GREAT Link about AMD and Apple....


barkmonster

macrumors 68020
Dec 3, 2001
2,125
12
Lancashire
It's already covered in another thread about this whole issue.

The article is no more than speculation by a Guy who's obviously a big fan of OS X even though he's a Windows guy at heart otherwise he wouldn't be writing a column for a site that deals with processors used on the Windows platform.

If we see anything with an AMD chip by apple it's probably going to be something do with clustering and the Xserve, the x86 version of darwin running on inexpensive AMD based rack mounts would give Xserve owners a cheap way to expand their CPU muscle. That's as far fetched as I'm prepared to take my idea of the situation. I'd be reading it back to myself and laughing out loud if I thought apple were going to roll out AMD based powermacs at the next MW expo and I wrote something about it here :D
 

MacAztec

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Oct 28, 2001
3,023
1
San Luis Obispo, CA
Originally posted by barkmonster
apple were going to roll out AMD based powermacs at the next MW expo and I wrote something about it here :D
'

I dont understand what the big deal about Apple using AMD chips. They are not releasing "AMD" powermacs, just releasing a new computer with a new chip. Do we call the current machines the Motorola PowerMac? Or the IBM iBook?

Its like Appple using IBM for a G4/5, only its AMD.

I know you are all going to start talkign about x86, and AMD only making x86, but you never know...
 

Pentium Killer

macrumors member
Apr 10, 2002
39
0
Berlin
Can you explain to me...

...why Apple should make a switch to the Opteron and have much trouble in porting the software?The IBM PPC 970 may be out in January and even if it does not give Apple the lead in performance,it will surely be fast enough to be competetive.So why all this hassle with AMD or Intel???
 

mac15

macrumors 68040
Dec 29, 2001
3,100
0
Apple have to have an easy way of swicthing them over, otherwise apple will have the same perobs they had when they jumped from OS9 to OSX, so there has to be an easier away from apple. Only time will tell.
 

Macpoops

macrumors 6502
Jan 15, 2002
433
0
PA
OS 9 and OS X although fundamentally different run on the same architecture the PPC neither of them run on x86 although theoretically they both can. In fact they probably do but none of us will ever see them unless we get a job at apple working in the department.
 

macphisto

macrumors regular
Jun 29, 2002
226
0
At home
Originally posted by MacAztec
'

I dont understand what the big deal about Apple using AMD chips. They are not releasing "AMD" powermacs, just releasing a new computer with a new chip. Do we call the current machines the Motorola PowerMac? Or the IBM iBook?

Its like Appple using IBM for a G4/5, only its AMD.

I know you are all going to start talkign about x86, and AMD only making x86, but you never know...
The difference is essentially architecture and performance. Have you ever tried using photoshop and illustrator on a pc? It can be unbarably slow.

Its all about the Altivec baby. :)
 

MacAztec

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Oct 28, 2001
3,023
1
San Luis Obispo, CA
Originally posted by macphisto


The difference is essentially architecture and performance. Have you ever tried using photoshop and illustrator on a pc? It can be unbarably slow.

Its all about the Altivec baby. :)
Actually, I haven't.

But I have looked at benchmarks with Apple's G4, Intels P4, and AMDs 2600+. Apple seems to be lagging in the Adobe tests, and many PS tests.
 

springscansing

macrumors 6502a
Oct 13, 2002
922
0
New York
Originally posted by macphisto


The difference is essentially architecture and performance. Have you ever tried using photoshop and illustrator on a pc? It can be unbarably slow.

Its all about the Altivec baby. :)
Have YOU ever tried running photoshop on a new PC? Obviously not. A 3ghz PC is certainly no slouch, and kills a 1.25ghz G4 anyday by a -huge- margin.
 

macphisto

macrumors regular
Jun 29, 2002
226
0
At home
I must concede that the newer p4 chips are rivaling and surpasing the g4, but for those of us with older computers, the difference is rather evident.

But everything goes back to the Altivec, that is why everyone thinks that Apple will go with the IBM power4 chip. Because of the instruction set similar to Motorola's Altivec.

Speaking of which, what does everyone think Motorola's problem is concerning R&D and putting out comparable (Mhz-wise) chips to intel and AMD?
 

MisterMe

macrumors G4
Jul 17, 2002
10,650
28
USA
Originally posted by springscansing


Have YOU ever tried running photoshop on a new PC? Obviously not. A 3ghz PC is certainly no slouch, and kills a 1.25ghz G4 anyday by a -huge- margin.
3 GHz PC? Would you mind sharing with us exactly which model of 3 GHz PC you used to run your Photoshop benchmarks and compare them to benchmarks of Photoshop running on dual 1.25 GHz PowerMacs G4s?
 

