Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

file · Oct 15, 2002, 11:43 PM

i think what fat mac is trying to say is:

i'm willing to pay a litle extra for a mac and so do millions others for many years now

macs are not for every one, but if you like computers and are comfortable with them and using digital divices...a mac may perhaps bring you a better experience at a extra cost

for whatever reason, macs are a little bit more expensive. i accept it and have moved on. next time i buy a mac, i will evaluate what i can afford and buy accordingly.

i buy expensive pens too opposed to the 99cent store ones and the medium quality toilet paper too.

Nimisys · Oct 15, 2002, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by fat mac moron:

I'd rather not stoop to your level, but it's good to see all that money you saved on x86 compatible computers hasn't been wasted on higher edumacation.

i can't spell well, never have partly due to a hearing problem ( i can't hear the difference between pin and pen or the T in little), and i do a have a speech disability where i know the word i want to say but can't pronounce it correctly.

however i did pull a 700 on the english SAT, and scored 5's on both AP english tests, i may not be able to hear it, speak it or type it correctly but i know the language i am speaking.

now what is more interesting is that you didn't ( couldn't?) respond to the real point i made, instead you have to go after me personally. nice way to defend your POV there...

thunderous_funker · Oct 15, 2002, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by file:
i think what fat mac is trying to say is:

i'm willing to pay a litle extra for a mac and so do millions others for many years now

macs are not for every one, but if you like computers and are comfortable with them and using digital divices...a mac may perhaps bring you a better experience at a extra cost

for whatever reason, macs are a little bit more expensive. i accept it and have moved on. next time i buy a mac, i will evaluate what i can afford and buy accordingly.

i buy expensive pens too opposed to the 99cent store ones and the medium quality toilet paper too.

The point he's making is clear, thank you. It's a very old rationalization (not entirely without merit). It's hard to quantify quality. The million dollar question is, however:

The appropriate response to shrinking demand would be......raise prises?

file · Oct 16, 2002, 12:12 AM

it's not a great time for everybody.

they're trying to bring us pretty cool features like standard duals in the powermac section and standard lcd in the imac section...

if it cost more...so be it. wait or save up for one. buy a used one. get a imac or emac instead.

AlbertWu · Oct 16, 2002, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by denim:
Regarding your .sig, what would Que Pasta mean?

que pasta???

fat mac moron · Oct 16, 2002, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by Nimisys:

i can't spell well, never have partly due to a hearing problem ( i can't hear the difference between pin and pen or the T in little), and i do a have a speech disability where i know the word i want to say but can't pronounce it correctly.

however i did pull a 700 on the english SAT, and scored 5's on both AP english tests, i may not be able to hear it, speak it or type it correctly but i know the language i am speaking.

now what is more interesting is that you didn't ( couldn't?) respond to the real point i made, instead you have to go after me personally. nice way to defend your POV there...

Ok, let's just reference that last paragraph and go back to your previous post which started with:

whats it like to wake up each morning and being as ****ing clueless as you are? thankfully i haven;t had to experince it fr myself, but for the good of all please do share...

Who went after whom? What's the matter, can't take it but you can dish it out?

Humor, surgically f%cking removed.

Nimisys · Oct 16, 2002, 12:40 AM

yet you still don't respond to the point made... your entire responce was personal attack, and still is...

fat mac moron · Oct 16, 2002, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by Nimisys:
yet you still don't respond to the point made... your entire responce was personal attack, and still is...

I'd be completely honest and say I never even read your post. Would you read through something that started out as a personal attack?

PorscheBunny · Oct 16, 2002, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by AlbertWu:
que pasta???

Pasta? What pasta? And does Maxleson have a receipe for it?

