# Performance of Intel-Macs



## xarcom (Jun 7, 2005)

I just read an article on appleinsider that state that the Intel Mac that Steve demoed on was a quad CPU 3.6 P4.... Thats alot of machine to run OSX on.... I wonder if its any indication of how well (or bad) performance will be on these yet to be released macs...


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 7, 2005)

Quad CPU? I doubt it.


----------



## Mikuro (Jun 7, 2005)

The P4 isn't an MP chip, is it? That's what the Xeon is for, unless I'm very much mistaken (which is possible, since naturally I wasn't all that interested in the Intel scene before yesterday). I assume that system had one single processor.

But it's not like we saw enough of the system to judge speed, anyway. No Photoshop bakeoffs (obviously) or anything like that.

AFAIK, the G5 and G4 are perfectly capable of going quad. Apple's just never done it, possibly because of supply issues (just about every new PPC release has short supply for months, so going quad would really strain things). Maybe Intel can supply enough for such systems, but...I don't think there are any quad-processor PCs out there, and there's probably a reason for that, right?

I remember the days when there _were_ quad-processor Macs. I forget what company made them, but they crammed 4 200MHz 604e processors into one system, and advertised it as 800MHz.  Too bad there were virtually no programs that could make use of even a second processor back then, let alone a third of fourth.....


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 7, 2005)

Yeah it was DayStar Genesis MP with 600mhz PPC 604. I had one it's awesome and regert that I sold it.. 

http://www.lowendmac.com/daystar/genesis.html

Only few programs that support quad processor plug-in. Few years later Daystar hardware got killed by Apple due to cut off Clone license.


----------



## mindbend (Jun 7, 2005)

When Steve pulled up the About this Mac window, it showed a Pentium 4 3.6 GHZ IIRC. (Can someone grab a screen cap of that window from the keynote, my connection is too slow right now).

There was no indication that it was a dual processor.

I was not particularly impressed with the speed. My dual G5 2.7 was faster than most of his demos or at least as fast as all of them. Having said that, all of the non-Apple software demos were through Rosetta, which is going to be a performance hit initially (until they get ported).

That is my only issue with this transition, is that we'll go through another awkward phase where not all apps are native, though this time around it should be less painful and more consistent.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 7, 2005)

My question why dont Steve show the intel motherboard or inside of Mac chassis.


----------



## MrNivit1 (Jun 7, 2005)

MacFreak said:
			
		

> My question why dont Steve show the intel motherboard or inside of Mac chassis.



iMacG5's tend to be hard to open up, no?


----------



## fryke (Jun 7, 2005)

Then again, why _would_ he. He was emphasizing that devs should create Universal Binaries, not talking about the inside of the p4 devkit, which isn't a "product" for consumers, anyway. It really doesn't matter that much.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 7, 2005)

I guess this is the end of dual PowerMacs as Intel forbids the use of P4 in a dual configuration.  That's reserved for Xeons.  So it's back to single CPU, dual core perhaps, but both sharing the same sorry front side bus.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 7, 2005)

never, did jobs say pentium. he breezed over the fact that his had a pentium, other than to prove it was "intel inside", and to show what was in the dev kit. he always stressed intel, not pentium. it's going to be x86, but a new, different version is what i see, that or xeons.  the rivals to the G5 pmacs have always been dual xeons, so in the high end video editing and design market macs, xeons are going to be the way to go


----------



## brianleahy (Jun 7, 2005)

Whatever actual processor they use, it _will_ use the x86 instruction set.

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/universal_binary/universal_binary.pdf

...talks about (among other things) the x86 equivalents of the AltiVec operations.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 7, 2005)

I hope so you are right.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 7, 2005)

@brianleahy
You still have leading edge hardware, it's just end of life. Unless they can actually manage another speed bump without a melt down.


----------



## brianleahy (Jun 7, 2005)

> You still have leading edge hardware, it's just end of life.



Thanks for the clarification - noted.


