Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ThisGuy · 10:10 PM

So let me get this straight. They have Xbox, PS2, and Gamecube or whatever it is called lined up to use their processors. Anything else I need to know about before I buy some stock?

olePigeon · Mar 13, 2005, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by ThisGuy:
So let me get this straight. They have Xbox, PS2, and Gamecube or whatever it is called lined up to use their processors. Anything else I need to know about before I buy some stock?

They're positioning their Cell technology to be embedded in digital TVs, cell phones, and even common household appliances. They're doing what Motorola wanted to.

zizban · Mar 13, 2005, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by olePigeon:
They're positioning their Cell technology to be embedded in digital TVs, cell phones, and even common household appliances. They're doing what Motorola wanted to.

and doing it much better and with more skill than Motrola ever dreamed over.

Superchicken · Mar 13, 2005, 11:00 PM

IBM... potentially the next Intel... only less evil. I'd love to see it become less a war of Intel vs. AMD and more a war of Intel vs. AMD vs. IBM.

Hawkeye_a · Mar 14, 2005, 01:24 AM

it seems more like a x86 vs PPC battle to me. And PPC looks to be taking huge strides into consumers homes. more so than Intel.

Weird the Xbox has intel... im glad MS is dumping it for a PPC from IBM..... kinda like what Nintendo has been doing since the gamecube...but oh well..cant blame Microsoft for getting to the party late...i mean they are microsoft

.

Y3a · Mar 14, 2005, 12:32 PM

Aren't the most recent NASA probes using PPC now?

demograph68 · Mar 14, 2005, 01:09 PM

What's so wrong with Intel?

benb · Mar 14, 2005, 01:17 PM

What's with the loyalty to a company? And why is Intel evil, or anymore so than IBM has been or could be? Just buy the product with the best price/performance ratio. No need to be a fan of a company.

ThisGuy · Mar 14, 2005, 01:23 PM

I am a fan of any company that can make me $$$.

benb · Mar 14, 2005, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by ThisGuy:
I am a fan of any company that can make me $$$.

So am I.

Big Mac · Mar 14, 2005, 03:04 PM

Can someone explained to me why M$ would screw over Intel wrt the XBox 2? I know there really is not much honor among thieves, but I am still a bit perplexed over that particular move.

IBM is a little on the expensive side, but it may well be worth it.

wdlove · Mar 14, 2005, 04:04 PM

IBM needs to gear up production and start producing the next generation processor for Apple.

goMac · Mar 14, 2005, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by wdlove:
IBM needs to gear up production and start producing the next generation processor for Apple.

I think this is the first thing I've seen wdlove say that is anything close to remotely negative about anyone.

TheBadgerHunter · Mar 14, 2005, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by goMac:
I think this is the first thing I've seen wdlove say that is anything close to remotely negative about anyone.

No, there was that one cat comment.

Millennium · Mar 14, 2005, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by demograph68:
What's so wrong with Intel?

They have been pushing a demonstrably inferior architecture for over two decades, marketing it to the point where people constantly pick wht is cheap over what is good. Hell; it was chosen for the IBM PC back in The Day because it was so bad; IBM wanted to make sure that microcomputers (as they were called back then) would never be able to compete with the minicomputer market (which is now, of course, basically dead).

That's why they're evil. They achieve nothing, and indeed advocate holding it back.

Eug Wanker · Mar 14, 2005, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
They have been pushing a demonstrably inferior architecture for over two decades, marketing it to the point where people constantly pick wht is cheap over what is good. Hell; it was chosen for the IBM PC back in The Day because it was so bad; IBM wanted to make sure that microcomputers (as they were called back then) would never be able to compete with the minicomputer market (which is now, of course, basically dead).

That's why they're evil. They achieve nothing, and indeed advocate holding it back.

I disagree with this vehemently.

While Intel chips have their problems, it is Intel's chip design ingenuity that has kept x86 a leader performance-wise. Hell, even Stevie agreed, and bought a whole truckload of Intel processors for Pixar's renderfarm. And the Xserve RAID today uses Intel chips too (although they're not x86).

Intel is IBM's chip nemesis, but Intel has done amazing work, even if not everything that comes from them is perfect.

MaxPower2k3 · Mar 14, 2005, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
They have been pushing a demonstrably inferior architecture for over two decades, marketing it to the point where people constantly pick wht is cheap over what is good.

Who's picking cheap over good? AMD is cheaper... and better. Intel is simply the only option for people buying most brands of PCs (the exception would be HP).

demograph68 · Mar 14, 2005, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
marketing it to the point where people constantly pick wht is cheap over what is good.

Apple does the same thing. (Yet in no way are macs cheap) "The fastest computer" claim when the G5 came out is a joke. The G5 is perhaps more flawed than even Intel's P4.

Eug Wanker · Mar 14, 2005, 06:59 PM

P.S. Does anyone have any details on Nintendo's & IBM's Broadway chip? It's undoubtedly PowerPC, but besides that I know nothing about it.

Big Mac · 07:23 PM

Originally posted by demograph68:
Apple does the same thing. (Yet in no way are macs cheap) "The fastest computer" claim when the G5 came out is a joke. The G5 is perhaps more flawed than even Intel's P4.

More flawed? That's a dubious claim. What flaws are you referring to? And do you have the credentials to make such a bold assertion?

Eug, the primary reason why Intel has been so competitive in the last five years or so is because of fierce competition from AMD. To be fair, Intel is not as incompetent as Millennium makes the company sound. Intel has been a leading force in microprocessors - there is no denying that fact. And Intel was successfully able to transition from a dying traditional x86 platform to an x86 hybrid that has thus far been able to keep pace with the industry. But Intel is not a great innovator.

Eug Wanker · Mar 14, 2005, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Big Mac:
More flawed? That's a dubious claim. What flaws are you referring to? And do you have the credentials to make such a bold assertion?

I have no creditials either. That's why we're arguing in the lounge.

But no, the G5 definitely isn't perfect either. eg. If we talk about today's shipping G5:

High memory latency
Clockspeed isn't terribly high
No low power version for a laptop
High heat density, making liquid cooling desirable
Mediocre amounts of L2 cache
Etc.

It's a good chip, but it's far from perfect. I just hope the G5 970MP solves many of those problems.

Big Mac · Mar 14, 2005, 07:34 PM

You do know that I was addressing my first paragraph to demograph, right? I do not see how one can complain that much about G5 memory latency. A 1/2 clock speed FSB is terrific, compared to the Wintel side and especially when compared to the pathetic situation we had with the G4. Second, clock speed is not everything, and as long as we're competitive with the other side of the aisle performance wise we have nothing to bitch about. Finally, I'm pretty sure that the G5's heat density is competitive if not better, and liquid cooling is desirable because of noise concerns. The G5 is not perfect, but I am proud that it powers my Mac.

demograph68 · Mar 14, 2005, 07:42 PM

It's not as fast, it's expensive, and it produces more heat. Nothing to hard to figure out really.
I can't stand brand loyalty so if you feel like defending it just because Apple is using it, whatever.

olePigeon · Mar 14, 2005, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Y3a:
Aren't the most recent NASA probes using PPC now?

They've been using PPC for a long time. Macs are popular among smart people.

Eug Wanker · Mar 14, 2005, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by Big Mac:
You do know that I was addressing my first paragraph to demograph, right? I do not see how one can complain that much about G5 memory latency. A 1/2 clock speed FSB is terrific, compared to the Wintel side and especially when compared to the pathetic situation we had with the G4.

High bandwidth =! low latency.

gumby5647 · Mar 14, 2005, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by Superchicken:
IBM... potentially the next Intel... only less evil. I'd love to see it become less a war of Intel vs. AMD and more a war of Intel vs. AMD vs. IBM.

10 bucks says IBM will buy AMD by the end of the decade. Then...you wanna talk about a chip war....yikes!

Abnormal-Solder · Mar 15, 2005, 12:35 AM

I remember the days when all you zombie Mac users would say the same for the G4....

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
High bandwidth =! low latency.

Too bad no one saw that when the G4 came out!!!
Just proves that many Mac users are stupid idiots who know nothing about computers and are spastic brain dead followers.

the G4 had a 160Mhz BUS... using 300Mhz Memory, and at that time it cost 2-3x more for that memory..

Many benchies proved that DDR was just used because they wanted to save face.

MindFad · Mar 15, 2005, 01:38 AM

ZOMG

goMac · Mar 15, 2005, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Abnormal-Solder:
I remember the days when all you zombie Mac users would say the same for the G4....

Too bad no one saw that when the G4 came out!!!
Just proves that many Mac users are stupid idiots who know nothing about computers and are spastic brain dead followers.

the G4 had a 160Mhz BUS... using 300Mhz Memory, and at that time it cost 2-3x more for that memory..

Many benchies proved that DDR was just used because they wanted to save face.

Uhhhh... dude. No one thought that DDR did squat. We all realized that the bus was too slow. The reason I cared about DDR memory was because it was actually cheaper and easier to find, not to mention I could swap it with PC's.

Do some searching through archives here. There are plenty of "zombie mac users" posts complaining about how G4's can't use their DDR memory effectively.