Apple violates Moore's Law

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by krohde, Sep 16, 2003.

  1. macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2002
    Location:
    Europe, UK
    #1
    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...
     
  2. macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #2
    moores law is crap, and new g5's are smoking what more you want? wait untill there is software to match that g5
     
  3. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2002
    Location:
    Europe, UK
    #3
    Wait? that's exactely it...

    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?
     
  4. macrumors 68040

    Kwyjibo

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2002
    #4
    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...
     
  5. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    #5
    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.
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    strider42

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    #6
    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.
     
  7. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    #7
    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)
     
  8. macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #8
    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.
     
  9. macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #9
    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
     
  10. macrumors 68040

    Powerbook G5

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    St Augustine, FL
    #10
    Re: Wait? that's exactely it...

    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?
     
  11. macrumors 603

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #11
    Don't perpetuate BS!!

    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.
     
  12. macrumors 68040

    Powerbook G5

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    St Augustine, FL
    #12
    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.
     
  13. macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #13
    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.
     
  14. macrumors 68040

    Powerbook G5

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    St Augustine, FL
    #14
    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?
     
  15. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2002
    Location:
    Europe, UK
    #15
    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...
     
  16. macrumors 68040

    Powerbook G5

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    St Augustine, FL
    #16
    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?
     
  17. macrumors 603

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #17
    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.
     
  18. macrumors 6502a

    MorganX

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Location:
    Midwest
    #18
    Should read, Motorola, IBM, AMD, Sun, or Intel violate Moore's Law.
     
  19. macrumors regular

    Nemesis

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Location:
    Perth, NY, LA, London, New Delhi
    #19
    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...
     
  20. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Location:
    Chesapeake, VA USA
    #20
    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.
     
  21. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Location:
    Copenhagen
    #21
    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.
     
  22. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2003
    Location:
    East Coast, US
    #22
    Re: Apple violates Moore's Law

    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.
     
  23. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Location:
    Copenhagen
    #23
    So what? Do you really need a 10 gig processor. I don't, it would meltdown worse than the Tjernobyl!
     
  24. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2002
    Location:
    Europe, UK
    #24
    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.
     
  25. Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page