AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple Still Claims G5 Faster than Intel Xeon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple Still Claims G5 Faster than Intel Xeon

post #1 of 43
9/17/05 at 10:45am
Thread Starter 
"Does It Faster

The PowerPC G5 processor dramatically accelerates performance in real world applications. When compared head-to-head against PCs in a series of Photoshop tests, the dual 2.7GHz, 2.3GHz and 2.0GHz Power Mac G5 systems ran the 45 filters 98%, 78% and 59% faster, respectively, than the 3.6GHz Pentium 4-based system, and 72%, 56% and 38% faster than the dual 3.6GHz Xeon-based system.(2)"

-www.apple.com/powermac/ 9/17/05

I'm still not convinced any of Intel's Pentium or Xeon chips will have the performance of the G5's (except for maybe the Itanium 2 chips, which are poorly supported in software). When the dual-core G5's hit the market, Intel will be even further behind. I don't argue that Intel has a better powererformance ratio, but for raw horsepower, they still have not leaped passed the G5. In fact they haven't even caught up to AMD with their Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (Dual Core 64-bit)
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 43
9/17/05 at 1:26pm
If you use Altivec, the G5 bitch-slaps the Netburst and P-M architectures. Considering that the bulk of performance demanding software that you can run on a mac makes good use of Altivec, I am inclined to agree with you.

Whether or not the G5 surpasses the Xeon at server-related tasks is a more clear subject for debate and analysis.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #3 of 43
9/17/05 at 2:05pm
But keep in mind we still have not seen any real world software writen for Mac OS X on Intel hardware yet. I know this is a hardware debate but it will be interesting to see what kind of optimizations the OS will make to the hardware.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 43
9/17/05 at 2:20pm
Quote:
Originally posted by ngmapple
"Does It Faster

The PowerPC G5 processor dramatically accelerates performance in real world applications. When compared head-to-head against PCs in a series of Photoshop tests, the dual 2.7GHz, 2.3GHz and 2.0GHz Power Mac G5 systems ran the 45 filters 98%, 78% and 59% faster, respectively, than the 3.6GHz Pentium 4-based system, and 72%, 56% and 38% faster than the dual 3.6GHz Xeon-based system.(2)"

-www.apple.com/powermac/ 9/17/05

I'm still not convinced any of Intel's Pentium or Xeon chips will have the performance of the G5's (except for maybe the Itanium 2 chips, which are poorly supported in software). When the dual-core G5's hit the market, Intel will be even further behind. I don't argue that Intel has a better powererformance ratio, but for raw horsepower, they still have not leaped passed the G5. In fact they haven't even caught up to AMD with their Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (Dual Core 64-bit)

Yeah, that is like a 3 year old quote. New Dual core Xeons would kill the G5.
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 #5 of 43
9/17/05 at 3:27pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
Yeah, that is like a 3 year old quote. New Dual core Xeons would kill the G5.

Perhaps, but IBM now has dual core G5's. Once those make it into the PM (Paris?), I think the G5 will end up back on top.

When I first heard Apple on Intel announced I thought Intel would be making special non-x86 cpu's just for the Mac platform. Like high performance RISC cpu's based on Intel's XScale for instance. When I found out Apple was planning to use the same exact x86 cpu's featured in your average PC, I was dissapointed.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 43
9/17/05 at 3:34pm
Doesn't really matter what chips were more powerful 2 years ago, or what's even more powerful now. What matters is what's more powerful in 2 years when the switch is done.

Those are marketing quotes. Entirely grain of salt material anyway.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 43
9/17/05 at 4:20pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by nowayout11
Doesn't really matter what chips were more powerful 2 years ago, or what's even more powerful now. What matters is what's more powerful in 2 years when the switch is done.

Those are marketing quotes. Entirely grain of salt material anyway.

Couldn't agree more, but the information out there suggests Intel will be in two years only marginally past where AMD is today.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 43
9/17/05 at 4:54pm
Guys, it really doesn't matter. Performance isn't the main consideration here, as THT points out in the Sossaman thread. Apple is aiming for 'good enough' performance in an inexpensive, attractive package. In other words, they are aiming for market share, not the high-performance niche.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 43
9/17/05 at 5:26pm
I would just like to question why you guys are saying those quotes or scores are 2 or 3 years old? It states at the bottom they were done in april 2005 and also how would they have a 2.7dual G5 to test 2 or three years ago?

