Sorry but the reason for the switch wasn't benchmarks as much as it was efficiency. That iMac you benchmarked probably uses 1/3 or less the power of the G5, and the PPC chip was hitting a ceiling so that the yearly gains were getting less & less.
If anything these tests you present appear to confirm that there isn't really a chip advantage for the PPC, that the Intel chip really can accomplish the same level of performance. Both are 64bit chips, one is 2.3GHz Dual & the other 2.4GHz Dual. A 2.4GHz Xeon and a 2.4GHz Core2 are going to have some big performance differences too, just like our Xeon PC servers can blow the pants off even a higher clocked Desktop computer.
In summary, that really wasn't a good comparison, age really isn't a factor when you're talking about raw specs of 2 computers.
I was about to point out that I could cook an egg on my G5. Thanks for bringing that up. Moving from PPC was the best thing Apple could have done.
Agreed. This isn't some random lawsuit from some disgruntled manufacturer. They said they would be cracking down on anti-competitive practices. I'm still waiting/hoping for the bomb to drop on the telecommunications industry.
I'm quite shocked there hasn't been a big push to prevent locking phones to a specific career. If that isn't anti-competitive I really don't know what is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy
I agree with some of your post, but from what I saw of general usage, the Mac got MUCH faster when they did the switch. It was before my time, but the videos are all over youtube (or they were)... Anyone who's long in the tooth want to chime in? I'm curious if the reports were true.
I started my Mac journey (well, post-Apple IIe, etc.) this decade with an iBook G3, then went on to Powerbook G4, PowerMac G4, PowerMac G5, Macbook Core Duo, Macbook Core 2 Duo, now MacBook Core 2 Duo Penryn. Basically during the Pentium 3 (which was okay) and the Pentium 4 (which was a fiasco) you saw G3 and G4 laptops and desktops do quite alright. The PowerMac G5 and iMac G5 were actually competitive with the Intels and AMDs at the time, not least because the OS and software (usually "multimedia" ones) were appropriately optimised for it.
But the G5 was a hot, hot chip (as in temperature) and there was no way they could get it into a laptop. While the shift to laptops was beginning Apple was saddled with the G4 which also had some problems like not being able to have better clock speeds. Dual G4s and Dual G5s were the temporary solution Apple used to deliver a computer with real performance. The "dual cores" of that era. However, dual CPUs only worked in desktops, and the fastest Dual G5s had to use *liquid cooling*.
At the end of the day IBM and Motorola or whoever simply had no deliverable roadmap for Apple, switching to Intel is a huge part of how Apple is successful today. Particularly how they have moved to fast, cooler-running laptop CPUs (which with the Core 2 pretty much edged out AMD). The Core was hot and about comparable to G4s or lower-G5s, but the Core 2 and Xeon based on that pretty much sealed the deal in really kicking G4 and G5 butt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I wonder if this will give Nvidia the cover to allow them to go back to normal business without fear of the law suit?
Nvidia is in some serious doo-doo. They've suspended chipset sales, hence probably suspended development to some degree, of all of Intel's latest and greatest in 2010, namely Lynnfield, Clarkdale, Arrandale. I don't think Nvidia is going to go back into normal business, they just don't want to have all this legal stuff hanging over their heads. Even in the mid-to-higher-end GPU space they're not interested in competing until this Fermi next-gen GPU comes out, which is supposed to be primarily targeted to high-performance/cluster computing, according to Nvidia.
Yeah, okay, I am ranting and coming off as quite an AMD fan. That was intended
Well, in the desktop space AMD's performance is more than good enough for even enthusiasts and gamers. For about 3/4 the price of an Intel you get similar performance, very roughly.
ATI GPUs hit a home run now with the 5-series, and prior to this the 4-series was highly competitive with Nvidia.
The only weak point is the mobile CPUs. AMD has not got the edge there.
In terms of bang-per-buck, as it stands here at the end of 2009,
So were the PowerPC benchmarks inflated somehow? I just recall seeing a comparison of basic boot speed. One with Intel and the other on legacy hardware. The Intel blew the legacy away. It didn't show day to to use however (understandable as that would be like watching paint peel via a youtube video , and I haven't seen any direct benchmark comparisons other than what was posted in here.
I'm genuinely curious.
Well, a huge part of the PC vs Mac "war" back then was PowerPC vs Intel. It went on and on and on. It depended on what you were doing, whether you were a "creative pro" or not, what the clockspeeds were, and so on. Then factor in price, different OS, codebase, and you had quite the free-for-all. These days it is slightly different where the PC vs Mac "war" centres around OS ease-of-use, security, design, price and "brand"... since the hardware is more or less the same. And in terms of the components being the same, Apple has done a remarkable job in differentiating the Mac from the competition.
