AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Inside Apple's Intel-based Dev Transition Kit (Photos)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Inside Apple's Intel-based Dev Transition Kit (Photos) - Page 2

post #41 of 69
6/23/05 at 8:38pm
Quote:
PCI-E is PCI Express which is the Graphics port Upgrade from AGP, but is not backward compatable with anything.

Yes and no. PCI-E is actually a revisited concept of a unified bus concept. Only this time its serial, not parallel.
PCI-E connect everything to the chipset - graphics, audio, ad-in cards, IDE controllers... whatever.
Most of the mobo companies still recognize the need to be somewhat backwards compatible (I haven't seen too many PCI-E add-in cards yet), so they put a few PCI-E to PCI bridges. That is why you see 32 bit PCI slots on the Mactel.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 69
6/23/05 at 9:14pm
ah... fucking old skool memories all flooding back now.

my first computer was an apple 2e,
but since then i cut my teeth on x86 all the way to pentium 3s in 2000. then i switched gradually to hardcore Mac from 2001-2004.

now it seems though back to a bit of the old skool -
bios... building your 'barebones' pc.
turbo button... heh good times... it was best like one of the posters mentioned to turn it to 'off' so that older games ran slower.

i am soo waiting for macintels now.
how awesome ~ get a bit of tiger, dashboard action, get some real web/multimedia/thinking/writing work done, no hassles. then frackin switch over to xPee for some HALF LIFE 2 and COUNTERSTRIKE SOURCE ...!!!!! YEAHHHHHHHHH
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 69
6/24/05 at 12:02am
How about some pictures of the outside of the case?
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 69
6/24/05 at 1:44am
Why bother? It's just a standard G5 case.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 69
6/24/05 at 4:05am
Quote:
Originally posted by skatman
Yes and no. PCI-E is actually a revisited concept of a unified bus concept. Only this time its serial, not parallel.
PCI-E connect everything to the chipset - graphics, audio, ad-in cards, IDE controllers... whatever.

But the only thing it's being used for anywhere is Graphics. No one has made a PCI-E card for anything but the Graphics yet, and it's going on two years old.
I think it's because all the other ports are after the first two would be slower than a PCI-X slot. That last part is just a guess, but the order is something like 16X, 4x, 2x, and 1x.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #46 of 69
6/24/05 at 6:16am
Well not exactly.

Blackmagic Designs makes a PCI-Express video product and LSI Logic and others have PCI-Express SCSI cards. PCI-Express is taking off slowly because we really weren't tapping the full potential of PCI-X as far as bandwidth was required so the advantages of PCI-Express are largely marketing feaures right now.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #47 of 69
6/24/05 at 7:31am
Broadcom also makes some PCI Express ethernet cards (quad port gigabit hardware and the like).
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 69
6/24/05 at 9:56am
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
turbo button... heh good times... it was best like one of the posters mentioned to turn it to 'off' so that older games ran slower.

One other thing I remember about 486's and their 'Mac-equivlents' at the time, the 68040 Centris models. The 68040 ran at 25MHz and 33MHz, while the 486's ran usually at 50 and 66. But, IIRC, I read that the 486's were speed-doubled at the clock rate (which would explain how a turbo button could work). The Macs also were doubled, but Apple didn't double the MHz when advertising (so, like, they both were really 25 and 33MHz chips doubled, just the Intel folks used the 'doubled' number and Apple didn't).

The start of the whole MHz thing? I don't know. Of course, I also remember when the Pentium first shipped at 60 and 66MHz, I had trouble getting those MHz PC junkies explaining to me how the 60MHz was faster then the 486/66.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 69
6/24/05 at 10:39am
Quote:
Originally posted by vinney57
Well you seem to be batting .500 on stupid/sane comments at the moment. You are quite correct; I think the Mac games market, such as it is, will die completely. And frankly who gives a shit? Games have never sold a single Mac.

I assume you count my "who uses FW800 anyway?" post as the dumb one. But who does? If it disappeared, maybe 5% of Mac users would notice. I would bet on USB3 being invented, supporting this speed, getting added to motherboards, and gaining widespread adoption as being more likely than FW800 surviving long-term outside of niche markets.

The bottom line about my comments? A lot more people play Mac games than use FW800.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 69
6/24/05 at 10:52am
Ironically, perhaps, for looking to the future of Mac hardware,
Dell's site has the best description of the advantages of PCI Express over PCI-X I've seen.

Basically, "it's not just about cards". The motherboard uses PCI-E for its own communications. You can think of it as the difference between a bunch of network hubs attached to a router, to a fully switched network. Even if you don't have any cards in any slots, a PCI-E motherboard is going to be more efficient in power, performance, and, eventually, cost (fewer lines mean simpler designs, once the chipsets come down in price.) PCI-E cards will also tend to be smaller, easier to configure, and, depending on the implementation, even hot-swappable.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 69
6/24/05 at 11:36am
Quote:
Originally posted by Booga
I assume you count my "who uses FW800 anyway?" post as the dumb one. But who does? If it disappeared, maybe 5% of Mac users would notice. I would bet on USB3 being invented, supporting this speed, getting added to motherboards, and gaining widespread adoption as being more likely than FW800 surviving long-term outside of niche markets.

