“Rick Bernstein, sent in a link to a great discussion at Luxology’s forums about render tests done with a new Quad. Apparently the company had one for testing purposes. No surprises there, Luxology folks are big Apple supporters. However, the test render results for the Quad were definitely surprising and pleasing to many,” Architosh reports.
“Alan Hastings of Luxology posted a test rendering image taken from the new Quad G5 with modo 201. The scene included 244,000 polygons with 8 sample antialiasing and 200 indirect rays. The new Quad G5 finished the image — which looks extremely good by the way — in 17 seconds flat. That bested a score of 38 seconds flat on a Luxology Power Mac Dual G5 at 2.5 Ghz,” Architosh reports. “Alan also tested the same render on a Dell 530 workstation with dual 2.8Ghz Xeons. The result? 49 seconds. There are no Opteron results to compare to yet so at the moment we are not sure if the new Apple Quad G5 is the new heavy weight champion of the world when it comes to rendering.”
Full article here.
Luxology article and image here.
[UPDATE: 2:15pm ET: Revised headline.]
Related MacDailyNews articles:
AnandTech: Apple new Power Mac G5’s biggest improvement is the move to PCI Express – October 21, 2005
Photos of new dual core Apple Power Mac G5 interior, ports, and more – October 19, 2005
First benchmark tests of Apple’s new Power Mac G5 dual-core machines – October 19, 2005
Apple introduces Power Mac G5 Quad and Power Mac G5 Dual – October 19, 2005
Like Whoa!
MDW: Boy ‘Don’t test me boy.’
wtf is this CT =====]———–????
MW = always
I ALWAYS see that text on this board, but no one will fill me in…
QUAD smokes DELL’s on performance and price
QUAD smokes DuLL’s on performance and price
QUAD smokes DELL’s on performance and price
QUAD smokes DuLL’s on performance and price
QUAD smokes DELL’s on performance and price
QUAD smokes DuLL’s on performance and price
QUAD smokes DELL’s on performance and price
QUAD smokes DuLL’s on performance and price
QUAD smokes DELL’s on performance and price
QUAD smokes DuLL’s on performance and price
IN YOUR FAT FACE MICHAEL “greedy” DELL AND STEVE “monkey-boy” BALLMER
*shoots PC with 45*
All nice and loverly but I am waiting for the new dual multi-cores from Intel in a Macintosh – I can wait…
What ever 1 nfinate Loop is planning will blow the socks off of this.
MW: counrty as in: “Australia is the Lucky Country”
That’s so Raven!
MacTels Quads to suck, no Altivec, no control over chip fab like at IBM.
New Intel dual cores already sucking vs AMD offerings.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/22/0714240&tid=118&tid=137
Hate to be an ‘I told ya so’ – really – but I posted on previous articles relating to the new G5 that the quad was going to be an amazing performer. As I tirelessly keep championing, the notion that the 970 based G5 was a dead end, or that IBM wasn’t doing enough to keep it competitive, or that ONLY Intel could allow Apple to continue to ‘innovate’, is all a load of hogwash.
Further, now that we see what the dual core 970 can do, ask yourselves what could have been done with the low power 970FX? Imagine the follow on developments from both technologies … like dual core versions of an FX inside, say, an iMac or PowerBook. This of course ignores the low power (MPC7448) and dual core (MPC8641D) versions of the G4 that are already available. Don’t believe? Check them both out:
http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC7448&nodeId=0162468rH3bTdG8653
http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?code=DRPPCDUALCORE
Jobs went to Intel for hardware DRM – period. As more test results trickel out, this should become more and more clear to all but the most ardent kool-aid drinkers.
Hot tamales says: “It’s great to watch the beast that the Power Mac G5 has become. Granted…these G5 Quads won’t hold the speed title for too long, but of course…we appreciate what they do and know Apple will continue to churn out the best systems for our computing dollar. “
The problem is that there probably won’t be many more G5 improvements after this – at least not CPU related ones. I can’t see IBM investing much in further upgrading these chips for Apple, after being unceremoniosly dumped for their mortal enemy. Apple can put faster main memory in them, keep upgrading the video cards, and so forth. However, they’ve commited themdelves to bringing us abrave new video centric world, and that means – to them – truly superlative computers are no longer a priority.
