Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[JCheng]

Well I couldn't find anything about that on Intels site, but I believe you on your word. However I still don't think Apple will use such a configuration simply because the Pentium D runs way to hot. Sticking two of those hot chips in a system seems like a bad idea to me if you like quite systems.

They will probably wait for the next generation based on the lower power Pentium M.

The demo'ed servers were reported in this article, there were also roadmaps presented at IDF (Intel Developer Forums) that included dual-core Xeons as this slide indicates. And I agree with you that the Pentium M is definitely the better choice, the Pentium D provided a decent boost but the entire netburst architecture is nearing obsolescence, especially in light of the mounting heat dissapation problems that you pointed out. Cooler multi-core cpus are (foreseeably) the future.

guess debating the future roadmap any further is a little pointless since its pure speculation if Intel can or can not meet their goals.

Yep, we can make logical predictions and educated guesses but who knows what the future might hold? Only time well tell although logically, I think Apple made the right choice..

 

[Mord]

the bull **** here is getting unbearable.

netburst (p4) sucks, full stop thats why AMD has been hammering (no pun intended) intel like they have, intel has moved all there good engineers to transform the pentium M into a viable desktop multicore processor and left a bunch of idiots to tend to netburst, thats why a dual core xeon is takeing so long and thats why the pentium D only hits 3.2GHz when it should be at least at 3.6GHz.

if intel were going to own the powerpc now apple would have made the decision a couple of years ago, however they are going to own a couple of years down the line when there projects run by there good engineers are complete, thats why apple is going to use intel chips in the low end and mobile first because yonah is the first of intels amazingly good chips and then the imac and emac with the desktop version of the pentium M and then final the powermac and xserve with the pentium m based xeon, i highly doubt that apple will ever use a netburst cpu in any shipping macs bar the developers kit and thats because intel dose not have a desktop pentium M yet. (and yes i know about the asus socket converter and the few desktop pentium M boards but those are hacks for a small market).

 

[JCheng]

the bull **** here is getting unbearable.

Oh? And pray tell what BS are you talking about? Care to add some substance to your statements or are you just going to continue making these inane childish remarks?

netburst (p4) sucks, full stop thats why AMD has been hammering (no pun intended) intel like they have, intel has moved all there good engineers to transform the pentium M into a viable desktop multicore processor and left a bunch of idiots to tend to netburst, thats why a dual core xeon is takeing so long and thats why the pentium D only hits 3.2GHz when it should be at least at 3.6GHz.

Heh, and I suppose you just choose to ignore the time period where the P4 was beating the crap out of the Athlon and G4 right? Netburst was good for its time but its time is just about up now. The fact that it still remains competitive with the Athlon64, G5 and Pentium M is a testament to its staying power. And regardless of what you might PERSONALLY think of the Pentium D, the fact remains that it still boosted performance dramatically in most professional applications over previous processors and in a processor-to-processor comparison is superior performance-wise to the latest G5 in said programs.

if intel were going to own the powerpc now apple would have made the decision a couple of years ago, however they are going to own a couple of years down the line when there projects run by there good engineers are complete, thats why apple is going to use intel chips in the low end and mobile first because yonah is the first of intels amazingly good chips and then the imac and emac with the desktop version of the pentium M and then final the powermac and xserve with the pentium m based xeon, i highly doubt that apple will ever use a netburst cpu in any shipping macs bar the developers kit and thats because intel dose not have a desktop pentium M yet. (and yes i know about the asus socket converter and the few desktop pentium M boards but those are hacks for a small market).

Okay, and what does that have to do with the current predicament in terms of how netburst compares with the G5? No ones arguing that the Pentium M is the better chip, the fact that your even trying to argue that netburst sucks from such a viewpoint only demonstrates that you can't disprove my argument that the G5 can't keep up with existing Pentium-Ds (thats right, a netburst design!) and Athlon64s and yes Hector, we all know how desperately you want to believe that your precious RISC-based (OMG!) G5 is the best cpu in the world, despite the fact that its only been speeded up 8% over the past 6 months while everyone else went to dual-core processors.

 

[~loserman~]

Let's keep one other thing in mind. Microsoft has a stated policy that they will not produce software for OS's which compete on the same platform. I'm wondering exactly how attractive OSX will be when people find out they can't have their Microsoft Office.

Well people will be able to run the Windows version of Office on their Mactel by using WINE.

I run Office XP on my Linux boxes that way.

 

[Mord]

Oh? And pray tell what BS are you talking about? Care to add some substance to your statements or are you just going to continue making these inane childish remarks?



