User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » General Discussion »

x86 and PPC Performance


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
x86 and PPC Performance
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2  Next Thread Tools
Banana
is the next Chiquita
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2005-06-07, 13:20

When Apple announced the switch, I wasn't particularly concerned about the transition, the business dealing as it already has been discussed elsewhere here.

However, I'm totally stumped as to what was wrong with PPC in first place. Wasn't we told that PPC is "better", "efficient" than a x86? Isn't there supposed to be a future in a RISC processor?

Wasn't x86 arch dying? Wasn't Intel/AMD at a wall and recent gains were smaller and smaller? Weren't they looking for a new way to push the walls?

So exactly why the switch to a dying arch? If it was a switch to Sun's arch or even a Infinite Improbability arch, then sure no problem here. But x86?

(For uninformed like myself, here's some good starting info: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3997&page=4 this is a 5 page articles, but this one has the table of contents to link to all pages).

Some explanation would be much helpful. And for rants, there's threads for that, so go over there, please.
  quote
DMBand0026
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Chicago
 
2005-06-07, 14:38

That's what I thought too. Apple has been convincing us for years of the superioriority of the PPC chip and that x86 is a dying breed. I don't really know what to think now that the world's best OS is running on what they've claimed is the world's worst chip. I'm still not a believer. I'm not jumping off a cliff or swearing off Apple for the rest of my days, but I'm just not convinced yet. I'm still looking for answers just as you are.

Come waste your time with me
  quote
Ryan
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Promise Land of Trustafarians
 
2005-06-07, 16:58

Did Jobs ever say what chip Apple'll be using? Or did he just say it'll be on the x86 architecture?

If it's the latter, then they will probably use the Pentium D and M, D for desktop, M for laptops.

The D chip is dual core, and will take advantage of the built-in threading, just like OSX does in a dual-processor machine.

Here are some benchmarks comparing the D to the 4 in some popular applications on Windows.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050405/index.html
  quote
rminkler
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
 
2005-06-07, 17:07

Did you all really believe all those apple benchmarks? Would you believe benchmarks reporting the superiority of intel chips if they had been conducted or funded by intel? Os X is great, and Macs are a beautiful, solid package, but PPC was not what made them so.

On another note, it seems to me likely that apple will be using x86 chips. I imagine that apple switched to intel in order to hitch a ride on all the R & D money that intel shells out already... It seems unlikely that intel would design a new chip just for one little company (in terms of cpus sold) like apple, and even if they did it might fall to the same fate as Motorola or IBM chips - Intel would prioritize x86 development over a custom apple chip and the Apple chip would stagnate.

I really don't have any concrete evidence to back up any of these claims, it's just my two cents, but it seems to me that apple is positioning itself to reap the benifits of millions or billions of R&D dollars that are already being spent....
  quote
BlueRabbit
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
 
2005-06-07, 17:52

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMBand0026
That's what I thought too. Apple has been convincing us for years of the superioriority of the PPC chip and that x86 is a dying breed. I don't really know what to think now that the world's best OS is running on what they've claimed is the world's worst chip. I'm still not a believer. I'm not jumping off a cliff or swearing off Apple for the rest of my days, but I'm just not convinced yet. I'm still looking for answers just as you are.
From what I've heard, the issue isn't that PPC is inferior - it's that Motorola, and the IBM, dropped the ball. Even though it was better designed, it didn't go anywhere, even though it could have. Right now, it's quite probable that Steve believes that Intel is would be more focused on Apple than would IBM. Remember, when the G5 came out, IBM just sent a VP of hardware (or something) to the keynote. Intel sent their president and CEO. That says something.
  quote
FFL
Fishhead Family Reunited
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Slightly Off Center
 
2005-06-07, 17:54

To put it simply - it's not about the chip architectures, it's about the implementation of the architectures.
  quote
Banana
is the next Chiquita
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2005-06-07, 18:48



Sorry, but I still don't get it. Lemme put it in simplest form.

x86 is dying.
Apple moves to x86.
Therefore, Apple will die.

PPC is flourishing.
Apple does not get PPC.
Therefore, Apple need to get x86 (?).

This is kind of logic I'm thinking. I completely understand the reasoning for switch... I would wholeheartedly support it if it was to oh say, Sun or CRAY or TI 95 arch, but a dying x86? When its finally dead, won't Apple then have to dig themselves out?

One more point to make; if Apple just decided to add a line of x86 along with PPC, it would make sense to me as well. Its for sake of mindshare and no slick ad campaign can compete with it. But I'm heard a complete flip flop from PPC to x86 so...

