Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Steve Jobs: G4 is slower than Intel CPUs  (Read 11029 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DonnyEMU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2002
  • Posts: 650
    • Show only replies by DonnyEMU
    • http://blog.donburnett.com
Re: Steve Jobs: G4 is slower than Intel CPUs
« Reply #44 from previous page: September 19, 2003, 05:49:33 AM »
Okay well I agree with a lot of what is being said here all except the stuff when people start trashing windows. I have had my share of problems with windows over the years, but I have never had as many problems or hardware incompatibilities as the folks here have. It amazes me to get on here and here someone say their 040/060 is more responsive than Windows XP.

Maybe I am a developer and I live in the USA but I just really see most of this stuff as just people's "inexperience" with intel hardware and software..

I always research anything I do and for the majority of smart Amiga folks the PC platform is hardly rocket science.. The only thing that gets to me on here is the anti-intel microsoft bias that exists here. I don't see pc folks ever trashing the Amiga for it's os or capabilities.

This is a world of "choice" and I really don't understand the negativity. The PC really didn't destroy or delete the Amiga market place. The Amiga caved in on itself due to problems with the company running the show at the time..

Most people who use PCs daily wouldn't agree with the sentiment about how difficult the PC is to use. Most folks on the PC platform stay with mainstream pc hardware and software don't have half the problems people talk about on here.

I think the community would attract a lot more people to the Amiga if the users weren't talking about "how much better the machine is vs this other machine" it would be nice to hear "Why"  and what they actually use this machine for. It can't be just that the PC is so problematic.

I wanna hear what "Cool" stuff people are doing with their Amigas..
======================================
Don Burnett Developer
http://blog.donburnett.com
don@donburnett.com
======================================
 

Offline Hammer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1996
  • Country: 00
    • Show only replies by Hammer
Re: Steve Jobs: G4 is slower than Intel CPUs
« Reply #45 on: September 19, 2003, 05:51:27 AM »
Quote
Even Intel know that the x86 is soon dead.

Not according to the Intel's road map. Note that they just announced 'Pentium 4 Extreme Edition'(refer IDF 2003)....

Other Pentium 4 cores;
1. Prescott (Q4 2003)
2. Nocona
3. Potomac
4. Tejas (2004/2005)

Backwards compatibility is key aspect for continuing dominance of Intel, AMD, MS, X86 Linux and X86 BSD.

Note that Motorola 68k was once the ‘Pentium’ during early 80s…

Quote
I would prefer a platform that is using a modern RISC CPU(the PPC is only 10 years old).

Note that modern X86 CPUs has a post-RISC like cores (i.e. they have a fancy HW translators/emulators to make them run X86 legacy).

Transmeta processor's (VLIW concepts)decoder/translator is combination software and hardware.

Quote

You will either upgrade your computer platform now, or wait 5-10 years when Intel and AMD say "Nope! That's enough! We're going on with another architecture.

With AMD K6/AthlonXP(K7)/Opteron/AthlonFX/Athlon64(K8) processors they decodes/translates X86 Instructions into RISC like instructions before they execute in their post-RISC  pipelines.

The PowerPC 970 (Power Series based core) has similar process for PowerPC ISA e.g. decode/crush stage.

The current IA-64 (VLIW/EPIC concepts) does have X86 ISA compatibility on HW, but it's only poorly implemented…

Quote

If you're worrying about these machines not using the old x86 hardware then you're not thinking about the long term future enough.

With AMD's case, they will just replace K's series post-RISC core with another RISC core and redesign the front-end translator/decoder.
 
Note that AMD's K9 is under development just for 6 months...
Amiga 1200 PiStorm32-Emu68-RPI 4B 4GB.
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB, RTX 4080 16 GB PC.
 

Offline Waccoon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2002
  • Posts: 1057
    • Show only replies by Waccoon
Re: Steve Jobs: G4 is slower than Intel CPUs
« Reply #46 on: September 19, 2003, 05:52:19 AM »
Quote
AmigaMac:  "What do you mean PowerPC is so proprietary? I guess you can go down to your Local Radio Shack, but some silicon wafers and a few transistors and make your own homegrown x86 CPU? How absurd!"

Have you ever built a PC before, or more importantly, RE-built a PC?

Quote
"Everything matters, not just software. And people don't go out of their way to buy 'non Intel' based hardware. Some people actually do give a rats arse about the hardware as much as the software. I personally think PowerPC is technically better than x86 (though that's my own opinion on the subject)."

Technically better, yes.  But slower, more expensive, fewer development tools, low availabilty, contract restrictions with Apple...

