Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

AMD lied about 64 bit OPERTON!

Re: That's the point . . .

Originally posted by BigJayhawk
The point of this thread (or one of them) is to differentiate between the DESKTOP (i.e. multiple uses like Word Processing, Photoshop, email, etc., etc.)

Your point is precisely appreciated in the fact that the Itanium is NOT a Desktop processor due to software optimization issues. This may change in the future but it is not a competitor to the G5 as of now.
Click to expand...

Actually Cubist's original claim (and the reason Catfish Man brought out the 2000+ SPECfp) was that Itanium performance is terrible. Which is just so obviously wrong considering how well it does in applications associated with these kinds of chips.
 
Itanium may not be slow . . .

Originally posted by Cubeboy
Now tell me exactly where did you get the idea the Itanium is slow?
Click to expand...

I don't think the question is whether or not the Itanium is SLOW. The question is whether or not using the Itanium as a comparison in this discussion is remotely RELEVANT.

The G5 comes in a COMPLETE TOP TO BOTTOM package ranging from less than $2K to about $3K -- system, OSX, all the iApps, hardware, etc.

The Itanium is not in this market.
 
Re: Itanium may not be slow . . .

Originally posted by BigJayhawk
I don't think the question is whether or not the Itanium is SLOW. The question is whether or not using the Itanium as a comparison in this discussion is remotely RELEVANT.

The G5 comes in a COMPLETE TOP TO BOTTOM package ranging from less than $2K to about $3K -- system, OSX, all the iApps, hardware, etc.

The Itanium is not in this market.
Click to expand...

You should really pay attention to previous posts. He claimed that Itanium performance was "terrible" and several people including myself refuted it, simple as that.

As I've wrote in one of my previous posts, Deerfield Itanium 2s (which will cost only slightly more than a Pentium 4/processor) will be used for midrange-highend workstations as in between $2K and $5K complete systems. Considering that both systems (G5 and Deerfield) will be used for workstation type tasks and can be priced similarly, I'd say this is very much RELEVANT.
 
Originally posted by cubist
As for the Opteron fans, I think the Opteron will be a good processor. It will run both 32- and 64-bit code at acceptable speeds, and will be the processor of choice for the Windows crowd. But I have yet to see one, whereas I have seen dozens of G5s... and I don't expect to see an Opteron machine, whether custom-built or Dell, anytime soon. If you think you can get a mobo, go ahead.
Click to expand...

Boxx has been shipping Opteron workstations/desktop units for quite a while now. Nforce 3 Opteron motherboards produced by mobo makers Asus, MSI, Tyan, and Arima are sold by vendors for around $250.
 
It's about the OS...

I wouldn't trade my 400mHz beige box for a top of the line PC running Windows. Why would I? I'm not a gamer and all my software is for OSX. For what I'm using the machine for, it's fast enough to get the job done. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be supported in 10.3, so I may be in the market for a low-end AGP G4, but that's only so I'll be able to run the OS.

As machines get absurdly faster and faster, the OS is going to be the only choice that matters.

- j
 
There will always be something that takes advantage of the speed. Its not like there wasn't the programming know how to make OS X back in the 80s. People knew how to program, but there was no computer that would have run it. There are games today that would not have run even 3 years ago. There will always be more to choosing a computer than just the OS.
 
The OS endures . . .

Originally posted by ColdZero
There will always be more to choosing a computer than just the OS.
Click to expand...

There will always be more than the OS -- true.

HOWEVER, the OS will always be the ABSOLUTE TOP REASON for the selection of a computer. Not speed. Not processor. Not the number of SCSI drives a particular box has. These are all simply side issues (which are meaningful to each individual) that are NOT the TOP REASON for a group of individuals to choose a particular computing platform.

There are Mac sites and Windows sites and Linux sites and Unix sites and even Amiga sites and Commodore Sites, etc., etc. People don't rally around a processor or a speed issue, they rally around an OPERATING SYSTEM.

In this regard there are two or three major OS camps (with others around as well). There is Unix/Linux for those with the know-how and specific tasks at hand to warrant such a choice. There is Windows for the masses (many of which are no longer even involved with the selection of the OS with which they must live). Then there is OS X for those who do not want to second guess our choice of OS due to the many things that cause over 5% of Windows computers to CRASH at least TWICE A DAY (admission of Bill Gates himself). This would be the OS "for the rest of us."