To keep on the topic, might an explanation of Pentium M is better than G4 or G5 is needed?
  quote
Zodiac
Shiny, Musky, Fleshy Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: The Beer Store
 
2005-06-07, 18:55

WHAT IN THE FUCK?!?!?! They're actualy switching?

Well..... what will happen with the millions of current PPC computers? Will they just be abondened completely?
  quote
billybobsky
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Inner Swabia. If you have to ask twice, don't.
 
2005-06-07, 18:55

Intel is forced to devote itself to making sure all future chips it produces have some sort of compatibility with the x86 arch. Otherwise they lose their customer base.

Apple is not in a bad position here. At any point in the future, they can choose hardware that supports either of the two dominant instruction sets.
  quote
FFL
Fishhead Family Reunited
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Slightly Off Center
 
2005-06-07, 18:58

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zodiac
Well..... what will happen with the millions of current PPC computers? Will they just be abondened completely?
No.

Stickies, man... there are Stickies....
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2005-06-07, 19:17

Banana

You need to calm down about all of this. You're really stuck on this, "x86 is dying! What's going on?!" thinking. Do a little research and see if you can calm yourself down a bit.

If it's not red and showing substantial musculature, you're wearing it wrong.
  quote
Banana
is the next Chiquita
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2005-06-07, 19:32

Torifile,

So you know, I'm relaxed, merely perplexed.

As for research, might you have a link handy? I googled some, but other than poorly implemented benchmarks, or totally irrelevent articles, got nothing. Its not even benchmarks I'm interested, but rather the future of x86. Why all those comments, "they has hit a wall", "they're really stuck on a dying arch?" "PPC is the future" if they were all untrue.

I'm sure there's answer somewhere. I just don't know where it is.

  quote
nassau
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
 
2005-06-07, 19:59

again, it's funny to see how two days ago, most everyone claimed the x86 was dying - long live the PPC. now it's the other way around! isn't anyone reacting to the sillyness?

i don't know which is true, but the whole thing is silly. those failing to see this need to lay off the RDF or Crack.
  quote
Zodiac
Shiny, Musky, Fleshy Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: The Beer Store
 
2005-06-07, 20:01

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFL
No.

Stickies, man... there are Stickies....

Yeah yeah. I just ignored them.

Well, I saw the WWDC 2005 webcast. The intel transition isn't as bad as I thought.
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2005-06-07, 21:07

Quote:
Originally Posted by nassau
again, it's funny to see how two days ago, most everyone claimed the x86 was dying - long live the PPC. now it's the other way around! isn't anyone reacting to the sillyness?

i don't know which is true, but the whole thing is silly. those failing to see this need to lay off the RDF or Crack.
Who said these things? Baseless claims get you nowhere. Anyone who knows anything about processors, etc., wouldn't have made such an absolute statement

And everyone else's opinions.... well, they're like assholes. Everyone's got one.

If it's not red and showing substantial musculature, you're wearing it wrong.
  quote
FireDancer
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
 
2005-06-07, 21:11

I think the PPC has the potential to be an exceptional CPU. Those comments about x86 dyeing were made when the net-burst chips were failing to clock to 4.0Ghz and had ran out of steam and Intel didn't have an alternate plan. Now, Intel does have a plan and it looks good. If you look at Moto, IBM, and Intel with 20/20 hindsight and you look at what was motivating each company to produce CPUs for Apple, what happened with Moto and IBM is not at all surprising....and the shift to Intel isn't either.

The PPC comments were made when the first G5s were introduced and I do believe that both IBM and Apple thought the G5 would scale much better. Before the G5 you never read anything about "Power Density". If the absolute heat produced was low enough, you could use it. And power density is the problem (a small core at high clock speeds).

To be honest I never understood Apple's deals with either Motorola or IBM. It's all about $$. Moto didn't design and make cpu for Apple, they made them for themselves - Moto's motivation was to make $$ selling G4s in small form factors. When Apple wanted higher performance CPUs Moto realized it didn't benefit their products or bottom line.

IBM was even worse. With all the $$$ it takes to design and fab a processor, unless IBM was going to stick four G5s in every small to mid-size server it produced, it wasn't going to make any $$$ on the G5. To this day I have to search high and low to even find IBM products with G5s.

Through into the mix fab problems and the unforeseen power density problems and it's not that IBM could solve the techincal problems, I think they didn't want to as the G5 is essentially a custom chip for Apple who sells a total of 3.5 million macs per year and far fewer G5s. IBM in this situation has no motivation to advance G5 development.

