Look what Apple have just released...

[bloodline]

Rob wrote:
I can't really see much exiting here.  I'm not particularly keen on MacOS and would rather use Windows if I had to go X86.

Not that you would be able to tell what CPU you were using... if you don't like MacOS then the CPU is irrelevant.

The PPC970 or "G5" was exiting because it was new.  Dual core X86 has been around since last summer.  Still Apple are a marketing company so they should have the relevant press going completely wild.  Some you are already.

The G5 is old tech, designed to compete with the AthlonXP. It is certainly much older than any of the dual core x86 CPUs available.

The intel Core Duo (Yonah) is really agressive Laptop CPU, it's using the lastest technology... if you had even the remotest insight into CPU tech you'd be excited too.

[bloodline]

orange wrote:
err, how come 1.83GHz is 4x faster than 1.67GHz  :-?
ok so its dual core, but still 4X
I thought powerpc was so much faster, efficient, better, than intel  :getmad:

That's simly a case of people confusing terms:

x86 and PPC are Instruction Set Architectures (ISA), they do little to suggest the actual performance of the chip which uses them. Both have design advantages and disadvantages for any given situation.

The G4 is a very old CPU architure which uses the PPC ISA, while one can't deny the pretty good Performance per Watt ratio that it has achived (a good design choice made by Motorola many years ago)... it is now far behind the CPU tech curve.

[bloodline]

Roman78 wrote:

orange wrote:
err, how come 1.83GHz is 4x faster than 1.67GHz  :-?
ok so its dual core, but still 4X
I thought powerpc was so much faster, efficient, better, than intel  :getmad:

Think Intel Duo Core is 64 Bits and the G4 only is 32 bits.

No, they are both 32bit. But the Core Duo is much more modern than the G4... faster buses, better caches, better caching algorithms, better branch prediction, better instruction scheduling, better power consumption handling (dynamic scaling of individual units rather than the  entire CPU), superior northbridge...

And G5 laptop CPU's are not planned by IBM.

I doubt G5 (ie the PPC 970) has any future, no one is going to buy it by the million like Apple did.

[bloodline]

Roman78 wrote:
And than saying "Leap ahead" And stil no 64-bit laptop CPU.

AMD already have one: Turion 64. What's about the Intel Dual Core Desktop CPU? Are those 64-bit? Could not find it on the intel website.

No, intel are really dragging their heals over this issue... There is no technical reason why they haven't EMT'd these chips (Their server chips are all x86-64)... I guess they don't want to admit that AMD was right.

[bloodline]

coldfish wrote:

It is interesting that the big names have quit with hardware exclusivity, M$'s console use PPC and Apple's iBooks use X86.

M$ only use a PPC because they used IBM to help design and build the new Xbox and IBM own the rights to the PPC ISA (and have plenty of experience building PPC chips)...

The tech' is irrelevant, personal computing is now about features, performance, ease of use and affordability.

Those always have always been the factors... no one in their right mind would use some obscure tech over those factors...

[bloodline]

Waccoon wrote:

Bloodline:  No, intel are really dragging their heals over this issue... There is no technical reason why they haven't EMT'd these chips (Their server chips are all x86-64)... I guess they don't want to admit that AMD was right.

Maybe they figure laptop users just don't need more than 4GB of memory.

Good point, but we are not just talking about adress space, but also a fundamental architectural shift in the x86 platform (16 GP regs and no x87 FPU for example)...

Bloodline:  M$ only use a PPC because they used IBM to help design and build the new Xbox and IBM own the rights to the PPC ISA (and have plenty of experience building PPC chips)...

Intel is pretty stubborn when it comes to custom work.

Exactly!