“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.
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?
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?
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?
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).
The reason you only can take SPEC benchmarks with a grain of salt. Oh, they’re great for those who love to compile code, but for real benchmarks, they serve no real purpose.
“And windows kernel is the basis for Xbox 360 (PowerPC) you dumbasses.”
We’re not talking about video game consoles you dumbass, we’re talking about personal computers. Windows XP will not boot on a PPC based computer and it never will.
what a faggot!!!
my stinky turds are smarter than this dousche bag!!
seriously.. how stupid do you have to be to compare new technology to old technology…
this almost as bad as people wanting to put windows on the new macs!!
Really
Never said it would dumbass, the kernel was recompiled with PPC instruction code specifically for Xbox 360. Obviously Microsoft didnt put their entire OS on Xbox360…only a bare minimum shell operating system. And that’s the point dumbass, is that it can be done.
Wow, Mac & PC Guy, you really missed the point, didn’t you? MDN’s Take, and all these posts illustrating why the passage of time mattered, and how what was once a valid claim on Apple’s part was eroded by time and technology, and you still missed the point. Perhaps proving once again that wetware may be immune to Moore’s Law.
Really
Never said it would dumbass, the kernel was recompiled with PPC instruction code specifically for Xbox 360. Obviously Microsoft didnt put their entire OS on Xbox360…only a bare minimum shell operating system. And that’s the point dumbass, is that it can be done.
Sammy,
I wouldn’t sweat it, this kid probably didn’t realize that Windows NT ran on PowerPC back in the ’90s and Microsoft probably just updated that codebase to run on the new custom PPC chips from IBM.
It will be interesting how long it will take the Linux community to get Linux running on those Xbox 360s
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
I’ll believe the Core Duo is faster than PPC when I see a supercomputer that beats the PPC in per – core (or processor) performance.
The Core Duo and other x86 processors may be faster at a some consumer based functions like loading web pages? (did I actually read that somewhere?), but for actual work – processor intensive tasks such as 2D/3D rendering and scientific applications, the PPC still wins.
I knew this was going to be an issue for some journalists when I first heard the term “performance PER WATT”. Couldn’t they read between the lines as well?
I agree with Macromancer, but would clarify that IBM seemed to slow/stop focusing on Apple’s needs to go after the Gaming console brass ring, due to the huge market. Anyone who was awake during the holidays may have noticed that the xbox360 had some hauntingly familiar supply problems, too…
I’m just glad to see that Universal binaries are going to be the standard for awhile… Apple can create more product options than the competition, using the best processor for the specific product…
Let’s get this straight, once and for all, PowerPC is a GENERIC NAME applied to multiple families of processors!
For example, the PowerPC used by Apple comes in different flavors, the G4 and the G5. And yes, while it’s true that the PowerPC G4 can no longer match any current processor for performance, the PowerPC G5 most certainly can.
Saying things like “The myth of PowerPC superiority” only serves to demonstrate a persons complete and utter ignorance of some pretty basic concepts in computing. It’d be equally stupid not to differentiate what separates an x86 486 class CPU from an x86 class Pentium 4, but that’s what Dvorak (and every Wintel troll here) is doing.
I can’t believe anyone takes anything he writes seriously.
NFK. Speed isn’t only about clock cycles.
First, I think Apple would be better served by ads showing Mac OS X in use than the creative buzz ads like what they are running. They should be touting what their strengths are rather than where they finally chose to switch to the inferior processor.
OK, inferior is a strong word, intel has done a good job with laptop chips. But lets face it, the move from PowerPC to Intel is a step back in processors. From 64 bit to 32 bit, from a relatively new and better design principles to the architecture chosen by IBM in 1981 in part to keep personal computers weak.
All that having been said, it was the best move Apple could make. It allows them to catch up on laptops which have become Apples bread and butter and it puts the same processor in the mac that the rest of the world is using. Sure I wish PowerPC had won the world, as the architecture is clearly superior, but it didn’t. Like beta and VHS, sometimes the inferior product wins the battle.
There are two reasons why the move was good for Apple, first the overt plan to make better faster laptops. But more importantly is the covert goal to run windows apps at full speed. Someone will soon release virtualization software to allow windows to run like virtual PC for Windows does (VPC will not be first as MS will drag their feet on in in-spite of the reality that they could modify the windows version in a month). Wine too will be not too far behind. Once you can run your windows apps at full speed on OS X without the security risk that is Microsoft the numbers of people switching will go through the roof. This is why the move to the x86 architecture though backwards is a good one. Apple will need to follow up with a few concessions. Look for the mouse button on the mack to end up using the same technology of the mighty mouse to give a second button to the windows users (it is a big deal to them for some reasons). Also expect Cocoa for windows (not to give any credence to the Dharma rumor), but Apple needs to win developers to their API – that means targeting windows. Apple needs to start thinking on multiple fronts. Increasing market share trough this step backwards in processors, then winning developers to OS X by offering an alternative to Visual Studio .NET.
If Apple is smart (and I think they are) they will be building Mac OS X on the best processor choice they have. I think they should keep making PowerPC based servers to keep developers making universal binaries and keeping their options open. There is a reason why everyone is choosing PowerPC for their next generation of video games – it is a superior processor. But in the desktop world, running windows Apps is an unfortunate limiting requirements. Intel (or AMD) will leapfrog the PowerPC soon, and the cycle will continue, perhaps the ability to change is what will set apple apart and finally break the grip of Microsoft and bring another era of processor innovation.
Dvorak trolls again for hit traffic
Sorry @$$h01e no takers here.
By the way the new Core Duo’s are not all that much faster than a single G5 processor, certainly not 2x faster in real world use.
X-Bench tests show them to be about equal in the iMactel vs iMac G5.
The G5 processor is a monster, and Intel has to dual core just to get a slight advantage.
I can only imagine what a dual core G5 will do to a Core Dual.
Get a Quad folks, there will be nothing like it ever again because Intel has too much other crapola in their processors robbing it of performance.
Apple is giving worst comparison now (2x as fast bs). Look at the macworld review. A dual G5 would blow the core duo away. Of course it would also send an imac up in flames.
I can’t believe anyone takes anything he writes seriously.
True, since John Dvorak gave great praise to Genesi’s Pegasos computer, a PowerPC-based Amiga clone running MorphOS and other great operating systems.
Video explanation of the Mhz Myth
http://www.esm.psu.edu/Faculty/Gray/graphics/movies/mhz_myth_320f.mov
It’s all in the benchmarking.
Any sane person can show anything they want with enough research and cunning choice of benchmarks. Even compilers come into play.
Heck, Byte magazine once showed by using a specific choice of “standard” benchmarks that a 68030 based Mac running at 25 MHz which included a floating point specific coprocessor (the 68882 also at 25 MHz) was actually slower — for floating point calculations no less — than machine running DOS on a 16 MHz 80286 *without* a floating point coprocessor! I don’t remember the exact benchmark (Whetstone maybe?) but it was a “standard” one way back then (late 80s). That’s right: Byte showed a then current generation Mac with floating point hardware was slower than an earlier generation DOS machine without a coprocessor specifically for floating point!
Steve Jobs has always cleverly chosen benchmarks which illustrated what he wants. This time he chose the SPECrate benchmarks (int and fp). The SPECrate benchmarks are optimized for multiple CPUs. True, there is not much of a degradation when they are run on single processors, but it is not zero. So he specifically picked a benchmark which would highlight the capabilities of the dual core systems over the single core systems. If Steve had presented the benchmark numbers based on the basic SPEC benchmarks he might have shown radically different numbers. If Steve had shown the numbers using HINT or SLALOM then he might have shown very different results.
Steve chose a benchmark which illustrated what he wanted to say. As his keynote addresses are 99% marketing pitches is ANYONE surprised he did/does this?
As someone who was involved with the original formulation of the SPEC set of benchmarks, it was an attempt to make an independent set of benchmarks to put an end to all the benchmarking wars. It did not. (Shortly after SPEC came out one compiler developer went so far as to change their compiler so that it was specifically optimized for the SPEC benchmark and not optimized for real world tasks — thus completely defeating the purpose of the benchmark.) I truly believe there is — and probably never will be — a truly unbiased benchmark.
The only faithful thing you can ever do is try the machine out with the software you want to run on it. If it’s fast enough for you, and it does what you want: buy it. If not: don’t buy it.
Bobby Skinner said:
“Once you can run your windows apps at full speed on OS X without the security risk that is Microsoft the numbers of people switching will go through the roof.”
Nice. Could this be Apple building a nice, low risk on-ramp for tons of fed up PC users to migrate over onto Apples path, where they will undoubtedly stay? There HAS to be a strategy like this in the works, even if it is not directly stated, as Apple now has to come up with incredible growth rates every quarter…
Now, let’s see if Intel will be able to keep up with demand…
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cool smirk” style=”border:0;” />
Whenever I have taken my Windows owning friends into an Apple store to try out the PowerPC macs they always said the same thing – why is this computer so slow, so sluggish compared to my Intel PC? They thought the computers looked cool, but we not impressed by its speed.
Guess they were right.
Lets have a comparison between a Mac Intel and PC intel same chips, same ram running the same program and see which is faster!
Sounds like Dvorak is blowing smoke up somebody’s butt !
I haven’t seen Dvorak bring up the REAL issue, which is the lousy operating system that Microsoft has been providing for years. Why hasn’t he suggested that Microsoft be accussed of either fraud or grand theft for taking people’s money and deliverying such a piece of crap called ” WINDOWS ” ?
Thanks to Dvorak, and his inability to tell the truth, millions have been turned off to the computing experience, and have relegated their PCs to permenant residence in attics, garages, basements and junk piles. Perhaps Dvorak should be charged as a co-conspirator in this grand scheme of fraud …. ir is it just sheer incompetence ? In either case, Dvorak remains silent.
Cretin!
The new Intel’s are dual-core 65nm, as opposed to single-core 90nm (or, even worse, 120nm – as it was for both G4 and G5 for some while).
Like Wolverton from yesterday, Dvorak is an asswipe.
The Core Duo and other x86 processors may be faster at a some consumer based functions like loading web pages? (did I actually read that somewhere?), but for actual work – processor intensive tasks such as 2D/3D rendering and scientific applications, the PPC still wins.
Actually, reality shows the AMD Opteron head and heels above both Intel and the G5 when in comes to CPU driven 2D/3D rendering. Opterons are the workstations of choice these days especially for CGI animations. And despite having the stronger FPU, AMD was never really a strong presence in the scientific community.
http://www.macworld.com/2006/01/features/imaclabtest1/index.php
G5 vs iMac Intel
Hey President Bush
Dvorak is an Al Qaeda operative trying to disrupt a great American company. Get ’em!