“The speed of Mac OS X running on Intel hardware is impressing some developers who’ve been privy to one of Apple’s first Intel-based developer transition systems,” AppleInsider reports. “The systems started shipping to Mac OS X developers three weeks ago, each equipped with a 3.6 GHz Intel Pentium 4 processor with 2 MB L2 Cache, 800MHz front-side bus, 1GB of 533MHz DDR2 Dual Channel SDRAM, and an Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 900.”
“”It’s fast,’ said one developer source of Mac OS X running on Intel’s Pentium processors. ‘Faster than [Mac OS X] on my Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5,'” AppleInsider reports. “Developers sources say the early version of Rosetta, a dynamic binary translator that is designed to run unaltered PowerPC applications on Intel Macs, is also impressive… If reports are accurate, Mac users have a lot to look forward to in regards to web browsing under Mac OS X for Intel. According to sources, web browsing in general is much faster under Mac OS X for Intel than it is under the shipping version of Mac OS X for PowerPC. Web pages snap to the screen, the same way they do in Internet Explorer running on a new Pentium system, they say.”
Full article here.
No they don’t !
I fail to see why the web would work faster?!?!?!? what a load of bull
This is an unabashed attempt to hype the impending doom^h^h^h^h transition. Better reduce your organic libations if you actually believe it.
SHOULD XBOX 360 BE LEGALIZED?
YES NO HUH?
Answer now and get free marijuana!
Shoot, I always said my Intel PC ran Photoshop and other programs faster than a Mac….
Welcome to real computing apple folks.
Oh and chris – the web works faster on an intel pc than my mac. Everything is snappier, quicker.
flame on fellow evagelistos!!!!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Queeezie your about as sharp as the stinko turd I just flushed.
Windows is for pussys
Could we have been #(gulp)# lied to for the past years regarding the powerpc?????? intel is better????
/doom thoughts/
why do people in the graphics and video world use still use intel pcs?
/doom thoughts/
oohhhhhhh my.
Hello I am the stinko turd that just escaped from TT´s body. I was the smartest thing in his body. And now I am gone.
Hurray!
No, I am the real stinko turd from TT´s body.
He did not flush me. He missed the toilet….again.
Please change pants, TT.
well.. low end operations are faster on x86.. this is not news..
this is why apple touts high end benchmarks like PS, while the goddamn FINDER takes like 3 seconds to open..
which, ultimately is good for the mass market, bad for pro line.. right?
most people dont do anything other than email/porn
I just want a new Powerbook.
MDN Magic Word: “finally”, as in I wish I could say “Finally, new Powerbooks are here.”
Hi IBM.
>No they don’t !>
Fuh -nee. And first.
Come on people. Are we all children here? This thread is embarasing. Cant we even discuss real world permonance without sinking to this level of conversation? I feel like im in the freshman dorm once again.
Is it so shocking to see single threaded stuff like Safari perform well on a 3.6 gig processor? It doesnt to me.
LOL,
what this actually tells – if proved generally – is that OS X is much better than Windows. The Dual G5 here smokes any PC around hands down on the majority of tasks. It lacks on # of crashing and infections: can’t outperform Wintel on those.
If OS X is better on the MacIntel than on the dual G5 it simply stress how much Windows sux big time and how much it is a liability for the hardware. Tough time for Windoze apologists when the same/similar processor shines with OS X and barely gets off being mediocre when using Windows. Tough to explain when the same/similar CPU will simply burn whatever other same/similar platform results when on Windows.
ROFLMAO
One advantage of the Intel switch is that comparisons will be much easier. For example, we will see if Adobe is really optimizing Photoshop for the mac, or being lazy. All they have to do is release a plug in that opens its filters to core graphics technology and the windows version looks like a slug.
The reason why web would work faster is because webpage manipulations are purely integer based; and often have lesser control statements. Given these two, longer pipelines with faster clockrate; rather than shorter pipelines with smaller clockrate perform better.
The place where you get hit is when you have a lot of “conditional” instructions where the pipeline needs to be flushed (where intel branch prediction unit is reasonably good at). These are not something commonplace in web applications as you would find in applications such as word, powerpoint, etc..
