IBM Sore That Apple Dropped 'Em

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/28...5-pour-la-.htm



Click to see how IBM decided to demo its Cell processor. A comparison between the Cell processor and an 'Apple G5' in terms of 3D render speed. Of course, the G5 is IBM's very own 970 chip...the chip Apple and Steve praised to make IBM look good while IBM was secretly stabbing Apple in the back.



Screw IBM...they've lost.



And I'll have to see it to believe it. 35 times faster in 3D rendering smells like complete bullshit to me...even with an app optimized to make use of Cell's SMP capabilities.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 35
    sandausandau Posts: 1,230member
    for those that are french language deficient (myself included) use http://babelfish.altavista.com/ to translate the page.



    i'm sure apple will keep their options open with the OS...so the chip is abstracted from the details...and we'll use the best for the task at hand.
  • Reply 2 of 35
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    How dare IBM use its own processor!
  • Reply 3 of 35
    glossgloss Posts: 506member
    The Cell is an amazing processor...for certain tasks. It's been said a million times that it is NOT intended for general use. Certainly suits the gaming world nicely.
  • Reply 4 of 35
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by gloss

    The Cell is an amazing processor...for certain tasks. It's been said a million times that it is NOT intended for general use. Certainly suits the gaming world nicely.



    Still, it's funny how IBM decided to demo its Cell processor. They had to compare a G5 Mac instead of, say, a 970-equipped IBM blade server. There's no doubt in my mind that IBM feels like they've lost a huge customer and they're just realizing it since Macs are now suddenly becoming more popular meaning they've lost a shitload of potential sales.



    I'm still gonna wait to see whether this 35 times thing is true...afterall, the 970 chip was a 'perfect match' for Apple's laptops. Eh? eh? Yeah...that's right.
  • Reply 5 of 35
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kim kap sol

    http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/28...5-pour-la-.htm



    Click to see how IBM decided to demo its Cell processor. A comparison between the Cell processor and an 'Apple G5' in terms of 3D render speed. Of course, the G5 is IBM's very own 970 chip...the chip Apple and Steve praised to make IBM look good while IBM was secretly stabbing Apple in the back.



    Screw IBM...they've lost.



    And I'll have to see it to believe it. 35 times faster in 3D rendering smells like complete bullshit to me...even with an app optimized to make use Cell's SMP capabilities.




    Doesn't sound like bullshit to me. The Cell was designed for the purpose of having wicked FPU performance. Now, I highly doubt that the benchmark used Altivec, but I'd believe that in a Cell to 970 FPU comparison, the numbers are kosher. I'd expect the Cell to beat Altivec by more like an 4x to 8x margin or so



    Of course, the reason why I still use a G5 is because EI makes FULL use of altivec. It renders significantly faster than do the Intel PCs I have at work. Yes, they run Windows, but as a benchmark ray-tracing is fairly OS agnostic.
  • Reply 6 of 35
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Splinemodel

    Doesn't sound like bullshit to me. The Cell was designed for the purpose of having wicked FPU performance. Now, I highly doubt that the benchmark used Altivec, but I'd believe that in a Cell to 970 FPU comparison, the numbers are kosher. I'd expect the Cell to beat Altivec by more like an 4x to 8x margin or so





    Of course, and Santa exists...and elves...and the Tooth Fairy.



    The point is though that IBM seems to have a chip on its shoulders...where chip = Apple. And that's what I find funny.
  • Reply 7 of 35
    glossgloss Posts: 506member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kim kap sol

    Still, it's funny how IBM decided to demo its Cell processor. They had to compare a G5 Mac instead of, say, a 970-equipped IBM blade server. There's no doubt in my mind that IBM feels like they've lost a huge customer and they're just realizing it since Macs are now suddenly becoming more popular.



    I'm still gonna wait to see whether this 35 times thing is true...afterall, the 970 chip was a 'perfect match' for Apple's laptops. Eh? eh? Yeah...that's right.




    They compare rendering performance, which is what the Cell was designed for (as noted by Spline). Benchmark demonstrations are ALWAYS skewed to make a product look good. It's a gaming-and-graphics targeted processor, that's what it's good that, that's what they're going to show off.



    You're right, though, IBM does seem a little peeved. Their fault for not delivering product fast enough.
  • Reply 8 of 35
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by gloss

    They compare rendering performance, which is what the Cell was designed for (as noted by Spline). Benchmark demonstrations are ALWAYS skewed to make a product look good. It's a gaming-and-graphics targeted processor, that's what it's good that, that's what they're going to show off.



    Ok...but the 970fx was designed for laptops, what's your point?
  • Reply 9 of 35
    glossgloss Posts: 506member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kim kap sol

    Ok...but the 970fx was designed for laptops, what's your point?



    Agh! The facetious smiley!
  • Reply 10 of 35
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by gloss

    Agh! The facetious smiley!



    Well, either you're gonna refute my point or you're not. I'm guessing you're not 'cuz you just realized that IBM is engaged in some very engrossing lies and vengeful acts. :P



    "Take that, Apple...35 times that!"



    This is just a jab at Apple for publicly humiliating them with the 2-3 times faster and 4-5 times faster marketing bullshit when Core Duos were released.
  • Reply 11 of 35
    dr_lhadr_lha Posts: 236member
    Lets be fair here. Apple only say the Core Duo is 2x faster than the G5. The 4-5x faster refers to a comparison between the Core Duo and Motorola/Freescale G4 chips, not IBM.



