Apple to start using Intel chips?

[Rune75]

Just remember guys... Steve Jobs can do no wrong!!1 BUWAHAHAHAHA

 

[Black Morty Rackham]

Concerning OS X on generic x86 boxes, there is one tiny problem: the Macintosh ROM. This is REQUIRED in order for any Mac OS to boot up, and I doubt there is any way around this. It is, however, very much possible to run OS X in software. Like Mac-On-Linux. The problem with this is that the performance is craptacular, since there is no hardware acceleration for graphics.

I haven't seen many benchmarks where AMD doesn't outperform. Plus AMD has certain features no other chip has.

I've seen loads. Take your pick.

 

[DukenukemX]

I've seen loads. Take your pick.

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436

 

[sieb]

I have mixed feelings about all this. I originally hoped they would hold out and take the new PowerPCs for a spin but I knew the x86 move was inevitable. The transition isn't as big of a deal as some say considering Darwin runs fine on x86, which is all OSX is but with its gui on top of it, which Steve said has already been hardware independent for years now. So them having an x86 setup running all this time isn't surprising. I see this as more of a direct compitition with Microsoft in the OS market since they are bringing a Unix based OS to the desktop for all users now, not just the Apple niche. Being Unix based, security won't be as big of a hassle as it is for MS, no more than it already is.

One good thing is that Apples machines use a firmware instead of a bios, something Intel has been trying to do for years. If they keep the firmware requirement, that will lock them in to using probably only Intel mobos, thus keeping their closed market. I think macs will just use a Pentium proc and that will be where the simularities end between them and PCs. I don't see putting XP on a mac or vise versa, though emulating the two will be easier since they wouldn't be emulating the architecture anymore. I do wish that AMD got Apple instead of Intel, but given AMDs past with meeting demand, I can understand their choice. It will just be a matter of time now until Intel buys out AMD for their fabs and design... Things will deffinitely get interesting from here on out..

A 15" AL Powerbook with a PentiumM.. mmm.. I'd trade up to that, I miss my Centrino laptop.

 

[Black Morty Rackham]

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436

That has already been posted, and like I said, the G5 beats the Opteron in a couple of those tests. I know Barefeats might not be the best benchmark site, but whatever... http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html


There is also THIS. A very poor choice of applications to benchmark, but the G5 actually beats the Opteron in Quake 3!

Like I said, it's not like the Opteron outperforms the G5 on everything. It depends on what application you test. It really is that simple.






Oh, and XP will actually "probably" run on the x86 Macs. Schiller said they at least wouldn't do anything to prevent it.

 

[DukenukemX]

There is also THIS. A very poor choice of applications to benchmark, but the G5 actually beats the Opteron in Quake 3!

Like I said, it's not like the Opteron outperforms the G5 on everything. It depends on what application you test. It really is that simple..

Yes it does beat the Opteron but not the 2.2-GHz Athlon 64 FX-51. Also remember that there were two 2-GHz PowerPC G5s where as the Opteron 246 and the Athlon 64 is just one chip.

I wouldn't preach about the higher Quake 3 FPS since the Power Mac G5 has two G5s. Just to make it fair imagine if there were two Opteron's. I'm sure the 250 fps would reach near 500 fps. Making the 294 fps from two G5s look like a joke.

Next time read the benchmarks more carefully.

Also the PC version of Quake 3 has broken 3D Now code. Which doesn't matter to the Athlon 64 chips but does matter for the Athlon XP chips since they perform better using 3D Now instead of SSE.

 

[Black Morty Rackham]

Yes it does beat the Opteron but not the 2.2-GHz Athlon 64 FX-51. Also remember that there were two 2-GHz PowerPC G5s where as the Opteron 246 and the Athlon 64 is just one chip.

No, there were definitely two. First of all, the page says "Opteron 246s." The 's' implies a plurality. Second, it's a machine called the "PolyStation." It wouldn't make sense to have a "PolyStation" with only one processor. Their website confirms this.

I wouldn't preach about the higher Quake 3 FPS since the Power Mac G5 has two G5s. Just to make it fair imagine if there were two Opteron's. I'm sure the 250 fps would reach near 500 fps. Making the 294 fps from two G5s look like a joke.

I'm not preaching about it, damnit, I'm just saying that the Opteron does not have a clear victory over the G5!

 

[Selecter]

Considering the state of affairs, who gives a snot what a computer does on a 41/2 year old game?

Anyone playing Quake 3 seriously or using it for benches in 2005 is a freak of nature and should be treated like they have leprosy.

 

[Lazn_Work]

If Apple's marketing deparment were smart the first Intel Macs would all be black (instead of the standard Apple white) and have a whole "evil inside" sith like theme.

Heck I would consider getting one just to run XP on.

==>Lazn

 

[DukenukemX]

No, there were definitely two. First of all, the page says "Opteron 246s." The 's' implies a plurality. Second, it's a machine called the "PolyStation." It wouldn't make sense to have a "PolyStation" with only one processor. Their website confirms this.

The website who did the benchmark didn't do a good job.

I'll quote from TechReport.com.

The 'r_smp 1' notation means the game's multiprocessing support is enabled.

If you look at Tech Reports dual 2 Ghz Opteron 246 Quake 3 benchmark you can see that it produces 473 fps at 1024X768. The graphics card they used was a GeForce FX 5900 Ultra which is comparable to the Radeon 9800 Pro.

Here's the link.
PC world doesn't know how to benchmark. The system specs.

Quake 3 is old but the performance is consistant with Doom 3. Which I've heard many people claim that it's a bad port. Now you know that the G5 just doesn't perform.

 

[Black Morty Rackham]

I know PC World can't benchmark, but that's not the fucking point. My ONLY point is that the Opteron DOES NOT have a clear victory over the G5. We can quote benchmarks all day and the only conclusion we'll reach is that they're good at different things, and pretty much entirely equal at some things. The idea that any arbitrary piece of code would always run faster on an Opteron is downright prepostrous.

 

[psxpaul]

Concerning OS X on generic x86 boxes, there is one tiny problem: the Macintosh ROM. This is REQUIRED in order for any Mac OS to boot up, and I doubt there is any way around this. It is, however, very much possible to run OS X in software. Like Mac-On-Linux. The problem with this is that the performance is craptacular, since there is no hardware acceleration for graphics.

How do you know emulating just the ROM is not possible? Since Apple is going to switch to x86, there wouldn't need to be any other sort of emulation. Would emulating a ROM even be that hard?

 

[Mav451]

I know PC World can't benchmark, but that's not the fucking point. My ONLY point is that the Opteron DOES NOT have a clear victory over the G5. We can quote benchmarks all day and the only conclusion we'll reach is that they're good at different things, and pretty much entirely equal at some things. The idea that any arbitrary piece of code would always run faster on an Opteron is downright prepostrous.

If you're a Mac user, better get ready to start proclaiming the glory of the Pentiums. Yes, read what I just said. Mac users proclaiming the power of the Pentium.

Now, just imagine how marketing is going to spin this. After decades of denouncing the Pentium, they are going to be saying otherwise. I know its fun to argue about the G5/Opteron, but that competition will no longer exist in a year.

 

[CrimandEvil]

Anand has an article up on Apple and X86: http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2439

 

[seanmcd]

If you're a Mac user, better get ready to start proclaiming the glory of the Pentiums. Yes, read what I just said. Mac users proclaiming the power of the Pentium.

LMAO - too true.

 

[DukenukemX]

Intel Inside?

IBM outside?

 

[USMC2Hard4U]

Intel Inside?

IBM outside?

IBM outside HAHAHA rofl

 

[DeFex]

Will these new intel macs still automatically make people be more creative just by owning one?

 

[Black Morty Rackham]

How do you know emulating just the ROM is not possible? Since Apple is going to switch to x86, there wouldn't need to be any other sort of emulation. Would emulating a ROM even be that hard?

Emulating the ROM is definitely possible. Hell, that can even be done via PearPC on the Xbox 1. But the thing is you need to have booted an OS already for that to work, and thusly you cannot run OS X as the host system.

If you're a Mac user, better get ready to start proclaiming the glory of the Pentiums. Yes, read what I just said. Mac users proclaiming the power of the Pentium.

Now, just imagine how marketing is going to spin this. After decades of denouncing the Pentium, they are going to be saying otherwise. I know its fun to argue about the G5/Opteron, but that competition will no longer exist in a year.

The problem for Apple isn't performance now. The G5 really is compeditive. Sure, Apple's benchmarks are spun, but the key issue here is the future. Apple do not like where IBM are going, and that is understandable.

 

[psxpaul]

Emulating the ROM is definitely possible. Hell, that can even be done via PearPC on the Xbox 1. But the thing is you need to have booted an OS already for that to work, and thusly you cannot run OS X as the host system.

I'm just wondering where you read this. While emulating a ROM has not been done before, I can't think of a situation when it was really needed. Also, a minimal host system could also be pretty invisible to the user, if all it has to do is emulate a ROM.

Also, I'm wondering if the Darwin core being open source will help hackers to crack OSX. I believe you can actually download and install Darwin on any x86 machine right now.

Hey, weren't you also the guy that was saying last week that Apple wasn't maintaining OSX on x86?

 

[Methodical]

the odds that apple will leave the system at a ROM are, like ive said in a previous thread, almost zero.

if they did, it would be easy to crack. It can't be a rom because apple needs to be able to update it. it were a flash rom, thats asking for trouble.

This big surprise is that apple is using a normal ACPI bios and not openfirmware as in all previous macs.

odds that apple will use this as the sole lockdown measure? almost zero.

from what they've said, it will be able to run windows (if MS allowed it, even if not, it would be legally hackable to change that).

the measure will come in a different form.

 

[Black Morty Rackham]

I'm just wondering where you read this. While emulating a ROM has not been done before, I can't think of a situation when it was really needed. Also, a minimal host system could also be pretty invisible to the user, if all it has to do is emulate a ROM.

Doesn't PearPC emulate the ROM in order for you to run OS X in it? Well, I'm not sure.

Hey, weren't you also the guy that was saying last week that Apple wasn't maintaining OSX on x86?

No, I don't think I ever said they didn't maintained a version for x86. In fact, I've mostly been of the opinion that they probably do have a "just in case" version, since NextStep ran on x86 regardless. I did however say with some certainty that Apple weren't going x86. I was obviously very wrong in this regard, but I think my reason for being wrong is quite good. I based my assumption on the assumption that QuickTransit's technology was vapourware, and that it was more or less impossible to emulate PPC on x86 at acceptable speeds. Considering how relatively fast the 3.6GHz Pentium 4 seems to be on PPC code, I can definitely see how they can switch.

In order to make this clearer: if Rosetta didn't exist, Apple wouldn't have switched.

 

[DukenukemX]

Doesn't PearPC emulate the ROM in order for you to run OS X in it? Well, I'm not sure.
.

Yes in fact it does emulate the ROM. When it comes to emulation, anything can be done.

 

[gizo]

Apple aren't in the game to compete with Dell or Microsoft. They're in the game to make money. They're doing quite well at that, I'd say.

This must be one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard in a capitalistic environment. Apple is of course completing against Dell and Microsoft for business. More business means mroe money. Why do you think Apple puts up charts on how much market gain they have against PC sales. Usually, an individual buys only one computer. And when the do purchase, they choose between a PC or a MAC. When they choose a PC, a majority of them choose Dell which automatically comes bundled with Windows.

 

[Black Morty Rackham]

What are you talking about? They are in the game to make money, not to one-up Microsoft or Dell. If Microsoft, Dell and Apple all increase their revenues, all companies win, because they're most often not in direct competition. I don't think Apple loses all that much business (outside the schools, anyway) to Dell, and I don't think Dell loses all that much business to Apple. Just like BMW and Kia aren't in direct competition, despite the fact that they're both building cars.

 

[psxpaul]

Doesn't PearPC emulate the ROM in order for you to run OS X in it? Well, I'm not sure.

I meant "emulating JUST a ROM hasn't been done before". Of course PearPC emulates the mac ROM, but that is only a small fraction of the CPU time. Regardless, I don't see how you can maintain that OSX can't be cracked- especially since Apple's protection method hasn't yet been defined.

 

[Black Morty Rackham]

Regardless, I don't see how you can maintain that OSX can't be cracked- especially since Apple's protection method hasn't yet been defined.

Oh, I don't mean that.

 

[gizo]

What are you talking about? They are in the game to make money, not to one-up Microsoft or Dell. If Microsoft, Dell and Apple all increase their revenues, all companies win, because they're most often not in direct competition. I don't think Apple loses all that much business (outside the schools, anyway) to Dell, and I don't think Dell loses all that much business to Apple. Just like BMW and Kia aren't in direct competition, despite the fact that they're both building cars.

I didn't say Apple wasn't in the game to make money. I did say Apple is in competition with the PC manufacturers. The better they do in the competition, the more money they make.

I emphasized that it is stupid to say Apple is not in competition. Apple is in competition or else they would not be dumping PowerPC for x86. Currently, Apple has roughly 5% of the computer market. You don't think they want the other 95% of the slice?

Also, the comparison between BMW (Apple) and Kia (Dell) is totally wrong. You can not make direct comparisons like that between the car industry and computer industry. Actually, you can, but you are wrong. Both Apple and Dell make products that cover the entire spectrum of consumers. For example, PowerMAC = XPS Series. Mini Mac = Optiplex line.