Well, a huge part of the PC vs Mac "war" back then was PowerPC vs Intel. It went on and on and on. It depended on what you were doing, whether you were a "creative pro" or not, what the clockspeeds were, and so on. Then factor in price, different OS, codebase, and you had quite the free-for-all. These days it is slightly different where the PC vs Mac "war" centres around OS ease-of-use, security, design, price and "brand"... since the hardware is more or less the same. And in terms of the components being the same, Apple has done a remarkable job in differentiating the Mac from the competition.
I apologize for hijacking this thread somewhat
Thanks for the info. The Amiga guy in me was curious how good the chips were before they were tossed.
I guess Intel wanted to get a little too serious. I felt like playing nice with NVidia would have kept them out of trouble but maybe not. Geez, I bet there are some puckered hind-ends at Intel.
Well, 2010 will see what I'd be calling Intel's bundleGate. Bundling a rubbish GPU part with highly desired CPU (Arrandale and Clarkdale having 45nm Intel integrated GPU on-chip with the CPU).
This is nasty. Forcing desktop and laptop manufacturers into accepting this GPU and hence dissuading them from AMD-ATI or Nvidia integrated or discrete graphics.
If this isn't part of the lawsuit already, boy I hope it would it be "added in" as soon as possible.
You have a great 32nm CPU in the form of Arrandale and Clarkdale, but Intel is *forcing* this known-to-be-very-poorly-performing, less-power-efficient (since it is 45nm) part up your kazoo.
Rumours are Apple is saying NO to this, they want the CPU without the GPU, and I'm sure Apple isn't the only one.
I really hope bundleGate starts getting picked up by regulatory bodies, desktop and laptop manufacturers, and the media.
Well, 2010 will see what I'd be calling Intel's bundleGate. Bundling a rubbish GPU part with highly desired CPU (Arrandale and Clarkdale having 45nm Intel integrated GPU on-chip with the CPU).
This is nasty. Forcing desktop and laptop manufacturers into accepting this GPU and hence dissuading them from AMD-ATI or Nvidia integrated or discrete graphics.
If this isn't part of the lawsuit already, boy I hope it would it be "added in" as soon as possible.
You have a great 32nm CPU in the form of Arrandale and Clarkdale, but Intel is *forcing* this known-to-be-very-poorly-performing, less-power-efficient (since it is 45nm) part up your kazoo.
Rumours are Apple is saying NO to this, they want the CPU without the GPU, and I'm sure Apple isn't the only one.
I really hope bundleGate starts getting picked up by regulatory bodies, desktop and laptop manufacturers, and the media.
+1. Let's see how the patent suit works out with nVidia. Hopefully Intel cannot stop them from making their GPU's. It will be a real defeat for consumers.
+1. Let's see how the patent suit works out with nVidia. Hopefully Intel cannot stop them from making their GPU's. It will be a real defeat for consumers.
Yeah, hopefully Intel won't stop Nvidia making a wider range of GPUs though with bundleGate they are discouraging laptop and desktop makers from using Nvidia or AMD-ATI GPUs.
The problem is the chipset as well. Nvidia can't make chipsets for Arrandale and Clarkdale, and they can't make chipsets with Integrated GPUs like the impressive 9400M or Ion.
Essentially with bundleGate Nvidia and ATI can't have an integrated GPU because there's an Intel integrated GPU already, so Intel has basically totally locked out anyone else in the entire mid-to-low-end PC market.
Now that I think of it, it is absolutely insane that nobody has really picked up, especially in the media, on Intel's tactics here, besides maybe the FTC or others who are already on Intel's case for various other things.
With bundleGate, Intel in 2010 has basically locked everything in. Intel CPU, Intel GPU*, Intel chipset.
*Yes, you could have a discrete GPU but that market, especially for laptops, is relatively rather small. Also, many laptop makers who might have considered having a better GPU would look at the situation and say, well, even if it is a poorer GPU, it's already there, I'm not going to lose profits by having a discrete GPU, I'll just take Intel's.
The probably one good quote from the new Star Wars movies, is "So This Is How Liberty Dies...With Thunderous Applause"... Today (Thursday) Intel will release Core i3, i5, i7 Arrandale and Clarkdale details, according to some news sources. January and CES will be big celebrations of the benefits of those CPUs and what it means for the PC market. There will be much celebrations and applause. While choice of chipset and integrated GPU dies.
I'm quite shocked there hasn't been a big push to prevent locking phones to a specific career. If that isn't anti-competitive I really don't know what is.
