• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

intel = pwned

Recommended Posts

Knight'    0
The P4 extreme will be the first smack and will greatly increase the CPU's performance... then comes Prescott, keeping the Cache boost and adding so much more to the 'puter.

But I would like to say... why can't we all get along?

I have my reservations about the prescott. The CPU has to dissapate over 100 watts of power, just imagine how much heat that's going to generate. Couple that with the fact that the upcomming PCI Express cards are all going to be running very hot. So your result is a VERY hot PC that's either going to require some serious cooling fans or being watercooled.

This is where RISC cpus are going to kick ass in the future (but that's just my opinion) ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nanackle    0
http://www.chaosmint.com/benchmarks/powermac-g5-ps7bench/

Ok, have enough proof the G5's are the fastest? Enough of these crappy theoretical benchmarks that just see how fast the thing does a certain processor call. This is the G5 running a *real* application and kicking ass.

Also from this thread: http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/p...31&m=1150967585

2x 2000 G5 OSX 10.2.7 (G5 plugin)? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?  547 (energy settings highest perf)

2x 3060 Xeon (OC'd 2400)? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 488

2x 2930 Xeon (OC'd 2400)? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 471

? ?  3200 P4 (800MHz)? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 427

? ?  3000 P4 (800MHz)? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 405

? ?  3495 P4 (OC'd 3.06)? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?  386

? ?  3060 P4 XP Pro (533 FSB)? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 358 HT

As you can see, even the fastest, OC'ed P4s aren't as fast. I'm getting me a dualie fo;)sure now :)

Flame suit: On!

Yeah, this will last for what, a week?!?

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pink Floyd    15

I'll stick with my AhtlonMP (dual 2800+)

I cant imagine what I could do with a mac... matlab? no, mathcad? no, quake2? surely not, maple 6? hell not

anyway, I am not trying to proof that pc is the best but it surely can do EXACTLY what I need to do. period

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elliott    235

Wow! Hit 'em hard Apple and IBM! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Solarix    0

some ppl fail to realize that its running as dual 2ghz and 64bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mAcOdIn    1
some ppl fail to realize that its running as dual 2ghz and 64bit

Err some people fail to realize it's not full 64 bit yet as the OS isn't ready yet. That put it in the exact same catagory as the 246 Opteron and 3200+Athlon64.

Both 64bit chips, 2.0ghz, and not running on a 64bit OS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight'    0
some ppl fail to realize that its running as dual 2ghz and 64bit

huh? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim Dorr    0
Can most home users afford a $3000+ computer???

Yes, if they don't have to upgrade as often and if the resale value is higher. Macs have longer lifecycles than your average PC. Macs you may have bought 2 years ago are still fairly speedy machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim Dorr    0
The P4 extreme will be the first smack and will greatly increase the CPU's performance... then comes Prescott, keeping the Cache boost and adding so much more to the 'puter.

But I would like to say... why can't we all get along?

A larger cache doesn't make everything suddenly all better. You get a performance boost from a new architechture and signifigantly higher clocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim Dorr    0
I'll stick with my AhtlonMP (dual 2800+)

I cant imagine what I could do with a mac... matlab? no, mathcad? no, quake2? surely not, maple 6? hell not

anyway, I am not trying to proof that pc is the best but it surely can do EXACTLY what I need to do. period

Matlab version 6.5 for Mac OS X: http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/requirements.jsp

Maple 9 for Mac OS X: http://www.maplesoft.com/products/maple/ne...uirements.shtml

And Quake 1, 2, and 3 all have Mac counterparts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SimplyPotatoes    1

now if only mac could get a good marketing campaign, becuase honestly how cares about numbers people want flashy commercials and whats in , anyone remember pogs?, and for someone to port games onto it... and ill buy a mac!!

and i have a 2ghz opteron just do make stupid 64bit programs on the best isnt always the "best" its all in what u need it for

my gf did buy a powerbook and loved it, but her teacher and everyone else used EVERYTHING for windows, so all she could do was take notes on it :/

she ended up getting a dell centrino laptop combo

:fro: :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CubanPete    0

Sounds fast, but its a lil overpriced and slightly too fast for something id use as an internet machine or word processor, i mean i cant even type that fast :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Malechai    120

awesome. mac users get their day in the sun. (Y) sooner or later they'll be surpassed though and the scene will be like all mac's prior to the G5.. beaten down dinosaurs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mac15    0

then yes we will rule again, its great days for a mac user I hope it stays like this for a long long long long time. Plus, with IBM behind apple for 5 years (the contract is over this time) I think we will be very safe and with the jump to 3GHz and the added addition of Hyperthreading. OSX and multitasking will be insanely brilliant. sure PCs have but they don't have a great OS to back it up :) hehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim Dorr    0
awesome. mac users get their day in the sun. (Y) sooner or later they'll be surpassed though and the scene will be like all mac's prior to the G5.. beaten down dinosaurs

Actually, we'll be at dual 3.0 by summer 2004. Intel might actually have difficulty keeping up with that ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Malechai    120

"we'll"? sorry man.. but i think that says a lot right there. i dont identify with the type of computer i use, so maybe thats why I could care less about who does what and whats faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Miran    0
I have my reservations about the prescott. The CPU has to dissapate over 100 watts of power, just imagine how much heat that's going to generate. Couple that with the fact that the upcomming PCI Express cards are all going to be running very hot. So your result is a VERY hot PC that's either going to require some serious cooling fans or being watercooled.

