@TAPriceCTR Apple moved to Intel because IBM was focusing on mainframe level computing with the Power series. The G5, while an astonishing CPU, was designed for servers and massive super computer clusters, rather than consumer machines, and as such used a LOT of power and were VERY hot. This is pretty obvious when you open up a PowerMac G5, it's almost entirely cooling. The last generations of it used water cooling. They also wanted mobile CPU's, which the G5 was most certainly not, Intel had em
@TAPriceCTR If Intel chips are so superior, why do all game consoles this gen use PowerPC? Apple made the switch because PowerPC chips consume too much power and run too hot for mobile computing. Intel is way ahead when it comes to efficiency.
Apple switched to Intel because of the higher performance per watt and compatibility with software. Back then, Intel SUCKED. Intel is far better now. Plus IBM and Motorola couldn't push PowerPC past 3.0 GHZ clock speed. PowerPC architecture still sees use in the PS3 processor and its derivative, the Xbox 360 processor.
@PureFalcon1: The fun part is that all three major consoles use CPUs that conform to the POWER instruction set - The Wii's "Broadway", the XBox's "Xenon", and of course the Cell. I bet someone uses the PowerCellX8(whatever it's called) or something like that in the next generation of consoles.
One of the reasons apple switched from the PowerPC to the Intel chips was because of the power per watt ratio. Intel chips can operate faster with much less energy requirements. Less energy = less heat. This was a no brainer for apple because at the time Steve Jobs promised Laptops with desktop speeds and they couldnt deliver it. Its all in the keynote available on iTunes music store under apple keynotes.
Well, the G3 wasn't really any faster per clock than the Pentium II or III. The whole "twice as fast" nonsense was based on a compiler mismatch ran by Byte magazine where the PC Benchmark was run off an old executable meant for an i386 and the G3's executible was freshly created by a more modern compiler. Apple knew this, and decided to misslead people anyway. PC Magazine later recompiled the exe for the PC with Visual Studio 6 and found performance quite close.
@johnsonfromwisconsin So sure? I have both a 450 PIII system and a 400 G3 and the G3 browses the internet MUCH faster. Both with the operating system they came with, both running netscape 7. also, both with 512mb ram.
Also your post leads to the discussion of 2 different architecture's. RISC vs CISC. A simple google search will give you a run down of the basic differences. Power PC being RISC and Intel being CISC.
Not really false. The G3 really was much faster than the Pentium II. Apple switched over many years later when the performance-per-watt rating of intel's processors took off. Apple simply prioritized.
When IBM pc were getting big and popular back then, they used intel chips. But they wanted another suppilier- incase intel had a shortage or problem. So they found a small company called AMD. They payed them to make replicas of every intel chip, therefore amd had all the blueprints of intel acratecture. As the compotition got higher, and IBM wasn't big, they had a law suite of what happen to the alliance. I'm gonna run out but search it in google
back then it was way better to buy the parts and build your own system (or go to a place that custom made them for you), but now, you can get HPs (or whatever you like) with all the same parts that is just as good. Just add a graphics card and you're good to go.
how do you get past the issues of all the locked down shit that hp and other company's put on their motherboards? The answer is you cant... How do you plan on overclocking your manufacturer computer? The answer is you cant.... Back then buying your own parts was the way to go and it still is today. Not to mention hp and other company's always have and always will have their stuff made by the lowest bidder.
Haha, thanks for the upload klmay65, though you must ask, if the powerpc processors were so amazing, why did they switch over to the very CPU brand that they were dissing..
@ShrikeA14 : PowerPC was faster. Now as speeds have gone high the Heat is something of challenge. Intel could achieve the chips with low power consumption.
Watch youtube " Apple WWDC 2005-The Intel Switch Revealed "
PowerPC was slower than Opteron, so that wasn't an excuse.