If that isn't a straight line...
No, that's not anticompetitive, so long as the market is competitive.
No, that's not anticompetitive, so long as the market is competitive.
Yeah, I suppose locking the iPhone to ATT reduces the appeal of the iPhone because people don't like ATT so locking in this case is "de-competitive"... Or something like that LOL.
The actual FTC wording on GPUs is very, very interesting...I am not sure why some people say this FTC thing is too little too late, looks like they have been well clued in on the latest GPU movements...
"As it did in the CPU markets, Intel recognized the threat posed by GPUs and GP GPU computing and its technological inferiority in these markets and has taken a number of anticompetitive measures to combat it. These tactics include, among others, deception relating to competitors’ efforts to enable their GPUs to interoperate with Intel’s newest CPUs; adopting a new policy of denying interoperability for certain competitive GPUs; establishing various barriers to interoperability; degrading certain connections between GPUs and CPUs; making misleading statements to industry participants about the readiness of Intel’s GPUs; and unlawful bundling or tying of Intel’s GPUs with its CPUs resulting in below-cost pricing of relevant products. "
"23. Intel adopted these anticompetitive business practices when the GPU began to emerge as a potential challenge to Intel’s monopoly over CPUs. Intel’s refusal to allow Nvidia, AMD, and Via to interoperate freely ... with its CPUs, chipsets, and related connections is an unfair method of competition and an unfair practice.
24. Intel also has bundled the price of its CPU and chipset with integrated graphics to foreclose Nvidia in some market segments*, resulting in below-cost pricing of relevant products in circumstances in which Intel was likely to recoup in the future any losses that it suffered as a result of selling relevant products at prices below an appropriate measure of cost. "
*Remember, this even before Arrandale and Clarkdale come into play...!
In fact, this FTC thing is not just about trying to fight Intel on the CPU side, they're saying, hang on, the GPU thing is now the big deal as well...
"Intel Holds a Monopoly in the Relevant CPU Markets and It is Likely to Obtain a Monopoly in the Relevant GPU Markets"
"26. These and other anticompetitive practices by Intel since 1999 allowed it to maintain its monopoly position in the relevant CPU markets and will create a dangerous possibility that Intel will obtain a monopoly in the relevant GPU markets. As a result, consumers today have fewer choices of CPU and GPU manufacturers than they had a decade ago, and fewer than they would have had absent this conduct."
The AI story implies that Apple will be Exhibit A in the case against Intel. I wonder if that's true. If so, the relationship between the companies could be in for some damage.
I don't think Apple will reveal much details even if Apple is unhappy about the relationship... Since it would mean Apple would have to disclose how it negotiates with suppliers and obtains components.
I wonder if with bundleGate the relationship between the companies is getting worse... That an Apple's seeming refusal to adopt Atom in any way, shape or form, at this stage.
?making misleading statements to industry participants about the readiness of Intel?s GPUs?"
I'm not an expert on CPUs/GPUs, but I'll comment anyway. I would tie in the delayed Larrabee as being quite a problem for Intel because of all the PR Intel did regarding Larrabee. It's more than just an embarrassing technical failure, IMO. It has real legal implications.
I agree with some of your post, but from what I saw of general usage, the Mac got MUCH faster when they did the switch. It was before my time, but the videos are all over youtube (or they were).
Anyone who's long in the tooth want to chime in? I'm curious if the reports were true.
I shudder when I read my post done on the phone which am doing again.
Speed does matter now and when the duo core came out AMD had nothing to fight back with.
I was implying in 1999 megahertz did NOT matter. Ppc and amd had better perfeormance. Intel needed one full one gigahertz in clock speed just to match AMD.
When the duo core came out it was blazing and now speed DOES matter.
You see, we went from a megahertz myth to it no longer being a myth.
Example on a G5 and AMD Athlon 1ghz, intel needed 2.0 gigahertz just to have the same bench marks. Even though at the time, I don't know what apple had in 1999, but probably G3 but would do certain PRO creative things faster and AMD turned some mac heads into PC users as AMD was doing blazzing speeds. What they would do is have emagics Logic, a G3/4 and AMD PCs running gigastudio, one if the first largest sample companys and would run the macs and pcs together for huge musical projects.
Gigastudio only stayed PC only but every composer in town had that plus Acid, which a head houncho from this loop software Acid left and created GarageBand.
Anyway, speed and core now matter again. It went from mattering in the early 90s to not mattering in the late 90s and then the duo core came out with that and that ended that war. Intel would slash their prices down so far, their stock fell and was reffered to as the price wars between amd and intel. But AMD did a good thing, for a while anyway. They kept the prices down and Apple saw that the ppc was going nowhere and switched when cores and speed started to matter again. But sadly, the top of the line Cpu is very expensive. During the price wars, except for server chips, no CPU was more than ~$3-400.00. That's 3 to 4 hindered. Now since there is nothing to compete with intel, they charge what they want so unti AMD comes up with something, we pay.
I sour like to one day see AMD come up with something astonishing , have Apple but them grin. Apple was one of the first to join AMDs hyperconsotom or some other spelling. Lol.
I'm not an expert on CPUs/GPUs, but I'll comment anyway. I would tie in the delayed Larrabee as being quite a problem for Intel because of all the PR Intel did regarding Larrabee. It's more than just an embarrassing technical failure, IMO. It has real legal implications.
In the context of the FTC, and similar allegations perhaps to come, most definitely there are implications. You have a point there. What was Larrabee supposed to do, actually? There was supposed to be retail part or something, by now, right? (Which was cancelled) Also, was it promised that Larrabee would make its way into an Intel Integrated Graphic part? What future development of Larrabee is now promised? Is this misleading?
Larrabee itself could be considered in negative light since it's based around x86, as I understand, rather than conventional GPU-like architecture.
...I sour like to one day see AMD come up with something astonishing , have Apple but them grin. Apple was one of the first to join AMDs hyperconsotom or some other spelling. Lol.
Nite.
Hypertransport Consortium. AMD was the primary push behind this and Apple was involved in "The IBM CPC925 and CPC945 PowerPC 970 northbridges, as co-designed and used by Apple in the Power Mac G5" (Wikipedia).
Anyways check this out as well in the FTC document. Intel is alleged to have been anticompetitive with regard to USB and HDCP:
"92. Intel’s course of anticompetitive and unfair conduct extends to its control of industry standards to hinder innovation by its CPU competitors and to maintain its monopoly power in the CPU markets. Using its dominant CPU position, Intel has manipulated the content and timing of many industry standards to advantage its own products and prevent competitors from introducing standards-compliant products prior to product introduction by Intel. Two examples of such anticompetitive conduct relate to the Universal Serial Bus host controller specification and the High Definition Content Protection (“HDCP”) standard for use in DisplayPort connections between computers and display devices such as monitors and televisions... Intel’s conduct has no offsetting, legitimate or sufficient procompetitive efficiencies but instead deters competition and enhances Intel’s monopoly power in CPUs."
Thanks for the link, but that was the EU's case, this one is from the FTC. Could be similar is some respects, but the laws and the politics in the US are different. Here is the text of the complaint:
Haven't read it completely yet, but Apple is mentioned only twice. Still, I'm sure it hasn't escaped the FTC's attention that Apple was until recently a competitor to Intel, but has since abandoned competition to become a customer. If I were an FTC lawyer, I'd sure want to talk to some people at Apple about how that happened.
Apple is mentioned as a "Tier One OEM", and is bunched together with the top names. How much of this was Apple involved in? Was Apple a victim? Number 54 below is rather juicy.
"49. Hewlett-Packard/Compaq, Dell, IBM, Lenovo, Toshiba, Acer/Gateway, Sun, Sony, NEC, Apple, and Fujitsu are the largest OEMs in the world (“Tier One OEMs”). Tier One OEMs account for over 60 percent of the computers with CPUs in the relevant markets. Intel has prevented or limited the sale of non-Intel CPUs to these Tier One OEMs...
50. Because of Intel’s actions and threats, certain Tier One OEMs reasonably feared that purchasing too many non-Intel CPUs would expose their companies to retaliation from Intel...
51. Intel took advantage of its monopoly power and induced and/or coerced certain Tier One OEMs to forgo adoption or purchases of non-Intel CPUs, or to limit such purchases to a small percentage of the sales of certain computer products...
54. Intel used OEMs that were exclusive to Intel to discipline and punish OEMs that chose to deal with Intel’s competitors. Intel gave OEMs that agreed to buy CPUs exclusively from Intel the best pricing, supply guarantees in times of shortage, and indemnification from patent liability relating to the patent litigation initiated by Intergraph against several OEMs. Intel also offered these OEMs a slush fund of hundreds of millions of dollars to be used in bidding competitions against OEMs that offered non-Intel-based computers. These payments were contingent on the OEMs purchasing CPUs exclusively or nearly exclusively from Intel..."
Comments
Sorry but the reason for the switch wasn't benchmarks as much as it was efficiency. That iMac you benchmarked probably uses 1/3 or less the power of the G5, and the PPC chip was hitting a ceiling so that the yearly gains were getting less & less.
If anything these tests you present appear to confirm that there isn't really a chip advantage for the PPC, that the Intel chip really can accomplish the same level of performance. Both are 64bit chips, one is 2.3GHz Dual & the other 2.4GHz Dual. A 2.4GHz Xeon and a 2.4GHz Core2 are going to have some big performance differences too, just like our Xeon PC servers can blow the pants off even a higher clocked Desktop computer.
In summary, that really wasn't a good comparison, age really isn't a factor when you're talking about raw specs of 2 computers.
I was about to point out that I could cook an egg on my G5. Thanks for bringing that up. Moving from PPC was the best thing Apple could have done.
Agreed. This isn't some random lawsuit from some disgruntled manufacturer. They said they would be cracking down on anti-competitive practices. I'm still waiting/hoping for the bomb to drop on the telecommunications industry.
I'm quite shocked there hasn't been a big push to prevent locking phones to a specific career. If that isn't anti-competitive I really don't know what is.
I agree with some of your post, but from what I saw of general usage, the Mac got MUCH faster when they did the switch. It was before my time, but the videos are all over youtube (or they were)... Anyone who's long in the tooth want to chime in? I'm curious if the reports were true.
I started my Mac journey (well, post-Apple IIe, etc.) this decade with an iBook G3, then went on to Powerbook G4, PowerMac G4, PowerMac G5, Macbook Core Duo, Macbook Core 2 Duo, now MacBook Core 2 Duo Penryn. Basically during the Pentium 3 (which was okay) and the Pentium 4 (which was a fiasco) you saw G3 and G4 laptops and desktops do quite alright. The PowerMac G5 and iMac G5 were actually competitive with the Intels and AMDs at the time, not least because the OS and software (usually "multimedia" ones) were appropriately optimised for it.
But the G5 was a hot, hot chip (as in temperature) and there was no way they could get it into a laptop. While the shift to laptops was beginning Apple was saddled with the G4 which also had some problems like not being able to have better clock speeds. Dual G4s and Dual G5s were the temporary solution Apple used to deliver a computer with real performance. The "dual cores" of that era.
At the end of the day IBM and Motorola or whoever simply had no deliverable roadmap for Apple, switching to Intel is a huge part of how Apple is successful today. Particularly how they have moved to fast, cooler-running laptop CPUs (which with the Core 2 pretty much edged out AMD). The Core was hot and about comparable to G4s or lower-G5s, but the Core 2 and Xeon based on that pretty much sealed the deal in really kicking G4 and G5 butt.
I wonder if this will give Nvidia the cover to allow them to go back to normal business without fear of the law suit?
Nvidia is in some serious doo-doo. They've suspended chipset sales, hence probably suspended development to some degree, of all of Intel's latest and greatest in 2010, namely Lynnfield, Clarkdale, Arrandale. I don't think Nvidia is going to go back into normal business, they just don't want to have all this legal stuff hanging over their heads. Even in the mid-to-higher-end GPU space they're not interested in competing until this Fermi next-gen GPU comes out, which is supposed to be primarily targeted to high-performance/cluster computing, according to Nvidia.
I was about to point out that I could cook an egg on my G5. Thanks for bringing that up. Moving from PPC was the best thing Apple could have done.
I would also say that anyone that encoded DVD's, movies, or did any FCP/iMovie work recognizes the speed improvements.
Yeah, okay, I am ranting and coming off as quite an AMD fan. That was intended
Well, in the desktop space AMD's performance is more than good enough for even enthusiasts and gamers. For about 3/4 the price of an Intel you get similar performance, very roughly.
ATI GPUs hit a home run now with the 5-series, and prior to this the 4-series was highly competitive with Nvidia.
The only weak point is the mobile CPUs. AMD has not got the edge there.
In terms of bang-per-buck, as it stands here at the end of 2009,
GPU (desktop) ~ more likely AMD-ATI
GPU (laptop) ~ Nvidia or AMD-ATI, however ATI's 5-series 40nm, looks strong
CPU (desktop) ~ AMD
CPU (laptop) ~ Intel (more towards performance-per-watt advantages, pricing not so big a factor)
So were the PowerPC benchmarks inflated somehow? I just recall seeing a comparison of basic boot speed. One with Intel and the other on legacy hardware. The Intel blew the legacy away. It didn't show day to to use however (understandable as that would be like watching paint peel via a youtube video
I'm genuinely curious.
Well, a huge part of the PC vs Mac "war" back then was PowerPC vs Intel. It went on and on and on. It depended on what you were doing, whether you were a "creative pro" or not, what the clockspeeds were, and so on. Then factor in price, different OS, codebase, and you had quite the free-for-all. These days it is slightly different where the PC vs Mac "war" centres around OS ease-of-use, security, design, price and "brand"... since the hardware is more or less the same. And in terms of the components being the same, Apple has done a remarkable job in differentiating the Mac from the competition.
Well, a huge part of the PC vs Mac "war" back then was PowerPC vs Intel. It went on and on and on. It depended on what you were doing, whether you were a "creative pro" or not, what the clockspeeds were, and so on. Then factor in price, different OS, codebase, and you had quite the free-for-all. These days it is slightly different where the PC vs Mac "war" centres around OS ease-of-use, security, design, price and "brand"... since the hardware is more or less the same. And in terms of the components being the same, Apple has done a remarkable job in differentiating the Mac from the competition.
I apologize for hijacking this thread somewhat
Thanks for the info. The Amiga guy in me was curious how good the chips were before they were tossed.
I guess Intel wanted to get a little too serious. I felt like playing nice with NVidia would have kept them out of trouble but maybe not. Geez, I bet there are some puckered hind-ends at Intel.
Well, 2010 will see what I'd be calling Intel's bundleGate. Bundling a rubbish GPU part with highly desired CPU (Arrandale and Clarkdale having 45nm Intel integrated GPU on-chip with the CPU).
This is nasty. Forcing desktop and laptop manufacturers into accepting this GPU and hence dissuading them from AMD-ATI or Nvidia integrated or discrete graphics.
If this isn't part of the lawsuit already, boy I hope it would it be "added in" as soon as possible.
You have a great 32nm CPU in the form of Arrandale and Clarkdale, but Intel is *forcing* this known-to-be-very-poorly-performing, less-power-efficient (since it is 45nm) part up your kazoo.
Rumours are Apple is saying NO to this, they want the CPU without the GPU, and I'm sure Apple isn't the only one.
I really hope bundleGate starts getting picked up by regulatory bodies, desktop and laptop manufacturers, and the media.
I apologize for hijacking this thread somewhat
Thanks for the info. The Amiga guy in me was curious how good the chips were before they were tossed.
No worries. It's not so off topic. Before "I'm a PC"... There was... the Pentium Snail (Google it
Well, 2010 will see what I'd be calling Intel's bundleGate. Bundling a rubbish GPU part with highly desired CPU (Arrandale and Clarkdale having 45nm Intel integrated GPU on-chip with the CPU).
This is nasty. Forcing desktop and laptop manufacturers into accepting this GPU and hence dissuading them from AMD-ATI or Nvidia integrated or discrete graphics.
If this isn't part of the lawsuit already, boy I hope it would it be "added in" as soon as possible.
You have a great 32nm CPU in the form of Arrandale and Clarkdale, but Intel is *forcing* this known-to-be-very-poorly-performing, less-power-efficient (since it is 45nm) part up your kazoo.
Rumours are Apple is saying NO to this, they want the CPU without the GPU, and I'm sure Apple isn't the only one.
I really hope bundleGate starts getting picked up by regulatory bodies, desktop and laptop manufacturers, and the media.
+1. Let's see how the patent suit works out with nVidia. Hopefully Intel cannot stop them from making their GPU's. It will be a real defeat for consumers.
+1. Let's see how the patent suit works out with nVidia. Hopefully Intel cannot stop them from making their GPU's. It will be a real defeat for consumers.
Yeah, hopefully Intel won't stop Nvidia making a wider range of GPUs though with bundleGate they are discouraging laptop and desktop makers from using Nvidia or AMD-ATI GPUs.
The problem is the chipset as well. Nvidia can't make chipsets for Arrandale and Clarkdale, and they can't make chipsets with Integrated GPUs like the impressive 9400M or Ion.
Essentially with bundleGate Nvidia and ATI can't have an integrated GPU because there's an Intel integrated GPU already, so Intel has basically totally locked out anyone else in the entire mid-to-low-end PC market.
Now that I think of it, it is absolutely insane that nobody has really picked up, especially in the media, on Intel's tactics here, besides maybe the FTC or others who are already on Intel's case for various other things.
With bundleGate, Intel in 2010 has basically locked everything in. Intel CPU, Intel GPU*, Intel chipset.
*Yes, you could have a discrete GPU but that market, especially for laptops, is relatively rather small. Also, many laptop makers who might have considered having a better GPU would look at the situation and say, well, even if it is a poorer GPU, it's already there, I'm not going to lose profits by having a discrete GPU, I'll just take Intel's.
The probably one good quote from the new Star Wars movies, is "So This Is How Liberty Dies...With Thunderous Applause"... Today (Thursday) Intel will release Core i3, i5, i7 Arrandale and Clarkdale details, according to some news sources. January and CES will be big celebrations of the benefits of those CPUs and what it means for the PC market. There will be much celebrations and applause. While choice of chipset and integrated GPU dies.
I'm quite shocked there hasn't been a big push to prevent locking phones to a specific career. If that isn't anti-competitive I really don't know what is.
If that isn't a straight line...
No, that's not anticompetitive, so long as the market is competitive.
If that isn't a straight line...
No, that's not anticompetitive, so long as the market is competitive.
Yeah, I suppose locking the iPhone to ATT reduces the appeal of the iPhone because people don't like ATT so locking in this case is "de-competitive"... Or something like that LOL.
"As it did in the CPU markets, Intel recognized the threat posed by GPUs and GP GPU computing and its technological inferiority in these markets and has taken a number of anticompetitive measures to combat it. These tactics include, among others, deception relating to competitors’ efforts to enable their GPUs to interoperate with Intel’s newest CPUs; adopting a new policy of denying interoperability for certain competitive GPUs; establishing various barriers to interoperability; degrading certain connections between GPUs and CPUs; making misleading statements to industry participants about the readiness of Intel’s GPUs; and unlawful bundling or tying of Intel’s GPUs with its CPUs resulting in below-cost pricing of relevant products. "
"23. Intel adopted these anticompetitive business practices when the GPU began to emerge as a potential challenge to Intel’s monopoly over CPUs. Intel’s refusal to allow Nvidia, AMD, and Via to interoperate freely ... with its CPUs, chipsets, and related connections is an unfair method of competition and an unfair practice.
24. Intel also has bundled the price of its CPU and chipset with integrated graphics to foreclose Nvidia in some market segments*, resulting in below-cost pricing of relevant products in circumstances in which Intel was likely to recoup in the future any losses that it suffered as a result of selling relevant products at prices below an appropriate measure of cost. "
*Remember, this even before Arrandale and Clarkdale come into play...!
"Intel Holds a Monopoly in the Relevant CPU Markets and It is Likely to Obtain a Monopoly in the Relevant GPU Markets"
"26. These and other anticompetitive practices by Intel since 1999 allowed it to maintain its monopoly position in the relevant CPU markets and will create a dangerous possibility that Intel will obtain a monopoly in the relevant GPU markets. As a result, consumers today have fewer choices of CPU and GPU manufacturers than they had a decade ago, and fewer than they would have had absent this conduct."
The AI story implies that Apple will be Exhibit A in the case against Intel. I wonder if that's true. If so, the relationship between the companies could be in for some damage.
I don't think Apple will reveal much details even if Apple is unhappy about the relationship... Since it would mean Apple would have to disclose how it negotiates with suppliers and obtains components.
I wonder if with bundleGate the relationship between the companies is getting worse... That an Apple's seeming refusal to adopt Atom in any way, shape or form, at this stage.
FTC statement:
?making misleading statements to industry participants about the readiness of Intel?s GPUs?"
I'm not an expert on CPUs/GPUs, but I'll comment anyway. I would tie in the delayed Larrabee as being quite a problem for Intel because of all the PR Intel did regarding Larrabee. It's more than just an embarrassing technical failure, IMO. It has real legal implications.
I agree with some of your post, but from what I saw of general usage, the Mac got MUCH faster when they did the switch. It was before my time, but the videos are all over youtube (or they were).
Anyone who's long in the tooth want to chime in? I'm curious if the reports were true.
I shudder when I read my post done on the phone which am doing again.
Speed does matter now and when the duo core came out AMD had nothing to fight back with.
I was implying in 1999 megahertz did NOT matter. Ppc and amd had better perfeormance. Intel needed one full one gigahertz in clock speed just to match AMD.
When the duo core came out it was blazing and now speed DOES matter.
You see, we went from a megahertz myth to it no longer being a myth.
Example on a G5 and AMD Athlon 1ghz, intel needed 2.0 gigahertz just to have the same bench marks. Even though at the time, I don't know what apple had in 1999, but probably G3 but would do certain PRO creative things faster and AMD turned some mac heads into PC users as AMD was doing blazzing speeds. What they would do is have emagics Logic, a G3/4 and AMD PCs running gigastudio, one if the first largest sample companys and would run the macs and pcs together for huge musical projects.
Gigastudio only stayed PC only but every composer in town had that plus Acid, which a head houncho from this loop software Acid left and created GarageBand.
