PPC to Intel - F.A.Q.


Recommended Posts

Thanks. I just bought iMac G5 last month. I hope it would run for the next two years or so.

:cry:

586045038[/snapback]

It will :) I wish I could buy a iMac right now, I think the current design is beautiful.

Too bad for you, because...you know...the G5's will *explode* as soon as the Intel processor models are released.  :rolleyes:

586045077[/snapback]

Meanie :p

Isn't Intel doing the same?? They are delaying the 4.0 ghz processor by introducing dual-core processors because of power issues. I don't think Intel is going to bump up the ghz at the rate that they were doing it last year, unless they make significant changes to the design of their processor or start making them in a smaller process.

586037760[/snapback]

Yes, Intel did delay going to 4.0 ghz but instead decided to retool and start building their desktop chips around the Pentium M core which provides more performance per cycle and lower wattage than the old style P4's. Now they are ramping up the clock speed again and adding dual core.

The process is only part of the story.

I can't believe I just wrote that. Ugh! :wacko: I never thought I'd see that day but I have to admit that the Pentium M core a good base to build on.

Thanks. I just bought iMac G5 last month. I hope it would run for the next two years or so.

:cry:

586045038[/snapback]

:blink: This announcement does not cause your mac to stop working. Universal binaries will contain native code for both CPU chips and not everything will be ported to Intel right away. Expect the next version of OS X shipping in 2007 to be for both PPC and Intel. Steve Jobs said they had more PPC products in the pipeline but they were making this change based on a long term projection on the IBM and Intel roadmaps and how much performance per watt each line offered.

I think the key thing to remember, that is obvious, but everyone forgets - if your Apple is giving beasty performance now, it will always work as well as it does now.? My Mac Mini can last me for years and years as it is now and perform perfectly as a media centre for my music, video, DVD, it does H264 fine as well.? It always will.? It works on Photoshop just fine.? The software it has now is awesome, and wont be any worse in 5 years time.?

The time has gone where obselete technology is really applicable - any machine made in the last 3 years is useful for a very long :)me :)

586045070[/snapback]

Finally, a voice of reason, and not with an attitude of "I have to have one-up the Joneses." My Athlon XP 2000+ that I've had for almost 3 years works like a charm, and plays any game I want to play, including Half-Life 2. I am happy with 512 MB of RAM, 160GB HDD, and a Radeon 9600XT (well, as happy as one can be with an ATI card). Works great. Why? Because I donhavee to have 8x anti-aliasing and still have 60 frames a second. No anti-aliasing and 50 frames a second is good enough.

I never thought I'd see that day but I have to admit that the Pentium M core a good base to build on.

586046170[/snapback]

The PIII's were always a better design than the P4's (I've seen 1.1Ghz PIII's that would outperform 1.7Ghz P4's). If you read some of the reviews of the P-M, you'll find out that it has far more in common with the architecture of the PIII than the P4. I think the only reason that Intel fell so far behind AMD for the last few years was the fact that they were dumping everything they had into trying to make the P4's perform better, and getting nowhere. Once they went back to the drawing board and made the P-M, they got back on track.

The PIII's were always a better design than the P4's (I've seen 1.1Ghz PIII's that would outperform 1.7Ghz P4's).  If you read some of the reviews of the P-M, you'll find out that it has far more in common with the architecture of the PIII than the P4.  I think the only reason that Intel fell so far behind AMD for the last few years was the fact that they were dumping everything they had into trying to make the P4's perform better, and getting nowhere.  Once they went back to the drawing board and made the P-M, they got back on track.

586046272[/snapback]

A good part of it I think was that Intel had forgot the MHz is not every thing. There is more to a fast processor than just the MHz speed. Witch is why my AMD 3000+x64(2100MHz) smokes my brothers 3.6 P4. Well that and my is not pre-built and his is a Dell.

We can all speculate how Apple will lock down the Mac. However like someone said above, the drivers included with a Mac are going to be for Macs only so running your normal run of the mill PC with the release version (not dev version) might not be that great of an experience.

Personally in order to make this transition smooth I think they are going to make the new Mac based off of the EFI (Extendible Firmware Interface) developed by... Intel. It would make perfect sense. If they use EFI, it will become harder to have Mac OS X run on a normal PC as most normal computers still use a regular BIOS.

http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/

We can all speculate how Apple will lock down the Mac. However like someone said above, the drivers included with a Mac are going to be for Macs only so running your normal run of the mill PC with the release version (not dev version) might not be that great of an experience.

Personally in order to make this transition smooth I think they are going to make the new Mac based off of the EFI (Extendible Firmware Interface) developed by... Intel. It would make perfect sense. If they use EFI, it will become harder to have Mac OS X run on a normal PC as most normal computers still use a regular BIOS.

http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/

586055787[/snapback]

Quite true, however - wouldn't this mean that Nvidia / ATi would release new complied drivers based upon x86? Theoretically, wouldn't these drivers be easier for them to write by porting them from XP to OS X?

P.S.

I know that Xcode 2.1 will compile to IA-32 (Intel Architecture - 32 bit) Standards, but do you think that one day they will upgrade to IA-64...meaning, a 3rd drop-down box for compiling...although if compiled on 32-bit then 64-bit will just work (albeit not native 64). Also, 10.0 - 10.5 are 64-bit OS' anyways.

Quite true, however - wouldn't this mean that Nvidia / ATi would release new complied drivers based upon x86? Theoretically, wouldn't these drivers be easier for them to write by porting them from XP to OS X?

586063369[/snapback]

Why do people keep making this assumption? Video card drivers (and pretty much any other hardware driver) are pretty much processor-independent as far as code goes (other than some endian issues). The real issue would be the driver model and API of the operating system. This means that porting a driver from OS X/PPC to OS X/Intel would be far easier than porting it from Windows to OS X/Intel.

The same thing goes for games and most other software as well.

I see what you mean man. I keep forgetting about the API layer and HAL etc.

OSX PPC > OSX Intel (Recompile...unless using AltiVec engine [unlikely])

XP <---> OSX (Written differently)

Graphics drivers are the hardest I would say because XP using DirectX primarily and OSX uses OpenGL via the Quartz Engine...complex stuff, but worth while for us the consumers.

On the FAQ the first question asked about why they are switching to Intel and Steve Jobs will give many reasons for this but he has a long history with Intel. The founder of Intel gave money to Steve to start up Apple by being early investors. Apple's first HR director was the wife of the Intel founder. Steve developed Next on an Intel based machine. Apple chose the PPC processor while Steve was gone and it never sat well with him. Even when he came back and integrated Next into Mac OS to get OSX he has secretly had OSX running on intel based machines. He was waiting for IBM to slip up. It's calculated. :ninja:

  • 1 month later...

it would be good if they would allow us to build our own in the Apple store. I don't mind paying the extra $$ if i can get what i really want in the machine rather then having their pre-configs. i hope they are a little more open to customizing after they move over. eg dell is pretty decent with this.

  • 4 weeks later...
Does anyone here tested Tiget for intel?

586309525[/snapback]

Everything works fine; there are only a few driver issue, video cards run under VESA (unless you have an intel integrated card) and wireless won't work (except a few cards). I've noticed some slow SFTP/SCP transfers, but that might be a software problem.

  • 1 month later...
Does anyone here tested Tiget for intel?

586309525[/snapback]

You mean Tiger (OS X 10.4.1) for x86? There has been some informal testing on the dev boxes, and there have been *independently developed but unsanctioned* patches to let you run the OS natively on relatively-generic x86 PCs (while the Apple-sourced machines are based on the i915G chipset and use LGA775-based processors, the various patches enable running the OS on machines using i8xx (i865 and i875 series) chipsets and S478 Northwood-C and Prescott-core processors, and limited success using AMD processors and nForce chipsets. Hie thyself to http://www.osx86project.org for the details.

  • 2 months later...

build you own mac - legally no, grey area possible probably with some hacking

makes me wish i kept my p4 system instead of switching over to ppc. I coulda saved some money by just waiting and buying the intel version of tiger and enjoying what every mac user does on my pc :(

makes me wish i kept my p4 system instead of switching over to ppc. I coulda saved some money by just waiting and buying the intel version of tiger and enjoying what every mac user does on my pc :(

Problem is I doubt without some sort of special drivers or hardware emulation, you'll get it running perfectly. Developer Transition Kits are supposedly far more basic PC's than what we'll see in the real Intel Macs.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • My father still uses a programme written in dbase3. Still manages to work with a little help from dosbox. 
    • Microsoft hides these secret Windows 11 performance boost settings available on every PC by Sayan Sen Windows enthusiasts often look for ways to extract as much performance out of their systems as possible, and it's often the case that they try and do so while trying to minimize the heat and power consumption. This is especially relevant in the case of mobile Windows PCs since laptops and notebooks tend to get hot and management of that heat and power is harder in such a form factor. As such users often turn to techniques like under-volting which can be used to squeeze out the maximum capabilities of a chip while also maintaining lowered power levels. There are official apps from AMD and Intel with the likes of Ryzen Master and XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility). While these are quite handy, most enthusiasts probably prefer to dig into the BIOS and play around with settings there like Curve Optimizer on Ryzen, which lets users set various frequency-voltage scaling values. These are essentially called P-States. If you are not familiar with them, Processor Power Management is done through Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) P-states and C-states. While P-states or performance pwoer states handle CPU voltage-frequency scaling, C-states deal with CPU sleep states so that some of the CPU functions, which are not necessary at that moment, can be disabled. The P-states and C-states work together to make the processor run more efficiently. It helps the OS and apps determine which cores can be parked and which should be boosted. Of course not every user is an enthusiast or knows the technicalities and integrities of how things like overclocking or undervolting work. Thankfully for them Windows itself offers something pretty cool, though it is hidden by default on all systems. By default, Windows only has two P-States, "Minimum Processor State" and "Maximum Processor State." However, this can be changed with a Registry trick to expand the options under a secret "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown. This essentially enables the HWP or hardware P-States available on a device, and these are not controlled just by the OS itself as the underlying hardware gets involved too. In total there are five Processor Performance Boost Mode profiles that control how Windows requests and allows CPU turbo/boost behavior under the different power policies. They are: Disabled: In this mode, processor boosting is effectively turned off. The CPU will avoid entering turbo or boost frequencies and instead operate closer to its base frequency ceiling. This can significantly reduce power consumption and heat output, but at the cost of reduced burst performance and responsiveness in short workloads. Enabled: This is the standard behavior where boost functionality is allowed under normal conditions. The processor can opportunistically increase frequency when workload demands it, balancing performance gains with power and thermal constraints as managed by the system. Aggressive: Aggressive mode favors performance more heavily, allowing the CPU to enter higher boost states more readily and sustain them longer. This should in theory improve responsiveness under bursty or heavy workloads but increases power draw and thermal output compared to the default enabled behavior. Efficient Enabled: This mode still allows boosting, but with a stronger bias toward energy efficiency. The system attempts to use boost more selectively, avoiding unnecessary frequency spikes when the performance gain is marginal. Efficient Aggressive: This is a hybrid approach where boost is still performance-responsive, but the system continuously weighs efficiency more heavily than in Aggressive mode. It aims to deliver noticeable performance improvements while reducing wasted power in less demanding scenarios. Here's how to enable the Processor performance boost mode: Open Registry Editor: Press Win+R, type regedit, and click OK. Go to: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\be337238-0d82-4146-a960-4f3749d470c7 (where HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_) Modify the value of Attributes from 1 to 2 (you can find modify option by right-clicking) After that, exit Registry, you should now be able to see the new "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown menu: As you can see there are now five new P-States or CPPC states or power profile available that help define the boost mode processor setting on your PC. Wrapping it up here's a quick run-down of the settings as defined by Microsoft itself. Setting Description Disabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is disabled. Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) behaviour is disabled. Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Efficient Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Efficient Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows calculates the desired extra performance above the guaranteed performance level, and asks the processor to deliver that specific performance level. Efficient Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows always asks the processor to deliver the highest possible performance above the guaranteed performance level. In the next part we shall be comparing these settings to explore how much of a benefit or regression they can provide in terms of performance and power efficiency. If you decide to change the values on your system and are experiencing problems like crashes or an overheating PC, make sure to revert the steps back to the original state.
    • I think he means you haven't reviewed previous UFC games. Of course it doesn't matter... Every time you just report on something that involves the President even if just simply what happened you guys usually get accused of being anti-Trump. We live in fun times.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      agatameier earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      agatameier earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      93
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      77
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!