AMD Zone article- Apple a trailer in tech and the grand conspiracy?

[DarkNovaMatter]

I was browsing around to see all the new articles about the newly announced 970 powermacs and came across one on AMD Zone.
I was thinking it was going to be a article saying "close Apple, but the market will move on" (seen many of those), but it ended up disagreing with this guy on some of his points.

http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296

First he comes to the conclusion that the G5 is a workstation not a desktop (how conveinent for his whole article), and then it seemed to go iinto a mostly bashing article. Lets say it went iinto Apple is 1.9% market share (?), Apple follows in everything, Apple takes PC tech and uses it (ok then how would people even think of a mac- aka hardware standards?). Also the thing about firewire liscensing- but I don't know how apple could do anymore than say the standard was free- Intel was charging $1 a port for USB- Apple was only charging $.25 for each firewire port- yet Intel was somehow ticked that they had to pay $.25 per port even though Apple was paying $1 per USB port. Then comes the using of Hypertransport without thanking AMD and that its all a big way for Apple to gloat, and a few other Apple did this and that. The Spec results were run on GCC compiler which is open on all platforms- then the results from Intels own compilers- eck, GCC was run so that all platforms could be judged off the same compiler (anyone know if there is a big difference on GCC for X86 and PPC?). Sure the reality distortion feild of jobs distorts some not all mac users are blind zealots to the computer world. Basically it leads to Apple copies this, doesn't thank this company, and is always blowing steam up people's bums. What are other peoples thought on this article?

P.S.- IBM-Apple and Motorola designed the PPC which is based of the Power architecture- the article's writer thinks that apple has nothing to do with chip design and is another dell that simply buys chips, Ugh I just didn't sit well with this article.

 

[bluecell]

I agree. This Tom guy is just really sad that Apple chose a more efficient processor over the AMD offerings. The Intel people are crying too.

 

[zarathustra]

Sour grapes....

Opteron this, opteron that - Apple copies pcs? OK, tiger, whatever.

I have to give him that workstations might have offered similar specs before Apple, but he incorrectly monikers G5s as workstations not desktops. I am confused what sets them apart, besides the price (someone can explain maybe). But the G5 will be a desktop - simply because most of them will be used as a standalone computer to do whatever they do. Sure there will be a good number hooked up to (future) G5 Xserves and will be crunching proteins or rendering the next big movie, but graphics, audio and video professionals have waited long enough to upgrade, as shown by recent G4 sales numbers...

 

[Bear]

The difference between a desktop and a workstation is...

Believe it or not, the differences between a desktop and a workstation is based on not very much at all.

They are both computers that have a display, keyboard and mouse. They are for one user at a time. They allow people to get their work done.

To some, it's a matter of specifications. By this light, calling the Power Mac G5s workstations is fine as it indicates a higher end system.

 

[digital1]

While the concept of a workstation and a consumer box is becoming close and mostly the same, the manner in which the processors and architecture are developed and thought of are different. The processors on workstations are usually produced with materials and manufacturing processes that lends itself to high usage, and low-tolerance for error. Workstation-based machines usually have more memory, more cache, and optimized OS's and features. Where as consumer grade stuff is done for pure speed alone. Why do you think so man PC's have problems? They are put out there for pure speed, and low-latencies, with high margins for errors, whereas workstations are there for being strong and tough overall. Just my 2 cents.

 

[rueyeet]

This AMD loyalist lost any credibility I might have granted him when he characterized Apple's remaining marketshare as: "Adobe users, some movie editors, and Final Cut Pro users and women who liked pretty colored iMacs." I guess he thinks an AMD chip makes for a manlier computer.

The article starts off with the usual attempt to show lack of bias by way of previous loyalty to the Mac. Seems Steve really betrayed him by killing the clones and using NExT instead of the BeOS as the foundation of OS X. Poor baby! From there the article is one long litany of how PCs in general and AMD in particular were the source of every Apple innovation. And in the article's most flagrant inversion of logic, it re-defines the PowerMac G5 as a workstation instead of a personal desktop expressly so that it can suffer by comparison to the Opteron.

I suppose it didn't occur to this writer that as both Apple and Wintel migrate to 64-bit computing, that there is bound to be a bit of crossover between desktops and workstations, or that the Intel side has done its own share of acting innovative about what Apple has already done (Centrino, anyone)?

 

[patrick0brien]

-We should expect more of this.