Nimisys · Oct 16, 2002, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by fat mac moron:

I'd be completely honest and say I never even read your post. Would you read through something that started out as a personal attack?

to see the reason for it and to flame accordingly

Hawkeye_a · Oct 16, 2002, 06:01 AM

1. Apple will release at least one more upgrade to the PowerMacs before we even see the PPC970 in the desktops/Servers. i suspect this update to arrive in Jan '03. expect single configurations upto 1.33 Ghz. (we will also see the PowerBooks and imacs bumped up in both processors and busses)

2. The PPC970 will probably ship out of Apple in late'03/early'04.

3. Intel and AMB dont have their thumbs up their arses while this new chip debuts from Apple. They are doing their own stuff, whether it be 64-bit processing, SIMD advances, etc....

4. Given the time frame of late'03/early'04. All major chip companies will have roughly the same performance offerings to customers in the professional lines.(as it has alwyas been). Not necessarily the same numbers mind you, just similar performance.

5. Therefore inorder to compete, Apple cannot and WILL not increase prices for the new systems featuring the PPC970. They will probably emphasize a performance edge over intel using the combination of 64-bit processing w/ the SIMDs, to be-little the Intel processors.(as always)

6.The Wintel boxes will still be faster at doing your everyday things....like.... start-up,shut down, playing games, doing more things at once, etc.... The PowerMacs will excell at number crunching and data intensive tasks(Photoshop and data mining, Mathematica, etc).

7. This news has us all excited now, but when we see the landscape in late '03 i doubt any of us will be flabbergasted with the benchmarks revealed after it's released.

8. It is a great processor(PPC970), it's definately a heavyweight. And bening true to the PowerPC legacy. it's very elegantly done. Im sure Apple will entice buyers with great industrial design and tools to broaden the Application/usage base of the Macintosh....extending even further than the digital hub.

Cheers.

P.S.>> Que Pasa ? means 'what's up ?' in Californian.

Surfer · Oct 16, 2002, 06:39 AM

Some new details: http://www.macgo.net/news/news.php?id=173_0_1_0_C

Nimisys · Oct 17, 2002, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Codename:
SPECint and SPECfp benchmarks as reported by IBM at the MPF:

Those SPEC scores are quite pathetic for a chip that is over a year away.

Take a look at these from SPECbench.org:

Yes, that's right--the PPC970 at 1.8GHz due over a year away is slower at SPECint than the P4 at 2.8GHz available now. And the P4 being only 100 units behind at 2.8GHz than the PPC970 at SPECfp shall easily overcome this gap when the P4 scales to 4GHz with SMT next year.

The PPC970 is outdated before it's even released. What's worse, systems using Intel processors will outperform Macs using the PPC970 at a slower price. And before you babbler about dual configurations, remember that you can also get dual Xeons.

and the AMD released scores for hammer at 2.0GHz

SPECint2000: 1202
SPECFP2000: 1170

Spliffdaddy · Oct 17, 2002, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Nimisys:

and the AMD released scores for hammer at 2.0GHz

SPECint2000: 1202
SPECFP2000: 1170

The PPC970 estimated scores get pounded rather decisively by the AMD hammer.

Good thing Apple is sourcing its future processors from AMD.

file · Oct 17, 2002, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:

The PPC970 estimated scores get pounded rather decisively by the AMD hammer.

Good thing Apple is sourcing its future processors from AMD.

what it shows is that both processors are great performers

SPEC scores dont always directly correlate to actual processing speed it's merely a good indicator.

lets wait and run the processors on a variety of tests based on applications as well as specialized computation tests before we determine the true capabilities of the chip and how it is used

olePigeon · Oct 17, 2002, 06:46 PM

IBM's SPEC2000 benchmarks were "conservative," I'm willing to bet AMD ran about 100 tests and took the best one out of the crop. Plus, the 970 is at 1.8GHz while the Opteron is at 2.0GHz.

On top of that, the Opteron is a server chip just like the Itanium. The 970 is a desktop chip.

Let's take a look at prices. A 700MHz Itanium averages about $3000 a chip (not system, the CPU alone) with an 800MHz running about $7500. I checked PriceWatch plus 3 other comparative shopping webpages. They all came up with those figures. Don't flame me, if you can find cheaper please list it.

Now let's assume AMD really wants to be competitive with Intel. Let's suppose they debut their top-of-the-line CPU at only $5000. That's $2500 less than Intel, quite a bargain for something that's just as fast or faster.

At $5000 for the CPU an $1000 more for all the accessories, you're looking at $6000+ computer for something that's "decisively faster" than a $2000 PPC 970 based Mac. Oh, and at half the price of your PC you can get a dual Mac that will blow it to smithereens.

Nimisys · Oct 17, 2002, 08:49 PM

hahaha ....NO

sorry olepigeon the Opteron is a server chip, set for 4-8 ay proccessing, ClawHammer is same chip but for 1-2 way proccessing and it is aimed at te desktop, and mobos are already in place, look for it not much hgher in cost than anyother new CPU from them

olePigeon · Oct 17, 2002, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Nimisys:
hahaha ....NO

sorry olepigeon the Opteron is a server chip, set for 4-8 ay proccessing, ClawHammer is same chip but for 1-2 way proccessing and it is aimed at te desktop, and mobos are already in place, look for it not much hgher in cost than anyother new CPU from them

AMD refuses to release pricing detail on the Opteron, and I didn't even mention the Clawhammer. I'm quite aware of the "K8" motherboards but that doesn't denote the price of the CPU. Itaniums can run on a standard $150 Xeon motherboard, but it doesn't mean the Itanium is going to be 10x cheaper than it is now.

I would imagine the Opteron is an expensive CPU aimed at the server market with the Clawhammer for the desktop market. If AMD gets the Clawhammer and Opteron going Intel will probably have their Whitney out, desktop IA-64 that they claim doesn't exist (but everyone says it does.)

With that in light, shouldn't people be comparing benchmarks between the Clawhammer, Pentium 4, and the PowerPC 970? And don't say the Opteron benchmarks will do for the Clawhammer because a Power4 kicks the ass out of 970.

Oh, real quick. Some interesting information on the 970. Even if it is at only 1.8GHz or 2.0GHz, the chip runs on a 900MHz BUS, up to 64MB (sixtyfour) L3 cache, supports up to 4TB of RAM, and can scale up to 6 processors. Pretty cool for a desktop chip.

BlackGriffen · Oct 17, 2002, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Oh, real quick. Some interesting information on the 970. Even if it is at only 1.8GHz or 2.0GHz, the chip runs on a 900MHz BUS, up to 64MB (sixtyfour) L3 cache, supports up to 4TB of RAM, and can scale up to 6 processors. Pretty cool for a desktop chip.

moki's estimates in the PowerMac forum thread put the estimates at up to 16 way. Type-o?

BlackGriffen

olePigeon · Oct 19, 2002, 12:12 AM

The Power4 does 16-way, the 970 does only 6. It's a scaled down version. But 6 is amazing enough, especially in a desktop computer.

Oh, and if you wanted to be technical about it, the Power4 is actually 32-way if you want to include the 2 cores.

The Power5 is absolutely sick. It supports up to 4 asymetrical cores with a combined 4MB onchip L2 cache, and 640MB L3 cache. And I did say asymetrical, which is a step towards quantum processing. It crunches data as it gets it, not having to wait for the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th core to hand it off.

BlackGriffen · Oct 19, 2002, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by olePigeon:
The Power4 does 16-way, the 970 does only 6. It's a scaled down version. But 6 is amazing enough, especially in a desktop computer.

Oh, and if you wanted to be technical about it, the Power4 is actually 32-way if you want to include the 2 cores.

The Power5 is absolutely sick. It supports up to 4 asymetrical cores with a combined 4MB onchip L2 cache, and 640MB L3 cache. And I did say asymetrical, which is a step towards quantum processing. It crunches data as it gets it, not having to wait for the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th core to hand it off.

I never said who did the type-o, now did I

. Interesting stuff... Especially the POWER5 info. I wonder if IBM will have the balls/ability to go asynchronous with the POWER6?

