o Hyperthreading enabled)
That proves 2 things to me, the dual 1.25Ghz G4 is no speed king, Hyperthreading is overhyped but offers a reasonable speed boost to some things (pretty much like MP support on the mac really), not showing how tests are performed leads to suspiciously favourable results to whatever platform the reviewer is leaning towards. Why not use PS Bench ? no manipulation can go on there like only using single CPU filters to make the PC look faster or only dual cpu aware filters to make the mac look faster.
Oh, it's shipping already, a few mail order companies in the UK are already listing the 3.06Ghz P4 chip as available.
Don't forget the whole windows issue either, it's no OS X or even OS 9. Plus who really uses a platform with an sRGB color gamut (small) and no colour management on an OS level and expects it to result in accurate output ?
Benchmarks mean crap, it's what you do with the computer and the application that runs on it.
It may be true that on paper the mac could be lagging but for how much tenths of a second
whoopee!!! come on most of the so called benchmarks are made by PC/M$/winblows tech geeks that get $ under the table from Intel and company to say that the Winblows PC is faster than the Mac. please
Re: Can you explain to me...
How could it be out in January? IBM has publicly announced that it will be out in the SECOND HALF OF 2003. January is not the second half. Other than that, I agree with you.
in reply to the "you never know", actually, we do. AMD hasn't liscenced PowerPC, has never made PowerPC, and has no budget to make PowerPC.
How could it be out in January? IBM has publicly announced that it will be out in the SECOND HALF OF 2003. January is not the second half. Other than that, I agree with you.
in reply to the "you never know", actually, we do. AMD hasn't liscenced PowerPC, has never made PowerPC, and has no budget to make PowerPC.
Re: P4
And PC-zealots pick ONE test and tells everyone the PC is 300 percent faster....
It goes both ways.
And lets not forget the Mac advantage... Mac OS X. This does not mean that I think Apple should provide Macs with higher clock speed. Hopefully we'll reach 2 GHz in not a too distant future...
And PC-zealots pick ONE test and tells everyone the PC is 300 percent faster....
It goes both ways.
And lets not forget the Mac advantage... Mac OS X. This does not mean that I think Apple should provide Macs with higher clock speed. Hopefully we'll reach 2 GHz in not a too distant future...
Re: Oh no, not the machead in denial routine again!
Good point. Long live ColorSync... I would not either have trusted a PC in a color critical environment...
Good point. Long live ColorSync... I would not either have trusted a PC in a color critical environment...
Re: Re: Can you explain to me...
Well it is nice,that you agree with me,but I still think that the PPC 970 may be out in January,because there might be a special deal with Apple.Enough "may"and "might"?Well this is all about rumors,or?
Well it is nice,that you agree with me,but I still think that the PPC 970 may be out in January,because there might be a special deal with Apple.Enough "may"and "might"?Well this is all about rumors,or?
Originally posted by Pentium Killer
Well it is nice,that you agree with me,but I still think that the PPC 970 may be out in January,because there might be a special deal with Apple.Enough "may"and "might"?Well this is all about rumors,or?
Well you can rumor all you want, IBM's not going to release the 970s until they said, which was in mid-2003. They're not about to lie to all the analysts and stockholders and release it 6 months earlier.
But Apple better have something up their sleeves in the meantime. There's no telling what's going to come out next.