I think the major problem was that IBM considered them a demanding, pennypinching, low margin, low volume customer that was stealing performance silicon from the mainframe business, and became more interested in designing consoles. The faster G5 didn't happen because no one at IBM was interested in making it happen and they were hoping Apple would just shrivel up and die.
im sorry but its correct, read on the subject. its 100% correct. I found the info on a c+ book back in computer arc class. Not wikipedia. yes it has something to do with the x86arc as well.
ps. wikipedia says "Since the 1980s, Microsoft and Intel have been dominating much of the personal computer market with the Wintel platform". under the subject what is "pc" comes out PC and MAC . PC with intel making wintel not mac and intel .till 05 intel began to share there tech in mac due to microsoft laying a hand to AMD.
so to correct you in every way, let me say that amd has a now alliance with microsoft via x86 yes thats correct but its because of this alliance that intel allied with apple simple as that. sorta of a fuck you, and F you right back!! VIVA WINAMD! lol
The PPC chips did calculate faster than the old P2s and P3s, they had lower clock speeds, yes, but they actually performed faster. And Apple wasn't the only company behind the PowerPC chip. They were made by Motorola, IBM and Apple. Apple switched to Intel chips when Core came out, because IBM and Motorola were taking the PowerPC project in one direction that Apple didn't think was working. Its an interesting thing, the PPC to Intel transition. People had very mixed opinions about it.
That pretty much is the story as IBM did not wish to produce a low volt G5.
Though some offerings by Freescale such as the e600 would have completely beaten Yonah and Conroe in performance per watt.
But the e series chips did not fully comply with the 64 bit Power ISA specification.
There also was the need to dedicate engineering teams to the iphone project and a switch the X86 allowed many mac engineers to be switch to the new project.
Moving to X86 allowed logic board design to be offloaded to Intel and added the ability to run windows.
I kinda wish they kept Open Firmware vs going to EFI though this is likely due to outsourcing most logic board design to Intel. X86 also has allowed it to be very easy to make a hackintosh but it would have been nice to see a Power 6 or Cell based Macintosh as such a machine truly would be the fastest personal computer on the market.
@HistoryMac: And then, Intel brought out the Pentium 4s, which were even higher clocked than the P3s, but due to radically different architecture, ended up generally slower for some time. Fortunately, by the switch, Intel had brought back the major bits of the Pentium Pro architecture, of which the Pentium M/Core/Core2/iCore (How convenient) are distant descendants of.
Unfortunately, it means you're not likely to see Macs faster than PCs these days.
@HistoryMac You know I just wanted to point out that this is one of the best comments i've ever seen on an apple video. Not only does it show correct mac knowledge, but it shows an understanding that clock speed is not everything by a long shot. Fair play
well Intel is pretty different then what is now. I don't remember the correct terminology but Intel now uses a hybrid chip instead of just a closed processing chip whereas Power PC's used an open processing chip that allowed it to process more at lower speeds. so even if the Pentium II ran at 500 Mhz. The 233 mhz G3 would run considerably faster. So now that intel has made a switch in their processor design. Apple can now use intel. This isnt 100 percent correct. So please correct me if Im wrong
You're wrong - what your thinking about is cisc vs. risc. Intel P2 and up (including the new P4's Core 2 etc) decode cisc instructions into risc86 - so you get all the benefit of of cisc architecture with the benefiet of risc architecture, with none of the downsides of risc architecture (lots of ram/cache required, lots of instructions to complete simple ops etc). RISC processors like the G3 may have been faster at very specific operations, but things like photo processing isn't one of them.
It's too bad for the price of those dual G5s I could put together two PCs. And too bad I can't put a Mac together very easily from spare parts from lots of different Macs... oh wait.. I can now, because a Mac is a PC now.
What apple probably should have done was split the line with the high end staying PPC and low end being based off Core 2 and AMD athlon 64.
They also should have stuck with open firmware vs EFI why fix something that was not broken.
They should have never used intel's graphics solution and stayed with nvidia and ATI graphics on all machines as the first gen macbooks were road apples they couldn't even play 1080p with out skipping while a $700 acer can do it no trouble.
My first gen mac mini (read: intel integrated gfx) can play 1080p video without any hiccups.. as long as nothing intense is going on in the background
Apple wanted intel because PowerPC was not going fast enough for Apple, and then they switch to intel, keep in mind though, Apple could always change chips again for some reason, not saying the PowerPC, but could be something else.
