Why Apple needs to move to Intel Chips NOW!


rundevilrun

macrumors member
Nov 14, 2002
97
0
A couple thoughts (and trying to avoid the usual flame wars :) )...
1. It's only after effects. I have found that final cut pro is quite a bit faster than premiere on the same mac, I don't think adobe has os x optimizations figured out yet.

2. Is fact that the mac took 4.5 seconds on a photoshop test compared to 3.4 seconds for a pc meaningful?

3. 4 minutes to render something is still a long time, is the pc still responsive and usuable while rendering? I know my dual 1G mac is much more responsive compared to my 1800 Athlon when loading it down.

My take on the whole os x on x86 thing is Apple should consider it only if there is a clear and significant gain while not losing much in legacy binaries. Maybe if the G4 is still at 1.25G when P4 hits 4-5G.

Oh yeah one other thing, the reviewer forgot to subtract 50% off of the macs' to compensate for the immeasurable effects of not having to use windows! :D
 

puffmarvin

macrumors member
Original poster
Dec 29, 2001
98
0
NY
haha you make good points. even so, this HT technology looks pretty promising. i wonder if it would work as a dual processor system? two processors each with HT technology. that would be as if there were 4 processors, no? interesting. anyways, im not fooled easily by the numbers but this test alone is enough to make some people think twice about buying a mac. no skin of my back, i love my mac and im buying a new powerbook soon. im here to stay through the good times and bad! :cool:
 

MacBandit

macrumors 604
The simple fact is is that something like 95% of all users simply use there computers for text, email, and web. They don't need machines even exceeding 1Ghz let alone 3Ghz. In my oppinion the fact that the vast majority of existing computer users have machines with speeds in excess of 800MHz is the reason that computer sales has dropped off. If even 50% off all the existing computer users had a machine that ran in excess of 1GHz 40% of them would not need to upgrade there machine until it either broke or was no longer able to run new programs due to an architecture change. That would be a lot of lossed computer sales. I believe I am correct in what I have said here. I agree that my numbers are hypothetical but the simple fact is that most people do not need insane speed.
 

Choppaface

macrumors 65816
Jan 22, 2002
1,187
0
SFBA
just my experience, but

2. Is fact that the mac took 4.5 seconds on a photoshop test compared to 3.4 seconds for a pc meaningful?
yeah. when it takes ten seconds for indesign to refresh on my mac and two on my PC, it gets annoying

I know my dual 1G mac is much more responsive compared to my 1800 Athlon when loading it down.
I've had the opposite experience... my dual 1900xp is great under full load, while my dual 500 G4 gets pretty gimpy at times
 

Nipsy

macrumors 65816
Jan 19, 2002
1,009
0
The switch to Intel is not something easy.

It is a lot like the switch to PPC or OSX. Apple prolly has OS X and FCP ready, what about the rest of the software?

A switch to Intel means Quark users (a whiny bunch) won't see a new version for another 18 months.

Windows programs won't work without major tweaking. Apple programs won't work without major tweaking. Unix binaries would be easy.

So, Apple could undertake this move to an inherently flawed architecture (which is on the way out) to have more GHz....but users wold have few apps.

On the other hand, with Opteron, and Itanium, and the 970 all coming soon, we could see Apple WORKSTATIONS have processors with similar GHz, and some real advantages in about 10 months...

High end Wintel boxes will be coming with Opteron and Itanium soon, and will have very similar numbers to high end Apple boxes with 970s.

So, by this time next year, pro x86 boxes will have slower GHz speeds, and pro Macs will have higher GHz speeds, bringing some number parity to the WORKSTATION market.
 

JupiterZen

macrumors regular
Originally posted by MacBandit
The simple fact is is that something like 95% of all users simply use there computers for text, email, and web. They don't need machines even exceeding 1Ghz let alone 3Ghz. In my oppinion the fact that the vast majority of existing computer users have machines with speeds in excess of 800MHz is the reason that computer sales has dropped off.
I think your absolutely right. I have a home music recording studio run by a Dual 800 G4 and have no problems there.

