AMD will rule intel (virus, this is for you)

[Cheeseboy]

i just cant stand innefficient organization... so i had to start a new topic about this hardware battle that we are all too aware of in the lan pics thread http://www.fr3nsyc.net/ubb/smile.gif

and i would just like to start off by stating why i like amd better than intel.
intel is a fascist anti-capitalistic company that had control of the market for far too long, in which time they controlled the price of their processors by only making a few of them, thus controlling the market. which is something that is not only morally wrong, but very un-american. intel does make a good product, but they are jackasses in the business world.
amd however, is a completely market based company that obeys our economic system by pricing their processors at a level where they beat their competitors. not only this, but they also make a GOOD product! the celeron vs the duron is a perfect example. the latest celeron runs at about $170 (766 mhz) and has 66 mhz FSB (pathetic!). while amd makes the duron which costs less than $100 (800mhz) and its only downside is that it runs a little hotter than the celeron (nothing a heatsink wont fix).
and the duron performs admirably when put against the celeron. leaves it in the dust. its cheaper and better and amd can produce them MANY times faster than intel will ever produce celerons.
this is the case for most of the recent amd/intel processor battles... as slughead stated, amd is making a processor (codenamed the sledgehammer) that copies ibm's latest development where there are actually 2 processors on one silicon die. the thing has (this is from memory and might be totally wrong) something like 176 million transistors.

so yeah. dont be so quick to trash amd just because intel has just released their big bad boy. the p4 doesnt even really outperform the tbird with the current software out there. it needs optimization... which will take a while to catch on.

heh. there's my 2 cents on the subject http://www.fr3nsyc.net/ubb/smile.gif

[JBond]

AMEN to that my brother!

Any idea when AMD's going to release their faster chips?

[Cheeseboy]

aahhhh i used to know this...

ill look around and edit this post

ok, stuff on the sledgehammer can be located here: http://www6.tomshardware.com/business/00q4/001118/
just skip the stuff that doesnt have to do with the hammer.

release dates: this is also an older article... but i doubt the release dates have changed much considering that there havnt been any other release date articles: http://www6.tomshardware.com/column/00q3/000726/

and because i dont want anyone thinking im just bsing on here... read this one too http://www.fr3nsyc.net/ubb/smile.gif its from july... but its still info: http://www6.tomshardware.com/column/00q3/000822/ <br clear=all>
<font size=1>[Edited 2 times, lastly by Cheeseboy on December 03, 2000]</font>

[-=[RAN]=-DemiGod]

Virus, Cheeseboy... you're both right... but cheese i know we already discussed this at the lan and i explained to you that intel makes great products, so does AMD, but their markets are entirely different... AMD aims to make good, affordable products that any beginning computer user can use to get started and have good performance from, but they sacrifice reliability (any admin running a server farm would be crazy to use an AMD in their servers). And on the other hand, Intel makes a good reliable, workhorse processor that runs more but can keep a corporation worry-free about their servers...
and as far as the fiscal relations of intel... they are certainly not anti-capitalistic... they are anything BUT... they are pure capitalism, they aim to reduce their competing market and create sort of a monopoly.... i personally hold their ideals and their products differently... their products are great (if you can afford them) but their ideals are a bit unfair, i'm not too sure about AMD but my worry is that they pop those processors out too fast and they are just trying to hop from one income to the next with minimal amount of money invested in R&D... So i dono, hold your favoritism if you like, but they're both great for different markets... dont support one over the other because you're only in one market, think if you were running the farm of servers at Microsoft, bill would be pretty mad if during the holiday season the servers took a poop and everyone was getting 404s on the microsoft site... you'd easily lose your job...


------------------
Ian "DemiGod" M.
Now taking applications for your very own chance to be shot in the head.

[Cheeseboy]

demi, this is absolutely true when taking into account the truly hardcore processors that are used for such things as servers. but this is a discussion about personal computer processors, and area that i find amd to rule intel in with the athlon tbird and the duron.

and vi- i am of course not considering anything before the athlon, such as the k6 line because they were before amd actually had a chance to kick intel right in the nuts. in fact i owned one of these (k6-2) and it was pathetically BAD.
but the two processors that have been produced after that have been excellent.<br clear=all>
<font size=1>[Edited 1 times, lastly by Cheeseboy on December 04, 2000]</font>

[Hanky]

Yes...I once used to be an Intel user. I have taken many rehab courses and now I love AMD! http://www.fr3nsyc.net/ubb/smile.gif AMD ROXXORZ YOU! :O

[P@steyMoFo]

Performance wise, I see absolutely no conceivable reason why a couple FPS more would justify the cost of an Intel Processor.

Let me give you an example:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>Intel P3 1 GHZ - $448: Q3 Timedemo: 131.6 FPS
<LI>AMD T-Bird 1 GHZ - $253: Q3 Timedemo: 130.1 FPS
[/list]

For the gamer's choice, AMD is without a doubt the way to go. I see absolutely no reason why any gamer (who has a sensible mind not to blow cash) would pick an Intel Processor over an AMD.

However, if you're running an enterprise server that must have stability and isn't a power drain http://www.fr3nsyc.net/ubb/wink.gif , then I can see why you would choose the P3, although I just got my new T-Bird system 2 months ago and I haven't had any crashes due to the processor that I can tell.

Simple fact: AMD will always win the heart of the budget gamer.

[Cheeseboy]

im not gonna say that cant happen or didnt happen or anything, but i can tell you that i've had my tbird 800 for about 2 months now (i think... maybe longer) and it runs solidly and totally smooth. certainly not due to my video card which is a v3 2000. everything runs great except when someone throws a smoke grenade in cs (video card). i play q3 and sof and deus ex and everything imaginable on the highest gfx settings and it runs freakin great and totally smooth and solid.

so either you got a bad chip or i got a really good chip.<br clear=all>
<font size=1>[Edited 1 times, lastly by Cheeseboy on December 04, 2000]</font>

[Stimpy]

wow, all this research and time spent memorizing all this info. If i were u guys, I would be putting all this time to use, say for instance, *AHEM* building up our national economy...but you know, that's only for the role-model citizens, like, *ahem**cough*me*choke**gag*

http://www.fr3nsyc.net/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.fr3nsyc.net/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.fr3nsyc.net/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.fr3nsyc.net/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.fr3nsyc.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
Sie können keine Quetschung wischen.

