I bought the dual G5 in May '05 and now I feel stuck... XBench scores on the top-end dual core Intels don't seem anywhere near double the G5 speed in CPU and memory scores. Any idea when we can expect systems that really do double the performance of a G5/Dual 2.7? (An octo-processor Mac doesn't interest me as 99% of the apps I run won't use the extra procs anyway.)
I bought the dual G5 in May '05 and now I feel stuck... XBench scores on the top-end dual core Intels don't seem anywhere near double the G5 speed in CPU and memory scores. Any idea when we can expect systems that really do double the performance of a G5/Dual 2.7? (An octo-processor Mac doesn't interest me as 99% of the apps I run won't use the extra procs anyway.)
He's not the only one who doesn't appreciate bad language. I'm sure you're able to articulate yourself far better than that. There's just no need for swear words.
He's not the only one who doesn't appreciate bad language. I'm sure you're able to articulate yourself far better than that. There's just no need for swear words.
Here's some words that are less inflammatory, but will get across your message with similar fervor:
be intimate, breed, copulate, fool around, fornicate, go all the way, go to bed with, have sexual intercourse, have sexual relations, lay, make out, mate, procreate, sleep together, make love, have sex
Ah. Elephants can remember when fanboys used to deride people with computers with Intel processors. Fanboys can't. Kool-Aid has been medically proven to induce "benign amnesia".
Instead of this degenerating into a "don't say that"/"ooh, I'll say it again!" exchange, let's see if we can get something educational out of it: How old are you? It'd be ****ing great if you'd answer honestly, let the chips fall where they may, whether it reaffirms or shatters expectations. Can you man up to that honest question?
Ah. Elephants can remember when fanboys used to deride people with computers with Intel processors. Fanboys can't. Kool-Aid has been medically proven to induce "benign amnesia".
Eh? Us "fanboy" "kool-aid drinkers" know when CPUs that are good are good. G4 and G5s whipped the Pentium 4's ass 5 days from Sunday (or whatever the phrase is). Notice your non-Apple-fanboy-Kool-Aid-free AMD fans who, rightly, lorded over the craptastic Pentium 4 especially with the impressively overclockable Athlon64s.
It was well known that the G5 though had numerous problems and that IBM-led endeavour had to end soon. So Apple got out in time, unlike oh, MS' XBOX360 which is similar to the G5 and surprise, surprise, is facing a lot of heat issues.
I'm not saying Apple is now the greatest and smartest companie on Earth because they switched to Intel, but, for the most part, it has been good for everyone.
I'm surprised that UV photolith has made it this far, but 1nm. . . no fucking way. (?)
At what nm do we have to switch to optical? Like when the quantum thingys cause to much unpredictability because the transistor thingys are too close together?
Instead of this degenerating into a "don't say that"/"ooh, I'll say it again!" exchange, let's see if we can get something educational out of it: How old are you? It'd be ****ing great if you'd answer honestly, let the chips fall where they may, whether it reaffirms or shatters expectations. Can you man up to that honest question?
PLease use PM for this stuff, and take it out of a hardware thread. Your totally off topic.
Ah. Elephants can remember when fanboys used to deride people with computers with Intel processors. Fanboys can't. Kool-Aid has been medically proven to induce "benign amnesia".
Umm. At one time, before the end of 2001, there was no question that the PPC was a much better chip than the x86, from any manufacturer.
During the middle 90's the PPC was expected to take the PC market away from the x86. It might have done so if MS hadn't decided to withdraw the PPC version of NT right after it was finished.
When the G4 came out, it had a good 30% advantage in integer, and a good 40% advantage in float over any x86 designs out there. Altivec was much more advanced then MS and Intels' weak competitor, offering up to 200% faster manipulation of vectorized functions.
Only when Moto couldn't raise the G4's speeds at the same time Intel went into MHz overtime, did that change. But, it still took a 1GHz x86 to finally overcome the much slower G4.
With the G5, IBM had a much superior chip than the Netburst line from Intel. The chips from AMD performed a bit better still, but IBM seemed committed to raising the bar at a good rate, and did begin to do so.
The 90nm speed barrier got in the way of all manufacturers.
Even so, IBM speeded the G5 up at a greater pace than either AMD or Intel.