Because of the self imposed languishing of the PowerBook (no G4 upgrade at all), the next Macintel versions will look great in comparison. Had the dual core or low power versions of the G4 been used, the comparison would have been less favorable. The same will be true with the G5 machines when their time comes – an overly long time period with essentially the same specs, followed by a tepid ‘features’ upgrade and a price drop, will be the final bow before the supposedly superior Macintels come on line. Yet if Apple had maintained their PPC relationships (at least with IBM), the upgrade path available to them would have made anything Intel will be making in the same time period look weak.
Everyday we go down the transition path further, it becomes clearer and clearer that Jobs sacrificed a better CPU, with a better future, for a better way of locking your computers down. He can’t get the video content otherwise, so it’s – in his eyes – an acceptable loss. I know the majority seems to be ok with that. I just want to lay out – with no kool-aid, no ‘RDF’ induced blindness – EXACTLY what your accepting and why.
Flame on!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cool smirk” style=”border:0;” />
Yeah, right.
The IBM roadmap was BullShiite, and this is the long awaited last gasp from the PowerPC consumer division.
IBM showed little interest in cannibalizing its own server market by offering killer systems for Apple, and assumed they controlled the battlefield when they dragged their feet and negotiated for Apple to pay for further development.
Yeah, IBM had great potential. Hope springs eternal.
At least intel will deliver on the mobile front, and by 2007 should easily surpass anything from IBM for the consumer market.
Remember Power 5 Lite, the 980 GU-RL? Wow, that was a glorious roadmap from years ago.
the topic has slightly shifted back to IBM vs. Intel and the future of
Apple’s Pro model hardware.
Odyssey67 —
Apple, in recruiting Intel to be their processor supplier for the foreseeable
future has shaken up the PC industry and has accomplished at least
two objectives.
1. They will address the needs over the PowerBook customer by keeping pace with the desktop line.
2. They will eliminate the power struggle/stress that IBM and Apple couldn’t see eye to eye on – cool running processors requiring less energy.
This market is forever changing. By making a strong move to Intel,
Apple has shown us the importance of it’s strategy as a legitimate
contender for what they see as their best bet as of 2005. Open the
eyes of as many MS PC users as possible while maintaining their loyal
current customer base.
I’d say (and think) IBM and the PowerPC architecture that they are
swapping for Intels will be something that could be brought back
online (eventually) with a renewed enthusiasm that will catapult Apple
to new heights, that is unless Intel doesn’t beat IBM to the punch.
CT =====]———– Au revoir
you can use?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cheese” style=”border:0;” />
CT =====]———- Counter production
The mindshare that comes with Intel is more imported than the sheer grunt of PowerPC.
Apple might have trouble selling Macintel to its high-performance-computing customers, however.
P.S. They could say “over 200% as fast”…
Sounds good – but what is rendering?
Mugwump says: “The IBM roadmap was BullShiite, and this is the long awaited last gasp from the PowerPC consumer division.”
As should be obvious, the ‘gasps’ are coming because Apple throatled the relationship. PPC won’t die, but G5/Power4 development was ended the day Jobs got on that stage and claimed low power and better CPUs were just too tough to come by with IBM. The falseness of that statement was evident when a month later IBM released exactly that, and it should be absolutely manifest with this ‘last gasp’ CPU pulling these kinds of numbers.
It’s pretty ridiculous that people are still claiming how IBM just couldn’t cut the mustard, when we are seeing their CPUs practically boil the mustard in it’s own jar.
“IBM showed little interest in cannibalizing its own server market by offering killer systems for Apple, and assumed they controlled the battlefield when they dragged their feet and negotiated for Apple to pay for further development.”