[Slughead]

dude, virus, you're on crack if you think that all AMDs'll lag you off after a few minutes of gamiing

cheeseboy and I both have AMDs and we play for hours upon hours upon hours, leaving our computers on and running CS (even when we're not playing 'em) for weeks on end.

Not to mention all the Deus Ex (refered to as "Day of Sex" by the more educated), SOF, homeword, and Earth 2150. I mean hell, I hardly see how on maxed out settings with all these games, running at super-high FPS, it could get ANY faster.

If pentiums are faster that's fine and dandy but all I'm sayin is my AMD is at least NEAR equal to a comparable pentium (if not better) and about half the price (which, for those of us who are not related to Bill Gates, is very important).

oh, and btw, about amd's running hotter, making them bad for server use.. well that may be so, however with the money you save on buying an AMD over a pentium, you could by a cryo case (built for AMDs only) and not only have a MUUUUUUUUUUUUUCH faster processor, but you wouldn't have to worry about heat, and it would also triple (if not immortalize) the life of the processor as well.

And as for reliability... well I've had no problems I can really blame on my 4-6 month old AMD, and cheeseboy has been working with AMDs for a year or two now and I'm sure he'd tell you the same thing (aside from his K6 being slow).

Remember that customer loyalty is not a virtue exept in the eyes of the company. Buying something because it has the word "Sony" or "Apple" painted on it is not always wise.

you may ask: Why, if I dislike intel-type companies so much, do I own a mac? well I uh.. er uh.. have to go..

-Bob<br clear=all>
<font size=1>[Edited 2 times, lastly by Slughead on December 04, 2000]</font>

[JBond]

But Virus... say by testing one system and the AMD doesn't work quite right that it means AMD's new procs unstable?

I find that to be luicrous.

You should know how many issues there could be, it could have been a crappy or crapped out mobo, an incompatibility with the video and the mobo... SO many reasons why it couldn't have worked. I've read many reviews and testimonials on Athlon's and Duron's on PC's... down to it, if you have one of the good mobo's (A7V for example) you get great performance.

I'm just saying don't judge AMD by trying it on one computer.

[-=[RAN]=-DemiGod]

&gt;&gt;however with the money you save on buying an AMD over a pentium, you could by a cryo case (built for AMDs only)

what the hell? a case for AMD's only??? how does that work... mobo's are made for at or atx or both types of cases... now how the hell is a case aimed towards a processor and cant be used for an intel processor? is there some kind of artifically intelligent power supply that spits out intel processors from your mobo when you put it in there? maybe i'm missing something simple, but that just sounds too weird...

uhh what else do i have to say.. cheese... you seem to be thinking that AMDs outperform Intel processors, untrue, AMDs are more affordable but lack in performance (not by much on the user-end processors, but they still do).. AMDs are great... so are Intels... if you can afford the cost of an intel based processor woohoo go get one, if you cant afford that and want a faster proc at a cheaper price, woohoo go get an AMD, unless you're a spokesperson for AMD why try to sway people into buying AMD over Intel... you're agreeing on the same things; Intel is good performance and reliability for more money and AMD is less pricey but sacrifices a little performance...

------------------
Ian "DemiGod" M.
Now taking applications for your very own chance to be shot in the head.

[Slughead]

about the cryo case thing:

pentiums have problems going to super low temps, maybe they fixed it in the P4 but all the cryo cases say that if you want to use it with an affordable processor, AMD's your best choice because comparably priced pentiums fuck up at those temps

certainly you can stick in a pentium, along with a cinder block, a crack pipe, and a big bag of dog shit, doesn't mean it's not gonna fuck anything up. I'm sure the motherboard and whatnot would fit and screw in right, but who the hell knows what it'd do to the processor.<br clear=all>
<font size=1>[Edited 1 times, lastly by Slughead on December 04, 2000]</font>

[Slughead]

In response to demi god's post in the lan pics section (about macs):

You compare macs to SGI's and Xeons.... the thing is, macs aren't JUST for graphics.. they're used for video editing, 3d rendering, CAD, gaming (believe it or not), and alot of other industrial uses.

nobody said that macs could compare to Xeons, though I'm sure that the new dual processor G4s (which is funny cuz OS 9.0, along with 99% of programs aren't made threaded to use multiple processors) would easily be comparable and maybe even better.. keep in mind that motorola hasn't released anything new since the G4 (a year old) and the dual processor G4 (a half year old), and at the time, they kicked serious ass.

Nobody said Apple had a good marketing scheme either. Along with Intel, they rely on customer loyalty, OEM glarbage, and industrial uniformity (i.e. "We can't use Linux, it is not our standard OS" and "Penti---.... just stick to mac"). Jobs should have done what Gates did and allow everyone to make hardware for that OS, but, as you said, he's a dumbass. And I do agree that some of the new designs for their computers are fucking lame as shit, like the iMac (not really new but I still hate it), and the G4 cube (total garbage). That's why I have a G4 tower, which is the best designed computer I have EVER seen. Saying that cubes and iMaggots are the only models apple sells is like saying the only PC you can buy is an eMachine.

If you compare G4s (1 year old) to say.. I donno.. a random household computer like my AMD (5 months old), you'll find that the G4 out performs it in every area exept gaming (cuz of the whole "video card" thing).

About OS's... well let's see, OS 9 (standard with all macs) is a pile of shit, you're right.. It's better than windows by FAR (not saying much) but it's hardly comparable to any UNIX based system. The fuckin thing is based on the 1997 release and is about as optimized for G4's, G3's, and PPCs in general as my hands are to shoes. OS X, however, is an OpenBSD/FreeBSD/Redhat/NeXT based OS, and will be released this summer, provided apple's still in bussiness.

