No problem...... you weren't really rude...... but your statements about AMD were just flat out not true...... they make great processors and have no problems at all with stability. I haven't heard of any issues like that since a company called Cyrix had problems years ago.
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.
Apple and Intel
- Thread starter arn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No problem...... you weren't really rude...... but your statements about AMD were just flat out not true...... they make great processors and have no problems at all with stability. I haven't heard of any issues like that since a company called Cyrix had problems years ago.
Originally posted by AlphaTech
3777, I probably could add up all I have spent on the game pc (that I constructed), but it would probably depress me. I would wager to say that I have invested close to $3k in it. That inclused all my recent upgrades (two 160GB drives, set as RAID 0), and the one I will be doing in September (Radeon 9700
I emailed my favorite indian (at the Geek Boutique) and they have a projected date of Sept. 1 for the card being available. That is not set in stone, since things don't always ship on time from the factory, nor do the distributors always get enough to go around. I have developed a good working relashionship with them over the past 2+ years, and will continue to purchase items from them. They have always treated me right, and stand behind what they sell. If they don't have it in the store, or on the web site, chances are they can get it (within a few days too).
I was thinking of building a gaming PC, but when I added up the cost vs. one from Alienware it was only about $150 difference with all the components. (Not including XP Pro) ......I wanted to stress that I made choice of AMD over the Intel P4, and from everything I've experienced, AMD is just a better processor. The fact that it cost less would probably be all the more reason why Apple should pick them over Intel!
P.S. One of the reasons I got the Alienware ......the upcoming release of UT2003
I take issue with that, only because in my experience my statements are true. However, just like I am speaking from my experience you are speaking from yours and I respect that. Perhaps the problems were not with the Athlons but with me. I don't think so, but I'm willing to concede the point. In my experience the Athlons just constantly needed more tweaking. This setting wouldn't work with this board, or this card doesn't work in this slot. Or this card just doesn't work at all and the whole system crashes. My present PC (yuck, I hate saying that) was the first one I built with an Intel processor and chipset and it has been absolutely hands down the most stable system I've ever used. I was VERY reluctant to buy intel, but I'm glad that I did.
Anyway, bottom line, didn't mean to offend anybody personally. Did. Sorry. I really hope Apple doesn't have to switch. I LOVE the RISC architecture, but unless they can close the percieved speed gap, it's probably inevitible.
By the way, I saw a nice board on Tyan's website. Dual Athlon's in a regular ATX form factor . Hmmmm......
dh
Now I understand!
Ok now I understand.......... what you said is true in some cases........ but it isn't a problem with the AMD Processor ...... when you are building a system, you have to be very careful to select a board that is "AMD Approved" ......... I found this out when I built my last AMD system before I bought the Alienware. Not all motherboards work with AMD's, but when you buy a Motherboard that is specifically approved for the Athalon, then you'll have no problems whatsoever. You'll have a great system too.
P.S. Sometimes it's easier just to buy the board / processor bundled together so you know you won't have any problems.
Originally posted by dhdave
I take issue with that, only because in my experience my statements are true. However, just like I am speaking from my experience you are speaking from yours and I respect that. Perhaps the problems were not with the Athlons but with me. I don't think so, but I'm willing to concede the point. In my experience the Athlons just constantly needed more tweaking. This setting wouldn't work with this board, or this card doesn't work in this slot. Or this card just doesn't work at all and the whole system crashes. My present PC (yuck, I hate saying that) was the first one I built with an Intel processor and chipset and it has been absolutely hands down the most stable system I've ever used. I was VERY reluctant to buy intel, but I'm glad that I did.
Anyway, bottom line, didn't mean to offend anybody personally. Did. Sorry. I really hope Apple doesn't have to switch. I LOVE the RISC architecture, but unless they can close the percieved speed gap, it's probably inevitible.
By the way, I saw a nice board on Tyan's website. Dual Athlon's in a regular ATX form factor . Hmmmm......
dh
Ok now I understand.......... what you said is true in some cases........ but it isn't a problem with the AMD Processor ...... when you are building a system, you have to be very careful to select a board that is "AMD Approved" ......... I found this out when I built my last AMD system before I bought the Alienware. Not all motherboards work with AMD's, but when you buy a Motherboard that is specifically approved for the Athalon, then you'll have no problems whatsoever. You'll have a great system too.
P.S. Sometimes it's easier just to buy the board / processor bundled together so you know you won't have any problems.
Whenever you construct a peecee, it really pays off to do a bit of research on the components. Don't just purchase what you think will work together, make sure of it ahead of time.
In my own experience, Giga-byte makes the best motherboards for AMD chips out there. Of all the systems that I have built, those with Giga-byte boards have no problems. My first pc was built with a DFI board, which failed after only 2 years. I tried a supposedly great Asus board, only it refused to even show the pre-bios level correctly. I went to the Giga-byte board I originally wanted, and it worked 100%. It is still running very strong over a year later, without any problems. I was able to update the bios to get it to address the XP2100+ chip as well. The board came out before the AMD XP chips did.