The problem there was that Apple's sales were simply not enough to pay for all of the required R&D needed to keep up. IBM lost interest at that point, and Apple left.
But, the PPC platform was architecturally superior to the x86 designs. They carried none of the 8 and 16 bit baggage both AMD and Intel felt they had to maintain.
But now with 64 bit, that baggage is of less importance, because 64 bit code totally ignores any older code present. Newer 64 bit chips won't include most of that backwards compatible code at all.
Apple has an advantage here because its software, and that of Apple third party developers, haven't used anything other than 32 bit "clean" code for many years. That fits well with 64 bit chips, and Apple's OS, which allows either 32 bit OR 64 bit programming, and doesn't need a separate version, as does Vista (or XP).
Intel had reversed its mistake two years ago, and understands what must be done. IBM could never afford to put nearly as much R&D into its cpu designs as Intel does.
Apple made the right choice at the right time.
It has to be understood that when Jobs first made the announcement about Intel that fateful day, no one outside of those "in the know" was aware of Intel's subsequent announcements that were to rock the world in the area of cpu design. That's why we were skeptical about the whole thing. I, for one, was curious about why Jobs would do this when the G5 was creeping up in speed faster than either AMD or Intel, and seemed to soon take the performance crown.
Only after Intel revealed its new plans, and presented the world with the first of its new chips, did we see the reason.
Now we know that the decision was required if Apple was not to be totally left out in the cold.
At what nm do we have to switch to optical? Like when the quantum thingys cause to much unpredictability because the transistor thingys are too close together?
25nm? 10nm? 1nm? 0.1nm? 0.001nm? Melgross?
Your deep technical understanding of these issues always amazes me, as does your ability to use some of the more esoteric phraseology.
Actually, a number of experts in process technology think that there could be problems between 32 and 22nm, the step after.
Even if that is managed without too much turmoil, the step down to 15 isn't assured. There are still major problems with getting to that size lithography. The standards aren't agreed upon, and the technologies for getting there are still being investigated.
I'm not even talking about the electronic implications of going to that small size, but just the possibility of drawing the masks! If they can't do that, the rest doesn't matter.
If they do make it to 15, the step to 10 is thought by many to possibly be out of reach, but that isn't universally agreed upon yet.
As far as anything else goes, there a a bunch of technologies that are being investigated that will bypass all of this.
But none of it is anywhere near usability as yet, much less being at the point where it is known whether they can be mass manufactured. We won't get a hint of it for a good five more years.
Optical is not a panacea, as it is pretty much subject to the same physical laws. There has been a big advance by Intel in making silicon laze effectively. This is considered to be seriously important for any optical computing breakthrough, because other elements are simply too difficult to work with, too expensive for mass replications of chip technologies, or both.
But, this is also in a very early stage of development.
When they say Penryn will be dropping in a few weeks, does that mean that's when it'll first become available to manufacturers, or when we'll start seeing the first consumer products employing the new chips?
I ask only because I'm trying to gauge the amount of time it'll take for Apple to begin introducing these chips in their lineup. Would they be able to have designs finalized and in production in time for MWSF?
Right now, Penryn will officially launch on November 12, 2007. Don't hold your breath for Apple to incorporate Penryn or Nehalem. We have been waiting since May 9, 2007 for the Macs that rely on integrated graphics (MacBook, MacMini) to be upgraded to the Santa Rosa platform, with GMA X3100 integrated graphics to replace the current GMA 950 integrated graphics. A refresh of the Santa Rosa chips is now also expected to accompany the Penryn launch on November 12, 2007.
Apple waited about 18 months to update the MacMini from Core Duo to Core 2 Duo, when all that was required was a simple swap of a pin-compatible CPU (socket M).
Maybe Apple will update the MacBook and MacMini for MacWorld 2008. But I'll believe it when I see it. After waiting so long for Santa Rosa to materialize in a MacBook or MacMini, I might as well limp along until MacWorld 2009 and hope for a Gilo+Calpella MacBook and/or MacMini. But I won't hold my breath for it.