    I would say that stating the 1.8Ghz Core Duo is 2x faster than the 1.8Ghz G5 is not too far from the truth, especially given they're comparing a dual core CPU to a single core one.
  • Reply 12 of 35
    the Cell Broadband Engine should be a great thing in both my powermac g5!!!
  • Reply 13 of 35
    glossgloss Posts: 506member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kim kap sol

    Well, either you're gonna refute my point or you're not. I'm guessing you're not 'cuz you just realized that IBM is engaged in some very engrossing lies and vengeful acts. :P



    "Take that, Apple...35 times that!"



    This is just a jab at Apple for publicly humiliating them with the 2-3 times faster and 4-5 times faster marketing bullshit when Core Duos were released.




    It was hardly BS, simply a way to effectively put spin on the fact that Apple was abandoning a chipset it had been using for years.



    Considering that IBM manufactures both processors, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to compare one to the other. Perhaps you're right, though. Perhaps these are large corporations behaving like grade-schoolers.
  • Reply 14 of 35
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by gloss



    Considering that IBM manufactures both processors, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to compare one to the other. Perhaps you're right, though. Perhaps these are large corporations behaving like grade-schoolers.




    I have no problem with them comparing their own processors...but I do think like Apple and IBM are acting strange. I don't understand why they chose to compare it to an 'Apple G5' as they called it as opposed to a generic 970 running Linux. I don't know what IBM is trying to prove (or Apple when they claim 2x+ performance over G5s) by comparing general purpose PC and more specifically, a Mac, with a highly-specialized CPU.
  • Reply 15 of 35
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by gloss

    I don't think it's unreasonable for them to compare one to the other. Perhaps you're right, though. Perhaps these are large corporations behaving like grade-schoolers.



    So why drag Apple into it when Apple didn't design the G5 processor, just buy it? IBM should have compared it to one of their own products, or an actual compatitors product (like AMD or Intel) to not look like sulking 14 year olds.
  • Reply 16 of 35
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,219member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kim kap sol

    I have no problem with them comparing their own processors...but I do think like Apple and IBM are acting strange. I don't understand why they chose to compare it to an 'Apple G5' as they called it as opposed to a generic 970 running Linux. I don't know what IBM is trying to prove (or Apple when they claim 2x+ performance over G5s) by comparing general purpose PC and more specifically, a Mac, with a highly-specialized CPU.



    Having read the PCInpact.com article, I don't see all the footstamping and whining that you see. IBM is comparing its new Cell processor to the best known and accessible application of its own PPC 970 processor. IBM comes off as professional and proud of its accomplishment. Game consoles based on this new Cell are going to scream. The notion that IBM is acting like a high school child who didn't her way is in the mind of the reader. It is not in the report.
  • Reply 17 of 35
    glossgloss Posts: 506member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kim kap sol

    I have no problem with them comparing their own processors...but I do think like Apple and IBM are acting strange. I don't understand why they chose to compare it to an 'Apple G5' as they called it as opposed to a generic 970 running Linux. I don't know what IBM is trying to prove (or Apple when they claim 2x+ performance over G5s) by comparing general purpose PC and more specifically, a Mac, with a highly-specialized CPU.



    Well, Apple is the only computer company to widely use the processor, so it makes sense they'd use it in the comparo. Purely for name-recognition. People have heard of a G5. It's easier to sell that benchmark to the public than one using a generic processor name running a free OS.



    edit: It would be a good idea if I read everything before I posted. Mr. Me beat me to the punch.
  • Reply 18 of 35
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mr. Me

    Having read the PCInpact.com article, I don't see all the footstamping and whining that you see. IBM is comparing its new Cell processor to the best known and accessible application of its own PPC 970 processor. IBM comes off as professional and proud of its accomplishment. Game consoles based on this new Cell are going to scream. The notion that IBM is acting like a high school child who didn't her way is in the mind of the reader. It is not in the report.



    You missed it because it's actually in between the lines...(hidden HTML code).



    Just so you know in the future, it's possible to sound professional and not stamp foots or whine and still convey a sense of hatred and jealousy. A lot of CEOs have mastered it.
  • Reply 19 of 35
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mr. Me

    Having read the PCInpact.com article, I don't see all the footstamping and whining that you see. IBM is comparing its new Cell processor to the best known and accessible application of its own PPC 970 processor. IBM comes off as professional and proud of its accomplishment. Game consoles based on this new Cell are going to scream. The notion that IBM is acting like a high school child who didn't her way is in the mind of the reader. It is not in the report.



    Well since G5 is only an Apple trademark and not an IBM one, they didn't compare it transparently as their own. This is how Babelfish translates it.
    Quote:

    Cell would be 35 times faster than the CPU of G5 of APPLE



    Or how about this image from the story so we are perfectly clear that it is IBM saying this and not some misguided tech reporter.







    Isn't that "Competing processor Apple G5" on IBM's graphic??? I don't see proud and professional. Proud maybe, but definitely not professional when they try to obfuscate the fact they are comparing against their own hardware
  • Reply 20 of 35
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    Maybe they are just comparing the two because they consider Apple hardware using the G5 the major competition in the rendering market. No chip on their shoulder but there's no point comparing it to something that the market isn't using.
Sign In or Register to comment.