Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Apple: Intel Inside

  1. #11
    Crazed Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hagbard
    Was common known indeed, that's obviusly questionable because also the G5 have been updated since then. ¿What about the Cell Processor, Power Mac G5 based? M$ tolds the benchmarks comparing Xbox 360 with PS3 are false, because PS3 almost doubled the FPC, then who is right?
    the G5 being updated still doesnt make sense. NO CPU can increase their performance by that much without complete revamp of the archetechture (sp). at this point, you cant really benchmark a cell processor to a more "traditional" processor because theyre far too different. maybe later, but not now.
    Quote Originally Posted by GHDpro
    That's why Steve Jobs showed a chart displaying "performance units" by Watt (heat/power),
    a chart where Intel clearly wins over PowerPC. The Pentium M can simply deliver more power
    for less heat in notebooks today.
    it depends on what youre doing. the Dothan (P-M) isnt perfect by any means. it really shines in gaming, but the chip cant encode for shit; the Prescotts run circles around it in that area. AMD's Turion is just about as good as the Dothan in performance/watt and its also much cheaper
    Quote Originally Posted by GHDpro
    That said, there are Mac geeks out there that claim that for specific tasks (encoding a video
    in Final Cut Pro for example) there should be no way anything but a G5 can do it fastest,
    this due to the "AltiVec" processor extension the G5 has.
    probably because of some 64 bit optimization... so it wins with optimizations and not raw power, quite fair, isnt it?
    Last edited by onewecallgod; June 7th, 2005 at 22:39.
    I hate all of you, especially donkeyknob.

  2. #12
    Off The Scale hagbard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Definitely not here
    Age
    42
    Posts
    2,465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onewecallgod
    the G5 being updated still doesnt make sense. NO CPU can increase their performance by that much without complete revamp of the archetechture (sp). at this point, you cant really benchmark a cell processor to a more "traditional" processor because theyre far too different. maybe later, but not now.
    It does make sense if you read my whole post not ONLY what you quoted, I mean it's not so easy to say how powerfull a CPU it is as you know. I didn't pretend to compare Cell Processors with any PC/Mac CPU neither, as I didn't mention anything about it. Just to say benchmarks are very questionable often because:

    Quote Originally Posted by http://spl.haxial.net/apple-powerma...nned-in-uk.html
    ....
    computers were constantly being updated and had many different applications and benchmarks.
    ...
    The legend will never die...

    riaru na sekai ni yureteru kanjyou
    maketakunai
    mou tada hashiru shikanai kono mune ni
    kikoete kuru
    kimi wa hitori jyanai

  3. #13
    The New Kid
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    7

    Default

    It ultimately doesn't really matter if a Mac ends with "Intel Inside" of it. How the operating system itself works is still the more important aspect, and MacOS-X is more dependable in many respects than WindowsXP.

    If you managed to run WindowsXP on a PowerPC rig, you'll still have to deal with possible BSoD and security vulnerabilities.

    As for processing power for a Pentium 4, yeah. Fastest clock speed .... to compensate for the fact that it has a horrendously long pipeline. The Pentium 4 is an inefficient processor compared to something like an AMD Athlon and the IBM PowerPC, which is why the latest generation of processors from these lines may be comparable to the latest Pentium 4 in important numbers, like FLOPS, but be rated at a lower clock speed. Of course, the P4 is still a very respectable and powerful item, but I won't call them superior purely on clock speed. - Reinhart

  4. #14
    Hobby Talker DrAkeNgaRd_KneLL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    143

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by GHDpro
    Don't know the generic statistics, but I'm typing this on a P4 that'll be 3 years old in September.
    (Pentium IV 2.4 Ghz, S478, 533 FSB)

    My next CPU upgrade is indeed going to be a Dual Core one. They're obviously a bit
    expensive right now but hopefully they'll be affordable in 6-12 months.

    wow, what's that dual core thing... it sounds really good! i bet it'll be really fast i need info about that

  5. #15
    Forum Administrator GHDpro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Age
    42
    Posts
    500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrAkeNgaRd_KneLL
    wow, what's that dual core thing... it sounds really good! i bet it'll be really fast i need info about that
    It's the new Pentium D, Pentium Extreme Edition or AMD Athlon X2.
    They all incorperate two CPU "cores" on one chip, which effectively
    means you have the power of a dual processor system with just one
    processor. The Pentium Extreme Edition also adds Hyper-Threading
    to each of the cores, resulting in 4 "virtual" CPUs!

