After all the Dark Side isn't THAT fast!

hulkaros

hulkaros

The Incredible...
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!
 
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.
 
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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



My hat is off to you sir.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


efficiency for one person is different then for another. I happen to agree with him. What kinds of problems do you see?
 
I fail to see why any of this means much of anything. I mean sure Intel and AMD have managed to go at warp speeds but bus speeds have not improved much in the past 5 years.

We have gone from 33mhz to 266 mhz in 5 years meaning the ratio between bus and processor speeds have gone from 2/1 to 12/1. For servers this really does make a significant hit in relation to "bottleneck" speed between the processor and the data it needs to move across the bus.

Granted bus architecture and L1/L2/L3 cache speeds have helped in the reduction of the bottleneck, it really has not done much to give the Pentium the stride it needs against the mac. Even with todays technology, Macs can still keep up despite slower mhz ratings IN PART to the bus speed gap among other things. IMHO, it partly why dual processing on Macs are much more significant than on an Intel based machine.

just my $0.02
 
...which isn't all that fast!

IF and that's a big IF, Apple will come out with a Dual Gx/1.4 or Gx/1.8 I don't think that Macs will be THAT much slower than the top P4 offers out there... And that's until the end of 2003!

Also, we all know that Apple will NOT just offer faster Gx CPUs but will also upgrade the whole base insfracture which means that any future CPU will see greater performance because of this! Heck, maybe even the current crop of CPUs will see great benefits...

As for the P4/3GHz with HT its a joke! I don't remember where I read it but if I will find it again I will post the site and also when I get the chance I will post maybe a video clip (if the admins will allow it) which will showcase a P4/3GHz with XP doing the following:
-DVD encoding
-MP3 playing
-Downloading from the internet
-Burning a CD
-Having an app or two doing their stuff

And STILL the MP3 sound skips! For God's sake this doesn't happen even on a Dual G4/867!!!

And NO Intel and Amd CANNOT do better with current CPUs and that's why they turn to newer technologies in order to let them advance forward... As for Intel being able to advance Itanium2 faster than anyone else out there maybe it is true but then again that doesn't mean that it is the best CPU around... We have yet to see about Amd/IBM's best offers! If you think that Pentium was and is the best CPU I rest my case because it simply ain't!!!

As for speed I simply DON'T care! I prefer my TiBook 1GHz running OS X over ANY P4/4GHz running XP ANY day...
 
I prefer my TiBook 1GHz running OS X over ANY P4/4GHz running XP ANY day...
Click to expand...
And that's still the most important thing. My G4 is fast enough to do what I want it to do and I enjoy doing it. There may be PCs that can apply a Photoshop filter faster, and while the G4 won't necessarily do it any better, it'll always do it nicer.
 
Your a dork..



I thought that racism was over.. Appearantly not. It is now between the "type of computer" you use and what your neighbor uses.



But seriously, you are a dork with not much to do if you think this is a pressing matter. Go get a job or find something through religion. Oh my, we are all ruined now.
 
Just my opinion, but I think that the 970 will put us on par with Intel/AMD.

True that 1.8 GHz when compared to 3.5 GHz will leave us arguing the "Megahertz Myth", but this time it will probably be true, and we'll have some numbers to back it up.

The benchmarks that IBM have set out for the 970 are impressive, and don't use the slight of hand that Apple currently use with the G4 to try and convince people that it's faster (like Photoshop tests). The SPEC INT and SPEC FP measurements for the 970 are faster than anything around at the moment.

AMD will surpass these SPEC INT and SPEC FP measurements when their Hammer processor comes out, but not by too much.

So we may not have the fastest processor, but it will be very very close, and this is only the first version. The 970 having such a modern design should mean that there will be more room for upward movement.
 
Originally posted by Factor41
and while the G4 won't necessarily do it any better, it'll always do it nicer. [/B]
Click to expand...


this is a sad... VERY sad true
the PPCs were the first processors to go beyond the 300MHz limit
and since then they were left behind...

in those days nobody said this kind of things
they simply knew they had the fastest AND the nicest machine on their desktops....
now we all say we have the nicest

sad...
but true...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top