Right now, Penryn will officially launch on November 12, 2007. Don't hold your breath for Apple to incorporate Penryn or Nehalem. We have been waiting since May 9, 2007 for the Macs that rely on integrated graphics (MacBook, MacMini) to be upgraded to the Santa Rosa platform, with GMA X3100 integrated graphics to replace the current GMA 950 integrated graphics. A refresh of the Santa Rosa chips is now also expected to accompany the Penryn launch on November 12, 2007.
Apple waited about 18 months to update the MacMini from Core Duo to Core 2 Duo, when all that was required was a simple swap of a pin-compatible CPU (socket M).
Maybe Apple will update the MacBook and MacMini for MacWorld 2008. But I'll believe it when I see it. After waiting so long for Santa Rosa to materialize in a MacBook or MacMini, I might as well limp along until MacWorld 2009 and hope for a Gilo+Calpella MacBook and/or MacMini. But I won't hold my breath for it.
I agree with what Has happened, but I'm not so sure that I can agree completely with what you say WILL happen.
While no one knows what Apple intends as the long term goal for the Mini, sink or swim, we do know that Apple intends to stay with its sales leading product, the MB.
I think that Apple didn't see the need to revise the MB in the second half with the Santa Rosa.
In looking at that decision, we must look at what was expected from that chip, and what was found to be the reality.
Was what expected was a fair amount of improved performance, and significant battery life enhancement.
Neither occurred.
Apple's decision to not use it made sense, therefore, because the improved graphics has also proven to be better, but not so much that games would be actually significantly more playable. to go from atrocious to less atrocious is not much of an improvement.
I do see Apple updating the MB with the newer chips, because Apple must, if they expect to be at parity. These are major changes, unlike that of Santa rosa, and so Apple will make them.
Comments
I'm surprised that UV photolith has made it this far, but 1nm. . . no fucking way. (?)
Please watch your language. Thank you.
At your update rate you may as well wait for 1nm processors.
When can I expect to get one? By the way, I was making a joke. I'm quite happy with my G3 and OS 9 still works.
Please watch your language. Thank you.
what the fuck are you talking about?
I imagine that one's lost on you. Oh well.
When can I expect to get one? By the way, I was making a joke. I'm quite happy with my G3 and OS 9 still works.
You are an IRON man. I couldn't wait that long.
IIci --> Quadra 650
Quadra 650 -- > PM 7600/120
PM 7600/120 -- > G3/266
G3/266 -- > G4/Dual 1.42
G4/Dual 1.42 -- > G5/Dual 2.7
PowerBook 145B --> PowerBook G3/500
PowerBook G3/500 --> PowerBook G4/1GHz
PowerBook G4/1GHz --> MacBook Pro 2.16GHz
I bought the dual G5 in May '05 and now I feel stuck... XBench scores on the top-end dual core Intels don't seem anywhere near double the G5 speed in CPU and memory scores. Any idea when we can expect systems that really do double the performance of a G5/Dual 2.7? (An octo-processor Mac doesn't interest me as 99% of the apps I run won't use the extra procs anyway.)
I usually buy a new Mac when performance doubles.
I bought the dual G5 in May '05 and now I feel stuck... XBench scores on the top-end dual core Intels don't seem anywhere near double the G5 speed in CPU and memory scores. Any idea when we can expect systems that really do double the performance of a G5/Dual 2.7? (An octo-processor Mac doesn't interest me as 99% of the apps I run won't use the extra procs anyway.)
What apps would those be?
Moreover, if the G5 works, then keep it.
what the fuck are you talking about?
I imagine that one's lost on you. Oh well.
He's not the only one who doesn't appreciate bad language. I'm sure you're able to articulate yourself far better than that. There's just no need for swear words.
He's not the only one who doesn't appreciate bad language. I'm sure you're able to articulate yourself far better than that. There's just no need for swear words.
Here's some words that are less inflammatory, but will get across your message with similar fervor:
be intimate, breed, copulate, fool around, fornicate, go all the way, go to bed with, have sexual intercourse, have sexual relations, lay, make out, mate, procreate, sleep together, make love, have sex
what the fuck are you talking about?
I imagine that one's lost on you. Oh well.
Instead of this degenerating into a "don't say that"/"ooh, I'll say it again!" exchange, let's see if we can get something educational out of it: How old are you? It'd be ****ing great if you'd answer honestly, let the chips fall where they may, whether it reaffirms or shatters expectations. Can you man up to that honest question?