This guy is trying to declare the G5 "sour grapes". In his heart he knows it blows his beloved machine away, but refuses to admit it.

We're going to see a lot of the WinTel camp writers try to find every miniscule technical detail to poke at to declare the G5 "is not all that". Of course it isn't, but neither is their beloved platform.

Fanatics exist on either side of the fence.

One thing I find interesting is when a manufacturer in the WinTel camp introduces something with their marketing spin, the press will say something like:
"Fastest X yet"

But when Apple does the same thing:
"Apple says it's the fastest X yet."

There's always a need to asterisk Apple's offerings. Classic majority rule.

 

[GulGnu]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
There's always a need to asterisk Apple's offerings. Classic majority rule.

Well, let's be fair - there are two points that go against this view:

1.) Apple has somewhat abused benchmarking in the past. This time it looks pretty solid though.

2.) Using asterisks is standard when it comes to computer processing power nowadays it seems, after the AMD-Intel wars. With all the tricks being used to make processors seem "faster", it's hardly strange that the press has become a bit jaded.

Independent testing will be what determines the view of the majority - let's hope the 970 holds up.

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

 

[trebblekicked]

there is going to be a lot of discussion like this in the coming months, but this is what we wanted (to at least be a part of the speed discussion). /. exploded within an hour of the release with this very same argument. whatever. the real world tests (ie: the duel of duals) were far more impressive to me.

and for the workstation thing:
the G5 may work more like a workstation (64 bit, fiberchannel etc) than a desktop, but it's price point, target market and compeition are desktop. if you can get workstation performance at TOL desktop prices, why wouldn't you?

whatever, whatever, whatever. it's better to take some sour grapes than be laughed at from the other side of the finish line.

 

[klozowski]

Originally posted by patrick0brien


One thing I find interesting is when a manufacturer in the WinTel camp introduces something with their marketing spin, the press will say something like:
"Fastest X yet"

But when Apple does the same thing:
"Apple says it's the fastest X yet."

.

This is because, for instance, Intel's marketing goes like this: 'The Intel Pentium 4 3.06GHz, FASTEST PENTIUM 4 YET.'

When AMD claims their XP 3000+ processor is faster than a Pentium4 3.06GHz, everyone is up in arms and tomshardware.com debunks their claims within a week.

The same is true of Apple. When they make claims of COMPARISON with obviously skewed benchmarks, it's not long before someone calls them 'liars' because they ARE liars. They've been lying in their marketing claims for years. AMD has for a shorter time and they get the same treatment.

If AMD and Apple only took Intel's route and said 'OUR fastest yet', their marketing would pump up their faithful AND fly under the radar.

 

[digital1]

Originally posted by klozowski
This is because, for instance, Intel's marketing goes like this: 'The Intel Pentium 4 3.06GHz, FASTEST PENTIUM 4 YET.'

When AMD claims their XP 3000+ processor is faster than a Pentium4 3.06GHz, everyone is up in arms and tomshardware.com debunks their claims within a week.

The same is true of Apple. When they make claims of COMPARISON with obviously skewed benchmarks, it's not long before someone calls them 'liars' because they ARE liars. They've been lying in their marketing claims for years. AMD has for a shorter time and they get the same treatment.

If AMD and Apple only took Intel's route and said 'OUR fastest yet', their marketing would pump up their faithful AND fly under the radar.

Yup. I agree. When it comes to marketing and companies trying to sell, lying is not uncommon, its up to each and every one of you to ask yourself, do I want hardware just for speed sake, or do I want an entire system that is easy to use,high quality, low TCO, and barely loses value.

 

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by digital1
...lying is not uncommon...

-digital1

In the marketing world, it's called "massaging".



Lying would be illegal.

Aren't symantics fun? But then, that's what this discussion is really all about...

 

[patrick0brien]

-Guys

I just remembered some futher food for thought. These tests were not run on a 64-bit Panther.

If the speeds are what they are with the 32-bit OS, imagine what will happen with 64-bit SW.

oooooooooooooo....

