AMD thinks the Opteron can beat the G5
Tom's Hardware AMD Advertisement errr Article
Ok so AMD...a CPU and chipset supplier that grossed half of what Apple did for Q3 thinks the fast but overpriced Opteron is going to magically push Macs out of DCC work? Ummmmmm riiiiiiiight.
AMD call us when you develop a platform with 12,000 apps and your own set of production tools. Nobody gives a shite about the Opteron in Video. 3D is another story but then again Apple doesn't have a stronghold there.
Really people read the article so that you can hear the AMD guy wax poetic about ondie memory controllers and how that's supposed to change my life in DCC. Or have him talk about WinXP 64(which has been delayed into 2005).
Amazing what happens when the X86 hardware isn't so superior anymore. They take to calling Apple out. AMD needs to shutup and come to the 90nm party where they are late.
Ok so AMD...a CPU and chipset supplier that grossed half of what Apple did for Q3 thinks the fast but overpriced Opteron is going to magically push Macs out of DCC work? Ummmmmm riiiiiiiight.
AMD call us when you develop a platform with 12,000 apps and your own set of production tools. Nobody gives a shite about the Opteron in Video. 3D is another story but then again Apple doesn't have a stronghold there.
Really people read the article so that you can hear the AMD guy wax poetic about ondie memory controllers and how that's supposed to change my life in DCC. Or have him talk about WinXP 64(which has been delayed into 2005).
Amazing what happens when the X86 hardware isn't so superior anymore. They take to calling Apple out. AMD needs to shutup and come to the 90nm party where they are late.
Comments
Originally posted by Placebo
If the chip supports DP, it's definitely going to outperform anything that Apple offers.
Please explain.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Please explain.
Have you seen any 3rd party photoshop/Maya benchmarks?
Barefeats test
2Ghz Opteron= 523
2Ghz Powermac=522
Man how is Apple ever going to survive running up against that kind of speed.
Also, now that the dual 2.5s are shipping I'm seeing consistent scores of 630-640 in Cinebench so the test is legit. I'd peg the Opty around the same speed.
No the fun part comes. If you could buy both CPUs in the retail market which one do you think would be more expensive? Not a trick question folks
The other side of the story is that IBM is learning a lot about 90nm fabrication - far more than they wanted! The knowledge is going to be learned and put to work and speeds are going to increase. While we moan at times the fact is that IBM has delivered a range of 1.6 to 2.5 within a year and is working hard to move that up significantly. The PC world had better hold on.
Originally posted by Placebo
Sorry, I've just been having a bad day. I'm just saying that I've seen benchmarks where a single Opteron has away a DP Xeon. (I forget the magazine)
Don't sweat it. The Opteron is a fast processor. I find it's very unique because of the memory controller and its great FPU performance it really kicks butt in some tests. The 970 is like that as well in FPU performance...the processors are pretty similar.
Citing Barefeats benchmarks is not advised.
I've never perceived any undue bias from Rob Art Morgan. Sure the Ars geeks want to rip his tests to shreds because they don't always show PCs demolishing Apple. The Cinebench numbers posted seem to align with what other people have found. Thus I think the 2.4Ghz Opteron will likely score close to 700. Faster than Apple but no one is going to migrate to another platform for a sub %10 performance increase unless the cost is half.
One thing for sure the 970 is much cheaper than the opteron. If you look at the Optys die size # 130nm versus the 90nm 970fx it's clear why AMD only cleared 30 million in Q3 despite enthusiasm for their CPUs. They aren't making enough money. Once they hit 90nm this will change hopefully.
Originally posted by Joey
Here is a very detailed comparison of AMDs top end Athlon 64 FX chips vs. the G5s... http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/...49,pg,8,00.asp
Joey,
Any Mac user with the brain the size of a gnat or larger can see the weakness of the PC sham article.
Premiere 6????
Quake III???
Word????
It was like they picked the "who's crap of software to run"
Also people note the Photoshop scores. The much vaunted Dual Opteron 2Ghz computer completes the PS test in 47seconds versus 51 for Powermac DP 2Ghz.
Also note the Polywell may have had a RAID-0 setup. PS is the only app out of the bunch that I would accept scores from knowing that the optimizations on both platforms has been done fairly by Adobe. And it just so happens that the Opteron system has a hard time beating Powermacs in PS. I've seen this in more than one test.
The point really is the Opteron is coming with a lot of hype. It's demolishing Pentiums in tests..but then again when the Powermac G5 demolishes Pentiums people think the test is some sort of fluke.
There is no reason for a DCC company to move to Opteron based systems unless they need Quad Blades or something like that. There is no appreciable performance advantage to running an Opteron system nor will the price substantially be lower than Apple's.
Next lets examine the facts. AMD isn't a software company they've never claimed to be. Then again, Apple isn't a hardware company, they do not manufacture their CPU's. Apple is more of a software company then hardware.
Comparing AMD to Apple is useless in many regards. Apple's software could run fine on both AMD and IBM Power cpus, I would venture to guess. AMD has made large advancements in processor design in the x86 market, and they are one of the best chips you can buy. BTW, for still being 130nm and keeping/surpassing 90nm chips, I think thats something to talk about.
Originally posted by scavanger
Was there a reason for this post outside of bashing AMD? Tom's Hardware isn't the most credibly source in the industry in terms of anything.
Next lets examine the facts. AMD isn't a software company they've never claimed to be. Then again, Apple isn't a hardware company, they do not manufacture their CPU's. Apple is more of a software company then hardware.
Comparing AMD to Apple is useless in many regards. Apple's software could run fine on both AMD and IBM Power cpus, I would venture to guess. AMD has made large advancements in processor design in the x86 market, and they are one of the best chips you can buy. BTW, for still being 130nm and keeping/surpassing 90nm chips, I think thats something to talk about.
I like AMD, truly I do. But I don't like being manipulated. And the hype surrounding the Opteron is largely unjustified. Tom's Hardware isn't bad but it's PC centric and they chose to take a swipe at my beloved Apple so I respond.
You have just proven my point Scavy. Apple still must OEM the CPU and chipsets from IBM and others yet they still made twice as much. Apple has wallstreet success, AMD has "mindshare" success.
Being that we're only %3 or less worldwide Mac users don't always get good info. I mean look at this thread. Joey posts the "infamous" PCmag link that just so happens to compare 3 of the worse performing Mac applications and then wonders why the G5 isn't that fast.
What about AMD coveniently leaving out their 40bit memory controller when talking about 64bit. Not that I need more than an exabyte of memory but they don't seem to want to highlite their weaknesses versus bragging about ondie memory controllers.
Intel has had the X86 market caught in dellusions of grandeur and now that AMD is bursting that bubble people should be open to the fact that IBM is doing the same.
You have idiot analysts like Rob Enderle telling Mac users Apple should get out of hardware because they can't compete. It's all subterfuge and FUD.
AMD will not take the DCC momentum that Apple has earned. Siggraph 2004 was all about Apple and its growning partners. 2 years from now I expect Apple to have 3 new apps and be entrenched even deeper.
Everything that AMD is offering will be hitting Macs either first(Dual Cores) or soon afterwards.
again. AMD rocks but IBM/G5 rocks a little harder.