Doesn't the G5 dissipate 97 watts? I've seen the heathsink on the G5 - it's HUGE.

[edit]I don't know if heat dissipation can really be used as a benchmark for quality in chip design anymore. The laws of physics are slowly creeping in on the CPU design world (with the current design of course).. I wouldn't be surprised to see watercooling as a standard in the years to come. [/edit]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macster    0

Ya the G5 does dissipate lots of heat and the heat sink is huge

But you have to remember thats its 64bit and RISC design which is pretty hot

And the G5 case fans are designed with the heat sink in mind so its very quiet

but the P4 Prescott might need a pretty high RPM fan

BTW I think the OS is impt too in a computer so comparing pure processor speed in benchmarks is not that impt to me. Things like stability and user-friendliness

When OS X will probably get quite a big speed boost when it is fully ported to 64 bit Yummy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kairon    0

Firstly, a heat dissipation of 97 watts is paltry compared to the 100+ watts a Prescott is going to consume, which I *think* is 110 watts or so. And thats not bad considering the G5 is a lot faster then the P4 and still keep a nice heat dissipation compared to the P4's successor.

Also,who said G5 is going to have Hyperthreading?It may have something similiar, but certainly not HT. HT is an Intel branded feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[xan]    7

OK. I saw at anantech some benchmarks with Athlon FX and it completely outrunned P4.

Athlon FX IS a workstation CPU

So when do I see a benchmark G4 vs Athlon FX?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mAcOdIn    1
OK. I saw at anantech some benchmarks with Athlon FX and it completely outrunned P4.

Athlon FX IS a workstation CPU

So when do I see a benchmark G4 vs Athlon FX?

Maybe when the Athlon 64 FX comes out. That review was nothing more than an Opteron, which in reality is all an Athlon 64 FX is but still, no one has benchmarked an honest to goodness Athlon 64 FX yet. Everything you see benchmark wise is an oc'ed Opteron and guestamentations on what speed the Athlon 64 FX will be released at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
djsaad1    7

for those of you saying that macs will be at dual 3.0ghz my 2004 i really highly doubt that. It takes forever for apple to update their chips and when they do update them its not that much of a performance diffrence. just like the new powerbooks they went from 1ghz to 1.33 and that took like a year or so. either way even if they do get to 3.0ghz by 2004 think how much it would cost to upgrade you current g5 to that. is it even possible to upgrade proccesors on a mac or do you have to buy a whole new machiine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve    2
for those of you saying that macs will be at dual 3.0ghz my 2004 i really highly doubt that. It takes forever for apple to update their chips and when they do update them its not that much of a performance diffrence. just like the new powerbooks they went from 1ghz to 1.33 and that took like a year or so. either way even if they do get to 3.0ghz by 2004 think how much it would cost to upgrade you current g5 to that. is it even possible to upgrade proccesors on a mac or do you have to buy a whole new machiine?

Do you really know much about Apple, Motorola and IBM?

I doubt it :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight'    0
for those of you saying that macs will be at dual 3.0ghz my 2004 i really highly doubt that. It takes forever for apple to update their chips and when they do update them its not that much of a performance diffrence. just like the new powerbooks they went from 1ghz to 1.33 and that took like a year or so. either way even if they do get to 3.0ghz by 2004 think how much it would cost to upgrade you current g5 to that. is it even possible to upgrade proccesors on a mac or do you have to buy a whole new machiine?

Blame Motorola for this, they didn't do Apple justice IMO. IBM however, is a different story (touch wood).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tech_8356    0

Do I really care if a mac is faster than my Windows baby? No. As long as I have the fastest machine in my circle of gaming friends, I'm happy.

And seriously.....

Most peple don't have high power machines anyway! As long as they can listen to their music, get e-mail and browse the web, they're happy. Only ubergeeks and die-hard gamers care about speed. As a windows user, macs don't even cross my mind when it comes to what I enjoy doing with a computer. Who has money to buy a new G5 anyway? Macs are way overpriced....always have been, probably always will be.

As for laptops, I'll take a Centrino ANY day over a powerbook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.