Mav451 said:
Is it?? My poor spelling is down to learning to read and write in welsh before english.
I'll have to look into this, I seem to have missed this feature
jay
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.
Pentium M and Yonah Processors in Upcoming Macs?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Is it?? My poor spelling is down to learning to read and write in welsh before english.
I'll have to look into this, I seem to have missed this feature
jay
MacFan782040 said:
The thing that people don't get is this: The mhz myth only works when you're comparing x86 vs PPC. That was the whole point. That a G4 at xxx mhz could actually compete in the real world with a Pentium at xxx more mhz. One is a CISC chip, the other RISC. Totally different platforms.
There is no mhz myth when you compare Pentium to Pentium. They are in fact very similar... Granted, OSX will run differently on a given chip then XP will, but still.
plinden said:
Okay, another person who makes comments but really doesn't understand what they're talking about...
You're talking about windows. This has nothing, NOTHING to do with the stability or power of a process. You're talking about crapp-ily written software. Period. You make no case except for the fact that you don't understand enough to be making comments.
Not as such. The project still exists, now called Tukwila, and it reportedly no longer contains as much Alpha goodness as was originally envisioned.rotorblade said:
Through no fault of its own, the poor thing is an Itanic, so its desktop fate is mostly in SGI Prisms with hefty price tags.
~Shard~ said:Or a guy eaten by a whale...
...since "j" can be pronounced as "y" in some languages
chatin said:
What kind of processor failures have you seen and how did you isolate the processor from the OS (and which one was it?) the perhaps shoddy peripherals, and did you run memtest86 to verify you don't have transient memory failures?
If you've checked the above, typically unreliable processors are due to overheating and/or overclocking. Verify the fans are operating reliably and check the CPU temperature.
Or maybe you just got a bad one. It could have been installed without the operator being grounded and you got some static etching on the chip.
What sample size are you talking about anyway?
Mr Maui said:
Let's hope it's not Aluminum. Those things dent like butter. Dented computers aren't cool looking. I recommend the iBook over the Powerbook for most people partly for this reason. With the new iBook memory and bus it's almost as fast too.
dontmatter said:
You're always going to have consumers who buy HiSound stereos at WalMart and don't see what's wrong with 'em. There are still plenty of people who will buy a Sony, Kenwood, or Pioneer instead. That's the Apple target crowd. Plus the Bose crowd with the 30" LCD panels. The Marantz crowd is already here.
Silver Apple said:
Intel has already told its OEM's that they need to have 8 hour battery machines by 2007. Apple might be there in 2006.
ansalmo said:
It really depends on your application. I benchmarked a web application that runs in an interpreted language and is always moving stuff from memory to the CPU and back. It ran almost twice as fast on an 800MHz FSB as a 533. I'm sure there were other improvements in the chipset as well so it's hard to isolate the FSB entirely, but this is application dependent.
For your compiling application the speed is usually a matter of how much you can work out the of the L2 cache. Do you know what the L2 cache sizes were on each processor?
Mr Maui said:
Or vote the directors out at the annual shareholder meeting when their term is up. Assuming the company isn't run into the ground by that time (generalizing, not Apple).
Is this some kind of joke? You're comparing a consumer level processor like the Pentium-M that sells for a few hundred bucks, with a server level processor like the Power 4, which sells for a few thousand bucks, and saying that therefore we should believe you when you say that Pentium Ms suck? Get a life dude. The PPC970 is NOT a Power 4, or a Power 5, and you can see that by the benchmarks as well. It doesn't have nearly the cache they do. Of course, it doesn't cost nearly as much either.pont said:
I'm sorry, but you guys sitting here spouting the same anti-Intel FUD you've been saying for years need to grow up a little bit.
Religion has no place in hardware or software. Use a product if you like it. If something better comes along, use it instead. The "My $50,000 AIX server can smoke your $500 home-built beige box because it has magical IBM PowerPC munchkins inside" argument is getting pretty old and tired.
