Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What proceesor do you prefer?
- Thread starter imacintel
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
but the ppc processors are so... old. I only use laptops, so I picked intel. I was waiting years for apple to release a G5 powerbook. I searched the net weekly for any updates as to when the G5 powerbooks would come out. Nothing. The G4 chip is like 8 years old. I'm surprised people even bought the G4 powebooks recently. They are sooo slow compared to what's going on now. Intel is what we have all been waiting for in the notebook category. Now I'm just waiting for merom.
If I used desktops, I'd hurry up and buy a quad 2.5ghz PPC G5 tower and have it last me 10 years because it's so powerful. In the desktop realm, ppc takes the cake. For portability, it's got to be intel.
If I used desktops, I'd hurry up and buy a quad 2.5ghz PPC G5 tower and have it last me 10 years because it's so powerful. In the desktop realm, ppc takes the cake. For portability, it's got to be intel.
I voted Intel, because in general it is better, but I'm gonna give you the whole story.
PPC is in general an extremely well designed processor. Invulnerable to divide-by-0 errors, which Intels are not. They have always been ahead of any other technology, until the G4. I hate the G4. Really slow FSB's. It was slower than Pentium 4, and that's why PowerMac G4 sucked. I really liked G5. Except the heat it porduced, the FSB's were extreme. The Quad has 2.5 GHz FSB
. The two problems with PPC were: G4 was too slow for laptops, but because G5 was such an insane powercuming heatproducing dude, they couldn't fit it into neither PowerBooks or iBooks.
Intel was the only answer. The Yonah was far superior to the G4. 4x faster at equal clockspeeds, 5 times the FSB speeds (167 MHz vs. 667 MHz), lowerpower consumption and lower price. It would also be able to replace single core G5's, but wasn't fast enough for Dual or Quad G5's. This is why Apple waits until Conroe/Woodcrest to announce the Intel PowerMac. I liked every single thing about PPC's, except G4's slowiness, and G5's bigginess and heatiness. And the fact that Intels are better in general.
PPC is in general an extremely well designed processor. Invulnerable to divide-by-0 errors, which Intels are not. They have always been ahead of any other technology, until the G4. I hate the G4. Really slow FSB's. It was slower than Pentium 4, and that's why PowerMac G4 sucked. I really liked G5. Except the heat it porduced, the FSB's were extreme. The Quad has 2.5 GHz FSB
. The two problems with PPC were: G4 was too slow for laptops, but because G5 was such an insane powercuming heatproducing dude, they couldn't fit it into neither PowerBooks or iBooks.Intel was the only answer. The Yonah was far superior to the G4. 4x faster at equal clockspeeds, 5 times the FSB speeds (167 MHz vs. 667 MHz), lowerpower consumption and lower price. It would also be able to replace single core G5's, but wasn't fast enough for Dual or Quad G5's. This is why Apple waits until Conroe/Woodcrest to announce the Intel PowerMac. I liked every single thing about PPC's, except G4's slowiness, and G5's bigginess and heatiness. And the fact that Intels are better in general.
This G4 chip has treated me very well and I don't expect to get rid of it till a couple of years. Long live my computer. On the other hand, I'm excited at the possibilities that intel can give macbook pro's in the coming years
I don't know what the OP's talking about... lower power consumption?
Then why does my brother's Last Gen G4 iBook's battery last 5 hours and my MacBook's battery only last about 3- 3.25 hours? I doubt they put a smaller battery(less mAh) in the macbook.
Also, the heat is an issue. I don't know if iMac users notice it or not, but it seems to me that it's gotta change.
Then why does my brother's Last Gen G4 iBook's battery last 5 hours and my MacBook's battery only last about 3- 3.25 hours? I doubt they put a smaller battery(less mAh) in the macbook.
Also, the heat is an issue. I don't know if iMac users notice it or not, but it seems to me that it's gotta change.
That would make developers have to choose if they wanted to optimize for Altivec or SSE. I think many developers would choose neither or just one. Either way with time most developers would choose a side to optimize for. I think that would just be asking for trouble.DavidLeblond said:
iGary said:Bunch of freaking turncoats.
A year ago, most of you would have been like "Intel suxxorz."
then again think about the kind of shape intel was in a year ago...
EDIT: well, ill give them that a year ago they obviously had good ideas coming (or else apple wouldnt have made the switch) but when it came to their actual line up 12 months back, AMD was walking all over them.