Ah. Elephants can remember when fanboys used to deride people with computers with Intel processors. Fanboys can't. Kool-Aid has been medically proven to induce "benign amnesia".
Eh? Us "fanboy" "kool-aid drinkers" know when CPUs that are good are good. G4 and G5s whipped the Pentium 4's ass 5 days from Sunday (or whatever the phrase is). Notice your non-Apple-fanboy-Kool-Aid-free AMD fans who, rightly, lorded over the craptastic Pentium 4 especially with the impressively overclockable Athlon64s.
It was well known that the G5 though had numerous problems and that IBM-led endeavour had to end soon. So Apple got out in time, unlike oh, MS' XBOX360 which is similar to the G5 and surprise, surprise, is facing a lot of heat issues.
I'm surprised that UV photolith has made it this far, but 1nm. . . no fucking way. (?)
At what nm do we have to switch to optical? Like when the quantum thingys cause to much unpredictability because the transistor thingys are too close together?
25nm? 10nm? 1nm? 0.1nm? 0.001nm? Melgross?
Instead of this degenerating into a "don't say that"/"ooh, I'll say it again!" exchange, let's see if we can get something educational out of it: How old are you? It'd be ****ing great if you'd answer honestly, let the chips fall where they may, whether it reaffirms or shatters expectations. Can you man up to that honest question?
PLease use PM for this stuff, and take it out of a hardware thread. Your totally off topic.
Ah. Elephants can remember when fanboys used to deride people with computers with Intel processors. Fanboys can't. Kool-Aid has been medically proven to induce "benign amnesia".
Umm. At one time, before the end of 2001, there was no question that the PPC was a much better chip than the x86, from any manufacturer.
During the middle 90's the PPC was expected to take the PC market away from the x86. It might have done so if MS hadn't decided to withdraw the PPC version of NT right after it was finished.
When the G4 came out, it had a good 30% advantage in integer, and a good 40% advantage in float over any x86 designs out there. Altivec was much more advanced then MS and Intels' weak competitor, offering up to 200% faster manipulation of vectorized functions.
Only when Moto couldn't raise the G4's speeds at the same time Intel went into MHz overtime, did that change. But, it still took a 1GHz x86 to finally overcome the much slower G4.
With the G5, IBM had a much superior chip than the Netburst line from Intel. The chips from AMD performed a bit better still, but IBM seemed committed to raising the bar at a good rate, and did begin to do so.
The 90nm speed barrier got in the way of all manufacturers.
Even so, IBM speeded the G5 up at a greater pace than either AMD or Intel.
The problem there was that Apple's sales were simply not enough to pay for all of the required R&D needed to keep up. IBM lost interest at that point, and Apple left.
But, the PPC platform was architecturally superior to the x86 designs. They carried none of the 8 and 16 bit baggage both AMD and Intel felt they had to maintain.
But now with 64 bit, that baggage is of less importance, because 64 bit code totally ignores any older code present. Newer 64 bit chips won't include most of that backwards compatible code at all.
Apple has an advantage here because its software, and that of Apple third party developers, haven't used anything other than 32 bit "clean" code for many years. That fits well with 64 bit chips, and Apple's OS, which allows either 32 bit OR 64 bit programming, and doesn't need a separate version, as does Vista (or XP).
Intel had reversed its mistake two years ago, and understands what must be done. IBM could never afford to put nearly as much R&D into its cpu designs as Intel does.
Apple made the right choice at the right time.
It has to be understood that when Jobs first made the announcement about Intel that fateful day, no one outside of those "in the know" was aware of Intel's subsequent announcements that were to rock the world in the area of cpu design. That's why we were skeptical about the whole thing. I, for one, was curious about why Jobs would do this when the G5 was creeping up in speed faster than either AMD or Intel, and seemed to soon take the performance crown.
Only after Intel revealed its new plans, and presented the world with the first of its new chips, did we see the reason.
Now we know that the decision was required if Apple was not to be totally left out in the cold.
At what nm do we have to switch to optical? Like when the quantum thingys cause to much unpredictability because the transistor thingys are too close together?
25nm? 10nm? 1nm? 0.1nm? 0.001nm? Melgross?