Heh, and I suppose you just choose to ignore the time period where the P4 was beating the crap out of the Athlon and G4 right? Netburst was good for its time but its time is just about up now. The fact that it still remains competitive with the Athlon64, G5 and Pentium M is a testament to its staying power. And regardless of what you might PERSONALLY think of the Pentium D, the fact remains that it still boosted performance dramatically in most professional applications over previous processors and in a processor-to-processor comparison is superior performance-wise to the latest G5 in said programs.



Okay, and what does that have to do with the current predicament in terms of how netburst compares with the G5? No ones arguing that the Pentium M is the better chip, the fact that your even trying to argue that netburst sucks from such a viewpoint only demonstrates that you can't disprove my argument that the G5 can't keep up with existing Pentium-Ds (thats right, a netburst design!) and Athlon64s and yes Hector, we all know how desperately you want to believe that your precious RISC-based (OMG!) G5 is the best cpu in the world, despite the fact that its only been speeded up 8% over the past 6 months while everyone else went to dual-core processors.

Netburst only did well against the competition because intel is more than 5 times bigger than AMD and AMD is in term a heck of allot bigger than Motorola's fabrication department (now freescale) so all that money was pumped into getting the clock speed up which is plain stupid as heat spirals and you get crappy low IPC with such a long pipeline.

the only areas that apple is beaten in by your opinion is an area which they dont compete in, the consumer tower, the powermac is a workstation and thus is comparable to a dual xeon workstation or a dual opteron workstation and in the powermacs price it's very competitive, intel has yet to produce a dual core xeon at a reasonable enough clock speed. if you compare what is available which is in the same caliber as the powermac it dose pretty well

if you compare a dell with a dual core pentium extreme edition (comparable to a dual 2GHz powermac) and it comes to a grand total of $2394 (matching a comparible graphics card and equal HD and ram) dual core processors are very expensive and the cheap ones are plain slow. and to top it off "May delay your Dell Precision 380 ship date" --_--.

the netburst dose not win this generation but the pentium M will win the next.

the BS is being said by everyone half the stuff your complaining about and the other half is some of the stuff you say in your posts.

 

[JCheng]

Netburst only did well against the competition because intel is more than 5 times bigger than AMD and AMD is in term a heck of allot bigger than Motorola's fabrication department (now freescale) so all that money was pumped into getting the clock speed up which is plain stupid as heat spirals and you get crappy low IPC with such a long pipeline.

Oh, than I suppose the G5 is "plain stupid" than because of it's similarly long pipeline? Please, your blatant bias is appalling and the only thing thats stupid right now is the fact that you cannot accept the obvious (even when you haven't done anything to disprove it either!).

Heat spirals? Yeah okay, and I suppose that the P4 was the only processor that suffered from increased heat dissipation when it moved to the 90nm process . Get in touch with reality buddy, every cpu on the market suffered from heat problems, thats exactly why the G5 couldn't scale to 3 GHz as Jobs promised. Did I really have to point that out to you?

Seriously this is just ridiculous, you clearly know nothing about chip design or have any common sense for that matter. What? Do you think Intel just instantly became a big company when it launched the Pentium 4 (which you yourself admitted fared well against the competition)? What about all the time before that? Was Intel just a little company incapable of pumping money into R&D when all its previous chips (Pentium 3, Pentium 2, etc) didn't compare as well against PowerPC chips? Clearly, the only one whose spewing BS right now is you.

the only areas that apple is beaten in by your opinion is an area which they dont compete in, the consumer tower, the powermac is a workstation and thus is comparable to a dual xeon workstation or a dual opteron workstation and in the powermacs price it's very competitive, intel has yet to produce a dual core xeon at a reasonable enough clock speed. if you compare what is available which is in the same caliber as the powermac it dose pretty well

Did you even bother to read my post? Do you understand the concept of a processor-processor comparison? The simple fact is that right now, Intel's current netburst offerings perform better than IBM's, that they aren't in dual processor configurations yet is merely a minor (not to mention temporary) caveat, it does not change the fact that they are better processors that will inevitably create better systems.

I especially like how you ignore the fact that AMD has already launched dual-core Opteron workstation chips which, to my understanding, already stand to beat the G5 Powermacs pretty badly (and before you even comment, let me point out that the prices are quite comparable).

if you compare a dell with a dual core pentium extreme edition (comparable to a dual 2GHz powermac) and it comes to a grand total of $2394 (matching a comparible graphics card and equal HD and ram) dual core processors are very expensive and the cheap ones are plain slow. and to top it off "May delay your Dell Precision 380 ship date" --_--.

the netburst dose not win this generation but the pentium M will win the next.

