On Oct 24, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Mac User #330250 wrote:
---------- Original message ----------
Subject: Re: Apple inside?
Date: Sonntag 24 Oktober 2010N
From: Daniel Stewart <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
The thing was though the new PPC processor apparently made the Core2
duo look like a Celeron in terms of performance
The Core 2 Duo was a real performance boost comparted to the PowerPC
G4 which
was stuck at 1.5 GHz. I know, witch third party CPU upgrades 2 GHz
is possible
without overclocking – altough I'm not sure if they aren't
overclocked by
default?
My recollection from the WWDC 2006 presentation is that multiple cores
have gone mainstream as an alternative to increasing clock speed.
Whereas a small increase in performance costs you a large increase in
power consumption and heat generation, a reduction in performance
(maybe 10 or 20%) cuts the heat and power in half -- at which point
you can afford a second core, so overall performance is increased
(provided you can keep both cores busy).
Anyway, with the G4 stalled at speed/performance and the G5 running
too hot and being too power hungry – Intel was the best move at this
time.
If you don't believe it, search some for some benchmarks.
Don't go comparing a Quad G5 which is the most expensive desktop/
workstation
you can get to an Intel MacBook!
I can confirm that a Core Duo iMac easily outperforms a dual G5 tower,
compiling a large application in gcc on OS X. I suspect that the
PowerPC implementation of Mach-O is less efficient than both the Intel
implementation and CFM.
I don't know many
Apple users who want to Use Windoze unless they absolutely have to
Argument from ignorance. I don't like Windows either, but let's stick
to the real world.
With Intel Macs you have to emulation a PowerPC to run Classic
applications.
Sheepshave can do this, although I hear it is not that easy and
sometimes
unstable.
Confirmed. Stability and setup difficulty are among the issues
affecting SheepShaver's usability.
Anyway, since most Intel Macs are performing so well, this emulation
results
in native speed compared to a real PowerPC. Amazing, isn't it?
SheepShaver may be faster for some I/O-intensive operations, but for
CPU-bound tasks a real machine performs better. (At least for now.)
68K emulators, on the other hand, are orders of magnitude faster than
the original hardware.
Ultimately Apple ended
up looking like impatient dummies and paid the price.
I wonder to whom they look that way, besides yourself.
Again, I like PowerPC more than Intel, but that doesn't mean switching
was the wrong choice for Apple. For one thing, the entire clock speed
war is now irrelevant, since Mac OS X and Windows run on the same chips.
Yes, made them have the best financial quarter in their history.
They are rich
now.
It's hard to argue with results like that.
Josh
--
You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for
those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