IBM did have problems with heat so Apple could not use the next generation in powerbooks and now MacBooks. Also IBM put a hell of ressources in developing the CellCPU for Sony PS3. But maybe Apple will come back with it's own version, as they bought recently a small manufactor of PPC-similar CPU's. Mabye for the next generation of iPhones and iPods at least.... we will see what 2010 will bring
Two reasons, the duel core technology just came out at that time, making them MUCH faster than any other processor out there at the time. As well, it was found to be impossible to get a G5 processor into a laptop without massive heat problems. Intel simply made a better chip, and Apple jumped on it.
Most likely cost and IBM's refusing to make a notebook version of the G5.
Though the irony is the they could have used the freescale e600 processors which were a dual core G4 running at 2GHz and did out perform the Core 1 series which apple shipped in the first X86 macs.
Core did not catch up to the G5 until later Core 2s and Power 6 is still faster then even Core i7.
Now you can make you own mac so X86 is not completely bad though the first macbooks were road apples with their GMA graphics.
PPC is still alive and well. They're used in servers and workstations and are very powerful. The current line is the POWER6, they've got them up to 5GHZ quite easily, but it's not the MHz that makes them fast, it's threading, and PPC CPU's can crunch more numbers in less time thus requiring fewer cycles, and push the processes down several pipes instead of just one (or however many cores you have). A quad i7 only has 8 threads, many RISC CPUs have 64 per core. The software is what makes the diff
but now, mac and pc are getting close to each other(not the same though) both are fairly stable at some degree while crash for good at some degree. one has something the other doesn't have while luck of some abilities that the other has. extremists from both suck just about the same as well.
'A mac equivalent to a pc results in a much higher price. Unless said mac is a laptop.'
You prefer cheaper PCs because you're using loads of pirates & bootleg stuff, bozo. MS Windows won't give you warranty on your hardwares and the hardware vendors doesn't guarantee 100% compatibility with your softwares & games. That's why it's cheaper because it's simply PLUG 'n' PRAY.
well, twice expensive as well, even though some may claim otherwise, "no, macs are twice less expensive and it runs twice fast than PC." the comparison i got when i was in high school is, a $3000 Mac G3 333 beats an $1000 PC P3 333... yeah, i'm sure your bmw 328 beats my corona. if you spend the same amount of a mac on a pc, you get a workstation class pc(two cpus, more ram).
The intel core due are probably better that the ppc and thats why they switched. Also cause IBM didn't deliver on alot of promises they had for Apple and at that time the core due was coming out
if ppc was so much better why did apple say (and I quote from steve jobs) "With the new intel chips, we're seeing results of almost 4-5 times the performance over our old ppc chips" It wouldn't make sense for a company like apple to switch to intel if they honestly believed that ppc was "faster and cheaper and more reliable".
Because the intel core 2 due Chips are. The reason for the switch is because at the time that the core 2 dues came out IBM was making promises to apple but were not delivering So apple had to switch to intel. But yeah the intel core 2 due chips are faster. Since IMB Didn't deliver we dont know what they had to go had on with the core due.
Well not the pentium PPC smoked them and right now we won't know what IBM would have had for the core due but i guess we wont know sine apple is using intel now.
I never had a ppc mac i have an intel mac so i dont know all the The G4 chips they had but they probably had something to compete with it. Like i said the pipelines was what hurt them. But right now the intel core dues are better than the PPC. I dont know what IBM would have come out with.
Yea my macbook has a 2.2GHz C2D and 2GB of RAM, it's speedy but the gma950 is SUCH a bottleneck, I feel like my computer could do so much more graphic demanding tasks like photoshop and FCE if it didn't have a POS GPU, but to get a mac with at least a semi decent gpu I'd have to cross the price jump from $1k to $2k for a MBP, apple needs a good mid laptop
thats true cause the have the macbook and then they jump to the macbook pro which is price but worth it. they need something in between but they are bringing out new mac book and mac book pros in september so lets see how they are.