So, once again refer to my post earlier in this thread that refers to the OS Benchmark to see the number one reason why a Dual G5 wins over ANY PeeCee AND why my 600 Mhz iBook wins the same comparison with EXACTLY the same Benchmark results.

Originally posted by io_burn
osx.gif
Click to expand...
 
I'm gonna have to disagree, evidenced by the mass amount of people who state that they WILL NOT use OS X if it came to the Intel platform. Refer to comments made by people "CISC weenies" and such. People don't rally behind processors? Have you ever read a PC discussion board and the wars people have between AMD and Intel? Why does intel ramp clock speed so quickly? Why does AMD use PR number instead of actual MHz? Because thats what people look for when they go to computer stores. I'm talking about the "I don't know about computers" person. They will go into a store and look at processor speeds. Apple has 1GHz on the consumer end.....PCs have 3.06GHz. Who do you think wins in their mind?

There are fan sites for processors, video cards, operating systems, this doesn't mean that any of these are the "ABSOLUTE TOP REASON" to pick a platform over the other.

5% isn't a bad number when you consider all the things that Windows has to deal with. Microsoft makes this OS then gives it to people, without knowing the exact specifications of the computer it will be running on. And out of all of those, 95% don't crash 2x a day. Yesterday I put a TV Card into my digital audio and I had 3 kernel panics. How many Windows systems aren't crashing? I know mine doesn't.

I'm sorry, but if I had to choose between running OS X on some 300Mhz G3 or running Linux or Windows on a P4 3.06, the PC is gonna win every time because I need to get stuff done. As much as I like OS X, if it takes me 5x longer to get something done than on a PC, I'll use the PC. Photoshop is photoshop and dreamweaver is dreamweaver, I really don't care what OS I'm using it on as long as it is fast.

Wow, you called it a "PeeCee" that shows maturity. *sigh* Why am I even typing this response. You should post that graph a few more times, maybe it will actually mean something then.
 
Re: The OS endures . . .

Originally posted by BigJayhawk
There are Mac sites and Windows sites and Linux sites and Unix sites and even Amiga sites and Commodore Sites, etc., etc. People don't rally around a processor or a speed issue, they rally around an OPERATING SYSTEM.
Click to expand...

-BigJayhawk

Y'know, that was one of the best illustrations I've seen in a while.

I'm stealing that.
 
wow interesting link there...it's a crazy thought, wut with all the associations of the Mac OS being "ONLY" for Mac.

(Kinda like the made only for N64 that Nintendo pushed)

Heh, actually when i think about it, there are similarities. Nintendo had been pushing quality over quantity--much is the same with Mac software (lots of good...not much filler). PC has tons of it, but only a relative few are useful.

Again, thanks for the good link Sun Baked--though i saw some blatant Apple fanboyism in one of the central posts (i.e. Beeru who somehow thinks that Mac's have somehow gotten cheaper)...but skipping around it, all in all a good read :)
 
Re: Re: The OS endures . . .

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-BigJayhawk

Y'know, that was one of the best illustrations I've seen in a while.

I'm stealing that.
Click to expand...

The irony is that I "stole" it as well. However, I give credit where credit is due. This was io_burn's image from earlier in this thread. It does prove a point and it's humorous that he THOUGHT he was proving how silly the argument "but does it run OS X" was. In actuality, I agree that he did a VERY GOOD job demonstrating our BEST POINT.

As for the "maturity" of calling a Windoze based Computer a "PeeCee," I THANK YOU. You may have felt it was sarcasm but I have been around long enough to know that 22 Macs later (and "PeeCees" supported at work too numerous to count), I am not ABOUT to give up the PC (Personal Computer) world to the likes of Microsoft. Therefore the DEROGATORY "PeeCee" fits my point just fine thank you.

Don't assume that I don't know what speed is either. If you'd like to be sarcastic and compare a 300 Mhz G3 to a 3 Ghz P4 then go right ahead. You disprove NOTHING. I've got a couple of Windoze based CASH REGISTERS we can compare to my Mac Cube if you'd like. (We could take your approach and compare them to a Dual G5 but my Cube will trash them plenty enough on its own.) The sites devoted to Processors within the Windoze world are just that -- within the Windoze world. All computers have their place and all discussions have theirs.

My point is simply that if you are on a website that has an address beginning with MAC then you should expect to hear the phrase "but does it run OS X" very often. And, yes HERE it means a WHOLE LOT. Too bad being the Devil's Advocate doesn't pay well here. There are about 5 MR members that seem to follow around every OS discussion here and throw in their 2 cents. I just don't think you understand that to most of us here you may be completely correct about your Windoze info but yet your statements are STILL completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
 
Originally posted by io_burn
So the difference between a server chip and a desktop chip is how they market the product? Working in the IT field, I know lots of people who a) make too much money and b) enjoy having INSANE computer equipment. Whether or not the processor is marketed as a desktop processor to people like this is irrelevant. The point of the matter is 64 bit chips have been ON THE MARKET, and EASILY useable in any desktop machine, assuming you're die hard enough and have the funding to afford it.
Click to expand...

But you have to roll your own. Thus, the G5 is the first commercially produced desktop 64-bit system. Apple is not competing with building your own system. Apple is competing with other companies that ship pre-built systems, Dell, Alienware, Compaq, HP, SGI, Sun, umm...who else? Did you want steve to use the unwieldy but technically more correct "First commercially produced complete computer system using a 64-bit processor, which processor was designed for the desktop market rather than the server market"? Because regardless of what you use it for, the Opteron was designed as a server chip, and don't claim it wasn't, or else what is the Athlon 64? An embedded chip? The same goes for the Itanium, as has been proven by the fellow who noted that the Itanium wasn't meant to run itunes visualizations.

If I wanted to, I could grab a tyan mobo and put dual-xeons in my desktop machine. That doesn't make a xeon a desktop processor. Hell, if I was smart enough, I could probably boot a tower with a POWER4 in it. DESKTOP in computer manufacturer marketing speak does not refer to "fits in a tower". It's a market segment. Desktop, Workstation, Server. And I don't even know what they think differentiates a desktop and a workstation, but differentiate the manufacturers do.

Now, lets hope Steve doesn't claim the G5 powerbook as the "First 64-bit notebook" because everyone knows they got beat already.
 
As for the "maturity" of calling a Windoze based Computer a "PeeCee," I THANK YOU. You may have felt it was sarcasm but I have been around long enough to know that 22 Macs later (and "PeeCees" supported at work too numerous to count), I am not ABOUT to give up the PC (Personal Computer) world to the likes of Microsoft. Therefore the DEROGATORY "PeeCee" fits my point just fine thank you.
Click to expand...

Sorry to tell you, but Jobs himself refers to Macs as PeeCee. Winblows, PeeCee, Microsuck and all those comments do nothing but make you look like a 6 year old who's gonna have his daddy beat me up. As soon as I see those words I realize that I'm not dealing with somebody who is objective and their posts get chalked up to wasted bandwidth.

If you'd like to be sarcastic and compare a 300 Mhz G3 to a 3 Ghz P4 then go right ahead. You disprove NOTHING. I've got a couple of Windoze based CASH REGISTERS we can compare to my Mac Cube if you'd like.
Click to expand...

Maybe I should have made this a little clearer. The purpose of that statement was to show that I'm not an Apple fanatic. I will use what gets my work done faster. For example: I have a dual 1ghz g4 and a P4 3.06. I don't fool myself into thinking WarCraft 3 runs faster on my G4. I use the P4 even tho it uses that "yucky" windows. In day to day things, I will use the G4 because I prefer OS X and like having a unix shell to play with.

Cube will trash them plenty enough on its own.
Click to expand...

Sure bring it on over, I'll test it against my little 3.06 Shuttle cube. I'm willing to bet that mine will slaughter your G4 cube in every single test. You know what, I'll even run the benchmark 2 times before you finish. Oh except for that "Runs OS X one". But you look at those graphs, I'll get work done.

The sites devoted to Processors within the Windoze world are just that -- within the Windoze world. All computers have their place and all discussions have theirs.
Click to expand...

Oh thats good, lets just ignore the rest of the world. I guess its ok if Apple gets lasy on development because after all.....it runs OS X.

Too bad being the Devil's Advocate doesn't pay well here.
Click to expand...

Who's playing devil's advocate? I'm replying with real world experiances I've had that others could find useful. If ya don't like it....don't read.

There are about 5 MR members that seem to follow around every OS discussion here and throw in their 2 cents.
Click to expand...

And I bet they are some of the most level headed ones around when it comes to objectivity.

but yet your statements are STILL completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Click to expand...

I must have missed the posting that said you became the ruling authority on whats relevant and what isn't. People that make comments like that make me want to take my G4 and throw it out the window.

Windoze
Click to expand...