MacAztec

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Oct 28, 2001
3,023
1
San Luis Obispo, CA
MisterMe

Its a P4 3.0GHz with HyperThreading, a super FSB, like 5.8GB memory thruput, and stuff.

You find the benchmarks, you will see. Everyone knows that no mac can compare to it.
 

macphisto

macrumors regular
Jun 29, 2002
226
0
At home
Re: MisterMe

Originally posted by MacAztec
Its a P4 3.0GHz with HyperThreading, a super FSB, like 5.8GB memory thruput, and stuff.

You find the benchmarks, you will see. Everyone knows that no mac can compare to it.
Yes, but all benchmarks are speculative. They are like gallup polls an surveys. They can be manipulated to get the results that you want. Plus, I read an article that said the new 3 GHz is actually slower then its 2.4, 2.5 and 2.8 predicessors.

Just food for thought.
 

WelshDog

macrumors member
Jan 29, 2002
82
66
Austin
Motorola blew it

Speaking of which, what does everyone think Motorola's problem is concerning R&D and putting out comparable (Mhz-wise) chips to intel and AMD?
Motorola poorly manged their chip division and Intel and AMD raided the best talent. In fact Moto sued Intel over the issue. Nonetheless Moto lost a lot of really talented people because Moto didn't pay well and treated them poorly. That is why Macs have slow processors.

IBM to the rescue!
 

MisterMe

macrumors G4
Jul 17, 2002
10,650
28
USA
Re: MisterMe

Originally posted by MacAztec
Its a P4 3.0GHz with HyperThreading, a super FSB, like 5.8GB memory thruput, and stuff.

You find the benchmarks, you will see. Everyone knows that no mac can compare to it.
springscansing claimed that a 3 GHz P4 runs Photoshop faster than the Mac. In case you didn't get it, I asked him to produce his benchmarks. Clearly he has none. He has none because no one is selling a 3 GHz P4-based computer. He likely couldn't afford one if they were available.

I notice that you are not referencing a real shipping product either. I just wish that you people who slobber at the prospect of this or that Intel processor would stay focused on computers that I can actually buy and get real work done. Those other machines do me no good.
 

MacAztec

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Oct 28, 2001
3,023
1
San Luis Obispo, CA
P4

Alienware sells it.

And, if you go to apples website and look at their benchmarks, they pick out ONE SPECIFIC TEST and filter that is just MADE for Altivec, and tell everyone the mac is 300 percent faster....
 

MacTheKnife

macrumors newbie
Nov 20, 2002
19
0
Los Angeles, CA
pardon me, mister, i hope this doesn't disappoint you...

Originally posted by MisterMe


springscansing claimed that a 3 GHz P4 runs Photoshop faster than the Mac. In case you didn't get it, I asked him to produce his benchmarks. Clearly he has none. He has none because no one is selling a 3 GHz P4-based computer. He likely couldn't afford one if they were available.

I notice that you are not referencing a real shipping product either. I just wish that you people who slobber at the prospect of this or that Intel processor would stay focused on computers that I can actually buy and get real work done. Those other machines do me no good.
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm
 

Cappy

macrumors 6502
May 29, 2002
387
2
Re: Re: MisterMe

Originally posted by MisterMe


springscansing claimed that a 3 GHz P4 runs Photoshop faster than the Mac. In case you didn't get it, I asked him to produce his benchmarks. Clearly he has none. He has none because no one is selling a 3 GHz P4-based computer. He likely couldn't afford one if they were available.

I notice that you are not referencing a real shipping product either. I just wish that you people who slobber at the prospect of this or that Intel processor would stay focused on computers that I can actually buy and get real work done. Those other machines do me no good.
Get a grip. For starters not everyone has time to visit macrumors every few hours to reply to posts and, two, not everyone cares that much that they have to...especially when arguing with someone in denial.
 

barkmonster

macrumors 68020
Dec 3, 2001
2,125
12
Lancashire
Oh no, not the machead in denial routine again!