Its possible I am misunderstanding you so please correct me if I am wrong. but to me it looks like at current the current time a G5 is still faster at those tasks that they benchmark.
Deliberatelife.com: Do things different.
Reply
Deliberatelife.com: Do things different.
Reply
post #10 of 43
9/17/05 at 5:44pm
Quote:
Originally posted by cubist
Guys, it really doesn't matter. Performance isn't the main consideration here, as THT points out in the Sossaman thread. Apple is aiming for 'good enough' performance in an inexpensive, attractive package. In other words, they are aiming for market share, not the high-performance niche.

If they don't come through with a high performance machine when they now have no excuses they will lose that niche completely. That niche is the home root of their user base. If they loose the dedicated all they have left is a bunch of people that could hardly give a crap, and they are all just a bunch of pliable followers anyway. The Apple faithful that stood with them this far will be gone, and Apple will have to compete on their own after that. It's going to be pretty lonely out there for Apple when they are considered the new Packard Bell of PC's once they are running on intel. " 'good enough' performance "
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 #11 of 43
9/17/05 at 6:38pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by zenatek
I would just like to question why you guys are saying those quotes or scores are 2 or 3 years old? It states at the bottom they were done in april 2005 and also how would they have a 2.7dual G5 to test 2 or three years ago?

Its possible I am misunderstanding you so please correct me if I am wrong. but to me it looks like at current the current time a G5 is still faster at those tasks that they benchmark.

I'm not talking about chips two years old, we're talking about chips that Intel won't release until 2 years into the future. Comparing AMD 2005 to Intel 2006/2007. And AMD 2005 is performaning better than Intel 2006/2007 in benchmarks.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 43
9/17/05 at 6:58pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
It's going to be pretty lonely out there for Apple when they are considered the new Packard Bell of PC's once they are running on intel. " 'good enough' performance "

I couldn't agree more with you onlooker, Apple is a high performance brand first and foremost. Apple's PowerMac and PowerBook series are still their flag ship products. It has only been the last 5 years or so that Apple has entered the low cost (<$2000USD) market with it's iMac, iBook and mini product lines. These product lines are very important as they have helped gain a lot of market share. But that does not mean Apple as a whole should be satisfied with "good enough" performance, especially in it's Power lines.

Apple's long time customer base includes artists, video content creators, publishers, scientists, etc... These people look for the latest and most powerfull hardware IN ADDITION to a user experience like no other. For these users, it's about more than just the pretty enclosure and Aqua eye-candy. And additionally these customers are willing to pay the premium cost of "the best" hardware availible (I don't see anyone in this market segment trading a 64-bit machine for a 32-bit one to save a few bucks). Thus I do not expect Apple's Power hardware to become "as good as" the average PC, I still expect it to be better. Apple can still achieve that in a move to x86, but they need to do the following three tasks:

1- Use the most powerfull x86 cpu's availible (not cpu's that are "close" to being the most powerfull), while maintaining or improving upon battery life in the portables from current G4 battery life
2- Add in unique performance hardware features such as DSP or Xilinx/Altera FPGA co-processors for added performance (ie. to impliment updatable hardware codecs for faster encoding of video, audio, etc...)
3- Become an early adopter of non-performance related hardware (ie. Blueray DVD-R's, OLED screens, etc...)
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 43
9/17/05 at 7:27pm
I thought that the x86 Developer Kit was the fastest platform for OS X to date?

I seem to remember that the inital feedback suggesting that the x86 based Mac trounced the dual 2.7GHz Power Mac G5?
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #14 of 43
9/17/05 at 10:13pm
Great post ngmapple, it's rare when I get someone to agree with me, but that's not why I'm admiring your written word. It spoke volumes to me. And I have to say: You said it a heck of a lot better than I did.
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 #15 of 43
9/17/05 at 11:48pm
Quote:
Originally posted by ngmapple
Apple can still achieve that in a move to x86, but they need to do the following three tasks:

1- Use the most powerfull x86 cpu's availible (not cpu's that are "close" to being the most powerfull), while maintaining or improving upon battery life in the portables from current G4 battery life

Or use x86 cpus with a very high performance/watt ratio, and put lots of them on the motherboard. x86 cpus are usually cheaper than IBM PPCs, so that would not impact the final cost so much. And OS X has been tuned for SMP performance lately (although there is some extra work to do here!).
Dual dual-core Yonah in Powerbooks, single dual-core Yonah in iBooks, and quad dual-core Merom in Powermacs. That could beat AMD without having to do extra research on materials that don't melt at 300°C...