----------



## Krevinek (Jun 7, 2005)

Xeons and the upcoming dual-core D's are both rather powerful, and both run on the x86 IA-32 spec. There can be quite a bit of power, although I personally feel that Steve hasn't been giving the full picture. The transition starts in 2006, but won't be complete until the end of 2007. This combined with Apple starting on the low-end for the transition tells me that we should be expecting to see x86-64 chips in the pro line towards the end of the transition, with 10.5 coming out at about the same time with x86-64 support. 

This is just my guess, although if someone wants to take a 5$ wager...


----------



## Viro (Jun 7, 2005)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> Whatever actual processor they use, it _will_ use the x86 instruction set.
> 
> http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/universal_binary/universal_binary.pdf
> 
> ...talks about (among other things) the x86 equivalents of the AltiVec operations.



Thanks for that link. Very much appreciated. Equivalents of AltiVec is really being rather generous. If you looked at that table, you'll see loads of altivec operations where there is no equal on x86. Page 73 onwards. Look at all the - in the x86 column. Also take note of how contorted the naming scheme of the functions are.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 7, 2005)

With the switch to x86 and the PPC systems losing their appeal to potential buyers, Apple should lower prices now to move some of these systems.


----------



## flibblesan (Jun 7, 2005)

Oscar Castillo said:
			
		

> With the switch to x86 and the PPC systems losing their appeal to potential buyers, Apple should lower prices now to move some of these systems.



That would be sweet as I'm planning on buying a Mac Mini in a month or so (I really can't wait until the new Intel based Macs are with us).


----------



## Elliotjnewman (Jun 7, 2005)

Does anyone here think there will be a chance that the new high end intel based machines will have dual cores, like the ps3? After the announcement that ps3, xbox 2, and the new nintendo where going to use ibm based processors I did start to wonder their commitments to apple...


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 7, 2005)

I find it hard to understand how none of these processors are unsuitable for the desktop as some claim.  And no mention from jobs as why not Cell or Xenon instead of x86 which I'm sure was on everyone's mind.


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 7, 2005)

mindbend said:
			
		

> When Steve pulled up the About this Mac window, it showed a Pentium 4 3.6 GHZ IIRC. (Can someone grab a screen cap of that window from the keynote, my connection is too slow right now).
> 
> There was no indication that it was a dual processor.
> 
> ...



Here's the screenshot, courtesy of Anandtech.com


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 7, 2005)

P4 dual core will be out soon.  We'll most likely be getting something that hasn't been announced yet.  The dev kits are probably not close to what the final machines will be like either, that's why they want them back at the end of 2006.  Probably by the time the PowerMac(now what will they call it?) is out there'll be 64 bit chips shipping from Intel so I think that those will probably stay 64 bit. 

I hope at least.  Apple can't expect us to go back to a  32 bit machine on the top end.  If it was 32 bit then there wouldn't be any machines except the older PPCs to run the 64 bit software on.


----------



## Mikuro (Jun 8, 2005)

Oscar Castillo said:
			
		

> I find it hard to understand how none of these processors are unsuitable for the desktop as some claim.  And no mention from jobs as why not Cell or Xenon instead of x86 which I'm sure was on everyone's mind.


I think the reason the Xenon has such seemingly-impressive stats is simple: It's not as complex or powerful as a desktop G5. It's optimized for gaming, plain and simple. Details are scarce, and I admit that I'm not really in the know, but this much is safe to assume: a custom-made chip in a game console is going to trim a lot of fat and focus on gaming, meaning it will likely not be suitable for desktop use. Also, the future of the chip is irrelevent, as the processors in gaming systems will never change. It's possible IBM has no way of ever advancing the Xenon beyond its initial specs. Remember, Steve stressed that the advantages to moving to Intel were a few years down the line.

As for Cell, the same thing applies. I made another post a while ago explaining why Cell would be a difficult transition (and a very impractical one as far the current Cell design goes). Although I honestly did think it was more likely than an x86 transition. But the truth is, the Cell design would need a major revision to be used in Macs  I guess I was underestimating the difficulty if such a revision.