As I said, OS 9's a piece, but it has NO hardware conflicts, does not crash (much), freeze (much), and is not HALF as bloated as windows is. Windows really is a gob of excrement in comparison (and in gerneral), and only when you've used another OS for a while will you realize just how bad it really is.

so basically, the current mac OS is FAR better than windows.. however it's not because mac OS is good, it's cuz windows just sucks fucking asshole.

However Mac OS X is UNIX based (basically), and will, when released, be optimized for mac hardware (something that hasn't existed since 8.1's release in 1997). THEN and ONLY then can we compare these two computers.. unless you wanna do what I did on my old mac (that I bought recently) and install linux =).

And no, I'm not going to gloat that macs can emulate PCs; I've tried out some of those progs (cuz there're like NO games fer mac) and guess what? I now OWN a PC as a result.

Seems to me that alot of your information is dated, PCs are actually UNABLE to emulate mac (exept 68k machines which haven't been produced since like 1994). Soon Mac OS will be an efficient, modern OS again (something that windows has NEVER been).
Also you say that there are only 2 or 3 companies that make stuff for mac.. well yeah, that was true.. in 1993.. there are over 350 companies producing mac specific hardware and hundreds of thousands of mac-specific software mfg's. And distributors? hell if PCs have 3 million macs probably have 2.5million (most sell for both platforms). Also, TONS of hardware can be used with both platforms, such as ram, monitors, periferal cards, hard drives, video cards (like the voodoo 3 3000 AGP I have in my g4), keyboards, mice, speakers, digital cameras, and lots of other stuff.
Realize that mac has 20% of the COMPUTER MARKET.

I'm starting to give myself a headache so I guess that's it. If you respond to this I'm gonna have my ultra-super-nerdmaster friend of mine (something everyone should have) to type you up a response that'll contain more words than a dictionary, some of which have yet to be seen by anyone but the people inside his head.

well I'll ttyl

-Bob <br clear=all>
<font size=1>[Edited 5 times, lastly by Slughead on December 04, 2000]</font>

[-=[RAN]=-DemiGod]

okay... first off...
&gt;&gt;You compare macs to SGI's and Xeons.... the thing is, macs aren't JUST for graphics.. they're used for video editing, 3d rendering, CAD, gaming (believe it or not), and alot of other industrial uses.

when i say floating point performance.. this is exactly what i am encompassing... the reason i compare the G4 to the xeon.. because they are backside cache processors, much different than the regular P3/4's ... backside cache processors are more efficient but cost a lot more, if mac had a processor in their machines that wasnt backside cache i'd compare it to a different intel processor but they make such a limited variety of processors that they can only be compared to xeons... thats another bad decision on jobs' part... uses expensive processors and keeps the price of his puters sky-hi.

back on to the subject of graphics... you stretched the encompassing description of "graphics" to say that "3d rendering" [CG], and Video Editing, and CAD were different.. graphics is all of that... all of those are very high demanding functions that demand floating point performance which is what mac used to have on pcs.. but now most any pc processor can match (and in the case of the xeon, far exceed) the floating point of any mac backside cache processor.

about windows..
i never said windows was a good os... its a piece of shite... mac os is an okay operating system, but you already know (and conceded) that unix based oses will woop it...

also when i said 2-3 companies distribute mac parts.. i was being sarcastic... but still, you know steve jobs has those licenses soo far up his arse that it takes a company with a hellova lot of money, workforce, and laxative to get one of those licenses out of him...

&gt;&gt;If you compare G4s (1 year old) to say.. I donno.. a random household computer like my AMD (5 months old), you'll find that the G4 out performs it in every area exept gaming (cuz of the whole "video card" thing).

which amd? dont even say a k6 series amd - i'll bust a gut..
you're also trying to compare a backside processor with one that does not have backside.. the g4 processors run about the same price as a xeon... compare a xeon and a g4 then you have a fair fight... you're trying to put a heavyweight boxer against a marathon runner...

macs are just too overpriced and under-diversified for 95% of the market today... the only reason that i think they're neat is they can run binary files off their own hard drive... the os is pretty efficient... and they design things spiffy... but that isnt enough for me to go out and buy one for doing my 3dsmax or photoshop work (heh macs cant run 3dsmax) or for my gaming (only significant game on mac was Myth. then it came to pc ... hah) ...
theres just not enough going for mac... anyways its 3:30 am i gotta get to sleep i have school tomorrow... most of this typing is probably incoherant so i'll just end up reiterating it in another rebuttal... but until then.. check out www.arstechnica.com (http://www.arstechnica.com)
now theres a spiffy puter-nerd site


------------------
Ian "DemiGod" M.
Now taking applications for your very own chance to be shot in the head.

[Slughead]

I hate to use the age-old mac user's phrase of "Just wait, they'll fix it", but I really do think that this is the case.

Everything you've stated will be fixed within the year. Apple's getting a contract with IBM and is stopping its contract with motorola. This will alow for clones, and also a competition for the RISC chip market (between IBM, the inventor of the PPC, and motorola, the inventor of the G4).

As for games.. well I kinda exagerated how bad macs are for games.. They do have many cards out, like the voodoo5, the geforce, and ALL the ATI's. The problem is not running the games, for macs do that extremely well. The problem is that there are few games out there. Mac is getting all the new games, but isn't it the old ones that count? While mac users are playing their star trek elite force, quake 3, call to power 2, Halo, and many others, wont they be dreaming of games like SC2, llamatron, and counterstrike?.. maybe they wouldn't know what they're missing, but 2 years from now, if CS isn't around anymore, gamers could easily choose a mac over a PC, as long as they don't care about really old games.

As for OS's, Macs will have a Unix based OS within a year, and a pretty good one at that. Meanwhile I'm not gonna buy any new mac products, my comp isn't even obsolete yet and I bought it a little more than a year ago.. now how many PC users can say THAT?

As for PCs having better processors, all I have to say is that the G4 is OOOOOOOLD, about a year, and the duals aren't worth the money considering the OS isn't threaded to use 'em. The processors you're comparing the G4 to are A LOT newer than the G4. Not to mention that I'm pretty sure the dual G4s would out perform the Xeon (though we wont know until mac gets a good OS).

As for the future, the G4e is sposed to be 3-5 times faster than a dual G4.
The question is: when?
Who the hell's to say, I mean apple's been waiting this long, they could very well go bankrupt (even though no) if they don't get something soon. They say 6 months, but they said 6 months 6 months ago.

Seems to me that whenever mac releases a new processor, all the anti-mac people go back into their caves, occasionally coming out to say "but there're no games out! HAHA! I have you now!", then someone would say "yes but look at everything besides games" and then they'd go back and cry. A year has passed since Apple released a processor that raped its pc competitors, and now they've come out again, and not without good reason either.

So I say today what many others like me have said in the past "just wait, they'll fix it".

-Bob <br clear=all>
<font size=1>[Edited 2 times, lastly by Slughead on December 05, 2000]</font>

[Cheeseboy]

i really hate to jump into this...
but slug you didnt really address what demi said... you kept saying that the g4 is old and that it raped the pc processors and all these things, and that a dual g4 would beat a xeon's ass... but what demi was saying is that g4's and xeon's are on another level than p3/4's and athlons. its sorta like trying to compare a celeron to a tbird.
you also said that your mac isnt outdated yet... and how many pc users can say that. there are 2 things about this... one, im sure if you had bought a xeon (or some other super processor) a year ago, you'd be peachy keen. i dotn know when the xeon was released, but that doesnt matter, its the principle. and if your computer isnt outdated yet, mac REALLY needs to get their asses in gear. the only reason that pc's get out dated so quick is because the speed of the development. bragging that yours isnt out dated yet isnt exactly a good thing when arguing for the company that made it.<br clear=all>
<font size=1>[Edited 1 times, lastly by Cheeseboy on December 05, 2000]</font>

[Slughead]

I addressed what Demi said just fine. I

Also, macs get outdated just like PCs do. If PCs are THAT much better, then G4s would be outdated.. but they aren't yet so it remains that way. Macs are not outdated by other macs.

I personally believe that G4s are meant for the common person, unlike the processors they get compared to such as Xeons and shite. But do what you may, if you want to put it in a different arena that's fine, but when I think of my G4, I think of my computer I use to type up reports and play the occasional game.

If you wanna think of it as a super industrial "shaulin master" that's perfectly fine, because even in that sense it's still able to kick ass (well.. when it came out anyway).

Btw virus, I've been playing Quake 3 since it FIRST came out, and I'm talking about TEST versions and shit, when they releasd the FIRST test version, I had it (and I was rubbing it in Cheese's face that it wasn't for PC). So basically what I'm saying is
QUAKE 3 RULES!!!!!

<br clear=all>
<font size=1>[Edited 1 times, lastly by Slughead on December 05, 2000]</font>

[-=[RAN]=-DemiGod]

hehehehehehehe UAHAHAHA you have conceded that at this time in history macs are under the market... well ... just a quick note about g4 vs xeon... xeon is just as old as the g4... but instead of just making a few xeons.. intel made a line of them that beat g4s in the beginning and continues to grow whereas mac stopped...

btw: despite my arguements... i am not anti-mac, i just choose the smarter platform for the time... if mac would get their asses in gear and catch up in technology, advertising, marketing, and entertainment, i'd spend the extra money for one, but they have a ways to go before they get there...

about your prospected hardward (g4e) do you remember about 3 years ago when a graphics company which i forget the name was coming out with a graphics processor which i forget the name, (and is weakening my arguement) was coming out with a processor that _on paper_ could do 15x the fps of a voodoo 2 12meg in sli ... well guess what... they faked up went bankrupt real quick.. (although their stock rose sky-hi for a month, like all .com companies) well its one thing to hear about performance speculations and another to actually see it... take the k6-2 ... same story... only luckily it worked (sorta) and amd didnt go bankrupt... becareful about your 3-5 times the speed speculation...

oh and by the way.. if you havnt read the latest news in circutry compression, intel is down to .13 micron and i think they're gonna be using that technology before they release it to companies like mac... so thats something that mac has to catch up on... i could be wrong but i know intel came out with the technology first and is already lining up processors.

&gt;&gt;I personally believe that G4s are meant for the common person, unlike the processors they get compared to such as Xeons and shite. But do what you may, if you want to put it in a different arena that's fine, but when I think of my G4, I think of my computer I use to type up reports and play the occasional game.

okay... g4's (like i said before) run about the same price as a nice xeon system would... so how can you say that a g4 is more aimed toward consumers? if someone knows what they're doing when looking for a new comp, they can purchase that xeon for the same price and get superior performance...

and please stop adressing me as though i'm anti-mac... i almost bought a g3 because pc processors where in such a slump (and i ended up buying a p2 400 which was the most expensive processor for its performance, stupid..)
i am most certainly not anti-mac and games are not my only concern (although they are a very large portion =D ) and i'm not even using gaming against macs so your claims of pcs having better games is out of your own volition and not impressed on by me... but i'm glad that you see pcs are better for games =)

uhm what else... oh ya...

&gt;&gt;I hate to use the age-old mac user's phrase of "Just wait, they'll fix it", but I really do think that this is the case.

I hate to use that age-old pc users phrase "We'll see," but i really do think that this is the case

------------------
Ian "DemiGod" M.
Now taking applications for your very own chance to be shot in the head.<br clear=all>
<font size=1>[Edited 1 times, lastly by -=[RAN]=-DemiGod on December 05, 2000]</font>

[-=[RAN]=-DemiGod]

shakes/lead why arent you guys bitching about this? (not that you bitch about everything, but i look forward to you guys makin fun of this shite cmon =p )



------------------
Ian "DemiGod" M.
Now taking applications for your very own chance to be shot in the head.

[Cheeseboy]

whoa! intel is developing .13 micron processors?

are they gonna use those on p4's? or is it tech that is planned for the next generation?

[Slughead]

I never said you were anti-mac, I just implied it, therefore I'm totally unbound to anything that I may have said! haha!