Your consistent dishonesty is appalling, right now I can configure a Dimension 9100(with dual core 3.2 GHz P4, and equal or better components to the Dual 2 GHz powemac, plus a 17" CRT) for $1447 ($1200 if I downgrade slightly to a dual core 3.0 GHz P4), your powermac by comparison costs $2000 comes with no display and a slower video card. Don't believe me? Try configuring one in this link.

And Netburst does win against the G5 out of consideration that right now, its is a better performing processor in a processor-processor comparison. I've already demonstrated that and you've yet to argue about it. I do wonder why?

the BS is being said by everyone half the stuff your complaining about and the other half is some of the stuff you say in your posts.

Yep just as I thought, all talk and no substance. I gave you a chance to prove what I said was BS. All you provide is another childish blanket statement, clearly you've demonstrated that the only person whose spewing BS here is yourself, thank you for playing, you've clearly demonstrated your immaturity and ignorance.

 

[vatel]

Well people will be able to run the Windows version of Office on their Mactel by using WINE.

I think you missed my point. We were discussing Apple making a general release of OS X to the PC market. In that case, Microsoft would probably would pull support for Office, and then yes, you could still run Office via WINE, but where would the mass market appeal for that as a solution be?

The vast majority of PC users are not looking for something that can be made to work this way or that way. They expect to buy, install some CD's, and away they go.

 

[MontyZ]

I have no clue what you guys are arguing about (over my head), but, it's sure fun to read.

 

[MontyZ]

Another article about Mac/Intel:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2005-06-13-appleintel_x.htm

I found this part perplexing:

"Though the transition is likely to be rocky at first for Apple, programmers and customers, the move could lead to Macs that are both more competitive and more compatible with Windows. It could even open the Mac to software titles now available only to Windows users."

Oh ... reeeeaaally?? Oy.

 

[Mord]

Oh, than I suppose the G5 is "plain stupid" than because of it's similarly long pipeline? Please, your blatant bias is appalling and the only thing thats stupid right now is the fact that you cannot accept the obvious (even when you haven't done anything to disprove it either!).

Heat spirals? Yeah okay, and I suppose that the P4 was the only processor that suffered from increased heat dissipation when it moved to the 90nm process . Get in touch with reality buddy, every cpu on the market suffered from heat problems, thats exactly why the G5 couldn't scale to 3 GHz as Jobs promised. Did I really have to point that out to you?

Seriously this is just ridiculous, you clearly know nothing about chip design or have any common sense for that matter. What? Do you think Intel just instantly became a big company when it launched the Pentium 4 (which you yourself admitted fared well against the competition)? What about all the time before that? Was Intel just a little company incapable of pumping money into R&D when all its previous chips (Pentium 3, Pentium 2, etc) didn't compare as well against PowerPC chips? Clearly, the only one whose spewing BS right now is you.



Did you even bother to read my post? Do you understand the concept of a processor-processor comparison? The simple fact is that right now, Intel's current netburst offerings perform better than IBM's, that they aren't in dual processor configurations yet is merely a minor (not to mention temporary) caveat, it does not change the fact that they are better processors that will inevitably create better systems.

I especially like how you ignore the fact that AMD has already launched dual-core Opteron workstation chips which, to my understanding, already stand to beat the G5 Powermacs pretty badly (and before you even comment, let me point out that the prices are quite comparable).



Your consistent dishonesty is appalling, right now I can configure a Dimension 9100(with dual core 3.2 GHz P4, and equal or better components to the Dual 2 GHz powemac, plus a 17" CRT) for $1447 ($1200 if I downgrade slightly to a dual core 3.0 GHz P4), your powermac by comparison costs $2000 comes with no display and a slower video card. Don't believe me? Try configuring one in this link.

And Netburst does win against the G5 out of consideration that right now, its is a better performing processor in a processor-processor comparison. I've already demonstrated that and you've yet to argue about it. I do wonder why?



Yep just as I thought, all talk and no substance. I gave you a chance to prove what I said was BS. All you provide is another childish blanket statement, clearly you've demonstrated that the only person whose spewing BS here is yourself, thank you for playing, you've clearly demonstrated your immaturity and ignorance.

the graphics card on that pc is inferior to the 9600 in the G5, x300SE my arse, and if you add the things that come with the powermac like a more comparable OS (pro Vs home) an optical mouse a 1 year warranty and some basic speakers the price comes up a fair bit, also the cpu dose not have hyperthreading.

the G5 has a long pipeline sure but not quite as long as the p4's (earlier ones had shorter ones i know)

what i am simply asking is you compare processor to processor in it's own class and price range in which the current G5 dose well compared to the competition, why you cant seem to see this i have no idea, the G5 is a workstation cpu and should be compared to the opteron and xeon, sure you can get dual core opterons but they cost the earth, for a pair of opteron 275's it costs nearly as much as a dual 2.7GHz powermac, JUST FOR THE CPU's most recent reviews of the powermac have noted this, the opteron can crunch more but is not price competitive.

the P4 has always had heat problems it's not a new thing with the 90nm wall, the G5 dose not dissipate that much heat the trouble is it dissipates it on a very small die.

intel has always been after clock speed, they are know for there stupid management and MHz matters attitude, it's not just been with netburst that was just the bubble before the burst.

i would bet that if apple did switch to intel a long time ago they wouldn't even be using the pentium D anywhere in there product line, the powermacs would be using single core xeons and the imac would be using normal 600 series p4's, apple dose not do consumer towers, as i have said before, the lack of a workstation dual core cpu is unfortunate but intels offerings do not fix that problem, that around the corner xeon is not coming for a while yet probably not until 2006 (actually have a look and you will see thats when they are due)

you cant call me biased i have run pretty much every platform that is and own 4 pc's 5 macs and a sun sparc station.

 

[asarsun]

Your consistent dishonesty is appalling, right now I can configure a Dimension 9100(with dual core 3.2 GHz P4, and equal or better components to the Dual 2 GHz powemac, plus a 17" CRT) for $1447 ($1200 if I downgrade slightly to a dual core 3.0 GHz P4), your powermac by comparison costs $2000 comes with no display and a slower video card.

Now you know this is a BIG, BIG FAT lie:

Dimension 9100
Pentium® D Processor 840 with Dual Core Technology (3.20GHz, 800FSB), Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional Unit Price $2,509.00
Module Description
Dell Dimension 9100 Pentium® D Processor 840 with Dual Core Technology (3.20GHz, 800FSB)
Operating System Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional
Memory 512MB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz - 2DIMMs
Keyboard Dell USB Keyboard
Monitors Video Ready w/o Monitor
Video Cards 256MB PCI Express™ x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI Radeon™ X850 XT
Hard Drives 160GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™
Floppy Drive and Media Reader No Floppy Drive Included
Mouse Dell® 2-button USB mouse
Modem 56K PCI Data Fax Modem
Adobe Software Adobe® Acrobat® Reader 6.0
CD or DVD Drive Single Drive: 16x DVD+/-RW with double layer write capability
Sound Card Sound Blaster® Live! 24-bit ADVANCED HD™ Audio
Speakers No speakers (Speakers are required to hear audio from your system)
Office Productivity Software (Pre-Installed) No Microsoft Office
Security Software No Virus Protection Requested
Digital Music Musicmatch® Jukebox Basic
Digital Photography Photo Album™ SE Basic
Limited Warranty, Services and Support Options 3 Year Limited Warranty plus 3 Year NBD On-Site Service
Internet Access Service No ISP requested
Financial Software No QuickBooks package selected
TOTAL:$2,509.00
And the Dual 2.7ghz G5 with equal specs and far better hardware design/quality will run you about $3,000. Now can you stop with the lies.

 

[JCheng]

the graphics card on that pc is inferior to the 9600 in the G5, x300SE my arse, and if you add the things that come with the powermac like a more comparable OS (pro Vs home) an optical mouse a 1 year warranty and some basic speakers the price comes up a fair bit, also the cpu dose not have hyperthreading.

Oh please, now your just trying to make lame excuses. The X300SE is only $20 cheaper than the 9600, thats hardly a difference when factored into the overall system cost). The entire system still comes to only $1450 when you add speakers, an optical mouse, and 1 year warranty ($1470 when you add the extra costs attributed to the 9600). Seriously, the argument here is already over, deal with it.

the G5 has a long pipeline sure but not quite as long as the p4's (earlier ones had shorter ones i know)... intel has always been after clock speed, they are know for there stupid management and MHz matters attitude, it's not just been with netburst that was just the bubble before the burst.

Hmm, once again, you don't respond with anything meaningful to the argument. Allow me to repeat myself: have you any argument to my point that the Pentium4 was more successful than its predecessors in competing against rival RISC/x86 designs despite the fact that Intel has always been a large R&D oriented company with more resources than its competitor? If so state it, if not concede the point that the P4 was a successful design and didn't merely beat the competition because Intel had more resources available. BS'ing and avoiding the topic doesn't help your argument.

what i am simply asking is you compare processor to processor in it's own class and price range in which the current G5 dose well compared to the competition, why you cant seem to see this i have no idea, the G5 is a workstation cpu and should be compared to the opteron and xeon, sure you can get dual core opterons but they cost the earth, for a pair of opteron 275's it costs nearly as much as a dual 2.7GHz powermac, JUST FOR THE CPU's most recent reviews of the powermac have noted this, the opteron can crunch more but is not price competitive...

i would bet that if apple did switch to intel a long time ago they wouldn't even be using the pentium D anywhere in there product line, the powermacs would be using single core xeons and the imac would be using normal 600 series p4's, apple dose not do consumer towers, as i have said before, the lack of a workstation dual core cpu is unfortunate but intels offerings do not fix that problem, that around the corner xeon is not coming for a while yet probably not until 2006 (actually have a look and you will see thats when they are due)

Hector your repeating yourself over and over again and in doing so, your refusing to disprove my argument. Look, the only argument you have is that the Pentium Ds aren't found in dual-processor configurations yet and that the Dual-Core Opterons (which you admit are superior performance-wise) aren't in the same class as the G5s. First, lets start with the Opteron, go here and note the specifications and cost of the system. You'll find that theres approximately a 16.6% difference in cost between a comparably equipped powermac and this system, do you really consider that out of the price range? Especially under the consideration that both these systems are workstations.

Secondly, lets talk about the Pentium Ds. I believe I've already stated that the dual-core Xeons would be released late this year/early next year. That changes absolutely nothing about my original point, the Pentium D is still the better processor and adding mp support is merely a minor caveat (the only significant engineering feat lies in creating the chipset). The fact that Intel has been sampling these chips and shipping seed systems since the second half of this year demonstrates that the technology is already there. The point is simple, Intel has demonstrated more technological and performance improvement in its processors than IBM. Regardless of whatever the future roadmap holds for either company, IBM hasn't delivered as expected and thats the main reason Apple is moving to Intel. To think that Apple would base their entire future in computing on some future roadmap is ludicrous.

the P4 has always had heat problems it's not a new thing with the 90nm wall, the G5 dose not dissipate that much heat the trouble is it dissipates it on a very small die.

More misinformation, the northwood P4s actually ran very cool when introduced on the 130nm process. The entire reason Intel (along with everyone else) had to change their entire roadmap was because the same result couldn't be obtained from the 90nm process.

you cant call me biased i have run pretty much every platform that is and own 4 pc's 5 macs and a sun sparc station.

Hector, I don't care how many pcs you've owned, I'm calling you biased based on what you've said, particularly the immense amount of misinformation you've written. I don't really think I needed to point that out.

 

[JCheng]

Now you know this is a BIG, BIG FAT lie:

Dimension 9100
Pentium® D Processor 840 with Dual Core Technology (3.20GHz, 800FSB), Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional Unit Price $2,509.00
Module Description
Dell Dimension 9100 Pentium® D Processor 840 with Dual Core Technology (3.20GHz, 800FSB)
Operating System Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional
Memory 512MB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz - 2DIMMs
Keyboard Dell USB Keyboard
Monitors Video Ready w/o Monitor
Video Cards 256MB PCI Express™ x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI Radeon™ X850 XT
Hard Drives 160GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™
Floppy Drive and Media Reader No Floppy Drive Included
Mouse Dell® 2-button USB mouse
Modem 56K PCI Data Fax Modem
Adobe Software Adobe® Acrobat® Reader 6.0
CD or DVD Drive Single Drive: 16x DVD+/-RW with double layer write capability
Sound Card Sound Blaster® Live! 24-bit ADVANCED HD™ Audio
Speakers No speakers (Speakers are required to hear audio from your system)
Office Productivity Software (Pre-Installed) No Microsoft Office
Security Software No Virus Protection Requested
Digital Music Musicmatch® Jukebox Basic
Digital Photography Photo Album™ SE Basic
Limited Warranty, Services and Support Options 3 Year Limited Warranty plus 3 Year NBD On-Site Service
Internet Access Service No ISP requested
Financial Software No QuickBooks package selected
TOTAL:$2,509.00
And the Dual 2.7ghz G5 with equal specs and far better hardware design/quality will run you about $3,000. Now can you stop with the lies.