I'm not surprised Moto or IBM didn't deliver as Apple's needs never seemed to fit well with either IBM or Moto from a $$$ and a philosophy point of view.

Now look at Intel. It's whole purpose for being is to provide a complete and competitive solution across the entire computer range. What's truly good for Apple is Intel is not making custom chips for a company with 2% market share. They are making chips for 85% of the market and will through as much $$ and resources into advancing technology as it needs. Here, Intels motivation is $$ and Apple is simply 3.5 million more Intel computers sold next year.

Last edited by FireDancer : 2005-06-07 at 21:17.
  quote
Chinney
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
 
2005-06-07, 21:28

Quote:
Originally Posted by nassau
again, it's funny to see how two days ago, most everyone claimed the x86 was dying - long live the PPC. now it's the other way around! isn't anyone reacting to the sillyness?

i don't know which is true, but the whole thing is silly. those failing to see this need to lay off the RDF or Crack.
"We have always been at war with Eurasia...and Eastasia is our ally."
  quote
intlplby
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
 
2005-06-07, 21:34

How much performance difference is there currently between the top of the line 17 inch Pbook and the top of the line intel laptop using a pentium M?
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2005-06-07, 22:00

Quote:
Originally Posted by intlplby
How much performance difference is there currently between the top of the line 17 inch Pbook and the top of the line intel laptop using a pentium M?
7¡^2
  quote
billybobsky
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Inner Swabia. If you have to ask twice, don't.
 
2005-06-07, 22:31

-7?

Jebesus. I don't even know what that can possibly mean.
  quote
CobaltFire
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Send a message via AIM to CobaltFire  
2005-06-07, 23:28

There is quite a bit of performance difference, as in some benchmarks (non-optimized) the Pentium M's at 2GHz are running almost as fast as an FX-55, say in games. Kinda telling, huh? The Pentium M is a damned fast chip, and I am looking forward to whatever else they spawn from it.

15.4" PowerBook G4 1.25GHz/512MB (Radeon 9600/64MB)
Keep our troops overseas in your hearts and minds - it means more to them than you can imagine.
I would rather be hated for who I am than loved for who I am not.
  quote
Franz Josef
Passing by
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London, Europe
 
2005-06-07, 23:50

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFL
No.

Stickies, man... there are Stickies....
I'm feeling sorry for you and Brad - this is going to be a long hot Summer saying read the stickies ten times a day
  quote
Windaria
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
 
2005-06-08, 01:42

The whole CISC/RISC thing is a no-starter. For some time X86 has been, on the internals, shifting toward RISC, while PPC has been moving in the other directions. The archetictures have been hybridizing off of each other for some time now. As for better? From a technological standpoint, maybe, but no... for a main system processor, the 2 million units a year that are shipped for apple are nothing compared to the x86 market, otherwise ppc is mostly embedded. It is all market share... x86 has it, and as a result it gets the R&D cash. It has been superior for some time now, Apple has just been lying to the fanboys saying that PPC is better and they're the only ones that have really been swallowing it. Better designed, yes. Faster? No.

This is just Apple's admission as they will finally move toward a better and (due to the ecconomy of scale), less expensive system. Hopefully their prices will reflect it and they won't be such a bloated overpriced platform anymore...

x86 dying? That is hilarious... Oh, they have tried to kill it for some time, Intel did the Itanium without the x86 support and what happened? AMD did the x86 64 and look where the market went, plus they were faster in 64 bit operations as well. It may be "old" and all, but when you pump enough money into something you can figure ways to keep runing with it for quite some time. As for looking for new ways to push the walls... they always are, what is new with that? You don't think that the PPC people were sitting on their hands staying with what they had do you? Oh wait, they were...

And as for x86 being a dying breed... remember, the Apple installed base has been shrinking over the years. Even the Apple fanboy Gary Krakow over at MSNBC admitted to that, not that he typically has much of a clue anyway. x86 is old, but it is anything but dying. Every time they try to shift away from it the 'new' ends up being like the PPC. Better designed and all sure, but NOT faster, and far more expensive. Again, just look at Itanium. It was great and all but in the end it was slow and lacked the backwards compatibility and AMD blew it out of the water with the tried and true x86. Some day I hope that we will come up with something better, something to replace it, but we just aren't there yet. All of the attempts end up being fancy, expensive, and slow. Fancy, inexpensive, and fast is what they need to achieve.

As for what chip... I read another article over at either anandtech or toms hardware that was pretty good and they pointed out that at the time that Apple will start shifting over to officially supporting the x86 setup, Intel will have their own x86 64 out to compete with AMD, so it wouldn't be the Pentium D or M... so no explanation of Pentium M as compared to PPC is needed.

