The Verdict is out, Macs are better than PCs

[Power666]

Macs used to have a premium due to their use of PowerPC processors (and if you go way back, Motorola 68k series chips). While more expensive, there were at times were the PowerPC camp utterly crushed what x86 chips had to offer. This was especially true during the 604e and early G3 days. The PC peformance sky rocketed between AMD and Intel during the early Athlon classic and Pentium 3 days. Apple was stuck using G4 chips and they were stuck at 500 Mhz max for a full year during this PC performance boom. It wasn't until the arrival of the G5 systems that Macs were able to compete in terms of raw clock speed and performance. Even today, the G5 systems are still respectable depending on the task at hand.

Apple dropped PowerPC technology a few years ago and Mac sales have consistently been surging with the Intel machines. With virtualization and the ability to natively boot Windows, the Intel based machines are truly a 'best of both worlds' platform.

Though I do wish Apple kept using PowerPC based chips for some products. The POWER6 chip from IBM is the de facto fastest processor on the planet no matter how you cut it. IBM has those chips up to 4.7 Ghz on air cooling. The POWER6 is faster than the G5 chips per Ghz due to things like SMT, integrated memory controller and a fine tuned hybrid in-order/out-of-order design. A POWER6 based Mac would be a godly Photoshop machine or a great rack mount server platform for Apple. Additionally, Apple could use PowerPC chips form PA-Semi for devices like the AppleTV.

I believe 15 years ago PC's were running Windows 3.1 which automatically made Macs inherently better for any GUI application. Windows 3.1 really, really, really sucked. Word 5.1a for Mac was out during this time frame is often considered the best version of MS Word ever released (I really like Word 5.1a for Mac, it is actually a good program). Well for gaming on the PC's, everything was mainly DOS based as Windows 3.1 at the time was just a wrapper over DOS anyway.

[E6600]

I really want them to bring the PowerPC back, but then again Intel CPUs helped accelerate Apple's recent growth. What if.. what if IBM or anyone bring a PowerPC/x86 combo?
When running Mac OS X you benefit from both, when running Windows, the PowerPC core will be idling, or they can use it for graphics acceleration when on Windows. Now I think of it make OS X run on the PowerPC and the x86 core will be used for graphics acceleration.
Then again it is just a stupid idea that probably wont work

[Power666]

IBM had a chip like that that never was released about 10 years ago - the PowerPC 615 project.

[E6600]

Originally Posted by Power666

IBM had a chip like that that never was released about 10 years ago - the PowerPC 615 project.

you only mentioned it a couple hundred times

IBM should really consider teaming up with AMD, if they can't do it on their on, and start making POWER/AMD64 cores.

[superslug]

running risc and cisc on the same processor?

you are probably right and 15 years ago a mac was still a good choice but it had started its downward slide.

I think that now macs have been a good product since going x86 and osx except as a gaming platoform. I don't think mac could afford to compete with the x86 architecture unless it gets close to a parity of market with windows. It doesn't have the economy of scale.

[Power666]

Originally Posted by E6600

IBM should really consider teaming up with AMD, if they can't do it on their on, and start making POWER/AMD64 cores.

There is a rumor that IBM and AMD are going to offer products using the same socket on a motherboard. For low-end POWER systems, it makes total sense but not on their true high end gear (the systems that have 128 cores in them nowadays).

Originally Posted by superslug

running risc and cisc on the same processor?

This is sort of done already today. While the x86 instruction set is CISC by design, modern chips from AMD and Intel both abstract the ISA from the actual execution core. They decode the x86 instructions into a more efficient ISA unqiue to the internal works of the chip. Currently no modern x86 chip allows programs by-pass the decode and compile pre-decoded applications. (Though this may change with the advent of hybrid CPU-GPU's.)

Originally Posted by superslug

I think that now macs have been a good product since going x86 and osx except as a gaming platoform. I don't think mac could afford to compete with the x86 architecture unless it gets close to a parity of market with windows. It doesn't have the economy of scale.

The markets where PowerPC would be superior wouldn't have gaming as a concern. Mainly rackmount server stuff.