Oh please do you really think your fooling anyone? Do you really think no one would notice that you intentionally added a $500+ video card, 3 years warranty (the powermac quoted only offers 1 year), an extra modem and premium sound card (along with whatever else I'm missing)?

Seriously, your only deluding yourself. Configure the 9100 to the specifications I quoted (all of which is at least equal to the powermac) and you'll find that the price I quoted is exact.

Dimension 9100
Now from
$1,454

Pentium® D Processor 840 with Dual Core Technology (3.20GHz, 800FSB)
Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
1Yr Ltd Warranty, 1Yr At-Home Service, and 1Yr Technical Support
512MB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz - 2DIMMs
160GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™
Dual Drives: 16x DVD + FREE UPGRADE! 16x DVD+/-RW w/dbl layer write
Video Ready w/o Monitor
128MB PCI Express™ x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI Radeon™ X300 SE
Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio
Dell A215 Speakers
Dell USB Keyboard
Dell Optical USB Mouse
No Productivity Suite - Corel WordPerfect® word processor only
Photo Album™ SE Basic

 

[iPoster]

Well people will be able to run the Windows version of Office on their Mactel by using WINE.

I run Office XP on my Linux boxes that way.

That is true, and there are other alternatives as well:

<Points at NeoOffice>

And this is a bit 'last week', but I had to post it:

Switching to Intel?

 

[asarsun]

Oh please do you really think your fooling anyone? Do you really think no one would notice that you intentionally added a $500+ video card, 3 years warranty (the powermac quoted only offers 1 year), an extra modem and premium sound card (along with whatever else I'm missing)?

Seriously, your only deluding yourself. Configure the 9100 to the specifications I quoted (all of which is at least equal to the powermac) and you'll find that the price I quoted is exact.

Dimension 9100
Now from
$1,454

Pentium® D Processor 840 with Dual Core Technology (3.20GHz, 800FSB)
Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
1Yr Ltd Warranty, 1Yr At-Home Service, and 1Yr Technical Support
512MB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz - 2DIMMs
160GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™
Dual Drives: 16x DVD + FREE UPGRADE! 16x DVD+/-RW w/dbl layer write
Video Ready w/o Monitor
128MB PCI Express™ x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI Radeon™ X300 SE
Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio
Dell A215 Speakers
Dell USB Keyboard
Dell Optical USB Mouse
No Productivity Suite - Corel WordPerfect® word processor only
Photo Album™ SE Basic.

Watch out before you end up eating your words dude. I configured it based on specs and PERFORMANCE which equates very well. THE TOP OF THE LINE DELL DIMENSION 9100 CONFIGURED THE WAY I CONFIGURED IT IS BARELY ON PAR WITH THE TOP OF THE LINE DUAL 2.7GHZ G5. YOU KNOW IT, I KNOW IT, EVERYONE KNOWS IT.
Let's see:
Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition should be XP Pro or XP Pro 64bit edition to equal Mac OS X Tiger.
160GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™ should be 250GB to equal top of line G5.
128MB PCI Express™ x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI Radeon™ X300 SE should be the 256MB PCI Express™ x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI Radeon™ X850 XT or HIGHER to give the Dell the graphical power to compete with the G5.
C'mon dude be realistic!!!!!!!!!!!! A Dell Dimension 9100 doesn't equate, performance wise to a dual 2.7ghz G5. I'm being courteous to even compare the dual 2.7gh G5 to the "oh may GOD, I know he didn't" Dell Dimension 9100. You need to find another sight to pull that BS on DUDE.
Shall I say more?

 

[Tupring]

Are you high?

Well, that answers a lot! And says a lot!

I could care less what the hardware is--I'm more interested in the overall user experience. So this is probably a good thing.

Bob

An Intel processor in a Mac is not a good user experience (unless of course you prefer crap), or even a Mac at all. I'm going to find myself a used G5 and it will be the very last Mac I will ever own.

 

[mad jew]

An Intel processor in a Mac is not a good user experience (unless of course you prefer crap), or even a Mac at all. I'm going to find myself a used G5 and it will be the very last Mac I will ever own.

As long as you base it aaaalllll on fact.

 

[Tupring]

As long as you base it aaaalllll on fact.

I don't care what anyone says, Intel is ****.

 

[Rower_CPU]

How about everybody settle down a bit and review the forum rules. I'd like to point out the areas regarding insulting other forum members and circumventing the profanity filter.

If you have issues with someone's behavior, please report their post and we'll handle it. Calling people trolls and demanding they be banned is not a productive way of dealing with things.

