The Longer Apple Sticks with Motorola, the Behinder They Get

[cahult]

http://www.lowendmac.com/musings/03/0124.html

Do you agree? I do.

[psyjax]

All this nonsense over a fucking number.

I have a dual 800 G4, an Athalon XP 2100. First, the dual G4 is clearly a better machine.

Curently I am running a single processor 400Mhz G4 laptop. This laptop is better than the XP 2100.

Mhz, is BS. I used to be concerned with this nonsense till I baught a PC, partialy convinced that the speed diffrence must be mindboggling. Needless to say I wasn't impressed.

Mac's are better, they are also Elitist. It's not Moto, IBM, or Apple. They are doing what they need to do, and instead of cramming up an overheating CPU into a box of old parts Apple invests it's R&D into developing compleat new packages that are well designed and integrated.

Mac's rule. People just don't get it.

[ravuya]

I think Motorola is just holding Apple back. It's not clock speed, though. Motorola can't make new, kickass chips as fast as they should. IBM can.

[slave]

quote: Curently I am running a single processor 400Mhz G4 laptop. This laptop is better than the XP 2100.

If you're talking about speed, then no, the G4 is not better.  If you could put OS X on the Athlon it would seem much more responsive i'm sure, provided the athlon has a decent video card.

[emh]

The speed/efficiency of a CPU cannot be determined by Mhz/Ghz alone.  There are many factors.  I don't know enough about this kind of thing to elaborate, though.

[cahult]

MHz is BS of course, but I don

[Crunchy(Cracked)Butter]

An interesting link here with regards to processors and the mhz war.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,806465,00.asp

Deals with the new IBM 970 and discusses road maps for different processors.

[cahult]

quote:Originally posted by Crunchy(Cracked)Butter:
An interesting link here with regards to processors and the mhz war.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,806465,00.asp

Deals with the new IBM 970 and discusses road maps for different processors.

The thing which struck me when reading this article is not the article itself but all the ads around it. It was near impossible to find the article! Why do they insist on putting these spam ads everywhere on the page when nobody clicks on them?

[Crunchy(Cracked)Butter]

Yeah it is a bummer, like only 1 paragrpah on one page for example but the article is worth it i think.

[bossesjoe]

I think we all are forgetting two things. I read about this stuff in a copy of a Macaddict. First is the fact that a shorter pipeline is better if the computer has made a mistake. This is because the computer has less stages to rebuild. Second is what was described by one of my friends. The cashe, holds commonly used functions. And the apples have L1s, L2s and L3s. Which also gives up a speed up on the windows chips.

http://www.apple.com/g4/myth/

Take a peek at this.

[billy_gates]

quote:Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:


If you're talking about speed, then no, the G4 is not better.  If you could put OS X on the Athlon it would seem much more responsive i'm sure, provided the athlon has a decent video card.

I agree with this guy,  I personally hope Apple lets PPC die, and puts macs on x86.

[rtgwbmsr]

quote:Originally posted by psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax:
All this nonsense over a fucking number.

I have a dual 800 G4, an Athlon XP 2100. First, the dual G4 is clearly a better machine.

Curently I am running a single processor 400Mhz G4 laptop. This laptop is better than the XP 2100.

Mhz, is BS. I used to be concerned with this nonsense till I baught a PC, partialy convinced that the speed diffrence must be mindboggling. Needless to say I wasn't impressed.

Mac's are better, they are also Elitist. It's not Moto, IBM, or Apple. They are doing what they need to do, and instead of cramming up an overheating CPU into a box of old parts Apple invests it's R&D into developing compleat new packages that are well designed and integrated.

Mac's rule. People just don't get it.

He's almost right, along with bossesjoe. The Dual 800 kicks the crap out of an Athlon (1700+). The 400...I'm not so sure. The test: 1.55 Quadrillion intersect attempts in Bryce 5. A lot of times the rays may get "broken" somehow...the Athlon has to rebuild a deep pipeline, but the G4 has to rebuild a very shallow piplline. The P4 has it the worst. It needs to rebuild a 20 stage pipeline...

The Athlon took 47 minutes, 50 seconds in case you were curious.

[Fett101]

1. They only give the results of *gasp* photoshop tests. How surprising.

2. The whole mhz is only a contributing factor is obvious. My cat knows that. Your PC is only as strong as it's weakest link. However, more mhz does mean better performance, which can't always be properly compared across differant platforms or architectures. A Pentium 2.4ghz obviously performs slower then a 3ghz, yet comparable to a Athlon XP 2400, with an actual clock speed of 2ghz. I thnk he meant to say(or should have said) something about mhz comparisons across different platforms. "MHZ doesn't equal performance" is an oversimplified and incorrect phrase

3. Athlon XPs have deep pipeline of 10 and G4s a shallow 7...

[slave]

quote:  I have a dual 800 G4, an Athalon XP 2100. First, the dual G4 is clearly a better machine.

Out of curiousity, what OS are you running on the Athlon?

[choasforages]

i do think they should use the ppc 970. scrapping ppc for x86 would be a mistake, apple would get no revenue from QUALITY hardware and macosx would get a bad name for not running on shitty ass x86 hardware and failing alot. read the "electro-shitic" post for some reasons why.