Apple to switch to Intel chips!
Posted by Brad Wardell on 04 June 2005 - 03:20 · 296 comments & 14907 views
About the Author
Full name: Brad Wardell
Forum name: Frogboy
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Brad Wardell
Forum name: Frogboy
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(9 replies)
#1 Posted by finalcoolman on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:24
- I won't believe anything until Monday comes around
-
#1.1 Posted by IGx89 on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:36
- The article writers sure appear to be confident though...
If this isn't true, though numerous reports over the last few months have been indicating that it could very well be, some writers might be out of a job
-
#1.2 Posted by Liaqat_ali on 04 Jun 2005 - 11:23
- Man, what a mess, we have Sony, Microsoft, AMD, Nvdia, ATI and IBM. All of them are moving towards deals, which would hardly put'em in any one group. At first I thought Intel, M$ and Nivida shared the same motives, but now what the heck is happening.
-
#1.3 Posted by b0b on 04 Jun 2005 - 14:04
- Intel says they will never EVER do a RISC processor, so it means they won't produce a PowerPC chip to run OS X on. Now I don't see how Apple would go to x86 if Apple makes all their money selling hardware to run OS X on? They won't jump to IA-64, as the chips cost more than a fully loaded PowerMac G5.
I can bet you CNET will be the most untrusted news source once Apple announces it will not be ever moving away from PowerPC. CNET just signed their death certificate. -
#1.4 Posted by urizen on 04 Jun 2005 - 14:17
- Of course, they would never ever do a RISC processor, such as this one, for example: XScale
-
#1.6 Posted by b0b on 04 Jun 2005 - 17:59
- ^ Sorry. I forgot to say the part about ARM. I was gonna say that their only exception was their ARM proccessors.
-
#1.7 Posted by deadmonkey on 04 Jun 2005 - 20:31
- If it means more money for Intel you can bet they will do it. Companies say they won't do it to keep people happy. If you believe what companies say all the time you are too trusting.
Don't you remember Microsoft saying they will never ever release IE before Longhorn., funny how things change when enough pressure is put on them. -
#1.8 Posted by opq on 05 Jun 2005 - 02:44
- Only the ARM was RISC? Anyone remember the 10-year old Pentium Pro 180/200MHz CPUs?
-
#1.9 Posted by LordDaMan on 06 Jun 2005 - 16:46
QUOTE Only the ARM was RISC? Anyone remember the 10-year old Pentium Pro 180/200MHz CPUs?
It was CISC, or at least it's mostly CISC.
It's hard to find anything that's "pure" CISC or RISC anymore. many add little extensions that tend to mimic the "other" way of dong things. All comes down to the fact no one processor architecture is perfect, they all have strengths and weaknesses
-
(8 replies)
#2 Posted by nic on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:24
- Can Intel just make a chip that is based on the PowerPC architecture? Is PowerPC owned by IBM? Will we see a new architecture all together?
-
#2.1 Posted by sphbecker on 04 Jun 2005 - 04:10
- It sounds like the issue is only half Apple wanting to move away from IBM. Apple's value is too low to justify its own custom chips. While I am sure Intel is happy to gain Apple as a customer I do not think they would be willing to make a custom chip for them.
As for the concern about Apple loosing market share due to the change. Perhaps a little at first, but in the end I really think this will help them. It will now be much easier to port applications from Windows to Mac and more software venders will be willing to do so. -
#2.2 Posted by Steven on 04 Jun 2005 - 05:40
- Can Intel make a chip based on PowerPC. They Intel for crying out loud they can do anything.
-
#2.4 Posted by Ecander™ on 04 Jun 2005 - 12:45
- Why Bother with a custom chip....this way we can all get OSX for x86-64 and leave Windows
-
#2.5 Posted by Jstphish on 04 Jun 2005 - 12:58
- You'd still be on x86 which is half the problem. PowerPC is much more efficient. Well, I just hope my PowerBook still works with the software they put out if this is true.
-
#2.6 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 05 Jun 2005 - 01:28
QUOTE PowerPC is much more efficient.
