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.
Developer Transition Kit Benchmarks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Dont Hurt Me said:
Shu got it men!!
Think of Intel as ferrari and PPC as a huge truck! In the begining intel took you
to the office quite fast but then you started to carry loads of stuff so u switch
to the SUV (mac w/ PPC). Now SJ wants you to fit those loads on a Intel and smile, dont complain if you got to make a million trips "intels are faster
--but can't do sht all. It's called PowerPC for a reason
Marketing the new Processors
A quick question related to this topic:
I have been wondering from the first time I saw the official announcment of the Intel-Mac agreement, how Apple is going to market the enitre story. I must admit I am still not too pleased with the transition (I liked IBM and the G5) and it just seems weird to me that Apple has moved away from the G5, while companies like Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo have realised the G5 is the way to go. I guess only time will tell.
Anyway back to the point...the entire move seems somewhat hypocritical to me since from day 1 Apple has been putting-down Intel processors. In addition on Apple's PowerMac performance page, they show statistics (benchmarks) which literally blow away the Pentium 4 and even DUAL Xeons. The Pentium is also still 64-bit, so either they use Xeons (which still apparently get their as*** kicked by the G5) OR there is something really big a secret comming up from Intel.
Just wondering........... ;-)
A quick question related to this topic:
I have been wondering from the first time I saw the official announcment of the Intel-Mac agreement, how Apple is going to market the enitre story. I must admit I am still not too pleased with the transition (I liked IBM and the G5) and it just seems weird to me that Apple has moved away from the G5, while companies like Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo have realised the G5 is the way to go. I guess only time will tell.
Anyway back to the point...the entire move seems somewhat hypocritical to me since from day 1 Apple has been putting-down Intel processors. In addition on Apple's PowerMac performance page, they show statistics (benchmarks) which literally blow away the Pentium 4 and even DUAL Xeons. The Pentium is also still 64-bit, so either they use Xeons (which still apparently get their as*** kicked by the G5) OR there is something really big a secret comming up from Intel.
Just wondering........... ;-)
stockscalper said:
No - no one thinks that. What we think is that they will be putting mobile Intels (not P4s) into Powerbooks, which are really good processors. They smoke a pack of G4s before lunch - where on Earth did you get the idea thay they were going to stick P4s in Powerbooks?
No one even said they were going to use P4s - just x86 Intel chips. They could be Xeon or any of the new chips that Intel are coming out with - that actually kick ass, and beat the current G5s in many applications. So for desktops I figure we are neither loosing or gaining, but for laptops they will be so much better its hard to imagine.
Your dual core 3 GHz G4 is imaginary, not something to bank on. The mobile Intels I can buy from a store not three blocks from where my ass is sitting right now.
Macmadant said:apple says the G5 is 83% and up to 2 times faster than a pentium and ibm is going up hill in it's processer market with the xbox ps3 and nintendo signed up for them why go to something slower ?
What did you expect their marketing to say.."The G5 is either equal to, or a shade slower on most things compared to the competition, except for a few esoteric benchmarks that only a few applications will exploit" ??
The G5 is a wonderfull desktop processor, but did anyone "really" belive the 2x faster pitch?
Apple marketing played on the strengths and hid the weaknesses...all companies do this.
Peace said:
Here is some good information about the Pentium 4 600...
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/pentium4-600/index.x?pg=1
Macmadant said:
What's makes you so sure it will be slower?? We're talking 1 year from right now and a new generation of processors.
sbarton said:
No kidding. I just realized that right now on my iMac G5 I am burning a DVD, listening to iTunes on Airport, Surfing the net, and doing a Secure empty on the trash with about 8GB's of material in it and it is flying right along without any lag. I HOPE they don't take away this great processor and stick a freakin Pentium 4 that will bog down when you start to work it hard. I have critized the G5 before, but when I start to work the hell out of it and it takes it and comes back for more I have to admit I am impressed by it.
mgargan1 said:
This is what i am say like HELLO!!! In the first place WHY INTEL???? they may be cheaper but is like buying a MERCEDEZ with a ford engine!!!
"While we can see why moving to a dual architecture approach may bring some benefits, a wholesale move away from the IBM chips would be extremely foolish. Intel is not the 'de-facto leader in processor design' that it was a few years ago; in the recent past, Intel has been out-innovated by both AMD (with a better approach to 64-bit computing) and IBM (with a better long-term strategy around multicore chips)," wrote Gary Barnett, Ovum research director in a research note sent by e-mail to the IDG News Service.
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121175,00.asp
Yes but...
Yes, except that OS X is supposed to be working on a x86 since the first version...
aussie_geek said:Meh...
This result does not surprise me. It has been only 36 hours since they have been out!! Give them a chance.
Yes, except that OS X is supposed to be working on a x86 since the first version...
robbieduncan said:
I just want to let you know that the 64bit chips of Intel the Itanium, is a piece of sht! It is so bad that after 3 years it is being look by the industry as "needed to be phase out"-- just a hint of Intel so dont expect 64 bit
First of all, what makes you think a P4 running (a properly optimized version of) OSX would bog down when doing all that stuff? Linux on x86 doesn't, either.Abercrombieboy said:
Second of all, with the release of x86 based Macs a full year way and Jobs' emphasis of the "work per watt" aspect, it's highly likely that the products will be based on the Pentium M (Jonah and derivatives), not the P4.
The fact that the developer boxes use a P4 doesn't mean the release hardware will.
rubberband said:
The Pentium 4 600 handles 64-bit extensions, which is in the Mac Dev computer...
"64-bit extensions Intel has dubbed its 64-bit extensions EM64T, for Extended Memory 64 Technology, but they are really just a functional clone of AMD's AMD64 extensions, first implemented in the Opteron processor a couple of years ago. With these extensions and the right software, including a 64-bit operating system and applications compiled to use 64-bit extensions, the Pentium 4 gains the ability to address more than 4GB of RAM (without any workarounds). AMD64 and EM64T also include some additional registers, or local slots on the chip for storing data, that should provide a bit of a performance boost in 64-bit applications. The move to 64-bit computing won't bring revolutionary new heights of CPU performance overnight, but it will prevent us all from bumping our heads on the 4GB memory address space limitation in the next few years. "
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/pentium4-600/index.x?pg=1
ruud said:
I don't know that for a fact, I am just telling you what is sitting on my desk right now is an extremely capable processor.
ruud said:
I hope so, but just a week ago, 95% of people said Apple would never go x86 and they have. Now 95% of people are saying Apple WILL never use a Pentium 4/Celeron class processor. Next year when the first Intels start coming if that is what Intel has, they will use it. I have NO problem with replacing the G4 with the Pentium M, but I do have an issue with replacing the G5 with a Pentium 4/Celeron set up in the iMac or PowerMac. Don't say it is not possible, Monday showed us anything is possible.
Macmadant said:
I wonder how much you'd like IBM in 2 years if they havent delivered squat to Apple?
Why is it people still cling to the notion that Apple did this for the hell of it? This was a business decision pure and simple. Non of you know what goes on behind closed doors. Apple in all likelihood did not like the roadmap where IBM was taking them.
rubberband said:
Because Apple would actually like to for a change be able to not have to worry about supply issues. AMD is probably WORSE off then IBM in terms of plants it has. Intel has manufacturing facilities coming out its ears. In all likelihood 2+ week wait periods for your Mac are a thing of the past and all I can say is thank GOD!