Now... as for all those "hit a wall" things... when you read those those are talking about walls that they generally forsee about 5-10 years out. Again, this kind of stuff has been around for ages, but they are talking about them so far out and then what happens? Someone comes up with something that saves the day.

Plus, if you read most of those "hit a wall" articles, they would apply to PPC as well! Typically it is something to do with the substrate, packaging, etc etc. The materials used or the way they are implemented. That said, they always shift to new materials and shift to new packaging (sockets and slots, we've had PLENTY of them). Heck, at one point they are looking at gorwing their chips on diamonds (which they can now artifically create, so they may end up even being less expensive that silicon one day). But the fact is, those walls are talking about heat dispensation and speed that a substance is capable of handling because the chips are seriously PUSHING those boundries, but they would apply to all chips. No one mentions the PPC because the 2 million shipments a year is really just a drop in the bucket, so why mention them? THey're hardly worth noticing.

And finally, like FireDancer said, no one is really going to be totally designing chips for Apple, they simply DO NOT have the subscriber base. 2% just doesn't warrent the work, there is no point to it and no $$$.

The really odd thing about all of this is that while Apple is finally moving up to the x86 world (because they do beat out those PPC chips with ease), they are choosing Intel. For ages now, AMD has been slamming Intel up against the wall like the school bully throws around the resident peon. Sure, Intel's chips can do that with the PPC, but Apple is just moving from #3 to #2. Why not go with #1 for speed? It just fails to make sense, especially since AMD chips tend to be less expensive and Intel is just selling on name. Especially with the AMD laptop chips coming out...

See, with the Pentium M, Intel had to do a ground-up processor design because the P4 just... exudes heat. I mean it is HOT. So, while the Pentium M can come reasonably close in speed, and will likely have a LOT more headroom, last I checked it isn't there with the P4 yet.

AMD on the other hand has not had these problems as, while their chips used to cook an egg, they solved those problems and now run quite cool (by comparison). As a result, they are just modifying their processors and are just now starting to release mobile processors that should be able to leave a Pentium M in the dust.

So, cooler running, faster... why Intel? It just fails to make any sense... besides, say if Intel is still 84% of the market (again, selling on name alone anymore, but someone else referenced that figure above so let's go with it), that 2% that Apple has in the market would mean a LOT more to AMD, so you would think that they would have been more likely to cater to Apple, as needed.

Then again, maybe Apple was just worried that if they did that then Intel would release a workaround to make OSX(or whatever they release at that time) work on Intel's chips.

One advantage of this, however... while Apple may still apply far more strict controls as to what is approved hardware and what is not... hopefully they will actually get some good graphics power now. The graphics cards that you get in a G4/G5 tend to be far older and far slower than what you can usually pick up on a PC, and hopefully they will be compatible now.
  quote
staph
Microbial member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Send a message via AIM to staph  
2005-06-08, 01:52

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banana
…Sun or CRAY… but a dying x86?…
Ah, unintentional irony at its best.

x86 has been dying for 20 years. I expect it will continue to do so for the next 20. I'd be very surprised if SPARC lasts that long.
  quote
BenRoethig
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dubuque, IA
 
2005-06-08, 08:47

The PowerPC is only faster if companies are willing to make the chip. The PowerPC showed there is no technical reason while a modern PowerPC can't run with the Pentiums and Athlons. Unfortunately it also showed the economic reality. Freescale was in no hurry to market a better G4 since its main customer base (embedded) didn't require it yet. With the G5, I believe the gig was up when the IBM missed the mid term update. For the investment, the return was very small. The G5 made up only 2% of the plant's production capability. Like Motorola, IBM came to the conclusion that it was not in its best business interests to cater to Apple. Staying on the PowerPC would mean sticking with whatever Freescale would give us. The switch to x86 wasn't a good option, it was the only option Apple had left.
  quote
FireDancer
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
 
2005-06-08, 09:02

Quote:
It just fails to make sense, especially since AMD chips tend to be less expensive and Intel is just selling on name
I read somewhere that someone thought Intel may have given a better deal to Apple...or at least they speculated this maybe so due to Intel's relentless courtship of Apple over the years (big win to add Apple's name to your list of customers).

Also, while I'm an AMD fan (all my gaming rigs always have AMD CPUs) Intel's future roadmap with CPUs based on the Pentium-M core looks exciting. I know AMD is the performance leader now, but Intel is vying for that position with these multicore P-M solutions.

