intels Craig Barett 'bout 64Bit processors

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
very funny:



in a german newspaper (Süddeutsche Zeitung) interview, Intels CEO Craig Berett was asked about the fastest PC from Apple & IBM, the G5... he complained, Apple has so little market share, but then he said something interesting & funny:



a 64Bit processor needs "a system, apps and advantages for the user"



hmm...-



does he knew the existence of Panther, the iApps, Quark, Photshop etc.? ok, ok - the software has to re-structured for 10.3. but...- ;-)



and what are the advanges for the user of the fastest PC in the world... ? no idea....

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 38
    costiquecostique Posts: 1,084member
    I think he meant that G5 needs 64-bit-support in OS in order to provide applications with larger address space; G5 needs apps which really utilize its 64-bit architecture; G5 needs users who need a 64-bit CPU. He didn't say G5 sucks. He referred to its 64-bitness only. As a matter of fact, most of us won't need 64-bit apps in a foreseeable future. Most of consumer-oriented apps (like iTunes and iCal) are likely to remain 32-bit forever.
  • Reply 2 of 38
    henriokhenriok Posts: 537member
    I think he's correct in his judgement. When a 64-bit computer cost $10000 and more there wasn't much to do with it that boring scientific computations and really high end graphics. But, now that 64-bit consumer products are here they will stay and developers will find relevant uses for the 64-bitness.
  • Reply 3 of 38
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    Wouldn't that statement mean, rather, that Intel is not now developing a more consumer-affordable 64 bit chip because it's biggest OS partner, Microsoft, does not currently have 64 bitness in the works...
  • Reply 4 of 38
    gargar Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by k_munic

    and what are the advanges for the user of the fastest PC in the world... ? no idea....





    hmmm, let me think about that:

    what are the advantages for a user to have the fastest pc in the world?



    well, it's fast, no?



    this craig berett guy doesn't really take the 32bit abilities of the G5 in to account.

    he only looks at the non-abilities of intels own 64bit offering.

    very narrow minded this man is.
  • Reply 5 of 38
    i completely agree with the argument that once the technology is there ? people will find a way to exploit it.





    for instance, when i was watching the wwdc stream...i said isight is available now? so what? how many people do you know who also has it?!?



    then all of a sudden in the next 2 days websites pop up where isight users can find each other and meet.



    BOOM BOOM. Cause and effect and i belive it will be that way for the G5...we may not see it right away but the advantages will come.
  • Reply 6 of 38
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,409member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by gar

    very narrow minded this man is.



    What else do you expect him to say? That his company's products are now outclassed by those of IBM and AMD? Of course he's going to downplay 64-bit processors (for the desktop & consumer). And when Intel does introduce its own then they'll act like they invented it and theirs is the only good solution. That company cares nothing about the truth (or good product), they just care about making money -- they've proven that many times over.
  • Reply 7 of 38
    squeaksqueak Posts: 26member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Programmer

    That company cares nothing about the truth (or good product), they just care about making money -- they've proven that many times over.



    And that, in it self, is not a bad thing. Heck, that is the basis of our market place, and the fiduciary duty of the company towards the stockholders.



    Just as long as people read these types of statements within the context of what the speakers motivations are, they will do just fine.



    Don't you just love spin?
  • Reply 8 of 38
    overtoastyovertoasty Posts: 439member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Programmer

    What else do you expect him to say? That his company's products are now outclassed by those of IBM and AMD? Of course he's going to downplay 64-bit processors (for the desktop & consumer). And when Intel does introduce its own then they'll act like they invented it and theirs is the only good solution. That company cares nothing about the truth (or good product), they just care about making money -- they've proven that many times over.



    Sounds like Intel just sorta struck it rich with the WinTel duopoly ... intellectual real-estate is all about location location location I guess, regardless of whatever kind of cardboard shack you happen to stick on top of it.
  • Reply 9 of 38
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    From what I've heard, Panther won't be any more optimized for the G5 than Smeagol (10.2.7) is. If this is in fact true, I am very sad. When will we have a true 64-bit OS?
  • Reply 10 of 38
    kiwi-in-dckiwi-in-dc Posts: 102member
    In the end, for most people doing general PC stuff - document editing, spreadsheets, web surfing etc. 64-bit is pretty much meaningless IMO.



    Where it becomes useful and important is where you are dealing with very large datasets i.e. > 4GB limit imposed by 32-bit addressing.



    So, where do we see these very large datasets? When I started using 64-bit processors (Alpha and PA-RISC), it was in a scientific environment, and we used those 64-bits happily to memory map very large datasets and then allow the VM systems to deal with paging them in and out efficiently.



    That need still exists today as in genomic and protemic research, fluid dynamics, very large databases - a data warehouse running on 64-bit architectures performs much, much better than one using 32-bits; that's what all the major server processors are 64-bit, and why Intel/MedicoreSoft are investing so much in Itanium and 64-bit windoze. They have to in order to really get into the enterprise server market.



    There is however another area where we deal with very large datasets: Video.



    64-bits allows you to memory map a video file, even one at very high resolution, like for instance all the pieces of LOTR that needed to be composited using Shake.



    It makes writing the code for doing this much easier, it makes the whole process of dealing with these large files much more efficient because is done as a fundamental part of the OS via the VM system which is highly tuned to be efficient.



    Isn't it interesting that the applications Apple has been focusing on for some time will mostly benefit from 64-bit addressing...



    A Final Cut Pro, Shake, Logic Audio even iMovie using 64-bits will be simpler to write and maintain, and respond faster. That means better adoption of their apps, lower cost to produce and maintain, better margins/lower prices etc.



    That, apart from speed, is why the G5 is important to Apple. It allows them to really go after the video market with both 64-bit desktops and 64-bit XServes. A rack full of G5 XServes with a couple'a XRAID arrays makes a pretty compelling solution in the film and video market. Hmmm, a single rack with all the compositing and storage power for a feature length movie...



    The Mad Kiwi
  • Reply 11 of 38
    rhumgodrhumgod Posts: 1,289member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by gar

    very narrow minded this man is.



    And this from the slash-and-burn expert of Montana...



    Seriously, it's just what Microsoft would say about Panther, etc...Apple said it for years with the G4 MHz castration...



    Just avoiding the truth. I think people are wise enough to see through most of the BS these days. I think that is why MS is feeling so much pressure to rid the world of their crappy hole-ridden softwares. People finally saw the problem and realized whose fault it was. Educate the masses and you better have good product, otherwise you will lose those customers.
  • Reply 12 of 38
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Placebo

    From what I've heard, Panther won't be any more optimized for the G5 than Smeagol (10.2.7) is. If this is in fact true, I am very sad. When will we have a true 64-bit OS?



    I believe it will be far more optimized, just not pure 64-bit. If parts (most) of the OS are running in 32-bit mode, but any other application has the option to be pure 64-bit, it shouldn't make a difference.



    Now if Apple leaves certain parts of Panther 32-bit that might possibly be needed in a 64-bit app, I guess that could limit some things.
  • Reply 13 of 38
    Doesn't if matter if Panther is a fully 64 bit OS? As long as the developers can make 'calls' to the G5 for 64 bit op's then surely that is all that matters. Bit of video/3D work? The odd humungous database? As games get more sophisticated?



    But for most 'day to day' apps, I would have thought '32 bits' would be more than enough.



    What counts is that the G5 can run 32 bit apps at a ferocious speed. And that will improve as Panther gets optimised for the G5 via the latest compile. Y'know, super smooth runtime G5ness.



    Panther and G5. Apple is saying: fastest 64 bit desktop top. S'funny, I don't hear them saying 64 bit Panther...but as long as Panther allows developes to take a shot at doing a 64 bit app, to allow that environment...then I'm not complaining.



    Intel might. What's that Intel? You're downplaying the '64 bit myth'? What? And the megahurtz myth? Don't hear you shouting smack about the Prescott mhz. Gee, what goes around...comes around...



    Lemon Bon Bon



  • Reply 14 of 38
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Placebo

    From what I've heard, Panther won't be any more optimized for the G5 than Smeagol (10.2.7) is. If this is in fact true, I am very sad. When will we have a true 64-bit OS?





    Mac OS 10.2.7 cannot run 64-bit applications. Panther can.
  • Reply 15 of 38
    henriokhenriok Posts: 537member
    OSX gives each application 2 GBs of virtual memory (or so I've heard) and then swapps it's brains out trying to map this onto the physical memory hardware wich never growed beyond 2 GB. Wouldn't two apps get its share mapped using the same 32-bit adresses in OSXs virtual space? Wound't a 64-bit memory-mapping reduce much of this hassle as the hardware and the operating system are speaking the same language so to speak? The operating system's virtual memory manager will have more room to manouver in a 64 bit environment.



    I hope you follow my line of reasoning.. I think I might have lost myself in there.



    I read someware that Photoshop used a more sophisticated form of virtual memory since its demands are different from what the operating system could provide. One aspect of PS's VM management was the ability to work on very large files and data sets, and more than 4 GB of total memory. It seems like apps like Photoshop could use more of the services rendered by an 64 bit operating system, not having to do it all by itself any more (and in the end doing some of it twice no doubt) and there fore speeding things up.
  • Reply 16 of 38
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,409member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Placebo

    From what I've heard, Panther won't be any more optimized for the G5 than Smeagol (10.2.7) is. If this is in fact true, I am very sad. When will we have a true 64-bit OS?



    64-bit != optimized for the G5





    Since the PowerPC970 runs at full speed in 32-bit mode, optimizing code for the 970 and writing 64-bit software are two completely seperate issues. Optimizing is for performance, 64-bit is primarily about capability. If you don't need the capability, you don't use it and you're not going to miss it.



    That said, its also not true that Panther won't support the 970's 64-bit capabilities. Developers will be able to write 64-bit code and use 64-bit address spaces, its just that not all the software Apple provides will be 64-bit... but that's not really a big deal.
  • Reply 17 of 38
    atomichamatomicham Posts: 185member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Henriok

    ...there wasn't much to do with it that boring scientific computations and really high end graphics. ...



    I don't think my data computations are boring... \
  • Reply 18 of 38
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    So you mean that 64-bit apps won't be at all limited by a 32-bit OS?
  • Reply 19 of 38
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by atomicham

    I don't think my data computations are boring... \



    My data computations lead to a better understanding of how things work and why, not boring to me. Knowledge and understanding of natural processes is what computers are good for, to me, not email and games (although it is nice to be able to do all theose things at the same time).
  • Reply 20 of 38
    zapchudzapchud Posts: 844member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Placebo

    So you mean that 64-bit apps won't be at all limited by a 32-bit OS?



    If the OS is written with 32-bit code, yet enables the extra addressing feats. and etc., no you will not be limited.



    If the OS is not written to take advantadge of the 64-bit features, a 64-bit app will be limited.
Sign In or Register to comment.