Who told you it's dead? A bunch of mac zeliots? It's not. Intel's strategy is based off x86 variants. I think the crazy mac people here are just unfamilar with windows hardware, saying that's it's virtual the same technology that's in a 486 is an idiotic statement. It's like saying a cessna and a super-sonic jet are the same because they have a steering column and fly on the same basic design.
Intel is the #1 chip maker in the world. x86 is not dead, dead in the sense of p4's are the future.
Intel's cpus are always cutting edge, and generally faster than what we see on the mac side (although the g5 helped that quite a bit)
This is a good switch. 2 years from now and even a year from now when you can get dual core 4.8ghz p4 in a small case that screams for $1500 the g5 won't be shipping 3ghz chips...
What system do you want then? Your g5? Maybe a 3.2ghz g5 4 that runs hotter than the sun? Or even a g5 at 2.3 ghz in your laptop?
Lol. You won't have to look to super-hella fast windows computers anymore and think I wish they would add this feature on the mac. Because Apple wont' have any excuses. Nobody will be able to ignore pci-extreme or other new technologies that hit the PC and take ages to reach my mac.
No more waiting around on anyone. And to top that off, if you don't like your chip you'll be able to hack around, overclocking, ram overclocking, and now with support for a wider range of the super-fast windows video cards. Imagine spending $200 and changing the CPU in your year old computer to be +1ghz faster.
Welcome to the world of affordable speed my friend.
Quote:
Originally posted by Macvault
I'm a little confused or torn by the switch to Intel. I'm hoping it will be good in the long run, but I still have these questions (which I'm sure have been asked a million time already)...
1) Is the x86 arch really antient/legacy?
2) Is the x86 arch really hitting a laws-of-physics brick wall?
3) Why the hell would Apple move us to an ancient arch?
4) Does Intel have multi-core-multi-proc in the roadmap?
5) I haven't heard anything about 64bit Intel for Mac? WTF?!
6) Will the CELL proc take off and leave Apple in the dust - with MS being the only ones with the resources to switch procs without killing themselves?
7) Is AMD x86, such that if Apple in the future got shafted by intel they'd be able to use AMD without having to take another 5 years switch/port over?
8) On one hand I like the idea of being able to run Windows apps within OS X, but how is Apple going to keep devs making native OS X apps?
9) How many years does the x86 arch have left? Will we have to make another switch in 5 years when some genius comes up with a GAZILLION-SUPER-DUPER-TERAFLOP-MEGA-SUPER-CHIP?
10) Where can I find an official Intel roadmap? Anyone have a link to one???
This is a good switch. 2 years from now and even a year from now when you can get dual core 4.8ghz p4 in a small case that screams for $1500 the g5 won't be shipping 3ghz chips...
I was with you until this statement. I agree with what you are saying on the post, but I don't think we will get to 4.8 GHz within the year. Now, if I am wrong, you will have to point me back to this post so I can eat it of course.
. Since OS X doesn't have that old x86 legacy, ...
But OS X on Intel does have that old x86 legacy - ie. CISC(large complex instructions requiring translation)
I think, some one will correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, I do believe there is a penalty in cracking CISC code into µops, it's just been reduced to somewhat to irrelevance. And(again, I may be totally wrong here) the µops may have to be rebuilt to be returned to the operating system, please correct me if I'm wrong, feeling way out on a limb here.
All processors ( RISC and CISC ) need to convert the code that comes out of the compilers into micro-ops. This process is pipelined, so there's essentially zero performance cost.
It was the Netburst architecture that was the folly.
Opterons and the new Xeons beat the G5 pretty well at numerous tests. Anandtech just did an expose showing how bad the reality is here.
X86 is good when executed well (ie: Opteron, Xeon, Pentium M)
The future has never looked so bright for Apple.
I was worried at first, because of the impact the transition could have, but after calming down and thinking a while, this is the best possible move. For once, I actually believe the Apple CEO when he says they are doing this to be able to offer the best computers for time to come.
The Intel processors coming out next year represent the best R&D money can buy and the most brilliant engineers. Even AMD is looking like it will drasticlly fall behind Intels efforts ot build the best CPUs. The G5 I think could have been the best thing going, but IBM did not put enough into it. The fate of the G5 has everything to do with IBM business foolishness. They look at a small, but growing market and decide "it's not worth it", instead of saying, "hey, let's grow this thing and create the most profitable market out there", which they could have done, solely with Apple. Now, IBM loses out and Apple gains, because they finally have a partner with the proven rock-solid ability to deliver.