And from my work (network/system administration) I have a Compaq Armada P3 laptop at only a measy 600Mhz with 320MB of RAM and only 8MB of Video RAM. And it runs Windows XP Pro like a charm. I often have multiple applications open for the work I do and even watching musicvideos or listening to music in the meantime doesn't get my processor stressed out.

I know 2D/3D rendering depends on speed, but that is a small market compared to the whole computer market.
 

puffmarvin

macrumors member
Original poster
Dec 29, 2001
98
0
NY
Originally posted by MacBandit
The simple fact is is that something like 95% of all users simply use there computers for text, email, and web. They don't need machines even exceeding 1Ghz let alone 3Ghz. In my oppinion the fact that the vast majority of existing computer users have machines with speeds in excess of 800MHz is the reason that computer sales has dropped off. If even 50% off all the existing computer users had a machine that ran in excess of 1GHz 40% of them would not need to upgrade there machine until it either broke or was no longer able to run new programs due to an architecture change. That would be a lot of lossed computer sales. I believe I am correct in what I have said here. I agree that my numbers are hypothetical but the simple fact is that most people do not need insane speed.
very true. but.. working in the computer retail biz, often i see people come in who want the biggest, fastest, and best machine available to do their email, some photos, some web surfing, etc. now when comparing numbers, dual 1.26 vs. intel p4 3.06, mac no longer has the lead.

does the new ibm chip, the power4(?), have anything comparable to HT technology? how would say the 1.4 ghz power4 compare to the 3.06 chip of intel? remember, intel is at this point right now and we have AT LEAST until the middle of next year before we get the new ibm chips. yes i think when they do come out they will be spectacular but are we happy just living in someones shadow, pulling up the rear to speak?

about converting the software... we dont want windows software. we still want our mac versions and i think we are all happy with them. i guess it would take a very long time to move the other apps across. i dont know anything about it because im not a developer but i would think it would be easy. obviously i have no idea.

im sorry for turning this into an argument thread on clock speeds!!
 

Taft

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2002
1,319
0
Chicago
Originally posted by Choppaface
just my experience, but



yeah. when it takes ten seconds for indesign to refresh on my mac and two on my PC, it gets annoying



I've had the opposite experience... my dual 1900xp is great under full load, while my dual 500 G4 gets pretty gimpy at times
But the original poster had a 1GHz G4. The technology in those things is like 1??? 2??? 3??? years more advanced than your 500MHz? I know I got my 400MHz G4 about three years ago now, maybe a little less. Three years and 500 MHz can make a world of difference on Macs.

Taft
 

lmalave

macrumors 68000
Nov 8, 2002
1,614
0
Chinatown NYC
Originally posted by MacBandit
The simple fact is is that something like 95% of all users simply use there computers for text, email, and web. They don't need machines even exceeding 1Ghz let alone 3Ghz. In my oppinion the fact that the vast majority of existing computer users have machines with speeds in excess of 800MHz is the reason that computer sales has dropped off. If even 50% off all the existing computer users had a machine that ran in excess of 1GHz 40% of them would not need to upgrade there machine until it either broke or was no longer able to run new programs due to an architecture change. That would be a lot of lossed computer sales. I believe I am correct in what I have said here. I agree that my numbers are hypothetical but the simple fact is that most people do not need insane speed.
This is so true. That's the reason I had no reservations about getting iBook 800 MHz G3 to replace my Dell Inspiron 5000 600 MHz P III. The P III was already more than fast enough, but was heavy and overheated and its display was doing this weird flickering thing (to me indicating that it was on the verge of failure). And the Desktop machine I have is still a Compaq with a 466 MHz AMD K6-2 (equivalent of a P II), and even that is more than fast enough for web browsing and Office!! The fact is, the Wintel world has tried to push the average consumer up a senseless CPU/OS upgrade spiral, and I agree with the previous post that the PC sales slowdown is mostly due to the fact that consumers are starting to wise up and realize they have no compelling reason to upgrade to the latest and fastest CPU.
 

lmalave

macrumors 68000
Nov 8, 2002
1,614
0
Chinatown NYC
News.com article: PC upgrade cycle on hold, report says

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-965972.html?tag=lh

Given this market, who knows, maybe Apples "Digital Hub" strategy will work better than PC makers who are just trying to push more MHz. Keep in mind, adding even a couple points of market share is HUGE for Apple. I have a feeling there are a lot of PC owners like me that, given the need or the desire to upgrade, are opting to buy iBooks, TiBooks, eMacs, or iMacs (Power Macs and XServes don't capture the consumers' imagination as much).