More efficient... yes, but if they can't get a G5 to run in a laptop then it doesn't matter how efficient it is.-
#2.7 Posted by Zenith on 06 Jun 2005 - 07:13
- If Apple does this, i reckon they are screwed. If they take this path, MS could buy OS X or merge with Apple to become one big fat evil computer reseller. I hope they keep seperate.
About the G5 chips in laptops, i think there chould be a chance that because apple is taking so long to update the iBooks, they could be designing a portable G5 chips -
#2.8 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:15
QUOTE If they take this path, MS could buy OS X or merge with Apple to become one big fat evil computer reseller.
And they couldn't do that before? What you are saying is completely ridiculous.
-
#3 Posted by KeR on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:24
- I don't want to believe this...
-
#4 Posted by Huy on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:27
- I'm waiting on an official announcement.
-
(1 reply)
#5 Posted by denzilla on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:28
- Did you guys just see that giant snowball streak through hell?
-
#5.1 Posted by Chaoserver on 04 Jun 2005 - 05:53
- One? It looked like a meteor shower!
-
(7 replies)
#6 Posted by SFalcon on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:28
- It doesn't say they're switching to x86. I still think it's Itanium, because that'll give Jobs the bragging rights he loves to have. But how can they keep the cost down? We'll see I guess.
-
#6.1 Posted by sphbecker on 04 Jun 2005 - 04:14
- They may use Xeons in their PowerPC line (if they still call it that). Doing so would allow them to continue to offer dual processors as well as make the claim they are faster then other PCs. On the other hand, low end systems like the iMac and MacMini could use the Pentium D (or maybe even the Celeron) and still be fully software compatible with the PowerPC.
Itanium's are WAY out of the price range of a home user and in most cases they don't offer much benifet to applications such as games and graphics. -
#6.2 Posted by roadwarrior on 04 Jun 2005 - 12:52
- Why would they go with Xeons? A quick look at the Top 500 supercomputer list will show you that Xeons don't stack up against G5's in price/performance.
-
#6.3 Posted by Octol on 04 Jun 2005 - 13:37
QUOTE Why would they go with Xeons?
They wouldn't. Their only way to go is with the dual-core Pentiums—most likely the EEs—if they want to keep using high performance as their primary selling point. I'd bet the farm on that one.-
#6.4 Posted by sphbecker on 04 Jun 2005 - 15:23
- The nice thing about the x86 platform is that you have all the options. Celeron for low-end, dual-core Pentiums for mid to high-end, and dual Xeons for when you want a lot of performance and price does not matter.
For those who keep claiming that dual-core is better then the Xeons you keep forgetting that it will only be matter of time before the Xeons are dual-core themselfs. -
#6.5 Posted by roadwarrior on 04 Jun 2005 - 18:34
- The same can be said for PowerPC as well. At the low end, you have G3's and low end G4's (although Apple doesn't make any G3 machines anymore, there are companies who do still use them in upgrade cards for older machines. In the mid range you have high end G4's and single G5's. At the high end, you have dual G5's.
-
#6.6 Posted by Octol on 04 Jun 2005 - 20:22
QUOTE ...and dual Xeons for when you want a lot of performance and price does not matter.
For those who keep claiming that dual-core is better then the Xeons you keep forgetting that it will only be matter of time before the Xeons are dual-core themselfs.
It's not a matter of what's better, it's that for most people, price does matter. That's why the Pentium D is a "desktop" processor, and the Xeon is a "server" processor. Hell, if people could afford an Itanium system or better, everybody would probably have 'em.-
#6.7 Posted by sphbecker on 06 Jun 2005 - 13:45
- Yes, but people who pay for high-end dual G5 PowerMacs now are accustom to paying those prices. A high-end Dell workstation with dual Xeons and a high-end Apple dual G5 are about the same price. It seems logical that their high-end will use Xeons and their cheaper iMacs would go with the Pentium D for better price performance.
-
#7 Posted by yayo on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:30
- This is seriously retarded.
-
#8 Posted by Huezo on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:31
- It won't happen.
-
#9 Posted by jpgodlew on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:32
- Ohh god...no way.
