On 2005-06-09 21:04:26 +0300, Shawn Hearn <srhi@comcast.net> said:
In article <lVYpe.2151$751.1605@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, "Sean Fahey" <a2fan@hotmail.com> wrote:The PPC wasn't going to go where Apple needed , fast enough. The Pentium 4 is actually a pretty good processor, with better branching and latency then the PPC. Now they've got dual cores, hyper-threading - it was a good time to make the change. Get over it already.I agree to a point. Don't forget that one thing that Apple apparently wants to do is migrate its entire line of Macs (both pro and consumer) to a 64-bit architecture, which would leave out the Pentium 4 chip and Celeron as likely CPUs to be built into Intel based Macs. If anything, Apple with go with an Itanium processor for its Macs and perhaps some lightweight version for laptops and iMacs. Even Steve Jobs said in his keynote that all the stuff he was demonstrating will never be sold as Mac products. The only thing that seems fairly clear is that the future Intel Macs will have an x86 architecture or some superset of it.
Well, I don't agree with all of their articles but the register from UK turned out to be right when they called Itanium "Itanic". I wasn't favoring 32bit that time and watching Itanium stories closely. Or let me even admit, if Intel or AMD came out with a home usable 64bit cpu, MS released a stable OS which can run on that machine with directx etc, I'd stay on x86
If Intel releases a 64bit cpu (or already released?) it doesn't carry Intel instructions, it carries AMD 64bit extensions. As people like me joked to AMD users as "Intel clone", now Intel became AMD clone, sort of :)
Oh guess who dictated it to Intel? Microsoft. To give a clue about their power.Xeon is optimized for servers or believe all gamers out there spending $4000+ to some machines they build wouldn't pass that chance. I met with a guy testing SLI PCI X Nvidia on a game beta test.
So, the thing Apple thinks (or lies?) that Intel is lower cost than PPC is completely stupid. On PC based forums they misunderstand me but let me say, how many of us can afford 3 disk utilities just to play around? You will figure 90% of those people have a license for those apps, totalling $300. Add usual utilities which saves great time, you hit $500 levels.
There goes Steve Jobs dream machine, $500 PC price (don't forget Dell will be $300)
So, where are the people was really caring $500 price difference?Also it happens just while Intel and AMD ends the Mhz stupidness since more real CPU gets, less Mhz you can give. That thing is extremely sad. Forget everything.
At one point I was so mad to Apple and checked the x86 side of world. The fastest FSB (now thats important) is 1Ghz. Eh, my Machines 1800Mhz model from 2003 is 1ghz fsb.
Intel kind of gave up RDRAM (rambus) amazing technology for home computers too (e.g. i850 chipset). No 'DDR" tricks etc, my P4 1800 had 800 megahertz rams thanks to Rambus which is now busy selling stuff to SGI grade machines and suing people around. Intel's reason: Price. PC user profile couldn't afford it.
Also Intel (or say, x86 arch) is the only, one and only home desktop CPU choice now. I wonder, if Altivec wasn't there, SSE2 would happen or come this far? Currently, after announcement, home desktop CPU choice is only x86. No competition exists anymore.
Ilgaz