Thanks

 

[Mord]

that dell is a bad example there is no comparable graphics card they give you an option of a crap one or a way expensive one


and that opteron jchang you just proved my point for me thats a single core dual 2.6GHz the opteron 275 is the dual core model so even an opteron which has a 100MHz speed disadvantage is not as good as the powermac.

what i have been trying to point out it that apple would not switch for netburst as it's a crappy design, heck most pc users would agree with me, the 3.06GHz northwood P4 dissipated approx 100w (max), and presscott just got worse.

if apple was being owned so much they would not be delaying the switch to intel for powermacs untill 2007 my point is proven with there actions.

i dont have time to finish this post as i have to get into school, (i have an exam 1:30 need to revise)

 

[jiggie2g]

You seem to go by the assumption that IBM will completely abandon any further development on the PowerPC. I think this remains to be seen. I think there is still a reasonable chance that IBM will be delivering the 970MP. If Apple will use it is impossible to say at the moment, but if Apple plans to keep the Powermac on PPC till late 2007 I can certainly see them introducing a 970MP system when the chip becomes available.

I think the switch to Intel was mostly driven by the mobile market and the lack of a low-power G5, not so much the high-end Powermacs. I also think that there won't be any real advantage to switch the Powermacs to Intel anytime soon, particularly because a lot of software power-users depend on will not be available immediately when Apple will introduce the first Intel based macs.

But time will tell I guess.

LMAO.....I give up you are hopless. IBM has abandoned the PPC 970 and the writing is on the wall. Even Jobs has given up on IBM, don't you think it's about time you fanboys do also. it's not like IBM is suddenly gonna start ramping up CPU's outta no where . They are having too much fun spending M$ ,Nintendo and Sonys money

.2ghz in 1yr is not a sign of progress,It's a red flag. They have shown that Apple is not even worth the extra effort in investing further into the PPC970 series. To be honest this is really ****ed up on IBM's part because if Apple wasn't getting so much positive press with the G5 in the 1st place I don't think M$ and company would have even considered the PPC.

With that said the fact remain IBM has made it obvious that Apple is no longer a top priority and will just have wait on line. With Intel atleast we will be right there with Dell as far as 1st to get all the new stuff.

 

[Mac-Xpert]

LMAO.....I give up you are hopless. IBM has abandoned the PPC 970 and the writing is on the wall.

Well maybe you like to give me a link to the official IBM statement? I bet you can't do that It's really only your opinion and not a fact, just like its my opinion that they might still be delivering the 970MP.

With Intel atleast we will be right there with Dell as far as 1st to get all the new stuff.

Actually thats part of the problem with switching to Intel, they will never be ahead of the competition anymore. Sure your going to say that they aren't right now either, but in the past they have been with virtually all generations of the PPC when they were first introduced. No mater what people say of the G4 these days, when it was introduced it was well ahead of the Intel and AMD competition in terms of real performance (not clock-speed). The same thing (and even more so) was true when Apple introduced the first G3 Powerbook. It was almost twice as fast as the competition at the time. This was always good for both the platform and Apple marketing.

Just because the current generation G5 isn't the fastest (although it hold it's own comparing to other single core chips) it doesn't necessarily mean they can't be in the future.

The only thing I will give Intel is that they do have a better mobile chip and I believe that that's the main reason for switching to Intel, not the desktop chips.

 

[JCheng]

Watch out before you end up eating your words dude. I configured it based on specs and PERFORMANCE which equates very well. THE TOP OF THE LINE DELL DIMENSION 9100 CONFIGURED THE WAY I CONFIGURED IT IS BARELY ON PAR WITH THE TOP OF THE LINE DUAL 2.7GHZ G5. YOU KNOW IT, I KNOW IT, EVERYONE KNOWS IT.
Let's see:
Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition should be XP Pro or XP Pro 64bit edition to equal Mac OS X Tiger.
160GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™ should be 250GB to equal top of line G5.
128MB PCI Express™ x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI Radeon™ X300 SE should be the 256MB PCI Express™ x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI Radeon™ X850 XT or HIGHER to give the Dell the graphical power to compete with the G5.
C'mon dude be realistic!!!!!!!!!!!! A Dell Dimension 9100 doesn't equate, performance wise to a dual 2.7ghz G5. I'm being courteous to even compare the dual 2.7gh G5 to the "oh may GOD, I know he didn't" Dell Dimension 9100. You need to find another sight to pull that BS on DUDE.
Shall I say more?

Heh I guess you just don't realize the fact that the G5 configured uses a Radeon 9600 that is only $20 more than the X300SE found in my 9100 config. That was included in my price quote but I suppose you just chose to ignore that fact.

