as a futur-ex Mac user, I was sometimes surfing on benchmark site : www.barefeats.com.

Now, this site often ( sometime with good tests, sometime with strange comparaison bases ) compares new ( pouark ) and good old Apple machines.

And... the brilliant quad G5 machines really shines in test even against what Apple claim to be a top machines.

In universal binary games ( programm containing x86 & ppc code ), the super quad G5 sometimes runs at 3X the speed of the quad-Xeon machine !!

Hey guys from Genesi... please produce your G5 dream machine soon !

Hi Christian, we are producing the prototypes now.

R&B

_________________
http://bbrv.blogspot.com

yah! the OSW-cum-supercomputer? It's a well known fact that the Quad G5 machines are worth every dime (thats a lot of dimes!) because they perform a lot more reliably than other super-high end machines. But apple has moved onto the x86 architecture to make themselves more competitive with PCs. I suppose PC buyers are becoming more price-sensitive and $5000+ USD is a bit pricey.

I think it's more that when people buy a Mac, they expect a desktop or laptop, and not a supercomputer.

Of course if you move into supercomputer style things like Apple's more expensive software (music, high-end graphics) then they just rock. But most people can't afford Logic Pro or Shake or Final Cut Pro HD.

At the end of the day the G5 is based on a very classy high-end mainframe chip, the POWER4. They don't scale down well to ultra-portable notebook

_________________
Matt Sealey

Yes, you're right! Apple has slown down there machines using x86, so now PC can compete machines sold by Apple. ( that ARE PCs )



... and for the price... Quad G5 doesn't cost 5000$. Of course it can seem expensive. But, this product was priced right between the 300$ PC and IBM and Sun workstations...

Yes, but. First G5 is usable for Desktop machines. And FreeScale, PowerFiscient ... are producing energy efficient and powerfull processors for ultra-portable, NoteBook, and entry level desktop... so no problem PowerPC is a full and complete family.

With some serious drawbacks. The 7447/8 in higher frequencies is quite expensive (550 EUR (!)for the 1700 MHz 7448 in low quantities). The comparative low FSB of the 744x series is not really state of the art in 2006.
Sure, the 7447 is a quite nice processor, you can prove that everyday with the Pegasos (for me even the 750CXe/600 is sufficient yet), but try to sell this in the "real world" for an OS whis is so resource hungry as OS X is.
For the mobile devision of Apple the move was understandable.
The 8641 is not out yet, same holds true for the PWRficient.

MPC7448 is expensive now, and because Apple didn't by any, so it is not planed for "mass" production.
So, Apple could have moved only modile machines if they think that X86 is better for molbile ( hahumm ! ). And so, they could show the world that Mac OS X is processor independant ....

i"ve never been a Intel fan (and u know that these procs need lots of fans ...huhu) but i have to admit that the core 2 duo procs are pretty impressive. They also fit nicely in laptops and i think Apple made the right choice about it. A G5 laptop is not something we can seriously think about..

The 7447(A) was used by Apple and its price also quite high (at same clockspeeds about the same price as the 7447(A)).
And, no, the price for the 7447(A) didn't went up since Apple left the ppc. If I was the leader of Apple I might have done that. It is obvious that the 970 is a very competetive chip, both prisewise and performancewise. Also I think that the Mini was reasonable well eqipped with a G4 (low energy, still enough power for a small computer; other ppl might see that different).
The other thing is, Steve Jobs seems to be a a bit special personality (he seems to be a black/white guy). Also it might be risky (marketingwise) to have two architectures in the market.
But again, if I led Apple, I'd go the double route.

Just think about what a MPC74xx or a 970MP could so if it was produce in 65u and with 2Mo of cache.

Intel has a little advange because their are a few ahead in fundary. But, when "the other guys" will produce their processors at the same scale, you will laught when you will look back to these "core duo 2".

well, when the "other guys" will do, then Intel will be ahead with something else again... endless...

the core 2 is a pIII on a better silicon...

so a G4 on a better silicon...

I had the same thoughts, but Intel can deliver what others obviously can't (or won`t) so the "what if" scenario is nothing more than a "what if scenario". I think the Core2 is a big step for Intel at least for SSE code. They finally enhanced the data flow to the SSE unit(s) so it only takes one cycle to load a instruction instead of two (I think the G4 could do this for years).

And for the test at Barefeats:
They mentioned that their shootout is some kind of "unfair" because the MacPro is only equipped with a 7300 GFX card and the G5 with a 7800. A test with identical cards would be fair, and maybe the MacPro Core2Duo 2,66 will run on par with the G5 2,5

Bye

G4 and PIII are totally different processors !
What do you mean ?