I think Intel's mobile processors also played a large role in the decision. The fact that Steve mentioned no G5 PowerBook in the keynote means this was a major problem with the IBM roadmap - not even looking at the Pentium-M successors, a 2.0GHz Pentium-M PowerBook would kick ass - now imagine a dual-core Pentium-M PowerBook with similar heat characteristics as todays low power G4s - Intel's move to 65nm looks to be going well and will result in less expensive CPUs.

I guess what I'm saying is in the end Intel has a wider range of solutions both in terms of CPUs and chipsets than AMD - and who knows about the level of commitment shown by Intel vs AMD in terms of design help, support, pricing, etc.
  quote
Windaria
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
 
2005-06-08, 10:19

Just... Apple's % would be much larger for AMD so I just can't picture Intel catering to them much more than IBM/Motorola did. And as for the roadmaps... <grins> They are going to start doing multi-core Athlon 64s. And as for Intel's roadmaps... they are just going to start adding things that AMD is already doing, such as the on-die memory controller... only AMD has had a lot longer to work with the technology.

I mean if you look at the processor market lately, AMD has been the one doing the innovations and Intel has been the one following. Seriously... x86 64, on-die memory controller, etc etc. Most of Intel's 'innovations' (like the hideously long pipeline in the P4), Intel has come up with then had to move away from as fast as they could. It really is quite funny but they keep heading down a rabbit trail, backing up, heading down another, backing up, and finally following AMD.

Sure AMD follow's Intel's lead every now and then still, such as with coming out with the multi-cores after Intel, but by and large, or at least 60% of the time, the situation appears to be the other way around... which is something that must drive Intel NUTS.

As for the Pentium M... the only way to crank some decent performance out of that thing is with the Asus adapter as otherwise it is totally left in the dust. And even with the adapter it still can't compete with a good desktop chip:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=2382&p=13

Again though, I would be far more interested in the new AMD laptop chip that will be shipping pretty soon... something tells me we could expect a lot more from it.

Besides... you want low heat and dual core with tons of speed, AMD is still the way to go:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2410

Barely any increase but tons of speed, Intel just can't compete as it is. Sure things will change for Intel, but AMD is moving forward as well.

I just think that Apple went with nothing but brand name recognition (picture it, Apple advertising Intel Inside) at the expense of their users. That is, after all, their MO. They'll spout some statistics saying that the Intel is the fastest thing that has come down the pipe. As with the whole PPC thing, the fanboys will swallow it like it is the word of God, and they'll just get screwed in the process by overpriced hardware again.
  quote
rminkler
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
 
2005-06-08, 11:20

The thing is that now that apple is switching to x86, there is no need for anybody to cater to them, they can just buy the same processors that dell or anybody else gets... Maybe I missunderstood and you mean "give price breaks too, etc"
  quote
spotcatbug
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Clayton, NC
 
2005-06-08, 11:26

Isn't Dell Intel-only still? Maybe part of the reason Apple went with Intel is because Dell uses them. Dell is the biggest seller of PCs.

Maybe they figure, "Hey, we're going to all this trouble to switch to x86. For a change, let's not go with an 'under dog' processor."

Ugh.
  quote
nota12b
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
 
2005-06-08, 11:50

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRabbit
From what I've heard, the issue isn't that PPC is inferior - it's that Motorola, and the IBM, dropped the ball. Even though it was better designed, it didn't go anywhere, even though it could have. Right now, it's quite probable that Steve believes that Intel is would be more focused on Apple than would IBM. Remember, when the G5 came out, IBM just sent a VP of hardware (or something) to the keynote. Intel sent their president and CEO. That says something.
AMD/Intel have had their collective panties in a wad since .. well, forever... in an attempt to lure the small-market-share/HUGELY-DEVOTED-FAN-BASE of Apple to the x86 world, so OF COURSE the Pres/CEO of Intel showed up. What stumps me is that, having just jumped-ship to Apple from that side of the fence why didn't Apple go AMD? The arch seems closer to what the PPC line had (ok, big stretch, but still closer than the Intel, yes?!?)... OK, economies of scale (and HUGE R&D money aside)... I mean, gamers have picked the AMD chip as chip-of-choice for what, like 8 years in a row now? Precisely because it can do more than one thing at once (ref: Rambus ram - dig dig @ Intel)...
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2  Next

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WWDC '05 POST- AFTER- APRÉ- keynote discussion BarracksSi Apple Products 216 2005-06-15 22:30
Is OSX for PPC done? Addison Speculation and Rumors 93 2005-06-13 06:40
Apple to switch processors?! Jacko Speculation and Rumors 197 2005-06-05 17:58


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:41.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova