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.
Intel FUD-O-RAMA
- Thread starter SiliconAddict
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just bomb throwing. Everyone does it, including apple.
(Or I guess G5 is the fastest computer in the world at the moment)
(Or I guess G5 is the fastest computer in the world at the moment)
Well, these claims by intel have nothing to back them up. They're just the opinion of intel, and not really anybody else. They see RISC based servers as competition, and they know that the 970, the Power4, the Power5, and I'm sure something from Sun can beat the sh*t out of the itanium processor...
Intel is trying to save their ass, but unfortunately, I believe that it's the x86 platform that will put your enterprise at risk, because the technology has almost nowhere to go, except for maybe a few speed bumps every couple of months...
Intel can go suck a nut. IBM makes better processors. AMD makes better processors (actually, IBM actually makes those better AMD processors, so it's IBM that rocks!)
As far as Apple's hype with the G5, while some of it is kinda weird, they are not lying when they say the G5 is the fastest desktop computer in the world. It's other places, like those mail-order catalogs that say "The fastest computer in the world" or "the first 64-bit computer"
Intel is trying to save their ass, but unfortunately, I believe that it's the x86 platform that will put your enterprise at risk, because the technology has almost nowhere to go, except for maybe a few speed bumps every couple of months...
Intel can go suck a nut. IBM makes better processors. AMD makes better processors (actually, IBM actually makes those better AMD processors, so it's IBM that rocks!)
As far as Apple's hype with the G5, while some of it is kinda weird, they are not lying when they say the G5 is the fastest desktop computer in the world. It's other places, like those mail-order catalogs that say "The fastest computer in the world" or "the first 64-bit computer"
heh, all's fair in love and marketing
That is pretty damn funny though....imagine what they'll do when the G5 XServes come out....
D
That is pretty damn funny though....imagine what they'll do when the G5 XServes come out....
D
HAHA... Intel does NOT see apple or any RISC processor manufacturer as a serious competiotion. Are you kidding? Do you think Intel who controls around 65% of all cpu chips made in the world really scrared of what ibm has up its sleeve?
Intel thinks that G5 is a dejavu all over again of G3, where apple came out with strong statements but then quickly fell behind again. That ad by intel is nothing more or less than another ad.
And as for G5 being the festest desktop computer.. that also is arguable. First i haven't seen real tests to prove that yet. In most tests i have seen, dual g5 falls behing 2.4 xeons quickly.
Second, It's way too big. You call a workstation - "desktop" and boom you got a new marketing sloagan...
Unless you want to make an emphasis on fastest 64 bit personal computer. but then another question rises, "why do you need a "fastest" 64 bit computer that still loses to 32 bit computer?"
Originally posted by Rezet
Just bomb throwing. Everyone does it, including apple.
(Or I guess G5 is the fastest computer in the world at the moment)
Yes, but let's at least quote Apple correctly on the G5 please...
"The world's fastest *personal* computer." There is a big difference there. They aren't claiming to have the world's fastest computer period.
Well, yeah, that all depends on what you want to put an emphasis on. Apple's legal team worked long enough on the slogan so that it would mislead people, but at the same time if legal troubles arrive, they wouldn't get suied for false marketing.
If Intel doesn't see RISC based processors as competition, why the Itanic then? Why do they take pop shots at the SPARC from Sun and the Power4 from IBM? Intel isn't even competing with Sun and IBM though; they are so far behind it is not funny. Intel sold 3200 last quarter; over 90% of those came from HP. Intel is dead last; they have the slowest selling processor out there. Even the AMD sold more with their Opteron.
You need to look a deeper. Intel is a no name in the large-scale enterprise systems, right where Sun and IBM are. Sun and IBM go from the workstation market and the low-end servers all the way to the high-end servers. Intel is mainly a desktop/notebook and low-end server company. They want to get to the high end, which is what the Itanic is for.
Dude, they release al those processors not to fall behind in anything even if they don't really need it. Just to keep the competition under the rug.
As for Sun, last time i checked they weren't doing too great either.
For consumers, however, average joe/jane, intel means something. But they don't know anything about Sun or cisco, or other large business companies like those. Intel appeals to them, and all they have to do is keep AMD in check, and you control all home PC's market (not too shabby ehh). And from recent 3200 vs 3.2 P4 tests i have seen, AMD might as well start carving out the RIP grave stone or something unless they release their 64 bit athlon, they are as good as dead (referring to newest technology not 2100 etc).
Sun is still the largest player in the game, ahead of IBM and HP in the RISC market.
So Intel spent billions of dollars on the Itanic just to keep the others at bay? What category are they keeping them at bay in? Worst selling processor? High power usage? Slowest adoption rate?
So what is the Itanic for then?
