Slashdot Mirror

PPC is without a doubt a powerful technology. But after reading Johan De Gelas' recent in-depth comparision on G5 vs x86 on Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436) , it seems x86 certainly has something going for it, esp on server-side.

2. IT WON'T BE ANYTHING LIKE A DELL. I'm fairly certain that it will have all kinds of encrypted ROM built into it, preventing you from buying OSX and installing it on the some no-name POS (cough) compaq (cough) computer you bought used at the monthly flea market at De Anza college for $50.

3. This could be where the rubber meets the road for Microsoft. Their OS is criminally unsecure, third rate, hard to use, and Just Plain Ugly. With Apple on x86 (either via Intel or AMD), and Linux on x86, they will finally have the competition they deserve.

4. This will force the Linux community to really get serious about user-friendliness.

5. This will force Apple to get off their ASS and fix their server software. Anandtech's recent article on how incredibley lame the X-Serve is illuminating....

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436

These are some of the down sides:

A: By announcing they're going to x86, it will basically destroy their computer sales. For example: recently BOTH of my apple Computers blew up. Seriously: motherboard failures, out of warranty on my powerbook and my Yosemite. I'm borrowing a Yikes to access the internet for now. If Steve announces it's all x86 in 2006, I have ZERO incentive to go buy a PPC Macintosh. I'll just pick up some no name POS (cough) Dell (cough) and a Kick Ass firewall and run that for the next few years until I can afford the new x86 macintosh. What I want is G5 powerbook, but why would I even want to get one, when I'm going to have to replace all the software when i get the x86 powerbook?

I own literally over $9000 of software that I've collect over the past several years. I have Zero Interest in replacing it, and if I must, then the money's got to come from somewhere, and it will come at the expense of a second Apple computer...

B: This is going to open up a can of whoooop-ass on AVID. Their video Editing software is the flagship on Windows, but was cut down at the knees on the Mac platform with Final Cut Pro. With FCP on Intel hardware? Even Pricey Apple Intel Hardware? AVID will have a really tough time justifying their expense.

C: Apple will NOT be able to maintain the margins they have, and the Pricey Apple Harware will be (as usual) more expensive than your typical Windows boxen, but it won't be by very much. Apple will also begin feeling the heat from Linux (especially as Linux feels the heat from Apple, and they make their OS Truly "Ma and Pa" friendly like OSX.

That's my speculation. I think it's fairly resonable.

RS

An why do it?

More performance? No.

Lower cost? No. Look at the specs The PPC 970FX is on par with what Intel is making while using 3 TIMES fewer transistors. Transistor count = die size = cost. Why do you think playstation/Xbox/nintendo are ALL using PowerPC? Because it is the best cost&performance around!

Lower Power? No. This is one of the myths of the G5. It is a very low power device for the performance. Why is apple not making a G5 laptop? because unlike their windows counterparts who make big clunky laptops to accomodate a P4, Apple is more concerned about sleak design. Why water cooling? Cause they want quiet computers. Get this: at the same clock speed the G5 uses less power than the G4. There is no reason for apple to switch. These are dumb rumors.

Why not AMD? This recent slashdot posted article shows the opteron being quite adept at outpacing the Intel Xeon and IBM PPC970FX. Ugh another Dell.

Too bad the Xserve is a piece of shit.

Apple... LOL

I'm not sure I trust the benchmarks. They proudly show their benchmarking code which has a blatant mistake in it. They spotted it, but wrongfilly blamed VB.NET and threads for it and then proudly announced they had to write a super-duper workaround for it to make it work.

Worthy of a WTF.

If you'd like to see it for yourself: look here

Novell has the $$ to burn, too... After getting all that dough from M$ to settle lawsuits.

did they use a pc to show how much better their graphics are than pc's? probably.

In case of the XBox 360, they used Macs. Which should be kind of embarassing for Microsoft...

I never said the artivle was beneath my level. Highschool geography above my level too, I know none. I do know some basics about shampoos and deodorants but would not be offended by a decent article on either.

BUT FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, not on Slashdot. If you want articles on hardware go to Tom's Hardware, Anandtech or any other of a number of sites.

Kudos to CmdrTaco for being one of the fathers of Slashdot but IMO this is still WRONG.

The first and second gen ipods had physically larger batteries, the third gen battery was about 1/2 the size. There is a good picture illustrating this at anandtech. This made the 3rd gen ipods thinner than the earlier models.

"However, you based your arguments on single core benchmarks."

Indeed I did... and you are right to point this out.

The reason I did was mostly based on how much easier it is to compare... things get all whacked out when trying to do multitasking benchmarks (although I do agree that Anand did a really great job).

