State your opinion: MacOSX on x86
- Thread starter z4ph0d
- Start date
nkuvu
Gone
Regarding the fan noise issue:
I have a friend who was in the business of building computers. (He may still be doing so, I've lost touch with reality
) One specific computer was to use a T-Bird 1 GHz (IIRC). But it had to be as close to silent as possible. So he got specific fans -- the power supply alone I think was around $150. I have no idea what normal PSs go for, but that sounds steep to me. When he was done, the computer ran perfectly. And it was almost as quiet as my iMac. Of course, I didn't have the iMac then, but still...
I have a friend who was in the business of building computers. (He may still be doing so, I've lost touch with reality
) One specific computer was to use a T-Bird 1 GHz (IIRC). But it had to be as close to silent as possible. So he got specific fans -- the power supply alone I think was around $150. I have no idea what normal PSs go for, but that sounds steep to me. When he was done, the computer ran perfectly. And it was almost as quiet as my iMac. Of course, I didn't have the iMac then, but still...I understand what you are trying to say. I have a Alpha PAL8065 Heatsink on my 1.4 with a variable speed 80mm fan. It is pretty quiet. And it was pretty expensive. But most heatsinks use 60mm fans, which push much less air than the 80mm fans and are louder. The quieter fans are typically less efficient than the noisier ones, as the quieter they are, the slower they spin. However, sometimes the quieter fans can provide adequate cooling for most situations.
The most recommended fan for cooling an athlon effectively is the Delta Black Label, a 60mm fan. The thing friggin screams. I had it on mine for a while, then switched to the more powerful delta, which is also much longer (but still 60mm). That was the most expensive and loudest fan I ever bought.
If you want to check out some fans, go to www.sidewindercomputers.com . I ordered all my fans from there, and they actually let you listen to how loud they are.
tagliatelle
_____________________
SMT
tagliatelle
_____________________
Apollo? A new cpu? 1GHZ! Simultaneous multithreading is used in Xeon and Motorola seems doing the same or am I wrong?
simX
Unofficial Mac Genius
DAAAAAAAAANG! I have much less respect for AMD, now.
I did notice, though, that when they measured the temp of the Intel CPUs in that video, they didn't put the instrument right up to the processor, while when they measure the temp of the AMD processors, they put the instrument right up to the processor. Admittedly, I'm not sure what tool that is, so this fact could make no shred of difference, but I'm thinking that it probably screws up the temperature data.
Nevertheless, those AMD processors went up in smoke!
I loved the music, too. It was appropriate for their testing.
Here's a slightly different take on this much-discussed topic. I'm semi-technically literate in terms of hardware and CPUs, but nowhere near as literate as many posters here. For this argument, though, I'll pretend to be a little less literate for the point.
For a typical Mac user or someone who isn't particularly interested in the "engine", the "I would never want to run OS X on an 086 chip" makes no sense. That is like saying "I would never use a semiconductor with a copper fabrication process". Who the hell cares?
All I care about is what the pixels are doing on the screen and that's all about OS X, not about the chip. I know Altivec-enabled chips factor into how X operates, but in the end I"m interacting with X, not a chip. I don't care of the chip is made by monkeys and called the Banana Chip as long as it's the fastest chip available and runs my software stabley (is that a word?).
I have no allegiance to Motorolla or the PowerPC chip. My allegiance is with Apple and OS X and the inherently better EXPERIENCE it provides. The problem is that right now, as Mac owners, we cannot have our cake and eat it too. We either choose the best OS experience, or the fastest chip, we can't have both. (I don't care what Altivec does, a 1 gig chip against a 2 gig chip isn't going to catch up in 95% of the cases. I've run all sorts of tests and with very few exceptions, MHz DOES matter, but that's a whole 'nother thread so I'll stop here.) If Apple sold an 086 machine tomorrow that was faster than their PowerPC machines and ran OS X identically (<<key word), every single one of us would buy one, why the hell wouldn't we?
For a typical Mac user or someone who isn't particularly interested in the "engine", the "I would never want to run OS X on an 086 chip" makes no sense. That is like saying "I would never use a semiconductor with a copper fabrication process". Who the hell cares?