Yvan256 said:
When the desktop line went from 68k to PPC they called it a Power Mac to reflect the change. Of course, the PowerBook line was already well established for many years.
Apple's been emphasizing Mac stridently over the past year (not even Macintosh). The new line will probably lose the Power designation.
So, the Mac 6i or similar.
pont said:
Last I heard Cell couldn't handle out-of-order execution or predictive branching. Has this changed? That's a great trade-off if you're doing what amounts to mostly digital signal processing, but for a general purpose CPU it'll suck dog. This is a great chip for a game platform or a radar installation but that doesn't mean it rocks for everything.
tdewey said:
A bunch of the guys took off for AMD first to work on the Athlon. The first Athlons used the Alpha EV7 bus, IIRC. The remaining Alpha team would have been assumed into Compaq then gone to Intel when they sold Alpha or stayed on through the HP acquistion. HP was, of course, Intel's partner on Itanium.
Engagebot said:
Go learn about the Netburst approach, find out about what pipelines are, what a long pipeline gives you and what happens when you get a miss in a long pipline. A basic computer architecture class would be a good start.
Then come back and give the class a report on how two chips with the same marketing department name can actually perform differently if they have a different architecutural design.
Mr Maui said:
I don't think I've seen a sticker on a Mac since Steve came back. I've removed sticker goo from Powerbook wrist wrests for peopel with alcohol in the pre-Steve era.
It's amazing how little class some marketing department goons have. If Apple has any of that type I'm sure they get spankings from The Boss on a regular basis.
G(x) is Apple's moniker, not IBM's or Motorola's
Also, the naming convention (Gx or otherwise) is independent of the actual processor. Gx is the sub-name of the machine and the name of the CPU (not the name of the chip itself) given by Apple, not IBM or Motorola.
I doubt Apple will name any PPC 970 series chip computer the G6 model.Quartz Extreme said:Lets not forget the Canon PowerShot G3, the G3-class of stars in astronomy, the G3 Free Trade Agreement, the G4 TV channel, the G4 nations and G5 Jet (Gulfstream VI), the G5 engine, the G5 howitzer and the G5, now G7 countries.
But it probably isn't likely for Apple to use the next POWER chip in the Macs. The last PPC product will likely be the 970MP. (Unless they call this the G6..)
Also, the naming convention (Gx or otherwise) is independent of the actual processor. Gx is the sub-name of the machine and the name of the CPU (not the name of the chip itself) given by Apple, not IBM or Motorola.
While you've just shown you can't understand that I was giving a simple explanation of what hyperthreading brings to Windows users? I'm sitting here scratching my head, trying to find something in my post that mentions "stability or power of a process"Engagebot said:
So you don't believe these benchmarks? (I know, it's been posted dozens of times already): http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/pentium4-10.htmlEngagebot said:
ClimbingTheLog said:
I totally disagree. I think it's much easier to scratch a "polished" plastic surface like the iBook's than to dent an anodized aluminum one (my 7 months old PB has only a really tiny dent on it (no bigger than the tip of a needle), and my iPod mini's aluminum surface is still perfect; on the other hand, my PB charger has a really nasty scratch on it, plus a lot of smaller ones, and the clickwheel on the iPod is very scratched). Besides, the aluminum enclosure of the PowerBook just feels much sturdier and smoother than the iBook's plastic one (and I can compare often since a friend of mine has an iBook). I think it's something worth paying more for, and I'd hate having to go back to plastic.
That is the current thinking, however, it is misguided.
The quality of intel processors is little to do with the quality of windows.
This thinking should not be the thinking of future Mac Intel chips ( or any other processors). Linking the poor quality of windows has little to do with the processor.
The quality of intel processors is little to do with the quality of windows.
This thinking should not be the thinking of future Mac Intel chips ( or any other processors). Linking the poor quality of windows has little to do with the processor.
tdewey said:
Engagebot said:
...uh, no. It happens when you compare two different processors, who may process completely different amounts per cycle.