Yes, everything matters, including the ability to serve its purpose.  x86 is less efficient, but performs the job better overall.  That may change eventually, but that is not the case now.

Please note the largest orders for PowerPC chips are for embedded applications, hence the reason PowerPC was not an evolution of 68K, and provided virtually no backwards compatibility.  Apple gets the desktop versions under contract, so Amiga is left to fight for either the embeddable chips (unsuitable for desktops), or last year's model (which is slow).  Yeah, that's what I want in my PC, and I'll pay $800 for it, too!

Quote
"Some people prefer commodity over quality... and vice versa!"

So, what commodity does PowerPC offer?  The only one I can think of is power consumption, which means almost nothing to desktop users.  As for noise, I dare you to listen to my new P4 system.  I replaced my Athlon with a P4 and an Antec case strictly to reduce noise, and I can assure you that it is VERY hard to beat.  Improvements in cooling are very impressive with the new P4 CPUs.

If you're using Athlon as your reference for x86 cooling, no wonder you're not impressed!  My Athlon was a good performer, but, man, did the noise and cooling SUCK.  This P4 is amazing.

Quote
"You're short-sighted reasoning above almost contradicts what Amigans have been fighting for all this time."

Don't make me laugh.  Most Amigans have given up and gone to other platforms -- usually x86.  The only people left are a very tiny hardcore audience, and those people hardly provide any "long-sighted" business potential.  I think most people would have supported the switch to x86, but we'll never find out now, will we?

Quote
"It would be like me asking why are all these Amiga freaks so hell bent on using 'non-Microsoft' software?

...Which has nothing to do with PowerPC.  Technically, you can run your non-Microsoft software on any platform, provided the developers make the call.

Quote
"...Because they have a preference on what they believe is a better solution for their own wants and/or needs, PERIOD!"

...Which apparently involves paying a lot of money for slower hardware that follows standards several years old.  Would you pay $50,000 for an electric car with 50HP, no A/C, and a cramped interior?  Some people will, but not enough to matter in the marketplace.  Eventually, we'll all drive electric cars, but it's not a realistic option, today.

Quote
"I could care less what Amiga Inc. puts inside the case. If they offer both PPC and x86, then we all win as consumers"

I agree with this, but that assumes that their fabled "DE" technology fulfills the promise of running on any hardware.  So far, nothing has been demonstrated beyond OS4, which only runs on PowerPC.  If they want to offer PowerPC as an option, for those who want more technically advanced hardware, that's fine.  But for the majority of us who want the best value, PowerPC doesn't deliver, and that's the only choice Amigans have because that's what Hyperion wanted.

I don't care what they offer, either, so long as it's competitive.  G4's are not.  I completely lost interest in Amiga when they said OS4 would only work on PowerPC.  I just want to see if DE is alive and might be released, and then I'm out of here.

I'll wait for another new company to deliver an Amiga-like OS for x86.  AROS is definately interesting, though I still can't get it to work on my PC because I don't have a serial mouse, anymore.

Quote
ACE:  "What I don't neccessarily agree with is the diversity issue (look at consoles for example) ...yes, they are slightly limited towards the end of there lifecycle, but you know you have a platform which will (hopefully) be supported for a set period of time."

That's because consoles are not about hardware, they are about software, and the companies that make consoles specialize in making and licensing games.  A powerful, cheap console with lousy games and bad management won't sell.  Even the GameBoy would not have been a success without a powerful library of great games, despite its awesome battery life and compact size.  I have a PS2, and I think the hardware is pretty flakey and unreliable, but I can't deny that games like Sly  Cooper, GT3, and Rachet and Clank made my purchase a good one.

BTW, I'm a big Dreamcast fan, and that wasn't based on big, powerful hardware, either.  I bought that long before the PS2, even though I knew it would die next to the hype of the PS2.  It was the games, not the hardware, that sold me.

Quote
Wain:  "I understand 80x86 is readily and cheaply available, but all it will do is throw the Amiga market into the "every month I need to upgrade "group, which is a place where it will surely be overwhelmed."

Limited availability of drivers will prevent that just fine.  :-)

Quote
"The 80x86 chipsets are being phased out, and being slowly replaced by incompatible CPU's"

And you see the Amiga incapable of adapting?  What of the hundreds of millions of Windows machines out there?  Will they all go belly-up?  It all depends how programmers write their code and if they can re-compile it easily.  Well-written code can be translated to other CPUs.  Old code runs under IA32 emulation, which isn't all THAT slow.  The only peope who lose out big time are those poor assembly hackers, and I could care less about those people.  The programming language, not the hardware, is the barrier.  x86 is as irrelivent as PowerPC in this respect.  Again, it all boils down to value and development procedure, not an exact CPU.

Quote
"So G4 isn't "brand new top of the line" as of what 4 months ago or something? It's an excellent CPU, that is going to go down in price due to the new processor line, and puts the AmigaOne on track for relatively painless upgrading."

Well, it would be nice if things like SerialATA and Gigabit ethernet were available on the AmigaOne, which is not the case, and won't be for a while.  AmigaOne is OK for hobyists who like their old hardware, but it can hardly be considered competitive.

I should note that I use my PC for work and play.  I suppose if all I did was e-mail and browse the web all day, a G3 would be fine.  But then, I wouldn't need an Amiga, would I?  I'd be perfectly happy with a Mac, since it can browse the web just fine.  A five year old Mac, at that...

Quote
iamaboringperson:  "If you're worrying about these machines not using the old x86 hardware then you're not thinking about the long term future enough."

See above.  x86 is the most popular architecture in the world, and the most widely supported.  There are ways to convert software to new CPUs with a minimal performance hit.  The whole world isn't going to drop x86 overnight, and IA64 has PLENTY of time to overtake the market (and possibly lose it, too).

In 5-10 years, I doubt Intel and AMD will be the star players, anymore.  I also doubt that Amiga Inc will be alive then, the way things are going (but, hey, we all knew that, right?)

I still have faith in AROS, QNX, Linux, and other x86 contenders, so long as they continue to grow and collect a community of talented people who can turn these OS's into real desktop operating systems, and not just embedded or hobby projects.  GUI design and intuition is my biggest complaint, as QNX and Linux, in particular, still drive me insane (can you say, "By Programmers, For Programmers?")

Oh yeah, and if it runs on x86, I can try before I buy, which is the ONLY way I'll consider buying a new OS.  Of course, you could always go to the store to see the latest Macs, but they are usually the ones running MPEG movies all day, or have their hard drives renamed to obscenities.  Yeah, that'll convince me to buy it!   :-D
 

Offline DonnyEMU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2002
  • Posts: 650
    • Show only replies by DonnyEMU
    • http://blog.donburnett.com
Re: Steve Jobs: G4 is slower than Intel CPUs
« Reply #47 on: September 19, 2003, 06:01:33 AM »
Something that should be really clear to most people that I am not hearing people noticing on here is how Microsoft is shifting to a non processor specific architecture.

If you are following microsoft's .NET architecture (which is being implemented as MONO by the open source folks) you know that code now compiles down to a java style bytecode type system known as IL code (intermediate language code).  I would not be suprised if they like the unix world might head towards multiple processor targets (like they have done in the past with windows NT)..

I think this shift will ultimately lead to the "x86" processor or emulation of it not be as important as people are suggesting here that it is. We all know how well UAE works, I am sure cpu's are fast enough what opcodes the processor is actually using will be insignificant to compatibility.

-Don

PS I remember a small mac g4 cube that had real heating problems so bad that  we could cook an egg on it's heat vent. It was so bad that it cracked all the cases of that particular Mac. So the PC exhaust problems are not anywhere near as bad as some of the earlier Mac PPCs..
======================================
Don Burnett Developer
http://blog.donburnett.com
don@donburnett.com
======================================
 

Offline Waccoon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2002
  • Posts: 1057
    • Show only replies by Waccoon
Re: Steve Jobs: G4 is slower than Intel CPUs
« Reply #48 on: September 19, 2003, 06:22:55 AM »
Quote
PS I remember a small mac g4 cube that had real heating problems so bad that we could cook an egg on it's heat vent. It was so bad that it cracked all the cases of that particular Mac. So the PC exhaust problems are not anywhere near as bad as some of the earlier Mac PPCs..

Whoever designed the cube was *ON* crack.  It uses only passive cooling, and was so packed on the inside it's amazing it gets any airflow at all.  I don't know for certain, but I believe most of the heat is from the hard drive and GFX chip, not the PPC.  I would have understood the cube more if they had used a notebook hard drive and a slow-spinning 60mm fan on the bottom.

As for cracked cases, is that really true?  I thought the infamouse "cracks" were simply moulding edges because they didn't put enough thought into manufacturing.  Seems typical, though, that a company would spend all that time developing a computer simply for athetics, and then resort to cheap, badly moulded plastic.

Oop... sorry, off topic again...
 