G4e's are already in prototype stage, and btw, apple (and apple alone I may add) owns 20% of the computer market.. they're NOT going down. If they sell NOTHING in the next 3 years, they still wont die. Besides, it's motorola makin the chips, and motorola's SURE AS FUCK not goin down.

Btw the Xeons of 1 year ago weren't as good as G4s until June of that year when they released the "[insert name that I can't remember]" model and then G4s were 2nd to 1. About that time Dual G4s came out and 0wn3d those Xeons.. well, we can't really say that (unproven yet), but if the theory of 1+1=2 applies to processors, then yes, those Xeons got 0wn3d too. Ever since then I stopped following it cuz I decided to stop being such a damn nerd.

&gt;&gt;"g4's (like i said before) run about the same price as a nice xeon system would... so how can you say that a g4 is more aimed toward consumers?"

well I just did, live with it =)

Also I think you're under the wrong impression about the price of G4s, 1.5 grand'll get you a really good G4 system with firewire, DVD, a 16mb radeon, 64 ram (never buy apple ram it costs $500000), a 30 gig and alot of other shit... that's $500 more than my athlon, not to mention that it has an HD, firewire and all that other shit. I think that the extra shit you get with the G4 package, plus the fact that you're getting TWICE the procesor would easily make the G4 a better buy.

Keep in mind that G4 cases (if you don't get a shitty ass cube) are "the move"... probably $150-200 by themselves.

So basically, prices are NOT all that high.

If you still think 1.5 grand for a fully loaded system is in the same market as the xeon, then yes, right now mac sucks.

However if you're like me and you view macs as simply high-end consumer play toys (like gasoline powered dildos), then macs are definantly better.

That's the great part about arguments, it usually comes down to one fundemental difference of opinion that neither side can really prove.

-Bob
---------------------------------------
Oh, and the following is a bunch of shit I had my friend Daemon Lover type up in response to the original post by demi.. he's a big nerd and so if you skip over a few parts where he goes totally off the subject, it's really quite informative:

Actually, SGI is okay for Graphics, and is more geared towards special effects work, however unlike what your PC-loving pal failed to attribute, SGI is losing the battle. SGI's machines cost extensively too much for what they do, and it's losing out in areas to Windows 2000 and MacOS, as well as Linux. When you consider that George Lucas used a large number of Macs in the production of Phantom Menace, and that Titanic and a few other late coming special effects thrillers have jumped over to Linux on standard issue PC boxes, with the machines set in clusters, you begin to fully understand why SGI is moving their plans away from their own RISC processors (MIPS) and is since moving to of all things, IA-32 (Pentium-class) Intel processors. The facts aren't fake... Intel and the PowerPC have caught the expensive to make MIPS processors, and have in turn forced SGI to converge.

Sun is also making in-roads in Graphics-based systems as the SPARC has continued to evolve along the same road that the PowerPC has. SPARC is more like the PowerPC G5 than the G4, as it's a 64-bit processor, and in most industrial variants, it is used with a 64-bit data path (PowerPC's up until the G5 and the unused PowerPC 615 are all 32-bit data paths). With all of this said, the PowerPC is "NOT BEHIND". People get on their high horses time and time again, and honestly... Motorola could sit on their ass for a year with the G4 and still be ahead of the highest (REPEAT: HIGHEST) Athlon.

In fact... I hate to say this, but perhaps that's Motorola's mindset right now? If Motorola devotes their energies to the G5 moreso than the G4, they can better determine the future of the PowerPC than focusing on a processor designed for the hear and now. Apple's transition to G5 by some outlets is already a big part of OS X's movement. The G5 is to the G4, as the PowerPC was to 68k. It is that monumental a change. Motorola's chip resources are so spread, that they are under-taxed in terms of development, and with Intel continually cannibalizing Motorola's Somerset Design Group (a well-published fact); it is no wonder that Motorola has to scale back their plans and look at the "bigger picture". I agree, if Motorola would just allow IBM to handle manufacturing of some of the G4's for Motorola, and would jump back in bed with IBM and allow IBM to further develop the G4 while further collaborating on the G5, perhaps the PowerPC in the current Macs would've broke 1Ghz already. Lord knows IBM has enough processor mfg. space to go around, and Motorola is taxed developing PowerPC G4's, G5's, and DigitalDNA chips, along with PowerPC variants for hardware usages (laser printers, fx machines, etc. etc.).

The point... SGI is hurting more than Apple, and neither Apple or SGI are on the verge of death. Those that naysay Apple fail to fully understand the Mac, because they're so stuck up Bill Gate's love canal, they have no idea what they're talking about. Macs, I'm sorry, are not about Gaming!! Yeah, you all might be "Oooo... Half Life for Mac... Yum", and I admit; I'd love it if it came, but... when it all comes down to it, I "RARELY" ever play games. In fact, 99.9% of my time spent on a computer is spent in programs like Photoshop, GoLive, and yes... Hotline. All of which are done excessively better on the Mac than they are on the PC. For Page Layout graphics, and people that use Quark and InDesign; the Mac is "THE ONLY" choice, because PC's have shit for font support, have some of the worst color calibration, and their entire font paradigm is based off of an emerging (bleh) internet standard, rather than the "PRINT INDUSTRY" type-setting standard that Adobe (nee-Aldus) brought to the Mac with Pagemaker eternities ago.

When I say that a PC is good for games, and office/CAD work... I do not lie. That is about their only real "understandable" uses. True, Microsoft is making the OS better, I kid you not, but... so is everyone else (and most OS's have far intuitive, more usable interfaces; that are far more geared towards the consumer). Windows is bloated, and '9x (sorry to whoever posted on MP capabilities) DOES NOT SUPPORT MP!!! MacOS X is a consumer level OS, with all of the functionalities of a Windows 2000 Professional (SMP, Apache Web Server, native support for CGI/Perl, built-in FTP Server, POSIX-compliant Terminal access, ability to support SQ8/SQL Server functionalities if implemented [Oracle has committed], etc. etc.) , and even some features of Advanced Server!! Windows Whistler is the answer to MacOS X (FINALLY... A CONSUMER WINDOWS RUNNING ON A DECENT KERNAL!!), and even it doesn't support SMP, simply because Microsoft believes people don't need SMP, and largely because most Intel and AMD processors that are designed for SMP are at the high reaches of the spectrum.

The PowerPC in G4-guise is cheaper than PIII Xeon's (per chip), which right now are your "ONLY" MP capable processor on the PC with exception to the Compaq Alpha, which Windows 2000 gave up supporting (Compaq is using a version of Digital UNIX, with the eventual intent of using their Compaq-based Unix to replace the Digital acquired variant)!! In other words, with Microsoft pushing back the PIV Xeon simply because they have no competition in their PIII Xeon's on the x86 side of the ball, and with having enough problems with the PIV's that they are shipping, and AMD pushing their MP processor back "indefinitely" to gear on keeping pace with Intel in the Celeron (Duron) and PIII (Athlon) and PIV (Athlon T-bird) ranks; MP is actually dwindling on the PC, and this is something I seriously think with the release of MacOS X in "A FEW MONTHS", Apple could seriously benefit from.

Another facet to touch on... consumer machine sales = to nil in sales on the PC side. The area that most PC manufacturers are hitting hard is "Enterprise", something that NeXTStep was originally created for. If you think that Apple's rolling Apache in, Apple buying NeXT not just for an OS, but for "WebObjects" (probably the single coolest app. available on "ANY" platform for Enterprise), things begin to come together. Apple is keeping their current market (needed to stay afloat) while hoping to attack a market that makes the most sense (read: Enterprise); and work towards offering hardware and services to that market while appeasing all of us. Apple still has a very "STRONG" chance of devouring the one market that means anything, by offering an easy to administrate (the power of the Mac GUI) system, with greater power (the addition of a CLI and a Unix underbelly), and with that power attained at the top by battling SGI's Onyx enterprise boxes, and Sun's SPARC-based enterprise machines, and the like... Apple gains a market that produces millions and millions and millions of dollars of revenue to then take and push the lower markets fast and hard and retake the consumer OS market, workstation OS market, etc. etc.

The Unix infusion shows a strong reason for this... there are probably more scientific apps. written for Unix than any other OS combined. Professors and IT people "ADORE" Unix, they like NT for the GUI enhancements. Apple is treading into the water of Sun and SGI, but at a much cheaper pricing point. Having an open-source Darwin (Unix) kernal, with an easy Mac-like GUI (always education friendly) running on Workstation level hardware (think of the Mac as being more than a passing competitor to SGI and Sun, even the processor and hardware specs. between the platforms match-up better if you look closely), and toss-in that the G5 is very similar in idea to what users at Universities have in their UltraSPARC Servers, and MIPS-equipped SGI's and the fact is... Apple is evolving into a consumer-level computer company with the power of Enterprise built in. Macs have tons and tons and tons of creative professionals, many of which are web designers. The Mac is the modicum of security, it has the most efficient GUI's of any OS including Solaris and Irix (two of my favorite Unix GUI's along with the old NeXTStep), Apple has the second most Consumer-Applications of any vendor, running on processors that in non-Altivec form were 3x's faster than anything Intel or AMD churned out. Now we're looking at probably 1.5 times as fast, and that speed differential grows as more and more of the OS and applications become AltiVec/Velocity Engine savvy. It'll take "YEARS" before any MMX-replacement (MMX isn't parallel processing, as when it's active, it shuts off the Pentium, and even only a tiny "fraction" of the Pentium IV supports parallel processing) can catch where the Velocity Engine is today; and the G4e institutes not one, but up to "4" AltiVec instruction units running in parallel with the updated G4 internal processor architecture. If with one AltiVec unit we're up to 28 times faster than the comparable 700 Mhz. Intel processors of the day, where do we stand now with 4 of these units?!? 100x's faster?!?

Considering that the goal of MacOS X is to bring more of AltiVec/Velocity Engine inline with the actual basic OS, what happens if everything within MacOS X eventually moves to Velocity Engine support. Considering that the G5 is based on the Power4 IBM Workstation processor architecture, which allows multiple processors (ON A SINGLE CHIP, IBM's Power3 hit 1.5 Ghz. in 1997!! It had 50 processors on a single silicon chip), has a 64-bit Instruction Set/Data Path, can be used with Apple's adaptive bus technology (MAXBUS) currently employed in the G4's, and ummm... factor in Silicon on Insulator and Copper wiring, and the fact is... think IBM Power3's instructions, simplified, and thrown into a processor for about the price of a high-end G4, that when combined with a few of Motorola's AltiVec units (perhaps 4... maybe more, after all... if IBM can fit 50 PowerPC's on a single chip, how many of the smaller AltiVec's can Moto squeeze in?!? I'd guess as high as 20-30 if they wanted to; but more rationally... probably a handful; but the possibility is always there).

I think people need to quit worrying about right now. Everyone's acting like Chicken Little, and few of you realize that even though the PowerPC situation is a pain in the ass; it's out of Apple's hands, and their machines still are faster than the PC in most usable areas. People don't buy machines to upgrade every 3 months, and that's why Macs are so much better. If you buy a PC, to get the most out of your investment you need to chase hardware upgrades or buy new machines almost constantly. Low-end machines are cheap, and reliable in PC circles, but... if you buy one for "upgradability", you'll be sorrily disappointed when you find that AMD quit making processors to fit your Super Socket 7 motherboard (Duron, like Athlon T-bird; supports Socket A and Slot A). My 8500, a machine made in the Michael Spindler/Gilbert Amelio days of Apple just took a 375 Mhz G3; and my rendered Non-Upgradable (by Apple itself) PowerMac 7100/66cd and PowerMac 7200/120 are now, upgradable! Who's more upgradable?!? Ummmm... iMac's with G4 processor upgrades?!? Should I start listing more stuff?!? Hmmmm... thought so. Hell, even Sonnet is contemplating "supporting" their own non-MacOS X capable machines with... &lt;drumroll&gt; MacOS X-capable drivers for their already released Sonnet Crescendo cards; which means my 8500 might eventually run OS X itself!!