 

[tjwett]

Here's how I've always classified "Workstations" and "Desktops". I used to be the A.P.B. (All-Purpose Bitch) for a multimedia startup. I did music production, sound deisgn, video editing, graphics, and even web design. I was usually working on 4 or 5 different machines in any given day. In the music and sound studio we had a G4 with maxed RAM running Logic, Live, Reason, Spark XL, and a ton of plug-ins. That was THE ONLY software installed in that machine. Everything not related to or used by those apps was removed from the HD; drivers, preferences, extensions, etc. It didn't even have access to the internet outside of the office. We mirrored the machine setup on a FireWire HD and used another machine to find necessary Software Updates and we installed them via ethernet. This was called a "Workstation" by me and everyone in the office and I think it qualifies. We also had a similar machine setup for just video which ran only After Effects, Photoshop, Inspire, and FCP.
Now, the web design people had machines that ran Flash, Dreamweaver, Office, Image Ready, Director, email, lots of different browsers for testing, etc. I would call these "Desktops". Yeah, they were doing lots of important work on them and some of the machines were pretty fast, but they were never optimised for any particular task or application and were exposed to all the elements of the network and the internet. They were also throw-away PC's from the eMachine, Gateway, and Dell variety. Point is, there was nothing going on on any of these "Desktop" machines that could not be handled very easily by one of the current iMac G4s out there. Over the past 2 days I've been hearing lots of people saying that they need a "pro" machine but are complaining about the price of the new G5s. Most of these people don't even need half the power of this machine and could easily do very will with a nice eMac or iMac, and most likely not even feel the difference. The new G5 is intended to be a Workstation, built to crunch numbers and help productivity. I'll go a step further in saying that it is also built to be used by creative pros, or high end science. Joe Public does not need this machine, nor does he deserve to have it at a price comparable to store-bought consumer Wintels. Regardless of their high clock speeds, they are still a totally different beast, made for a totally different user. That's my 2 cents anyway.

 

[digital1]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-digital1

In the marketing world, it's called "massaging".



Lying would be illegal.

Aren't symantics fun? But then, that's what this discussion is really all about...

massaging, lying, same crap different name! LOL but yeah aint it funny how companies can get away with that! LOL Microsoft been doing it for years and they been getting good payoffs. LOL LOL its pathetic... Thats why its fun being a geek. We dont have to worry about the logistics of marketing, just making awesome stuff.

 

[Abstract]

Originally posted by GulGnu
Well, let's be fair - there are two points that go against this view:

1.) Apple has somewhat abused benchmarking in the past. This time it looks pretty solid though.

2.) Using asterisks is standard when it comes to computer processing power nowadays it seems, after the AMD-Intel wars. With all the tricks being used to make processors seem "faster", it's hardly strange that the press has become a bit jaded.

Independent testing will be what determines the view of the majority - let's hope the 970 holds up.

True. I don't trust any Apple performance tests. I also don't believe that the new dual 2.0GHz dual G5's are as fast as they claim --- the fastest computer ever or whatever it was Jobs said. It may not beat an Opteron, and it may not even beat a Xeon after all independent tests are completed, but I know that in a year, Apple will be up there with the top machines. It may be the fastest. I'm just glad that Apple isn't completely out of it, but I don't believe that Apple is nearly the fastest.

 

[digital1]

Originally posted by Abstract
True. I don't trust any Apple performance tests. I also don't believe that the new dual 2.0GHz dual G5's are as fast as they claim --- the fastest computer ever or whatever it was Jobs said. It may not beat an Opteron, and it may not even beat a Xeon after all independent tests are completed, but I know that in a year, Apple will be up there with the top machines. It may be the fastest. I'm just glad that Apple isn't completely out of it, but I don't believe that Apple is nearly the fastest.

ditto.

 

[VIREBEL661]

Regardless of how our processors stack up against wintel, whatever... The OS has, and always will be better.... Mac is a true, stable alternative to wintel - and those of us who use it for work or pleasure, probably wouldn't give a damn about what some kid is spewing forth anyways in the long run, no matter how frustrating it may be.. As another poster pointed out, this kind of crap happens with intel vs amd all the time, but I personally only pay attention when someone talks about my Mac... There's far more Mac users, professionals included, than 'market share' would have you believe... How about we divide up all of the incompatible versions of windoze, and what they're used for in the real world, and then we'll really see who's using what for what...

 

[destroyboredom]

The funny part about this is AMD fans accusing (and maybe rightly so) apple of skewing benchmarks.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it AMD who changed there naming structure, which greatly misled consumers? ie.. AMD XP 2100 (1.73ghz clock speed) Thats not to say that only clock speed is important, but i think we would all agree if i said that is what most consumers look at.

AMD sales aren't great right now*, and if there opteron doesn't have a huge launch they will be in the same boat as apple as far as market share goes.

*I work in the distribution channel and see AMD and Intel sales figures on a reguar basis.