What pissed me off is tat i have the imac 2.4 which you could get in stores and the 2.8 you had to oder online and 3 months later the they bring out the 3.0 and start selling the 2.8 at stores for the price i bought mines for. I should have waited 3 more months and gotten a 2.8 for $1,799 same price i paid for mines but apple never let us know anything until the day it was released
Yea that's why I never buy anything from apple if it lacks the tiniest of feature I might want, because in a couple months they'll have a new one out that most likely will have it. Take the iPhone for instance, I wanted it to be faster, so I just waited. But it still isn't as light weight and as small as I want it, so I'll keep waiting. Apple won't get any of my money pulling this shit
Yea the macbook pro is so worth the money, great machine. But I just want a middle of the range computer and apple doesn't have anything like that. THAT (if you ask me) is the main reason why apple fails compared to PC (market share wise). Think about it, no one wants a computer that has such a terrible bottleneck forcing it to be placed in the low end range for $1k bucks, but they don't need or want to pay for the macbook pro. They need middle!
Intel was shit at the time. The pentium 2 was a terrible chip, it was slow, hot, not power efficient, and expensive, it was quite a feat for a chip to suck so bad. PPC raped its ass on a daily basis, and still does today. IBM's PPC chips kill Intel in every way shape and form.
They never dropped PPC. PPC is alive and well. IBM have just built the roadrunner, the fastest computer in the world, made primarily of PPC chips and a few opterons.
Because back when this advert was made intel did suck. Apples $1000 iMac was faster than than a $4000 Intel, and people say macs are expensive.
IBM chips today are still faster but those chips never went into the ppc macs because they require cooling like the size of a small car lol.
And the mhz myth is totally true. For instance a 1.6ghz Core 2 Duo is faster than a 3.6ghz Pentium 4. Same with PPC, a 867mhz G4 was faster than a 1.7ghz Intel.
... wow you're an idiot about the MHz myth. Of COURSE a c2d 1.6 is faster than a p4 3.6. Because a c2d has TWO cores. 1.6x2=3.2 and the combined FSB and L2 make the c2d faster. But if you honestly believe that an 867MHz g4 is faster than a 1.7 intel, you're an idiot. Stop believing everything steve jobs tells you. They ALWAYS lie. Look at MS word, Apple said all this stuff about how it sucks, then when they get to use it, somehow it's magically the best. You don't see the pattern?
Macs have Microsoft Office now as part of a deal with Microsoft so they didn't get dragged through the courts for infringing on copyright and patents owned by Apple. They settled it without resorting to suing, which is admirable you must admit. Also you may want to look at multithreading and RICS vs CISC CPU's, which is what a PPC and x86 is respectively. They work differently. RISC gets more done in less cycles so a lower clock speed can indeed be "faster" then the Intel.
So yeah if your talking on a consumer level, Intels are better because there cheaper and they don't require that much cooling. But PPC is the fastest in the world, make no mistake.
As I said earlier, IBM have just built the roadrunner, the fastest super computer in the world, built primarily on PPC chips.
I think SJobs wasn't working for them durring this time
1993ABN 1 month ago
@1993ABN He was; this was 1997.
Morality124 1 month ago
nowadays imac uses intel =.=
plzdonhack 3 months ago
I <3 Mac
vikings11091 3 months ago
That is one big ass snail
ghizzywhizzy 4 months ago
Pff! Not anymore!
zip90028 4 months ago
they were twice as fast as a snail!!!
like what??
A TURTLE??!!
ClaudioSL619 5 months ago 15
Como siempre, mac no sabe hacer un comercial sin meterse con la competencia.
donalvaro500 7 months ago
but Athlon was faster then both...xD
TheXGgamer 7 months ago
They were TWICE AS FAST AS A SNAIL?!?!?!?!?!
Spaghettitron 7 months ago 8
intel paid Apple
StevensiTX 7 months ago
Its funny because the Apple didn't move at all.
00samee00 8 months ago
thats funny cause now all mac have intel processors
CruelFanWoW 9 months ago
apple shit
INTEL CORE I/ EXTRME FOR THE WIN!
marcosgt5 9 months ago
@marcosgt5 You know that apple computers uses intel processors?
vajksziget7a 7 months ago
@vajksziget7a no :( sorry
marcosgt5 7 months ago
@marcosgt5 Now you know...Because all macs use intel since 2006.
vajksziget7a 7 months ago
you know that Apple uses Intel-Hardware?
henrymatthes 9 months ago
hmm, so why convert to PC chips if your hardware is so superior?
I am still running my pentium 4 and aside from modern games and the live video effects for my webcam it runs great.
