Apple launches the PowerMac G5

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Asher

I'm at work on a dialup. I can check it out when I get home because it's in my browser history there.


Don't have the link offhand, but it wouldn't be hard to find.
Intel gives general roadmaps for when they plan to retire cores. They plan to retire Prescott in September 04 or thereabouts, and they also say Prescott scales past 5GHz. So you put two and two together.

Hell, even right now people are getting their hotter, 130nm Northwood cores up to 3.6-3.8GHz with the stock Intel cooler. Prescott is on 90nm with strained silicon and stuff, will run much cooler and scale much higher.

And the Yamhill stuff are more than just rumours. Intel sources confirmed the existence of it, then they denied it, and the official stance right now is "No comment." Not only that, but it makes business sense and fits into Intel's history, not to mention the high-res die photos of Prescott (from Intel themselves!) which show the presence of 64-bit components.

It's simply unofficial because Intel doesn't want to talk about it.

Intel also denied that HyperThreading was present in all P4s, and just recently enabled. But the rumours and same Intel sources said it was so, as did die photos, and it turns out they were absolutely correct.

Um, exacty. Intel doesn't like to comment, just like Apple. So I don't see how there could be an official roadmap released by Intel regarding the Prescott and Yamhill.

There are many Mac rumor sites out there as well, and they don't always get it right, but they do sometimes. So just because these sites were right about Hyperthreading, doesn't mean they'll be right about Prescott and Yamhill.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
The whole thing looks like crap.

That's your opinion. And if it is, skin it and stop complaining.

Wow, I had a transparent terminal in 10.0

Never mind that 10.0 came out 2 years after Win2K, and never mind that 10.0's was done in software emulation rather than hardware acceleration.

It's better.

That's rich.
Why is it better? Do tell me, I'm interested to see what a philosophy major knows about Quartz vs GDI+...

I wish I could, but it won't be out for TWO YEARS!!!!

I wish I could try it for myself, but it won't be out for TWO YEARS!!!!

Is this out yet, or do I have to wait TWO YEARS!!!!!

It's out now if you don't mind Alpha software.
Or you could wait ~8-12 months for the public beta.

Bizarre. The speed has improved notably, even on my machine which is now a bit long in the tooth (new one in late 2004 I think).

That's because, as I've said already, Apple didn't do hardware acceleration at first. Windows has had it since Win2K, Apple is slowly adding it to OS X and people are lapping it up and thinking "how great!".

This is laughable. Windows XP costs more than OS X, but you will get ichat AV free with 10.3. Only a skinflint would pay the $30 upgrade - it's better value to get the whole thing.

Windows XP's upgrade is certainly much cheaper than OS X's.

One could ask where the decent junk mail filter is in Outlook Express.

SpamInspector. Way better than MozillaMail's, Mail's, etc.

And the only reason they developed it is that MS made such a poor job of IE on the Mac. Face it, nobody who knows anything has used IE as their default browser on OS X. There were always better competitors available (Omniweb, Chimera and now Safari).

No, they made Safari because MS told Apple they were halting stand-alone IE development almost a year ago. That is to say, no more Apple versions or downloadable Windows versions.

Apple paniced, started looking out for their own browser.

Which they had to do since IE performed so poorly.

You've no idea what you're talking about -- look into it first. It's diplomatic, MS was terminiating standalone IE development, which meant Apple's IE developers got the axe and the program was cancelled.

Which Jobs admitted in his keynote. Who cares anyway? Panther's fast user switching is way cooler than XP's.

You sound like a jr. high kid...
Why don't you actually tell us why Panther's fast user switching is 'way cooler'?

Had it since 10.2.2

HFS's kludged journalling can count I guess, but Apple still has a lot of work to do. 25-30% performance hit on writes with journalling enabled? Jeez.

Anyway, this is all bullshit. You are comparing a version of OS X which will probably ship in November 2003 (perhaps earlier) with an OS that won't ship until at least 2005 and probably 2006.

Um. You're the one that brought it up, Einstein.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

oops. double post.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Cloud9
Both of these articles say that Intel refuses to comment, so I don't see how there could be an official roadmap for Prescott released by Intel.