X86, long the bane of the Mac user, has turned out to be our best freind. More MHZ, refined architecture and a steady supply. Sounds good to me. Finally, we will have a POWERbook again.
9) How many years does the x86 arch have left? Will we have to make another switch in 5 years when some genius comes up with a GAZILLION-SUPER-DUPER-TERAFLOP-MEGA-SUPER-CHIP?
These days, the part of computer architecture that deals with software compatibility has been abstracted from the device architecture. Device architecture matters a lot more in respect to future ptential and roadmaps. Even so, it's not unlikely that intel will gradually remove more and more legacy compatibilty as they move forward.
i think maybe this intel thing is good for us to all get our heads out of our mac-fan asses and learn a bit about what is going on in the rest of the personal and enterprise computing world
(speaking mostly for myself, but for the rest of y'all non-hard-core-CPU-geeks this applies to, you know who y'all are )
It's kind of amusing now that Apple is switching, there are so manyexperts in the boards explaining why Intel is such a brilliant move. Nobody suggested it before the Intel rumors started. Heh.
But I for one still welcome our Macintel Overlords.
Comments
Originally posted by skatman
Ruud,
you don't get out much, do you?
Excuse me?
Intel is the #1 chip maker in the world. x86 is not dead, dead in the sense of p4's are the future.
Intel's cpus are always cutting edge, and generally faster than what we see on the mac side (although the g5 helped that quite a bit)
This is a good switch. 2 years from now and even a year from now when you can get dual core 4.8ghz p4 in a small case that screams for $1500 the g5 won't be shipping 3ghz chips...
What system do you want then? Your g5? Maybe a 3.2ghz g5 4 that runs hotter than the sun? Or even a g5 at 2.3 ghz in your laptop?
Lol. You won't have to look to super-hella fast windows computers anymore and think I wish they would add this feature on the mac. Because Apple wont' have any excuses. Nobody will be able to ignore pci-extreme or other new technologies that hit the PC and take ages to reach my mac.
No more waiting around on anyone. And to top that off, if you don't like your chip you'll be able to hack around, overclocking, ram overclocking, and now with support for a wider range of the super-fast windows video cards. Imagine spending $200 and changing the CPU in your year old computer to be +1ghz faster.
Welcome to the world of affordable speed my friend.
Originally posted by Macvault
I'm a little confused or torn by the switch to Intel. I'm hoping it will be good in the long run, but I still have these questions (which I'm sure have been asked a million time already)...
1) Is the x86 arch really antient/legacy?
2) Is the x86 arch really hitting a laws-of-physics brick wall?
3) Why the hell would Apple move us to an ancient arch?
4) Does Intel have multi-core-multi-proc in the roadmap?
5) I haven't heard anything about 64bit Intel for Mac? WTF?!
6) Will the CELL proc take off and leave Apple in the dust - with MS being the only ones with the resources to switch procs without killing themselves?
7) Is AMD x86, such that if Apple in the future got shafted by intel they'd be able to use AMD without having to take another 5 years switch/port over?
8) On one hand I like the idea of being able to run Windows apps within OS X, but how is Apple going to keep devs making native OS X apps?
9) How many years does the x86 arch have left? Will we have to make another switch in 5 years when some genius comes up with a GAZILLION-SUPER-DUPER-TERAFLOP-MEGA-SUPER-CHIP?
10) Where can I find an official Intel roadmap? Anyone have a link to one???
4) Does Intel have multi-core-multi-proc in the roadmap?
64-bit Dual Core Intel chips are shipping. The slowest one clocks at 2.8 GHx and sells for $241. The highest speed one clocks at 3.2 GHz.
Originally posted by BRussell
Thanks THT and sillyfool and PowerDoc. And PowerDoc, you're going to have to change your username to PentiumDoc.
[Dark Vader MODE ON] NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Dark Vader MODE OFF]
Originally posted by Macvault
I forgot to ask.... will we still be able to build OS X clusters, like the Virginia Tech cluster?
Nothing prevent them, from buying Clusters (it's more a question of OS (UNIX based) than Hardware).
BTW the G5 was great at FP, and more efficient in this aera than P4.