Here's some benchmarks about the 3Ghz P4 vs 1.25Ghz G4 :

Mac Slaughtered Again - Of interest are these figures (just incase you're in total denial that a P4 can thrash a G4) :

Photoshop Benchmark

Layer styles & transformation :

Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 : 7.1 secs
Intel P4 3.06 GHz : 4.5 secs (4.8 secs w/o Hyperthreading enabled)

Filter Effects :

Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 : 62 secs
Intel P4 3.06 Ghz : 35.1 secs (35.9 secs w/o Hyperthreading enabled)

Manipulations and adjustments :

Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 : 4.5 secs
Intel P4 3.06 Ghz : 3.4 secs (3.6 secs w/o Hyperthreading enabled)

After Effects Benchmarks

Data Project :

Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 : 3:47 secs
Intel P4 3.06 Ghz : 2:05 min (2:32 min w/o Hyperthreading enabled)

Source Shapes :

Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 : 7:06 secs
Intel P4 3.06 Ghz : 4:14 min (4:59 min w/o Hyperthreading enabled)

Virtual Set :

Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 : 8:15 secs
Intel P4 3.06 Ghz : 4:24 min (5:49 min w/o Hyperthreading enabled)


That proves 2 things to me, the dual 1.25Ghz G4 is no speed king, Hyperthreading is overhyped but offers a reasonable speed boost to some things (pretty much like MP support on the mac really), not showing how tests are performed leads to suspiciously favourable results to whatever platform the reviewer is leaning towards. Why not use PS Bench ? no manipulation can go on there like only using single CPU filters to make the PC look faster or only dual cpu aware filters to make the mac look faster.

Oh, it's shipping already, a few mail order companies in the UK are already listing the 3.06Ghz P4 chip as available.

Don't forget the whole windows issue either, it's no OS X or even OS 9. Plus who really uses a platform with an sRGB color gamut (small) and no colour management on an OS level and expects it to result in accurate output ?
 

Wash!!

macrumors 6502
Jan 8, 2002
389
0
here, there, who knows
Originally posted by MacAztec


Actually, I haven't.

But I have looked at benchmarks with Apple's G4, Intels P4, and AMDs 2600+. Apple seems to be lagging in the Adobe tests, and many PS tests.
Benchmarks mean crap, it's what you do with the computer and the application that runs on it.
It may be true that on paper the mac could be lagging but for how much tenths of a second:rolleyes: whoopee!!! come on most of the so called benchmarks are made by PC/M$/winblows tech geeks that get $ under the table from Intel and company to say that the Winblows PC is faster than the Mac. please:rolleyes:
 

Catfish_Man

macrumors 68030
Sep 13, 2001
2,579
1
Portland, OR
Re: Can you explain to me...

Originally posted by Pentium Killer
...why Apple should make a switch to the Opteron and have much trouble in porting the software?The IBM PPC 970 may be out in January and even if it does not give Apple the lead in performance,it will surely be fast enough to be competetive.So why all this hassle with AMD or Intel???
How could it be out in January? IBM has publicly announced that it will be out in the SECOND HALF OF 2003. January is not the second half. Other than that, I agree with you.

in reply to the "you never know", actually, we do. AMD hasn't liscenced PowerPC, has never made PowerPC, and has no budget to make PowerPC.
 

crassusad44

macrumors 6502a
Nov 30, 2001
546
0
Scandinavia
Re: P4

Originally posted by MacAztec
And, if you go to apples website and look at their benchmarks, they pick out ONE SPECIFIC TEST and filter that is just MADE for Altivec, and tell everyone the mac is 300 percent faster....
And PC-zealots pick ONE test and tells everyone the PC is 300 percent faster....

It goes both ways.

And lets not forget the Mac advantage... Mac OS X. This does not mean that I think Apple should provide Macs with higher clock speed. Hopefully we'll reach 2 GHz in not a too distant future...
 

crassusad44

macrumors 6502a
Nov 30, 2001
546
0
Scandinavia
Re: Oh no, not the machead in denial routine again!

Originally posted by barkmonster
Don't forget the whole windows issue either, it's no OS X or even OS 9. Plus who really uses a platform with an sRGB color gamut (small) and no colour management on an OS level and expects it to result in accurate output ?
Good point. Long live ColorSync... I would not either have trusted a PC in a color critical environment...
 

Pentium Killer

macrumors member
Apr 10, 2002
39
0
Berlin
Re: Re: Can you explain to me...

Originally posted by Catfish_Man


How could it be out in January? IBM has publicly announced that it will be out in the SECOND HALF OF 2003. January is not the second half. Other than that, I agree with you.

Well it is nice,that you agree with me,but I still think that the PPC 970 may be out in January,because there might be a special deal with Apple.Enough "may"and "might"?Well this is all about rumors,or?:D
 

vniow

macrumors G4
Jul 18, 2002
10,288
0
I accidentally my whole location.
Originally posted by Pentium Killer


Well it is nice,that you agree with me,but I still think that the PPC 970 may be out in January,because there might be a special deal with Apple.Enough "may"and "might"?Well this is all about rumors,or?:D

Well you can rumor all you want, IBM's not going to release the 970s until they said, which was in mid-2003. They're not about to lie to all the analysts and stockholders and release it 6 months earlier.

But Apple better have something up their sleeves in the meantime. There's no telling what's going to come out next.