In my own experience, Giga-byte makes the best motherboards for AMD chips out there. Of all the systems that I have built, those with Giga-byte boards have no problems. My first pc was built with a DFI board, which failed after only 2 years. I tried a supposedly great Asus board, only it refused to even show the pre-bios level correctly. I went to the Giga-byte board I originally wanted, and it worked 100%. It is still running very strong over a year later, without any problems. I was able to update the bios to get it to address the XP2100+ chip as well. The board came out before the AMD XP chips did.
There are alot of people out there who will defend AMD to the death but they need to realize that while they've been great at keeping Intel honest by being a real competitor and providing awesome performance, the general consensus is that AMD(the cpu's) has a higher failure rate than Intel chips do. AMD is well aware of this and has been improving them. The Athlon XP made some progress on this front for them.
This is not saying that they suck or even that Intel is superior but that AMD chips do have a higher failure rate.
One more thing I should add for those that never have dealt with AMD chips is that since they generate so much heat, lots of "non-hobbyist" folks tend to not like all of the noise generated by the fans.
I could also pick apart things about the Intel chips but it looks like everyone here has pretty much stated them.
This is not saying that they suck or even that Intel is superior but that AMD chips do have a higher failure rate.
One more thing I should add for those that never have dealt with AMD chips is that since they generate so much heat, lots of "non-hobbyist" folks tend to not like all of the noise generated by the fans.
I could also pick apart things about the Intel chips but it looks like everyone here has pretty much stated them.
i don't remember any clone makers using the G3?? they were much quicker to market than apple with higher clocked processors though so it wouldn't have been surprising.
j
That would be because it never shipped (according to the information I have). It was introduced in August of 97 and discontinued in September of 97 (one month). Apple made it too expensive for the clone makers to license the OS (from $50 in the beginning to $500 in the end per computer).
I do remember how the clones were the first to use newer items/technologies, or at least faster then Apple was. Things like a faster system bus for one. The PowerCenter Pro shipped with a 60MHz system bus, where most Apples (of that time) had either a 40MHz or 50MHz system bus.
I do remember how the clones were the first to use newer items/technologies, or at least faster then Apple was. Things like a faster system bus for one. The PowerCenter Pro shipped with a 60MHz system bus, where most Apples (of that time) had either a 40MHz or 50MHz system bus.
I'm wanting to think that Motorola managed to get a G3 system out but not for long if they did. Those were rough days for Apple but it was the time we saw their turnaround for those who were around. Amelio originally had some sort of systems set to come out that was their Power line or some such codename where they used the 604e with some special L2 cache to speed things up. Umax also was going to do this. Power Computing and Motorola were on the right track with the G3 and Jobs saw this.
Amelio never did have a clue about the company or technology that he was running or rather ruining. The same guy who thought that the classic environment would be fine in a window on the screen. Oh well that's another story. At least he brought Jobs in.
Amelio never did have a clue about the company or technology that he was running or rather ruining. The same guy who thought that the classic environment would be fine in a window on the screen. Oh well that's another story. At least he brought Jobs in.
No one's looked at using BOTH PowerPC chips and Intel/AMD in the same computer
Interesting thought:
Why couldn't/wouldn't Apple put BOTH a Pentium 4 (or AMD) and a PowerPC in the same computer?
1) 2 Ghz Pentium 4 chips are less than $200. That doesn't seem like an amount that would change the cost structure of the machines. Plus they could make it optional if they didn't want to raise costs across the board.
2) Current software would not have to be recompiled as it could run on solely the PowerPC and ignore the Pentium if necessary. Meanwhile, new/recompiled software and OS X could take advantage of both types of processors.
3) Apple would reap the competitive advantages of BOTH processors, rather the living with the tradeoffs of just one or the other. This, of course, assumes that the appropriate tasks could be routed to the appropriate chips.
4) Hardware sales would not decrease since OS X would still require Apple's motherboard containing both chips.
5) It would be a great marketing move. The message could be "why get a Dell with just chip B when you could get an Apple with BOTH chips A & B, a better OS, and better hardware design to boot?"
6) It would also be a hedge. If one chip fell behind (as Moto has in the past), the other chip could evolve to take over more of the tasks until the loser is completely phased out.
7) If Apple chose, they could sell a computer that runs BOTH OS X and Windows. They could market this in the same way that they market Virtual PC: "There are occasionally times when you HAVE to run windows...now you don't have to buy two computers AND there's no performance tradeoff." This idea has some other political implications, but they could choose to do so.
Has Apple already thought of this? Is it technically feasible? Cost effective? Politically feasible?
Jeremy
Interesting thought:
Why couldn't/wouldn't Apple put BOTH a Pentium 4 (or AMD) and a PowerPC in the same computer?
