 |
| |
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monolith94
HA! A misconception!
Apple is not in charge of R&D for their chips, or even most of the hardware.
Motorola makes the PPC, G3, and G4 chips. If you think they're incompetent, or inadequate, make fun of Motorola then! |
He was talking about the GUI, the OS, not the CPU.
IBM made the core of the G3/G4, Motorolla hacked on Altivec on the G4 and in the process cripled it from reaching high speeds.  
But Apple's constant strides in the "easy to use" department are taking steps backwards, according to some. I prefer the GUI of OS9 to OS X, myself. More intuitive, functional, rather than flashy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
I use a PC (P4 1.7; Rambus), but it has a lot of downsides. Such as heat, noise, and interconnect instability. Generally, the cases are way too large and blocky. |
All of those "problems" are because you didn't know what you were buying, apparently.
If you don't want a "noisy" or "hot" CPU, get a 1.4GHz Pentium III. You only need a heatsink for most Pentium IIIs now. And I have no idea what you mean by "interconnect instability" since both PCs and Macs use AGP and PCI...
quote:
Add to that is the fact that in the applications I use, memory bandwidth is the limiting factor rather than CPU speed. |
Which paints an even worse picture for the Mac.
The fastest memory on the Mac is PC133. Which is 1.06GB/s.
The fastest memory on the PC is PC1066 RDRAM. Which is 4.2GB/s. Or if you're on an Athlon, DDR333 is 2.7GB/s.
quote:
I have a very simple way of evaluating speed. I look at how fast the computer was that I used at my host family's house in Finland (a 1.2 AMD athlon) and how fast my computer is (a 700 mhz G4) and I really can't tell any difference, whether it's watching movies, or playing Quake 3 or whatever... |
Try playing some real games, not four years old games. My computer can run DOOM fine enough, does that make it worth the price?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:19
|
|
monolith - shouldn't your friend be moderating us? what ishe up to?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Akka
|
 |
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:19
|
|
Why am I not surprised to see that Asher loves Intel ?
Well, people that supports P4 always made me laugh hard, and saying that Prescott will crush Hammer is even more funny
(let me see... Intel is trying to build a 64-bits processor for SEVEN years now, and still has not reached the final stage, right ? And AMD was able to make a better processor in just, what, two, three years ? 
Oh, and about the bench on how P4 are SUPPOSED to be better than Athlon...
And remember that RDRAM is twice as expensive than DDR
And remember that motherboard for P4 are a little more expensive than MB for Athlon
And see that :
Wow, what a surprise, the Athlon 2400+ beat P4 2,6 GHz
Of course, I selected THE bench that give Athlon an edge (too bad there was not a bench about floating performance, the P4 would be vanished in the air), but Asher, in his famous objectivity, also selected the bench that make the Athlon seems underpowered
On a general basis, an Athlon is a bit more powerful than a P4 with a frequency equal to the PR-Rating of the Athlon. When you remind that a 2000+ is in fact working at 1666 MHz, and it require 2100 MHz for a P4 to beat it... 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Prescott? That's about as vapourware as you can get. There's nothing remotely detailed about the thing while the Hammers are in silicon.
Fat chance that Intel is going to produce that with any significant abilities to challenge the Hammers in 2H03. 2H04 is a more likely goal, if at all. |
Nonsense, absolute nonsense.
Adding x86-64 support is trivial. It adds about 2-3%% to diespace, and only certain parts of the processor actually need to be upgraded (because of SSE2, much of the parts already work at 64-bit precision).
quote:
On the other hand, if Prescott is just the next revision of P4, it can make the deadline just about, but wouldn't be 64-bit capable.
[That's right, nobody outside of Intel knows what it is ] |
You incorrectly assume it's hard to add x86-64. You don't think Intel could add x86-64 in the 1.5-2 years they've been working on the chip? Give me a break...
quote:
It is not exactly awful, but still no match for Apple's new designs. |
Sandbag-esque desklamps (I don't care what monolith says) with about a 15 degree swivell radius on the arm? It blows Apple's designs away.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:19
|
|
Oh boy, another kid who thinks he knows something...
quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Why am I not surprised to see that Asher loves Intel ?
