"Yo ucan imagine that STeve got himself a good taste of present, near term and long term product/prospectus from each of the big players -- IBM, freescale, AMD and Intel.
They would look for 4 main areas:
1. Performance, current and projected
2. Performance/watt, current and projected
3. Supply reliability, demonstrated, and projected
4. Core business compatibility -- Market suitability.
That is, are the companies in question primarily interested in the same markets in which Apple is interested, or do they have other compelling business which overshadows Apple's core interestes.
. . ."
[B]
intel is doing well on #1 and #2? Might want to tell the people at Toms Hardware, there benchtests indicate that AMD is faster, that AMD generate less watt/power and that intel run both unstable compared to AMD but also VERY hot. Their new dual core for example averaged 68C (when it wasnt failing) and AMD's ran 55C ... im tired of this nonsense talk that intel is great or even good. Have we all forgotten that intel has been falling behind in every way lately... and just because steve said "hey lets go to intel" they are now awesome? He went to intel because of the name and the supply. Not because of preformance, i guess apple will become more like a fancy luxary vechical with nothing under the hood.
yeah and intel claimed by trends they would be at 6Ghz by now... no one anticipated advances to slow, but thats what happens.
If the switch to intel is supposed to increase rate of improvement i dont get it. intel has increased speeds by .4Ghz in the last year... ibm has increased about .5Ghz... this doesnt take into account that Intel Ghz are worth less than AMD or PPC on the same level. Intel is a bunch of garbage... IBM may have no 64 bit mobile processor, but niether does Intel. AMD has some (though it is power hungry). By Steves stupid reasons, they should have gone AMD. This is clearly over prices, his reasons hold no water, esspecially when you look at what PPC and AMD do. Intel probably offered price incentives and promises to devlop the line for Apple.
Except that Intel will always invest more than IBM will because it is Intel's business and it is not really IBM's. Last year, between new plant construction and it's R&D budget, Intel spent over $10 billion on chip advances. How much did IBM spend?
Might want to tell the people at Toms Hardware, there benchtests indicate that AMD is faster, that AMD generate less watt/power and that intel run both unstable compared to AMD but also VERY hot. Their new dual core for example averaged 68C (when it wasnt failing) and AMD's ran 55C ... im tired of this nonsense talk that intel is great or even good. Have we all forgotten that intel has been falling behind in every way lately... and just because steve said "hey lets go to intel" they are now awesome? He went to intel because of the name and the supply. Not because of preformance, i guess apple will become more like a fancy luxary vechical with nothing under the hood.
Also from Tom's. Credit where it's due. The Pentium M is the most attractive microprocessor for the average household and this is still only a mobile version. Intel is already moving towards the Pentium M architecture across the board and if I were AMD I'd be nervous because to be perfectly blunt Intel is a great company and they have money to back it up. They didn't get to where they were through marketing alone. They have some brilliant engineers and put together some good platforms.
Nature of life and competition though. Everything changes.
As an aside there are quite a few reasons I expect Apple chose Intel over AMD and I doubt performance was a factor. Intel's performance is good enough and they won't ever remain behind for long.
Those benchmarks show the M being smoked by the P4 and AMD FX-55 in everything but gaming.
In video benchmarks, the FX-55 was often twice as fast at a similar clock speed.
Apple won't use the Dothan, but the Yonah for mobile solutions, and perhaps the merom for desktop solutions.
Compared to the Dothan, the yonah is supposed to have a better SIMD unit who will boost FP performance (the weak point of pentium M, especially if you compared them to the athlon 64).
Perhaps in video benchmarks, the core technology will give differents results : the GPU could gain the preeminent role in this matter. Who knows ?
One thing is sure, the Dothan is better than the G4 : some benchmarks demonstrate this easily, both in term of performance and battery life consumption.
I doubt, however that the Dothan could beat the G5. For smoking such a chip, a better architecture is necessary.
When you look at all this elements, the way Apple will make this switch become chrystal clear
We don't know yet. It looks like Intel has the best forthcoming mobile solution. As for the rest, I think a "switch" to AMD would be, basically, the simplest thing Apple has ever done, if and when it's warranted.
I'm not sure that it is, however, Intel had a major detour into Itanium land. When that failed, they just ramped up P4 further and further, but they had to know that it was a dead end. In as much as Pentium M has P3 genes, it doesn't suffer any of the problems of P4 or Itanic, and that means Pentium M is just the beginning. They have the best balance of production capability in the chip making world. Apple's not using any of their products yet, so let's see where they start. Whose to say that they don't put Pentium M into laptops and AMD into Powermacs?
In any case, we'e getting away from something essential, even though we're talking about Apples to Apples comparisons of architecture, it's still Apples and Oranges as far as platforms goes. And the real test is still that of timed tasks, period.
If Adobe has a stonking version of CS running on OSX86, if FCP/E, DVD SP, Motion, iLife, OSX 10.5 et al run great, stable and fast, then that's all that really matters.
Apple's been working out X86 OSX for 5 years. At the end of the day, if an Intel based Powermac runs these apps or equivalents faster than an AMD based PC, will it matter that the AMD gets better benchmarking scores?
Not flaming you groverat, just pointing out the bleeding obvious most other peeps that skim miss
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Those benchmarks show the M being smoked by the P4 and AMD FX-55 in everything but gaming.
In video benchmarks, the FX-55 was often twice as fast at a similar clock speed.
Did you even READ IT? Do you actually understand it?
The M wasn't smoked, IT smoked the P4 and AMD in a big way. We are talking about old-tech/hobbled CPU having its clock rate ramped up to slightly less than the AMD's King of the Hill and other than the 'Benchmark' programs it smoked the others in real-world apps/games while running at HALF the temp...
The losses on the 'Benchmark' apps like Sisofts and PCMark are a laugh as they are tailored(read optimised) to attempt to make best use of the new technology in the new P4 and AMD chips. If you don't think those games + Winrar results mean anything in terms of performance on the same rig I must be smoking some serious weed.
'our two year old platform was able to beat the processor heavyweights Athlon 64 FX and Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition in all 3D games!'
'Mind you, these top of the line processors have the newest platform technologies at their disposal, such as DDR2 memory and PCIe graphics.'
In all of the application benchmarks, the Pentium M really shows what it's made of. Even without an integrated memory controller, the Pentium III's heir is as fast as an Athlon 64 on a clock-for-clock basis - and eats the in-house competition for lunch. Only the low-level tests, the synthetic benchmarks and optimized applications continue to be dominated by the Pentium 4 - despite such advanced technologies as HyperThreading and/or SSE3. Encoding and rendering therefore remain the Pentium 4's forte.
As much as I like AMD I think Apple was definitely smart in moving to all Intel. AMD has the faster solutions "today" but the full migration isn't going to commence until 2007. By then Intel will have a totally new lineup. Itanium isn't dead in fact it's still a prominent part of Intel's strategy. In 2007 we'll have 4 core cpus and Intels CSI bus(Hypertransport competitor).
I'm interested in Intel's I/OAT which is their replacement for TOE on Server motherboards. We'll see how it compares but anything that comes inante on the motherboard that can help TCP processing is welcome in a server environment.
I think it boils down to Intel provides the whole platform. AMD provides fast chips. Right now Apple needs to platform.
Those benchmarks show the M being smoked by the P4 and AMD FX-55 in everything but gaming.
And I was right.
Aye, although the only real app test in there is Winrar which it spanked hard. Forgetting the BS Benchmark progs for now and taking 'real-world' results I believe the gaming and winrar results are what truly counts for most applications in terms of showing performance differences. Not be-all end-all by a long stretch.
Just my opinion, which I hold for a reason told below.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Boy it's great having this blind Mac psychotic loyalty come to PC hardware.
I now own a Mac also, even though its been only like 18 months. I WAS mainly a PC user beforehand and I still use a new PC now(gaming rig biz tax write-off). I use a clocked Pent M proc in the same config as they tested it(except ram)...
... although I run it at 2.4 unlike the 2.6 they run it at. My neighbours new AMD is still slower at most tasks(just), and louder. hehehe
Hmmm...
Damn I don't think i've ever been bothered to post this many times in the last week(even though I lurk on 4 of these forums every night), I could take my post's from the previous year and probably come close.
The benchmarks are just as useful in terms of Macs than any "real world" application test because those are Windows programs running on Windows.
Umm ok, sure
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Mac loyalist day 1: "Intel sucks, PPC forever!"
Mac loyalist day 2: "PPC sucks, Intel forever!"
Not sure where your going with this one if your pointing to me but...
...umm ok, sure
Anyways, time with an end to this banter. Way off topic and probably hasn't garnered any worthwhile info/discussion. BTW, had a bad day groverat? Just sound a lil grumpier than usual
The benchmarks are just as useful in terms of Macs than any "real world" application test because those are Windows programs running on Windows.
Mac loyalist day 1: "Intel sucks, PPC forever!"
Mac loyalist day 2: "PPC sucks, Intel forever!"
One would think that computer agnosticism would have caught on by now.
If you pay attention to the PC world you will see that the benchmarks have always been pretty useless when comparing different processors running windows (it is quite common for one processor to win most of the benchmarks but lose in the real-world applications).
And one must remember that just because Apples has announce that they are going to be using Intel, there is nothing keeping them from offering AMD based machines as well (if AMD has better processors than Intel in the next few years. I expect we will see them in the Mac line up).
Those benchmarks show the M being smoked by the P4 and AMD FX-55 in everything but gaming.
And I was right.
Boy it's great having this blind Mac psychotic loyalty come to PC hardware.
Actually you were pretty wrong. The only 2 (count them, two areas) it loses out in is video encoding, where there are 4 different tests each covering a different codec, and the synthetics. It wins in games, compression, audio encoding, 3D rendering and finally power consumption by a mile. That's substantial for a processor that really hasn't been designed to compete in the desktop market yet.
If you pay attention to the PC world you will see that the benchmarks have always been pretty useless when comparing different processors running windows (it is quite common for one processor to win most of the benchmarks but lose in the real-world applications).
And one must remember that just because Apples has announce that they are going to be using Intel, there is nothing keeping them from offering AMD based machines as well (if AMD has better processors than Intel in the next few years. I expect we will see them in the Mac line up).
Depends on the contract Apple has with Intel. It also depends on whether or not AMD can continue its streak that it's been on as of late, or whether it falls back to its usual inability to get its chips out the door.
Now that Intel has seen the light and AMD's rump, it will most likely do better. There's no guarantee that AMD will continue to lead. And they may never get a competitive mobile chip out the door.
Comments
Quote:
"Yo ucan imagine that STeve got himself a good taste of present, near term and long term product/prospectus from each of the big players -- IBM, freescale, AMD and Intel.
They would look for 4 main areas:
1. Performance, current and projected
2. Performance/watt, current and projected
3. Supply reliability, demonstrated, and projected
4. Core business compatibility -- Market suitability.
That is, are the companies in question primarily interested in the same markets in which Apple is interested, or do they have other compelling business which overshadows Apple's core interestes.
. . ."
[B]
intel is doing well on #1 and #2? Might want to tell the people at Toms Hardware, there benchtests indicate that AMD is faster, that AMD generate less watt/power and that intel run both unstable compared to AMD but also VERY hot. Their new dual core for example averaged 68C (when it wasnt failing) and AMD's ran 55C ... im tired of this nonsense talk that intel is great or even good. Have we all forgotten that intel has been falling behind in every way lately... and just because steve said "hey lets go to intel" they are now awesome? He went to intel because of the name and the supply. Not because of preformance, i guess apple will become more like a fancy luxary vechical with nothing under the hood.
Originally posted by mike12309
yeah and intel claimed by trends they would be at 6Ghz by now... no one anticipated advances to slow, but thats what happens.
If the switch to intel is supposed to increase rate of improvement i dont get it. intel has increased speeds by .4Ghz in the last year... ibm has increased about .5Ghz... this doesnt take into account that Intel Ghz are worth less than AMD or PPC on the same level. Intel is a bunch of garbage... IBM may have no 64 bit mobile processor, but niether does Intel. AMD has some (though it is power hungry). By Steves stupid reasons, they should have gone AMD. This is clearly over prices, his reasons hold no water, esspecially when you look at what PPC and AMD do. Intel probably offered price incentives and promises to devlop the line for Apple.
Except that Intel will always invest more than IBM will because it is Intel's business and it is not really IBM's. Last year, between new plant construction and it's R&D budget, Intel spent over $10 billion on chip advances. How much did IBM spend?
Originally posted by mike12309
Might want to tell the people at Toms Hardware, there benchtests indicate that AMD is faster, that AMD generate less watt/power and that intel run both unstable compared to AMD but also VERY hot. Their new dual core for example averaged 68C (when it wasnt failing) and AMD's ran 55C ... im tired of this nonsense talk that intel is great or even good. Have we all forgotten that intel has been falling behind in every way lately... and just because steve said "hey lets go to intel" they are now awesome? He went to intel because of the name and the supply. Not because of preformance, i guess apple will become more like a fancy luxary vechical with nothing under the hood.
Also from Tom's. Credit where it's due. The Pentium M is the most attractive microprocessor for the average household and this is still only a mobile version. Intel is already moving towards the Pentium M architecture across the board and if I were AMD I'd be nervous because to be perfectly blunt Intel is a great company and they have money to back it up. They didn't get to where they were through marketing alone. They have some brilliant engineers and put together some good platforms.
Nature of life and competition though. Everything changes.
