[macintologist]

Wait..why are we switching to Intel again? Is it because, according to Apple, the G5 kicks Intel's ass? I thought Intel chips were kickass and x times faster than such and such previous Mac

http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

[Mrjinglesusa]

Ha ha, nice catch.

[Mister Elf]

1.) OK, so it kills current Xeons. Whoop-dee-doo. Windows isn't multithreaded. OS X is. So there might be different results if those Xeon tests were performed on an OS X machine.

2.) Remember performance per watt? Do you have any idea how hot those 3.6 Xeons run?

3.) Conroe will rape the current Xeon lineup. Woodcrest will rape Conroe.

4.) "3.0 GHz by next summer..."

[I Bent My Wookiee]

They are not comparing it to the core duels which is what Apple uses in the Intel Macs.

[Cody Dawg]

What a weird thread.

I posted here and my post disappeared.

[Mister Elf]

You posted in the other one...there are apparently two of these.

[MindFad]

its

[Mister Elf]

It's what?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by macintologist

Wait..why are we switching to Intel again? Is it because, according to Apple, the G5 kicks Intel's ass? I thought Intel chips were kickass and x times faster than such and such previous Mac

http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

Because they do kick Intel's ass, when using Altivec enhanced features. The main thing I'm going to miss after the switch to Intel is Altivec.

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Originally Posted by Mister Elf

It's what?

"Apple can't get it's story straight"

It should be "its".

macintologist Owned once again.

[Tomchu]

Originally Posted by Mister Elf

Windows isn't multithreaded.

Ummmm, Windows is very much multi-threaded, and it supports multiple processors very well.

Where do you get your facts, exactly?

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

Ummmm, Windows is very much multi-threaded, and it supports multiple processors very well.

Where do you get your facts, exactly?

don't know about him but I get mine from Google China.

[Big Mac]

I have been linking to that page on my signature's image for months. Unfortunately, we'll never see Apple compare the G5 to Intel again (just as Apple shows no cross platform comparisons for the dual and quad cores) unless it's in Intel's favor.

[goMac]

To be fair, look at those chips. No Intel Core Duos, a first generation Athlon 64, and a Pentium 4 which is not very related to the Core Duo.

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Originally Posted by goMac

To be fair, look at those chips. No Intel Core Duos, a first generation Athlon 64, and a Pentium 4 which is not very related to the Core Duo.

Yep, just like I mentioned. Seems that macintologist is asleep at the wheel again.

[Mister Elf]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

Ummmm, Windows is very much multi-threaded, and it supports multiple processors very well.

Where do you get your facts, exactly?

I meant that it doesn't support symmetric multiprocessing like OS X, except in XP Pro.

[rickey939]

[ibookuser2]

There's a lot more to the PowerMac than its processor.

The Intel iMacs and MacBooks are so much faster than their predecessors for more reasons than the Intel Core Duo. Faster RAM, buses, and hard drives can make a big difference. A fast processor is worthless if it's twiddling its thumbs for thousands to millions of cycles waiting for data from RAM and disk.

The PowerMac really has the least to gain from the transition, as it's already using high-end components everywhere.

[willed]

They can make up statistics to show whatever they want. There's probably a page on their website 'proving' how the G4 PowerBooks are faster than all the Intel competition!

[Tomchu]

Originally Posted by Mister Elf

I meant that it doesn't support symmetric multiprocessing like OS X, except in XP Pro.

Nuh-uh.

NT-based Windows has supported SMP from the very start -- that includes NT 3.1, 3.51, 4.0, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and on. XP Home will only see one processor in a multi-processor system, but that's an artificial limitation. It will still work with (and identify) multi-core processors.

[Millennium]

Multithreading is actually one of OSX's weakest points. I wouldn't be surprised if Windows took better advantage of multithreading than OSX did.

The real king of threading, though, was BeOS, mostly because the OS was designed to take ruthless advantage of it at every opportunity. This had some drawbacks -among other things, threading can make debugging very difficult- but it's difficult to argue with the speed that Be managed to wring out of that system.

[Tomchu]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Multithreading is actually one of OSX's weakest points. I wouldn't be surprised if Windows took better advantage of multithreading than OSX did.

The real king of threading, though, was BeOS, mostly because the OS was designed to take ruthless advantage of it at every opportunity. This had some drawbacks -among other things, threading can make debugging very difficult- but it's difficult to argue with the speed that Be managed to wring out of that system.

Heh, tell me about it. I had BeOS installed on a Pentium 133 with 32 MB of RAM, and that thing *flew*. I was playing video and surfing some sites in a graphical browser, while having an IM client open with a few conversations going on -- and it never choked.

[Mister Elf]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

Nuh-uh.

NT-based Windows has supported SMP from the very start -- that includes NT 3.1, 3.51, 4.0, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and on. XP Home will only see one processor in a multi-processor system, but that's an artificial limitation. It will still work with (and identify) multi-core processors.

Right, but most people use Home and Media Center, and with the new dual-core chips, "non-crippled" SMP is a good idea.

[GSixZero]

Give apple a break. Are they really going to say that their machines are slaughtered by the competition? I didn't think so. It's just spin.

[Salty]

As stated already the Power Macs were really the only Macs that really could be pointed to in bench marks as being worth it for their cost. The other Macs all always got by by being better than faster PCs in other ways. Now we'll have really fast really sexy computers... ahh the joy...
That said the Power Mac will probably transition last because frankly right now they're pretty comparable.

[turtle777]

[Fake_news]
Salty can't get SWF straight
[/Fake_news]

*SCNR*

[Salty]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

[Fake_news]
Salty can't get SWF straight
[/Fake_news]

*SCNR*

Huh?

[Tomchu]

Originally Posted by Mister Elf

Right, but most people use Home and Media Center, and with the new dual-core chips, "non-crippled" SMP is a good idea.

Do you simply not get it? I just said that the only thing crippled about Home's SMP support is that it won't bother using multiple *physical* CPUs. Multi-core CPUs work just as well as any other version of NT. It's not a technical limitation, but rather just a license check (IF license == "Home" THEN numCPUs == 1)

Users of Windows XP Home Edition obviously aren't going to be building multi-CPU rigs for themselves.

[Mister Elf]

You'd be surprised.

[The Godfather]

Dell would not ship a Core Duo PC if the OS would use 50% of it.

[Tomchu]

Originally Posted by Mister Elf

You'd be surprised.

Right. Nice red herring, by the way. It went from "Windows isn't multi-threaded" to "Well, you'd be surprised how many people try to install Windows XP Home on multi-processor systems."

The issue is completely irrelevant, and it's not something you can blame Microsoft for.

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

[Fake_news]
Salty can't get SWF straight
[/Fake_news]

*SCNR*

I don't get it.

[goMac]

Windows XP home will support dual cores, but it will only support one physical processor (i.e. one chip sitting in one socket).