1) 2 Ghz Pentium 4 chips are less than $200. That doesn't seem like an amount that would change the cost structure of the machines. Plus they could make it optional if they didn't want to raise costs across the board.
2) Current software would not have to be recompiled as it could run on solely the PowerPC and ignore the Pentium if necessary. Meanwhile, new/recompiled software and OS X could take advantage of both types of processors.
3) Apple would reap the competitive advantages of BOTH processors, rather the living with the tradeoffs of just one or the other. This, of course, assumes that the appropriate tasks could be routed to the appropriate chips.
4) Hardware sales would not decrease since OS X would still require Apple's motherboard containing both chips.
5) It would be a great marketing move. The message could be "why get a Dell with just chip B when you could get an Apple with BOTH chips A & B, a better OS, and better hardware design to boot?"
6) It would also be a hedge. If one chip fell behind (as Moto has in the past), the other chip could evolve to take over more of the tasks until the loser is completely phased out.
7) If Apple chose, they could sell a computer that runs BOTH OS X and Windows. They could market this in the same way that they market Virtual PC: "There are occasionally times when you HAVE to run windows...now you don't have to buy two computers AND there's no performance tradeoff." This idea has some other political implications, but they could choose to do so.
Has Apple already thought of this? Is it technically feasible? Cost effective? Politically feasible?
Jeremy
That bed was on fire when he lay down on it, Cappy. It probably would have been in the dumper sooner without him. You might be thinking of an earlier CEO. Everyone Jumps on Amelio, but you don't hear too many people defending Spindler do you? Or Mr. Pepsi?
At least he brought Jobs in.
Yep, and even Steve followed through on some of the ideas Gil started, he just made less apologies, played less of a good cop about things, because more drastic measures were needed. It doesn't help Amelio's rep that he felt he had to go around defending himself a bit out of proportion after he was canned or jumped ship, but that was the situation he was in... he fixed many problems and ended up taking most of the blame for earlier problems he inherited.
And some of those problems are still there, and repeatedly mentioned throughout this thread rather obviously. Rhymes with "no gondola."
Re: No one's looked at using BOTH PowerPC chips and Intel/AMD in the same computer
I think the biggest potential pitfall is that developers would take this as a good reason to stop developing for the MAC OS completely. There are other political windfalls-- people would say the mac is dead that they had no choice but to move to REAL CPUS like Intel and AMD make.
If this were to be done at all- best to leave it to third Parties, the way Orange Micro used to make Intel cards for PCI slots. I would love to have a Mac that was also an excellent PC, but it really isn't a safe venture for a company with single digit market share to offer as a standard option, unless they want the implant to take over and kill them. Sort of like the first artificial hearts.
Probably the best deal would be for Apple to buy out Altivec completely, and have IBM become the main supplier. As it is rumors point to probably Motorola themselves farming out their chip manufacture to Taiwan somewhere.. they clearly can't hit the yields on their own.
Another possibility would be to have Nvidia or someone else create enough of a DSP cruncher especially for Mac that enough existing code can be funneled to, that it wont even matter if there is never a G5.
I think the biggest potential pitfall is that developers would take this as a good reason to stop developing for the MAC OS completely. There are other political windfalls-- people would say the mac is dead that they had no choice but to move to REAL CPUS like Intel and AMD make.
If this were to be done at all- best to leave it to third Parties, the way Orange Micro used to make Intel cards for PCI slots. I would love to have a Mac that was also an excellent PC, but it really isn't a safe venture for a company with single digit market share to offer as a standard option, unless they want the implant to take over and kill them. Sort of like the first artificial hearts.
Probably the best deal would be for Apple to buy out Altivec completely, and have IBM become the main supplier. As it is rumors point to probably Motorola themselves farming out their chip manufacture to Taiwan somewhere.. they clearly can't hit the yields on their own.
Another possibility would be to have Nvidia or someone else create enough of a DSP cruncher especially for Mac that enough existing code can be funneled to, that it wont even matter if there is never a G5.
I agree there have been problems with each one you mention but my beef with Amelio was that he was hyped up for a specific role to fix things and frankly I don't think he had a clue. He pretty much has admitted as much that he had no idea that Apple was the icon that it was.
How many times did he publicly state that Jobs was not as good as he at running a company? Yes, he pointed out that Jobs was better with marketing but who's the guy running two billion dollar companies right now that are still successful to this day and he was center stage at turning them around?
I don't love Jobs by any means but he does fit the role and his best move was revamping the board. Something everyone previously knew was a big problem but did nothing about.
Amelio was nothing more than a bean counter and while, yes, he fixed some problems, there were other ways they could have been fixed and not hurt the image of Apple as well as development as much as it did during the Intenet boom. At least Spindler tried to control the cloning whereas Amelio opened the flood gates to near disaster.
At any rate we're way off topic so I'll try to shut up on this now.