Motorola/IBM own the copper technology, and Intel is severly lagging in developing it.
Not really. No one owns copper technology. IBM and Motorola both have patents on manufacturing processors with copper but any company that wants to can develop their own process of making chips with copper interconnects.
AMD Licenses it from IBM, rather that re-invent the wheel.
Motorola has demonstrated G4 processors with 7 stage pipelines and integrated 256KB 256bit cache. This will scale much better than the present G4 and it is beleived IBM is focusing its attention on these G4's. Also the G4 is still being made on a.22um process. Moving to.18 or smaller will increase MHz even on the present version of the G4. If you reply and want links I can get some. --
Also Intel uses a shared bus architecture versus each processor having its own memory bus. This deteriorates the system performance advantage of multiple processors. What will Foster use? --
I have read say that the long delays are because of horrible performance when executing legacy x86 code. Like Pentium II at 10 times the cost type of performance.
Reminds me of a certain RAM technology.... Itanium::PentiumIII as RAMBUS::SDRAM --
Make that millions. Our bread and butter is earned on Macs. With out them we would be out of business. NT could maybe do the job but the retraining, new software, etc, needed would cost us a fortune. And our artists like MacOS. --
Does it rum MacOS software? That's the real reason people need it. Like myself. There are too many Mac apps that I need to run (QuarkXPress, Photoshop, Freehand..etc.). Thanks but no thanks. --
How is Intel "losing"? I'm a Mac user myself, but Iknow that Intel is far from losing. Doing this can only help push Itanium into the mainstream server market. As far as AMD is concerned, I'm sure they make great chips, but when the day is over, they are still based on Intels design.
I believe Matrox IS bringing the G450 to the Mac platform because it has a DVI port for their digital monitors. But, since ATI announced the new Radeon 256 chip, and Apple and ATI are tight, I think Matrox might occupy a low-end card position. --
The Rage 128 has awesome 2d graphics. Might not be great for games but for Office and Photoshop, you can't ask for anything better. BTW, I don't know of many OEM PC manufacturers that put 3dfx cards in their machines. nVidea OTOH... thats a different story. --
Running benchmarks is useless unless you run benchmarks for a living. I don't. I use Quark, Photoshop and Illustrator. The speed the G4 runs those applications are all that matters. Other trivial things (Open source software, open hardware, proprietary hardware issues) don't help me get my work done any faster so I could care less. Thank you, have a nice day. --
Why was this moderated down? I almost fell over laughing when I read this. --
Re:Not So Overwhelming, After All...
on
ATI Radeon 256
·
· Score: 1
ATI drivers especially suck on the Mac. Alot of the flack Apple G4 machines have been getting is the fact that the 3D performance was not up to par with higher end 3d cards from other companies (3dfx, nVidia, etc.). Hardware wise, the Radeon looks like it can rock any other card out at the time. I just hope the drivers will be up to par. Maybe they learned their lesson. I'm willing to give anyone a second try... or third... or forth... --
Macs have also had 64bit 33MHz PCI slots. One thing to remember though is that PCI-X is backwards compatible. You should be able to plug in a 32 or 64 bit PCI card in the slot. --
Absolutely. Also PCI is here. There is no reason why PCI will be going the way of the dodo anytime soon even when the newer Next Big Thing (Future I/O? Infiniband? Sliced Bread?) comes along. Systems have had PCI and ISA on the motherboard together for the longest time. We will see some form of PCI in conjunction with the new I/O standard mainly for backwards compatibility.
how can we get rid of PCI anytime soon. PC's are still being made with ISA slots! PCI is far from dead in any case. The new PCI-X standard with rejuvinate PCI and extend it's life for the forseeable future. Some info here at serverworks. Quote from article:
PCI-X is a backward compatible extension of the widely accepted Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) standard that forms the basis for the I/O systems for personal computers, workstations and all classes of servers. PCI-X permits the transfer of data between a host CPU and I/O peripherals at speeds in excess of 1-GByte per second, twice as fast as the 533-MByte per second supported by today's fastest (66 MHz) PCI buses, and eight times as fast as the 133-MByte per second peak rate available on most contemporary desktop and laptop personal computers. Industry analysts project that the PCI-X standard will have broad impact on high-end systems used for traditional data processing applications. It will also find broad acceptance in emerging markets for server appliances, storage-area networks (SANs), and high performance network switches. The first commercial products incorporating PCI-X technology are expected to arrive in the market during the second half of this calendar year.
1GB/sec is pretty fast compared to the maximum transfer fate 64bit 66MHz PCI offers today (533MB/sec). The PCI-X bus is a 66 or 133MHz 64bit peripheral bus. Looks like it can burst faster than a theoretical AGP 8X. Maybe Intel will make an AGP-X bus for graphics;) --
Slashdot Mirror
True.
Motorola/IBM own the copper technology, and Intel is severly lagging in developing it.
Not really. No one owns copper technology. IBM and Motorola both have patents on manufacturing processors with copper but any company that wants to can develop their own process of making chips with copper interconnects.
AMD Licenses it from IBM, rather that re-invent the wheel.
Actually, AMD licenses it from Motorola.
--
Motorola has demonstrated G4 processors with 7 stage pipelines and integrated 256KB 256bit cache. This will scale much better than the present G4 and it is beleived IBM is focusing its attention on these G4's. Also the G4 is still being made on a .22um process. Moving to .18 or smaller will increase MHz even on the present version of the G4. If you reply and want links I can get some.
--
Especially the part about his site not being registered.
--
Also Intel uses a shared bus architecture versus each processor having its own memory bus. This deteriorates the system performance advantage of multiple processors. What will Foster use?
--
Reminds me of a certain RAM technology.... Itanium::PentiumIII as RAMBUS::SDRAM
--
Why was this marked down as a troll?
--
How is he manipulating the figures? You can go one each website and come up with the same prices. His point stands.
--
Make that millions. Our bread and butter is earned on Macs. With out them we would be out of business. NT could maybe do the job but the retraining, new software, etc, needed would cost us a fortune. And our artists like MacOS.
--
Does it rum MacOS software? That's the real reason people need it. Like myself. There are too many Mac apps that I need to run (QuarkXPress, Photoshop, Freehand..etc.). Thanks but no thanks.
--
Trolling for Scooby doo!
--
Ok, thanks for that info. I did not know that. But it is based on Intels instruction set even though the logic executes it differently, right?
--
How is Intel "losing"? I'm a Mac user myself, but Iknow that Intel is far from losing. Doing this can only help push Itanium into the mainstream server market. As far as AMD is concerned, I'm sure they make great chips, but when the day is over, they are still based on Intels design.
--
You might have had some good points in there but your post is impossible to read. Please reformat it with HTML code. Thanks
--
I believe Matrox IS bringing the G450 to the Mac platform because it has a DVI port for their digital monitors. But, since ATI announced the new Radeon 256 chip, and Apple and ATI are tight, I think Matrox might occupy a low-end card position.
--
Bravo. I was waiting for a point by point rebuttal to that mind numbing post. Non-factual garbage...
--
The Rage 128 has awesome 2d graphics. Might not be great for games but for Office and Photoshop, you can't ask for anything better. BTW, I don't know of many OEM PC manufacturers that put 3dfx cards in their machines. nVidea OTOH... thats a different story.
--
Running benchmarks is useless unless you run benchmarks for a living. I don't. I use Quark, Photoshop and Illustrator. The speed the G4 runs those applications are all that matters. Other trivial things (Open source software, open hardware, proprietary hardware issues) don't help me get my work done any faster so I could care less. Thank you, have a nice day.
--
All I see is the name 'Microsoft' all over the place. WTF? Same thing with MacOS and Apple... something fishy is going on here.
--
Why was this moderated down? I almost fell over laughing when I read this.
--
ATI drivers especially suck on the Mac. Alot of the flack Apple G4 machines have been getting is the fact that the 3D performance was not up to par with higher end 3d cards from other companies (3dfx, nVidia, etc.). Hardware wise, the Radeon looks like it can rock any other card out at the time. I just hope the drivers will be up to par. Maybe they learned their lesson. I'm willing to give anyone a second try... or third... or forth...
--
Save your profile and then delete it using User Profiles under System properties. Rebuild it on start up. That can fix quite a few problems.
--
Macs have also had 64bit 33MHz PCI slots. One thing to remember though is that PCI-X is backwards compatible. You should be able to plug in a 32 or 64 bit PCI card in the slot.
--
Absolutely. Also PCI is here. There is no reason why PCI will be going the way of the dodo anytime soon even when the newer Next Big Thing (Future I/O? Infiniband? Sliced Bread?) comes along. Systems have had PCI and ISA on the motherboard together for the longest time. We will see some form of PCI in conjunction with the new I/O standard mainly for backwards compatibility.
--
1GB/sec is pretty fast compared to the maximum transfer fate 64bit 66MHz PCI offers today (533MB/sec). The PCI-X bus is a 66 or 133MHz 64bit peripheral bus. Looks like it can burst faster than a theoretical AGP 8X. Maybe Intel will make an AGP-X bus for graphics
--
www.microconversions.com make nice clickety mac USB keyboards.
--