Your deep technical understanding of these issues always amazes me, as does your ability to use some of the more esoteric phraseology.
Actually, a number of experts in process technology think that there could be problems between 32 and 22nm, the step after.
Even if that is managed without too much turmoil, the step down to 15 isn't assured. There are still major problems with getting to that size lithography. The standards aren't agreed upon, and the technologies for getting there are still being investigated.
I'm not even talking about the electronic implications of going to that small size, but just the possibility of drawing the masks! If they can't do that, the rest doesn't matter.
If they do make it to 15, the step to 10 is thought by many to possibly be out of reach, but that isn't universally agreed upon yet.
As far as anything else goes, there a a bunch of technologies that are being investigated that will bypass all of this.
But none of it is anywhere near usability as yet, much less being at the point where it is known whether they can be mass manufactured. We won't get a hint of it for a good five more years.
Optical is not a panacea, as it is pretty much subject to the same physical laws. There has been a big advance by Intel in making silicon laze effectively. This is considered to be seriously important for any optical computing breakthrough, because other elements are simply too difficult to work with, too expensive for mass replications of chip technologies, or both.
But, this is also in a very early stage of development.
When they say Penryn will be dropping in a few weeks, does that mean that's when it'll first become available to manufacturers, or when we'll start seeing the first consumer products employing the new chips?
I ask only because I'm trying to gauge the amount of time it'll take for Apple to begin introducing these chips in their lineup. Would they be able to have designs finalized and in production in time for MWSF?
Right now, Penryn will officially launch on November 12, 2007. Don't hold your breath for Apple to incorporate Penryn or Nehalem. We have been waiting since May 9, 2007 for the Macs that rely on integrated graphics (MacBook, MacMini) to be upgraded to the Santa Rosa platform, with GMA X3100 integrated graphics to replace the current GMA 950 integrated graphics. A refresh of the Santa Rosa chips is now also expected to accompany the Penryn launch on November 12, 2007.
Apple waited about 18 months to update the MacMini from Core Duo to Core 2 Duo, when all that was required was a simple swap of a pin-compatible CPU (socket M).
Maybe Apple will update the MacBook and MacMini for MacWorld 2008. But I'll believe it when I see it. After waiting so long for Santa Rosa to materialize in a MacBook or MacMini, I might as well limp along until MacWorld 2009 and hope for a Gilo+Calpella MacBook and/or MacMini. But I won't hold my breath for it.
Right now, Penryn will officially launch on November 12, 2007. Don't hold your breath for Apple to incorporate Penryn or Nehalem. We have been waiting since May 9, 2007 for the Macs that rely on integrated graphics (MacBook, MacMini) to be upgraded to the Santa Rosa platform, with GMA X3100 integrated graphics to replace the current GMA 950 integrated graphics. A refresh of the Santa Rosa chips is now also expected to accompany the Penryn launch on November 12, 2007.
Apple waited about 18 months to update the MacMini from Core Duo to Core 2 Duo, when all that was required was a simple swap of a pin-compatible CPU (socket M).
Maybe Apple will update the MacBook and MacMini for MacWorld 2008. But I'll believe it when I see it. After waiting so long for Santa Rosa to materialize in a MacBook or MacMini, I might as well limp along until MacWorld 2009 and hope for a Gilo+Calpella MacBook and/or MacMini. But I won't hold my breath for it.
I agree with what Has happened, but I'm not so sure that I can agree completely with what you say WILL happen.
While no one knows what Apple intends as the long term goal for the Mini, sink or swim, we do know that Apple intends to stay with its sales leading product, the MB.
I think that Apple didn't see the need to revise the MB in the second half with the Santa Rosa.
In looking at that decision, we must look at what was expected from that chip, and what was found to be the reality.
Was what expected was a fair amount of improved performance, and significant battery life enhancement.
Neither occurred.
Apple's decision to not use it made sense, therefore, because the improved graphics has also proven to be better, but not so much that games would be actually significantly more playable. to go from atrocious to less atrocious is not much of an improvement.
I do see Apple updating the MB with the newer chips, because Apple must, if they expect to be at parity. These are major changes, unlike that of Santa rosa, and so Apple will make them.
Do you think the MBs will go to SR meroms or skip that platform and go to a penryn?