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
Here is my concern
I just hope that Apple will maintain their top-of-the-line Mactels with the fastest Intel processors. Apple has already been known to have "last generation" graphics cards. Apple will have all sorts of problems if they don't keep up with companies like Dell, HP, etc and offer processors of equal performance.
I can easily see Apple being slow to update the processors and new chips are released. Dell, for example, wastes no time releasing PCs with the latest Intel chips on-board. In fact, Dell releases computers with the latest chips on the day they are made available by Intel. This won't matter much for the hardcore Mac users, but it will become generally known that Macs are always a step behind in performance.
Apple has a habit of releasing major updates and not simple processor speed increases. This strategy won't work well when they have Intel chips inside.
-rich
I just hope that Apple will maintain their top-of-the-line Mactels with the fastest Intel processors. Apple has already been known to have "last generation" graphics cards. Apple will have all sorts of problems if they don't keep up with companies like Dell, HP, etc and offer processors of equal performance.
I can easily see Apple being slow to update the processors and new chips are released. Dell, for example, wastes no time releasing PCs with the latest Intel chips on-board. In fact, Dell releases computers with the latest chips on the day they are made available by Intel. This won't matter much for the hardcore Mac users, but it will become generally known that Macs are always a step behind in performance.
Apple has a habit of releasing major updates and not simple processor speed increases. This strategy won't work well when they have Intel chips inside.
-rich
rubberband said:Processor speed is a myth yes! but in the case of intel it comes down to the size of load that it can handleacket size. Altivec was design to increase the size to (say) large amounts while intel developed HT to compensate. Doesn't matter who came first, the point is that intel never unticipated a road block with with pentiums and design them for small packets and fast cores, and ibm design ppc for speed independence through packet size. Hence, ghz myth busted!
NOw, if you criple a intel chip you must increase packet size to compensate but they have not being able to so, reason for which, no new intel chips have being seen and rather stupid speed bumps.( celerons and so on are pentium's derivatives with same fate). So the next year chips promise this but that is like re-inventing yourselve or flagship. I dont have fate in intel pulling it through.
Now moron, if you dont understand this. I am sorry but i can't teach english to on a chat session.
What are you talking about. Packet size? I didn't know processors were based on networks. HT = alternative to Altivec? No, Altivec = SSEs1-3 HT=nothing that a mac has ever had. Intel knew EXACTLY how they were designing the P4. They designed it to ramp very fast to high clock speeds. Intel isn't stupid, they made a choice to design the P4 that way. Just how they designed the P-M to be cool running and low power consumption. Please go read on processors before you start stating false information to scare people.
madmaxmedia said:The majority of today's processors cant rightfully be called completely RISC or completely CISC. The two textbook architectures have evolved towards each other to such an extent that theres no longer a clear distinction between their respective approaches to increasing performance and efficiency. To be specific, chips that implement the x86 CISC ISA have come to look a lot like chips that implement various RISC ISAs; the instruction set architecture is the same, but under the hood its a whole different ball game. But this hasn't been a one-way trend. Rather, the same goes for todays so-called RISC CPUs. Theyve added more instructions and more complexity to the point where theyre every bit as complex as their CISC counterparts. Thus the "RISC vs. CISC" debate really exists only in the minds of marketing departments and platform advocates whose purpose in creating and perpetuating this fictitious conflict is to promote their pet product by means of name-calling and sloganeering.
I'm so smart, huh?
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html
No kidding.. the CISC vs RISC debate about todays processors are all BS. Since the Pentium Pro back in the day, these "CISC" chips have become more and more "RISC"-like.. and vice versa..
IMHO...The Bench Marks tell me that when running programs through Rosetta, things will be a little slow.
No one should be judging these bench marks for the who Intel system.
(this is why apple didn't want them released)
To me, it's not the hardware I use everyday, it's the software. I turn on the hardware. I use the software.
What I'm wating for is the "Real Data". Then I'll say my thoughts....