Quote:
2- Add in unique performance hardware features such as DSP or Xilinx/Altera FPGA co-processors for added performance (ie. to impliment updatable hardware codecs for faster encoding of video, audio, etc...)

Apple (and 3rd party developers) would need to tweak huge parts of their code to take advantage of this. Such architectures are good for game consoles and embedded systems, but it is not for computers that need to efficiently run "legacy" code.
I believe we will see Apple relying more and more on the GPU in the future, instead of throwing money in conceiving coprocessors.

Quote:
3- Become an early adopter of non-performance related hardware (ie. Blueray DVD-R's, OLED screens, etc...)

They definitely MUST do that to satisfy the pro niche market (and to satisfy the geeks we are).

Very nice post, anyway, ngmapple!
Basically everything goes round. We're 80% dinosaur.
-- Alex James
Reply
Basically everything goes round. We're 80% dinosaur.
-- Alex James
Reply
post #16 of 43
9/18/05 at 12:57am
Quote:
Originally posted by ngmapple
I couldn't agree more with you onlooker, Apple is a high performance brand first and foremost. Apple's PowerMac and PowerBook series are still their flag ship products. It has only been the last 5 years or so that Apple has entered the low cost (<$2000USD) market with it's iMac, iBook and mini product lines.

I guess you're just too young to remember the Plus, the Classic, the LC's, the IIsi, the Performas, and on and on and on. Apple's reputation has always come from the high end, but the backbone of its sales and its installed base has been on the low end (mid-end compared to the rest of the market) for a long time now. The Mac was born as a low-end computer ("for the rest of us"), after all.

Not surprisingly, Apple has historically stumbled worst when its low end has sagged. And when its fortunes rise, it's been driven from the low end - think LC and the early 90s boom, and the more recent iMac-driven resurgance. Compare to the Performa mess in the mid-90s. Today, the low end is flagging again, while the high end is in good shape. Steve said the Intel switch would start at the low end, and I think there's a good reason for that.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 43
9/18/05 at 2:25am
I wonder if it'll end up in a situation where it's mid-range kit outperforms it's high-end kit like it did with the G3 and the 9600?
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #18 of 43
9/18/05 at 2:29am
Quote:
Originally posted by Messiah
I wonder if it'll end up in a situation where it's mid-range kit outperforms it's high-end kit like it did with the G3 and the 9600?

It certainly will... Except that this time, the high-end boxes will have software compatibility on their side. Remember the OS X transition, when all DTP and creative professionals were waiting for Quark to release an OS X friendly version of XPress before moving to OS X!
Basically everything goes round. We're 80% dinosaur.
-- Alex James
Reply
Basically everything goes round. We're 80% dinosaur.
-- Alex James
Reply
post #19 of 43
9/18/05 at 4:19am
Quote:
Originally posted by Towel
Steve said the Intel switch would start at the low end, and I think there's a good reason for that.

But when did he actually say that? In other threads we have all been going through that keynote, and nobody can seem to find anything he said about the low end coming first. Also, Apple will probably update their products as the suitable, or scheduled processors become available for each product. I doubt they'll wait for the low end processors to become available; if the high-end processors become available first, and their design is done for the pro machine they will more than likely release it. I really can't imagine them waiting to get this transition over for anything.
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 #20 of 43
9/18/05 at 7:59am
Quote:
Originally posted by cubist
Apple is aiming for 'good enough' performance in an inexpensive, attractive package. In other words, they are aiming for market share, not the high-performance niche.

I'll believe it when I see it. Didn't Jobs' said he was going after the other 95% of the market 4 or 5 years ago? Sure, he may now have the luxury of lower priced chips from Intel, but I don't expect Apple to give up it's huge margins for marketshare especially in the pro segment.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 43
9/18/05 at 8:16am
  • Anders
  • Feared and Biased Moderator
If you want a piece of the 95% you would go after the "good enough", not (a piece of) the pro marked. Its easier to win over 5.5% of 90% than 100% of 5%.

By going Intel Apple leveled the playing field. Not they will never be too far behind (and never for a short blink of an eye be ahead). Speed has always been a crucial argument against Apple. They have taken that out of the equation and can now focus on a better OS, hardware/iPod integration (consumers) and exclusive video software (professionals).

The only ones who would actually be able to get an advantage by selecting Windows over Macs if they weren´t bleeding edge with the CPU is PS people. Everybody else would have other clear advantages. And if a 10% speed difference actually meant something for a PS artist she would already have anti-switched.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #22 of 43
9/18/05 at 4:21pm
Remember folks it is the ever growing portable market that has forced Apple to switch over to Intel. The towers would do fine sticking with PowerPC, but the PowerPC portables have fallen way behind Intel's offerings, and it is only going to get worse in the future.

That being said, I don't know why people are saying that Apple is going with only "good enough" computing: they are going to match the hardware of the top end windows offerings. Why are people acting like Apple is planing to abandon the high end?
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
post #23 of 43
9/19/05 at 2:02am
Quote:
Originally posted by Messiah
I thought that the x86 Developer Kit was the fastest platform for OS X to date?

I seem to remember that the inital feedback suggesting that the x86 based Mac trounced the dual 2.7GHz Power Mac G5?

That was one report that said it was faster at booting.

The DTK is fast though, and in many cases just as fast as my DP2.5GHz PMG5.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #24 of 43
9/19/05 at 4:35am
Quote:
Originally posted by Res

That being said, I don't know why people are saying that Apple is going with only "good enough" computing: they are going to match the hardware of the top end windows offerings.

That's the problem. With Intel, Apple could at most match the high end PCs. Before they had the potential to exceed it, as they did in the past. Imagine a dual or quad Power5-lite configuration in a Power Mac. I bet that's what Jobs hoped for back to 2003 with his famous bold statements. There would be not a serious competition to that from the x86 land for a long time.

But it did not happened. And with the lost interest of Freescale and IBM to compete in the desktop arena, Intel is the obvious solution (ok, there is also the publicly non-available roadmaps story).
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 43
9/19/05 at 6:35am
Quote:
Originally posted by nowayout11
Doesn't really matter what chips were more powerful 2 years ago, or what's even more powerful now. What matters is what's more powerful in 2 years when the switch is done.

Those are marketing quotes. Entirely grain of salt material anyway.

Regardless of what you can extrapolate as a likely scenario, the topic at hand addresses what's faster NOW, counting in the soon-to-be-released dual core G5s. We have enough threads already to validate Apple's switch to Intel. This is something different.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #26 of 43
9/19/05 at 8:22am
Quote:
Originally posted by Res
... That being said, I don't know why people are saying that Apple is going with only "good enough" computing: they are going to match the hardware of the top end windows offerings. Why are people acting like Apple is planing to abandon the high end?

Maybe in two years they might be able to match the top end, but as you should know, Intel CPUs are not at the top end today. From a performance standpoint, AMD owns the top-end, and Intel is an also-ran.

Boxx's announced quad dual-core Opteron machines are the top performance in any desktop computer today. You cannot build anything even close to that with Intel chips. It would also blow the doors off the 2.7 G5.

Anders' and Towel's posts make clear the key thing to understand. The consumer machines, the bread and butter machines, they must be at least competitive with the consumer PCs and laptops.

Perhaps Apple will address the top end sometime in a couple of years, who knows. It certainly won't be anytime soon.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 43
9/19/05 at 9:40am
Quote:
Originally posted by cubist

Perhaps Apple will address the top end sometime in a couple of years, who knows. It certainly won't be anytime soon.

As much as you and others would like to see Apple 'address the top end', I think Apple is abandoning the idea of 'big ass computers that double as furnaces'.

Look at what Apple has put out in the last year or two: the iMac G5, the whole computer behind the screen; the Mac mini, the whole computer inside a tiny box; the iPod nano, impossibly small

While AMD and nVidia have plans to make CPUs much faster by making them bigger and hotter, ATI, Apple and Intel have plans to make them run faster but smaller and cooler.

Who's going to win? Beats me...some people are probably willing to go back to the 1950s and have the entire computer inside a mid-sized room inside the house. But looking at the love the nano is getting and how the Mac mini is turning heads, I think the future isn't about speed but about functionality and size.

If you want speed, you'll cluster computers together.

The winner? I think it's Apple, ATI and Intel despite what the hardcore gamers and speed freaks (which make up a tiny little portion of this world) would like to make us believe.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 43
9/19/05 at 1:41pm
Thread Starter 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The One to Rescue

Dual dual-core Yonah in Powerbooks, single dual-core Yonah in iBooks, and quad dual-core Merom in Powermacs. That could beat AMD without having to do extra research on materials that don't melt at 300�C...[QUOTE]

I would be happy with a dual/dual yonah Powerbook (total of 4 Yonah cores). But it would have to be a dual/dual for me to be willing to accept a Yonah based powerbook due to it's lack of 64-bit support and relatively low clock speed. It does handle power consumption very well so a dual/dual config. isn't out of the question.

My concern is the numberous rumors suggesting the PowerBook will become a single/single 32-bit (Yonah), that's just unacceptable for a "Power" product.

Either of the following configs would be acceptable enough for me to buy one (realistically I understand the last two in this list are unlikely in the near, near future):

dual/dual 32-bit (Intel "Yonah")
single/single 64-bit (IBM 970FX LP or Intel "Merom")
single/dual 64-bit (IBM 970MP)
dual/dual 64-bit (IBM 970MP or Intel "Merom")

I will not be interested in the following:

single/single 32-bit (Intel "Yonah")
single/dual 32-bit (Intel "Yonah")

Basically what I'm saying is if I see a Yonah in the PB, there better be a total of 4 cores in there. I need a portable machine that can handle HD video editing, so single/single 32-bit is not an attractive solution.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 43
9/19/05 at 1:54pm
Quote:
Originally posted by cubist
Maybe in two years they might be able to match the top end, but as you should know, Intel CPUs are not at the top end today. From a performance standpoint, AMD owns the top-end, and Intel is an also-ran.


Opterons are on top right now, but the honor of fastest chip for PCs will continue to bounce back and forth between Intel and AMD every six months. And, once apple has switch over to x86 there is nothing keeping them from using AMD chips if they are better.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
post #30 of 43
9/19/05 at 3:04pm
Depends on the deal they made when they signed up with intel. Exclusivity may get them cheaper processors.
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 #31 of 43
9/19/05 at 3:16pm
Intel has its own Fabs, AMD doesnt its the big reason Apple is using Intel along with their very very deep pockets and R & D arm. PPC sucks, show me one PPC that can hang with my old AMD 3500????? thought so.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #32 of 43
9/19/05 at 6:32pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Aurora
Intel has its own Fabs, AMD doesnt its the big reason Apple is using Intel along with their very very deep pockets and R & D arm. PPC sucks, show me one PPC that can hang with my old AMD 3500????? thought so.

hm....

then who owns this fab?
http://www.amd-jobs.de/de/unternehmen/amddresden.php

I think Jobs is using Intel branding only for the PR. Intel lost the desktop cpu war to AMD since first opteron came out, however Intel may be the better mobile solution at this time.

I can see Dual core AMD equipped PowerMacs in the near future once the transition is done. Dual Core Intel still sucks compared to AMD. Do you think Intel will start copying AMD on the desktop CPU design?....... I bet this is already happening....
always a newbie
Reply
always a newbie
Reply
post #33 of 43
9/19/05 at 10:40pm
Quote:
Intel has its own Fabs, AMD doesnt its the big reason Apple is using Intel along

Really? Then whose FABs are the ones in Austin and Dresden?
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 43
9/19/05 at 10:56pm
Quote:
Originally posted by ngmapple
But it would have to be a dual/dual for me to be willing to accept a Yonah based powerbook due to it's lack of 64-bit support and relatively low clock speed. It does handle power consumption very well so a dual/dual config. isn't out of the question.

Why do you f***ing care about 64-bit??


Quote:
My concern is the numberous rumors suggesting the PowerBook will become a single/single 32-bit (Yonah), that's just unacceptable for a "Power" product.

The Powerbook won't BECOME a single/single 32-bit, for it has ALWAYS been single/single 32-bit. Period.
Basically everything goes round. We're 80% dinosaur.
-- Alex James
Reply
Basically everything goes round. We're 80% dinosaur.
-- Alex James
Reply
post #35 of 43
9/20/05 at 3:58am
Quote:
Originally posted by bitemymac
hm....

then who owns this fab?
http://www.amd-jobs.de/de/unternehmen/amddresden.php

I think Jobs is using Intel branding only for the PR. Intel lost the desktop cpu war to AMD since first opteron came out, however Intel may be the better mobile solution at this time.

I can see Dual core AMD equipped PowerMacs in the near future once the transition is done. Dual Core Intel still sucks compared to AMD. Do you think Intel will start copying AMD on the desktop CPU design?....... I bet this is already happening....

Thanks for the correction, i was sure that IBM was producing AMD chips for AMD??
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #36 of 43
9/20/05 at 8:33am
Quote:
Originally posted by Aurora
Thanks for the correction, i was sure that IBM was producing AMD chips for AMD??

No IBM helped AMD with their last two big processors that took them above intel in true x86 speed. AMD needed IBM's help with their dual core design.
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 #37 of 43
9/20/05 at 6:05pm
Quote:
Originally posted by ngmapple
My concern is the numberous rumors suggesting the PowerBook will become a single/single 32-bit (Yonah), that's just unacceptable for a "Power" product.

...

Basically what I'm saying is if I see a Yonah in the PB, there better be a total of 4 cores in there.

A single-core Yonah is faster than the fastest 7448, but it's "unacceptable" to you? You are living in a fantasy. Yonah does not support 4-core systems, so we can eliminate that possibility right away. Of course Apple will use the dual-core Yonah, so why not just be happy about the increased performance?
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 43
9/20/05 at 8:28pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by wmf
A single-core Yonah is faster than the fastest 7448, but it's "unacceptable" to you? You are living in a fantasy. Yonah does not support 4-core systems, so we can eliminate that possibility right away. Of course Apple will use the dual-core Yonah, so why not just be happy about the increased performance?

It's [Yonah] deffinately faster than the current G4, no question there. However I preffer to compare Yonah to other candidate chips that Apple theoretically "could" put in the next PowerBook, (including the low power IBM 970FX and AMD's offerings) rather than the terribly outdated G4.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 43
9/20/05 at 9:24pm
Quote:
Originally posted by ngmapple
It's [Yonah] deffinately faster than the current G4, no question there. However I preffer to compare Yonah to other candidate chips that Apple theoretically "could" put in the next PowerBook, (including the low power IBM 970FX and AMD's offerings) rather than the terribly outdated G4.

A Powerbook is a 1" thick laptop. It needs really cool chips. 970FX and AMD's offerings are NOT among them.
I can't see SJ announcing that the new Powerbook is twice the volume of the current one, with a fan permanently on to cool it.
Basically everything goes round. We're 80% dinosaur.
-- Alex James
Reply
Basically everything goes round. We're 80% dinosaur.
-- Alex James
Reply
post #40 of 43
9/21/05 at 12:39am
Apple is a hardware company right? Nmost of it's profits come from hardware sales - fact, so OSX is never gooing to be available to non Apple hardware?

Well if you look at the sums, you can see that Apple will sell about 4 million computers per year generating $? profit. How many EXTRA copies of OSX would they have to sell bearing in mind that the media costs nothing to makeup for the shortfall in hardware sales - probably not that many.

personally, I think that in the short term it would have only a marginal effect on the sales of Apple hardware, but that millions of additional copies of OSX would be sold, leading to a bigger user base. Apples share of hardware would fall, but they would sell more in numbers. Each new itteration of software be it OSX, FCP, iWork, quicktime etc etc would all benifit and outweigh the lost share of hardware sales.

ONLY the move to x86 will make this possible. I am not sayingthat this will happen, but I think the possibility is far higher than most people on these boards seem to think. Everything that Apple is doing right now is following the subscripition model, we are all forced to upgrade software to keep it working.

I bought DVD Studio Pro 4, and I now have to upgrade Quicktime pro, I was quite happy with the version I was using but I had no option, Tiger comes with QT7
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple Still Claims G5 Faster than Intel Xeon