Oh. Well, then, it must not be true because you don't think it's so...

At IDF, Intel puts up big PowerPoint slides with roadmaps. They don't discuss most features, especially ones like Yamhill because they want to push IA-64 sales, and Yamhill will likely detract from those.

There are rumors for the Mac on many sites out there, too. These Mac sites don't always get it right, but they do sometimes. Just because reports regarding Hyperthreading were right the last time, doesn't mean they'll be right about the Prescott and Yamhill.

Cloud9! Hello!

How do you counter the pictures of it being present on Prescott????

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

That's your opinion. And if it is, skin it and stop complaining.

Yeah, that's going to help with the stupid layout.

Why is it better? Do tell me, I'm interested to see what a philosophy major knows about Quartz vs GDI+...

Anyone can see that it simply looks better.

It's out now if you don't mind Alpha software.
Or you could wait ~8-12 months for the public beta.

Or I could wait a few months and by a full working version of Panther. No contest really.

That's because, as I've said already, Apple didn't do hardware acceleration at first. Windows has had it since Win2K, Apple is slowly adding it to OS X and people are lapping it up and thinking "how great!".

I'm sure they have their reasons.

Windows XP's upgrade is certainly much cheaper than OS X's.

But it's not really an upgrade is it. It's still XP. Take a look at Panther and then at 10.0. See the radical differences.

SpamInspector. Way better than MozillaMail's, Mail's, etc.

I suppose this is a non MS add on.

[QUOTE]No, they made Safari because MS told Apple they were halting stand-alone IE development almost a year ago. That is to say, no more Apple versions or downloadable Windows versions.

Apple paniced, started looking out for their own browser.[QUOTE]



What a load. Apple panicked, so they released a browser that worked about 5 times as well as IE.

You've no idea what you're talking about -- look into it first. It's diplomatic, MS was terminiating standalone IE development, which meant Apple's IE developers got the axe and the program was cancelled.

Bull. People have been complaining from day one that IE sucks. Apple was pissed off because they knew that browser performance could be much better on OS X.

Your theory would have some merit, if only Safari wasn't light years better than IE.

You sound like a jr. high kid...
Why don't you actually tell us why Panther's fast user switching is 'way cooler'?

Haven't seen it, have you?

HFS's kludged journalling can count I guess, but Apple still has a lot of work to do. 25-30% performance hit on writes with journalling enabled? Jeez.

I guess I'll have to wait TWO YEARS!!!!!!!

Um. You're the one that brought it up, Einstein.

Yes I did, because the comparison works in my favour. You are stuck with XP for two or three years; by that time Apple will have streaked ahead.


And I see that the new expose feature has basically rendered most of your UI complaints impotent.

Want to see all windows open? Drag the mouse to the requisite screen corner (in adherence to Fitts law ).

Want to see only the windows associated with the selected app? Drag the mouse to the requisite screen corner.

Want to get all the windows off screen? Do the same.

Want to do this on XP. Prepare to read cut off labels in the taskbar while us Apple heads can actually see the open windows themselves.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Asher

I've no idea what you're talking about -- did you not see the IBM PDF I linked to?

Not only does it give very detailed G5 specs, it gives the official SPEC benchmarks.

What am I assuming?

Sorry for the delay. This stupid Windows ME is giving me probs.

I'm on a slow dial-up connection and don't have the patience to download the report, but regardless of that. . .

Apple has posted it's offical SPEC benchmarks as well and you have refuted them. I don't think it's a good idea to take the benchmarks from the companies that worked on these products. Might as well rely on a reliable third party like Spec.org to do the testing.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Asher

Oh. Well, then, it must not be true because you don't think it's so...

At IDF, Intel puts up big PowerPoint slides with roadmaps. They don't discuss most features, especially ones like Yamhill because they want to push IA-64 sales, and Yamhill will likely detract from those.

Um, exactly.

Cloud9! Hello!

How do you counter the pictures of it being present on Prescott????

The pictures could be fake, just like a lot of pics that are posted on Mac rumor sites.

Oh, and by the way, I couldn't tell by looking; I'm not a computer scientist like you.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yeah, that's going to help with the stupid layout.