Originally posted by webmail
This is a good switch. 2 years from now and even a year from now when you can get dual core 4.8ghz p4 in a small case that screams for $1500 the g5 won't be shipping 3ghz chips...
I was with you until this statement. I agree with what you are saying on the post, but I don't think we will get to 4.8 GHz within the year. Now, if I am wrong, you will have to point me back to this post so I can eat it of course.
Originally posted by ruud
Excuse me?
Sorry, my comment was intended for Macvault. :-)
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
So it is actually a different class of processors, isn't it?
Why the name "Pentium"?
Because in Intel world, Pentium denotes an x86 processor that is multi-pipelined.
That was the main difference between 486 and 586 architecture.
Originally posted by skatman
Because in Intel world, Pentium denotes an x86 processor that is multi-pipelined.
That was the main difference between 486 and 586 architecture.
Again, thank you for clarification.
Now i will educate myself a whee bit in
"Pentium" and "x86" technologies.
ARS i am coming...
Originally posted by skatman
Macvault,
you don't get out much, do you?
Probably more than you considering he has no clue about microprocessors.
Originally posted by BRussell
...
. Since OS X doesn't have that old x86 legacy, ...
But OS X on Intel does have that old x86 legacy - ie. CISC(large complex instructions requiring translation)
I think, some one will correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, I do believe there is a penalty in cracking CISC code into µops, it's just been reduced to somewhat to irrelevance. And(again, I may be totally wrong here) the µops may have to be rebuilt to be returned to the operating system, please correct me if I'm wrong, feeling way out on a limb here.
It was the Netburst architecture that was the folly.
Opterons and the new Xeons beat the G5 pretty well at numerous tests. Anandtech just did an expose showing how bad the reality is here.
X86 is good when executed well (ie: Opteron, Xeon, Pentium M)
The future has never looked so bright for Apple.
I was worried at first, because of the impact the transition could have, but after calming down and thinking a while, this is the best possible move. For once, I actually believe the Apple CEO when he says they are doing this to be able to offer the best computers for time to come.
The Intel processors coming out next year represent the best R&D money can buy and the most brilliant engineers. Even AMD is looking like it will drasticlly fall behind Intels efforts ot build the best CPUs. The G5 I think could have been the best thing going, but IBM did not put enough into it. The fate of the G5 has everything to do with IBM business foolishness. They look at a small, but growing market and decide "it's not worth it", instead of saying, "hey, let's grow this thing and create the most profitable market out there", which they could have done, solely with Apple. Now, IBM loses out and Apple gains, because they finally have a partner with the proven rock-solid ability to deliver.
X86, long the bane of the Mac user, has turned out to be our best freind. More MHZ, refined architecture and a steady supply. Sounds good to me. Finally, we will have a POWERbook again.
[i]
9) How many years does the x86 arch have left? Will we have to make another switch in 5 years when some genius comes up with a GAZILLION-SUPER-DUPER-TERAFLOP-MEGA-SUPER-CHIP?
These days, the part of computer architecture that deals with software compatibility has been abstracted from the device architecture. Device architecture matters a lot more in respect to future ptential and roadmaps. Even so, it's not unlikely that intel will gradually remove more and more legacy compatibilty as they move forward.
my question is when will Intel mark the generational change from Pentium to Sextium. And will it sport native pr0n acceleration?
i think maybe this intel thing is good for us to all get our heads out of our mac-fan asses and learn a bit about what is going on in the rest of the personal and enterprise computing world
(speaking mostly for myself, but for the rest of y'all non-hard-core-CPU-geeks this applies to, you know who y'all are
Originally posted by ruud
Probably because the powerbooks are the first machines scheduled to get the x86 processors. [/B]
Why is it that you think that. I thought that the Mini would be the first.
Originally posted by the cool gut
Why is it that you think that. I thought that the Mini would be the first.
The Mini has about 2 good PowerPC revs left in it (push up to 512/1gb ram, ati mobility 9700 or ati 9600, hard disk, airport extreme built in, etc..)
i reckon Mini and Powerbook would be both prime candidates for announcement at Macworld SF 2006.
Mini and iBook should be updated in Paris September (IIRC?) 2005, hopefully before then.
current powerbooks should see minor updates/price drop/ extra ram, before Macworld SF 2006 announcements
my guesstimates...
But I for one still welcome our Macintel Overlords.