I have a dual P4 Dell. Windows Explorer sometimes takes 10 seconds to display. The subsystems are so slow it doesn’t matter how fast the CPU is. Explorer will then crash when it gets several directories deep into the server.
Who cares how fast a damn web-page loads???? Why is this an important benchmark of performance.
If you want the Finder to load faster get a fast hard drive. ATA sux. I’ve been using 7200rpm drives since 1997. Why? Because Apple dropped SCSI for the far inferior IDE. Yes I know why they did it. It doesn’t help the fact that presently shipping stock computers have sadly inadequate subsystems for high-performance computing.
Hey “IBM,” thanks for making me laugh out loud in a meeting. Now everyone knows I was paying absolutely no attention.
LOL…
Queeeezie- that was the greatest comeback…
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”snake” style=”border:0;” /> I’d hate to be TT right now…
I agree that “things” seem faster on the pc. Windows pop open faster, folders open faster etc. I always thought that it was the added eye candy on my Mac that made it slow down. But I’m using a pc now with skins, drop shadows and a dock, and it still seems faster. All of those goodies are separate programs too; I’d think that would slow things down.
I’m Mac only and wouldn’t want to change. But I freelance with a lot of companies that are pc only, and I can’t help but notice the overall faster feel of windows.
Now when the chip is really working, like applying filters in Photoshop, I think both systems are still too slow. I usually work on files that are over 100MB, so I don’t get real time on either system. I have a dual 2.5 with 2 GB of RAM. I work on PCs of various configurations.
It’s interesting that users are reporting that tiger is faster on pc hardware. Maybe the Intel is better at 2D graphics or something. That’s still strange since they are using Intel’s integrated graphics chip and not a true video card. Integrated graphics have always sucked.
Pap, crap, and claptrap. Appleinsider asked three dozen “developers” what they thought and picked the one who said it was better.
Proof’s in the pudding, friends. Wait and see.
mmmmmmmmmmmm….Pudding
I have a hard believing the above. This is probably to uplift the Mac community spirit on the Intel shift and nothing more. There’s no need to lie about performance, there’s nothing we can do about Apple’s decision anyways!
What this thread needs is “lisa” frothing at the mouth at how the Intel switch will burn Cupertino to the ground.
We’ve been telling you for years that the Intel chipset is superior. The only way for you children to understand was to see the comparison apples to apples (yes pun intended).
I know this is a tough pill for you apple appoligist to swallow, but you’re finally seeing the truth. Yes, I’ll agree the OSX is superior to WinXP, but the hardware that you’ve been buying is second-rate and double the cost.
Anyone who buys a current G5 or Powerbook is either brainwashed or insane or both. Save your money and wait for the Intel version.
One note of caution: Watch out how Apple prices the new Intels out. They will use the Pentium D and if they charge more for the box then Dell or HP is charging for their Pentium D box then you better believe you’re getting ripped off. Keep this in mind next year when the new ones come out!!
Rumors of the Mac OS running faster on Intel date back to OS 8 (I was working for Apple tech support at the time). Remember, this is about how the OS performs on the chip, not other applications.
it’s not the fault of Intel that the Windows boxes suck. Everybody quit your whining. This is great news.
Andy: If the new MacTels ARE priced the same as the Dells, THEN I’ll know I’m really getting ripped off. I’d much rather pay Apple’s Quality Tax and get a machine that’s won all kinds of engineering awards than a Dell tin can.
Oh, and if the Pentiums are so much faster, please tell us why, when you get the OS mostly out of the way, that the G5’s blow the P4s totally out of the water. I’m talking supercomputer clusters here, as in Gflops per processor.
Dell and HP cost less with their Pentium D box because the rest 90% amount for less quality stuff.
Andy, are you so naive as to truly believe the price of a computer is dictated solely by what does the CPU cost?
Of course Dell and HPs will cost less with same or equivalent CPU inside.
You get what you pay for, and it is not just a CPU, silly.
Andy… you must be the one that buys a WV Beetle and laugh at the executive driving the Porsche Boxer
“Idiot, you have been ripped off. Both cars are made by the same company and my WV Beetle cost much less than you Boxer. Sucker”
Yeah, whatever
Porsche is not owned by VW. Some components are shared, mainly interior components like cupholders and turn signal stalks.
I see no reason not to buy a G5 iMac or G4 PowerBook right now for the average user. Both these machines still contain more computing power than the average user needs. In fact, the G5 iMac is one of the best machines Apple has ever produced in terms of elegance, performance and price.
Only the hard core geeks and professionals should wait it out for the MacIntels.
Shaun,
I answered your Xbox question, now where the hell is my free marijuana? Oh wait…I live in Jamaica. Never mind.
True story. A couple years ago my house was being renovated, and the workmen used to take their breaks in a shady corner of the yard a fair way from the house. I only realized that their rest and recuperation regimen included rolling huge spliffs when I came across a jungle of six-foot tall ganja plants, which had sprung up from the discarded seeds [yes, it is literally a weed here]. The damned things must have been mutants; they were laden with colossal purple buds the size of Polish sausages. When I called the contractor about it, the workmen were only too delighted to return and remove them, probably so they could scatter the seeds on some other poor fool’s property. Talk about spreading the joy.
i guess the truth of the matter was… Steve-o could only lie about the G5 superiority for so long and BS Apple’s way out.
In any case, it looks like Apple should’ve gone intel sooner… as they have had faster chipsets.
Shoot, I always said my Intel PC ran Photoshop and other programs faster than a Mac
Too bad Photoshop for Windows is missing important features that only Mac versions have.
Actually, I used one of these at WWDC. I don’t buy it. I think AppleInsider is making this one up.
Here was my test: Download an HD Video–I used the Fantastic Four Trailer. Play it. Watch for dropped frames, etc. Also, just for laughs, turn OFF hyperthreading and play the video again.
My Dual 2GHz dealt with this flawlessly. The Intel Mac with hyperthreading turned on was having a hard time keeping up and dropped frames. If you turned off hyperthreading, it’s about as fast as my 450MHz G4.
Now, in the Intel machine’s defense, it has “integrated” graphics with no actual graphics memory–it was all system memory. Again, in Apple’s defense, Apple was trying to make an Intel Mac that worked–they weren’t trying to make one that worked well or fast. So it isn’t really fair to draw comparisons with this machine.
The comment about Safari is the funniest one, though. Years ago, I worked on a Network Kernel Extension. One of the side-effects of my code was that, sometimes, packets would be delivered in a big flood. So you would sit and twiddle your thumbs and suddenly–*poof*–there was the page.
When we showed this to a few people, they were surprised at how much faster it was. Pages just seemed to snap into place! In fact, our software was slowing down the process but if it made the pages appear immediately, people thought it was faster.
IE does a bunch of tricks. For example, IE will download your “home page” when you start up your computer. Thus, the first page you connect to appears blindingly fast. Also, I’m not sure how many of you remember this, but back in 1999 or 2000 at WWDC, Apple was talking about their performance tools. They invited the IE team to come up and show how the Apple tools had helped them speed up IE. One of them even said that it showed all the problems in the cross-platform code. So when you say that IE is fast, you can thank Apple… :^)
MIke Napolitano,
This place sometimes is for the turds… I agree about staying with the issue. Unfortunately, I don’t think we’ll be able to really compare IBMs to Intels in Apples until Apple actually ships something they present as real product.
Frankly, I curious to see what kind of performance the DP G5s have in an Apple PowerMac (and when that might occur).
The P4 vintage x86 CPUs have always had one real advantage – integer performance. For floating point tasks, the crown went to PPC. This, along with Altivec, is why the Supercomputer list is always dominated by them. But basic computer tasks, especially those with no GPU support required (windows ‘popping’ and what have you) are integer based. On these it stands to reason that x86 could be better.
If (and given Peter’s testimony, that’s a big “if”) these developer systems do ‘feel’ faster, that’s the reason why.
Intel 3.6 GHz P4 CPU @ 533/800 MHz bus/memory vs PPC 2.0 GHz G5 CPU @ 1000/800 MHz bus/memory: 3.6 * MIN(533,800) > 2.0 * MIN(1000,800), ie 1918 > 1600, so the Intel will often “seem” faster for single-threaded CPU-bound INTEGER calculations… and Intel chips are designed to work better for poorly written code than PPC. For floating-point… um, HA HAHA. G5 rules. Even my “antique” Dual G4 1.42 G4 is faster when comparing its AltiVec performance to the P4’s SSE…
All we can hope for is that the Intel kack will only go into the low-end/laptop systems, and G5/G6 will continue to rule the roost.
okay I really don’t think the mactel dev boxes come close to my dual g4. I would like to see a real world bench that compares video encoding or 3 d rendering.
