Amiga.org
Amiga News and Community Announcements => Amiga News and Community Announcements => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: DarkHawke on July 21, 2002, 09:22:47 PM
-
Very interesting piece here (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1393)
at OSNews (with links to the original sources) on a proposed shift of the Macintosh hardware architecture from PPC to x86-type CPUs, likely either AMD's or Intel's next-gen 64-bit chips. An intriguing twist on the Amiga situation, no?
Will the Mac addicts declare a non-PPC Mac bogus? Will a big ol' online petition drive be mounted? Or will it generally be thought of as a good thing, to try and vastly improve on the speed and value of Macs in the future while still retaining the look and feel of the machines so many have come to love? You be the judge!
:-D
-
I am afraid that when they move the MacOS to the x86 platform, it will run so bad that people will abandon it. Sort of the BeOS story.
Coder
-
Actually, this is what Steve Jobs really said:
"The roadmap on the PowerPC actually looks pretty good and there are some advantages to it. As an example, the PowerPC has something in it called AltiVec, we call the Velocity Engine -- it's a vector engine -- it dramatically accelerates media, much better than, as an example, the Intel processors or the AMD processors... so we actually eek out a fair amountof performance from these things when all is said and done. And the roadmap looks pretty good. Now, as you point out, once our transition to Mac OS 10 is complete, which I expect will be around the end of this year or sometime early next year and we get the top 20% of our installed base running 10, and I think the next 20 will come very rapidly after that. Then we'll have options, then we'll have options and we like to have options. But right now, between Motorola and IBM, the roadmap looks pretty decent. "
I don't know about you, but at least I fail to see where he's saying Apple would be considering x86. Maybe they are, for all I know, but I can't see it in that quote. It seems this is a case of the WinInformant editor adding his own meanings to what Jobs said.
-
Thnx for that info Teemu.
Coder
-
And even though the actual chip speed is bigger for x86 it does not mean that it runs quicker. That is due to processor waitstates: If a processor is going to wait for a result (and it does that pretty often) a ppc doesn't need to wait so long time as a x86. Which means that if a ppc and x86 has the same clockspeed the PPC will be quicker.
-
true, but the clock rate of the x86 cpus is so much higher now that they have leaved the ppc behind, even thought the ppc is a tad faster per mhz.
Also the ppc is damn overprized so you also get alot more perfomance for the bucks with a x86.
Sadly but true :-(
-
Hoya!
Hummmm... Doesn't sound very realistic.
In its own way, the Mac is a maverick machine too which is the
mainstream counterpart of the evil peecee -the underground counterpart
being... ;-)
So, as a consequence, if Macs turn x86, they will lose a part of
their identity and become peecees.
It would be a terrible mistake from Apple, for they WOULD get
assimilated.
On the other hand, if it happens, the Aone would be the only
"mainstream-to-be" PPC computer for AOS is a marvel and it's
relatively known by many computer-users...
Moreover, G4s and G5s would be cheap! ;-)
Well, it's late and I am almost rambling...
Be funky and good night!
;-)
M A D
-
"true, but the clock rate of the x86 cpus is so much higher now that they have leaved the ppc behind, even thought the ppc is a tad faster per mhz.
Also the ppc is damn overprized so you also get alot more perfomance for the bucks with a x86.
Sadly but true"
Not true atall
x86 sells in larger numbers than the PPC so that is a big factor,plus the PPC chip is newer tech than the x86 & newer tech mostly costs more.
how about if you turned the sales numbers around with the x86 selling in ppc amounts & the ppc selling in x86 amounts i bet the x86 would cost more then.
look at how much dvd players cost when it first came out & cos of the high numbers of sales it now cost the same price as vhs players
-
how about if you turned the sales numbers around with the x86 selling in ppc amounts & the ppc selling in x86 amounts i bet the x86 would cost more then.
You just proved Tomas' point!
Loki
-
We have a PC and a new iMac in the house. They are both clocked at 800Mhz and have 256Mb. I have ran Lightwave benchmarks on both machines and the iMac is now faster due to an update for the OS.
I now know from experience that there is far more to speed than simply clock rates or propoganda. The OS optimisation and the application must also be taken into account.
The adoption of X86 would give Apple a level playing field and allow them to compete 'toe to toe' against similiar specced PCs. I expect the OS to run on Apple only hardware as another 'flavour' rather than a sudden shift. I think Jobs' use of the word 'options' is telling in that it may be offered as a choice to buyers. After all he has slaughtered a lot of Apples sachrid cows ... and got away with it.
-
Well, I realise that on the whole x86 might be faster than their PPC
relatives, but...
