PDA

View Full Version : Macworld has their head up their asses


oldsk00l
09-16-05, 06:42 PM
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/09/15/intelvsamd/index.php

Interestingly, performance really isnít the driving force behind Appleís Intel vs. AMD decision. While the chip rivals have battled on performance for years, the machines now go toe-to-toe on everyday productivity applications. For most consumers on the PC side, the buying decision is much more about the PC maker than the chip supplier. (That said, on some measures, AMD shines. Gamers, for example, who want the absolute fastest speed on traditional apps know that AMDís single-core Athlon 64 XP FX chips offer an edge over Intelís best right now.) As more multi-threaded apps designed to better take advantage of dual core CPUs arrive, Intel and AMD will keep battling.

Ahhh, no, AMD FRCKING SMOKED Intel in dual core design.

Tomshardware
As for dual core, go AMD. Intel really doesn't have an answer that's just one example

That, and it's not just in gaming. AMD CPU's are more powerful in general purpose. AMD dual core CPU's completely eradicate Intel in almost all disciplines, multitasking or not.

*shrugs*

I guess that's why they are running Macs.....typical Apple user : IGNORANT.

If it weren't for OSX, Apple would have bankrupted several times over by 2002.

Riptide
09-16-05, 06:59 PM
Wait for Yonah and see what happens. It's supposed to be pretty awesome. I think Apple might have that in mind w/regard to this decision.

And "completely eradicate"? That seems like some real dramatic verbage there. Care to link to some head-head benchmarks which show eradication (ie, 15-20% performance increase at minimum).

jolle
09-16-05, 07:01 PM
Maybe Apple never intended to be running P4, but the followup..
Would make a bit more sense.

(ie, 15-20% performance increase at minimum).
is this the technical definition on "Eradicate"? hehe..

oldsk00l
09-16-05, 07:06 PM
lol

When you look at the price, versus the performance, versus what Intel has to offer, yeah I'd say so.

See, Apple does make great money on portable computing, their xBook lines are really nice.

However, if they keep neglecting their desktop performance in actual reality, the platform as creative professional platform just keeps on dying. AMD has a clear lead over Intel in content creation too. Intel probably told Apple "You buy Yonah, AND you buy desktop procs, or no deal" knowing they'd go for it because their ass was in a sling.

Riptide
09-16-05, 07:14 PM
Who knows what they said. And Yonah might work nicely as a desktop CPU as well for that matter. We don't know what is up their sleeve (or isn't).

Regarding the definition of eradicate, it seems to me that it had damn well perform at least that much faster (15-20%) before you even go there with using words like that. It just reeks of fanboyism. But then maybe oldsk00l is right and it really is that much better of a deal.

I am skeptical. In fact I've heard that for the money this CPU is actually an excellent deal even vs. what AMD has available in the same price range:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116213&CMP=OTC-pr1c3watch&ATT=Microprocessors+PC

Wait, that's right, AMD has nothing in this price range. If you want to get into dual core cheaply this is a good option, or so I hear.

jolle
09-16-05, 07:17 PM
It seems to me that the majority of Mac users arent THAT technicly inclined, and on a Mac you dont really need to be, not like on a PC (unless you dont want to be ripped off with "Super fast Intel Celeron" or "Blazing 64mb 3d (intel Extreme Graphics)" etc).
And they will mainly assume their Mac is the best, and not even look at a Mac vs PC benchmark, cause they always have some reason.. Mac is more stable, mac is better anyway, etc..
And thats all fine by me, but I think it puts Apple in a "comfortable" position..
(and frankly, my reason for sticking with PC is Price, software and games, mac is prolly great for its uses).

Ofcource they still have put out decent products, the "pro" business is keeping their eyes on them and they know what they see most of the time.
Still, I expect they arent planning to use the P4 (the bloated hot monster that it seems to have become of late) but rather the next chip, which if I understand correctly is somewhat based on the Pentium M which is a really nice chip (and a continuation on the old P3 isnt it?)
A cool and efficient and fast chip, a bit more like the Athlon.

Riptide
09-16-05, 07:22 PM
The Pentium M is a good chip. Clock for clock it's as fast or faster than one of the cores on my X2. I know this because I monitor folding@home work units on both the 1.6GHz P-M laptop I have and also my X2 system.