This is pure supposition that is not backed up by facts. To believe IBM was ever concerned about Apple canabilizing their market in servers, one would have to ignore that a] IBM made money on every CPU Apple sold as a server, b] Apple will continue selling servers when they switch to Intel, so any canabilizing will continue, c] those who bought Apple servers were as interested in OSX as they were in PPC (if not moreso in some cases), which took – and will continue to take – IBM out of the running by default, d] IBM sells PPC and Intel based servers now, and seem less than concerned about the market implications of that …
In short, IBM had no problem with Apple selling servers with their CPUs in them. That’s a red herring, designed to do nothing more than bolster the weak-ass argument that IBM was trying to dump Apple the whole time, so it was ok Apple dumped them first. Otherwise known as the ‘Highschool Romance’ theory of corporate strategy.
“At least intel will deliver on the mobile front, and by 2007 should easily surpass anything from IBM for the consumer market.”
Last I checked, Apple’s mobile sales were outpacing the industry, even with the tired version of G4 they’re using now. Check out the links I put up above to verify that even better versions are available right now. I guess you believe the current low power G5/970FX from IBM isnt an answer (its 25watts max usage is about the same as the version of G4 Apple is using now, but hey … what do I know). But what exactly makes you think that IBM – a CPU manufacturer whose entire business strategy is based on ‘pay us and we build whatever you want’ – was somehow averse to fulfilling Apple’s further needs?
Apple’s got $6 billion in cash. If not for an anti-trust investigation in S. Korea, they would’ve put about a billion into Samsung’s bank for flash memory development. How is the CPU – arguably the most important piece of silicon any computer-maker needs – not worth even half that? Apple pays for development to Intel too, you know – via the higher costs of their chips. Since they’re gonna pay anyway, why not pay for the best, instead of the average? Even if you believe x86 is the cutting edge of CPU design, AMD is clearly the future there too.
It just doesn’t make sense … Unless, of course, you’re not really interested in having the best any more. Unless, the CPU takes a back seat to the TPM chip soldered next to it, in terms of overall corporate strategy.
“Remember Power 5 Lite, the 980 GU-RL? Wow, that was a glorious roadmap from years ago.”
Yeah, and I remember how P4s with the (now abandoned) Netburst architecture were going to rock the world. Intel promised anywhere from 4 to 6 to 10Ghz for those CPUs in the future. Talk about “glorious” … as in a glorious retreat, back to PIII (which is the architectual parent of much of what Intel is doing now).
Sorry pal. Your gonna have to do better than that.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”LOL” style=”border:0;” />
What you shortsighted sheep don’t take into consideration is that the chipset’s manufacturer that is getting thrashed by the IBM PPC is the same one Apple will be adopting next year.
When announced, all of you proclaimed The Intel Migration was a Good Thing and IBM sucked, but now suddenly news of the Intel getting thrashed by IBM is a Good Thing too.
Make up your confused minds, or is that what Jobs does for you?
Get your excuses ready for when a report like this comes out NEXT year, when all of you have an Intel Inside.
The greater than “factor of 2” gains had more to do with Nvidia’s powerful current G70 graphics chip and (finally) PCI express bus. It’s nice to laugh at the dual Xeon 2.8Ghz scores, but if the Xeons had been dual cores themselves, the scores would likely have been alot tighter….not to mention AMD’s top of the line dual cores would probably blow them both out of the water, as it already does in other CAD/rendering applications.
Yeah … says: “Apple, in recruiting Intel to be their processor supplier … has shaken up the PC industry and has accomplished at least two objectives. 1. They will address the needs over the PowerBook customer by keeping pace with the desktop line.”
There is no laptop CPU made that keeps up with the best available for desktops – Intel included. I’m the first to admit that the G4 Powerbook has been falling behind (mostly in relation to what’s offered in the G4 iBook), but if you check the links above you will see definitively that much better G4s are available to be used. Apple just decided not to use them. Further, if you’ve got to have a G5 in an aluminum enclosure, the 970FX is not worse in power consumption than the G4 Apple is using now. Lastly, as I stated above, if you pay IBM they will make what you want. That’s what they do. Client pays for development costs upfront, gets cheaper prices per CPU, and gets one made to their specs.