-
(5 replies)
#10 Posted by kgraphik on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:36
- Great. Here comes more speculation on whether or not Apple will put out an x86 version of OSX. The article does say that they could make it work, but doesn't actually say they will.
Although I seriously doubt it'll happen, it would be nice if it did.
-
#10.1 Posted by sphbecker on 04 Jun 2005 - 04:16
- If they use start using x86 in their own computers then they would have to port the OS. The question is if they would try to lock it so that it would only run on their computers (by using a ROM chip or something) or if they would allow it to run on any x86 (like a Dell or HP).
-
#10.2 Posted by soothsayer on 04 Jun 2005 - 06:00
- Don't they have a version of it that will run on x86? Not publicly released of course.
-
(8 replies)
#11 Posted by seta-san on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:37
- i don't think it's going to be based on PPC. It's going to be a chip just like in a Windows PC. This will of course make porting software for the *nix community easier since it will no longer have to deal with little/big endian since they will now be the same. Not to mention it'll be much easier to port Windows Programs including games(easy enough to where more companies will see a much larger profit). This could be really good. You could technically now use ALL the hardware on the Windows isles including sound/graphics cards.
-
#11.1 Posted by sphbecker on 04 Jun 2005 - 04:20
- There are still a number of things still in play.
For one, many Windows games use DirectX and still would not run on a Mac OS.
Two, software drivers are written for the OS Kernal (windows) so you could not install them on OSX.
Three, if .NET and Longhorn's WinFX take off then those programs would not work on OS X unless .NET was ported to OS X and a WinFX like enviroment was duplicated on OS X.
OS X on x86 would work about as well with Windows software and Linux on a x86 does. Most simple things work, but complex and graphics intence applications struggle. -
#11.2 Posted by alerosenfeld on 04 Jun 2005 - 05:23
- In theory, any program can run in any platform, in code thats just not so easy. Its about the platform, its the API, its the GUI, each one has its own. You cant say you'll be able to run any Windows program in a MacOsX-x86, just as you cant run all windows programs in Linux, the best you can do is emulate the Windows API in linux, and that would be the best someone could do in such a MacOS. And dotNet kind of exists today in Linux, doing such in MacOs is not so hard, i believe it even exists today too.
I'm quite curious how Apple costumers will think about changing from a very different platform that mostly only them uses, to one that everyone uses. One of the Mac advantages was exactly that it was different from the rest (DIFFERENT, not better nor worst, it was just in a different plan than Windows and even Linu
-
#11.3 Posted by excalpius on 04 Jun 2005 - 07:46
- Mac USERS don't care what the CPU is...never have, never will. Why? Because at their end, they'll never know the difference. Only Mac FANBOYS care about this non-issue. And they have no excuse. They've been told every year for the past five that this was coming. Apple can't keep going on overpriced, underperforming hardware. They need to go head to head so that the only difference between a Mac and a PC is the one thing that actually makes a Mac a Mac, the OS experience.
-
#11.5 Posted by Jstphish on 04 Jun 2005 - 13:03
- Underperforming? Hardly. And what "makes a Mac a Mac" is the whole package together, software and hardware working in harmony.
-
#11.6 Posted by excalpius on 04 Jun 2005 - 22:33
- Underperforming -> Price/Performance
"working in harmony"? BS. You'll find that OS X works great on x86...period. The "hardware" issue was always a boondoggle...and apparently a hype/marketing tool that you bought into...ahem.
Macs have been PCI pcs for years now...with only a RISC chip and a dongle/bios to distinguish them. Open yours up. Look at the parts, the cards, the pieces! This just (wisely I must add) finishes the transformation. -
#11.7 Posted by aristotle-dude on 04 Jun 2005 - 23:22
- I think you will find that "businesses" in the gfx industry care about lost "money" caused by hardware/software failures. Those businesses cannot afford to spend time and money on windows troubleshooting or viruses. The fastest hardware does not make up for time wasted on configuration issues. Mac represent a good value proposition when you take into account TCO (Total Cost of Ownership).
Incidentally, the division in MSFT with the lowest TCO overhead is the MBU (Mac Business Unit). -
#11.8 Posted by Firefrog on 06 Jun 2005 - 03:24
- The viruses are a software thing, not a hardware thing. They're not written for X86 specifically, they're written for Windows. PPC/X86 etc doesn't matter.
