Yami Bakura Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Which architecture type Macs do you like the most? Do you miss PowerPC and feel that PowerPC Macs felt more special (pretty much the rest of the computer world uses x86 architecture)? Did you want Apple to still use PowerPC or do you think that Apple has made the right choice switching to Intel? Discuss anything about PowerPC Macs vs Intel Macs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headrush69 Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 I've never cared either way. I think it was the right move for Apple to change. Whether the PPC arch could keep up with the developments of x86 is debatable but obviously there must be cost benefits to using the most mainstream components. Additionally, having the ability to use bootcamp to run Windows is an important piece for Apple to make more dents into the Windows marketshare, especially the business market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numberzz Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 They are certainly faster, and allow Macs to run Windows as well. It is like hitting two birds with one stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OcciJano Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Altivec, part of the G4 and G5 haven't been matched by SSE3, but, who cares, G5 are very fast, a G5 at 1.8GHz was faster than a comparable Intel at 1.8 in some tests. The main problem was that G5 wasn't on par with Intel in the gigahertz arena, and the gap was getting bigger an bigger. Well, Headrush69 and Numberz made a big point... Intel Mac runs Windows natively, and that opened the doors to the Hackintosh. I won't let my old G3 BlueWhite to die, I need some OS 9 programs. There isn´t a decent OS 9 emulator for Intels. I'm very glad that Apple did that. Sorry for my bad English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Hz Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Actually the G5's are comparable to an Intel Pentium 4/Xeon that were another Ghz in numbers (G5 - 2.0Ghz ; Intel P4 - 3.0Ghz etc.). The gigahertz rating is only relative to it's processor line and architecture. A 2.0 Ghz G5 is equivalent (roughly) to a 3.12Ghz P4/Xeon. It's true that the x86 architecture was growing faster than the PPC line. I think Apple made the right move. Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plugwash Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 The impression I got was that the G5 was a nice chip but also a power guzzler that made it unsuitable for laptops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_muad_dib Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 it's good they trashed ppc, cos this way they can push more in interoperability of macos with other OSes other than that, nothing is changed for apple users Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptic Clues Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 I think Apple made the right move. Peace ... and then IBM announced the G6 running at 4.7 GHz per core http://www.macrumors.com/2007/05/24/ibm-po...the-right-move/ http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/21580.wss ... so was it the right move? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mac-mini Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 but would that run in a laptop or a mini? i dont think so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tayklor Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 I hate to see the day PPC macs are dumped. I do not have any Intel macs to date, but I do have a Hackbook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Synaesthesia Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 Yeah, IBM announced their faster G6's and super-low power G5's. But it was too little, too late. Intel is looking like the best chipmaker for the forseeable future. Apple made the right decision, and it looks like their relationship with Intel is better than the one with IBM. Anyway, we're not complaining, are we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bxsci(macuser) Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 ... and then IBM announced the G6 running at 4.7 GHz per core http://www.macrumors.com/2007/05/24/ibm-po...the-right-move/ http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/21580.wss ... so was it the right move? no one says apple dropped it forever. I'm pretty sure that the future of apple exists as a company with PowerPC and Intel chips in the market line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 The Intel chips are certainly better than PPC at the moment, but they weren't always this way. The megahertz myth was in full force when we saw 533 MHz G4s beating Pentium chips at least twice the clock speed of the G4. So Intel raised the bar and pimped their processors with 3 GHz clock speeds, thus finally reducing the megahertz myth. Meanwhile, PPC users were stuck at certain clock speeds (G4 or G5 version). Now Intel finally realized that processor chips need to do more at lower clock speeds, hence the core series. While Intel is leading the pack right now, there is always a chance for PPC to make a comeback, but now they do need to focus on doing even more at the same clock speed or make them run at faster clocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headrush69 Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 While Intel is leading the pack right now, there is always a chance for PPC to make a comeback, but now they do need to focus on doing even more at the same clock speed or make them run at faster clocks. Even if they surpassed Intel's offerings I doubt Apple would switch back as long as Windows still was x86 centered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yami Bakura Posted October 7, 2007 Author Share Posted October 7, 2007 I think here's what should happen: I don't think Apple is going to switch back to PowerPC. Meanwhile, I think MS should make a PowerPC version of Windows and all PCs should switch to the PowerPC architecture. Apple should be the only one at x86 architecture. Then the people who say that Macs are just "Intel PCs running OS X" will say "Hmm, they use a different architecture than PCs so they are unique". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARMAGEDDON Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 I don't get it... Why Apple didn't they choice like Sun Microsystems?? Sun working on two architectures right now - Sparc RISC Architecture and AMD64 X86 Architecture. And they're rock. "If you wanna Sparc, please - if you wanna AMD, that good too...". Apple can use in notebooks line such a good and beautiful chips - PWRFicient PowerPC by P.A. Semi. Low powered (9 watts), 2.0 GHz, 2 or more cores, integrated DDR2 controller per core... This chip also supply dual 10 Gigabit Ethernet controllers and quad Gigabit, octal PCIe channels. Did Intel have this far?? I don't think so... Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptic Clues Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 I don't get it... Why Apple didn't they choice like Sun Microsystems?? Sun working on two architectures right now - Sparc RISC Architecture and AMD64 X86 Architecture. And they're rock. "If you wanna Sparc, please - if you wanna AMD, that good too...". Apple can use in notebooks line such a good and beautiful chips - PWRFicient PowerPC by P.A. Semi. Low powered (9 watts), 2.0 GHz, 2 or more cores, integrated DDR2 controller per core... This chip also supply dual 10 Gigabit Ethernet controllers and quad Gigabit, octal PCIe channels. Did Intel have this far?? I don't think so... Best regards. Well said ARMAGEDDON Apple actually ported Jaguar (10.2) in 2003 to run on an AMD chip ... try a Google for Marklar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yami Bakura Posted October 10, 2007 Author Share Posted October 10, 2007 In your opinion, which architecture do you think is better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptic Clues Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 In your opinion, which architecture do you think is better? I use PPC at home and on the road (Ti PowerBook ... still going strong) and XP whenever I am in the Office. The main app (work wise) is MS Word for reports and other(s) and I find Office 2004 far more easy to use ... mind you I have been using Word/Excel since version 5 on a IIci (System 7) in the early 90's, that was when WordPerfect was the main PC WP app. Don't get me wrong I'm not knocking 86 it's just I prefer to use PPC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special-K Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 I think Apple was right in switching. Having more accessible hardware can help to smack Windows around alittle. And it doesn't hurt that now they could run both major OSes (not including the Windows-Hackintosh combo). Switching to Intel definately has its advantages. For example, where would we be without the whole iHack scene (I like calling it that more than OSx86 scene). Also, the people that have a slight knowledge about computers usually know 2 things, Windows and Intel, due to them being the biggest names. Another advantage, Intel constantly is working on and coming out with better processors. So natually Apple will be right on track with the rest of the world. As opposed to PPC, which took forever and a day to come out with new processors. I'm sure that the processors lasted a long while and we're fast and all that, but I like to have the newest, or at least close to it, stuff that's out. Personal preference I guess. Do I think Apple should have lived on the edge and tryed AMD? Yea. I was always an Intel fanboy (bad Athlon experience), about a couple months back I saw some data showing that AMD's are slightly better than Intels. Don't know if that still holds true, see as this was back in like February and I think some new processor came out by now (don't really follow that part of the computer world). Do I think that Apple will switch back to PPC? Nope, never. If Apple makes another switch, it's gonna be to one hellava processor. I mean look at the way they've upgraded. 68k to PPC to Intel. Next thing you know, the next switch will be to SPARC or ARM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiber Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 I don't get it... Why Apple didn't they choice like Sun Microsystems?? Sun working on two architectures right now - Sparc RISC Architecture and AMD64 X86 Architecture. And they're rock. "If you wanna Sparc, please - if you wanna AMD, that good too...". Apple can use in notebooks line such a good and beautiful chips - PWRFicient PowerPC by P.A. Semi. Low powered (9 watts), 2.0 GHz, 2 or more cores, integrated DDR2 controller per core... This chip also supply dual 10 Gigabit Ethernet controllers and quad Gigabit, octal PCIe channels. Did Intel have this far?? I don't think so... Best regards. Production. I think they would have a problem catching up with the production and maybe they just didn't want the problems anymore like with IBM, who always came late with a new chip. Intel is known for bringing new and improved chips every 6-12 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macprodan Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 I used to be all AMD and think Apple should try AMD as well, The Hyper Transport Bus and Integrated memory controller gives nice performance, Plus having no north bridge chip could reduce heat and help with the overall size of the hardware. Perhaps Apple no a lot more than I do about what intel has planned in the future. If Intel`s used the Hyper Transport Bus and had Integrated Memory controllers in their CPU`s AMD would be Dead, and could not match up to Intel`s processors in any way shape of form, maybe the fanboys would still say o but we have true dual, quad cores. Just my useless and pointless opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benwinship Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I would like to see Apple make a computer with AMD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yami Bakura Posted October 18, 2007 Author Share Posted October 18, 2007 I would like to see Apple make a computer with AMD. I would like Apple to stay with Intel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts