All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
How Apple+Mac is better than Windows+Intel
Pantso:
quote:Originally posted by -=f00bar=-:
I haven't heard anyone reply on the processor subject, but the only thing that i can say is that i've heard about them not blowing up your fan and your socket when you get to blow it up ... but i'm really not a processor geek ...
--- End quote ---
This is a PDF document describing in some detail why PPC processors are technically superior to Intel's microprocessor. I uploaded it on my page but I can't remember where I dowloaded it from cause I've lost that bookmark. Anyway, credits go to the guy who wrote it, whoever that is.
The opinions expressed on this document reflect his own, so that doesn't mean I agree with everything read there. Keep in mind that I'm not a hardware expert
Calum:
quote:Originally posted by arya:
Can any body please tell me how an apple computer running mac os is better than an intel pc running microsoft windows for a multimedia development center.
--- End quote ---
welcome to the forums. in answer i say, try them both out and see which you prefer. HOWEVER don't be fooled if you are familiar with one setup and unfamiliar with the other. It WILL take a little while to get acquanted with an unfamiliar system.
hm_murdock:
Zombie...
As I said earlier... crank the numbers and it'll be faster.
If I made a 5GHz 80286, it would seriously fuck up your Shittium.
throw enough clock cycles at something, and yeah, it'll be fast. I've never refuted that x86 processors ARE faster. But I'll never agree that they're better.
As for AMD... ain't if funny how their Athlon 2800 is rubbing Intel's 2.8GHz offering into the mud and it's only clocked at what... 2100MHz? 2000?
AMD still relies on engineering and good design to create a superior product. Intel compromises their shit so they can crank up the numbers and then spend big bucks on marketing to get people to think that "INHELL INSIDE" means something.
Last Intel processor I had was a 486/33. The 486 was the last time Intel was respectable. The original P5 was a waste of time, and the worst possible competitor to the old school PPCs (back when PPCs actually mopped the floor with Inhell)
I doubt that we'll ever see PPCs match clock rates with CISC chips, but then, I doubt any RISC chip will ever do that. RISC is a drastically different design, and very little compares between the two. You seem to be fairly acquainted with microprocessor technology... you should know about this.
Moto and Apple marketing have really given Mac users the shaft in recent years. Moto's inability to deliver a new processor design, or at least increase clock speed on a regular basis, combined with Apple marketing's brain-dead adherence to the G4, when IBM was kickin' ass with GHz G3s over a year ago have really put us in the dumps as far as clock speed goes. They stuck it out with the G3 in the iMac as long as they could, but since they won't use G3s over 700MHz, they just couldn't keep it going without a G4. The current iBooks are nice, but $1800 for a 700MHz G3 is looney.
Intel's marketers push big numbers. Apple marketing seems blind to customers' needs for "faster across the board". They're both guilty of absolute stupidity.
Apple's afraid that if they make the G3 'books as fast or faster than the G4s, that it'll harm the G4 sales, because "pro" users will get iBooks instead of TiBooks. May be so, but Joe Public who walks into CompUSA will look at an iBook and think it looks nice, but be turned off by "low numbers". If he saw an iBook with a 1.3GHz PPC750fx, he'd see style and comparable numbers, and choose the iBook. Sacrificing sales to new customers in the name of the product matrix.
On the PC side of the fence, though, well-designed processors at 1.8GHz are really the accessible high-end. 3GHz Shittium 4s are priced HOW HIGH? A 1.8GHz Athlon 2200 runs roughly $150 to $175 while a 2.2GHz Sh4 is around $350? $400?
AMD sells a slower-clocked processor that uses less power, generates less heat, and keeps up with a higher clocked Inhell... for less.
Give it up, Inhell makes garbage. They've made garbage since the early 90s (except the P3, it was l337) they make garbage now, and they'll always make garbage, and then have stupid commercials that make ignorant n00bs buy their bullshit.
Any processor can overheat, dipshit. No amount of core-controlled downclocking can stop it. Even if the CPU locks itself, it's still a heat-induced failure. G4s will overheat. Athlons will overheat. Inhell chips will overheat. MIPS RISC chips will overheat. They all farkin' overheat if they don't get cooled off.
Oh, and wow... Intel actually engineered a good feature into the P4. But one thing can't change the fact it sucks. It's just the difference in a wet turd and a dry turd.
Fuck Intel, fuck the Shittium 4, fuck the Itanic, fuck ia32, fuck Microsoft, fuck Windows
please 'scuse the broken nature of the post. it's pretty much stream of conciousness
Zomb... you need to learn not to take life so seriously. Just keep in mind that you won't get out alive!
Zombie9920:
Actually, you are wrong on Pentium prices too.
Prices from priewatch.com
Athlon XP 2400+ - $199
P4 Northwood 2.4ghz - $184 533mhz FSB
2.53ghz/533 FSB - $234
It looks like the Pentium 4 is actually cheaper than the competitive Athlon and the Pentium is a better quality product and is of course more compatible with all of the x86 programs(Yes AMD processors *do* have problems with properly running some apps/games). Remember, Intel invented x86, AMD simply tries to emulate Intel x86 code(kinda like how Via and Sis emulate a real Intel AGP bus through driving control...Intel invented AGP too ;P) How fast is AMD's 2400+ FSB? 266mhz/DDR, Intel's FSB is 533mhz(which means the P4 communicates with the PCI, AGP, Memory, etc. bus alot faster than the AMD pprocessor does and the memory in a P4 system works at much higher speeds(even with DDR) than it does in an Athlon. Notice how the 2400+ is the highest speed that you can buy of the AXP? That is because the Athlons at speeds any higher than the 2400+ rated speed fail. Like I said previously, AMD is having trouble producing Athlon chips that can successfully operate at 2600+, 2700+ and 2800+ speeds(there are very few out there and I doubt any of us will get our hands on one anytime soon). The reason why Athlons fail at higher speeds is because AMD CPU's have sever heat issues and serious design flaws. Learn how to accept that already. ;P
Even if the Intel chips were more expensive than the comparable competitor chip it is worth the extra money because the Intel CPU is better quality is more reliable, more stable and will never fry. ;P
AMDs' days are numbered for having the best price/performance ratio.
What happens to a G4 if you remove the heatsink? I haven't researched how G4's handle thermal emergencies.
(EDIT)WoofuckingHoo I don't have to use a proxy to access this site anymore! (EDIT)
[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
Zombie9920:
Oh, and for you saying an AXP 2800+ wipes the floor with a 2.8ghz P4. You are sadly mistaken once again. Out of all of the benchmarks in that article, the AXP 2800+ oply comes ahead in a few of them(and the ones the AXP do win are only by like 4fps in games or a few seconds in rendering). I love how even the 2.26ghz P4 wipes the floor with the AXP 2800+ when SSE2 is enabled(an option not available for the Athlon). SSE2 optimizations are available in almost every rendering app out there so the P4 definatley has the edge in performance for rendering. ;P
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1718&p=5
[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version