Damnit, I did it again, I responded to a post that I chalked up to wasted bandwidth. I gotta stop that.
 
So, this thread was started by someone saying you need to reboot to get true, unemulated 32-bit and then someone said that this is not true but no one actually finalised the details on whether you need to reboot or not.
 
Exactly . . .

Originally posted by madamimadam
So, this thread was started by someone saying you need to reboot to get true, unemulated 32-bit and then someone said that this is not true but no one actually finalised the details on whether you need to reboot or not.
Click to expand...

Exactly. No point left here anyway. This is, afterall, a Mac site. We've heard plenty (that most of us already know) about a topic that doesn't interest many of us anyway. As long as Apple continues to show that they are keeping us competitive (thank you IBM!) then we're set. I look forward to NOT HAVING TO REBOOT to switch applications (whether the windows world has to or not -- I no longer care.)

Thread -- unsubscribed.
 
Originally posted by Catfish_Man
Also, Itanium isn't over yet. It's been a failure for the first 13 years of its life because it sucked and didn't have any software. Now it's FINALLY getting past that and providing effective competition against IBM's POWER chips. It should be an interesting battle.
Click to expand...

If you really want to get technical, the architecture of the Itanic has been a failure since the 70's. EPIC was invented in the 70's and it failed back then. It was resurrected for the Itanic for it to fail/sink again. SPEC performance scores are not everything. Sun took the UNIX crown when they had the worst performing chip. Total system performance, software, technical support and a road map is what matters most.

Look at the sales number for Itanic, can you honestly say its not over yet.
 
>>Instead of supporting that, they went with serial ATA, and if I am correct, they are the first computer manufacturer (I'm not talking about build-it-yourself systems) to include serial ATA standard.<<

Since Intel manufactures the chipsets for 90% of PC manufacturers I'd have to say that is incorrect. Anyone manufacturing an 865 or higher chipset-based motherboard has included SATA. SATA drives are an option at Dell, depends on how much you want to pay for your drive. One should argue that once Intel includes it in a mainstream chipset it is standard.

>Serial ATA is much better than SCSI<

That's a pretty broad statement to make without qualifying it.

>>How does Photoshop perform on an Itanium production shipping computer, running Windows? Anyone know? Come on, out with it.<<

Runs Windows 2003 and 64-bit SQL pretty damn good. There is no Itanium verison of Photoshop. So without seeing it, you're probably right to assume performance sucks. However the Pentium IV system is still probably the best machine for Photoshop. Dual Xeons Workstations even. It remains to be seen if that will change when the G5 ships.

I don't think it's far-fetched to think that when low-power Itaniums arrive for workstations in 4thQ that Photoshop may be one of the first mainstream applications to arrive for it.

Not that it matters. The Mac platform is the one with speed problems. They're catching up. Isn't technology great... Mac-lovers should be happy, everyone else should be indifferent or happy for them.
 
Originally posted by G4scott
Serial ATA is much better than SCSI
Click to expand...

SCSI is faster and requires less CPU time. How many devices can you hook up to a Serial-ATA bus? Compare that to SCSI. Some SCSI drives also run at 15,000 RPM. They also had more cache then their ATA counterparts. What's the BUS speed on Serial-ATA?

Adding RAM in any Mac these days is a no-brainer. If you have to send your computer to Apple to put RAM in, yet you can build your own PC, you are just plain stupid. You can also upgrade using the PCI card slots (and with the last PowerMac G4, I believe you could add 4 SCSI drives with a PCI card...)
Click to expand...

Some people do not like taking apart electronics. In case of the iMac, there are two places to put memory. One is easily accessible, the other is not.

Just a couple of days ago, I was at a LAN party, where there was a computer that blew a power supply. Why did it blow? Because he was using it incorrectly. He put too much strain on it, and it just died on him. While he was able to put in another power supply, he also had to tinker with his BIOS settings, since his processor wasn't working right, and his computer wouldn't recognize some of his hardware. This guy was A+ certified, and so was another guy who was helping him. They also had to re-install windows at a LAN party!. This would've never (ok, so maybe there's a one in a hundred-million chance) happened with a Mac, because Apple puts in the right parts so that they can work together without any problems, so you can do what you want to with your computer, and I know for sure that I want a computer I can use, not just take apart and put back together again.
Click to expand...