The bottom line about my comments? A lot more people play Mac games than use FW800.

I use FW800. FW400 is faster than USB2.0. So, I don't have any high hopes for USB3.0 if such a thing is going to appear anytime soon.

I have 2 external FW800 LaCie drives, and they are really quick. FW800 is a beautiful creature...
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 69
6/24/05 at 12:08pm
Quote:
Originally posted by NeverFade
I use FW800. FW400 is faster than USB2.0. So, I don't have any high hopes for USB3.0 if such a thing is going to appear anytime soon.

Actually USB 2.0 is technically a schmee faster than FW400. But not by much so they'll seem relatively equal in speed.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 69
6/24/05 at 12:53pm
IMHO, Apple is abandoning FW (just as it is catching on in PC-land, too). The latest iPods don't even come with FW cables. This whole transition is about picking their battles. Apple's been fighting on too many fronts. They are giving up all of that and concentrating their efforts where it will have an effect - Mac OS X.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 69
6/24/05 at 1:54pm
Quote:
Originally posted by crees!
Actually USB 2.0 is technically a schmee faster than FW400. But not by much so they'll seem relatively equal in speed.

Yes. Technically USB 2.0 can run up to 480mbps (Megabites per second) and Firewire 400 can run up to 400mbps. (As it says in the name, its not just some randoom number) but Firewire 800 can transfer at up to 800mbps.

I think Apple will keep FireWire 800 in the pro-computers (PowerMac and PowerBook) for the people how need to backup a ton of data fast but not the consumer computers, FireWire 400 does the job there.

If Apple loses FireWire in their computers they will have too completely recreate iMovie and FinalCut Pro and Express so that they can import video over USB. Not a good idea at all. I believe that all Apple computers will at least 1 firewire 400 port for awhile. FireWire 800, it might go, but I know that a lot of pro users use it. If they do decide to lose it, I think Apple needs to make a cheap PCI Card for the PowerMac and a Cheap PC Card for the PowerBook.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 69
6/24/05 at 3:20pm
Firewire is not going away anytime soon because it of legacy devices and because it can do things that USB can't do by the nature of its design.

USB is a client/ server based design with all of translation work done through CPU.

Firewire is a network design with all of the translation done by the firewire chip.

When realtime uninterrupted bandwidth is required (such as DV capture), firewire is a vastly better solution because its realtime bandwidth performance is pretty much independent of CPU load.

Firewire 800 has been around for at least 2 years in PC world. It's just that there is not much use for it in desktop market unless you need to daisy-chain a bunch of HDs.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 69
6/24/05 at 4:14pm
Quote:
Originally posted by salmonstk
Would someone explain to me why Windows uses this and Macs have not in the past. Advantage of BIOS vs whatever else???

Not me, but maybe Wikipedia (et.al.) can help you find answers, e.g.:

BIOS
Open Firmware
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 69
6/24/05 at 4:21pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Booga
Ironically, perhaps, for looking to the future of Mac hardware,
Dell's site has the best description of the advantages of PCI Express over PCI-X I've seen.

That was informative... thanks.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 69
6/24/05 at 4:47pm
Quote:
Originally posted by sjk
Not me, but maybe Wikipedia (et.al.) can help you find answers, e.g.:

BIOS
Open Firmware

Don't forget EFI. And, if want to understand what the Macintosh used before Open Firmware, this is a cogent and accurate explanation of the Macintosh Toolbox ROM.
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 69
6/24/05 at 4:53pm
Quote:
Originally posted by w_parietti22
[B]Yes. Technically USB 2.0 can run up to 480mbps (Megabites per second) and Firewire 400 can run up to 400mbps. (As it says in the name, its not just some randoom number) but Firewire 800 can transfer at up to 800mbps.

In real world testing, this is not accurate. It's been proven that FW400 beats USB 2.0...

But this is neither here nor there, just a statement.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 69
6/24/05 at 4:56pm
Quote:
Originally posted by skatman
Firewire is not going away anytime soon [...]

I agree.

FireWire Still Burning
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 69
6/24/05 at 7:21pm
Firewire has become necessary for video, and DV. I really hope Apple does not abandon it. But I heard there was new connection being developed somewhere that was far superior. I think it was some kind of serial connection. I can't remember.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #62 of 69
6/25/05 at 8:51pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Louzer
One other thing I remember about 486's and their 'Mac-equivlents' at the time, the 68040 Centris models. The 68040 ran at 25MHz and 33MHz, while the 486's ran usually at 50 and 66. But, IIRC, I read that the 486's were speed-doubled at the clock rate (which would explain how a turbo button could work). The Macs also were doubled, but Apple didn't double the MHz when advertising (so, like, they both were really 25 and 33MHz chips doubled, just the Intel folks used the 'doubled' number and Apple didn't).