Anyway, speed and core now matter again. It went from mattering in the early 90s to not mattering in the late 90s and then the duo core came out with that and that ended that war. Intel would slash their prices down so far, their stock fell and was reffered to as the price wars between amd and intel. But AMD did a good thing, for a while anyway. They kept the prices down and Apple saw that the ppc was going nowhere and switched when cores and speed started to matter again. But sadly, the top of the line Cpu is very expensive. During the price wars, except for server chips, no CPU was more than ~$3-400.00. That's 3 to 4 hindered. Now since there is nothing to compete with intel, they charge what they want so unti AMD comes up with something, we pay.
I sour like to one day see AMD come up with something astonishing , have Apple but them grin. Apple was one of the first to join AMDs hyperconsotom or some other spelling. Lol.
Nite.
I'm not an expert on CPUs/GPUs, but I'll comment anyway. I would tie in the delayed Larrabee as being quite a problem for Intel because of all the PR Intel did regarding Larrabee. It's more than just an embarrassing technical failure, IMO. It has real legal implications.
In the context of the FTC, and similar allegations perhaps to come, most definitely there are implications. You have a point there. What was Larrabee supposed to do, actually? There was supposed to be retail part or something, by now, right? (Which was cancelled) Also, was it promised that Larrabee would make its way into an Intel Integrated Graphic part? What future development of Larrabee is now promised? Is this misleading?
Larrabee itself could be considered in negative light since it's based around x86, as I understand, rather than conventional GPU-like architecture.
...I sour like to one day see AMD come up with something astonishing , have Apple but them grin. Apple was one of the first to join AMDs hyperconsotom or some other spelling. Lol.
Nite.
Hypertransport Consortium. AMD was the primary push behind this and Apple was involved in "The IBM CPC925 and CPC945 PowerPC 970 northbridges, as co-designed and used by Apple in the Power Mac G5" (Wikipedia).
Anyways check this out as well in the FTC document. Intel is alleged to have been anticompetitive with regard to USB and HDCP:
"92. Intel’s course of anticompetitive and unfair conduct extends to its control of industry standards to hinder innovation by its CPU competitors and to maintain its monopoly power in the CPU markets. Using its dominant CPU position, Intel has manipulated the content and timing of many industry standards to advantage its own products and prevent competitors from introducing standards-compliant products prior to product introduction by Intel. Two examples of such anticompetitive conduct relate to the Universal Serial Bus host controller specification and the High Definition Content Protection (“HDCP”) standard for use in DisplayPort connections between computers and display devices such as monitors and televisions... Intel’s conduct has no offsetting, legitimate or sufficient procompetitive efficiencies but instead deters competition and enhances Intel’s monopoly power in CPUs."
Thanks for the link, but that was the EU's case, this one is from the FTC. Could be similar is some respects, but the laws and the politics in the US are different. Here is the text of the complaint:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9341/091216intelcmpt.pdf
Haven't read it completely yet, but Apple is mentioned only twice. Still, I'm sure it hasn't escaped the FTC's attention that Apple was until recently a competitor to Intel, but has since abandoned competition to become a customer. If I were an FTC lawyer, I'd sure want to talk to some people at Apple about how that happened.
Apple is mentioned as a "Tier One OEM", and is bunched together with the top names. How much of this was Apple involved in? Was Apple a victim? Number 54 below is rather juicy.
"49. Hewlett-Packard/Compaq, Dell, IBM, Lenovo, Toshiba, Acer/Gateway, Sun, Sony, NEC, Apple, and Fujitsu are the largest OEMs in the world (“Tier One OEMs”). Tier One OEMs account for over 60 percent of the computers with CPUs in the relevant markets. Intel has prevented or limited the sale of non-Intel CPUs to these Tier One OEMs...
50. Because of Intel’s actions and threats, certain Tier One OEMs reasonably feared that purchasing too many non-Intel CPUs would expose their companies to retaliation from Intel...
51. Intel took advantage of its monopoly power and induced and/or coerced certain Tier One OEMs to forgo adoption or purchases of non-Intel CPUs, or to limit such purchases to a small percentage of the sales of certain computer products...
54. Intel used OEMs that were exclusive to Intel to discipline and punish OEMs that chose to deal with Intel’s competitors. Intel gave OEMs that agreed to buy CPUs exclusively from Intel the best pricing, supply guarantees in times of shortage, and indemnification from patent liability relating to the patent litigation initiated by Intergraph against several OEMs. Intel also offered these OEMs a slush fund of hundreds of millions of dollars to be used in bidding competitions against OEMs that offered non-Intel-based computers. These payments were contingent on the OEMs purchasing CPUs exclusively or nearly exclusively from Intel..."