What are the TCO figures? Where did you find this information?
Could it be they've got the lowest TCO because they don't actually do much?
-
(11 replies)
#12 Posted by dakomo on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:38
- why is the rumor only to do with intel. surely AMD would seem a better choice with price and performance?
anyhows i hope this doesn't happen as i'm happy with my G4 and am about to get a G5 iMac
-
#12.1 Posted by IGx89 on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:38
- This isn't a rumor, there isn't a single "maybe" or "possibly" (or similar) in the entire article, and News.com is a reputable news site AFAIK.
-
#12.2 Posted by MEMO.INC on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:48
- I don't think AMD would be a better choice economically speaking, Intel is known for selling it's processors very cheap to OEM brands, just look at DELL, why they don't wanna go AMD, 'cause good old uncle Intel is giving awesome prices, I think they could crush AMD just by pricing their processors @ the right price. I am not Saying Intel it's better than AMD, It's just AMD is not big enough.. what I can't figure out why wouldn't IBM make a competing processor, they are big enough, they could do it. Still I have my doubts about this, If this is what Apple needs to lower their prices then welcome, It will be great to see a mac competing in price-performance with a PC, I can see several "Ipodish" people switching, they just need to aim @ the right price and never forget about their principles.
Last edited by 21550 on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:59 -
#12.3 Posted by neufuse on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:55
- MEMO.INC - A prize is something you win, a price is how much something costs
-
#12.4 Posted by MEMO.INC on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:57
- Thanks dude, my english is still very unpolished
but I am getting better -
#12.5 Posted by alerosenfeld on 04 Jun 2005 - 05:34
- In the article it says IBM didnt want to expand its Apple line because it was a too small market, and I think thats the biggest problem, IBM is big enough, but the market is too small for such an investiment. For Intel thats different, they already have the market, anything they make for Apple, they can use for themselfes, just as they already have a big product line, so they dont have to invest too much in Apple products.
-
#12.6 Posted by excalpius on 04 Jun 2005 - 07:48
- Simple economics. IBM can't keep the horserace going, and show a profit, AND keep the price low enough that Apple can stay in business. This has been coming for a long time.
-
#12.7 Posted by roadwarrior on 04 Jun 2005 - 11:59
- I think the article is wrong on that point (among others). Just look at the CPU that IBM is producing for the Xbox 360. It's based on the same architecture as the PowerPC, but is triple core and runs at over 3Ghz. It could easily be adapted to power the next generation Macs (call it the G6, or whatever). Production numbers on the Xbox 360 are probably in the same range as the numbers of Macs sold, so if IBM can produce those chips at a reasonable price for Microsoft, then they certainly could for Apple as well. In fact, it should actually help LOWER the cost of the chip if it was used in both Macs and the Xbox 360.
-
#12.8 Posted by kaffra on 04 Jun 2005 - 12:19
- doenst microsoft own the design? or was that just for the GPU
-
#12.9 Posted by roadwarrior on 04 Jun 2005 - 12:54
- While Microsoft might own the design for the entire system (just as Apple does for the Mac), I highly doubt they own the design for any of the chips used in it, the CPU especially.
-
#12.10 Posted by Jstphish on 04 Jun 2005 - 13:06
- I highly doubt Microsoft owns the design since they contracted the work out to IBM, but they probably have a contract with IBM that states they can only use it.
-
#12.11 Posted by IGx89 on 04 Jun 2005 - 15:13
- The Xbox 360 CPU is very different than Apple's CPU's. Read the ArsTechnica article about it; they removed a number of things from the Xbox 360 CPU and streamlined it, specifically for performance with games. It would not do well in general-purpose computation, or in areas where programmers have to support more than just that CPU.
-
#13 Posted by tlogank on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:39
- well...i just hope they announce some new ipods...
-
(5 replies)
#14 Posted by IGx89 on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:43
- This will might greatly affect the development community, because if they allow OSX to run on any x86 computer then non-professional programmers will be able to much more easily afford to code/test their programs on OSX. Programmers' typical excuse for not porting to OSX, it's not worth the effort, will be less effective now... I wonder if Microsoft will port .Net to OSX now too?