TAPriceCTR 1 year ago
@TAPriceCTR Apple moved to Intel because IBM was focusing on mainframe level computing with the Power series. The G5, while an astonishing CPU, was designed for servers and massive super computer clusters, rather than consumer machines, and as such used a LOT of power and were VERY hot. This is pretty obvious when you open up a PowerMac G5, it's almost entirely cooling. The last generations of it used water cooling. They also wanted mobile CPU's, which the G5 was most certainly not, Intel had em
TalesOfWar 11 months ago 2
@TAPriceCTR If Intel chips are so superior, why do all game consoles this gen use PowerPC? Apple made the switch because PowerPC chips consume too much power and run too hot for mobile computing. Intel is way ahead when it comes to efficiency.
NerdInHisShoe 11 months ago
@NerdInHisShoe So true the heat issue is partialy (mostly) responsible for RRoD On 360 and YLoD (Yellow light of Death) on PS3.
IRONnTiTAN 10 months ago
The Core Duo processors were derived from the Pentium M processor. The Pentium M was derived from the Pentium III. You see where this is going. ;)
her209 1 year ago
SNAIL IS SLOW MAD INDEED
gytax01 1 year ago
if someone seen you that that computer as you main computer you would be laughed at... lol
girlstorm09 1 year ago
twice the speed of a snail no thanks
19limemil94 1 year ago 3
What next? windows in mac... ? macdows
Warrantti 1 year ago
@Warrantti Its called Mac Fusion. Look it up.
her209 1 year ago
Twice as fast is still a snail speed :>
51m50n 1 year ago
Poor Snail :(
TheToploaderwasher 1 year ago
Ironic how Apple uses Intel now.
leder678 1 year ago 3
Look at intel now BITCHES
CJCFilms22 1 year ago
Aplle ALWAYS have to make other companies down :-/
marsling12 1 year ago
Haha, i wish windows did this to day, and in the end it would be:
....is almost 14 times as fast.
pinkpuppyball 1 year ago
its funny now cuz mac uses intel processors now
kanistas 1 year ago
todays snailis faster than todays macs
MrErjavec 1 year ago
now its the other way around
toberichmoe 1 year ago
apple sucks ass can't they make one commercial that is not offensive
WatchmenDrManhattan 1 year ago
That must be one massive snail to be larger than a pentium 2.
Nvidiaguides 1 year ago 2
things change
kwaig0n 1 year ago
Yea .. well I can overclock the heck out of that P2, can you overclock your G3?
danwat1234 1 year ago
@danwat1234 why do you hate apple
bodyboarder3452 1 year ago
jayy snail cool :D
DJHoerli 1 year ago
Quite sure, actually.
johnsonfromwisconsin 1 year ago
Apple switched to Intel because of the higher performance per watt and compatibility with software. Back then, Intel SUCKED. Intel is far better now. Plus IBM and Motorola couldn't push PowerPC past 3.0 GHZ clock speed. PowerPC architecture still sees use in the PS3 processor and its derivative, the Xbox 360 processor.
PureFalcon1 1 year ago
@PureFalcon1: The fun part is that all three major consoles use CPUs that conform to the POWER instruction set - The Wii's "Broadway", the XBox's "Xenon", and of course the Cell. I bet someone uses the PowerCellX8(whatever it's called) or something like that in the next generation of consoles.
InvisibleSandwichTM 1 year ago
I remember editing video on a 266 pentium II, and a PPC G3 233, twice as fast my ass!
SeeSp0tRun 1 year ago
One of the reasons apple switched from the PowerPC to the Intel chips was because of the power per watt ratio. Intel chips can operate faster with much less energy requirements. Less energy = less heat. This was a no brainer for apple because at the time Steve Jobs promised Laptops with desktop speeds and they couldnt deliver it. Its all in the keynote available on iTunes music store under apple keynotes.
hustlr23 1 year ago
Oops, i meant performance per watt ratio.
hustlr23 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
fuck mac windows rules!!!!!!
jarnfan1000 2 years ago
Well, the G3 wasn't really any faster per clock than the Pentium II or III. The whole "twice as fast" nonsense was based on a compiler mismatch ran by Byte magazine where the PC Benchmark was run off an old executable meant for an i386 and the G3's executible was freshly created by a more modern compiler. Apple knew this, and decided to misslead people anyway. PC Magazine later recompiled the exe for the PC with Visual Studio 6 and found performance quite close.
johnsonfromwisconsin 2 years ago
@johnsonfromwisconsin So sure? I have both a 450 PIII system and a 400 G3 and the G3 browses the internet MUCH faster. Both with the operating system they came with, both running netscape 7. also, both with 512mb ram.
richardmaudsley77 2 years ago
Also your post leads to the discussion of 2 different architecture's. RISC vs CISC. A simple google search will give you a run down of the basic differences. Power PC being RISC and Intel being CISC.
hustlr23 1 year ago
so its twice as fast as a snail?then it would be a turtle...
TacoSlave1869 2 years ago 4
False advertising. very apple style. they just ate their words. now they are using intel. it fooled a lot of people up to now....
epgomez 2 years ago
Not really false. The G3 really was much faster than the Pentium II. Apple switched over many years later when the performance-per-watt rating of intel's processors took off. Apple simply prioritized.
AdvaitSarkar 2 years ago 3
@epgomez
My God...
PowerPC twice as fast intel...
BUT PowerPc SO HOT and apple go to intel (sorry for my English)
PowerPc G5 use water (water?) cooler
REMR001 2 years ago
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa i bet they dont say that anymore....
liberalkiller 2 years ago
When IBM pc were getting big and popular back then, they used intel chips. But they wanted another suppilier- incase intel had a shortage or problem. So they found a small company called AMD. They payed them to make replicas of every intel chip, therefore amd had all the blueprints of intel acratecture. As the compotition got higher, and IBM wasn't big, they had a law suite of what happen to the alliance. I'm gonna run out but search it in google
mariomanmitch 2 years ago
haha pentium 2 damn that was so long ago
LuxueuxLin 2 years ago
Do you think i should upgrade then?
archercode 2 years ago
It's up to you. :)
LuxueuxLin 2 years ago
back then could you build better spec pc's or you had to go buy them?
THeAppleFanKiD1912 2 years ago
back then it was way better to buy the parts and build your own system (or go to a place that custom made them for you), but now, you can get HPs (or whatever you like) with all the same parts that is just as good. Just add a graphics card and you're good to go.
guitarmaxchris 2 years ago
how do you get past the issues of all the locked down shit that hp and other company's put on their motherboards? The answer is you cant... How do you plan on overclocking your manufacturer computer? The answer is you cant.... Back then buying your own parts was the way to go and it still is today. Not to mention hp and other company's always have and always will have their stuff made by the lowest bidder.
frosty9595 2 years ago
Haha, thanks for the upload klmay65, though you must ask, if the powerpc processors were so amazing, why did they switch over to the very CPU brand that they were dissing..
ShrikeA14 2 years ago
Search for steve jobs announces intel switch. He'll tell you why.
appleinfl 2 years ago 2
Because the powerPC fell behind Intel's Core architecture.
khaninator 2 years ago
@ShrikeA14 : PowerPC was faster. Now as speeds have gone high the Heat is something of challenge. Intel could achieve the chips with low power consumption.
Watch youtube " Apple WWDC 2005-The Intel Switch Revealed "
rmbgi 2 years ago
PowerPC was slower than Opteron, so that wasn't an excuse.
I think the major problem was that IBM considered them a demanding, pennypinching, low margin, low volume customer that was stealing performance silicon from the mainframe business, and became more interested in designing consoles. The faster G5 didn't happen because no one at IBM was interested in making it happen and they were hoping Apple would just shrivel up and die.
I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.
ChrisInAStrangeLand 2 years ago
go snail you can do it!!
TheZRTECH 2 years ago 100
lol
nicolunacba 2 years ago
his name is Pentium Jr
smartass160000 2 years ago
@TheZRTECH to this very day he is still going. God bless it. Bravest little snail i have seen.
groobz101 1 year ago
@TheZRTECH tomorrow
ii2001 9 months ago
damn WinTel, if win would not mess around with amd, then Tel would have ignored apple and the fruit would be running there lame cpu's.
cmichael442 2 years ago
You're confused. Wintel refers to the combination of the Windows operating system with the x86 architecture, of which AMD has a licence to produce.