However, my point has always been. MacOS 1-9 has lost it's allure as a gaming OS. It's underpinnings are shot, the plan to replace the kernal (Pink/Taligent [with IBM] and eventually Copland) failed. The plans to start over with a clean sheet (NeXTStep for PowerPC a/k/a Rhapsody) and making everyone rewrite their software failed (hence the alterrations that brought us Carbon and Classic ontop of Rhapsody which became... MacOS X). The Mac may eventually be a gaming platform... with support from nVidia, ATI, and 3DfX (which might be getting out of the card business by their comments at ComDex in Las Vegas) currently there, we might be seeing the Mac make a resurgence the likes noone ever dreamed of. I can't predict the future anymore than some snake-oil salesman can, but I can tell you that rather than whine, and bitch, and naysay the death of Apple (they were closer in 1996-1997 than they are now; take it from someone that saw his previous platform [Amiga] collapse right before his eyes); just watch patiently and offer your "Constructive" criticisms up to Apple. Don't try to pull out a crystal-ball and predict the future; because if you base it on gaming, you're just as naive about what a computer is, as you are virally inflicted with upgrade-itis if you do the same on PC.

BTW, this comes from someone that's used BeOS (version 3 for PowerPC Macs and a few iterations onward; great OS, no apps, very impressive kernal, but I still think Apple did the right thing by acquiring NeXT as WebObjects is worth more than OpenStep in the end, and OpenStep at the time was on par with BeOS in most areas, and the software development tools for NeXTStep are some of the best available, if not "THE BEST" period), Windows (since 2.0 and 3.5.1 for NT; all the way up to ME and 2000), OS/2 (back when Microsoft co-developed it with IBM, last version I tested was Warp though), Irix (on an SGI Indigo, as well as an O2 about a year ago), Solaris 7 and 8 (on an old SPARCstation and Sparc 4's and 5's), NeXTStep (on a TurboColor 33 and a NeXT Cube), Amiga Workbench and AmigaDOS (since version 1.3, on an A500 and an A2000), and varying forms of Linux (including LinuxPPC, since release 2.1; which I have on CD that I bought). I'm as unbiased about computing overall, even though I have a passion for the Mac; simply because it's GUI is efficient, whereas Windows GUI (and most others for that matter) isn't.

I love BeOS, and think it's a great OS, however it's not as efficient as the Mac in it's UI yet, and it's software development toolkit is on a level altogether as heinous as some of the lower-level Windows toolkits are (bleh!). I think Solaris is the best Enterprise OS on the planet; and with it's better than all Java integration, full support for Jini, and continual evolvement internall to support all Web Standards, I think of Sun Microsystems as the Enterprise equivelant to Apple. They think different, they're staunchly anti-Windows (Scott McNealy, CEO for Sun, is in a lot of ways, more anti-Microsoft than Jobs ever was/is), they produce unique machines (even if they're mostly beige... their Javastations were radically designed as well, the iMacs are... if not more radically), and they have a radicals environment akin to Apple's days of flying the "Jolly Rodger" Pirate Flag over their Headquarters in Cupertino. Bill Joy reminds me of Woz, McNealy of Jobs, and if you read the book "High Noon", you'll see a lot more semblances to Apple (especially if you read Apple Confidential and Insanely Great). In fact, I still in many ways wished McNealy dotted the "i's" and crossed the "t's" back in 1996-7 when Apple was under threat to being bought by Sun. If Apple wasn't NeXT OpenStep-based, I think a Sun Solaris-based Apple would've been the second best choice (one of the only things I ever agreed with Ellen Hancock on). Not to mention, Apple SPARC-based machines would've been very interesting... http://www.fr3nsyc.net/ubb/smile.gif Either that, or perhaps the AIM alliance (Apple, IBM, Motorola) for PowerPC's could've evolved into "SIM", and could you imagine rolling the SPARC and PowerPC together... whoa boy! http://www.fr3nsyc.net/ubb/smile.gif)

[ ) |_ &gt;-•••-&gt; <br clear=all>
<font size=1>[Edited 2 times, lastly by Slughead on December 05, 2000]</font>

[Slughead]

The great part is it probably took him about 45 minutes to write that whooole thing.. right off the top of his head...

with me it's like write one sentence, forget what I wast trying to say for half an hour, write another sentence, realize it doesn't make sense, and when it's all over there are about 1000 grammar and spelling errors in a 500 word rant.. not to mention that the whole thing really isn't all that great as far as writing goes.

I think the blame rests solely on drugs.. and the massive consumption of drugs.. by me.. right now.. and most every day previous to now for the past 3 years.. whereas that Daemon lover guy has never done drugs before in his life (so freaky is he)...

-Bob<br clear=all>
<font size=1>[Edited 1 times, lastly by Slughead on December 05, 2000]</font>

[Goliath]

ok ok i heard something about k6 line earlier....well for one thing amds are dependable but i fear that they have been getting less and less dependable...although this really depends on the rest of your system really...heh as some of you may know (because i whine about it 24/7) im running on a k6 at the moment lol yes it does suck i get like 10 fps with a voodoo 4..but it does run awsome in everything else ... i have cable on it and everything but games its basically as good as my 600 amd but less problems~!! im gettin the 900 tbird this week so i hope the stability is fixed and all but for all i know amds are good and stable the only problem for the smaller cpus is in games and if thats what your shooting for go higher...but mostly i feel it depends on the rest of your system .. i havent had an intel chip so i basically have no comparison but i can tell you that amd rock and are trustworthy...but dont get a k-6 they tend to be slow http://www.fr3nsyc.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Cheeseboy]

hahah virus, im in the same boat.
im interested, but not interested enough to read all that

[Slughead]

Illiterate monkeys!!

basically it proves that Apple will kick ass fairly soon and why the hell nothing's going on right now.

heh, it's really the future of computing, it explains the Altivec engine and shite. Also, Intel's pickin up RISC and trying to adopt it into their processors.

when intel does that, then you'd probably be able to buy a mac program and put it on a PC, and also vice versa (as long as you had the right librarys n'crap).