Offline Hammer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1996
  • Country: 00
    • Show only replies by Hammer
Re: Steve Jobs: G4 is slower than Intel CPUs
« Reply #49 on: September 19, 2003, 06:26:50 AM »
Quote

Wain wrote:
The 80x86 command set  is an old, outdated, and (by modern standards) flawed set.  Intel is trying to replace it with their IA series of processor (slowly, but probably surely while they attempt to pry the backwards compatibility nuts off of the old set with a crobar).

Note that Intel refers X86-32 as "IA-32". IA-64 (VLIW) is just the inefficient version of Transmeta’s CPU.
"IA-32" refers to X86 ISA period of 80386 and later.

Note that Intel's 'Pentium Pro' has a very poor implementation X86-16, but it was fine on X86-32 (e.g. Windows NT code base). This is somewhat related to AMD's decision to delete the V86 during X86-64 mode.  

Quote

The 80x86 chipsets are being phased out,

Post-RISC core of an Athlon processor is substantially different to 8086 e.g. 8086 doesn't decode/translate X86 ISA into smaller RISC like instructions. AMD Athlon K7’s chipsets is based on DEC Alpha’s EV6 architecture i.e. non-X86 architecture.

Quote

and being slowly replaced by incompatible CPU's

Where did they state this?
Did AMD state that they will replace AMD64 ISA?

They’ll just delete particular compatibility modes (e.g. V86 while in X86-64 mode).

Quote

(yes AMD's still planning on true backward compatibility, but even they've mentioned plans to eventually phase it out)

AMD64 ISA(X86 ISA without V86 nasties) will be here for a long time.

Quote

So G4 isn't "brand new top of the line" as of what 4 months ago or something?  

Note that PowerPC 970 decodes/crush PowerPC ISA into smaller RISC like instructions i.e. a process should be similar to a certain X86 processor.
Amiga 1200 PiStorm32-Emu68-RPI 4B 4GB.
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB, RTX 4080 16 GB PC.
 

Offline Hammer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1996
  • Country: 00
    • Show only replies by Hammer
Re: Steve Jobs: G4 is slower than Intel CPUs
« Reply #50 on: September 19, 2003, 06:36:59 AM »
Quote
Something that should be really clear to most people that I am not hearing people noticing on here is how Microsoft is shifting to a non processor specific architecture.

We probably see yet another WOW(Windows on Windows). Note that MS Window Longhorn (e.g. Build 40xx)runs fine on X86...

Quote
If you are following microsoft's .NET architecture

Software investment protection is one of the critical factors why X86 dominates the desktop markets...

Amiga 1200 PiStorm32-Emu68-RPI 4B 4GB.
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB, RTX 4080 16 GB PC.
 

Offline Wain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2002
  • Posts: 745
    • Show only replies by Wain
Re: Steve Jobs: G4 is slower than Intel CPUs
« Reply #51 on: September 19, 2003, 06:49:53 AM »
edit - removed by me.



This is a stupid argument because it is already done.
AOne is out, and AOS4 supports PPC.

Now, what's going to happen to Amiga Inc. and AOS 5?  That's another story...
Professional Expatriate
 

Offline Wain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2002
  • Posts: 745
    • Show only replies by Wain
Re: Steve Jobs: G4 is slower than Intel CPUs
« Reply #52 on: September 19, 2003, 07:06:21 AM »
Quote

Note that Intel refers X86-32 as "IA-32". IA-64 (VLIW) is just the inefficient version of Transmeta’s CPU.
"IA-32" refers to X86 ISA period of 80386 and later.


You're right, sorry, I keep remembering the original press releases(years ago) when IA-32 was going to be a new chipset along with IA-64 developed in conjunction with HP.  I keep forgetting Intel changed that down the line.
Professional Expatriate
 

Offline aardvark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jun 2002
  • Posts: 260
    • Show only replies by aardvark
Re: Steve Jobs: G4 is slower than Intel CPUs
« Reply #53 on: September 19, 2003, 10:09:15 AM »
While searching the net trying to find out the year of introduction of all the Motorola 68k series chips(68000, 68010, 68020, 68030, 68040, 68060), I came upon this site.  It looks at the history of why Apple lost out to Microsoft and Intel for computer dominance.  I think there are a lot of parallels there as to why Commodore and the Amiga never took off the same way.

P.S.  I never did find out the years of introduction, except that the 68000 was used in the Apple Lisa in 1983, the 68020 came out in 1984, and I believe the 68060 came out in 1994.
 :-?
 

Offline iamaboringperson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2002
  • Posts: 5744
    • Show only replies by iamaboringperson
Re: Steve Jobs: G4 is slower than Intel CPUs
« Reply #54 on: September 19, 2003, 10:16:43 AM »
@aardvark

I believe the MC68000 came out in 1979