After all the Dark Side isn't THAT fast!

**hulkaros** · December 12th, 2002, 03:23 AM

Take a good look here:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1752

If you will read clearly it shows that Intel is in BIG trouble... Actually bigger than most PC fellas like to admit or dare to tell us! Intel CANNOT and will NOT offer P4 in 2003 with speeds above 3.5GHz...

Is it because they have to take care of their Itanium2? Or is it because AMD plays hard ball in 32/64bit?

Anyways, you see fellas, Apple isn't the only one with CPU problems around!

And if will you look close you will see GREAT things from Apple in 2003 in speed areas... and not only!

Have faith in Apple my friends no matter what the Dark Side tells you or shows you... Have faith and you will be rewarded more than enough!

**fryke** · December 12th, 2002, 07:07 AM

I'm still wondering how everyone was so excited about the IBM PPC 970, seeing that it'll only enter the market late in 2003, when all competitors will again be far ahead. 1.8 GHz? Yes, cool, if it was released right now. 64bit? AMD will have that half a year earlier at higher speeds. We can then again claim that PowerPC is faster at the same clock rate, but that'd leave us in the same game like we are today, I guess.

'Only' 3.5 GHz? You must be kidding. We'll reach that number in 2005 if everything goes on like before. And I don't believe Intel will just stop evolving their processor lines. Yes, they might see one or the other trouble, but if you see what they've made with 'that bad processor called Pentium' (up to the P4 at > 3 GHz), think of how they can evolve the Itanic line of processors...

As has been pointed out in several publications, the main problem of RISC is not that it's worse, it's actually clearly the better design. But that doesn's matter if you have enough money to put into development and thus reach enough market share to pay for the development costs.

If IBM can successfully bring the Power4 and Power5 technology (scaled down) to the desktop with their PowerPC 970, 980, 990 processors in the next few years, this might change. But once Intel changes gears for the Itanium (2, 3, ...) and replaces the P4 with a desktop version of that 64bit power, it won't matter that their 64bit design is worse than IBMs (nor AMDs), because they have the power to push it beyond limits that limit the other players.

**cellfish** · December 12th, 2002, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by hulkaros
Take a good look here:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1752

If you will read clearly it shows that Intel is in BIG trouble... Actually bigger than most PC fellas like to admit or dare to tell us! Intel CANNOT and will NOT offer P4 in 2003 with speeds above 3.5GHz...

Is it because they have to take care of their Itanium2? Or is it because AMD plays hard ball in 32/64bit?

Anyways, you see fellas, Apple isn't the only one with CPU problems around!

And if will you look close you will see GREAT things from Apple in 2003 in speed areas... and not only!

Have faith in Apple my friends no matter what the Dark Side tells you or shows you... Have faith and you will be rewarded more than enough!

Ok that was just funny. Intel can AFFORD to not be able to make faster PC's. Their latest offering is a speed demon next to the latest offering by Apple. Intel and AMD can decide to stay on their asses and do nothing for two years and still Apple won't manage to keep up.

Luckily for us, Mac OS X rocks any offering on the PC.

**ElDiabloConCaca** · December 12th, 2002, 01:14 PM

Ah, if only Intel and AMD were competing ONLY with Apple could they sit on their asses. Apple is the least of their worries -- the only thing Intel and AMD worry about Apple is how Apple gets their software to run just as efficiently as they do on slower chips.

**Vyper** · December 12th, 2002, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by fryke
'Only' 3.5 GHz?

Indeed.

**KKBFiredancer** · December 12th, 2002, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by ElDiabloConCaca
Ah, if only Intel and AMD were competing ONLY with Apple could they sit on their asses. Apple is the least of their worries -- the only thing Intel and AMD worry about Apple is how Apple gets their software to run just as efficiently as they do on slower chips.

that is the most intelligent thing i have ever heard in the discussion about ppc vs x86.

My hat is off to you sir.

**cellfish** · December 12th, 2002, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by ElDiabloConCaca
Ah, if only Intel and AMD were competing ONLY with Apple could they sit on their asses. Apple is the least of their worries -- the only thing Intel and AMD worry about Apple is how Apple gets their software to run just as efficiently as they do on slower chips.

Saying that it runs as efficiently is nowhere even close to true. While I love the programs on the Mac, to say that browsers, office programs, graphics suites or games run as efficiently on the Mac as an AMD or Intel processor does is nowhere remotely near the truth.

**KKBFiredancer** · December 12th, 2002, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by cellfish
Saying that it runs as efficiently is nowhere even close to true. While I love the programs on the Mac, to say that browsers, office programs, graphics suites or games run as efficiently on the Mac as an AMD or Intel processor does is nowhere remotely near the truth.

efficiency for one person is different then for another. I happen to agree with him. What kinds of problems do you see?