...but there's been a 1600MHz PPC machine listed on stats.distributed
net for a couple of years now - it *still* **massively** outperforms
any x86, even the highest end 2.2Ghz beasts. I'm quite sure it's not a
hoax, either.
I don't know what this machine is or its history, but its still
cracking keys. Imagine having that thing in an Amiga. It might be
expensive, sure, but it'll make even the most expensive PC look like
a pocket calculator.
The further Intel and AMD push their x86's, the more money and
resources they throw into it. x86 is a very old architecture
ill-suited for such speeds, while PPC was designed from the ground up
to be fast...bah, but you know all this. But what I'm saying is, don't
write off the PPC. It's an excellent range of CPUs and capable of many
surprises, and of competing with x86 even with a much lower clock
speed. Motorola could throw a 2GHz G6 at us next year, for all we
know.
And wouldn't that be nice? :-)
-
What I noticed was that bullcrap PPC vs x86 "benchmark".
They prolly used dual 333MHz FSB x86 mobos (the pricetags sure suggests so) pitted against single 166MHz FSB / 333MHz DDR PPC mobo. And the software was probably also non-altivec (G4). Or in other words: foul x86 propaganda at it's best...
It's the same old trick that Intel used (still use?) against Motorola; release first and do the benchmarks against the competitors old CPU line. Here it's Apples last years h/w against the brand new x86.
So don't worry about the 600MHz A1SE... It won't run at 75% performance of an x86 at equal MHz. Just keep those clusters coming :-)
-
Well I stopped believing the manufatures specs decades ago and only really believe what I can see from experience. A new iMac outperforms a year old PC by about 12%.
I am not interested in what Intel, AMD, Motorola, Apple or articles say. This is what I see. Lightwave on the PC and Lightwave on the iMac.
The iMac speeded up as new versions of Lightwave and OSX came out. So the performace of Amiga OS will hopefully demonstrate the true potential of todays CPUs.
-
Pah! This was not an article on what Steve Jobs / Apple is going to do , this was nothing short of the Authors wish list... what a wanker!
Lets ignore this before the x86 mig heads come out of the woodwork.
Skyraker.
-
Tomas said "Also the ppc is damn overprized so you also get alot more perfomance for the bucks with a x86. Sad but true"
Alkemyst said "Not true at all"
What are you on? Throw all the crap about the technology is better out, beacuse it all comes down to x86 is cheaper AND faster! theres nothing more to argue about, add that motorola's own low interest in keeping ppc up to date, and add that x86 is going 64bit soon with mostly new architecture to overcome old limitations (which is the only thing ppc loyalists can actually gripe about these days)
I may not like intel, but im not stupid. Dont be blinded by loyaties to hardware, especially when software is the most important aspect by far.
-
@teotwin
its nothing to do with loyaties it to do with what ppl want.
AMD Athlon was faster than intels for sometime & cheaper as well but intel still was selling more
cpus than AMD.
its you PC ppl that just cant understand why ppl still use Amigas that cost alot to keep running,
so ill tell you ITS COS WE WANT TO. its not cos we are blind can cant see the speed & cheapness x86.
WE WANT to run PPC why ? cos we want to.
i dont want to run x86 so the price & speed of it means nothing to me.
& i have no loyaties to PPC as i dont have one.
its that some ppls values are just different & not like the mainstreams values.
mainstream values fast & cheap you have that its the x86 PC, so stop complaining
look at the mainstream music atm, it sucks but alot of ppl like it thats why its mainstream.
i used to like maistream music in the late 70s early 80s but for quite some years it makes me sick.
but i can still have the music i like cos there are song writers making the same sort of music i
like & that music used to be mainstream years ago, but just cos the mainstream changes it does not
meen you have to give up on what you like & follow that stream just cos the mainstream is aways the
cheapest & you should not no longer buy the non mainstream muisc that you love just cos it cost more
& takes longer to import.
sorry but just cos the x86 is the cheapest it does not mean it should get every OS put on to it &
everyone should be only on x86 you cant have your cake & eat it
-
This guy claims that making the OSX run on
non-proprietary hardware would doom the Mac
to the fate of Be and failed Linux distributions.
I personally think the opposite.
I think M$ would "port" Windows to support the
x86 "proprietary" hardware. (Not a big jump,
since its now on its native processor).
Probably as a dual boot at first, then the usual
Microsoft strategy of making the other installed
OS (OSX) more and more problematic
until the user gets fed up and defaults to
M$.
Anyone who remembers OS/2 knows what I am talking about.
-
@ huronking,
I think you are half right.
I think Microsoft will welcome OSX to x86, then it gives them a true competitor.