“2. They will eliminate the power struggle/stress that IBM and Apple couldn’t see eye to eye on – cool running processors requiring less energy.”
Neither company had problems agreeing this was important. IBM was a pioneer in the Silicon On Insulator process that the whole industry uses to keep power issues from getting out of hand, and their Power5 is known to be among the best in this regard.
I do agree that Apple and IBM, and Apple and Motorola, and Apple and Freescale all had stressful relationships. This is actually what I thought was the saving grace of this move to Intel – that Apple would realize that Intel made what it made, when it made it, and there was no reason to worry about supply and development issues anymore. Except … just on this site, about 3 weeks ago, there was a story about Apple getting all huffy because Intel would supply their new CPUs a little earlier than the other computer companies were getting them.
Basically, the common denominator in the problem here is Apple – or more acurately, Steve Jobs. For as long as Apple is run by him, there will never be a CPU supplier that will ever get anything right.
“This market is forever changing. By making a strong move to Intel,
Apple has shown us the importance of it’s strategy as a legitimate
contender for what they see as their best bet as of 2005. Open the
eyes of as many MS PC users as possible while maintaining their loyal
current customer base.”
Great sounding words; “forever changing”, “strong move”, etc … However, the market changes seem to affect Intel worse than anyone else in the business. Low power? Almost missed the boat on that, until the Israeli design team pulled their asses out of the fire with the PIII based Pentium M. 64 bit? Intel didn’t want to here about it, until M$ forced them to adopt AMDs 64bit instruction set. Dual core? Second place to AMD again on that one, and their design isn’t as advanced as AMDs either because it was rushed to market. Did you notice they lost the competition for all three gaming consoles? PS3, XBox360, and the Revolution are all PPC based.
Anybody who is really keeping their eyes open can see that Intel CPUs are not the “best bet as of 2005”, or any other year. They have one advantage – they have hardware DRM that Hollywood studios like, and their 80% of the CPU market will make that the default standard. Apple can’t get an expansive video library, with which to stock the hoped-for iTunesVideoStore, unless they play ball with those studios. So when they said “jump to Intel’s TPM”, Jobs has simply asked “how high”. Performance for the future had nothing to do with it.
“I’d say (and think) IBM and the PowerPC architecture that they are
swapping for Intels will be something that could be brought back
online (eventually) with a renewed enthusiasm that will catapult Apple
to new heights, that is unless Intel doesn’t beat IBM to the punch.”
Unless Intel allows IBM to license their hardware DRM technology, there is no going back for Apple. And Intel is nothing if not a good leverager of anything that increases their marketshare, so there’s no chance of them letting IBM (or AMD) have that technology without charging a very steep price.
Sorry, Oddysey67, couldn’t disagree with you more on every one of your supplications. Thankfully the dolts running Apple Computer disagree with you as well.
The Powerbooks used to outperform, or had near parity, with the towers. What we have now is a friggin logjam for the past year or two holding down everything below. You can blame Apple, I blame the chip manufacturers.
IBM promised much and didn’t deliver. Never did they expect Apple to jump ship, and they tried to sell Apple on the CELL architecture, since the fabs are at full capacity taking care of those customers. Weak execution by IBM, and since Apple means little or nothing to the bottom line, they could care less.
oops, wrong use of the word “supplication”.
But when last I checked, the Powermacs are running with G5’s until 2007. So apparently we have the best of both worlds, and I can bet that Intel’s offerings in 2007 will surpass the 970MP, which IBM will no doubt still be selling as their light servers.