There are a lot of factors to take into account when looking at multitasking benchmarks... WHAT YOU DO and HOW YOU DO IT makes a HUGE difference... therefor it is harder to make a point on slashdot (someone will always say "well they ran 15 tasks! I only run 12!").

On the other hand we all game... and as far as this (and most likely the near future) generation of games go they are single threaded and will (for the most part) behave as they do on today's single core processors (except of course you can do other things and game... but this gets into a grey area again).

So, in short (which is not at all in my character), it was quick for me to demonstrate that the AMDX2 cpus are in no way DOUBLE the price of the pentiumD's by demonstrating single threaded gaming benchmarks. Even if you look at the multi-threaded benchmarks the X2's aren't double the price... and that was the point I was trying to make. And I still claim that the 2.2Ghz A64X2 will trounce the 2.8GHz PD (and be close to the performance of a 3.4Ghz PD with benchmarks showing it falls a bit behind in some multi-tasking instances)... but everyone has a right to their opinion.

Friedmud

PS - one last thing. The one place where most of us need the horses under the hood is not in Mozilla (most computers over 1.5Ghz with 512MB of RAM run a web browser and MP3 player about the same... as in within a couple of seconds) but in games... if you look at the multi-tasking games benchmarks you will see that the A64X2 is WAY out in front... and again try to put a 2.8Ghz PD on the chart with your brain.

See how the 3200+ running at "just" 2Ghz is outperforming even a 3.4Ghz P4 and sometimes even a 3.5 or 3.6Ghz P4.

We're talking about dual core chips and those are single core, single-threaded benchmarks (gaming). I think those graphs are only relevent if you're using single-threaded applications or single-tasking. Dual-core chips would see very little improvement in those graphs.

Since we're talking about dual-core chips and pricing, the more relevant Anandtech graphs start here: AMD's Athlon 64 X2 4800+ & 4200+ Dual Core Performance Preview (Page 3).

Their cheap single core chips will wipe the plate with the low-ball PD and will be cheaper as well...

Not in heavily multithreaded apps and multitasking scenarios, which are the only reasons we'd be buying dual-core chips. See how in heavily multithreaded apps (like Data Analysis, DivX Encoding, and 3dsmax 6) and multitasking scenarios (like Anandtech's custom multitasking benchmarks), a 3.2GHz Pentium D performs much better than an Athlon 64 FX-55.

Also look at how a 2.8Ghz P4 isn't even on the charts... use your brain and extrapolate from the P4's what the 2.8Ghz P4 would be posting and you can see that it is WAY slower than even a 2Ghz Athlon64.

Although the dual-core charts do not include the 2.8GHz Pentium D, use your brain and extrapolate... you can see that it is WAY faster than AMD's "cheap single core chips" in multitasking and multithreaded scenarios.

I agree with most of your points. AMD offers better peformance/price for single core chips and dual core chips over $500. However, you based your arguments on single core benchmarks.

See how the 3200+ running at "just" 2Ghz is outperforming even a 3.4Ghz P4 and sometimes even a 3.5 or 3.6Ghz P4.

We're talking about dual core chips and those are single core, single-threaded benchmarks (gaming). I think those graphs are only relevent if you're using single-threaded applications or single-tasking. Dual-core chips would see very little improvement in those graphs.

Since we're talking about dual-core chips and pricing, the more relevant Anandtech graphs start here: AMD's Athlon 64 X2 4800+ & 4200+ Dual Core Performance Preview (Page 3).

Their cheap single core chips will wipe the plate with the low-ball PD and will be cheaper as well...

Not in heavily multithreaded apps and multitasking scenarios, which are the only reasons we'd be buying dual-core chips. See how in heavily multithreaded apps (like Data Analysis, DivX Encoding, and 3dsmax 6) and multitasking scenarios (like Anandtech's custom multitasking benchmarks), a 3.2GHz Pentium D performs much better than an Athlon 64 FX-55.

Also look at how a 2.8Ghz P4 isn't even on the charts... use your brain and extrapolate from the P4's what the 2.8Ghz P4 would be posting and you can see that it is WAY slower than even a 2Ghz Athlon64.

Although the dual-core charts do not include the 2.8GHz Pentium D, use your brain and extrapolate... you can see that it is WAY faster than AMD's "cheap single core chips" in multitasking and multithreaded scenarios.

I agree with most of your points. AMD offers better peformance/price for single core chips and dual core chips over $500. However, you based your arguments on single core benchmarks.

The problem is that you are comparing a 2.8Ghz P4 to a 2.2Ghz Athlon64... which is completely off.