You clearly don't know what comparably equipped system means if you think a $500+ Radeon X850 is comparable to a $56 Radeon 9600. Now answer my question (which you'e chosen to ignore), is my quoted price correct and are the components comparable to the components found on the G5?

How about everybody settle down a bit and review the forum rules. I'd like to point out the areas regarding insulting other forum members and circumventing the profanity filter.

If you have issues with someone's behavior, please report their post and we'll handle it. Calling people trolls and demanding they be banned is not a productive way of dealing with things.

Thanks

Well consider this my report, I'm sorry if I come out insulting but this is just blatant misinformation, its not even debatable. Regardless just to prove my point, I would ask you test my claim and compare it to what ararsun has said about me. I'll tone down my behavior but I'm not going to stand to blatant lies and insults lying down.

that dell is a bad example there is no comparable graphics card they give you an option of a crap one or a way expensive one

Hector I've addressed this twice now and you've yet to answer me in a meaningful way. The 9600 found in the G5 costs about $23 more than the X300, I've added that extra cost to my figure already. I already pointed that out in the previous post, now argue with what I have or concede the point.

and that opteron jchang you just proved my point for me thats a single core dual 2.6GHz the opteron 275 is the dual core model so even an opteron which has a 100MHz speed disadvantage is not as good as the powermac.

Heh, my bad it was late at night. Anyways heres the right link, scroll down to the AWS-8000 and configure a G5 to comparable specs (2 GB ram, 3 year warranty, we'll let go of the fact that the Opteron workstation has a RAID config). Do all that and you'll find that the 16.6% difference in price stands.

what i have been trying to point out it that apple would not switch for netburst as it's a crappy design, heck most pc users would agree with me, the 3.06GHz northwood P4 dissipated approx 100w (max), and presscott just got worse.

Hector, I'm going to say this one more time, either argue the point or concede it. My point was that the Pentium 4 fared better against its competition than the previous Intel chips had. You admitted to that but argue that the reason the P4 fared well was because Intel was a big company that had plenty of money to pour into boosting clockspeed (not really an argument but I'll go with it for now). I pointed out that Intel has always been a big company that has always poured significantly more resources into its chips than competitors. Thus I pointed out, that the Pentium4 proved to compare better to its competitors than previous Intel chips was out of merit to its design. If you want to argue, your going to have to disprove that point. All you've done thusfar is skip around it.

if apple was being owned so much they would not be delaying the switch to intel for powermacs untill 2007 my point is proven with there actions.

Your point proves nothing, Just because Apple is switching to Intel in 2007 doesn't mean Intel's current offerings aren't better than Apple's. Would you say the later P4 models weren't better than the G4s? Did Apple switch than because they were better?

I mean seriously, do you really think that Apple would switch their entire architecture, rewrite all their existing software, do away with years of marketing just because Intel had a more promising roadmap?

 

[davidchristophe]

Look at the numbers. Macs of 46% of total sales, Software 16%, further Apple makes almost nothing on Software vs 15% margins (best in the industry) on their macs.

Since none of you people actually work for apple, then everything we say here is theory, not fact. It might even be science fiction.

Having said that, if Apple opens their platform and shifts entirely to software, then

(a) they lose their hardware markups
(b) they gain on software markups.

The interesting thing about software is that the more you sell, the higher your markups can become. Initial R&D costs diminish as time progresses.

Seems to me if Microsoft can make a fairly good run at being a Software only vendor, then apple probably can too. It's a business paridigm shift.

Let's keep one other thing in mind. Microsoft has a stated policy that they will not produce software for OS's which compete on the same platform. I'm wondering exactly how attractive OSX will be when people find out they can't have their Microsoft Office.

This would be a very very very very stupid PR move for Microsoft. This is exactly the kind of strongarm (the tactic, not the cpu) that would hurt the company. Recall the geek-heat they got for squishing Be out of the picture. Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe no.

 

[CalfCanuck]

This would be a very very very very stupid PR move for Microsoft. This is exactly the kind of strongarm (the tactic, not the cpu) that would hurt the company. Recall the geek-heat they got for squishing Be out of the picture. Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe no.

Not to mention antitrust heat, both in the US and in the EU.

Don't forget that MS gave Apple $100 million (if I remember correctly) during Apple's dark days - this was to ensure that the Mac platform stayed alive in order to keep the antitrust heat off itself.

Why would they screw Apple now, esp. as they've endorsed the switch to Intel?