Maybe Mac should have stuck with IBM? - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Maybe Mac should have stuck with IBM? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 2/9/2006 5:15:19 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the driving factor wasn't the desktop, but the laptop processors. G5 wasn't so bad, but it was never going to make it into a laptop due to power/heat issues, and the G4 is getting long in the tooth.

Intel's new dual processor is phat. IBM was a buck short and a day late.

the intel processor is WAY behind the Pseries processors. it's not even close.

It'd be interesting to see if they really got a handle on the heat.

I spent last weekend in very,very close proximity to a too long row full of racks packed with p595s. I felt like I should have been marinated and turned every half hour.

they put out some heat don't they

Posted: 2/9/2006 5:20:22 AM EDT

[#2]

Going to Intel was a good idea.

Invariably the PowerPC chips only delivered half the performance IBM claimed for them.

ANdy

Posted: 2/9/2006 5:27:00 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Going to Intel was a good idea.

Invariably the PowerPC chips only delivered half the performance IBM claimed for them.

ANdy

that was due to the way apple implemented it not the cpu itself.

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:16:30 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Going to Intel was a good idea.

Invariably the PowerPC chips only delivered half the performance IBM claimed for them.

ANdy

Invariably? Half? That's overstating it a bit, don't you think?

What is interesting is that the highly parallel systems of today and tommorow are not going with an Intel or AMD CPU but rather a POWER-based CPU. The XBox360 is PowerPC based, and the Cell processor in the upcoming Sony PS3 is also POWER-based.

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:21:57 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
That is what killed OS2. That is why OS2 was NEVER intended to be used in the home market. IBM gave it a shot and quickly realised the home based OS war was lost before they even began to fight. Apple may very likely be in the same boat.

I can agree with you on that point - once pre-loading was widely adopted, it was pretty hard for IBM to find a chink in the armor and make any headway competing directly against Microsoft.

Posted: 2/9/2006 7:29:37 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Going to Intel was a good idea.

Invariably the PowerPC chips only delivered half the performance IBM claimed for them.

ANdy

Invariably? Half? That's overstating it a bit, don't you think?

What is interesting is that the highly parallel systems of today and tommorow are not going with an Intel or AMD CPU but rather a POWER-based CPU. The XBox360 is PowerPC based, and the Cell processor in the upcoming Sony PS3 is also POWER-based.

I've got a dual 2.0 Ghz G5 Mac at work, my wife has a 1.8Ghz P4 at home, the PC seems just as quick in the real world....

I for one welcome the coming of actually available fast Intel chips instead of PowerPC vapourware.

ANdy

Posted: 2/9/2006 7:35:49 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Going to Intel was a good idea.

Invariably the PowerPC chips only delivered half the performance IBM claimed for them.

ANdy

Invariably? Half? That's overstating it a bit, don't you think?

What is interesting is that the highly parallel systems of today and tommorow are not going with an Intel or AMD CPU but rather a POWER-based CPU. The XBox360 is PowerPC based, and the Cell processor in the upcoming Sony PS3 is also POWER-based.

I've got a dual 2.0 Ghz G5 Mac at work, my wife has a 1.8Ghz P4 at home, the PC seems just as quick in the real world....

I for one welcome the coming of actually available fast Intel chips instead of PowerPC vapourware.

ANdy

thats because the intel based system is properly configured. Apple's hardware has never been able to properly utilise the powerpc based processors. Mhz speeds between intel based and risc based processors are pretty much meanigless for comparrison. A RISC based processor will always be more efficient assuming proper hardware support and OS code. This is one of the big reasons i have never been a Apple fan. Their system should have had much better performance for the prices they charged.

Posted: 2/9/2006 9:42:27 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Going to Intel was a good idea.

Invariably the PowerPC chips only delivered half the performance IBM claimed for them.

ANdy

Invariably? Half? That's overstating it a bit, don't you think?

What is interesting is that the highly parallel systems of today and tommorow are not going with an Intel or AMD CPU but rather a POWER-based CPU. The XBox360 is PowerPC based, and the Cell processor in the upcoming Sony PS3 is also POWER-based.

I've got a dual 2.0 Ghz G5 Mac at work, my wife has a 1.8Ghz P4 at home, the PC seems just as quick in the real world....

I for one welcome the coming of actually available fast Intel chips instead of PowerPC vapourware.

ANdy

And running Windows 3.1 on my Pentium II feels more responsive than running Windows XP on my Dual 3.0GHz Xeon. I guess the Pentium II is faster. The subjective response to GUI interactivity cannot be used to measure processor performance.

Or, since this is a gun board, a 1911 in .45ACP is much more powerful than an AR in 5.56 because the 1911 has noticeably more recoil.

Also, two CPUs won't make it twice as fast for everything. I have a dual 3.0GHz Xeon, as I mentioned, and it is no faster in general than a 3.0GHz P4 I have at work. It just doesn't slow down as quickly under a load of many processes / threads.

BTW - It's "vaporware" not "vapourware"

Posted: 2/9/2006 9:48:32 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the driving factor wasn't the desktop, but the laptop processors. G5 wasn't so bad, but it was never going to make it into a laptop due to power/heat issues, and the G4 is getting long in the tooth.

Intel's new dual processor is phat. IBM was a buck short and a day late.

And Intel was behind Sun with dual cores. The UltraSparcIV+ will have four of them.

And Sun was behind IBM, who rolled out the dual core POWER4 in 2001.

Actually I'll have to correct myself. Sun named their new chip the T1 and they come with up to 8 cores per CPU, and they are shipping now.

Posted: 2/9/2006 10:11:46 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the driving factor wasn't the desktop, but the laptop processors. G5 wasn't so bad, but it was never going to make it into a laptop due to power/heat issues, and the G4 is getting long in the tooth.

Intel's new dual processor is phat. IBM was a buck short and a day late.

And Intel was behind Sun with dual cores. The UltraSparcIV+ will have four of them.

And Sun was behind IBM, who rolled out the dual core POWER4 in 2001.

Actually I'll have to correct myself. Sun named their new chip the T1 and they come with up to 8 cores per CPU, and they are shipping now.

and they are still slower than the P5 series processors from IBM. Sun is still playing catchup to our p4 generation.