This is riddled with inaccuracies.

The i486-DX2 models had a processor clock speed that was twice the speed of memory bus. This is identical to modern 2.0 Ghz PowerMacs that have a 1.0 Ghz memory bus. Of course everyone calls the Mac a 2Ghz machine and not 1Ghz, just as with the Intel machines.

The 040 Macintosh models were not "clock doubled", although later on Apple marketing started lying and marketing the chips as "33/66Mhz" or similar. The lower number is the correct one for those machines, and their lack of real oomph was the big reason for the last Apple CPU shift.

The function of the Turbo button (when turned off) was to knock the clock speed down to 8Mhz, the same as a genuine IBM PC AT. This improved compatibility with software that used specific timing loops. By the 486 era, the Turbo button was just a fugly case feature that was rarely wired up.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 69
6/25/05 at 10:16pm
Quote:
Originally posted by IntlHarvester
This is riddled with inaccuracies.

The i486-DX2 models had a processor clock speed that was twice the speed of memory bus. This is identical to modern 2.0 Ghz PowerMacs that have a 1.0 Ghz memory bus. Of course everyone calls the Mac a 2Ghz machine and not 1Ghz, just as with the Intel machines.

The 040 Macintosh models were not "clock doubled", although later on Apple marketing started lying and marketing the chips as "33/66Mhz" or similar. The lower number is the correct one for those machines, and their lack of real oomph was the big reason for the last Apple CPU shift.

The function of the Turbo button (when turned off) was to knock the clock speed down to 8Mhz, the same as a genuine IBM PC AT. This improved compatibility with software that used specific timing loops. By the 486 era, the Turbo button was just a fugly case feature that was rarely wired up.

Actually, Louzer is correct. At the time, clock doubling was standard for the technology. Intel advertised clock doubling as though it were a unique feature. It was not, but it sounded impressive to the easily impressed. However, you are correct that eventually Apple got around to advertising clock-doubled speeds.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 69
6/25/05 at 11:50pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Me
Actually, Louzer is correct. At the time, clock doubling was standard for the technology. Intel advertised clock doubling as though it were a unique feature. It was not, but it sounded impressive to the easily impressed. However, you are correct that eventually Apple got around to advertising clock-doubled speeds.

Nope. yourself and Louzer are wrong, and you are just going to have to wollow in your wrongness until you feel ready to go back into living in ignorance.

The 040 may have had some nice features and its own "Mhz Myth" issues, but it was not clock doubled and did not run at 66Mhz.

Here it is right from the horse's mouth:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...06487551?hl=en

Quote:
In the future, please donÕt post this type of mis-information. All it does
is perpetuate old myths that many of us have tried very hard to squelch.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 69
7/7/05 at 10:23am
any developer out there going to give us some more benchemarks?
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 69
7/8/05 at 12:55pm
FYI, for those who care.

I heard, the transition to Intel has been the plan all along. There was the option of staying PowerPC depending on how things panned out but, the plan, was always to move to Intel.

I would have never thought that until I heard otherwise.

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply
post #67 of 69
7/8/05 at 7:28pm
Quote:
Originally posted by tink
FYI, for those who care.

I heard, the transition to Intel has been the plan all along. There was the option of staying PowerPC depending on how things panned out but, the plan, was always to move to Intel.

I would have never thought that until I heard otherwise.

Having Steve brag on stage about how the G5 would be at 3 GHz within 12 months hardly fits with a "powerPC as a back-up plan" theory.

Pretending that something is desirable, when in fact it was compelled by necessity, is possibly the oldest rationalization on the books.

Methinks you're being spun.
Proud member of the Reality-based Community.
Reply
Proud member of the Reality-based Community.
Reply
post #68 of 69
7/8/05 at 7:57pm
I've owned two 486's, a 66MHzDX2 and a 100MHzDX4. I also owned an 040 Mac, a Centis 610 at 20MHz). (I've also owned other machines, including 386 and 286 PCs and a Mac SE and SE/30.)

Macs were never clock doubled, although I did purchase an overclock chip for my centris to bump it to 25 MHz I think. I remember the weird numbering scheme with the xxx/xxx machines, but I think those were the first PowerMacs. The last 040 machines, centris and quadras, didn't use that convention.

Meanwhile, that DX4 is actually clock tripled and the DX2 is doubled. Even though the MHz is different, the speed of the 100MHz machine was only marginally faster. That machine was selling when the first 60 MHz Pentiums were cooking things and the 486 was a better value. Now I wish I had a Pentium box so I could have compared them.
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
post #69 of 69
7/11/05 at 10:16am
Quote:
Originally posted by mpls244
Having Steve brag on stage about how the G5 would be at 3 GHz within 12 months hardly fits with a "powerPC as a back-up plan" theory.

Pretending that something is desirable, when in fact it was compelled by necessity, is possibly the oldest rationalization on the books.

Methinks you're being spun.

I don't think so.
I'm not referring to anything Steve said.

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Inside Apple's Intel-based Dev Transition Kit (Photos)