Intel is so far ahead of AMD in process technology it's not funny...
It's kind of scary teh vengeance in which Intel struck(is striking) back after the Athlons and Semprons sorely whipped their a$$Es for a few years there.
Good on the Israelis. Now if the middle east doesn't blow up in a giant nuclearfirestorm in the next 10 years, we'll have nice CPUs.
Intel, quit making me drool, I haven't even gotten my first x86 Mac yet and you're tantalising me with this!* When are you going to get sluggish and incompetent like Motorola and let us have one update per year which is just a few MHz on the clock?* You're making me feel weird! :-P
ROFLMAO ... seriously, my head is exploding already. Soon Apple.Com will look like TomsHardware.Com. One new CPU every week. This week, ...
Intel, quit making me drool, I haven't even gotten my first x86 Mac yet and you're tantalising me with this!* When are you going to get sluggish and incompetent like Motorola and let us have one update per year which is just a few MHz on the clock?* You're making me feel weird!
Don't worry, Macs will still have crappy/ limited choice of GPUS!!
The choices are limited. That is a statement of fact. That fact has little to do with what anyone needs or wants.
If you're a die hard mac user and expect Apple to make all the decisions for you, that's true. If you're not, it can be a deal breaker between switching and not switching. It could be a deal breaker for Mac users on the fence if the shipping version of Vista delivers just enough Mac.
If you're a die hard mac user and expect Apple to make all the decisions for you, that's true. If you're not, it can be a deal breaker between switching and not switching. It could be a deal breaker for Mac users on the fence if the shipping version of Vista delivers just enough Mac.
Bollocks.
The supposition was that Apple only gave you "crappy/limited" choice.
That is untrue. They may give you "limited" choice but "crappy" is subjective. "Limited" is neither here nor there if it's perfectly adequate for the task at hand.
Of course, if you've your undercrackers in a bunch because OMG! Apple don't ship the XTX version, only the GT version of a card then you'll never be happy. It's like complaining your car ships with a T2 Garrett Turbocharger instead of the T5.
So what was that I heard in another recent thread that Intel was going to max out at 4 cores???
Yeah, I wanna see that 80-core monster plugged in, too. One teraflop on a die smaller than an old LP (if godrifle has the right pic above). Have we ever come a long way!
I wonder which architecture it's on. If it's 45nm, I'd love to see it shrunk to 32nm - wouldn't be a whole lot bigger than a CD. I'll bet we'll seriously be seeing 16 (or more) cores on PC's by the end of the decade. Makes me want to wait another couple years before upgrading my Mac, unless Leopard ships with some new surprises.
The supposition was that Apple only gave you "crappy/limited" choice.
That is untrue. They may give you "limited" choice but "crappy" is subjective. "Limited" is neither here nor there if it's perfectly adequate for the task at hand.
Of course, if you've your undercrackers in a bunch because OMG! Apple don't ship the XTX version, only the GT version of a card then you'll never be happy. It's like complaining your car ships with a T2 Garrett Turbocharger instead of the T5.
Are you serious about this argument here? Having been on the PC side of things, I can also vouch for the fact that there are tons more software choices out there than there are on the Mac. HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that they work worth a damn.
Prime example: BBEdit. King of the hill, and there are not many on the Mac side that are close in comparison. The closest on the PC side is EmEditor, and it is nowhere close to BBEdit. There are literally thousands of text editors out there over there, but none of them even come close.
Then there is the price argument. Apple's pricing on its computers is really competetive with the rest of the industry. However, people like to compare HP's and Dell's low end with Apple's low end, and say something really cute like "Why can't Apple's computers be $xxx since [HP|Dell|Sony|etc] is at that price point." It is a bad game to play, and also one that is slanted against Apple because they also have to pay for R&D costs, they also make sure none of their machines are truly crippled; which isn't the case on the PC side.
Are you serious about this argument here? Having been on the PC side of things, I can also vouch for the fact that there are tons more software choices out there than there are on the Mac. HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that they work worth a damn.
Prime example: BBEdit. King of the hill, and there are not many on the Mac side that are close in comparison. The closest on the PC side is EmEditor, and it is nowhere close to BBEdit. There are literally thousands of text editors out there over there, but none of them even come close.
Then there is the price argument. Apple's pricing on its computers is really competetive with the rest of the industry. However, people like to compare HP's and Dell's low end with Apple's low end, and say something really cute like "Why can't Apple's computers be $xxx since [HP|Dell|Sony|etc] is at that price point." It is a bad game to play, and also one that is slanted against Apple because they also have to pay for R&D costs, they also make sure none of their machines are truly crippled; which isn't the case on the PC side.
Understood.
Don't get me wrong, I love my Macs, Apple HW, OS X, and OS X software! Best of class, IMHO.
But you CAN make the cost argument, you CAN make the number of applications argument, and you CAN make the 3rd party HW argument, and to most people these are more compelling then the seemless ease of use argument, or the life cycle cost argument.
