OT: New Intel Imacs announced today!

[lllab]

osx is full 486 for long time...

and yes SJ just said again 10.4.4 is 100%native 486code, also ilife and i works. pro apps will follow in march:-)

i have seen many notebooks with osx on it these times(not here on my pcs).... some crazy hacker-kids around in the block...it seems to run even on amd machines. but i am not sure if that is legal- guess not.

i personally might switch back to apple products if they also run windows and if they release a real fast quad machine:-)

cheers
stefan

[JoelOtron]

Dont see the keynote link on the apple site. I'll be all ears here in this thread though...

[mecha]

New Intel Imacs and MacBookPro. ALL MAC machines to be Intel by end of calender year!

I was really hoping for Intel MacMinis for a cheap render farm, oh well!

Full info on KeyNote here (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1449) or on apple.com!

mecha

[JoelOtron]

Yes--Apple just updated main page. Nice stuff...I might get an imac for home use--hopefully wont be too bad for c4d use.

[robotbob]

i just brought a dual 2 gig g5 a couple of months ago so i wonder how they rate next to that ?

[lllab]

hope we will see some cinebenches???

cheers
stefan

[ooo]

On apple.com they mention they used a beta version universal Cinebench. So that's already build by maxon! There are no cinebench results available yet for the Macbook Pro other than a mention of a 3.1 x faster performance in Cinebench rendering then the G4 1.67 ghz. So that makes 450 or so? The iMacs scored 2x cinebench scores so that should be about 600?
I'm very curious to know how the graphics will be. Better OpenGL at last??

[designbytes]

hope we will see some cinebenches???

cheers
stefan

apple notes a cinebench "graph" at:

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/intelcoreduo.html
http://www.apple.com/imac/intelcoreduo.html

3.1x speed of a 1.67 G4 laptop. On the 3dfluff cinebench page, the 1.7 G4 laptop scores a 150 on cinebench rendering, so I guess that would project out to 450ish for the new laptop?

2x speed of a 2.1 G5 iMac which scores in the 270-290 range on the 3dfluff page. I guess that translates to 550-600 for the intel iMac?

Quad doesn't have anything to worry about.....yet, but not sure what to make of those scores since the intel's are dual core.

..oops, sorry OOO, xpost!

[ooo]

apple notes a cinebench "graph" at:

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/intelcoreduo.html
http://www.apple.com/imac/intelcoreduo.html

3.1x speed of a 1.67 G4 laptop. On the 3dfluff cinebench page, the 1.7 G4 laptop scores a 150 on cinebench rendering, so I guess that would project out to 450ish for the new laptop?

2x speed of a 2.1 G5 iMac which scores in the 270-290 range on the 3dfluff page. I guess that translates to 550-600 for the intel iMac?

Quad doesn't have anything to worry about.....yet, but not sure what to make of those scores since the intel's are dual core.

Cheers phudy! We calculated the same scores! :beer:

[lllab]

well 550-600cb for an imac is quite impressive!

cheers
stefan

edit: an the BIG question- can they boot winxp???

[ooo]

well 550-600cb for an imac is quite impressive!

cheers
stefan

My G5 dual 2.5 is also in the 600-620cb range! So this is quite good indeed. I guess a universal version of C4d also need recompiled plugins? So for production it's not very usefull yet (but first Maxon has to deliver a new version of course!). Hopefully by the time the new Powermacs (or whatever they will call them) everything will be available.

odo

Edit: no reason why they wouldn't boot XP. Unless Apple made a last minute change. They proclaimed they wouldn't prevent it so...

[bobzilla]

My G5 dual 2.5 is also in the 600-620cb range! So this is quite good indeed. I guess a universal version of C4d also need recompiled plugins? So for production it's not very usefull yet (but first Maxon has to deliver a new version of course!). Hopefully by the time the new Powermacs (or whatever they will call them) everything will be available.

odo

Edit: no reason why they wouldn't boot XP. Unless Apple made a last minute change. They proclaimed they wouldn't prevent it so...

Yeah, I'm a little confused on all of this. So, C4D won't run on the new Intel iMac yet, and if it did, it would need all Maxon and third party plugins recompiled?