God....7 to 8 months of this FUD.....Blimey
No one should be judging these bench marks for the who Intel system.
(this is why apple didn't want them released)
To me, it's not the hardware I use everyday, it's the software. I turn on the hardware. I use the software.
What I'm wating for is the "Real Data". Then I'll say my thoughts....
God....7 to 8 months of this FUD.....Blimey
rubberband said:
HA!
probably the largest part of Apple's move to intel is for mobile computing. you heard it from steve: next generation (G5) PPC chips run too hot and too power hungry. thus it is impractical to try and fit one in a laptop. the iMac G5 is, as far as i'm concerned, a marvel of engineering. they tried to cram a G5 in the smallest space they could, and it works and looks great. i've always suspected that the iMac G5's rectangular shape behind the screen sure seems like a laptop in principle, which is the computer being the same dimension as the screen, so much so that i would even speculate that the iMac and Powerbook groups were working together to try to get this thing down to size. but as you can see, the thing is a good 2 inches thick, and doesn't all fit behind the screen.
i remember seeing an article on Cnet about that really small handheld computer that actually ran windows xp pro, supposedly designed by former apple employees. guess what chip was inside it?
SiliconAddict said:
The only BS is between the average Mac Religionist's ears. Watch the damn keynote. He said the performance hit would be minimal. I guess it depends on how you define "performance hit", "the" and so forth (Steve and Billba are buddies, aren't they? They seem to have the same speach coach). Just to get out of the Mac Fanatic echo chamber a little more...
From this article, which started it all:
Steve Jobs said:
And it is working. It's just that the apps are a bit slower since they're designed for the PowerPC. When apps are re-written for the x86 and Intel releases their new chips based on the Pentium M things will be different.morespce54 said:Yes, except that OS X is supposed to be working on a x86 since the first version...
Damn, there seem to be a lot of bitchy noobs here lately.
RE: Rosetta - Isn't this emulation technology just for the transition? If so, doesn't this mean that Rosetta will eventually become obsolete once the transfer to Intel processors is complete? Or will Rosetta become a permanent part of OSX?
RE: Rosetta - Isn't this emulation technology just for the transition? If so, doesn't this mean that Rosetta will eventually become obsolete once the transfer to Intel processors is complete? Or will Rosetta become a permanent part of OSX?
seashellz said:
Yes, I am aware of the fact but we are discussing the move to intel chips on the bases of being go or bad. Although, IBM doen't deliever for Apple anymore it must be made clear that it doen't have to since PPC offered by them today are more powerful than any Intel. So yes, with Intel apple will get the supply and possible innovation but it is a total degrading of the mac. Macs are the most quality controlled computers sold on the market. Dell and Apple are the total extremes: dell= fast build and sell that will last a year, apple= slow build slow sell that will last a life time. Ask around how many old pc's from the mid 90's are used today in the daily bases and compare the percentage to the macs from the same time being used today.
Pcs become obsolete extreme fast compared with macs, you can say it is os based since windows grows to use the power available but mac os is updated faster than windows is xp=2002, panter=2003, tiger=2005; so, much credit have to be given to the fact that macs are built with power behond the expectation in order to leave its purpose and not be dependent on the life of the os it shipped with. Intel chips can only keep up with the os then when you load the apps, you start looking for new cpus, but by then you get an update and back to square one.
anyways, forget it.
The key will really be how does OSX run (compiled for x86) vs Longhorn on an exact same x86 box. It will be a big stakes game, with bragging rights in the balance. All the benchmarks will be there for everyone to see and easily comparable.
I'll bet you OSX jets aroung Longhorn. MS has years of legacy code to support.
I'll bet you OSX jets aroung Longhorn. MS has years of legacy code to support.
since you guys skipped over my question I'll ask it again...
Is it possible to create some type of solution that would create some x86+Altivec solution? After all, the Power chip from IBM didn't have any Altivec originally, right?