[superslug]

those 2 comments were not meant to be related really.

What I was saying that in order for it to be worthwhile for mac to ressurect the powerPC as a consumer product they would need to really up their market share. They fell behind intel and amd because research per chip sold to improve their cpu's was higher then their competitors so they couldn't spend as much.

does apple have a presence in servers?

This is sort of done already today. While the x86 instruction set is CISC by design, modern chips from AMD and Intel both abstract the ISA from the actual execution core. They decode the x86 instructions into a more efficient ISA unqiue to the internal works of the chip. Currently no modern x86 chip allows programs by-pass the decode and compile pre-decoded applications. (Though this may change with the advent of hybrid CPU-GPU's.)

Interesting, kinda shows that the apple risc way of doing things was better they just lost on marketing.

[E6600]

does apple have a presence in servers?

Virginia Tech has a super computer built out of Apple Xserves.
Apple - Xserve

[Power666]

Originally Posted by superslug

those 2 comments were not meant to be related really.

What I was saying that in order for it to be worthwhile for mac to ressurect the powerPC as a consumer product they would need to really up their market share. They fell behind intel and amd because research per chip sold to improve their cpu's was higher then their competitors so they couldn't spend as much.

Not necessarily. The PowerPC line has some very impressive mobile and embedded chips. Devices like the AppleTV could use PowerPC based chips and it'd make no difference to the product.

You're also falling for a misconception on the PowerPC line versus x86 chips. There are actually more PowerPC chips sold than x86 CPU's due to the embedded market. Things like DVD players, game consoles (all of three current ones use PowerPC based chips), automotive systems, etc. can all use PowerPC based chips. Another popular embedded CPU is the ARM line which also outsells the x86 family. ARM based chips are found in the iPhone, the Nintendo DS, cell phones, DVD players, and pretty much everything else embedded PowerPC chips can be found in.

Originally Posted by superslug

does apple have a presence in servers?

They always have to a degree. In the late 80's and early 90's various Mac Quadra's were rebranded as the Work Group Server line and had the option of the Unix based A/UX operating system. That's right, OS X isn't Apple's first attempt at a Unix based OS. In fact, A/UX pretty much mirrors alot of the functionality of OS X but was released 10 years before.

The Network Server line was born due to Apple's change form the 68000 series of CPU's to the PowerPC line in the mid 90's. A/UX did not run on PowerPC based chips so AIX was licensed from IBM. There were two Network Server models released. These used standard Apple motherboards for the time but came in a different case with a different processor card and ROM chip than regular Macs. There was a 3rd rack mount based Network Server planned but was never released (though I know a guy who has a prototype).

Mac OS X Server did appear before the regular version of OS X. The server centric version ran on standard G4 based hardware at the time though. Apple did eventually create the Xserve line which originally had two G4 processors. in a 1U rack mount enclosure. The 1U Xserve line still exists and was updated to G5 processor and now Intel based chips. The Xserves are rather popular machines now considering their design and that they can operating systems besides OS X and Linux.

For awhile Apple had a system called the Xserve RAID which was a 3U rack mount system that had dedicated RAID hardware and more expansion. The Xserve RAID started out with G5 chips and an Intel based model eventually appeared. Earlier this year Apple killed the Xserve RAID line in favor of other storage technologies.

Originally Posted by superslug

Interesting, kinda shows that the apple risc way of doing things was better they just lost on marketing.

RISC is not an Apple idea. There are still several RISC vendors around though they've been shrinking due to various trends in the market. Or in the case of the legendary Alpha line, killed purely based upon corporate politics. If the Alpha was still around, it'd be competing for the crown of fastest CPU on the planet.

[superslug]

I know risc wasn't apples idea but it was a concept that they went with when the processors split down the risc/cisc lines. But the more complicated instruction set utilising a smaller more efficient instruction set sounds a lot like the concept that was risc in the first place.

The embedded market won't push the tech in the direction needed to compete on the desktop market. The priority for an embedded system is power (and heat) and footprint. I still think that they would need to sell more in market where the return for researching performance was higher.