[mikeh64]

Yeah, I'm a little confused on all of this. So, C4D won't run on the new Intel iMac yet, and if it did, it would need all Maxon and third party plugins recompiled?

yes, I think someone (probably srek) said that all plugins will also need to be re-compiled as well

it might be a while before an intel mac will be a production tool

[JoelOtron]

It should run, but in emulation mode--so there would be a noticeable loss in speed.

Might be good enough for me to work on at home nights and weekends so i dont have to stay in the studio late into the nights.

[ooo]

Yeah, I'm a little confused on all of this. So, C4D won't run on the new Intel iMac yet, and if it did, it would need all Maxon and third party plugins recompiled?

The old C4D will run on the new Intels but in an emulation mode wich seems to be not too shabby. But the real deal is when C4D universal will be available. I'm afraid all plugins needs to be recompiled (just as for winXP64) to work within the new universal version. I think Xcode is needed to compile a universal library so I hope developers are able to use that. I hope the transition will be smooth!

[bobzilla]

The old C4D will run on the new Intels but in an emulation mode wich seems to be not too shabby. But the real deal is when C4D universal will be available. I'm afraid all plugins needs to be recompiled (just as for winXP64) to work within the new universal version. I think Xcode is needed to compile a universal library so I hope developers are able to use that. I hope the transition will be smooth!

Yeah, hopefully it will be smooth and fairly quick.

The place where I work is willing to buy me an iMac, which I need anyway, since my old G4 is, well, getting old. It will be an interim machine until the Intel Mac Pro machines are ready.

Which I will have to buy myself... :D

[kromekat]

Takes a bit of getting used to this...

When Macs ran purely on G5 chips, they are noticeably faster, and benchmark (in CB etc) faster than practically all high end Intel P4 chips - only Xeons on a higher Ghz rating were faster (last time I looked).

Now, we have MacBook Pros (what was wrong with Powerbook Pro?) using Intel dual cores, and these are 4x faster than the fastest G4!!?

Does a dualcore MacTel 1.83Ghz compare to a regular dual 1.8Ghz P4?

Hmm - I wonder what they'll spec the new Intel Powermacs (MacTower - MacStation??) at? - and I wonder if they will be any significant leap faster than the current G5 crop!?

:thumbsup:

[Newstream]

Considering these beauties are now Intel based, it would be interesting to know if there were some way to run / boot up XP or run other Windows applications (on a separate partition maybe?)

It would make buying one these especially attractive for traditional, hard core Windows users.
Best of both worlds so to speak...

/ Alex

[kromekat]

Well on the running Windows issue - If that were possible, you'd think they would be promoting that as a feature right away wouldn't you!?

Would be useful on the Powermacs - I'd consider a license of Softimage if that were the case.

[noseman]

It has beeing rumored that Win XP will be able to run "inside" MacOSX, not emulated but directly in a window. Maybe it will be a kind of Virtual PC, but not emulated anymore (VPC is owned by Microsoft). It most likely run at 100% speed. There is also rumors for the ability to "Drag n Drop" from OS to OS!!
Besides they most probably will be able to boot from some version of WinXP VERY soon.
Just imagine, drag from XSI Win XP to C4D mac... wow!!

P.S. the word "Power" won't be used again because it derived from PowerPC, the name of the 601, 603, 604, G3, G4 and G5 procs. They where PowerPC chips.

[Newstream]

Well on the running Windows issue - If that were possible, you'd think they would be promoting that as a feature right away wouldn't you!?

Would be useful on the Powermacs - I'd consider a license of Softimage if that were the case.

Hi

Did a quick bit of Googling and found this article (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506intelmac.html) which seems to confirm the possibility of running windows on these new macs. Here's a quote "Apple alluded to developers at its recent Worldwide Developer Conference that Windows should be able to run on Apple's Intel Macs.
"
Hmmmm... this is starting to get interesting. :p If one as a user could reap the benefits of both platforms I'd see no reason why not to invest in one of these new Intel based Macs. They seem pretty solid and although I've always been a PC user, I have to admit that the Mac OS looks pretty stunning, is intuitive to use and seems generally spared from virus attacks especially from those viruses, trojans etc. that are designed to take advantage of vulnerabilities in the the windows operating sysyem.