Well, people that supports P4 always made me laugh hard, and saying that Prescott will crush Hammer is even more funny
(let me see... Intel is trying to build a 64-bits processor for SEVEN years now, and still has not reached the final stage, right ? And AMD was able to make a better processor in just, what, two, three years ? |
IA-64 is far, far more than a simple 64-bit processor. It is radically different than x86-64. x86-64 is s cheap kludge to add 64-bit registers to x86 and corresponding instructions. That is insanely easy to do. The reason why Intel didn't want to go there is because most developers want x86 dead. It's old, it's obsolete, it's kludgey, it's got a stack-based FPU which is simply horrible to work with, it spends about 30% of its clocktime overcoming inherent shortcomings of x86.
IA-64 was a radically new instruction set and architecture based upon 20 years of University research.
Saying that AMD was able to build a 64-bit processor in far less time than Intel is an absolute joke, you're implying that AMD is more skilled than Intel.
It's like this: If you take someone else's 30-page essay and add on 1 paragraph to it and change some spelling, you can do it far faster than the kid who had to research, think about, and then write his own 30-page essay from scratch.
quote:
Oh, and about the bench on how P4 are SUPPOSED to be better than Athlon... |
The 2.53GHz is the undisputed speed king.
quote:
And remember that RDRAM is twice as expensive than DDR
And remember that motherboard for P4 are a little more expensive than MB for Athlon |
Twice as much? Where did you take math?
512MB RDRAM: $124
512MB PC2700 DDR: $113
The price different is staggering! (From PriceWatch)
And you do know that the P4 supports SDRAM, DDR, and RDRAM, right? Not just RDRAM?
And about motherboards:
KT333 chipset: $72
i850: $65
How do you figure P4 motherboards are more expensive? Is 65 > 72 now?
quote:
Wow, what a surprise, the Athlon 2400+ beat P4 2,6 GHz
Of course, I selected THE bench that give Athlon an edge (too bad there was not a bench about floating performance, the P4 would be vanished in the air), but Asher, in his famous objectivity, also selected the bench that make the Athlon seems underpowered |
Of course.
Your benchmark is from an obsolete program that was made before the Pentium 4 came out, obviously optimized towards P3/Athlon cores rather than all three.
quote:
On a general basis, an Athlon is a bit more powerful than a P4 with a frequency equal to the PR-Rating of the Athlon. When you remind that a 2000+ is in fact working at 1666 MHz, and it require 2100 MHz for a P4 to beat it... |
That doesn't matter, AMD intentionally made the PR ratings conservative so people like you can say "Hey! Match at the PR ratings the Athlon is faster! GO AMD! WOO!".
The 2.53GHz P4, even with PC800 RDRAM (Performance hits 5-10% higher with PC1066), is the undisputed speed king.
Don't try to spin it another way, facts are facts.
To quote Anand:
quote:
Intel was creeping ahead of AMD in the performance tests when they released the 2.4GHz Pentium 4, but now with 533MHz FSB parts and bumping the clock speed up to 2.53GHz the performance crown is undeniably Intel's. Intel will claim the right to the highest performing desktop microprocessor. |
Also note that this was with PC800, not PC1066 RDRAM which should be available shortly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Thue
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Jan 1970
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
IA-64 is far, far more than a simple 64-bit processor. It is radically different than x86-64. x86-64 is s cheap kludge to add 64-bit registers to x86 and corresponding instructions. That is insanely easy to do. The reason why Intel didn't want to go there is because most developers want x86 dead. It's old, it's obsolete, it's kludgey, it's got a stack-based FPU which is simply horrible to work with, it spends about 30% of its clocktime overcoming inherent shortcomings of x86. |
I think the x86-64 has a new FP unit that isn't stack-based. The stack-based unit will still be used by old programs, but new programs will use the new one. (all IIRC)
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-05-2002 19:24
But they do have a hand with where their machines are going, and Apple is putting more emphasis on iPods and other stuff like that...
|