Most people see computers as black boxes, they don't care what's inside, how it looks on the outside, as long as it get's the job done.
Most people see work flow as a black box, they don't care about the OS, or the application, as long as it get's the job done in about the same amount of time
However, most people make choices based on the initial cost (however wrong that may be) and choice arguments.
So what was that I heard in another recent thread that Intel was going to max out at 4 cores???
Yeah, I wanna see that 80-core monster plugged in, too. One teraflop on a die smaller than an old LP (if godrifle has the right pic above). Have we ever come a long way!
I wonder which architecture it's on. If it's 45nm, I'd love to see it shrunk to 32nm - wouldn't be a whole lot bigger than a CD. I'll bet we'll seriously be seeing 16 (or more) cores on PC's by the end of the decade. Makes me want to wait another couple years before upgrading my Mac, unless Leopard ships with some new surprises.
I dont think anyone ever said intel will max at 4 cores... unless they go out of business soon. They will max at 4 cores on 65nm.... it will be awhile before there is more.
the 80 core chip is a proof of concept chip, not a usable chip. They are not 80 CPU Cores, they are 80 FPU cores. Its not an x86 compatible chip at all, nor really usable beyond a proof of concept yet.
So what was that I heard in another recent thread that Intel was going to max out at 4 cores???
I think it t happened inThat was Joe_The_Dragon spouting off while getting key facts wrong on why it won't scale well.
Quote:
Yeah, I wanna see that 80-core monster plugged in, too. One teraflop on a die smaller than an old LP (if godrifle has the right pic above). Have we ever come a long way!
I wonder which architecture it's on. If it's 45nm, I'd love to see it shrunk to 32nm - wouldn't be a whole lot bigger than a CD.
No, that wafer isn't one CPU. That wafer has about 80x 80 core chips.
I dont think anyone ever said intel will max at 4 cores... unless they go out of business soon. They will max at 4 cores on 65nm.... it will be awhile before there is more.
Comments
Intel is so far ahead of AMD in process technology it's not funny...
It's kind of scary teh vengeance in which Intel struck(is striking) back after the Athlons and Semprons sorely whipped their a$$Es for a few years there.
Good on the Israelis. Now if the middle east doesn't blow up in a giant nuclearfirestorm in the next 10 years, we'll have nice CPUs.
Intel, quit making me drool, I haven't even gotten my first x86 Mac yet and you're tantalising me with this!* When are you going to get sluggish and incompetent like Motorola and let us have one update per year which is just a few MHz on the clock?* You're making me feel weird! :-P
Intel, quit making me drool, I haven't even gotten my first x86 Mac yet and you're tantalising me with this!* When are you going to get sluggish and incompetent like Motorola and let us have one update per year which is just a few MHz on the clock?* You're making me feel weird!
Don't worry, Macs will still have crappy/ limited choice of GPUS!!
It's a little large for a typical CPU die, but that wafer being held has about 80 of them.
Where's Ivor Catt when you need him ?....
Don't worry, Macs will still have crappy/ limited choice of GPUS!!
As long as Jobs is running the show.
Don't worry, Macs will still have crappy/ limited choice of GPUS!!
They don't. You just have a requirement on something most users do not have.
They don't. You just have a requirement on something most users do not have.
The choices are limited. That is a statement of fact. That fact has little to do with what anyone needs or wants.
The choices are limited. That is a statement of fact. That fact has little to do with what anyone needs or wants.
If you're a die hard mac user and expect Apple to make all the decisions for you, that's true. If you're not, it can be a deal breaker between switching and not switching. It could be a deal breaker for Mac users on the fence if the shipping version of Vista delivers just enough Mac.
If you're a die hard mac user and expect Apple to make all the decisions for you, that's true. If you're not, it can be a deal breaker between switching and not switching. It could be a deal breaker for Mac users on the fence if the shipping version of Vista delivers just enough Mac.
Bollocks.
The supposition was that Apple only gave you "crappy/limited" choice.
That is untrue. They may give you "limited" choice but "crappy" is subjective. "Limited" is neither here nor there if it's perfectly adequate for the task at hand.
Of course, if you've your undercrackers in a bunch because OMG! Apple don't ship the XTX version, only the GT version of a card then you'll never be happy. It's like complaining your car ships with a T2 Garrett Turbocharger instead of the T5.
Yeah, I wanna see that 80-core monster plugged in, too. One teraflop on a die smaller than an old LP (if godrifle has the right pic above). Have we ever come a long way!
I wonder which architecture it's on. If it's 45nm, I'd love to see it shrunk to 32nm - wouldn't be a whole lot bigger than a CD. I'll bet we'll seriously be seeing 16 (or more) cores on PC's by the end of the decade. Makes me want to wait another couple years before upgrading my Mac, unless Leopard ships with some new surprises.
Bollocks.
The supposition was that Apple only gave you "crappy/limited" choice.
That is untrue. They may give you "limited" choice but "crappy" is subjective. "Limited" is neither here nor there if it's perfectly adequate for the task at hand.