That's their strategy... I don't know. For some reason i'm pretty sure, they are not putting all their money on those...
It seems that you are not aware that Itanium is NOT x86 and IS RISC. In order to get the full performance of Itanium, you have to recompile your application. When Itanium runs 32-bit x86 code, it does so via emulation and the performance absolutely sucks. On top of it all, the CPU consumes so much power that Intel/HP can't match the compute density of Sun and IBM, i.e. the Itanium chasis has to be much larger, with larger power supplies, more rack space, more air conditioning, etc. etc. In short, the reason Itanium server shipments are dead last is because it can't compete with pervailing server CPU designs.
OK.. maybe. not sure about this. But what does it has to do with my previous statement? Sun was in this large business computing solutions all their life. Intel is mostly a consumer oriented company. Like i said i dont think they are bidding too high on risc technology.
P.S You don't like intel, so i know you will flame it every chance you get... so what's the point?
You just have to learn not to encourage Rezet
As for the marketing of the G5, Apple made it clear to differentiate the G5 system as a *desktop* and not in the same class as many workstation/servers out there that could slaughter just about anything. As far as a $2-3000 personal desktop computer, the G5 system is one huge step forward in the right direction.
As for the marketing of the G5, Apple made it clear to differentiate the G5 system as a *desktop* and not in the same class as many workstation/servers out there that could slaughter just about anything. As far as a $2-3000 personal desktop computer, the G5 system is one huge step forward in the right direction.
This isn't targeting the G5 or 970; it's targeting the Alpha, MIPS, SPARC/UltraSPARC, PA-RISC, and the Power series from IBM (and the other RISC chip by IBM whose name doesn't spring to mind) who have dominant shares in the server market for large corporations.
As for Sun being on top... I think that the last reports show that not to be the case. HP is on top with IBM second and Sun third. Don't forget that besides HP's intel solutions, their top end model was/is the AlphaServers (based on DEC Alpha chips after HP bought DEC a few years back) and they also have the PA-RISC chip.
G5 has no in-roads (and for that matter any of Apple's products in the server market) into servers, etc. Apple would like to be in the server market, but recent attempts seem only interesting to first-time server owners in small businesses. (No truly large systems have converted to Xserve or xRAID; if they had, you can guarantee Apple would have a slew of PR sent out.) As they are, Apple's server products woefully lack redundancy and so are unappealling to corporate customers (plus their server support leaves something to be desired...)
As for Sun being on top... I think that the last reports show that not to be the case. HP is on top with IBM second and Sun third. Don't forget that besides HP's intel solutions, their top end model was/is the AlphaServers (based on DEC Alpha chips after HP bought DEC a few years back) and they also have the PA-RISC chip.
G5 has no in-roads (and for that matter any of Apple's products in the server market) into servers, etc. Apple would like to be in the server market, but recent attempts seem only interesting to first-time server owners in small businesses. (No truly large systems have converted to Xserve or xRAID; if they had, you can guarantee Apple would have a slew of PR sent out.) As they are, Apple's server products woefully lack redundancy and so are unappealling to corporate customers (plus their server support leaves something to be desired...)
Originally posted by Powerbook G5
You just have to learn not to encourage Rezet
As for the marketing of the G5, Apple made it clear to differentiate the G5 system as a *desktop* and not in the same class as many workstation/servers out there that could slaughter just about anything. As far as a $2-3000 personal desktop computer, the G5 system is one huge step forward in the right direction.
Yeah truth hurts, Mr. zealot
Actually that's not true. The Itanium architecture is pretty much the opposite of RISC, which uses Reduced Instruction Set Computing. The Itanium uses EPIC, which, while I can't remember what it stands for exactly, is a huge instruction set.
Not to nitpick, but Sun actually started by selling Unix workstations. It's only been the last 5 years or so that they've been successful in the high-end market.
Originally posted by Rezet
Yeah truth hurts, Mr. zealot
I've never been called a zealot before...what am I zealous of?
Actually, that's not true. The Itanium is a VLIW architecture. The compiler arranges the code into a series of RISC intructions that can be executed in parallel by the core, as one Very Long Intruction Word. Those intructions are not x86, nor are the RISC sub-intructions that make up the VLIW, thus the need for an emulation of x86.
The new pentiums are quite faster than any AMD athlon out their, my opinion for x86 is if you want low end (1.8GHZ to 2.4GHZ equivalent) go AMD, if you want FAST at any cost, go Intel.
But then again IBM kicks both of their asses
I really don't understand how they can create 100+ watt processors and consider that normal/acceptable. I know we get all in arms when a Gx processor gets over 20-30 watts. At any rate, I'm personally quite happy with my RISC-oriented computer purchases, so if Intel is insecure about that, then I guess they are in for a harsh reality check.