I hope Apple lowers its price for the eMac as rumored in another thread. I think that between the iBook/TiBook price drops and the possible eMac price drop, Apple's holiday sales are going to be huge, not only in absolute numbers but also in terms of market share of new computers sold.
 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
say what you want about photoshop, but the lastest macworld has a good set of benchmarks for the profile 4 vs the imac

there is only so much apple can do with the mhz myth dogma

sure, mhz for mhz and ghz for ghz, macs are faster...but as we say this the pc world is moving further ahead with each passing day

i am that 95 percent that does not need computing horsepower, so i am happy with my mac and don't care if i wait another year for a 1 ghz ibook

by then, the pc world will most likely be past 4 ghz

but for marketing purposes, many nebie buyers or switchers will ignorantly look to speed too much as a factor when in reality, speed will become a lesser issue with day to day computing for that 95 percent of us who use email, internet, and word processing (and perhaps some light graphics and gaming stuff)
 

agreenster

macrumors 68000
Dec 6, 2001
1,892
2
Walt Disney Animation Studios
Originally posted by MacBandit
The simple fact is is that something like 95% of all users simply use there computers for text, email, and web. They don't need machines even exceeding 1Ghz let alone 3Ghz.
MAJOR EXCUSE!

TOTAL BS!

Everyone I KNOW is using PC's for digital video and animation! Even my MOTHER! PLUS, did everyone forget that Gaming, DVD playback and simple digital photo manipulation takes up processor time?

I love Apple, but bring on the faster chips already! How long can we wait????
 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
Originally posted by agreenster


MAJOR EXCUSE!

TOTAL BS!

Everyone I KNOW is using PC's for digital video and animation! Even my MOTHER! PLUS, did everyone forget that Gaming, DVD playback and simple digital photo manipulation takes up processor time?

I love Apple, but bring on the faster chips already! How long can we wait????
you must be that five percent:D
 

Stelliform

macrumors 68000
Oct 21, 2002
1,722
0
I have at home an Athlon 650Mhz with 256MB or RAM. I am Running XP pro and I play UT every night and Castle Wolfenstien Occasionally. I have an nVidia 2 64MB in the computer. I seldom notice lost frames, and generally I kick alot of butt on the servers I play. I have not seen a need to upgrade except to have bragging rights. (Which sometimes I like to do). Now I don't rip music or play DVD's, but for general gaming a gig processor would suffice. (UT2K3 plays pretty well also.)

I think that in the gaming world, the hardware is quickly outpacing the software's needs. I will upgrade my home PC sometime next year, but I have yet to see a compelling reason to go to the trouble yet.

I guess I am one of the 95ers.

Or mabey I am just old school... I did start gaming with wolf 3d. :)
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,791
11
Illinois
Originally posted by puffmarvin
very true. but.. working in the computer retail biz, often i see people come in who want the biggest, fastest, and best machine available to do their email, some photos, some web surfing, etc. now when comparing numbers, dual 1.26 vs. intel p4 3.06, mac no longer has the lead.
I'm an attorney. I do a lot of word processing. I store digital pictures on my computer, and occassionally try to get rid of some red eye. I do a small amount of gaming. I do some internet browsing.

What did I buy you ask? Just barely enough computer for my needs!

|
|
V
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,791
11
Illinois
Originally posted by Stelliform
Or mabey I am just old school... I did start gaming with wolf 3d. :)
Old School!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

Anyone else remember the old fur hunting text games? (Oregon trail or something like that) How bout Zork and the original wolfenstein?