Of course, if you've your undercrackers in a bunch because OMG! Apple don't ship the XTX version, only the GT version of a card then you'll never be happy. It's like complaining your car ships with a T2 Garrett Turbocharger instead of the T5.
You have got to be JOKING, right?
PCIE x16 GPU choices on the PC > 375 Many
versus
PCIE x16 GPU choices on the Mac = 3 Few
versus
PCIE x16 GPU 3rd party choices on the Mac = ZERO!
So yes, OBJECTIVELY Macs have < 1% of the choice that PCs have for PCIE GPU cards.
IMHO, that is not only LIMITED but severely CRAPPY!
Now play the same game with all PCIE cards on the PC versus all PCIE cards on the Mac, same result.
Software, same argument.
Price, same argument.
Finally, please show me a PCIE RT HD H.264 encoder card for the Mac, since Macs are supposted to be king-of-the-hill in DV/HDV.
....
Software, same argument.
Price, same argument.
....
Are you serious about this argument here? Having been on the PC side of things, I can also vouch for the fact that there are tons more software choices out there than there are on the Mac. HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that they work worth a damn.
Prime example: BBEdit. King of the hill, and there are not many on the Mac side that are close in comparison. The closest on the PC side is EmEditor, and it is nowhere close to BBEdit. There are literally thousands of text editors out there over there, but none of them even come close.
Then there is the price argument. Apple's pricing on its computers is really competetive with the rest of the industry. However, people like to compare HP's and Dell's low end with Apple's low end, and say something really cute like "Why can't Apple's computers be $xxx since [HP|Dell|Sony|etc] is at that price point." It is a bad game to play, and also one that is slanted against Apple because they also have to pay for R&D costs, they also make sure none of their machines are truly crippled; which isn't the case on the PC side.
Are you serious about this argument here? Having been on the PC side of things, I can also vouch for the fact that there are tons more software choices out there than there are on the Mac. HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that they work worth a damn.
Prime example: BBEdit. King of the hill, and there are not many on the Mac side that are close in comparison. The closest on the PC side is EmEditor, and it is nowhere close to BBEdit. There are literally thousands of text editors out there over there, but none of them even come close.
Then there is the price argument. Apple's pricing on its computers is really competetive with the rest of the industry. However, people like to compare HP's and Dell's low end with Apple's low end, and say something really cute like "Why can't Apple's computers be $xxx since [HP|Dell|Sony|etc] is at that price point." It is a bad game to play, and also one that is slanted against Apple because they also have to pay for R&D costs, they also make sure none of their machines are truly crippled; which isn't the case on the PC side.
Understood.
Don't get me wrong, I love my Macs, Apple HW, OS X, and OS X software! Best of class, IMHO.
But you CAN make the cost argument, you CAN make the number of applications argument, and you CAN make the 3rd party HW argument, and to most people these are more compelling then the seemless ease of use argument, or the life cycle cost argument.
Most people see computers as black boxes, they don't care what's inside, how it looks on the outside, as long as it get's the job done.
Most people see work flow as a black box, they don't care about the OS, or the application, as long as it get's the job done in about the same amount of time
However, most people make choices based on the initial cost (however wrong that may be) and choice arguments.
I must admit that Intel has opened up a can of Whoop Ass in the CPU arena.
IMHO, it will take a serious combined effort from the likes of AMD/ATI and IBM to remain competitive.
So what was that I heard in another recent thread that Intel was going to max out at 4 cores???
Yeah, I wanna see that 80-core monster plugged in, too. One teraflop on a die smaller than an old LP (if godrifle has the right pic above). Have we ever come a long way!
I wonder which architecture it's on. If it's 45nm, I'd love to see it shrunk to 32nm - wouldn't be a whole lot bigger than a CD. I'll bet we'll seriously be seeing 16 (or more) cores on PC's by the end of the decade. Makes me want to wait another couple years before upgrading my Mac, unless Leopard ships with some new surprises.
I dont think anyone ever said intel will max at 4 cores... unless they go out of business soon. They will max at 4 cores on 65nm.... it will be awhile before there is more.
the 80 core chip is a proof of concept chip, not a usable chip. They are not 80 CPU Cores, they are 80 FPU cores. Its not an x86 compatible chip at all, nor really usable beyond a proof of concept yet.
So what was that I heard in another recent thread that Intel was going to max out at 4 cores???
I think it t happened inThat was Joe_The_Dragon spouting off while getting key facts wrong on why it won't scale well.
Yeah, I wanna see that 80-core monster plugged in, too. One teraflop on a die smaller than an old LP (if godrifle has the right pic above). Have we ever come a long way!
I wonder which architecture it's on. If it's 45nm, I'd love to see it shrunk to 32nm - wouldn't be a whole lot bigger than a CD.
No, that wafer isn't one CPU. That wafer has about 80x 80 core chips.
I dont think anyone ever said intel will max at 4 cores... unless they go out of business soon. They will max at 4 cores on 65nm.... it will be awhile before there is more.
I wouldn't count on that.