Microsoft has done nothing to mess around with AMD, AMD simply doesn't have the manufacturing scale to be competitive.
ChrisInAStrangeLand 2 years ago
im sorry but its correct, read on the subject. its 100% correct. I found the info on a c+ book back in computer arc class. Not wikipedia. yes it has something to do with the x86arc as well.
cmichael442 2 years ago
ps. wikipedia says "Since the 1980s, Microsoft and Intel have been dominating much of the personal computer market with the Wintel platform". under the subject what is "pc" comes out PC and MAC . PC with intel making wintel not mac and intel .till 05 intel began to share there tech in mac due to microsoft laying a hand to AMD.
cmichael442 2 years ago
so to correct you in every way, let me say that amd has a now alliance with microsoft via x86 yes thats correct but its because of this alliance that intel allied with apple simple as that. sorta of a fuck you, and F you right back!! VIVA WINAMD! lol
cmichael442 2 years ago
PII's are faster
aeg12p 2 years ago
i just think its funny that macs use intel chips now. funny how that goes full circle.
"lets be different and use our own chips"....."...oh wait they kinda suck, we should probably switch back now...."
way to think different
skifastpdx135 2 years ago 3
that hurts ouch! but it's true ...
nicolunacba 2 years ago
The PPC chips did calculate faster than the old P2s and P3s, they had lower clock speeds, yes, but they actually performed faster. And Apple wasn't the only company behind the PowerPC chip. They were made by Motorola, IBM and Apple. Apple switched to Intel chips when Core came out, because IBM and Motorola were taking the PowerPC project in one direction that Apple didn't think was working. Its an interesting thing, the PPC to Intel transition. People had very mixed opinions about it.
HistoryMac 2 years ago 34
@HistoryMac
That pretty much is the story as IBM did not wish to produce a low volt G5.
Though some offerings by Freescale such as the e600 would have completely beaten Yonah and Conroe in performance per watt.
But the e series chips did not fully comply with the 64 bit Power ISA specification.
There also was the need to dedicate engineering teams to the iphone project and a switch the X86 allowed many mac engineers to be switch to the new project.
Membrane556 1 year ago
Moving to X86 allowed logic board design to be offloaded to Intel and added the ability to run windows.
I kinda wish they kept Open Firmware vs going to EFI though this is likely due to outsourcing most logic board design to Intel. X86 also has allowed it to be very easy to make a hackintosh but it would have been nice to see a Power 6 or Cell based Macintosh as such a machine truly would be the fastest personal computer on the market.
Membrane556 1 year ago
@HistoryMac: And then, Intel brought out the Pentium 4s, which were even higher clocked than the P3s, but due to radically different architecture, ended up generally slower for some time. Fortunately, by the switch, Intel had brought back the major bits of the Pentium Pro architecture, of which the Pentium M/Core/Core2/iCore (How convenient) are distant descendants of.
Unfortunately, it means you're not likely to see Macs faster than PCs these days.
InvisibleSandwichTM 1 year ago
@HistoryMac It doesn't matter because the commercial is nice.
16mmDJ 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HistoryMac im all for it
irulethe70s 1 year ago
@HistoryMac I hate intel in mac!I still use PPC It could have been great if PPC went in the right direction!
Chris242tt 1 year ago
@HistoryMac (switch o Intel) It gave us Hackintosh!
itsdglad4 8 months ago
@HistoryMac You know I just wanted to point out that this is one of the best comments i've ever seen on an apple video. Not only does it show correct mac knowledge, but it shows an understanding that clock speed is not everything by a long shot. Fair play
pathammond 6 months ago
cool
Braden123135 2 years ago
i love the song in the end
julianixtheking 2 years ago
lol awe the snail has to carry that big chip
CJ881 2 years ago 2
What is the point???????????