Basically, I think Steve didn't mention either because neither was ever open for serious consideration. I had just assumed that some of the technology in these chips (e.g., multiple cores) would transfer right over to the G5, giving it lots more life. Honestly, I STILL believe this is the case  I think Apple will ship dual-core G5s before they ship Intel-based Macs. I mean, we've been hearing rumblings of dual-core G5s long before we heard about Xenon.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 8, 2005)

Dual core G5s?  If dual core G5s were available I think we wouldn't be looking at a transition to Intel.  I hope you're right, but if they do exist, it would seemingly be a waste of time and effort for Apple if consumers are looking at PPC Macs as end of life products.


----------



## Viro (Jun 8, 2005)

Here's a report of how these new Macs perform on Xbench. http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506intelxbench.html

Given that it is a synthetic benchmark, it won't necessarily corroborate with the real world. But it is telling that the Intel performed so poorly. Rosetta _does_ incur a performance hit.


----------



## Elliotjnewman (Jun 8, 2005)

"There has been some speculation that Apple's emracement of Intel processors will also allow the company to take advantage of off-the-shelf PC video cards."

does that mean nvidia quadro cards???


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 8, 2005)

We don't know yet. But there's a high chance.


----------



## fryke (Jun 8, 2005)

Those benches run on a benchmark app that is emulated PPC code. Do you really think it _could_ run well? Those benchmark results don't mean anything.

About the graphics cards: Why not. They simply need drivers.


----------



## Anim8r (Jun 8, 2005)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> I think the reason the Xenon has such seemingly-impressive stats is simple: It's not as complex or powerful as a desktop G5. It's optimized for gaming, plain and simple. Details are scarce, and I admit that I'm not really in the know, but this much is safe to assume: a custom-made chip in a game console is going to trim a lot of fat and focus on gaming, meaning it will likely not be suitable for desktop use. Also, the future of the chip is irrelevent, as the processors in gaming systems will never change. It's possible IBM has no way of ever advancing the Xenon beyond its initial specs. Remember, Steve stressed that the advantages to moving to Intel were a few years down the line.



Jeez people!
It is a Xeon. Xenon is a gas.
The Xeon processor is actually optimized for servers... not gaming. That is the root of it's poor performance as a desktop machine. It was designed to run a box that handled lots of traffic but very little in the way of clock cycles.

As has been stated elsewhere. The reason for the switch was road-maps and cooperation from IBM, which was pratically nil.

An interesting aspect of this no one has mentioned is, once available for Intel processors there are some juicy little projects at Intel in the hand-held and smartphone space... hmmmmmmmmmm.


----------



## fryke (Jun 8, 2005)

Xenon is the PowerPC to be used by the Xbox360.


----------



## Viro (Jun 8, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> Those benches run on a benchmark app that is emulated PPC code. Do you really think it _could_ run well? Those benchmark results don't mean anything.
> 
> About the graphics cards: Why not. They simply need drivers.



It is a very important consideration, especially given that all Mac OS X software is currently compiled for PPC. Just because Apple switches to Intel, doesn't mean that all available software will automagically turn into x86 binaries, or the so called fat binaries. The developers need to produce them, and there is no guarantee that they will in a timely manner. This means that the speed of emulated PowerPC applications is important, and that is what this benchmark demonstrates.

This doesn't even bring into consideration the fact that there are many OS X applications that are optimized to use Altivec and while the Intel chips have SSE/SSE2/SSE3, there are still many Altivec operations that do not have an equivalent SSE operation. Hence, code will be slowed even more in some cases.


----------



## fryke (Jun 8, 2005)

Hm. I don't know about you, but I'll buy my intel PowerBook when the software's "ready enough". It's not like I have to buy the PB first and then wait for Adobe. And I can certainly test Adobe CS 2 on the machine before buying the machine, should Adobes updates not be ready by then.

Either way: I don't usually find benchmarks very interesting, and these quite certainly don't even show the actual Rosetta performance, should xbench be run in emulation itself...


----------



## Pengu (Jun 8, 2005)

um. the CPU isn't what stops you using an "off the shelf" video card in a mac.

it's the firmware/bios on the actual card, and a lack of drivers. and i don't see or want it to change. i LIKE paying a bit more to know that is going to just work, and that it won't have a vga port and a s-video port that were both obsolete five years ago. they said they were chaning the CPU. that is IT. it will obviously require some Mobo changes but not a completely new computer.