Old School?? You're a pup, you don't know what old school is.
 

Taft

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2002
1,319
0
Chicago
Originally posted by mcrain


Old School!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

Anyone else remember the old fur hunting text games? (Oregon trail or something like that) How bout Zork and the original wolfenstein?

Old School?? You're a pup, you don't know what old school is.
That's the stuff I grew up on. Zork, Castle Wolfendstein (the SS was BRUTAL), Lode Runner, Cannonball Blitz.

Did anyone out there play a text based game called Crypt of Medina or something like that? That was the last text game I played and it always pissed me off that I never finished it.

Taft
 

hesdeadjim

macrumors regular
Jul 17, 2002
194
0
Austin, TX
i loved oregon trail. killing the squirrels were the best. i loved how my grade school tried to make it all educational after all we did in computer lab was play video games. we used to play the old sim city, too. it was great. i wouldn't consider myself old school, im just in college, but oregon trails brings up great memories.

Wow, i was totally off topic.

Originally posted by mcrain


Old School!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

Anyone else remember the old fur hunting text games? (Oregon trail or something like that) How bout Zork and the original wolfenstein?

Old School?? You're a pup, you don't know what old school is.
 

wdlove

macrumors P6
Oct 20, 2002
16,574
0
Want to see Apple choose whatever is in its best interest, sounds like IBM! Go Apple! Intel is tied with Windows.
 

rjrufo

macrumors regular
Sep 18, 2002
206
0
Boston
You guys talking about games are all pups. There weren't any computers when I went to high school. When did Apple intoduce the computer to the world, 1984? That's when I graduated.

I wish I had a computer back then, though.
 

Choppaface

macrumors 65816
Jan 22, 2002
1,187
0
SFBA
Originally posted by Taft


But the original poster had a 1GHz G4. The technology in those things is like 1??? 2??? 3??? years more advanced than your 500MHz? I know I got my 400MHz G4 about three years ago now, maybe a little less. Three years and 500 MHz can make a world of difference on Macs.

Taft
it became two years old as of end of october, and considering it was four grand it should last.... looking over the numbers and the number I've gotten from my system, as well as testing the new ones myself, the newest machines are about twice as fast and that's it. not that I'm complaining about it being outdated or whatnot, but it's really sad to see it chug through jag and then reboot into 9 for printing (damn jag epson drivers offer NO color control) and watch it fly
 

Cappy

macrumors 6502
May 29, 2002
387
2
Originally posted by rundevilrun
A couple thoughts (and trying to avoid the usual flame wars :) )...
1. It's only after effects. I have found that final cut pro is quite a bit faster than premiere on the same mac, I don't think adobe has os x optimizations figured out yet.

2. Is fact that the mac took 4.5 seconds on a photoshop test compared to 3.4 seconds for a pc meaningful?

3. 4 minutes to render something is still a long time, is the pc still responsive and usuable while rendering? I know my dual 1G mac is much more responsive compared to my 1800 Athlon when loading it down.

My take on the whole os x on x86 thing is Apple should consider it only if there is a clear and significant gain while not losing much in legacy binaries. Maybe if the G4 is still at 1.25G when P4 hits 4-5G.
Amazingly enough you manage to slant your points. :)

1. You're talking strictly Mac here. What's the point? OSX on x86 is the discussion.

2. Yes, while not huge those can be meaningful for someone in the business doing tedious, repetitive tasks.

3. This is really more of a software and OS issue than a hardware issue which is where OSX on x86 would likely prove to be just as responsive. BTW, Photoshop on a WinNT 4 or greater OS was always considered more responsive than a Classic Mac OS based system.

On your last point I actually believe Apple knows what they're doing. Now that can mean something different than what you think I'm implying. My point is that Apple knows what they're doing to be successful which could mean a number of things in the end.

Frankly you sound like you're in denial. I am exposed to both hardware platforms and can safely say that Apple and PPC has alot of catching up to do if they do not switch in the next year. IBM or Moto might be able to do it but should Apple wait and will their customers?