I could give a crap about how fast a browser window opens that is quite frankly a really stupid article.
Also keeping in mind these boxes were NOT designed for speed. I use both an Intel dual p3 AND a mac.
One thing to mention is my dual p3 1.0 ghz is FASTER than a single p4 2.5 when encoding video by almost 40%.
For my work I prefer the “g” chips over intel, they are better for 3d and video, PERIOD.
Just did a comparison of downloading “www.ibm.com/au” as a
benchmark using Firefox on:
IBM Thinkpad T42 1.7 Ghz P-M 512 Mb RAM ~ 9 sec
iMAC G5 2.0Ghz 1.5Gb RAM MacOS ~ 9 sec
and the same website using Safari:
iMAC (as above) ~ 7 sec
PB G4 1.5Ghz 1 Gb RAM ~ 7 sec
All systems were connected via airport extreme to the same 512Mb ADSL broadband internet link. Times are for forced page refreshes not the initial page download so to avoid ISP caching.
Conclusion (as anyone really should expect) web download speed is determined by the speed of your internet connection and has virtually nothing to do with the hardware or the operating system. Safari, as acknowledged in many browser reviews, renders pages somewhat faster than Firefox. I will leave it to someone else to repeat the test for IE.
When ISP caching is introduced the download time can drop to <2 sec when the page is in the cache. So “snappy pages” reflect a fast cache and little else.
As far as I am concerned this shows that the Apple Insider report is a lot of crap, just like most of the comments on this web site.
Apple insider is not a reputable news source.
If you go back to the WWDC keynote video, you will see how slow Photoshop launches under Rosetta. I have noticed that Tiger boots up a lot faster than Panther on a G5. Average Finder tasks such as opening windows and launching native apps will be quick on a Pentium but try opening and rendering a 500 MB Photoshop file and see what happens. Try copying 10 GB over a network. How about mixing audio or performing video editing tasks? That would be a real test.
What the developers are seeing is a basic Apple test box that runs OS X. I’m sure Apple and Intel are working on a high performance Intel processor variant to be announced at the end of this year. Until that happens the G5 is still king of the hill for Mac OS X as it outperforms any current Intel box running Windows.
“For floating point tasks, the crown went to PPC.”
“For floating-point… um, HA HAHA. G5 rules.”
Isolated FPU benchmarks generally shows the Athlon/Opteron FPU as stronger than both the P4 and G5.
While some Mac fanatics like to run to the supercomputer 500 list to infer the supposed superiority of PPC vs X86, the fact of the matter is the chips inside Apple G5’s are not the custom Power 4/5 clusters utilizing highly specialized compilers, therefore the comparison is invalid for G5 vs P4/Opteron. In terms of “workstation” level setups (Opteron, Xeon, Xserve), it is Intel according to the 500 list that is dominating (and growing).
http://www.top500.org/sublist/stats/index.php?list=25&type=procgen&submit=Generate+Table
I thinks its worth reminding folks that this developer machine is far from being top of the line in terms of pure performance. More importantly, is that even if these claims are exagerated (and i’m sure they are a bit), a single core Intel chip w/ integrated video ($900-1000 complete system) that can compete w/(or even lag slightly behind) a dual 2ghz+ G5 is quite newsworthy (a system costing around twice as much).
Frankly, what does this say of a more advanced Intel system with dual core 3GHZ and a decent video card(around $1500 for a complete system). And I don’t even wanna think of what a AMD X2 could do.
gaba gaba gaba gaba gaba gaba gaba gaba gaba gaba
These comparisons are all completely irrelavant as the hardware from Apple that will be built for use with the Intel chips will be spec’ed out for performance specific to Mac computers, not PCs running Mac OS.
PPC vs. x86? Who cares? It’s moot now. In a year, Apple’s new hardware will tell if OS X can rock the Intel house, or if it’s just not suited for Intel, or if there really is no change.
The End.