/ Alex

[Simon Wicker]

the rumour is that you should be able to run anything that uses an intel chip so you could use os x, windows and linux on the same machine. apple did state that they would not bar users from running anything on their macintel machine the only no-no was running os x on generic pc hardware. however this would probably be something that you should wait and see confirmed by one of the mac geeks before rushing out and ordering one of these machines because you never know!

cheers, simon w.

[lllab]

well osx already runs on any generic pc- do a google search;-)

jobs might not be happy about that, but i am sure also the new osx will be able to install everywhere- drivers migth be an issue, and of course legal problems.

so if you are no kid or something i guess its better to buy one of these machines. aplles hardware standard was most of the time very high- at least higher than on 90% of the pc side.

i might really switch to a macintel, as i would love to have both worlds united together, maybe even add a linux flavour. hope apple will have success with htis machines:-)

for me its great.

cheers
stefan

ps.: the new intels are much faster than the old ones, so its quite logical they are faster than the old g5`s and a lot fatser than the old p4s. also they are dualcore- dont forget.
apple compares them to single core g5s. the quadg5 ist still a lot faster. but at the end of the year applle might get woodcrest chips from intel(= new xeons) and they again should be much faster than the quad g5 is now- so i see a good future for both apple and pc machines this year.

[ooo]

Well my eyes are on Maxon now. They have a reputation of anticipating on new technology and delivering new versions as one the first companies. Although the first IntelMacs are 6 months earlier available then expected, a Beta Cinebench was already available (to Apple). I bet this means an OSX86 C4D-version will be announced very soon. I think it only becomes relevant to most users (me included) when the first PRO desktops will be available. Can't wait to hear some realworld test though :)

odo

[Mike Abbott]

The one bit of info that seems absent from the Apple hype on the new MacBooks is their battery life.
Generally if Apple can squeeze any positives out of a feature, they'll do so. So I'd guess battery life is worse on these machines than the Powerbooks. I'd like to know how much worse ;)

Mike A.

[Srek]

Odo: please give us a moment to get a final Intel Mac and a go at testing and finalising. When the switch to Intel was revealed Maxon already announced early support for it and we will keep that promise.

Mike: The DualCore processor used by Apple has a TDP of 31 Watts. This is in the same range as most current Pentium M driven Notebooks that have a battery life of several hours. I don't expect the Apple books to perform worse.
Cheers
Björn

[alanmac]

The one bit of info that seems absent from the Apple hype on the new MacBooks is their battery life.
Generally if Apple can squeeze any positives out of a feature, they'll do so. So I'd guess battery life is worse on these machines than the Powerbooks. I'd like to know how much worse ;)

Mike A.


http://www.intel.com/products/processor/coreduo/dynamicpowercoordination.htm

.

[ooo]

Odo: please give us a moment to get a final Intel Mac and a go at testing and finalising. When the switch to Intel was revealed Maxon already announced early support for it and we will keep that promise.
Cheers
Björn

I wasn't pushing you guys! I know about the earlier support announcement so i was only a bit too exited about good things to come. Cheers :beer:

But please hurry up will you ;)


odo

[alanmac]

If it gets this logo attached to it then you'll be a happy bunny, and as the machines have only just been formally announced i guess we should give the folks making the software a little time to come up with the goods. Rather wait a few weeks to get well tested software than rushed bug ridden stuff wouldn't you.

http://www.apple.com/universal/

Just feel sorry for all the iMacG5 owners who unwrapped their shiny presents at Christmas, and the store owners with stock on the shelves. Two weeks later and you've got a machine boasting twice the power. Ah, such is the wonderful world of computers.

Alan.

[stew]

Just feel sorry for all the iMacG5 owners who unwrapped their shiny presents at Christmas, and the store owners with stock on the shelves. Two weeks later and you've got a machine boasting twice the power. Ah, such is the wonderful world of computers.
Well, the G5 iMac is still faster for everything that's PPC native - for now, pretty much any program except Apple's software. And the G5 can run 64bit software, the Core Dual cannot.

[alanmac]

Well, the G5 iMac is still faster for everything that's PPC native - for now, pretty much any program except Apple's software. And the G5 can run 64bit software, the Core Dual cannot.

Were does it say these statements you're refering to? especially the part about Core Dual not running 64bit software which I find hard to understand, why would Apple put an Intel processor in that cannot run 64bit software when I'm sure that in the Windows OS they can?

Alan

[ooo]

Were does it say these statements you're refering to? especially the part about Core Dual not running 64bit software which I find hard to understand, why would Apple put an Intel processor in that cannot run 64bit software when I'm sure that in the Windows OS they can?

Alan

I also heard Intel Dualcore (Yonah) doesn't have 64bit extensions. Anandtech does have a review of Yonah: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2627

[stew]

Yonah is based on the Pentium M core, which has never had the EMT64 extensions. The Pentium D series are Intel's dual core 64bit CPUs.

Besides, if it ran in 64 bits, it'd be in big letters on the Apple start page.

[kromekat]

Apple - the first 64bit desktop..

...now back to 32bits! :hmm:

[AdamT]

Apple - the first 64bit desktop..

That first bit's kind of a joke too, isn't it. 64 bits with no support for 64 apps.

[dann_stubbs]

That first bit's kind of a joke too, isn't it. 64 bits with no support for 64 apps.

well two years later it was 64 bit - um... just command line only apps... got to look for those asterisks...*

dann

[alanmac]

Opps double post, sorry

[alanmac]

Yes, I was going to say what, leaving out the operating system, 64bit applications people were running on their G5's etc?

Certainly Cinema is not on the Mac a 64 application, anybody know of any others for the Mac at this moment in time ?

Alan

[zoetropeuk]

Both PTMac and PTBatch although 32bit GUIs access 64bit versions of enblend. Most people miss the point with the 32/64 bit application process on OS X. You simply do not need a 64bit GUI so Interface Builder will always be 32bit. But there's no issue to compile a 64bit executable that the 32bit GUI can transparently access.

So there's no reason you can't develop a 64bit version of Photoshop or Cinema4D to run on the G5. You just have the separate GUI, which it should be anyway and the main part of the app 64bit enabled. To the end user there would be no visible differences or different workflow, just an optimised 64bit app.

Matt

[Thalaxis]

When Macs ran purely on G5 chips, they are noticeably faster, and benchmark (in CB etc) faster than practically all high end Intel P4 chips - only Xeons on a higher Ghz rating were faster (last time I looked).


Of, course, at that time pretty much ALL Xeons but the Xeon MP were faster -- by about 1 GHz. The 2.8 GHz model has been the bottom of the XeonDP line for just about a year now.


Does a dualcore MacTel 1.83Ghz compare to a regular dual 1.8Ghz P4?


Of course not -- the 1.8 GHz P4 is ancient; why would you make such an irrational comparison?

On top of that, the Intel mac isn't based on a P4, it's a dual-core Pentium-m, which is an entirely different architecture. The 4 year old 1.8 GHz P4 isn't even in the same league.


Hmm - I wonder what they'll spec the new Intel Powermacs (MacTower - MacStation??) at? - and I wonder if they will be any significant leap faster than the current G5 crop!?


Those will probably be based on Conroe and Merom, which from all indications will be considerably faster than even AMD's current flagships....

[stew]

So there's no reason you can't develop a 64bit version of Photoshop or Cinema4D to run on the G5. You just have the separate GUI, which it should be anyway and the main part of the app 64bit enabled. To the end user there would be no visible differences or different workflow, just an optimised 64bit app.
If it were that easy, where are the apps? Why doesn't Apple write 64bit Shake and FCP then?

[Thalaxis]

Apple - the first 64bit desktop..

...now back to 32bits! :hmm:

Keep in mind that we're talking about the iBook and iMac line here. This is the mainstream line, where not very many people will care anyway, and in laptops the extra memory isn't feasible yet anyway, so that's still not a loss.

So it's not a step backward for those product lines.

[cvliv]

can we expect a slight speed hit when running an app (i.e. cinema, after effects) in rosetta. or will the speed hit me massive. like running virtual pc with out having to launch an emulator. by the numbers, the new mac book runs twice as fast as the g5 iMac from 2 days ago. if the speed hit is 50% then even the laptop will run as fast as the "old" iMac g5. any one have any info on this...

and how might it effect memory usage?

[Srek]

can we expect a slight speed hit when running an app (i.e. cinema, after effects) in rosetta. or will the speed hit me massive. like running virtual pc with out having to launch an emulator. by the numbers, the new mac book runs twice as fast as the g5 iMac from 2 days ago. if the speed hit is 50% then even the laptop will run as fast as the "old" iMac g5. any one have any info on this...

and how might it effect memory usage?

You can expect a serious speed hit when using Rosetta. After all Power and x86 CPUs are very different in their structure and emulating a PowerPC will eat up lots of CPU time. Even though Rosetta should be a bit more efficent then virtual PC it won't be able to work wonders.
I don't expect a hugh memory hit though.
Cheers
Björn

[Srek]

So there's no reason you can't develop a 64bit version of Photoshop or Cinema4D to run on the G5. You just have the separate GUI, which it should be anyway and the main part of the app 64bit enabled. To the end user there would be no visible differences or different workflow, just an optimised 64bit app.

Yes, if you were to develop a new application from scratch the differentiation between frontend and rendering back end would be no big deal, unfortunately this does not hold true for a highly optimized multi million lines of code app as CINEMA.
It escapes me why this should be seperated though, only in the rare occurance of an operating system that is not fully supporting 64 Bit this would be of any advantage in all other cases it would simply need more development time and maintainance effort.
Cheers
Björn

[Rabbitroo]

can we expect a slight speed hit when running an app (i.e. cinema, after effects) in rosetta.

The short answer is: "It depends . . ."

The much longer answer involves instruction-set translation issues. In general, 3D apps have not taken well to instruction set translations due to them undoing different types of code optimaztions that are often processor-family specific. Fortunately, Maxon announced they were in step with the Intel transition back last summer. I'd wait unti Maxon has C4D running "Universal" before jumping to Mac-Intel flavor.

EDIT: e.g. what Srek said. :) Man he types fast!

-K

[cvliv]

well, i can't wait, i need a machine now. if it takes a 75% speed hit it still puts it at the speed of yesterdays top of the line powerbook. i am looking for a secondary machine so it will not be my main box. but i realize my best option for today is to buy an iMac g5. (might be able to pick one up for cheap) but 6-9 months down the road that same laptop/new iMac will be twice as fast for just about everything...

i run virtual pc from time to time on my dual 2.5 g5 and it is unacceptably slow when running xp. (much faster when running win 2000). if i get VPC type of performace running non-universal apps it will be good for just about nothing. but a "massive" speed hit of 75% just puts it at the speed of yesterdays powerbook. and that i can deal with.

thoughts?


The short answer is: "It depends . . ."

The much longer answer involves instruction-set translation issues. In general, 3D apps have not taken well to instruction set translations due to them undoing different types of code optimaztions that are often processor-family specific. Fortunately, Maxon announced they were in step with the Intel transition back last summer. I'd wait unti Maxon has C4D running "Universal" before jumping to Mac-Intel flavor.

EDIT: e.g. what Srek said. :) Man he types fast!

-K

[LucentDreams]

scary to think that the next timei buy a computer (roughly a year or so from now I'm sure) I'll seriously consider a mac.

the one unfortunate thing I see though, is that according to the stats, the new laptop should be a little faster then my new laptop, which is great of course, but then you need to consider that its a Dual core, so each core is still greatly diminishd in performance. Now since I"m using an intel Centrino M at 1.86, I doubt its the intel CPU performing that much slower then its older predecessor, so to me it sounds liek theres somethign in OSX still slowing things down.

[Thalaxis]

scary to think that the next timei buy a computer (roughly a year or so from now I'm sure) I'll seriously consider a mac.


Well, it won't require trading off technology for OSX ;)


the one unfortunate thing I see though, is that according to the stats, the new laptop should be a little faster then my new laptop, which is great of course, but then you need to consider that its a Dual core, so each core is still greatly diminishd in performance.


Look again -- this isn't a pair of clunkers. It's a non-trivial core revision in addition to a having a pair of them. Each core should match the performance of the Dothan, but with some FPU-related enhancements, SSE3, and better power management.


Now since I"m using an intel Centrino M at 1.86, I doubt its the intel CPU performing that much slower then its older predecessor, so to me it sounds liek theres somethign in OSX still slowing things down.

It probably has a lot to do with not having very much OSX/x86 software, so we're probably seeing the effects of both unoptimized (read: work in progress) ports, some of which are probably still using Rosetta to function. It will take some time for the dust to settle, but in the long run they'll probably end up being about the same, on average.

[ooo]

I'm no techie but this is what I read about Windows running on Mac hardware (posted on macosrumorsforum):

Intel-Macs use EFI, This will prevent Windows XP from running.
With the switch to Intel processors, Apple also moved from Open Firmware to EFI, which is an updated BIOS specification developed by Intel. Due to Apple's use of the extensible firmware interface (EFI) rather than BIOS, current Windows releases will not run on the systems.

http://developer.apple.com/documenta...CH240-BAJGDABG

Looks like this might prevent Windows from running on MacTel for the time being. This also may prevent OS X from running on BIOS systems.

This means that users might wait for Windows Vista (that also use EFI) or wait for the new version of Virtual PC that should provide emulation without speedloss now it runs on Intel.

odo

Edit: I also read there is a chance Apple left legacy BIOS support in EFI so XP should run OK. We'll have to wait and see...

[alanmac]

So Mac users will be able to load Windows and open up their computer experience to all the wonders of virsus etc. that Windows users have enjoyed for years.

Sorry couldn't help it, just a little joke, but seriously I think if you've been a Apple/Mac only user and then, if it becomes possible, run Windows on your Mactel you should take the correct measures/install software which most Windows users take for granted to protect your machine.

Alan

[ooo]

For me dual boot wouldn't be a must, but I think lots of Windows users might be atracted to Mac-hardware if it can also run Windows. They might even like OSX ;) I am a dual system user and work now besides my G5 on a Vaio laptop. If i can transfer everything to one computer that would be just great. But you are right about security etc. I prefer now not to go online with the Vaio.

odo

[Thalaxis]

Sorry couldn't help it, just a little joke, but seriously I think if you've been a Apple/Mac only user and then, if it becomes possible, run Windows on your Mactel you should take the correct measures/install software which most Windows users take for granted to protect your machine.


Most of that's now included with the default install (e.g. firewall). The "secret" is to avoid using lookOUT!... er, I mean outlook. Well, that an IExploder. :)

[LucentDreams]

in regards to the rosetta questions, did anyone listen to steve at macworld? In regards to photoshop he said rosetta wouldn't be fast enough for a highend photoshop user, if PS is suffering a noticable hit, then what are you going to espect out of a 3D program.

The emulation on the XP 64 for the 32bit cineam was decent, but different enough I went back to my regular windows XP 32 bit rather then emulate, that emulation is a lot simpler then going from intel to ppc I'd assume

[kromekat]

Of course not -- the 1.8 GHz P4 is ancient; why would you make such an irrational comparison?

Er... because a) I am an artist, not a computer tech! - and b) Because I have always used Macs, and take next to no notice of what is the latest and greatest revolution in the PC/Intel/Windows chip race!

I was merely asking how the Mactel Dualcore 1.8 compared to a dual Intel (insert whatever Intel chip you want here) 1.8!

On top of that, the Intel mac isn't based on a P4, it's a dual-core Pentium-m, which is an entirely different architecture. The 4 year old 1.8 GHz P4 isn't even in the same league.


See above! :)

[Thalaxis]

Er... because a) I am an artist, not a computer tech! - and b) Because I have always used Macs, and take next to no notice of what is the latest and greatest revolution in the PC/Intel/Windows chip race!


So you somehow managed to miss all of Apple's bogus g4 vs p4 and g5 vs p4 comparisons? That's quite a feat!

And that's even ignoring the 947 threads per week on the subject here on CGTalk.


I was merely asking how the Mactel Dualcore 1.8 compared to a dual Intel (insert whatever Intel chip you want here) 1.8!


As I said, the dual-core mac is based on the very latest and greatest from Intel. This is specifically intended to be their Turion-killer.

Of course, things will get more interesting when AMD returns fire with a dual-core version of Turion, which is due soon, but you won't be able to run OSX on it until it's hacked, I guess. :)

[kromekat]

No Thalaxis - I didn't miss all the Apple stuff about G4 v P4 etc, and that is not what I was comparing! :rolleyes:

I'll wait for some real benchmarks - thanks :]

[lllab]

krokomat,

lets say it simpel:
the new macbook, is one of the fastest notbook avaiable. it has a cb of 450CBs, there will be soon similar notebooks from sony, dell, asus etc...all the same sppeds, because technical the same.

until now the fastest notebooks (only for pc avaiable) where around 360cbs- so 450 is very good. i would wait until these cbs are verified though.

important, the ful speed of 450 only works for universal binary software. "old" macsoftware will be slower bacause its emulated with rosetta.

cheers
stefan

[Srek]

(insert whatever Intel chip you want here) 1.8!
This is exactly the problem. You can only compare it to the same chip used in a windows machine, any comparison to some other chip with the same clockrate is simply invalid (Apples / Oranges). Since the chip is so new that neither Mac nor Windows systems are currently available with it (several are announced to be available soon) we will have to wait how the mac stacks up.

Cheers
Björn

[Thalaxis]

No Thalaxis - I didn't miss all the Apple stuff about G4 v P4 etc, and that is not what I was comparing! :rolleyes:


If you didn't miss it, then you should have at least known how old a 1.8 GHz p4 is... and approximately what the current p4 lineup is.

[kromekat]

If you didn't miss it, then you should have at least known how old a 1.8 GHz p4 is... and approximately what the current p4 lineup is.

Ok - thanks for your condescension! - it's been a while since I have been on the end of it - haven't missed it either!. :thumbsup:

It was a straightforward question based on an apparent lack of knowledge of the plethora of options and progress within the Intel chip camp! - again, remember I use Macs, and make images - reading PC related white papers, or getting aroused by the lastest PC User I do not.
:rolleyes:

Others have clarified the situation and where 'it's all at right now' fine without needing to be a smartass! - so now I am 'informed' - or rather, having to wait until there are some actual unbiased, real world benchmarks of the lastest PC chips and the latest Mac chips, so you can move along no!?

;) Cheers
Adam

[Thalaxis]

Ok - thanks for your condescension! - it's been a while since I have been on the end of it - haven't missed it either!.

If you've been around here for long, you know where my condescension comes from, though you're probably in denial about it. It's ok; I'm used to it -- it's why my patience has grown so short.

[kromekat]

If you've been around here for long, you know where my condescension comes from, though you're probably in denial about it. It's ok; I'm used to it -- it's why my patience has grown so short.

Ah! - Sorry, no - I know not, and I am subsequently in no state of denial over it. :)

You should work on your patience though - you obviously have knowledge, but it isn't a lot of good if you look down your nose and slap people with it, just because they don't share your same database! ;)

PS: Sorry Mods, didn't intend for this to waste any space in this thread!

Now where was that topic again...

[Thalaxis]

Ah! - Sorry, no - I know not, and I am subsequently in no state of denial over it. :)


You're probably just lucky then.


You should work on your patience though - you obviously have knowledge, but it isn't a lot of good if you look down your nose and slap people with it, just because they don't share your same database! ;)


I don't tolerate ignorance well, and I never will. I wouldn't have expected you to know what Yonah is, but there are some things that you'd have to go out of your way to not know about.


Now where was that topic again...

On that note -- Yonah (which is what the new mac uses) is something I've been looking forward to for a long time, partly because I know it's pedigree since I have one of its predecessors, and partly based on the benchmarks that a few tech reviewers had an opportunity to run on pre-production hardware. The outcome of those were very promising.

[Srek]

Cool it guys, this is nothing that justifies any kind of dissent.

Thalaxis: Believe me, there are users outside that simple don't care what makes their system tick. Hard to believe for techies like you and me but i met several of them ;)

Cheers
Björn

[Thalaxis]

Thalaxis: Believe me, there are users outside that simple don't care what makes their system tick. Hard to believe for techies like you and me but i met several of them ;)


True, but missing that massive clock-speed oriented marketing drivel Intel's been shoveling for the past five years is impressive :)

[kromekat]

Lol! - no probs Bjorn. ;)

An interesting topic for another discussion maybe - do you approach 3D wearing a lab coat and a microscope or a painters smock and beret!? - speaking metaphorically of course! ;)

Adam

[Srek]

An interesting topic for another discussion maybe - do you approach 3D wearing a lab coat and a microscope or a painters smock and beret!? - speaking metaphorically of course!

Make that an overall and a wrench and it fits ;)

Cheers
Björn

[dann_stubbs]

http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/01/12/mactels.cant.run.xp/

interesting story - apparently - despite the hopes - dual booting on the new mactels won't happen for a while...

dann

[ooo]

http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/01/12/mactels.cant.run.xp/

interesting story - apparently - despite the hopes - dual booting on the new mactels won't happen for a while...

dann

Like I wrote in an earlier post about this: there is a possibility that Apple left legacy BIOS support in EFI so XP should run OK. If they want to sell as much hardware as possible this looks a logical step, so we'll have to wait untill the first real-world tests arrive...

[lllab]

well i have seen 10.4 running on a amd pc- with bios. so at least the pre release osx version are fully comapible with bios.

the dangerous thing is if apple dont support winxp on mac hardware people will run osx on pc hardware to run both. any way i am sure microsoft will soon offer a solution to run xp within virtual pc a t 99% speed directly within osx10.4. or you can use wine.

i think it is even better to run both at the same time instead o0f the need to boot back and forwar between winxp and osx.

time will tell.
cheers
stefan

[Thalaxis]

well i have seen 10.4 running on a amd pc- with bios. so at least the pre release osx version are fully comapible with bios.


Well, it won't be all that long before new machines are EFI only anyway, so that's not going to be a big deal in the long run, either way.


i think it is even better to run both at the same time instead o0f the need to boot back and forwar between winxp and osx.


That's what Vanderpool's for. It's now just a matter of implementing support for it at the OS level. There's nothing technical preventing OSX from working with Vanderpool, and it's even possible though not likely that it already does. Vanderpool hasn't been available for very long.

[LucentDreams]

for those wanting to know how it will compare to a PC with comparable processor, the Intel site shows their PC version of the Core duo with its specs, and they are almost identical to the mac's, the fcp is .6 higher, and the Int is almost 2 points higher, very minimal difference

[lllab]

"they are almost identical to the mac's"

as i said they should be very equal, of course it may vary a bit from app to app. some apps might even be a bit faster under unix enviroment, some better on winxp.

the only thing i am still curious is the graphikperformance- will it still be poorer than winxp or was it more of a hardware thing and will it now be same as pcs?

cheers
stefan

[LucentDreams]

yeah the difference looks minor


As foir graphic, the cards have had to be slightly different for mac hardware, but I'd sitll wager its more of a mac driver kinda thing more then the hardware thats been plaguing the performance, I mena look how much more frequent the driver releases are for windows then any othe rplatform including linux, and look how much better the performance is typically on windows over mac or even same systme with linux. The driver developers know their target well and focus on it more. There are far more gamers willing to pay the bucks for graphics cards and download the latest drivers, on windows, then on any other OS.

[lllab]

well i thought more of the kind like the same gfx card is tha fastest under amd enviroment-faster than with intels. maybe there was something like this in the g5`s too, or the corresponding chipsets etc.

beside that of course the driver is a insue for sure.

we will see...

cheers
stefan

[Thalaxis]

The early graphics drivers for XP64 were slower than the mature 32-bit drivers, also.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.