As an example, one of the 2.2GHz cores on my X2 will finish one frame from a project 1141 work unit (600 pointer, big one) in around 30-31 minutes. The Pentium M will do the same amount of work in 34 minutes. Not much of a difference there, and consider that the P-M is a 1.6GHz chip.

oldsk00l
09-16-05, 07:39 PM
That's comparing integers, which is great and all.

Most of the what I use a computer for, generally, relies on floating point. To which quantitatively AMD has the lead.

you're right on the P-M being a good deal, no arguement there, and you're right it'll be a great midrange part

The problem is the stench from Apple saying that their midrange performing systems are "teh fastest tinhg EVAR" just paints a black mark on them every time they say it, and it's not looking to change anytime soon.

We'll see w/yonah, and I expect it to have awesome "performance per watt" but I don't expect shockwaves in performance...if history is any lesson. Most likely just ripples.

Riptide
09-16-05, 08:10 PM
That's comparing integers, which is great and all.
Yeah I know that's just one aspect of performance but it is important to some people.
The problem is the stench from Apple saying that their midrange performing systems are "teh fastest tinhg EVAR" just paints a black mark on them every time they say it, and it's not looking to change anytime soon.Apple never lies. How could you say such a thing. :p
We'll see w/yonah, and I expect it to have awesome "performance per watt" but I don't expect shockwaves in performance...if history is any lesson. Most likely just ripples.
Oh I agree it probably won't "eradicate" the competition.

BTW, I stand corrected (somewhat). The Pentium D 820 I linked to earlier is a good deal for entry level dual core usage, but the 3800+ does outscore the Pentium D 830 nicely in these benchmarks:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2484&p=5

The Intel is still $45 cheaper, so I'm not sure it's "eradication", but it's getting there anyway.

Sazar
09-16-05, 08:35 PM
The Pentium M is a good chip. Clock for clock it's as fast or faster than one of the cores on my X2. I know this because I monitor folding@home work units on both the 1.6GHz P-M laptop I have and also my X2 system.

As an example, one of the 2.2GHz cores on my X2 will finish one frame from a project 1141 work unit (600 pointer, big one) in around 30-31 minutes. The Pentium M will do the same amount of work in 34 minutes. Not much of a difference there, and consider that the P-M is a 1.6GHz chip.

Factor in the cache.

How much cache does one of your procs have v/s that of the dothan?

:cool:

Riptide
09-16-05, 08:44 PM
The Dothan has quite a bit more actually, but that's kind of beside my point... Clock for clock and price/performance the Pentium M does very well.

Sazar
09-16-05, 08:53 PM
No doubt. That is not in question.

It uses a different architecture which is designed specifically to give that kind of boost. It is like comparing AMD to Intel's p4 procs. Different architectures.

Riptide
09-16-05, 09:00 PM
Well I know that but you don't see it stopping reviewers the world over matching the Athlon64 vs. the Pentium 4 in review after review. ;)

Subtestube
09-16-05, 09:06 PM
Another quick point is that Apple won't be using Netburst (P4) for very long. Conroe is due out in 2nd Half next year, and that's a radically new architecture, which should (I expect) really raise the bar on Intel Perf. My personal guess is that you'll never see a P4 based Mac, but I could be wrong. I'd think that in the first half of next year they'll transit the xBook and Mini lines to P-M based chips, and in the 2nd half, transit from G5s to Conroes.

Sazar
09-16-05, 09:18 PM
Well I know that but you don't see it stopping reviewers the world over matching the Athlon64 vs. the Pentium 4 in review after review. ;)

For desktop cpu's, yes. What else would they compare? How many retail and shipping dothan cores do you see for desktops?

Believe me when I tell you, if this were the case, Dell would be using the procs in its d'tops.

:D

Riptide
09-16-05, 10:13 PM
A CPU is a CPU whether it gets stuck in a laptop or a desktop.

Come to think of it isn't there an ATX form factor motherboard out there that will take a Pentium M?

faraday
09-17-05, 05:01 AM
Maybe intel gave them a better deal, anyway Apple is mostly about the software, let's see how it turns out...

Superfly
09-17-05, 06:12 AM
Conroe AKA the desktop Yonah is gonna kickass (I think) and as previously stated I think apples decision was based around Intels next gen and not the P4.

2006/7 will see Intel rise to the top of the performance ladder in both mobile and desktop arena's.