Speed of Apple Intel dev systems impress developers

Figures. They've only been working on it since OSX 10.0.0 :D
 
Figures... To bad Apple waited this long to become a switcher.
 
That's pretty encouraging, but there will be complainers until everything is up to 100% speed and no slow down. Best to wait a year or so after the first start trickling out.
 
Oh bullshit. Of course a machine running at 3.6GHz with 2MBs of cache is faster to boot than a Dual 2GHz. The boot process doesn't tax box processors!
 
Centauri said:
Oh bullshit. Of course a machine running at 3.6GHz with 2MBs of cache is faster to boot than a Dual 2GHz. The boot process doesn't tax box processors!
Click to expand...
I wonder how well dual cpu intels will wipe the floor compared to dual powerPC cpus...

Now if only they were AMD... /dream
 
Rune75 said:
I wonder how well dual cpu intels will wipe the floor compared to dual powerPC cpus...

Now if only they were AMD... /dream
Click to expand...

You can lay off on the PowerPC bashing now. It isn't a very informed stance to have.
 
Rune75 said:
I wonder how well dual cpu intels will wipe the floor compared to dual powerPC cpus...

Now if only they were AMD... /dream
Click to expand...

I want to see how well some dual core EE P4s run or maybe they'll even offer dual Xeon machines. So fast; so very very fast.

Apple switch to intel, best decision ever!!
 
Being a PC zealot is one thing, but being an Intel zealot is just idiotic. Of all the architectures to rally behind, you pick the most antequated.

Way to go guys...
 
Centauri said:
Being a PC zealot is one thing, but being an Intel zealot is just idiotic. Of all the architectures to rally behind, you pick the most antequated.

Way to go guys...
Click to expand...


Did you even see my sig? I'm running an Athlon X2 4400+. But Apple didn't choose AMD, they are going Intel. We aren't PC zealots, I own and use a Mac on a regular basis, and I want a mac mini. You holding on to your PPC and not moving on into the future is idiotic.
 
yeah someone like anand or ars had a good write up on apple's choice to go with intel (mainly yields and heat as i recall, kind of what steve jobs said)

and it makes marketing sense, lay people still understand the intel brand, and i would bet my house that more 'get' intel then 'amd'. you can thank intel's PR firm for that.

regardless, the amd lamentation is moot. Apple is using intel. It's a done deal for now.

-esr
 
brom42 said:
Did you even see my sig? I'm running an Athlon X2 4400+. But Apple didn't choose AMD, they are going Intel. We aren't PC zealots, I own and use a Mac on a regular basis, and I want a mac mini. You holding on to your PPC and not moving on into the future is idiotic.
Click to expand...
x86_64 is still x86.

Fact is, x86 is shit. If Intel adapted the Cell architecture, the world would be a much better place.
 
It almost seems to me that they are just switching to Intel because they are "de facto" in the business PC world and they've been around longer; bigger name so to say. That's just my two cents though. I'm not too happy that they chose Intel over AMD but I guess we need to move on at some point.
 
...

Are you guys going to get off the flaming BS and trolling, or am I going to have to close & lock this thread?
 
apple is using intel for one reason, to make more money.

intel will start with processors, motherboards, move and make the ipod hardware, start making the router hardware, etc.

intel can do everything, and when apple starts tugging on their balls, they will get a crazy discount, just like dell does.

ps: amd sucks. just kidding.
 
KaosDG said:
...

Are you guys going to get off the flaming BS and trolling, or am I going to have to close & lock this thread?
Click to expand...

Well, I hope I'm not geting accused of flaming or trolling. I'm just stating my opinion and have gotten "warned" for doing so before.

If the whole Intel switch helps to boost the speed of Apple computers, then that's cool. We'll all have to upgrade at some point or another huh?
 
PCJ said:
x86_64 is still x86.

Fact is, x86 is shit. If Intel adapted the Cell architecture, the world would be a much better place.
Click to expand...

The cell architecture is crap for PC's. I suggest you do some reading before implying this.
 
PCJ said:
x86_64 is still x86.

Fact is, x86 is shit. If Intel adapted the Cell architecture, the world would be a much better place.
Click to expand...


Right, cause throwing away years of research into branch prediction is an awesome idea.
 
The key is who has the bigger name and the better PR, AMD or Intel. Of course Intel!
Most of the general public is ( and some of you do not take this the wrong way ) Idiots!
People who do not work in the business, build their own computers or read up on computers do not know or care about AMD. ( even though it would have made a better choice in our eyes )
You put the Intel PR group and the Apple logo together you have one hell of a selling point.

Look at this think like a comon person

Apple Powered by Intel
OS X virtually virus free
and so user friendly even a 4 year old can run it.

The Blue Man Group made Intel Billions, just wait and see what they can do for Apple.
 
Well whatever they do, I hope they consider the issues of heat. I really like how quite Apples are, and using dual current Pentiums will be harder to keep quite. Hopefully they will carry over the good cooling of the Dual G4's and use Intel chips that are efficient, whatever platform they end up being.
 
I believe that this decision was made on the basis of PR and also on Intel's (at least perceived) ability to meet the processor productions demands that Apple would create. For the longest time, Apple seemed to be all about efficiency (ie 800mhz processors when PC processors were pushing 1.4Ghz) but this time they have chosen to go another route. I believe that AMD would fit better with apple's persona. AMD seems to be all about elegance with their highly advanced dual core chip design and their lower clockspeeds and power consumption, Intel seems to be all about using brute force to increase performance with their huge amounts of l2 cache, pushing clock speeds and increasing heat output. Apple seems to have made a choice of practicality here as opposed to ideals in choosing Intel's x86 architecture.
 
PCJ said:
Fact is, x86 is shit. If Intel adapted the Cell architecture, the world would be a much better place.
Click to expand...
Wow.
You, sir, need to get a clue.
 
Centauri said:
Being a PC zealot is one thing, but being an Intel zealot is just idiotic. Of all the architectures to rally behind, you pick the most antequated.

Way to go guys...
Click to expand...
What the hell? Intel's architectures are definitely not antiquated. NetBurst isn't very good for most things, but it definitely has its uses. The P-M rocks, especially for what Apple needs processors for. Everyone seems to think the A64 would be awesome for Apple, but let's think about their computers for a while... There are the PowerMacs, of course, with "unlimited" power supplies and awesome cooling potential, but other than that? An 80-watt Athlon64 in an iMac doesn't strike me as such a good idea, compared to, say, a 30-watt P-M or 50-watt G5.


Well whatever they do, I hope they consider the issues of heat. I really like how quite Apples are, and using dual current Pentiums will be harder to keep quite. Hopefully they will carry over the good cooling of the Dual G4's and use Intel chips that are efficient, whatever platform they end up being.
Click to expand...
I think the reason they switched now and not, say, three years ago, is the fact that Intel figured that performance per watt is a good thing to have a lot of. There are Pentium Ms all over their roadmap.



That article seems to have been written by Intel's marketing, though.
 
The sticking point in choosing Intel over AMD has to be the mobile chips and battery power. The powerbook line has been relatively stagnant since the introduction to the Aluminum line. After that, volume discounts and bringing down the price to be more competitive with Dell played a '1a' role in the decision to adopt Intel.

Cell architecture looks good on paper, but its doubtful it would do much for an operating system as complex as OSX with the applications and technology that Apple is developing. It may do wonders for a "light" OS that really only serves as a conduit to launch games, but we aren't going to know what its capable of until someone slaps a linux distro on it ;)
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
What the hell? Intel's architectures are definitely not antiquated. NetBurst isn't very good for most things, but it definitely has its uses. The P-M rocks, especially for what Apple needs processors for. Everyone seems to think the A64 would be awesome for Apple, but let's think about their computers for a while... There are the PowerMacs, of course, with "unlimited" power supplies and awesome cooling potential, but other than that? An 80-watt Athlon64 in an iMac doesn't strike me as such a good idea, compared to, say, a 30-watt P-M or 50-watt G5.
Click to expand...

If your basis for designating antequation is simply performance per clock and wattage, then I really have no interest in debating you. But I suggest you read up on the inherent deficiencies of x86 if you feel a need to comprehend the situation more deeply.
 
Centauri said:
If your basis for designating antequation is simply performance per clock and wattage, then I really have no interest in debating you. But I suggest you read up on the inherent deficiencies of x86 if you feel a need to comprehend the situation more deeply.
Click to expand...
"Inherent deficiencies" do not matter nearly as much as real-world performance.
 
I've read through this entire thread. I've tried to get something out of it, or find something to argue with Black Morty about... but I only have one thing to say:

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah....
 
Centauri said:
You must be a fan of walking backwards.
Click to expand...
If walking backwards was more efficient in a real-world situation, why does it matter that it's less efficient in theory?

Yes, I'm sure x86 "really sucks," but Intel spent fifty gazillion dollars on making it suck a lot less, and now it doesn't suck. It's not really all that strange.
 
I'm more or less with Black Morty here, and I think some people are still in post-announcement shock. "But but... Avie Tevanian told us that an 800 MHz G4 is as fast as a 1.7 GHz P4! An x86 chip just can't be better, it just can't!"

PowerPC definitely has its advantages, and the G5 has both gobs of bandwidth as well as strong floating-point math. But there are also problems. The G5 in particular has a fairly high latency between the CPU and memory; part of why Athlon 64s are so fast is because their memory latency is extremely low. The integer math on a G5 also isn't as good as Intel's. Also, while the efficiency of PowerPC lets you keep transistor count low, that can also create 'interesting' problems when it comes time to cool something which generates a lot of power on a relatively small chip die. There's really a tradeoff taking place here.

More important is the issue of real-world adaptability. Let's say you're a game developer who agrees to a Mac port of a game. As you might expect, the port team won't be nearly as big as the original developers, so they won't be able to devote as much time to optimization as they might otherwise. They take enough time dealing with big-endian vs. little-endian issues that Altivec optimizations often don't show up, or have limited usefulness. And don't even think of rewriting the engine to be multithreaded and thus take full advantage of that dual G5. Sometimes, the most use of multithreading you'll see is something like what Epic did with UT2K4, offloading a basic task like sound to the second processor. What's the point in owning a $3000 PowerMac if code efficiency makes it only as good as a $1500 Windows box?

That happens with other apps, too. You have to ask yourself: is it worth keeping CPUs because you might occasionally see greater peak performance than your rivals, or switching CPUs because everyday performance will generally be greater? I want games, 3D modelling apps, and more where the port team spent less time just getting basic functionality up and more time optimizing it to run well in the Mac OS.

Also, I want a PowerBook to live up to the "power" part of its name (assuming Apple keeps the name after the switch). Right now, a PowerBook is only powerful in terms of feature set, not speed. Give me a dual-core Pentium M-based PowerBook and I'll be in heaven.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top