You're really not good at this are you.
I was responding to your complaint about the graphics.

Anyone can see that it simply looks better.

Yeah, precisely what I thought -- you haven't a clue what Quartz or GDI+ are if you can "see" them.

I suppose this is a non MS add on.

Of course, but why does it matter? You just mentioned freeware as a way to customize your desktop, but the second someone else mentions it...

MS wants you to get Outlook 11.

Bull. People have been complaining from day one that IE sucks. Apple was pissed off because they knew that browser performance could be much better on OS X.

Now that is bull. People complain about IE sucks just like people complain that Windows sucks. The people who complain tend to be Linux/*nix users and/or Mac users.

As for performance issues, IE is faster on some pages and Safari on others. Apple selectively shows the benchmarks from the pages that run faster on Safari, and moronic users jump for joy and look no further. Google for some real benchmarks.

Your theory would have some merit, if only Safari wasn't light years better than IE.

Well, can't argue with that.

Haven't seen it, have you?

Why can't you actually answer with content, just once?
I'm getting a tad sick of all of your rhetoric...

I guess I'll have to wait TWO YEARS!!!!!!!

Does this make any sense?
XP has journalling now...has had it since Win2K.

Yes I did, because the comparison works in my favour. You are stuck with XP for two or three years; by that time Apple will have streaked ahead.

Oh my God...you can't argue like this at your job, right? It's embarassing.
Let's just go through what you just did:
* Compare OS 10.3 to Longhorn
* ***** at me for comparing OS 10.3 to Longhorn
* Admit you did compare OS 10.3, then repeat your stupid comments about "Apple streaking ahead while you wait", when in reality, if you looked at the additions to 10.3, Apple is catching up to what MS did in 2001 with XP...

And I see that the new expose feature has basically rendered most of your UI complaints impotent.

But you told me my UI complaints weren't valid!
Apparently Apple saw otherwise. Good on them.

Maybe you should listen to me more, Apple certainly does.

Want to do this on XP. Prepare to read cut off labels in the taskbar while us Apple heads can actually see the open windows themselves.

While it's nice Apple finally added the "show desktop" functionality that's been in Windows since Win95, it's also a bit weird to do the whole cascade thing. The only reason it's necessary is because Apple doesn't label the taskbar entries.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Cloud9
Um, exactly.

I'm glad you agree with me! So why're you arguing?

The pictures could be fake, just like a lot of pics that are posted on Mac rumor sites.

I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot.
The pictures came from Intel at IDF2003.

Oh, and by the way, I couldn't tell by looking; I'm not a computer scientist like you.

Computer Scientists do software, Computer Engineers do hardware.

But apparently you can't read either -- because the site clearly explains it.

Apple has posted it's offical SPEC benchmarks as well and you have refuted them.

Those aren't official SPEC benchmarks, they're PR benchmarks. The G5's official SPEC benchmarks come from IBM, and they're in the PDF I posted.

I don't think it's a good idea to take the benchmarks from the companies that worked on these products. Might as well rely on a reliable third party like Spec.org to do the testing.

SPEC.org doesn't test.
SPEC.org posts the results from the companies who test them. Notice the "submitters" on SPEC.org are companies such as "IBM", "Dell Computers", "Intel Corporation", etc?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Asher

I'm glad you agree with me! So why're you arguing?

Um, following the logic, you agreed with me, not I agreed with you.

I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot.
The pictures came from Intel at IDF2003.

How do you know?

Those aren't official SPEC benchmarks, they're PR benchmarks. The G5's official SPEC benchmarks come from IBM, and they're in the PDF I posted.


SPEC.org doesn't test.
SPEC.org posts the results from the companies who test them. Notice the "submitters" on SPEC.org are companies such as "IBM", "Dell Computers", "Intel Corporation", etc?

Oh, you missed something completely. Look at the revision date on this page. This was done the day the PowerPC 970 was introduced; it's an older benchmark so why hasn't it been posted on the Spec.org site yet? And if it's an older benchmark, then that means that it was done with slower Power 970--probably a 1.4GHz. And was this a DP test? I haven't had the patience to download the full report yet; guess I'll just have to trickle it. How big is the PDF anyway?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Cloud9
How do you know?