Mugwump:
PowerBooks never “outperformed” the PowerMac in performance. PBs have always had slower hard drives, less capable video cards, and (most of the time) even slower main memory – not to mention less of it. So that’s a ridiculous assertion. To the extent the PBs rivaled PMs, it was due to the ‘Motorola Stall’ in 2000-2001, when all the CPUs they offered hit a speed wall (even though they were very energy efficient), so the Mhz differential bewteen them was slight. An advantage for PBs? Sure, since the CPU speeds between them and PMs were much closer than industry average, but not one that lasted.
As for IBM not delivering what they promised; if you delve into the technical specs of the PowerMac as it has been made and sold for the last couple of years, the main performance problems it has had are a] high system memory latency, b] low system memory speeds, c] lack of OSX optimizations for 64bit and multithreaded computing tasks, d] lackluster video card performance (relating to choices AND the technology connecting those cards to the mobo). This is not me talking for the sake of it – this has been the overwhelming conclusion of the tech sites that have tested these systems (AnandTech and Ars come to mind, but there have been many others).
IBM had absolutely nothing to do with any of those problems. Apple designed and built the motherboard, and (of course) are exclusively responsible for how well OSX performs. Not coincidentally, many of these problems have (finally) been addressed by Apple in this recent upgrade, but not all. Namely, system memory is somewhat faster, and there is talk that the memory I/O latency problem has been addressed (although the overall gain may have been mitigated, since DDR2 inherently has higher latency than DDR). And of course going to PCI-E over AGP is a big gain for video. However, OSX is still a halfway-to-64bit solution, and it’s ability to handle multiple tasks (such as with a server involved in heavy use commercial applications) is still 3rd rate – behind Linux and Windows Server.
The G5 itself has always been a superlative CPU, and when used in ways that leveraged it’s computational advantages – such as in supercomputer clusters – it has proved time after time to be among the best choices out there. Only the Opteron/Linux combo has bested it, and even then, when cost is factored into the equation, the gap narrows. Obviously IBM’s own offerings have rivaled it. Intel, on the other hand, had never been a contender until their dual core CPUs started to make their debut.
As for Cell; in it’s current form it would be a bear to code for in any GP computing application, and thus Apple rightly balked at using it. However, the Cell in it’s current form is not, and never was expected to be, the end of the line. It’s design allows for more a robust PPC core chip, in addition to the SPUs that surround it. And it’s main innovation – that being it’s massively parrallel computing strategy – is clearly the future. What do you think dual cores do, in a more straight forward way? Or computing clusters? Or SETI@Home? There’s hundreds of examples justifying the Cell strategy. Cell execution is another matter, but that’s hardly reason to diss it at this early stage. And Intel certainly has nothing else even approaching Cell’s potential, let alone more generic versions of PPC’s present day advantages. But they do have TPM chips. That’s the one thing Intel has that no one else does.
So, the choice Apple made, by not even attempting to leverage Cell even for some future offering, and not staying with a better berforming GP CPU, was one between “Insanely Great” and “iTunesVideoStore”.
You say “I can bet that Intel’s offerings in 2007 will surpass the 970MP, which IBM will no doubt still be selling as their light servers.” What a ‘no duh’ statement – congratulations on your insight into the obvious! The 970MP was Apple’s CPU – no one else was really using it – so with Apple ending the relationship, and Power5 being their bread and butter chip, IBM will not improve it further. So your statement is a bit like saying “I’ll bet Michael Johnson won’t win the next Olympic 400M event”. Since he’s retired, and no longer even training, its a forgone conclusion.
So yes, the Macintels that come on line to replace the G5 PMs will out perform their immediate predicessors in 2007. However, had Apple kept the relationship going, further G5 development – or a G6/Power5 follow on – would just as certainly have made for continued embarassment for Intel’s x86 CPUs.
Odyssey
Apple went to Intel for one reason and it does not have anything to do with DRM hardware (which they don’t need). Apple IS becoming a software company. Once the switch to Intel is complete Apple can create whatever software they want without fear of reprisal from industry heavy-weights like ADOBE and MICROSOFT.
