“The speed of the [new Intel-based Macs] begs the question as to the apparent BS that the Mac community was fed for years regarding the natural superiority of the PowerPC chip. As far as I’m concerned Apple’s credibility is now suspect on all levels. More interesting were the rather insulting ads Apple showed regarding these chips indicating that any use before Apple was essentially a crummy loser. This, of course referred to Windows I guess. Apparently Apple is unaware of the fact that Linux runs at blazing speed on these chips too,” John Dvorak writes for PC Magazine.
Full article along with photo essay of Macworld Expo 2006 here.
MacDailyNews Take: While we agree wholeheartedly with Dvorak’s characterization of Apple’s Intel ad (insulting the very customers that you’re trying to get to switch to your product is a typical Apple advertising/marketing misadventure), he couldn’t be more wrong about PowerPC chips. The Intel-based iMac is faster than the PowerPC-based iMac G5 because the chip is dual core vs. single core. Same goes for MacBook Pro vs. PowerBook G4. Of course, Intel-based Macs are faster, they have twice the processors inside. The world’s fastest Mac is PowerPC-based: Apple’s Power Mac G5 Quad with, you guessed it, four processors.
The Intel Core Duo processors that Apple is using are new. They simply weren’t available when Apple claimed the PowerPC was a faster chip, so there is no way you can call BS on Apple if you want people to take you seriously.
Of note, too, are that the new Intel Core Duo processors are also fabbed at 65nm vs. the Power PC G5’s 90nm process. Apple’s inexcusable inability to sell the vastly superior Mac (compared to Microsoft Windows, in particular) in greater numbers didn’t exactly encourage IBM to spend the money in PowerPC development that they would have if Apple made it worth their while. The PowerPC is, in many ways, an excellent architecture that could’ve been and could still be much more than it is today. In addition, there are many other factors to consider: RAM speed, caching, system bus, and more that contribute to speed differences. PowerPC was the best option and faster at some tasks than anything from Intel back when Apple was selling PowerPC. “Selling” being the operative word. Apple was doing its job, not lying, not BS’ing; they were selling the real benefits of PowerPC over Intel processors at the time and not highlighting deficiencies. Now Apple will sell Intel’s benefits and attributes as they phase out PowerPC. And, if Intel can’t keep up, Apple could always sell AMD or PowerPC. Such is the beauty of the new Universal Binary paradigm, right? Think about it: Apple now has the ability — if they wish to exercise it — to pick the best processors for any particular Mac from among Intel, IBM, Freescale, and AMD. Windows box assemblers like Dell simply cannot match Apple Macs in the area of processor choice or anything else, for that matter.
Again, times change, you can’t accuse Apple of BS’ing back when they were comparing G4s to Pentiums on the basis that they’ve now chosen to use a brand new Intel chip that didn’t even exist a month ago.
Advertisements:
• MacBook Pro. The first Mac notebook built upon Intel Core Duo with iLife ’06, Front Row and built-in iSight. Starting at $1999. Free shipping.
• iMac. Twice as amazing — Intel Core Duo, iLife ’06, Front Row media experience, Apple Remote, built-in iSight. Starting at $1299. Free shipping.
• iMac and MacBook Pro owners: Apple USB Modem. Easily connect to the Internet using dial-up service. $49.00.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
M$ insults their customers unashamedly:
The dinosaur ads are a picture of this.
the MDN take on this is spot on. i guess Dvorak is doing the typical reporter thing of not actually checking up on FACTS involved. someone should e-mail him the link to this page.
I like my koolaid shaken, not stirred.
This about sums it up…
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/357.html
Why am I all fo a sudden hearing this crap that Apple was decieving everyone with reports of processor speeds.
From what I can tell, all these people are completely disregarding the passage of time!
“OOO, Apple said they were fastest 2 years ago, but 6 months after that announcement Intel came out with a processeor that was a microsecond faster… and now the 3.6 Xeon totally kicks the PPC 1.8Ghz procs ass! Apple must have been lying!”
FEH!
What will all these people do now that Macs run the same processors as Windows machines? What can they whine about now?