Microsoft have made it hard on Mac on PPC but the result is that users will use other apps. Browsers in particular are doing very well despite IE being the default. Microsoft have openly denounced its sales to Mac users and blame Apple.
I don't think Microsoft enjoys the same status as it did when it crippled OS2. I think people like the standards set by Office and want to work to them. If another product offers them the same standards but for less money and hassles then they will use it.
The recent OSX update 'Jaguar' is demonstrating how OSX can allow users to have less hassles. Even on PPC Apple is making the link to the Windows world easier so I doubt Apple will be angered by an abilty to boot Windows.
I think they really want a side by side comparrison.
Valan
-
I am afraid that when they move the MacOS to the x86 platform, it will run so bad that people will abandon it. Sort of the BeOS story.
Wound it?
MacOS can’t be associated with BeOS since it(BeOS) doesn’t have a good brand recognition or comparable “good will”.
BeOS’s GUI is not even comparable with MacOSX’s GUI.
-
@Valan
OS/2’s Win16 API (back in 1994/1995 era) didn’t give application programmers the incentive to port native software for the OS/2 platform.
Secondly, IBM didn’t complete with MS with bundling war.
Thirdly, IBM did not compete with MS’s advertising bombardment.
Many things can be leant from ATI’s counter attack (against nVidia) i.e. “holding the line”, gaining opportunities, eliminating weaknesses and exploiting strengths.
-
@huronking.
In the dominance of 68k Series CPUs during 80s, other 68k based PCs didn't kill MacOS.
-
They prolly used dual 333MHz FSB x86 mobos
...
Intel chipsets doesn't run at "333Mhz DDR" for FSB, it runs ether at 533 mhz QDR (for late model 850) or 400 mhz QDR (for older intel 8xx chipsets).
AMD based chipsets runs either at 266 mhz DDR or 333 mhz DDR or 400 Mhz DDR for late model mobos.
Reference
1. Intel 845E chip set. (http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/845e/index.htm?iid=ipp_dlc_chip+deskchip_845e&)
It was quoted that 845E has 533 Mhz (QDR) between Pentium 4 processor and system bus (with DDR RAMs running at DDR 266).
(the pricetags sure suggests so) pitted against single 166MHz FSB / 333MHz DDR PPC mobo. And the software was probably also non-altivec (G4). Or in other words: foul x86 propaganda at it's best...
Please provide proofs.
PS; Dell Precision 340 may have RDRAM/533QDR for that case. I exceeded that price line when I selected following
1. Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor, 2.53GHz, 512K / 533 Front Side Bus (Northwood Core).
2. 256MB PC800 ECC RDRAM.
3. nVidia, Quadro2 EX™, 32MB, VGA (Dell Recommended)
4. 19 inch Dell (19.0 inch vis) 1900FP Flat Panel Monitor (Dell Recommended)
5. Creative Labs Sound Blaster Live! Value,Windows 2000 or XP Operating System
6. harman/kardon 206 Speakers
7. 80GB ATA-100 IDE,
Price: ~$3,383.00 (with price reduction)
Does Apple PPC has DDR ram?
As Apple's web site suggest, DDR can only applied for L3 Cache NOT for main ram (only at 133 SDRAM).
In terms RAW mobo MHZ speed, Intel packs allot of it(due to 533 mhz QDR). AMD comes second with 400DDR/333DDR.
-
@Valan
What kind of x86 PCs? Are they Intel or AMD?
Depending on applications AMD has it’s strengths and Intel has it’s own strengths.
-
@Hammer: Yeah, you're right. The x86 figure is wrong in the case of the Dell. I was speaking in more general terms and compared with AMD.
The Articia chipset which Apple uses have›three versions (S, Sa, P), All 133MHz, All 166MHz and a combo 166MHz FSB 333MHz DDR (some extra b/w for the gfx board).
The dual PPC are able to work directly agaist a single 133/166MHz FSB (since beginning of time). And is generally compared with newer x86 machines with far greater FSB bandwidth or even dual FSB. Point is that the only thing that matters in large, simple data processing jobs is FSB bandwidth (cache and altivec is useless). Do the same tests with f.ex. lightsource rendering using three clustered 600MHz PPC (preferably, but not necessarely G4) and the result will be devastating for the single 2GHz x86.
To someone else: x86 is crap. The quality of the PPC allows the use of Asm optimizing. And we all know what the difference between Asm and C in critical code. Try writing a 3D demo for the classic in C using maximum priority and you'll get the point. It's dead slow no matter priority. It's the assmebler that makes the difference, not the lack of multitasking. It's no sensation if someone manage to squeeze out twice as much performance due to asm optimizing. Nor x4 for that matter.