Because hundreds of press were there when it was shown?

Oh, you missed something completely. Look at the revision date on this page. This was done the day the PowerPC 970 was introduced; it's an older benchmark so why hasn't it been posted on the Spec.org site yet?

I didn't miss that. It's not on SPEC.org because IBM wasn't allowed to submit it until the NDA went up on the G5. It would spoil Apple's little announcement on how "fast" it was.

And was this a DP test?

AGAIN -- the SPEC base benchmarks are uniprocessor only.

How big is the PDF anyway?

The IBM one? ~2.5MB

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Asher
Because hundreds of press were there when it was shown?

Granted that, can you prove these rumors surrounding the Prescott beyond a shadow of a doubt? Remember, I can't interpret the pictures.

By the way, I've been to other sites that have reported on the Prescott and they say nothing about it being 64-bit.

I didn't miss that. It's not on SPEC.org because IBM wasn't allowed to submit it until the NDA went up on the G5. It would spoil Apple's little announcement on how "fast" it was.


AGAIN -- the SPEC base benchmarks are uniprocessor only.

Ok, I finally got the PDF downloaded. According to the report, this test was done with a single 1.8GHz PPC 970 processor and scored fairly well: 937int and 1051fp repectively. Now imagine what would happen if you bumped that up to 2.0GHz and added another processor. Also, imagine that, instead of a 1GHz bus for the whole system, that each individual processor has a 1GHz bus!!! That's what Apple says on their site; we'll have to see about that one.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Cloud9

Ok, I finally got the PDF downloaded. According to the report, this test was done with a single 1.8GHz PPC 970 processor and scored fairly well: 937int and 1051fp repectively. Now imagine what would happen if you bumped that up to 2.0GHz and added another processor. Also, imagine that, instead of a 1GHz bus for the whole system, that each individual processor has a 1GHz bus!!! That's what Apple says on their site; we'll have to see about that one.

Yes this is the problem. Anyway Pentiums can't be DPed as far as I know.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Cloud9
Granted that, can you prove these rumors surrounding the Prescott beyond a shadow of a doubt? Remember, I can't interpret the pictures.

Well, let's look at the facts.
Integer registers double from 32-bit to 64-bit.
There are now 2 ALUs instead of 1 (ALUs handle integer arithmetic & logic instructions), but the second one lacks an address generator. They're also positioned right next to eachother. This means that the second one is merely an extension of the first. Now why would that be? If you add 2 32-bit ALUs together, what do you get? A 64-bit ALU.

By the way, I've been to other sites that have reported on the Prescott and they say nothing about it being 64-bit.

Just like how if you look at most sites about the original Pentium 4, they won't mention a thing about HyperThreading.

Prescott won't have the 64-bit extensions enabled, so unless it's a hardcore site like chip-architect (it's by and for processor designers...), I bet it won't mention Yamhill because it's irrelevant. Just like the presence of HyperThreading on every single P4 made is irrelevant when it's only enabled for the most recent ones.

Ok, I finally got the PDF downloaded. According to the report, this test was done with a single 1.8GHz PPC 970 processor and scored fairly well: 937int and 1051fp repectively. Now imagine what would happen if you bumped that up to 2.0GHz and added another processor.

1.8->2.0 GHz isn't much of a speedbump.
Assuming perfect scalability (which basically never happens), a 2.0GHz PPC 970 would get 1030int and 1156 fp. Which is really good, just not as good as the P4s that've been out for 6 months already, and certainly no competition for Prescott.

As for the second processor, the vast majority of applications see no benefit from it. Only applications written to work with multiple threads do, or if you run two programs at once. Even then, you're likely to only see a 30-40% improvement at a maximum.

And still, you can also get dual Xeons and Opterons.

Also, imagine that, instead of a 1GHz bus for the whole system, that each individual processor has a 1GHz bus!!! That's what Apple says on their site; we'll have to see about that one.

That's AMD's HyperTransport technology. That's right, AMD.

Opteron has that as well, it's nothing special.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yes this is the problem. Anyway Pentiums can't be DPed as far as I know.

Xeons and Opterons can.

