ANOTHER reason NOT to choose Athlon64 over PPC970

[madamimadam]

Microsoft Tech Note

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]

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]

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]

Re: ANOTHER reason NOT to choose Athlon64 over PPC970

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]

This is not for the Athlon64 or Opteron

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[BillHarrison]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Mav451]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/searc...Method=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]

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?