----------



## fryke (Jun 8, 2005)

Basically the mobo changes and the processor _make_ it a completely new computer. If Apple _can_ use PC graphics cards without firmware changes, I really hope we will be able to _get_ some of the advantages of using the same hardware. Linux doesn't need different firmware in graphics cards than Windows. So really: I hope we'll be fine.


----------



## Anim8r (Jun 8, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> Xenon is the PowerPC to be used by the Xbox360.



My apologies, I thought we were talking about the Intel Xeon processors and the XBench results.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 8, 2005)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> Here's the screenshot, courtesy of Anandtech.com


Wait a min.. I see the image of that Steve Jobs demo Intel run only single not dual? Why not Steve click on "More Info" to show us what will we have on the hardware?    Guess we have to wait till the developer get this hardwares and let us know.. Grrr..


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 8, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> Those benches run on a benchmark app that is emulated PPC code. Do you really think it _could_ run well? Those benchmark results don't mean anything.




damn right.  these benchmarks are even worse than normal benchmarks.  USE it and tell me if it is fast or slow. don't rely on a benchmark.


----------



## Lycander (Jun 8, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> About the graphics cards: Why not. They simply need drivers.


Nope. The video BIOS on Mac video cards are totally different from that of PC video cards. That's why people have flashed their video cards to get it to work on their Macs.

Even with an x86 CPU under the hood, we're still stuck with the Mac video BIOS and you can thank our old friend OpenFirmware for that.

EDIT: shoot I missed your comment about new mobo factored in. It depends how much MacOSX relies on OpenFirmware, and whether or not Apple continues to use OF.


----------



## fryke (Jun 8, 2005)

OpenFirmware - from what I'm reading - is _out_. No OF in intel/Mac. Although I already forget where I've read it... If someone comes across a good link about OF/intel/Mac, I'd gladly read it again...

And yeah, I of course knew that current Mac graphics cards have different firmware from the PC variants. But as I said: Linux doesn't need them to, it only needs drivers. I guess the Mac _will_ be in a similar position.


----------



## Lycander (Jun 8, 2005)

When the kernel takes over, yes, drivers take care of video. But the PC BIOS and likewise OpenFirmware, are there to serve basic video modes prior to the kernel initializing, and before drivers are loaded.

Granted it's pretty rare for a need to get directly into OpenFirmware and tinker with it, so technically you can boot up a computer blind and wait for the kernel + drivers to load, but if I were designing an OS... there should be a fallback and error reporting mechanism should the kernel and display drivers fail to load.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 8, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> Xenon is the PowerPC to be used by the Xbox360.


I was wondering when someone was going to mix up Xenon and Xeon.
Perhaps Mac will get a rebadged Xeon called PowerXeon or Peon for short.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 8, 2005)

MacFreak said:
			
		

> Wait a min.. I see the image of that Steve Jobs demo Intel run only single not dual? Why not Steve click on "More Info" to show us what will we have on the hardware?    Guess we have to wait till the developer get this hardwares and let us know.. Grrr..


I've been thinking about a developer system, I'd like to see what hardware is in there.  I wonder if it lacks the hardware dongle.  $1499 to find out, I may just try it.


----------



## Pengu (Jun 8, 2005)

The "news" from XLR8 is that the dev machines have a phoenix bios.. Intel admitted years ago that Firmware (such as OpenFirmware) is the way to go.. and as i said, I can't see steve accepting a board with a BIOS for production


----------



## chornbe (Jun 8, 2005)

xarcom said:
			
		

> I just read an article on appleinsider that state that the Intel Mac that Steve demoed on was a quad CPU 3.6 P4.... Thats alot of machine to run OSX on.... I wonder if its any indication of how well (or bad) performance will be on these yet to be released macs...



Any computer/software company would be nailing shut their own coffin by delivering a product that is slower than its predecessors. It's simple ecomonics.

They'll perform better than what's currently out when you factor in like-configged machines.


----------