All I care about is what the pixels are doing on the screen and that's all about OS X, not about the chip. I know Altivec-enabled chips factor into how X operates, but in the end I"m interacting with X, not a chip. I don't care of the chip is made by monkeys and called the Banana Chip as long as it's the fastest chip available and runs my software stabley (is that a word?).
I have no allegiance to Motorolla or the PowerPC chip. My allegiance is with Apple and OS X and the inherently better EXPERIENCE it provides. The problem is that right now, as Mac owners, we cannot have our cake and eat it too. We either choose the best OS experience, or the fastest chip, we can't have both. (I don't care what Altivec does, a 1 gig chip against a 2 gig chip isn't going to catch up in 95% of the cases. I've run all sorts of tests and with very few exceptions, MHz DOES matter, but that's a whole 'nother thread so I'll stop here.) If Apple sold an 086 machine tomorrow that was faster than their PowerPC machines and ran OS X identically (<<key word), every single one of us would buy one, why the hell wouldn't we?
simX
Unofficial Mac Genius
Yes, true, but that won't happen, both because Apple will never release OS X to run on another chip, and because an 086 machine would never catch up to the performance to the G4 in OS X.
But I digress, as we probably shouldn't get into an argument over the latter point.
Dak RIT
Missing Intelligence
Well, for starters MHz doesn't matter 1 iota when comparing two completely different chip architectures to each other. That's one of the problems Intel is having now... they encouraged the "MHz myth" (and still are) for as long as they could because it was a marketing move. Just look at the Itanium which Intel is trying to move to so the Pentium can die... it runs at 800MHz, but it definitely beats a Pentium 4. The G5 may also take a MHz drop from the G4 if Motorola increases the G4's pipeline to 14 when they move to the .13 micron process. I believe a 1.4GHz to 1.6GHz chip is expected. G5 afaik is still expected to be 800MHz to 1.6GHz (Apple probably going with 1.2GHz - 1.6GHz).
I find the best thing to do when it comes to desktop computers though is simply save yourself a lot of yelling and assume all the chips out today are fast enough. An 867MHz G4, an Athlon XP 1600+ and a Pentium 4 1.8GHz are all going to get the job done for you with little noticeable difference in most cases.
And on a completely different subject... I was really hoping when Motorola was talking about selling its microprocessor unit that Apple and AMD teamed up and bought it Intel is, well... Intel. And IBM would have just been pricks when it comes to pricing. AMD shared some fabs with Motorola, and the Hammer and G5 are quite similar, so it would have been a good match, and Apple could have had a bigger stake in controlling R&D.
Cheers,
Dak
I find the best thing to do when it comes to desktop computers though is simply save yourself a lot of yelling and assume all the chips out today are fast enough. An 867MHz G4, an Athlon XP 1600+ and a Pentium 4 1.8GHz are all going to get the job done for you with little noticeable difference in most cases.
And on a completely different subject... I was really hoping when Motorola was talking about selling its microprocessor unit that Apple and AMD teamed up and bought it
Intel is, well... Intel. And IBM would have just been pricks when it comes to pricing. AMD shared some fabs with Motorola, and the Hammer and G5 are quite similar, so it would have been a good match, and Apple could have had a bigger stake in controlling R&D.Cheers,
Dak
vanguard
Registered
I keep hearing that the x86 isn't as fast. It is. Actually, it's faster. Yeah, Apple has Alltevic so they can do 4 floating point opertations in one clock cycle. Intel has SSX2, it does the same thing but it can do it with 240% more cycles per second. Also, the Intel chips already work RDRAM which helps to prevent wasted cycles because the processor is waiting for more data/instructions to operate on.
I'm with mindbend. I don't have any loyalty to Intel, Motoral, or AMD. I just want my machine to be fast.
And one final point, that AMD video that shows the chip overheating has been discredited. I forget the details but I think it was a beta chip without overheating protection or maybe they turned something off to get it to do that (more than just removing the fans). Either way, that won't happen to a chip that you buy off the shelf.
Vanguard
I'm with mindbend. I don't have any loyalty to Intel, Motoral, or AMD. I just want my machine to be fast.
And one final point, that AMD video that shows the chip overheating has been discredited. I forget the details but I think it was a beta chip without overheating protection or maybe they turned something off to get it to do that (more than just removing the fans). Either way, that won't happen to a chip that you buy off the shelf.
Vanguard