 

[digital1]

Originally posted by VIREBEL661
Regardless of how our processors stack up against wintel, whatever... The OS has, and always will be better.... Mac is a true, stable alternative to wintel - and those of us who use it for work or pleasure, probably wouldn't give a damn about what some kid is spewing forth anyways in the long run, no matter how frustrating it may be.. As another poster pointed out, this kind of crap happens with intel vs amd all the time, but I personally only pay attention when someone talks about my Mac... There's far more Mac users, professionals included, than 'market share' would have you believe... How about we divide up all of the incompatible versions of windoze, and what they're used for in the real world, and then we'll really see who's using what for what...

Forget market share, be into the mac because you love it. It doesnt matter what Corporate America, Financial analysts, or your PC buddies tell you. You love the mac because you know anything a PC can do, your mac can do equally or better. Thats why we think differently;We are radicals with the foresight to know that technology isnt just a tool, its an experience and an extension of the human experience. So for shallow minded PC users, let them have their 3.2 GHz and their rigged SPEC tests, we know what we have, we know what we like, and even having an interest and open mind to the mac opens you to a community of radical thinkers like yourself. So ra ra for the mac. We have all we need here PC users. I suggest we all do a million mac march on Redmond. We start in New York and we go across the U.S. to Microsoft and boycott XP! LOL

 

[hvfsl]

The PPC970 may be faster than the Athlon64/P4 but it is also a lot more expensive. I want to be able to get a 3Ghz PMac for the just $300 more than dell sells them (with windows). I dont mind paying $300 more for a computer if it is a Mac, but not these silly prices, the G5 Macs may be faster but they are also even more expensive than the G4s.

Everybody likes Sports Cars, because they are works of art and go fast, but most people can't afford a sports car. Apple will never increase its market share beyond 5% if it can't make cheaper Macs. Maybe Apple can do what M$ does and get money from a part of the business doing well (windows/office) and use that money to fund other devisions so products can be sold for less than they cost to make (xbox/msn).

 

[hvfsl]

Everyone except Intel is now messing with benchmarks, but I doubt Apple is messing with them that much. Nvidia puts the quality down in its drivers so its Geforce FX cards look faster than ATIs (when there are not). AMD is now cheating with its PR ratings on the new AMD 3200XP because it can't keep up with intel (before the 3200XP the PR ratings from AMD were very acurate. Now people are saying that Appld is cheating because it can't keep up with Intel.

This reminds me of an old M$ joke, How many M$ employees does it take to turn on a light burn. Answer: They don't, they define darkness as a new industry standard.

 

[digital1]

Originally posted by hvfsl
The PPC970 may be faster than the Athlon64/P4 but it is also a lot more expensive. I want to be able to get a 3Ghz PMac for the just $300 more than dell sells them (with windows). I dont mind paying $300 more for a computer if it is a Mac, but not these silly prices, the G5 Macs may be faster but they are also even more expensive than the G4s.

Everybody likes Sports Cars, because they are works of art and go fast, but most people can't afford a sports car. Apple will never increase its market share beyond 5% if it can't make cheaper Macs. Maybe Apple can do what M$ does and get money from a part of the business doing well (windows/office) and use that money to fund other devisions so products can be sold for less than they cost to make (xbox/msn).

Not to be mean or anything but isnt that what the ibook,emac, and imac are for? Just a thought.

 

[digital1]

Originally posted by hvfsl
Everyone except Intel is now messing with benchmarks, but I doubt Apple is messing with them that much. Nvidia puts the quality down in its drivers so its Geforce FX cards look faster than ATIs (when there are not). AMD is now cheating with its PR ratings on the new AMD 3200XP because it can't keep up with intel (before the 3200XP the PR ratings from AMD were very acurate. Now people are saying that Appld is cheating because it can't keep up with Intel.

This reminds me of an old M$ joke, How many M$ employees does it take to turn on a light burn. Answer: They don't, they define darkness as a new industry standard.

LOL good one.

 

[Daveman Deluxe]

Originally posted by hvfsl
This reminds me of an old M$ joke, How many M$ employees does it take to turn on a light burn. Answer: They don't, they define darkness as a new industry standard.

IE is a perfect example of this. You know why a lot of web pages don't seem to work right on any browser besides IE? It's because IE's implementation of CSS and other of the W3's recommendations are piss poor at best, forcing people to write their markup wrong. As a result, browsers that implement reccomendations correctly don't display web pages properly.