Just because someone has a piece of paper (which is what a certification is) doesn't mean they know anything. How much hardware did they install themselves in the box? A PS has a rating, reach that or go over and you are asking for problems. PS failures are fairly common, even in a PS costing several thousand dollars. Did they have the system over clocked? They probably did.
 
Patrick:

I actually like it a lot. The specs of the shuttle I have are:

Shuttle SB51G
Intel P4 3.06GHz
Intel 845G Chipset
Firewire 400
USB 2.0
1GB Corsair DDR 2700
80 GB Western Digital Hard Drive
30 GB Western Digital Hard Drive
Pioneer A05 DVD-RW Drive
ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro

I run Windows XP Pro on the 80 gig drive and Gentoo Linux on the 30 gig drive. I ordered it from newegg.com originally. I'm very happy with it, the limited expansion that you get can be a little annoying, but being able to put it in a duffel bag and go to a LAN party makes up for this. There is a new version the SG62G2 (I think is the model #) that has dual channel DDR ram, I'd look at this newer one if you are gonna get one. It also supports the P4c processors and 800MHz FSB. I take the expansion thing back, there really isn't anything I can think of that I'd like to add to make it better. I still have a PCI slot free and the shuttle has USB 2 and Firewire 400. Its pretty quiet, there are 2 fans in the whole system, one on the video card and one that cools the processor and internal components. The system actually works pretty well, as I've left it on in my Attic (where I keep my computers) without the AC on and it got to 100 degrees up there, and it was still working without a hitch. I'd reccomend one if you're looking for a PC that you don't want to have take up a lot of room. The only thing I'd trade it for is a SB62G2 with dual channel DDR and a new 3.0 GHz P4 with 800MHz FSB.
 
quote: Just a couple of days ago, I was at a LAN party, where there was a computer that blew a power supply. Why did it blow? Because he was using it incorrectly. He put too much strain on it, and it just died on him. While he was able to put in another power supply, he also had to tinker with his BIOS settings, since his processor wasn't working right, and his computer wouldn't recognize some of his hardware. This guy was A+ certified, and so was another guy who was helping him. They also had to re-install windows at a LAN party!. This would've never (ok, so maybe there's a one in a hundred-million chance) happened with a Mac, because Apple puts in the right parts so that they can work together without any problems, so you can do what you want to with your computer, and I know for sure that I want a computer I can use, not just take apart and put back together again.
Click to expand...

hah, well tell me when's the last time you've heard a Mac head talking bout playing with his Vcore/Vdimm/VDD in bios? I doubt even a single Mac head would even CARE to OC like that. PSU failures will also occur more with non-brand names, i.e. case bundles, not individually retailed ones like Antec/Enermax.

I had a friend who blew his PSU. He didn't have to reinstall windows. And a processor is NOT required to recognize hardware. Only a working/functional motherboard is with a clean bios. Do you even know what you're talking about? Unless he needed a newer BIOS to recognize the cpu (old motherboard forcing an unsupported CPU e.g. A7V original 1.02 with a palomino) then this has no relevance to the story.

A+ certification does not include OCing certification :)

The day that Mac's become OCable (i.e. ensuing enthusiast market) -- tell me...it is also the day that pigs will be flying unfortunately :(
 
wow i never woulda known. thanks for the link...haha i can't believe they have a Mac Vs. PC section in their forums *_*

[edit]
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/G4CARDS/GigaDesigns_1.4GHz_review/index6.html

that link really suprised me as i had never given the thought initially of the Mac cpu upgrades being any diff than PC's...quite interesting to see that 3pin connector, along with the whole kitchen sink is included on the card.
 
Originally posted by Lanbrown
If you really want to get technical, the architecture of the Itanic has been a failure since the 70's. EPIC was invented in the 70's and it failed back then. It was resurrected for the Itanic for it to fail/sink again. SPEC performance scores are not everything. Sun took the UNIX crown when they had the worst performing chip. Total system performance, software, technical support and a road map is what matters most.

Look at the sales number for Itanic, can you honestly say its not over yet.
Click to expand...

Yup. If the sales numbers were going DOWN it would be over. As it is, they're going up (from what I've read). They're still abysmal, and Intel expects to spend until 2007 just trying to break even on the damn thing, but they're going up. Also, they've finally got something that doesn't perform like crap, so people actually have a reason to port to IA-64. I think Intel is fairly likely to succeed in pushing the chip to some success by brute force, similar to what MS is doing with the XBox. Just keep pouring dollars into it and buying talented engineers for it (the Alpha EV8 team, in this case) until it performs well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back