Note the graphs over here: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2429&p=6

See how the 3200+ running at "just" 2Ghz is outperforming even a 3.4Ghz P4 and sometimes even a 3.5 or 3.6Ghz P4.

Also look at how a 2.8Ghz P4 isn't even on the charts... use your brain and extrapolate from the P4's what the 2.8Ghz P4 would be posting and you can see that it is WAY slower than even a 2Ghz Athlon64.

Now let's talk about what was in this article.

They told us that the lowest end Athlon64X2 is clocked at 2.2Ghz (the same as a 3500+ and faster than the 2Ghz chip in my above examples) and comes in at $537. The lowest end PentiumD is clocked at 2.8Ghz and comes in at $241.

At first glance it looks like the A64X2 is double the price... but then look at the highest end PentiumD at 3.2Ghz it's priced at $530.

Ok... use your brain again and realize that the 2Ghz A64 was outperforming a 3.4Ghz P4 and it's easy to see that the A64X2 at 2.2Ghz priced the SAME as a 3.2Ghz PD means that the A64 is actually the LOWER priced part.

The difference here is that AMD chose to focus on the high end. They didn't play "low-ball" with Intel because they don't have to. Their cheap single core chips will wipe the plate with the low-ball PD and will be cheaper as well... while their A64X2 is there AT THE SAME PRICE POINT to compete with the high end PD.

In summary... they are priced competitively.

I hope all that made sense.

Friedmud

Meanwhile, Intel's desktop dual core chips seem to offer much more aggressive pricing at this time. AMD's lowest price dual core chip, the X2 4200 is almost twice as expensive as Intel's lowest cost dual core processor. However, an interview with three AMD execs on PCPerspective.com claims that "AMD would eventually have lower priced Athlon X2 processors via the waterfall effect in the future".

If anyone needs to be refreshed on how badass these chips are:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2397&p=1

Intel must be embarrassed

Workable, yes. Buyable, no. Check it. Although, that's probably some pre-production model and really can't be held to a high level of scrutiny until a proper comparison can be made, obviously.

Certainly, the X-Box 360 demos were all all run on PowerMacs with X800 cards, not any kind of next gen hardware.

ATi did actually have a demo of their next-gen R520 at E3, which should be launched later this year (a time frame that at worst puts it in line with X-Box 360). No news from Nvidia on the GF70, from what I can tell, but I'd imagine they'll try to launch around the same time as ATi.

Anyway, if you've been following the graphics card market (which you really should if you're thinking of buying a multi-GPU rig), you'd know that new cards are released regularly, and that their power doubles every 18 months or so. This stuff should suprise no-one these days.

Certainly, the X-Box 360 demos were all all run on PowerMacs with X800 cards, not any kind of next gen hardware.

ATi did actually have a demo of their next-gen R520 at E3, which should be launched later this year (a time frame that at worst puts it in line with X-Box 360). No news from Nvidia on the GF70, from what I can tell, but I'd imagine they'll try to launch around the same time as ATi.

Anyway, if you've been following the graphics card market (which you really should if you're thinking of buying a multi-GPU rig), you'd know that new cards are released regularly, and that their power doubles every 18 months or so. This stuff should suprise no-one these days.

AnandTech is running a good story as well.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2432

Just thought would be good to add variety.

• 26 July 2004 article
• 27 Nov 2004 article

• 26 July 2004 article
• 27 Nov 2004 article

• 26 July 2004 article
• 27 Nov 2004 article

Here are pictures of the G5s in action at E3.

Here are pictures of the G5s in action at E3.

...

That wasn't really anywhere near the point I was trying to make, but ok.

And your quote is what the Microsoft spokesperson said, not what C|Net said. The "very specific hardware" is the fucking G5 processor, the goddamned heart of the Mac. No, I'm not saying they should have built their own reference platform and OS just to do Xbox 360 R&D, but this is a Big Deal, even if only for the irony.

And yes, it is "shocking" that all development, R&D, and demos for Microsoft's premier next generation gaming console are running on Apples. It's not just "coincidence" and dumb happenstance that Apple is using the PowerPC 970, and Microsoft is using a variant thereof: it's a damned good processor. And yes, to echo your first statement, if the offerings from AMD and Intel are so fucking great (and much cheaper in all quantities than the PowerPC, I might add), then why is Microsoft not using it in Xbox, especially given that Microsoft has been almost synonymous with x86, hardware wise, for over two decades? It is most certainly a big deal: it shows that the PowerPC architecture is *so good* for some tasks that even Microsoft itself uses it, even when cheaper and supposedly "better" (e.g., Intel/AMD, at least as trumpeted by others) architectures - indeed, ones its been using and programming for since its beginnings - are available. (Note: I'm not saying that Intel and AMD "sucks" or anything like that; in fact, I'm saying quite the opposite: that PowerPC *doesn't* suck, and if people won't accept other benchmarks from PowerPC and POWER over the years, certainly something as big this this proves it. After all, everyone says it's "games" that drive the performance in computing; if that's true, it appears that all of the next generation consoles have turned to one place: PowerPC.)

And then, a *rumor* that Apple *might* use an Intel chip in something - not even a processor, mind you - comes to light, and everyone from CNN to the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal to FOX News goes apeshit, but Microsoft is using Apple Power Mac G5's you can actually see in their fucking booth at E3, and you don't think it's newsworthy?

Sorry, gonna have to disagree there.

In defense of the one-billion comment, J Allard was saying the game industry in general would reach one-billion, not just the Xbox 360.

As for crack smoking, here's a quote from Ken Kutaragi, president of Sony Computer Entertainment regarding the power of the Playstation 3:

"Users will be able to store their content in an online storage server called the 'Cell Storage.' And the Cell processor, when it's not being used, can refine the content's quality. We call it the 'aging' process. For example, users can 'age' their Standard Definition (SD) video and up-convert it to High Definition (HD) video."

via Gamespot

More crack smoking from MS, claiming the Xbox 360 has 6x the bandwidth of the PS3 (carefully skewing numbers to favor the 360).

The only sound coverage of the new consoles so far has been this piece at Ars and hopefully, the piece Anand has been working on.

It just ain't fun anymore.

Actually it was covered by anandtech http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i =2420&p=5

While the poster successfully pimps hothardware.com, let us even things out by linking to some other reivews.

Anandtech:
P4 670
PD 820
Tom's Hardware on the PD 840s and such

While the poster successfully pimps hothardware.com, let us even things out by linking to some other reivews.

Anandtech:
P4 670
PD 820
Tom's Hardware on the PD 840s and such

They were G5s, not G4s. Also, the machines in question.

Yeah, don't you hate it when companies pass stuff done on their development computers as the final results?

Sooo.... How about those Xbox360 demos/games? Looking *great* for a system that is going to be released in about 7-months.

A little more descriptive:

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i =2424&p=4

In short, that makes it I think more likely that we'll get Xbox games on the G5 if Microsoft has any desire to ship that. Still an admittedly slim chance, but it's warming to know that these actually run game code full speed.

1) Intel chips are NOT cheaper. Any difference is negligable.

-- Which it? Not cheaper or is there a difference? Here is a intel Pentium 4 540J Prescott 800MHz FSB 1MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor - Retail. $213.00. Show me a comparable CPU from Apple at the same price.

2) They don't run faster (AMD keeps pace, but not Intel.)

-- Anandtech proves you wrong.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2410&p=14

'What we did find interesting was that while AMD generally maintains a large performance advantage in single threaded applications, our multitasking scenarios were a mixed bag of results between AMD and Intel. The multitasking gaming tests were obviously very strongly in favor of AMD, but the general usage tests were more mixed between AMD and Intel. In many cases, Intel's Pentium D actually pulled ahead in terms of performance.'

3) They'd have to recompile every app made for one architecture to run on another.

-- True.

4) They run hotter.

-- Proof?

5) Steve doesn't like Intel CPU's.

-- Proof?

6) Steve doesn't want to piss off Microsoft by being THAT agressive in their turf.

-- Proof?

Oh, and be sure to take some mouth wash after removing your foot from your mouth.

Looks like Microsoft made their own...

You haven't checked the details on AMD64 power usage have you?
I suggest you README before making sweeping statements, and you might want to compare these figures to the latest P4's

While it does look great, I don't think it's the leap in graphics that it should be. When this generation's consoles first came out, we were amazed at the graphics. Everything looked so much better than N64/Playstation/PC graphics at the time. Now, the difference is much smaller.

Let's take Half-Life 2, running on the Source engine.

The graphics in Gears of War are only moderately better than HL2.
http://media.pc.ign.com/media/492/492830/img_24657 11.html
http://media.pc.ign.com/media/492/492830/img_21184 30.html
http://media.pc.ign.com/media/492/492830/img_17664 01.html

With the Lost Coast levels that are coming out soon (adding High Dynamic Range lighting), the difference will be even smaller.

Today's high end graphics cards can run HL2 at or above HD resolutions, with higher FPS than the consoles will put out.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2278 &p=11
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2278 &p=10

It's still 6 months until the Xbox360 release. By then, the next generation of video cards should be out, or very close to release. That'll narrow the gap or even eliminate it altogether.

This may be the first console launch in history where the consoles fail to outdo PCs in the graphics department.

The major exception to this that I've seen is Killzone 2. It has substantially better graphics than any Xbox360 game that I've seen. However, there's still a lot of controversy over whether the pics and movies that have been released were actual gameplay footage, non-game in-engine footage, or prerendered CG.

Who knows, maybe Microsoft (possibly) and Sony (probably not, they have a reputation of overhyping their graphics and system specs; I doubt their games will look any prettier at release) haven't finished optimizing their console designs, meaning that the graphics that we see today aren't as good as they will be at release.

While it does look great, I don't think it's the leap in graphics that it should be. When this generation's consoles first came out, we were amazed at the graphics. Everything looked so much better than N64/Playstation/PC graphics at the time. Now, the difference is much smaller.

Let's take Half-Life 2, running on the Source engine.

The graphics in Gears of War are only moderately better than HL2.
http://media.pc.ign.com/media/492/492830/img_24657 11.html
http://media.pc.ign.com/media/492/492830/img_21184 30.html
http://media.pc.ign.com/media/492/492830/img_17664 01.html

With the Lost Coast levels that are coming out soon (adding High Dynamic Range lighting), the difference will be even smaller.

Today's high end graphics cards can run HL2 at or above HD resolutions, with higher FPS than the consoles will put out.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2278 &p=11
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2278 &p=10

It's still 6 months until the Xbox360 release. By then, the next generation of video cards should be out, or very close to release. That'll narrow the gap or even eliminate it altogether.

This may be the first console launch in history where the consoles fail to outdo PCs in the graphics department.

The major exception to this that I've seen is Killzone 2. It has substantially better graphics than any Xbox360 game that I've seen. However, there's still a lot of controversy over whether the pics and movies that have been released were actual gameplay footage, non-game in-engine footage, or prerendered CG.

Who knows, maybe Microsoft (possibly) and Sony (probably not, they have a reputation of overhyping their graphics and system specs; I doubt their games will look any prettier at release) haven't finished optimizing their console designs, meaning that the graphics that we see today aren't as good as they will be at release.

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i =2417&p=3

As far as I understood it - PS3 WILL have a hdd.

Anand's

The Anandtech review shows a slide where it gives some uses for dual screens - for example, a racing game in complete panorama (32:9 aspect ratio), or a game wherein the main screen is the game, and a secondary screen shows a menu or statistics or something.

Another thing that the anandtech review shows is that the damn thing can decode 12 fullsize HD streams, simultaneously, or decode and display 1,000 movies at one time.

I'm very impressed.

~Will

The Anandtech review shows a slide where it gives some uses for dual screens - for example, a racing game in complete panorama (32:9 aspect ratio), or a game wherein the main screen is the game, and a secondary screen shows a menu or statistics or something.

Another thing that the anandtech review shows is that the damn thing can decode 12 fullsize HD streams, simultaneously, or decode and display 1,000 movies at one time.

I'm very impressed.

~Will

It's not flash (EEPROM), it's battery-backed RAM.

The suggestion was to use both, which I agree is a good idea, because you get the best from both worlds. Flash have a problem with being overwritten many times, which the suggested design solves by only using it in case of loss of power. Battery backed RAM have a problem with potential data loss if it needs to keep the data for longer time than there is power, which the suggested design solves by writing data to flash as soon as main power is lost. I hope what Samsung will also take care of those problems.

AMDZone.com Tech Report Sudhian Hexus Hot Hardware Anandtech xbit xbit PCWorld Trusted Reviews

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=24 10 http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/05/09/amd_a6 4x2_4800/1.html

two more reviews.

Myself, I enjoyed reading the new Anandtech article that went up today. The new AMD CPU's are put through their paces, and are compared against the best Intel has to offer. For some good top end (or dual core, as it has become the same thing) comparisons, this is a good place to start.

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

Sayeth Anandtech: ...the Athlon 64 X2 will consume less power than a 130nm Athlon 64, and less than 20% more power than a 90nm Athlon 64. Note that the Athlon 64 X2 4200+ compared here also consumes less power than all single core 90nm Intel Pentium 4 CPUs, even the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ consumes less power than all single core 90nm Pentium 4 CPUs.

Over at Anandtech, they have a similar article up.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2410&p=2

On that page they compare a 130nm single core Athlon to a 90nm dual core. Even under a full load, the 90nm dual core uses less power than the single core 130nm chip.