No doubt MS would try to stop that somehow (for if people had a choice.. MS would probably go down).

So, to sum up..
This is the future: Intel's adopting RISC (PowerPC), and MS AND Apple are adopting UNIX into their OS's.

Soon you will be able to buy any piece of software and use it on any computer. And soon after, apple will release a compatable computer, at which time you will be able to do the same with hardware.

Computer prices will plummet, which will probably mean mac will have to become a software-only company unless that deal with IBM pulls through.

Standardization.. something they should've done a long time ago. UNIX was before all of these OS's, then they try to get as far away from them as possible, and finally come back to it again.

-Bob

[-=[RAN]=-DemiGod]

and just for my own pure pleasure.. how is he a reliable source?

btw dual g4s? woohoo? how about quad xeons? ... hell ya!

you're friend and you can beleive whatever you want about the future of mac... but point of fact is : none of it is out yet... like i said before "we'll see". after seeing what the computer world works like (fantastic speculations: poor production/oops we didnt spend enough time in R&D) theres nothing i can say other than "we'll see" if mac comes out with something that woops a PC's ass yipee... we'll all move to those kick ass boxes and move on, but until them i am not going to invest my opinion or my money into anything mac and stay skeptical about their bad line of history...

becareful where you dive from, you could be hitting that sweet deep water or you could end up on the jagged rocks... stay skeptical.


------------------
Ian "DemiGod" M.
Now taking applications for your very own chance to be shot in the head.

[-=[RAN]=-DemiGod]

&gt;&gt;Who's more upgradable?!? Ummmm... iMac's with G4 processor upgrades?!? Should I start listing more stuff?!? Hmmmm... thought so.

heh damn you're friend is funny: he argues with himself!

&gt;&gt;Don't try to pull out a crystal-ball and predict the future; because if you base it on gaming, you're just as naive about what a computer is, as you are virally inflicted with upgrade-itis if you do the same on PC.

and he makes up his own arguement! or you told him i'm predicting the demise of mac... which is most certainly not true, im being skeptical about their future _because_ of their past... big promises, little return... as your friend said:

&gt;&gt;It's underpinnings are shot, the plan to replace the kernal (Pink/Taligent [with IBM] and eventually Copland) failed. The plans to start over with a clean sheet (NeXTStep for PowerPC a/k/a Rhapsody) and making everyone rewrite their software failed (hence the alterrations that brought us Carbon and Classic ontop of Rhapsody which became... MacOS X).

&gt;&gt;I'm as unbiased about computing overall, even though I have a passion for the Mac; simply because it's GUI is efficient, whereas Windows GUI (and most others for that matter) isn't.

why dont you have him read over your shoulder so he can agree with me more?


okay so i read the whole thing and what did i get out of it: a bunch of stretched out super-nerdy jargon that goes into depth about what i've already talked about, i havnt read much about the g4e so i havnt compared them to xeons, and that's that... he didnt disagree with me on anything, he in fact just reiterated most of what i did; the impression i got was that he thinks that apple has made some bad decisions in the past (need i rename the devil "steve jobs") and their future looks bright, now i never said their future looks bright cause i havnt looked into it but from the past and the present i am leaning towards pcs, despite what he said about "I think people need to quit worrying about right now. Everyone's acting like Chicken Little, and few of you realize that even though the PowerPC situation is a pain in the ass; it's out of Apple's hands, and their machines still are faster than the PC in most usable areas. "
the fact is that at this time, pcs are (he should have expanded on what usable areas they are faster in.. yipee spiffy kernal) faster, more widely used (no problems with compatibility), and cheaper, (and have games =) ) ...

so tell you're friend he knows how to spit out a hellov a lot of jargon which very much impresses me, and that i'm very glad he agrees with me... also tell you're friend that he can stop arguing with himself, no one is saying apple is gonna die, or even trying to predict the future...

"dont count your chickens before they hatch"
"love thy neighbor"
"my daddy can beat your daddy up"
and of course
"w3 0wnz y0u!"

------------------
Ian "DemiGod" M.
Now taking applications for your very own chance to be shot in the head.

[Cheeseboy]

*applause*
a fine show! When will you 2 be doing another?

[P@steyMoFo]

I don't read the thread for a day and I find that it has STRAYED OFF THE FRIGGIN TOPTIC!!! AMD vs. INTEL YOU FOOLZ!!!!

Who cares what Steve Jobs is GOING (more like TRYING) to do in the future. I personally don't care for Macs, they do not suit my needs, AND THAT'S ALL THAT COUNTS. Yeah, yeah, it may be for gfx, sfx, etc.

WHOOP DE FREEEEEEGIN DOOOOO!!! I don't care!

In my opinion, Macs (unless they go throughout an unbelievably dramatic change within the next couple years/decades) will NEVER EVER BE CONSIDERED A VIABLE PLATFORM FOR THE END GAMER!

Think about it, what game could you play on the Mac that you couldn't on the PC? Think very hard.... My point exactly. Apple has always promissed the next revolution ( ooooooooohh, you mean a new color for the case? WOW!! ) and always seem to end up flat on their face.

............

We're going off topic. Start another thread for Win & Linux vs. MacOS: FIGHT! or some shit.

All I'm saying is... AMD pwnz j00r daddy who can beat up our loving neighbor's daddy.

[Cheeseboy]

You know what pisses me off? the fact that people are to willing to waste their money on something that has higher mhz, even tho it may be a crappy processor. i fell into this category once... buying a k6-2 450, and soon after realizing that the performance was not a whole lot better than from my p5 166! the only reason that p4's are going to survive right now (without optimization software to take advantage of the new architecture) is because they are 1.4 ghz. so obviously they are superior to the athlon 1.2, right? the fact is, p4's only beat out the athlons by a bit.
the whole system is annoying... i mean, you cannot compare different processors by mhz (or ghz)!!! its just totally inaccurate.

hahah im in a ranting mood... im gonna stop now and save you all from reading it.<br clear=all>
<font size=1>[Edited 1 times, lastly by Cheeseboy on December 06, 2000]</font>