MDN: nice try, but no cigar. Apple (and more glaringly mac zealot) claims regarding PowerPC got more and more obnoxious and far fetched each year, to the extent that yutzes on MDN were endlessly carrying on about how their 450 MHz G4 machine outperformes a 1.5 GHz Pentium, etc.
PowerPC has a speed advantage over x86, being more efficient at the same clock speed. For years, though, apple nuts have taken this to extremes of arguing that PowerPC chips are still faster than x86 chips at 2x and 3x the clock speed–a clear departure from reality that anyone who hadn’t drunk the kool aid found laughable.
Finally a decent comparison. Looks like a 20% on average real speed increase over the 2.1GHz G5 iMac.
Oh yeah. Dvorak is too full of “himself” (my MW).
(had to be quick to get first post
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />…all in good fun)
So let me continue…
M$ insults the ones they serve (and serve more than just mediocre computing, but virus compatibility too!)
Has anyone thought this? Did anyone else think this, or see the “dinosaur” ad campaign featuring office people with dinosaur heads not using the latest Windows XP software?
ONLY a true monopolositic giant would dare such tactics in their advertising. Very telling, no?
the intel ads are funny.. but I don’t think they’re calling PC users dumbasses.
most PC’s are in banks and office towers, doing.. MS Word…Solitaire.. Internet.. Email.. being taken down by viruses…
the business market (at least, Apple wants you to think) is void of any Macs.
so it’s easy to attack the business market, since.. Apple’s got nothing to lose.
they’re saying the business market uses PC’s (cheap dumb little boxes) and finally the Intel chip gets to go in a computer that’s for PEOPLE.
iLife
Things change. S**t happens. When the PowerPC was new it was good. Now Intel have the edge. Overall Apple has the advantage becasue they can choose between their hardware platforms, that’s why their pushing Universal Binaries. Maybe in years to come there will be some amazing leap in PowerPC processors, who will be the ones who can pick up on such happenings? Apple of course. Can you see M$ moving away from the X86 architecture? Not likely.
Okay, the latest results of real world benchmarks puts the DUAL core Intel iMac at between 1.2 and 1.3 times as fast as a SINGLE core G5. That would equate to ONE Intel core being about 67% of the speed of ONE core of G5. So who’s spouting the BS, John?
> MDN wrote: Of note, too, are that the new Intel Core Duo processors are also fabbed at 65nm vs. the Power PC G5’s 90nm process
I don’t understand how some of you can take this as good reasoning.
Dvorak says “Apple fed Mac community BS for years” regarding the PowerPC processors. MDN replies by naming some of the deficiencies of of the PowerPC platform as a counterargument!
“Of course, Intel-based Macs are faster, they have twice the processors inside”
They counterargue by agreeing with him!
… and the very same people who believed the Apple hype are gobbling up MDN’s BS with as big a smile!
AMAZING!!!
> MDN wrote: Of note, too, are that the new Intel Core Duo processors are also fabbed at 65nm vs. the Power PC G5’s 90nm process
I don’t understand how some of you can take this as good reasoning.
Dvorak says “Apple fed Mac community BS for years” regarding the PowerPC processors. MDN replies by naming some of the deficiencies of of the PowerPC platform as a counterargument!
“Of course, Intel-based Macs are faster, they have twice the processors inside”
They counterargue by agreeing with him!
… and the very same people who believed the Apple hype are gobbling up MDN’s BS with as big a smile!
AMAZING!!!
> MDN wrote: Of note, too, are that the new Intel Core Duo processors are also fabbed at 65nm vs. the Power PC G5’s 90nm process
I don’t understand how some of you can take this as good reasoning.
Dvorak says “Apple fed Mac community BS for years” regarding the PowerPC processors. MDN replies by naming some of the deficiencies of of the PowerPC platform as a counterargument!
“Of course, Intel-based Macs are faster, they have twice the processors inside”
They counterargue by agreeing with him!
… and the very same people who believed the Apple hype are gobbling up MDN’s BS with as big a smile!
AMAZING!!!
> MDN wrote: Of note, too, are that the new Intel Core Duo processors are also fabbed at 65nm vs. the Power PC G5’s 90nm process
I don’t understand how some of you can take this as good reasoning.
Dvorak says “Apple fed Mac community BS for years” regarding the PowerPC processors. MDN replies by naming some of the deficiencies of of the PowerPC platform as a counterargument!
“Of course, Intel-based Macs are faster, they have twice the processors inside”
They counterargue by agreeing with him!
… and the very same people who believed the Apple hype are gobbling up MDN’s BS with as big a smile!
AMAZING!!!
Which is exactly the reason all the console box makers have switched to the PPC. Were they BS’ed too?
Hey! I agree with MDN for once! How about that!
OpJ: Nice try, but no cigar.
I don’t know anyone, Machead or not, claiming that the G4 was holding it’s own against the x86’s.
In case you haven’t noticed though, Apple has been using this “new” chip called the “G5” for what, the last 3 years? I’m not sure that you’re up on these things or not, but the G5 is a PowerPC, and yes indeed, it kicks x86 arse.
I don’t know what you Wintel nuts are drinking, but it’s obviously more potent than kool aid.
What is this guy smoking (I would really like to get me some)?!!!
Technology improves!! It keeps improving!! Should we shoot the horse and buggy despite the fact it was the best thing before the automobile?
C’mon!
PowerPC has a speed advantage over x86, being more efficient at the same clock speed. For years, though, apple nuts have taken this to extremes of arguing that PowerPC chips are still faster than x86 chips at 2x and 3x the clock speed–a clear departure from reality that anyone who hadn’t drunk the kool aid found laughable.
PowerPC’s biggest problem was the lack of good supporting architecture surrounding the chip; slow FSB (Rapid IO never surfaced from Moto), slow memory, etc… of course the G5 changed all that. What I would like to see is a PowerPC-based machine and an Intel-based machine specced exactly the same on the CPU, FSB and RAM and then let the two rumble
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
I bought my first Mac in 1995. Back then the PowerPC transition was under way, and the marketing spiel was “Blazingly Fast” or some such.
Of course, the logic of RISC vs CISC seemed to make sense, but all Apple could do to demonstrate speed was to use laboratory benchmarking, not real-world results that mattered to consumerrs. Once the pentium chips started clocking ridiculous speeds, Apple mainly shut up and MDN chugged our missives on the “Megahertz Myth.”
What’s old is new. Oh yeah, back in 1995, there was all this buzz about PowerPC chips being able to run Windows and Windows apps. Of course that turned out to be only in slow emulation mode, but its interesting that in the 11 years I’ve been in this community, and with all the ridicule and scorn we heap on MS, running Windows and Windows apps on a Mac is STILL being held up as some kind of holy grail.
Feh.
“Windows box assemblers like Dell simply cannot match Apple Macs in the area of processor choice or anything else, for that matter.”
Absurd and false, typical of MDN. Xp pro installs on: Transmeta Crusoe, Via C3, Via Eden in addition to your mainstream x86 processors. And windows kernel is the basis for Xbox 360 (PowerPC) you dumbasses. And why the reference to Dell? They don’t even use any other chip other than Intel (not even AMD). Other “windows box assemblers” do in fact “match” (and in reality exceed) Apple Macs in the area of processor choices, and everything else (can Apple match the plethora of choices in the area of video cards and memory & other hardware that “windows box assemblers” have available?)
Furthermore John’s statement about Apple’s credibility being low now is bunk. John is the kind of guy that isn’t happy unless he’s angry about something. Anyone who listens to him, reads his articles or saw his old show on ZDTV know what I mean.
“Apple now has the ability — if they wish to exercise it — to pick the best processors for any particular Mac from among Intel, IBM, Freescale, and AMD.”
It’s never that simple – having to support multiple processors and architectures inflates development costs geometrically. An example would be the HW drivers that would have to be written for each one.
Going down that road would be suicide.
MDN wrote: “The Intel-based iMac is faster than the PowerPC-based iMac G5 because the chip is dual core vs. single core.”
Nah… reports all over the net are that the MacTels are faster even in single-core ops.
Did MDN actually run any tests or is MDN relying on third-party sources and therefore passing off uninformed commentary?