BlackGriffen

olePigeon · Oct 19, 2002, 04:50 AM

NEC is making some remarkable progress in Quantum processors. Quantum is cool because the bits can be 0, 1, and 0 & 1, effectively trinary. This is a huge step. For example, when calculating the next prime or doing compound numbers (2^2^2^2^2 and so on for a long time) the calculations get exponentially harder with standard CPUs. With a Quantum CPU it only gets TWICE as hard as the preceding calculation. Which means by the time you get up to ^2 200 times, the quantum CPU is crunching numbers literally billions of times faster than a standard CPUs.

This is a huge development for areas such as GENOME, protein mapping, extreme theoretical physics (calculation the big bang, galaxies, super novas, blackhole interaction, etc.) It'll allow people to do these calculations in literally a fraction of the time it takes now on our fastest mainframes.

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

I never said who did the type-o, now did I . Interesting stuff... Especially the POWER5 info. I wonder if IBM will have the balls/ability to go asynchronous with the POWER6?

BlackGriffen

Spliffdaddy · Oct 19, 2002, 08:03 AM

Don't run off and spend that dollar just yet, pigeon dude.

Apple hasn't said anything about using the mythical PPC970.

A year away (plus the expected delays) is too far.

Which helps explain why Apple issued some playthings a few months back that incorporate a common AMD-supplied processor....

vmpaul · Oct 19, 2002, 01:57 PM

How does this new chip affect Apple's laptops? Aren't they going to have go down a similar path to keep the iBooks & PowerBook comparable?

They couldn't have one set of computers be 64-bit and the other 32-bit, could they?

I haven't seen anything about a laptop version of the 970.

olePigeon · Oct 20, 2002, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Which helps explain why Apple issued some playthings a few months back that incorporate a common AMD-supplied processor....

What? Link please, I hadn't heard that before.

And I don't plan on spending another dollar, I need it for the bus.

Zimphire · Oct 20, 2002, 01:21 AM

Apple will be using AMD soon? More rumors?

Funny, I haven't heard this.

Nothing wrong with the Macs now.

Spliffdaddy · Oct 20, 2002, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by olePigeon:

What? Link please, I hadn't heard that before.

And I don't plan on spending another dollar, I need it for the bus.

There is no 'link'.

If you paid attention to my past comments, you'd know more than you should know.

I'm on record as predicting that Apple will use AMD processors. When it happens, I still won't be able to explain how I knew.

Besides, I'm getting a huge kick out of the assumption that Apple is going to use an IBM-sourced processor just because it uses the 'powerpc' nomenclature.

Zimphire · Oct 20, 2002, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:

There is no 'link'.

If you paid attention to my past comments, you'd know more than you should know.

I'm on record as predicting that Apple will use AMD processors. When it happens, I still won't be able to explain how I knew.

Besides, I'm getting a huge kick out of the assumption that Apple is going to use an IBM-sourced processor just because it uses the 'powerpc' nomenclature.

So you have no proof, but yet you make fun of others claiming such things without proof.

How ironic.

Spliffdaddy · Oct 20, 2002, 02:21 PM

yup.

Zimphire · Oct 20, 2002, 02:27 PM

Well glad you agree.

Who polices the FUD police?

:-)

olePigeon · Oct 20, 2002, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Besides, I'm getting a huge kick out of the assumption that Apple is going to use an IBM-sourced processor just because it uses the 'powerpc' nomenclature.

There's other reasons as well. For example, they have an altivec compaitble vector unit. What for? You don't need that for a server. Only one that can make use of it is Apple. Another example is the complete absence of any vector based processing unit on any of IBM's previous processors, as well as IBM's own past admittance that they don't want or even need a vector processing units. I think this is clear evidence that IBM was thinking of Apple when they designed the chip. Whether or no Apple directly had anything to do with it is something completely different. IBM may have added the vector unit just in case Apple considered using it.

Plus, utilizing the 970 is a lot easier than switching your entire architecture again. If Apple goes with AMD, I think it'll be financial suicide. They'll also lose a crap load of developers who're sick and tired of having to rewrite their flagship applications every 2 years.

Spliffdaddy · Oct 21, 2002, 03:33 AM

I made room in my wallet for your dollar

Sure, I could be wrong about computer hardware...I reckon there's a first time for everything.