-
#14.2 Posted by sphbecker on 04 Jun 2005 - 04:26
- Microsoft and Apple's 5 year partnership is over; so I don't really see MS spending the money to port .NET to Apple's OS. On the other hand; MS still does own a pretty large part of Apple and they want to see their .NET Fraimwork used as much as possible, so I see the logic on the other side too.
If they did port .NET to OS X and moved MS Office to all .NET managed code (long way down the road) then it would be much easier for MS to keep Office running on the Mac. They would not need two different versions anymore. -
#14.3 Posted by fgeo on 04 Jun 2005 - 07:37
- Shared Source Common Language Infrastructure
-
#14.4 Posted by weenur on 04 Jun 2005 - 08:56
- Mono can run on OS X now. There is Cocoa# in development already, and Gtk# can be installed with some work.
-
#14.5 Posted by roadwarrior on 04 Jun 2005 - 12:03
QUOTE On the other hand; MS still does own a pretty large part of Apple
No they don't. Back in the late 90's when Microsoft did actually own some stock in Apple (which was part of an out of court settlement deal, not a "bailout" as <<removed>> like you like to claim), it was non-voting stock. They have long since sold that stock (at a profit, I might add).
Last edited by 36818 on 04 Jun 2005 - 12:47
-
(2 replies)
#15 Posted by neufuse on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:49
- if intel made a proc for apple, they instruction set would have to be VERY similar to PPC or else every app for mac would need recompiled and new versions made.. which could be VERY expensive to the end user if companies decided to charge for this new version
-
#15.1 Posted by sphbecker on 04 Jun 2005 - 04:27
- Read the article; it talked about that. Old apps would either need to be ported or emulated (if you didn't mind a little performance loss).
-
#15.2 Posted by bilemke on 04 Jun 2005 - 08:51
- This brings back the memories of when I was a Mac user.. Emulating 68k on a PPC processor. Here comes x86 iPhoto, iDVD and what not..
Like many said though.. apps will need to be ported.. However, not many "Windows" x86 programs will be very easy to convert because of all the connections to the Microsoft APIs like DirectX and .NET.
However, we may see drivers for some of the mass selection of hardware non-mac users have had access to for so long. I say maybe because even though it will be x86, any company that had not been making OS X drivers already will still have some work to do (and probally $$$$) to get drivers made for the subsytems (APIs.. whatever) of OS X.
Still... this a interesting twist I expected for so long and thought was coming.. Then all of a sudden the G5 was put out by IBM.. Anywa... Old school mac fanboy.. sooo.. Return to the 68k!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
#16 Posted by Seth Kinast on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:49
- Doesn't this basically kill PearPC? o_0
-
(9 replies)
#17 Posted by Adamb10 on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:50
- Does this mean Mac OS X for x86's?
-
#17.1 Posted by sphbecker on 04 Jun 2005 - 04:28
- Yes, but there are way Apple could lock the OS so it would only run on an Apple x86 computer. They may or may not choose to do this.
-
#17.2 Posted by zivan56 on 04 Jun 2005 - 07:06
- That may even be better for pearpc. As they could emulate the apple x86 registers etc on a native x86 proc. The performance ratio could theoretically be 1:1
-
#17.3 Posted by excalpius on 04 Jun 2005 - 07:50
- Apple can TRY to lock it, for the majority of noobs. Everyone else with a brain will be able to run dual OS...period. I look forward to that myself. There are a few programs on the MAC I would like to buy, but I'm not buying $5,000 worth of dongle to run a $500 program.
-
#17.4 Posted by roadwarrior on 04 Jun 2005 - 12:58
- So, you are going to figure out how to run a system designed around OpenFirmware on one designed around BIOS? Good luck. Get back to me when you have that one figured out. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, just that it would be nearly as difficult as emulating the CPU. Even PearPC doesn't have a complete emulation of OpenFirmware yet.
-
#17.5 Posted by Jstphish on 04 Jun 2005 - 13:11
- If Apple does switch to Intel chips I highly doubt they will use the x86 architecture.