For years Apple has been held hostage with the threat of product discontinuation if they released a competing product. Photoshop and Office are required applications for the Apple hardware. When the transition to Intel is complete Apple can create whatever they want without fear of punative reprisal. If Photoshop becomes a Windoze-only piece of software, no worries, because you’ll be able to put Windows on your Intel-Mac and enjoy the best Adobe and Microsoft has to offer without lame-oh emulation. But why would you want to after the Intel-Mac release of Aperture? Or the Intel-Mac release of Pages? These applications (and others) portend to Apples future.
The only thing hardware based DRM (built-in dongle) really has to offer is an improved software registration scheme for authorized users – it will get rid of some of the annoying crap legal users must go through currently to activate their software. Apple is already in the process of demonstrating they can control the digital rights of downloaded video without additional hardware chips in the box (let me know when you’ve cracked the DRM on Apples currently available video for iPods).
Downloadable full length movies are a pipedream until Internet 2 becomes widespread and that’s a ways off. Consider all the grousing about the picture quality of the currrent 320×240 on HD and plasma displays and then remember how long it takes to download the currrent offerings (20-40 minutes depending on your DSL connection). A standard definition 640×480 video has four times the footprint of the current offering and it’s still only SD not HD. Personally I think HD is going nowhere in the long run – mfr’s will have to give away the extra HD resolution capability to get mp3 compression loving consumers to play along. Consumers are cheap and tasteless (enmasse).
And as for IBM processors, I’m ordering a new Quad after they’ve been out for 90 days. Not because I like the PowerPC or have any belief it’s better than Intel, but because it’s the fastest most powerful Mac available and I need that speed for my work.
MW things (as in, things change)
“However, had Apple kept the relationship going, further G5 development – or a G6/Power5 follow on – would just as certainly have made for continued embarassment for Intel’s x86 CPUs.”
Continued embarrassment? Sorry Odyssey, the only “embarrasment” that occured was on Apple’s part as x86 CPUs (including Intel’s) skyrocketed ahead while Apple stagnated with the 970. You’d have to be biased to the extreme to not realize the handicap Apple found itself for the past year, unable to do nothing but find more clever ways to overclock and cool their CPU’s just to try and remain competitive against the newest chips from AMD and Intel.
While Dual 3.8Ghz Xeons were already highly competitive with 2.5Ghz Powermacs last year, the introduction of dual cores early in the year really shook up the workstation landscape. Back in May, it was Intel’s Pentium Extreme 840 that was “embarrassing” the best of Apple’s Powermacs with better performance and less cost (which was clocked at 3.2Ghz back then, now clocked at 3.7Ghz). A single Intel chip outperforming two PPC’s? If I recall, you had a tough time swallowing that pill, despite the reviews flooding the internet, like this one:
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=32744-1
Yes, we know AMD had the superior dual core solution. And AMD seems ahead of the game of both IBM and Intel concerning desktop computing (despite your faith in Cell). But, Apple had nothing to counter Intel’s dual cores back in May, until now…which is obviously very late to the game, and likely the last stage of any further 970 evolution…unless Apple resorts to more extreme methods of cooling to overclock thier chips further.
So I ask again Odyssey, who really embarrassed who this year? If Apple had stuck by IBM, what makes you think the next generation of G6 would have embarrased Intel? Judging by recent history, it would have been more Apple marketing hype than substance (you know, the tainted benchmarks you and Lisa champion as proof of the most powerful chip on the planet, despite reality). Intel has some interesting chips for 2006, which some venues like Tom’s Hardware are indicating may allow Intel to snatch away the performance crown from AMD.
Of course, AMD isnt sitting idly by either, as Anandtech reports they are working hard to unveil quad core chips by end of 2006. IBM’s focus has changed. I just don’t see them putting as much effort into Apple to remain truly competitive, which is…whether you like it or not…is one of the main reasons Apple switched to Intel.
Macs King:
Yes, things change, but not always for the better, and it’s stupid to equate the two.