Isn't it possible (remember, this is Apple after all) that Apple and Intel have something completely new in mind for the Apple+x86 world?
There is a lot of myopic vision regarding what exists now, but Apple isn't bring any x86 Mac to the world for some time.
Is it possible to create some type of solution that would create some x86+Altivec solution? After all, the Power chip from IBM didn't have any Altivec originally, right?
Isn't it possible (remember, this is Apple after all) that Apple and Intel have something completely new in mind for the Apple+x86 world?
There is a lot of myopic vision regarding what exists now, but Apple isn't bring any x86 Mac to the world for some time.
mt4design said:
The way i understand it, if the app doesnt find altivec, itll fall back to the cpu to do the job. As i said, altivec is nothing THAT special and apps can probably be rewritten/recompiled with sse1-2-3 in mind to take advantage of those instructions instead of altivec.
mt4design said:
I've been saying this too.. people seem to think that Intel isn't going to put out anything new between now and June '06.. Perhaps that is the way IBM/Motorola work, but not Intel, especially not now since they've had to ramp up to compete with AMD.
Not only that, they've already announced a new generation of processors, so it's absolutely crazy to think Apple will use the P4 that exists today.
ailleur said:
thanks ailleur.
that's why it dawned on me that there must be a work around...after all, we're talking two very innovative companies who have been working together for awhile.
isn't the IBM solution to the requirements of Altivec a bolt on one anyway? what would preclude the Apple/Intel alliance from doing something similar... and could that in turn create a more powerful x86 chip?
I'm sure my technical ignorance is showing...but I get paid to be a dreamer and think out of the box.
Well, no one can answer any of your questions with facts, because we won't really know any of this until the first Macintel is introduced.mt4design said:
But, I, too, think Apple and Intel just may come out with a new chip optimized for Macs. Then again, Apple's market-share is so small, I'm not so sure Intel would even bother. But, as no one has yet seen the prenup for this new marriage, it's hard to know the details.
It would do Apple a lot of good to use a specially-optimized Intel chip for Macs, then we can still be elitist about the superiority of the Mac.
Otherwise, it'll be an all-out OS war between Apple and Microsoft, as the hardware will become a level playing field.apple_intel said:
exactly!
and thanks Monty.
the way I see it, Apple and Intel have a great prospect for an emerging market (OS X).
Apple needs to build a better awareness campaign (OS X vs Longhorn) starting NOW and tease about what the future holds.
If Apple can offer cheaper computers running better technology with a superior OS, then, they win. Especially if they hit on the built in security of OS X and the superior software that Apple includes in the iLife suite..
THAT is what the future holds (at least in my vision).
sw1tcher said:
Im thinking you may be right
heres a pic of the btx design
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/shows/2003/IDF/Fall/BTX/systemflow.jpg
and a repost of the mac-intel pc for quick reference
http://www.powerpage.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/powerpage.woa/wa/story?newsID=14643
They do mostly match, if not for the pci slots orientation.
Rosetta will end up being a permanent fixture on Macintel, just as Classic became a permanent fixture on PowerPC.MontyZ said:
If in the future all your software has been converted to run natively, you won't care whether or not Rosetta is there, because you won't be using it. It's there if you need it, out of the way if you don't need it.
mt4design said:
I very much doubt that Intel is making anything special for Apple. That answers one part of your question. The second part is that SSE3 is as good/the same/better(?) as AltiVec. No matter how good it is, though, Intel's Compiler does a much better job optimizing code for SSE as oposed to gcc which didn't do so much for AltiVec. So, even if the silicon is a little worse (and it might be better) the end code will be better due to a better compiler if they use Intel's compiler.
RichCoder said:
Based on Apple pricing, they actually do not need to worry about Dell specs. They will need to worry about AlienWare specs. Apple will be a high end X86 box maker, they need to compete with the high end makers. They really don't need to compete with Dell products, which also use pretty old technology on the low end.