-
#17.6 Posted by deadmonkey on 04 Jun 2005 - 20:44
- I am not a CPU expert but couldn't Intel just change one little thing in the CPU that you can't change once it has been made and OS X would detect it and only install if it is present. I guess OS X could be patched so that it will install but I am sure Apple can come up with a way to make it as close to impossible as they can. Providing they can make it so that it will take 5+ years to crack it isn't an issue really.
-
#17.7 Posted by mgleason007 on 04 Jun 2005 - 23:38
- It would be a lot more doable, so a lot more people will want to (and be able to) work on it. If OS X is indeed basically "ported" to x86 a LOT more people will be running and a lot more interest in this kind of project will be generated.
-
#17.8 Posted by sphbecker on 06 Jun 2005 - 13:51
QUOTE Apple can TRY to lock it, for the majority of noobs. Everyone else with a brain will be able to run dual OS...period. I look forward to that myself. There are a few programs on the MAC I would like to buy, but I'm not buying $5,000 worth of dongle to run a $500 program.
We are not talking about simple copy protection here; you can’t just go into the code and zap the product activation section. The OS could be designed to fundamentally require some piece of Apple proprietary hardware. I guess it could be done through emulation, but do you really think anyone would undertake such a large project just to violate Apple's license agreement?-
#17.9 Posted by Pc_Madness on 07 Jun 2005 - 01:43
- Clearly your not a Windows User.
-
#18 Posted by auero on 04 Jun 2005 - 03:53
- Adamb10: No
I too will wait until Monday.
-
(6 replies)
#19 Posted by aristotle-dude on 04 Jun 2005 - 04:03
- This is bullcrap and it's not even April Fool's Day.
eWeek story to the contrary
Dual Core G5 processors coming.
Wait until Monday.
Last edited by 18285 on 04 Jun 2005 - 04:32 -
#19.1 Posted by threedaysdwn on 04 Jun 2005 - 05:42
- I don't think it's terribly likely, but I'm hoping that Apple switches to Intel just so we can take Aristotle-Dude down a notch
-
#19.3 Posted by aristotle-dude on 04 Jun 2005 - 21:49
- If you understood anything at all about software development at all, you would not that Software cannot simply be recompiled on another chip and have it work, especially if it makes heavy use of multimedia extensions like Apple software does.
MMX/SSE/SSE2 etc.. != Altivec.
SSE = 8 registers
Altivec = 32 registers
SSE = 64bit
Altivec = 128bit
Ok, so all Altivec code would have to be re-architected. None of the PPC compiled code would run at a useable speed and developers/users would flee in droves.
I can see exactly why you want this threedaysdown. You are a fanboy of MSFT and you want Apple gone and this attempted transition would kill Apple.
Apple barely survived the transition from 68k to PPC when they lost a lot of market share and developers. -
#19.4 Posted by joseph- on 04 Jun 2005 - 22:24
- How much software for the Mac actually makes extensive usage of Altivec?
-
#19.5 Posted by aristotle-dude on 04 Jun 2005 - 23:12
- Quite a bit of it actually. While the software may run (if it is G3 compatible) without Altivec, the Vector instructions speed up things like gfx filters, sound processing, signal processing and video encoding. Altivec is kind of like one of those Vector units in the Cell chip.
If you had software recompiled for X86, you would get performance somewhere between a G3 and G4 per Mhz.
The X86-64 extension does provide more registers, improving things a bit and you could expect performance somewhere close to a G4 on FPU heavy code.
If you went from OS X running Altivec heavy apps (multimedia) On a 2 Ghz G5 to OS X running on X86 (3.2 Ghz), you would notice a speed decrease despite a clockspeed increase. Integer heavy Apps might run a bit faster without processor optimizations.
One of the strong points going for the G5, other than FPU performance, is the FSB bus speed. In a Dual configuration, Intel SMP chips have shared bus contention to deal with whereas the G5 does not.