You think the change to Intel (x86) dual cores is all good. Take a look at the following …
Dual/single core G5 PM beats dual core PentiumD 3 out of 5 tests, and is very competive in the other 2:
http://www.barefeats.com/dualcore.html
Pretty much the same result of last gen G5 PM vs Opteron, among others:
http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html
You’re argument about Apple being under the thumbs of the software companies dissing them in a ‘Windows world’ had some merit – in 1995. With ubiquitous file formats, Apple has long been free to make whatver software they want (what kind of “hostage” to Adobe gets away with making Final Cut Pro?), and CPU architecture is absolutely irrelivant to that fact. In otherwords, x86 does nothing to advantage Apple in the strategy they are already pursuing, which is to make their own versions of popular programs based on ubiquitous file formats.
You’re quite right about the limitations of bandwidth, but it’s got little to do with Internet 1 vs 2. Int. 1 has plenty of bandwidth to download movies; it’s the verizons and comcasts of the world who won’t put big enough pipes into the average houshold (without an outrageous premium) that creates the roadblock.
Nonetheless, you do not have a good handle on what hardware DRM allows and prevents. It’s NOT a dongle. It’s an integrated feature, and it’s one that will put severe limitations on how we commonly uses computers today, if leveraged to it’s full extent.
Check here for the scoop:
http://www.digitmag.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=4915
For those who don’t bother clicking links, here’s the first and third paragraph for you:
“Intel quietly adds DRM to new chips
Friday 27 May 2005 – 11:02
Microsoft and the entertainment industry’s holy grail of controlling copyright through the motherboard has moved a step closer with Intel Corp. now embedding digital rights management within in its latest dual-core processor Pentium D and accompanying 945 chipset. …
While Intel steered clear of mentioning the new DRM technology at its Australian launch of the new products, Intel’s Australian technical manager Graham Tucker publicly confirmed Microsoft-flavored DRM technology will be a feature of Pentium D and [the] 945 [chipset].”
Relatity check – APPLE WILL BE USING THE SAME CPUs AND CHIPSETS AS EVERYONE ELSE after the Macintel transition. So it’s happening, and it’s being done quietly, at the behest of the Hollywood studios who INSIST on this before releasing any library in a HiDef format.
My God, will you people get a clue!!!??? If you’re going to insist that the Macintel transistion is good because an iTunesVideoStore is the future of the company, fine – just say so. Otherwise, wake the hell up and stop being so blind to the evidence, ALL the evidence, that there was absolutely no other reason to go with Intel.
Sorry for losing my cool there, but this shouldn’t be so hard for anyone – everyone – to see. As to why its important … hell, what do I know? Maybe it isn’t in the least. All I do know, IMHO, is that moving forward into the future (i.e. “change”) is always better when we do it facing the truth, as opposed to backing in under cover of a lie.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”mad” style=”border:0;” />
Sammy:
Are you kidding me? Have you even looked at those numbers?
In every test these 3.6Ghz machines (both dual/single core Xeon and dual core Pentium EE) just barely beat out the old 2.7 Ghz dual G5, even though they had faster memory and better video cards. You call this a bitter pill? With a Ghz advantage and a better chipset, I have to wonder why the Dell rigs didn’t blow the doors off the PM … except I don’t have to wonder. I already realize that the weak link in their machine was basing it on Intel technology. Good luck explaining away how these new G5s ‘got lucky’ in trouncing this, the best Intel has to offer.
You say “If Apple had stuck by IBM, what makes you think the next generation of G6 would have embarrased Intel? Judging by recent history, it would have been more Apple marketing hype …”
Yeah – revisionist history.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”LOL” style=”border:0;” />
Odyssey
I don’t know what corporate facilities you work in but the creative services at AB, Hallmark and Boeing would not be allowed to buy ANY MACS if not for Office and Photoshop so to say universal file formats is the cure is just plain stupid and extremely uniformed. Pull your paranoid little head out of the sand and start fixing up your old PowerPC machines so they’ll have good life after the switch to Intel.