    Dual core CPUs (like dual processors) only work fast with multi-threaded
    applications btw, which most games (supposedly) are not. For things
    like video encoding it's great of course (assuming the encoder is multi-threaded)
    and also if you like running many applications at once.

    That last bit is what I would find a dual core CPU useful for -- I frequently
    re-encode anime fansubs to DVD while burning a DVD (I also download tons
    and tons of DVD Video ISO's I must admit) while also downloading new stuff
    using eMule, Azureus (BitTorrent) and NZB-O-Matic (newsgroups), ALL at the same time.

    Some links:
    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2388
    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2397

    Btw, the main reason why Intel and AMD are switching to adding more cores
    to one chip is because adding more Ghz isn't the way to go -- apparently the
    ceiling has been reached in terms of Ghz's (they've reached the physical limits
    of what you can do in terms of power etc running through small silicon chips).
    Last edited by GHDpro; June 17th, 2005 at 21:19.

  6. #16
    Off The Scale hagbard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Definitely not here
    Age
    42
    Posts
    2,465

    Default

    That limit it's the quantic limit, where binary electronical architecture became useless because of unpredictable sate of the particle/energy. Btw, I read time ago that this limit would be reached on the next 20 years, but who knows
    The legend will never die...

    riaru na sekai ni yureteru kanjyou
    maketakunai
    mou tada hashiru shikanai kono mune ni
    kikoete kuru
    kimi wa hitori jyanai

  7. #17
    Crazed Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,796

    Default

    murphy's law has been broken

    dual cores are a sign of defeat. all it is is that AMD and intel saying, "we're either too fucking stupid or lazy or both to improve things more, so we're just going to stick 2 dies on the same chip and hope heat doesnt rape us all". hopefully the transition to 65nm will be happy for single and dual cores.

    even though the P-D EE has 4 logical cores in one chip, that raises a problem for multithreaded applications that only take advantage of 2 threads. instead of the main cores sharing the work, 1 main core and its HT "core" share and obviously the HT core isnt as quick as a real core.

    dual cores really arent the solution. the TDP for intel's dual cores reaches almost 200 watts, whereas AMD's duallies reach about 150 watts. thats a shat load of heat on both sides, in the future air cooling may no longer be the solution.
    I hate all of you, especially donkeyknob.

  8. #18
    Cool Newbie wsounitepirate895's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    58

    Default

    I just want the Price for chips to go down... If APPLE AND INTEL united then they should make alll the current chips go down in price, and start with the dual core chips at a reasonabily cheap price. (they want to profit $$$ and monoloplize the industry)

    * I still am stuck with a AMD K6 processor running at 400 mhz and my laptop is not actualy mine until i graduate so ^ needs to be updated.
    --------------------------------------
    Trigun Qoutes:
    "Oh no its Vash the Stampeed"

    Laptop:
    ----------------------------
    IBM Thinkpad R-Series Model R51
    Specifications:
    Pentium Centrino 1.5 GHz Processor
    512MB RAM
    40GB Hard Drive
    14.1 TFT XVGA Monitor
    64 Mb shared VRAM
    CD / DVD Mult



  9. #19
    Crazed Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,796

    Default

    the prices wouldnt go down since apple is going intel, if anything it would go up, but it wont. apple is marginally a competitor to x86, AMD is a far great enemy than apple could ever be.

    dual cores wont be a reasonable (sub 150$) price until the switch to 65nm. current 90nm production takes takes way too much wafer space for dual cores. because of this double of size, yields go way the hell down and price go way the hell up.
    I hate all of you, especially donkeyknob.

  10. #20
    The New Kid
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hagbard
    Very interesting Apple claims now Intel "has the strongest processor roadmap by far", when the G5 it's known as the most powerfull home CPU so far.


    Btw, ins't that "dynamic binary translator" a kind of Power PC emulator on x86 CPUs?
    Apple probably got scared when Intel stated that in 3 years they will be able to increase their CPU speed ten fold. If thats true and they actually do it, that will be awesome, but they probably spooked Apple when they said that so...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •