Apple CPUs falling below Intel in power

D

David Simmons

Registered
:confused: It seems that Apple is not stepping up to the plate as to CPU performance. When I switched over to Apple's about two years ago Apple looked as they were going to lead the market. But if they are intending to lead by .XX increases every 10 months or so they will get run over by the Microsoft/Intel Market. Just as they start to get software vendors to move to MAC OSX they start to losing vendors by the inability to keep up with the Intel hardware. Where is the G5 or something in the 3Ghz or better CPU speeds.

And now there are rumors that Adobe is going to make the Intel the major platform. What an opportunity lose as far as Apple. I hope Apple does not let their users down and again by falling behind in the market as far as hardware which starts the software vendors moving to Microsoft/Intel platforms. I love the MAC OSX system and hope Apple starts paying attention to there users and the market. They are priced to high not be the leaders.
 
i would take a dual G4 1.42 over a HT3.06 P4 anyday, with the 970 coming apple will make a major leap back at the pc market, its just takes time
 
2 responses:
1.) Mhz (or Ghz) don't matter. What matters is the actual performance, and since Macs are better at multitasking, they actually perform better. And soon Intel has to do the "Mhz Myth" marketing for their new chips, which don't have rediculously high, power-hungry, stability-destroying clock speeds.
2.) Apple has been close to the brink many times in the last decade. And every time they pull something wonderful out from up their sleeve. Don't doubt them... if you look at the whole picture, all the pieces are coming together perfectly; you can be sure that Apple sees this too, and intends to take full advantage of it.
 
There are tons of posts in other threads on this very forum that discuss the same thing. Please look them all up. ;-)
 
Originally posted by sheepguy42
2 responses:
1.) Mhz (or Ghz) don't matter. What matters is the actual performance, and since Macs are better at multitasking, they actually perform better. And soon Intel has to do the "Mhz Myth" marketing for their new chips, which don't have rediculously high, power-hungry, stability-destroying clock speeds.
2.) Apple has been close to the brink many times in the last decade. And every time they pull something wonderful out from up their sleeve. Don't doubt them... if you look at the whole picture, all the pieces are coming together perfectly; you can be sure that Apple sees this too, and intends to take full advantage of it.
Click to expand...

Oh boy here we go again. Other than a few photoshop benchmarks that happen to favour dual processor configurations, the mhz myth is not completely myth. Show me one independent benchmark that compares something other than a few photoshop filters that show that the Mac outperforms a pc. The ones that I've seen, even from the likes of MacWorld and CreativeMac have reviews where the pc wins on most of the realworld (well at least more real world than things like SPEC). Go ahead and do a search on google and see what you turn up. GHz don't matter, sure when you're only 15% behind, but when your 50% behind, then it matters A LOT. We're not even talking someone throwing together a nice (and cheap) dual Athlon MP system.

Anyway, this x86/Wintel vs PPC/Mac debate is being "discussed" in other threads, so the original poster may want to look around.
 
Originally posted by Jack Hammer
you guys need to go to the comments:

http://www.apple.com/contact/feedback.html

and scream at them how much the G4 sucks and how they must use a 970

otherwise you're jst wasting words on a message board
Click to expand...

Feedback always helps, but I think that in this particular case, Apple is MORE than well enough aware of the problem ;) And more than enough aware of users opinions (switching to x86 and all).
 
Originally posted by Jack Hammer
indeed

But NOTHING LIKE overwhelming backlash to make them debut at 2.2 ghz rather than 1.8

constant pressure
Click to expand...

But given their current position (and recent history with frequent incremental G4 releases), don't you think that they'll be pushing IBM to give them the absolutely highest frequency possible. Even if they can't ship a system with this clock rate, Apple has to at least announce it. If they have this big todo about this awesome new processor and then release it at a "measly" 1.8ghz, ugh. Nope, they are gonna go for it, they have to. If 970 doesn't pan out performance wise, Apple is in a major world of hurt.
 
Originally posted by David Simmons
:confused: It seems that Apple is not stepping up to the plate as to CPU performance. When I switched over to Apple's about two years ago Apple looked as they were going to lead the market. But if they are intending to lead by .XX increases every 10 months or so they will get run over by the Microsoft/Intel Market. Just as they start to get software vendors to move to MAC OSX they start to losing vendors by the inability to keep up with the Intel hardware. Where is the G5 or something in the 3Ghz or better CPU speeds.

And now there are rumors that Adobe is going to make the Intel the major platform. What an opportunity lose as far as Apple. I hope Apple does not let their users down and again by falling behind in the market as far as hardware which starts the software vendors moving to Microsoft/Intel platforms. I love the MAC OSX system and hope Apple starts paying attention to there users and the market. They are priced to high not be the leaders.
Click to expand...

You may want to have a look here :D
http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30547

The solution to the GHz race seems to be just around the corner or should I say just around this fall :rolleyes:

Anyways, I think that ANY dual PowerMac kicks some serious Dark Side behinds wither they like it or not :D

And also we have some other things that Dark Side would love to have:
-OS X and its iApps
-Grace

No one can say that for the Dark Side where they choke on bad taste and the misery of GHz but guess what? Intel's top guns don't have big GHz numbers: Itanium1+2 and Centrino anyone? Oh no! You see MHz isn't a myth is only another Dark Side marketing trick ;)

Now, where are those Centrino tests VS Macs or those Itanium tests? Dual Wintels I here you say? But then again you never saw a game running on those duals, now have you? Oh, I forgot: They don't want you to run games on Dual Wintels because they have graphics and stability problems :rolleyes:

Oops, I did it again: Blah-blah! :o

Of course a NOS car is faster than a station wagon but with a NOS car you cannot do anything else other than drive as fast as you can :D
 
Originally posted by Stridder44

A Quote...
"If Apple had allowed other manufacturers to licence its technology and operating systems years ago, Windows would never have been invented; Microsoft would be a small applications developer complaining about the Apple monopoly; Intel would still be making chips for calculators and AMD wouldn't even exist."
Click to expand...

Hey Strider, who is that quote from?
 
hmm....well, I found it on a site and found it very funny:p so I decided to put it on my sig thingy...however I cant exactly remember what site...hmm....I'll post the site as soon as I can think/find it...:D
 
Originally posted by Stridder44
hmm....well, I found it on a site and found it very funny:p so I decided to put it on my sig thingy...however I cant exactly remember what site...hmm....I'll post the site as soon as I can think/find it...:D
Click to expand...

I'll resist the urge to comment verbosely (with verbocity?), I'll just leave it at saying that the statement shows an obvious lack of understanding of the market at the time and is totally off base.

Though I can see how many would find it funny, even if it is wrong ;)
 
I think that even mighty Intel is stuck right now because they're making super-fast processors, and there is very little software to take advantage of them. I've been a "power user" for over a decade, but my 366 MHz PC is fine for me, apart from an occasional video game.

But last weekend I plugged my Sony digicam and camcorder into a friend's 5 year-old Mac laptop -- and they both worked, just like that! Getting my digicam to work with my PC wasn't too difficult, but the camcorder is another story. After upgrading the OS, RAM and adding a FireWire card and lots of software, it still breaks frequently - especially after Windows "auto-updates" its Media Player. So maybe a PC can render video frames faster, but it's a pain in the backside to use. I'd rather have a Mac.
 
Originally posted by MacMarshall
I think that even mighty Intel is stuck right now because they're making super-fast processors, and there is very little software to take advantage of them. I've been a "power user" for over a decade, but my 366 MHz PC is fine for me, apart from an occasional video game.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that. You actually go on to mention plugging in a dv cam. Have you tried actually editing the footage, adding effects, sounds, putting it all back together. A 366 will suck big time for doing all of the above (esp if you don't have fat ram and a speedy hd). Have you converted any dvd to vcd (I do, better to have the kids wreck that vcd, I can make another one). Lots of uses now for these new fangled processors, ESP. given Apples stated goals of being the "digital hub".

I have a Pismo (which I assume is what you're friend has) and while sucking in DV content works like a charm, it's slow, painfully slow to actually do any meaningful work. I could just slap a title and a few effects, but anything "fancy" would require me switching over to my pc or buying a faster Mac.

BTW, I have a buddy who added a firewire card to his PC setup and he's working fine (he has a somewhat recent PC (Athlon 1.4ghz) and Win2k). I won't say that it's in any way "better", but he's doing what he wants to do without any major hassles (I had him this close to buying a Mac to do this, but the price justification for a $99 dv editing kit including firewire card and software) vs close to $1000 for a reasonably equiped G4 tower just couldn't be overcome).
 
...I certainly know about G3/400...

Config:
----------
iMac G3/400, 256MB RAM, 40GB firewire external, Sony firewire camera, running OS X.2.4 and iApps

Job:
------
35min video to edit it with transitions, text, effects, etc. into a 10min clip at the most then export it as quicktime clip and back at the camera

Analysis:
------------
The whole process took me no more (and certainly no less) than 12 hours :eek: But believe me it was no simple edit and also the majority of time was lost to QT export and Camera export

Conclusion:
---------------
While it took me many hours to complete the whole task, the computer never crashed and the final clip pleased the people (it was shown almost to 120-150 people during a seminar) and made them to ask MANY questions about Macs ;)

:D
 
Don’t get me wrong. I love the MACs’. I just think that Apple is having difficulty with their CPU manufacturing, (Motorola) and this will have a negative impact on the software developer’s desire to develop for Apple.

If Apple loses the software developers, then they lose the consumers, first the corporate market and then the Apple users. When the end user can’t find software, and by that I mean up to date current software to do what you need then the end user will switch back to Intel.

What we need is the hardware that major corporations would want to take a chance on (Spend Money). Hardware that outperforms Wintel without a doubt, No debate, and with no question. Then the software vendors will be there and everybody wins.
 
I agree, Apple *does* need faster CPU's, and I'm sure somebody in Cupertino is thinking of that. It's just that, for most desktop computing, a 500 MHz CPU is just as good as a 3 GHz CPU. Yes, video editing and games are exceptions, but that's about it.

For example, if I managed an office of 1,000 workers who used MS Office, e-mail, database connectivity and internet apps, why would I upgrade from, say, Win 2K boxes on PIII 500 CPU's? It wouldn't make business sense to upgrade to faster Intel CPU's, and it certainly wouldn't make sense to upgrade to Macs. 5 to 10 years ago, there were lots of excuses - "I make huge spreadsheets," or "I make enormous presentations," or "I'm building a big database." But today, short of the Art Dept that constantly asks for faster Macs, there aren't many business reasons to upgrade to faster desktops.

Laptops are another story, because they break, get stolen, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top