As an aside there are quite a few reasons I expect Apple chose Intel over AMD and I doubt performance was a factor. Intel's performance is good enough and they won't ever remain behind for long.
In video benchmarks, the FX-55 was often twice as fast at a similar clock speed.
Originally posted by groverat
Those benchmarks show the M being smoked by the P4 and AMD FX-55 in everything but gaming.
In video benchmarks, the FX-55 was often twice as fast at a similar clock speed.
Apple won't use the Dothan, but the Yonah for mobile solutions, and perhaps the merom for desktop solutions.
Compared to the Dothan, the yonah is supposed to have a better SIMD unit who will boost FP performance (the weak point of pentium M, especially if you compared them to the athlon 64).
Perhaps in video benchmarks, the core technology will give differents results : the GPU could gain the preeminent role in this matter. Who knows ?
One thing is sure, the Dothan is better than the G4 : some benchmarks demonstrate this easily, both in term of performance and battery life consumption.
I doubt, however that the Dothan could beat the G5. For smoking such a chip, a better architecture is necessary.
When you look at all this elements, the way Apple will make this switch become chrystal clear
I'm not sure that it is, however, Intel had a major detour into Itanium land. When that failed, they just ramped up P4 further and further, but they had to know that it was a dead end. In as much as Pentium M has P3 genes, it doesn't suffer any of the problems of P4 or Itanic, and that means Pentium M is just the beginning. They have the best balance of production capability in the chip making world. Apple's not using any of their products yet, so let's see where they start. Whose to say that they don't put Pentium M into laptops and AMD into Powermacs?
In any case, we'e getting away from something essential, even though we're talking about Apples to Apples comparisons of architecture, it's still Apples and Oranges as far as platforms goes. And the real test is still that of timed tasks, period.
If Adobe has a stonking version of CS running on OSX86, if FCP/E, DVD SP, Motion, iLife, OSX 10.5 et al run great, stable and fast, then that's all that really matters.
Apple's been working out X86 OSX for 5 years. At the end of the day, if an Intel based Powermac runs these apps or equivalents faster than an AMD based PC, will it matter that the AMD gets better benchmarking scores?
Originally posted by groverat
Those benchmarks show the M being smoked by the P4 and AMD FX-55 in everything but gaming.
In video benchmarks, the FX-55 was often twice as fast at a similar clock speed.
Did you even READ IT? Do you actually understand it?
The M wasn't smoked, IT smoked the P4 and AMD in a big way. We are talking about old-tech/hobbled CPU having its clock rate ramped up to slightly less than the AMD's King of the Hill and other than the 'Benchmark' programs it smoked the others in real-world apps/games while running at HALF the temp...
The losses on the 'Benchmark' apps like Sisofts and PCMark are a laugh as they are tailored(read optimised) to attempt to make best use of the new technology in the new P4 and AMD chips. If you don't think those games + Winrar results mean anything in terms of performance on the same rig I must be smoking some serious weed.
Please, start from here and look properly
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2005...ntium4-10.html
And to quote:
'our two year old platform was able to beat the processor heavyweights Athlon 64 FX and Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition in all 3D games!'
'Mind you, these top of the line processors have the newest platform technologies at their disposal, such as DDR2 memory and PCIe graphics.'
In all of the application benchmarks, the Pentium M really shows what it's made of. Even without an integrated memory controller, the Pentium III's heir is as fast as an Athlon 64 on a clock-for-clock basis - and eats the in-house competition for lunch. Only the low-level tests, the synthetic benchmarks and optimized applications continue to be dominated by the Pentium 4 - despite such advanced technologies as HyperThreading and/or SSE3. Encoding and rendering therefore remain the Pentium 4's forte.
Methinks it came of a lil too aggressive...
There will be new Pentium Ms. AMD will also come out with new chips as well. It's nice, but I'm not really impressed.
Zoran:
I said:
Those benchmarks show the M being smoked by the P4 and AMD FX-55 in everything but gaming.
And I was right.
Boy it's great having this blind Mac psychotic loyalty come to PC hardware.
Originally posted by ZoranS
I feel dirty after that last post
Methinks it came of a lil too aggressive...
LOL.. we all know that feeling.
As much as I like AMD I think Apple was definitely smart in moving to all Intel. AMD has the faster solutions "today" but the full migration isn't going to commence until 2007. By then Intel will have a totally new lineup. Itanium isn't dead in fact it's still a prominent part of Intel's strategy. In 2007 we'll have 4 core cpus and Intels CSI bus(Hypertransport competitor).
I'm interested in Intel's I/OAT which is their replacement for TOE on Server motherboards. We'll see how it compares but anything that comes inante on the motherboard that can help TCP processing is welcome in a server environment.