Intel Chips get murdered in the benchmarks when the Dual Xeon's shared bus get saturated by large amounts of data. Apple does not choose large files for photoshop just to piss off Intel fans. They choose the large files to highlight their strengths and the Xeon's weaknesses. All is fair in war. -
#19.6 Posted by CheeseCow on 05 Jun 2005 - 12:26
- I think you are just talking over your head here. The UI would be just as pretty and responsive, so even if a Photoshop filter or movie encode would take 10% longer, it wouldn't bother Joe User. Besides, hardware is so much cheaper for the x86 platform.
I have seen a cheap iBook with a cheap GFX card do wonderful animations. I am sure that an average PC with a decent GFX card can do just as good. When talking performance, most people are concerned with 3D gaming. Nvidia has excellent drivers for the x86 platform.
And why don't you compare the Altivec with SS"2 instead? This won't come for some time, and then most PC's will be shipped with processors supporting at least SSE2.
-
(4 replies)
#20 Posted by Joshie on 04 Jun 2005 - 04:09
- I don't see why this would upset anyone. I always felt that the main reason MacOS seemed to run so well on PPC was because it was all MacOS had to worry about (the old proprietary hardware argument) when it came to code. These days, Apple fans have really only been parading around the OS itself anyway. That and case design. The actual hardware, though I'm sure many Mac users believe it to be superior, is hardly ever bragged about.
I think, as long as MacOS stays 'pretty', its users will never notice this transition, or most any other. -
#20.1 Posted by sphbecker on 04 Jun 2005 - 04:32
- I think many Mac users buy into the Apple marketing that the PPC is so much more powerful then anything Intel makes. If this turns out to be true I wonder how Apple is going to market the change. They have a good marketing team so I'm sure they will come up with something better then this: "Hey, you know that processor we use to always claim was to weak. Well it now powers our new macs which are 93% more powerful then the old ones. Please go buy an Intel Mac rigth now!"
-
#20.2 Posted by roadwarrior on 04 Jun 2005 - 12:12
QUOTE I think many Mac users buy into the Apple marketing that the PPC is so much more powerful then anything Intel makes.
How many x86-based systems are in the top 10 of the supercomputer list, and how many PPC machines? Enough said. I see two Intel machines (one Xeon, one Itanium2). One Alpha. One SGI. The rest are PowerPC/Power-based machines (including the one at the top spot).-
#20.3 Posted by Jstphish on 04 Jun 2005 - 13:14
- I'm hardly a "Mac fanboy" but it's widely known that the PowerPC architecture is much more efficient than x86.
-
#20.4 Posted by Ambivalancer on 06 Jun 2005 - 10:13
- I have to admit I was confused why they said they were actually keeping the x86 architecture on till 64 bit. It's so people will be able to have all their old stuff running, but I just think that a new architecture really could have sharpened up the new AMD and Intel chips...
-
(4 replies)
#21 Posted by SquareSoft0 on 04 Jun 2005 - 04:14
- Wow, if these Intel processors really are x86, I'd love to add Mac OSX to my multi-boot.
-
#21.1 Posted by excalpius on 04 Jun 2005 - 07:51
- They will be. It is what Intel makes...period. They have even LESS incentive than IBM to make this work...period.
-
#21.2 Posted by Colonel_Angus on 04 Jun 2005 - 11:02
QUOTE It is what Intel makes...period.
You are WRONG, excalpius, Intel makes a lot more than x86 chips. they make IA64 chips (Itanium), MIPS chips (SA-1110), and ARM chips (XScale).
Those who remember the migration from the 68k series chips back in the early 90s may recall that it took some doing. To run at optimal speeds, software has to be recompiled to the native chipset. Migrating to a totally different platform such as PowerPC to Intel will be a significant upheaval.
When Apple announced their move to IBM's next-generation PowerPC chipsets (now in the G5) some pundits have long made the argument that Apple can't ship enough computers to remain competitive on both price and performance with computers powered by Intel-compatible CPUs. Simply put, economies of scale were working against Apple in the long-run.
According to a CNET source, what may have spurred the change was just that -- IBM's concerns about making a low-volume chip that competes with x86's in performance in the same price-range. The question is, can the Mac survive a transition from the PowerPC to Intel-based CPUs with the corresponding software compatibility/optimization issues?
Here are some key features of "Exact Audio Copy":