Xeons are the workstation/high-end Pentium 4/5s, Opterons are the workstation/high-end Athlon 64s.

In fact, you can get 32-way Xeons and 8-way Opterons if you so choose.

The reason you very rarely find dual processors in most consumer PCs is, well, you don't need it. The PC's CPUs are so fast by themselves they're unnecessary. Apple had to do dual G4s as a pathetic attempt to keep up, and they're doing the dual 2GHz right now to try to capture the audio nuts/graphics nuts that have started jumping ships in hordes to faster PCs.

Which isn't that impressive still, since you can get 2/4-way Xeons as well.

[Asher]

I also like how Apple's site discusses how cutting-edge the 130nm process is that they use.

Nevermind that Intel's been on 130nm for ages, and in a matter of months is moving to 90nm...

[Atahualpa]

Asher, isnt it a bit ridiculous to open a thread about the new PowerMac just for flaming it?

I mean, come on, you cant be giggeling around something like Marketing Benchmark Scores. Everyone tricks here thats not just Apple. This is really nothing new.

If you do not like Apple then why opening a thread about it? Just for bashing, oh well....

ata

[Asher]

A correction, as well: http://www.amdzone.com/releaseview.cfm?ReleaseID=1096

The dual Opteron workstations in the same pricerange as the dual 2GHz G5 have been available since June 2nd, 2003.

The G5 is also limited to 8GB of RAM, while the Opteron is 16GB.

What's also interesting is that the G5's PCI-X controller and HyperTransport are both done by AMD, but Jobs didn't mention that for some reason.

Chart1 (spec fp/int base -- single processor)


Chart2 (spec fp/int rate -- dual processor)


As for opening this thread just for flaming -- that was not the point. I posted it as soon as it was unveiled, then checked into it. The flaming came after when we saw that Apple is up to the usual habits, which angers me.

Particularly when they claim that the G4 is a supercomputer, and the G5 is the fastest "desktop" system, and the first 64-bit desktop CPU...it's blatant lies.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hmmm... I just read something that said that even though IBM made the chips for this computer, Apple will SOON have Intel chips in their computers. Apparently Jobs has been over to Intel and Intel reps have been over to Apple a LOT lately.

I wonder, if Apple's chips are so good, why are they dealing with Intel .

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I think it's pointless to continue this debate until we see some benchmarks on the PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0GHz on the Spec.org site. You can bet that since Steve Jobs mention the Spec benchmarks at WWDC, that it will surely be on there soon.

It's possible that IBM, although not having posted their next roadmap, may soon be moving to a 90-nanometer production as well. There have rumors circulating about this on Mac rumor sites.

Oh, and by the way Asher. It wasn't Apple's fault that they couldn't keep up with Intel/AMD the last 5 years or so. It's Motorola's fault; they cut their R&D and are now looking to sell their Microprocessor business. Apple just tried to do the best they could with the crappy hand that Motorola had dealt them. How did they do it? By innovating their OS and increasing the sophistication of the internal hardware. A spokesman from IBM talked about this at Apple's World Wide Developers Conference (WWDC) yesterday. IBM says that it spends about $5 billion on R&D/year and a huge portion of that goes into it's microprocessor business. I'd say it's highly likely that Apple is going to quickly phase out it's G4 computers and begin replacing them with G5 computers with the IBM PPC 970. It is then expected to end it's contract with Motorola. All I have to say is thank you to Apple for that. And thank you IBM for the PowerPC 970 processor. Cheers to the future!

[Atahualpa]

As for opening this thread just for flaming -- that was not the point. I posted it as soon as it was unveiled, then checked into it. The flaming came after when we saw that Apple is up to the usual habits, which angers me.

tell me you would have expected to hear something different and when you have tell me again

thats just an excuse. basically what you do is make fun of Apple because of their marketing which is the same way with ALL companies.
And when you mention AMD, whats with their model rating? The XP 3200+ that they claim the fastet CPU available. Couldnt even beat the PIV 3Ghz.

C'mon man. Stop being more childish on this subject than the companies are.
Marketing is marketing and thats what it is

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Xeons and Opterons can.

Yes, but Pentiums can't.

Xeons are the workstation/high-end Pentium 4/5s, Opterons are the workstation/high-end Athlon 64s.

Workstations, not desktops (for whatever that's worth). Anyway I saw the G5 absolutely spank a dual Xeon in the photoshop race. And then hand it its ass in a number of other real tests.

The reason you very rarely find dual processors in most consumer PCs is, well, you don't need it. The PC's CPUs are so fast by themselves they're unnecessary. Apple had to do dual G4s as a pathetic attempt to keep up, and they're doing the dual 2GHz right now to try to capture the audio nuts/graphics nuts that have started jumping ships in hordes to faster PCs.

This is just stupid. Why should it matter how many processors one has as long as the performance is what you want and the price isn't prohibitive. And the G5 is not a consumer PC. Apple has a consumer PC, the imac. If you are a hard ass graphics professional the G5 is for you.

And are these the graphics nuts who are shifting to Linux.

As if you can see into the mind of Apple's design team as to why they use dual processors. This isn't even up to your usual low standards.

And as for the sites you linked to, if you bother looking around their claims are dubious. I mean the guy on haxial talks about comparing it with a 3.2 ghz Pentium, only a day after that chip was announced.

I'm really not prepared to endorse any inflated claims for any computer. All the G5 shows is that Apple has emerged from the bad period with Motorola. We'll see what happens next.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Cloud9
I think it's pointless to continue this debate until we see some benchmarks on the PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0GHz on the Spec.org site. You can bet that since Steve Jobs mention the Spec benchmarks at WWDC, that it will surely be on there soon.

It's possible that IBM, although not having posted their next roadmap, may soon be moving to a 90-nanometer production as well. There have rumors circulating about this on Mac rumor sites.

Oh, and by the way Asher. It wasn't Apple's fault that they couldn't keep up with Intel/AMD the last 5 years or so. It's Motorola's fault; they cut their R&D and are now looking to sell their Microprocessor business.

Apple just tried to do the best they could with the crappy hand that Motorola had dealt them. How did they do it? By innovating their OS and increasing the sophistication of the internal hardware. A spokesman from IBM talked about this at Apple's World Wide Developers Conference (WWDC) yesterday. IBM says that it spends about $5 billion on R&D/year and a huge portion of that goes into it's microprocessor business. I'd say it's highly likely that Apple is going to quickly phase out it's G4 computers and begin replacing them with G5 computers with the IBM PPC 970. It is then expected to end it's contract with Motorola. All I have to say is thank you to Apple for that. And thank you IBM for the PowerPC 970 processor. Cheers to the future!

This about sums up all the facts (especially the bolded parts). Just accept it Asher.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I still want to know what THIS means :

There has been speculation that Apple would eventually use Intel chips and the announcement on Monday does not chance that, Enderle said, adding that he still expected Apple to announce next year it will use Intel chips.

"I think chances are like 8 out of 10 they will go with Intel," Enderle said. "I know that he's (Jobs) been over at Intel an awful lot and Intel has been over with him quite a bit."

A spokesman for Apple declined to comment.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/0...eut/index.html

[Drake Tungsten]

Asher, isnt it a bit ridiculous to open a thread about the new PowerMac just for flaming it?

It is a bit ridiculous, but did you really expect anything different? Jobs are getting scarce in Redmond, so Asher needs to strive for even higher levels of zealotry to keep his paycheck.

[monolith94]

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,59373,00.html

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I still want to know what THIS means :

Quote:

There has been speculation that Apple would eventually use Intel chips and the announcement on Monday does not chance that, Enderle said, adding that he still expected Apple to announce next year it will use Intel chips. "I think chances are like 8 out of 10 they will go with Intel," Enderle said. "I know that he's (Jobs) been over at Intel an awful lot and Intel has been over with him quite a bit." A spokesman for Apple declined to comment.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/0...eut/index.html

This kind of speculation has been floating around for years, and fortunately for Apple it has never happened. There are some sources that say it will eventually happen someday and some that refute it. But since it hasn't happened in all this time, I refuse to believe that it will ever happen. JMHO.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
tell me you would have expected to hear something different and when you have tell me again

thats just an excuse. basically what you do is make fun of Apple because of their marketing which is the same way with ALL companies.
And when you mention AMD, whats with their model rating? The XP 3200+ that they claim the fastet CPU available. Couldnt even beat the PIV 3Ghz.

Hey! I completely agree.

In fact I had a thread on that very thing yesterday.

Give me points for consistency, woman!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yes, but Pentiums can't.

Ohhh, Agathon thinks he's being clever while being pedantic.
Take a dose of your own medicine: Pentiums were discontinued over 6 years ago.

Workstations, not desktops (for whatever that's worth).

It's not worth a damn thing. Workstations are high-end desktops -- the dual G5s and dual Xeons are in the same pricerange and cater to the same markets, so why is it that Apple zealots insist Xeons are workstations and dual G5s are desktops? Is it because it's a convenient way to ignore competition?

Anyway I saw the G5 absolutely spank a dual Xeon in the photoshop race. And then hand it its ass in a number of other real tests.

Photoshop results from Apple with selected filters and optimizations settings -- the most credible benchmark anyone could ever use.

This is just stupid. Why should it matter how many processors one has as long as the performance is what you want and the price isn't prohibitive. And the G5 is not a consumer PC. Apple has a consumer PC, the imac. If you are a hard ass graphics professional the G5 is for you.

By consumer PC, I mean desktop.

So which is it? Is the PowerMac a workstation or a desktop? If you're insisting the PowerMac is not a consumer PC, then it is thereby a Workstation, shattering dozens of Apple's marketing claims.

And are these the graphics nuts who are shifting to Linux.

No, there are no competent general purpose graphics programs for Linux.

As if you can see into the mind of Apple's design team as to why they use dual processors.

Um. Do you think they used dual processors because it's fun to use more electricity?

They used them for marketing (2 processors is better than 1) and to cater to the Workstation market which are fleeing to the PC (look at the PowerMac sales statistics for the past 2 years, truly pathetic).

And as for the sites you linked to, if you bother looking around their claims are dubious. I mean the guy on haxial talks about comparing it with a 3.2 ghz Pentium, only a day after that chip was announced.

This is dubious way? Everyone knew the 3.2GHz would be out on this very day for months, and 95% of stock 3.0GHz P4s hit 3.2GHz with ease. It's dubious to use a 3.2GHz a day after it came out and to compare this to a chip that won't be out for months? I agree. The least Apple could've done would compare it to the estimates SPEC scores for Prescott, which are in the 1500-range.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
This about sums up all the facts (especially the bolded parts). Just accept it Asher.

1) I know whose fault the G4 ****up was. It was Apple's for choosing Motorola (an embedded chip company? Hello! They don't give a sh*t about desktop performance) over IBM, and it was Motorola for not giving a ****. It takes two to tango.
2) The lack of dual 2.0GHz PowerPC 970s on the spec.org site is simply an obvious delay tactic on your behalf. I even posted very liberal numbers for the dual 2.0GHz which are, without a doubt, at the maximum possible score for the 2.0GHz PowerPC 970s, and you still ask for me. A chip with a 10% higher clockrate on the exact same architecture as another chip will be, at a maximum, 10% higher. Wishing & hoping isn't going to change this, it's simply delaying the inevitable so you can have peace of mind. Ignorance is bliss...
3) As for Apple doing the best they could with the limitations -- is that true? Apple's OS X was one of the worst things they couldn't done with regards to the hardware -- the G4 was already pathetically slow, and then Apple replaced the rather neat & tidy & efficient MacOS 9 with a bloaty, eyecandy-with-software-rendering OS like OS X? If anything it entrenched the idea just how slow Macs are compared to PCs because the OS was so slow on the G4 hardware.

This kind of speculation has been floating around for years, and fortunately for Apple it has never happened.

I agree it's unlikely Intel will make Apple chips -- Apple isn't that smart.

Apple instead leaches PC hardware like mad -- SerialATA, PCI-X, AGP 8x, USB 2.0, HyperTransport bus, etc. and then at the same time insists everyone is copying them (while at the same time adding **** like videoconferencing to iChat ala MSN, and fast user switching ala XP...)