I think it boils down to Intel provides the whole platform. AMD provides fast chips. Right now Apple needs to platform.
Originally posted by ZoranS
I feel dirty after that last post
Methinks it came of a lil too aggressive...
Methinks you are too young to die ....
Groverat is coming. I stay locked in my house : god this is frightening
Originally posted by groverat
Zoran:
I said:
Those benchmarks show the M being smoked by the P4 and AMD FX-55 in everything but gaming.
And I was right.
Aye, although the only real app test in there is Winrar which it spanked hard. Forgetting the BS Benchmark progs for now and taking 'real-world' results I believe the gaming and winrar results are what truly counts for most applications in terms of showing performance differences. Not be-all end-all by a long stretch.
Just my opinion, which I hold for a reason told below.
Originally posted by groverat
Boy it's great having this blind Mac psychotic loyalty come to PC hardware.
I now own a Mac also, even though its been only like 18 months. I WAS mainly a PC user beforehand and I still use a new PC now(gaming rig
... although I run it at 2.4 unlike the 2.6 they run it at. My neighbours new AMD is still slower at most tasks(just), and louder. hehehe
Hmmm...
Damn I don't think i've ever been bothered to post this many times in the last week(even though I lurk on 4 of these forums every night), I could take my post's from the previous year and probably come close.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Methinks you are too young to die ....
I wish, but Doc tells me otherwise
Mac loyalist day 1: "Intel sucks, PPC forever!"
Mac loyalist day 2: "PPC sucks, Intel forever!"
One would think that computer agnosticism would have caught on by now.
Originally posted by groverat
The benchmarks are just as useful in terms of Macs than any "real world" application test because those are Windows programs running on Windows.
Umm ok, sure
Originally posted by groverat
Mac loyalist day 1: "Intel sucks, PPC forever!"
Mac loyalist day 2: "PPC sucks, Intel forever!"
Not sure where your going with this one if your pointing to me but...
...umm ok, sure
Anyways, time with an end to this banter. Way off topic and probably hasn't garnered any worthwhile info/discussion. BTW, had a bad day groverat? Just sound a lil grumpier than usual
Originally posted by groverat
The benchmarks are just as useful in terms of Macs than any "real world" application test because those are Windows programs running on Windows.
Mac loyalist day 1: "Intel sucks, PPC forever!"
Mac loyalist day 2: "PPC sucks, Intel forever!"
One would think that computer agnosticism would have caught on by now.
The problem is that day 1 WAS true (for the G5), and may still be for a short while yet. But it WON'T be true after that.
As for the G4, it sucked starting in 2001 when I got my Digital audio's.
Originally posted by groverat
The benchmarks are just as useful in terms of Macs than any "real world" application test because those are Windows programs running on Windows.
Mac loyalist day 1: "Intel sucks, PPC forever!"
Mac loyalist day 2: "PPC sucks, Intel forever!"
One would think that computer agnosticism would have caught on by now.
If you pay attention to the PC world you will see that the benchmarks have always been pretty useless when comparing different processors running windows (it is quite common for one processor to win most of the benchmarks but lose in the real-world applications).
And one must remember that just because Apples has announce that they are going to be using Intel, there is nothing keeping them from offering AMD based machines as well (if AMD has better processors than Intel in the next few years. I expect we will see them in the Mac line up).
Originally posted by groverat
I said:
Those benchmarks show the M being smoked by the P4 and AMD FX-55 in everything but gaming.
And I was right.
Boy it's great having this blind Mac psychotic loyalty come to PC hardware.
Actually you were pretty wrong. The only 2 (count them, two areas) it loses out in is video encoding, where there are 4 different tests each covering a different codec, and the synthetics. It wins in games, compression, audio encoding, 3D rendering and finally power consumption by a mile. That's substantial for a processor that really hasn't been designed to compete in the desktop market yet.
Originally posted by Res
If you pay attention to the PC world you will see that the benchmarks have always been pretty useless when comparing different processors running windows (it is quite common for one processor to win most of the benchmarks but lose in the real-world applications).
And one must remember that just because Apples has announce that they are going to be using Intel, there is nothing keeping them from offering AMD based machines as well (if AMD has better processors than Intel in the next few years. I expect we will see them in the Mac line up).
Depends on the contract Apple has with Intel. It also depends on whether or not AMD can continue its streak that it's been on as of late, or whether it falls back to its usual inability to get its chips out the door.
Now that Intel has seen the light and AMD's rump, it will most likely do better. There's no guarantee that AMD will continue to lead. And they may never get a competitive mobile chip out the door.