NukeMeltdown 2 years ago
How ironic and hypocritical is it that Apple now uses intel processors?
supercoolsephirothis 2 years ago 5
PC's aren't so bad, it is Windows that sucks. I love OS X
murfreebear 2 years ago 3
well Intel is pretty different then what is now. I don't remember the correct terminology but Intel now uses a hybrid chip instead of just a closed processing chip whereas Power PC's used an open processing chip that allowed it to process more at lower speeds. so even if the Pentium II ran at 500 Mhz. The 233 mhz G3 would run considerably faster. So now that intel has made a switch in their processor design. Apple can now use intel. This isnt 100 percent correct. So please correct me if Im wrong
NerdySOB 2 years ago
You're wrong - what your thinking about is cisc vs. risc. Intel P2 and up (including the new P4's Core 2 etc) decode cisc instructions into risc86 - so you get all the benefit of of cisc architecture with the benefiet of risc architecture, with none of the downsides of risc architecture (lots of ram/cache required, lots of instructions to complete simple ops etc). RISC processors like the G3 may have been faster at very specific operations, but things like photo processing isn't one of them.
SkuldChan42 2 years ago 3
I'm sorry. I didn't have my facts exactly straight. Thanks for the correction.
NerdySOB 2 years ago
LOL focus in the current time line nerd LOL.
cookiee085 2 years ago
did they forget about AMD?
aaaaaFuck 2 years ago
oh poor little snail... apple have no pity to those animals... :D
bisasa 2 years ago 2
Really? I've made a lot of money with my old PowerPC G3 back in the day.
Oh, and it's cool that a dual 2.7 G5 can benchmark higher than most dual core systems..
juNKBroTHERs 2 years ago
It's too bad for the price of those dual G5s I could put together two PCs. And too bad I can't put a Mac together very easily from spare parts from lots of different Macs... oh wait.. I can now, because a Mac is a PC now.
Alimistar 2 years ago
What apple probably should have done was split the line with the high end staying PPC and low end being based off Core 2 and AMD athlon 64.
They also should have stuck with open firmware vs EFI why fix something that was not broken.
They should have never used intel's graphics solution and stayed with nvidia and ATI graphics on all machines as the first gen macbooks were road apples they couldn't even play 1080p with out skipping while a $700 acer can do it no trouble.
Membrane556 3 years ago 2
My first gen mac mini (read: intel integrated gfx) can play 1080p video without any hiccups.. as long as nothing intense is going on in the background
athl337 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Shove it up your ass Apple, now you suck up to Intel...LOL
assais 3 years ago
name of the song?
yesCL 3 years ago
PPC were the bomb back then and you still see alot of PPC's still running like the day they were built. BTW why did apple change to intel
RideRed264 3 years ago 3
Apple wanted intel because PowerPC was not going fast enough for Apple, and then they switch to intel, keep in mind though, Apple could always change chips again for some reason, not saying the PowerPC, but could be something else.
EuroCarfan00 3 years ago
IBM did have problems with heat so Apple could not use the next generation in powerbooks and now MacBooks. Also IBM put a hell of ressources in developing the CellCPU for Sony PS3. But maybe Apple will come back with it's own version, as they bought recently a small manufactor of PPC-similar CPU's. Mabye for the next generation of iPhones and iPods at least.... we will see what 2010 will bring
pinz1 3 years ago
Two reasons, the duel core technology just came out at that time, making them MUCH faster than any other processor out there at the time. As well, it was found to be impossible to get a G5 processor into a laptop without massive heat problems. Intel simply made a better chip, and Apple jumped on it.
Zenn3k 3 years ago
And the G5 took up FAR too much power so you would have to have it plugged in all the time and they took up FAR too much space.
maxsuperdudeisawesom 3 years ago
Most likely cost and IBM's refusing to make a notebook version of the G5.
Though the irony is the they could have used the freescale e600 processors which were a dual core G4 running at 2GHz and did out perform the Core 1 series which apple shipped in the first X86 macs.
Core did not catch up to the G5 until later Core 2s and Power 6 is still faster then even Core i7.
Now you can make you own mac so X86 is not completely bad though the first macbooks were road apples with their GMA graphics.
Membrane556 3 years ago
hahaha they have made fun of the intel and know they have replaced there processor with 1 lol hahaha
thejuc 3 years ago
PPC is still alive and well. They're used in servers and workstations and are very powerful. The current line is the POWER6, they've got them up to 5GHZ quite easily, but it's not the MHz that makes them fast, it's threading, and PPC CPU's can crunch more numbers in less time thus requiring fewer cycles, and push the processes down several pipes instead of just one (or however many cores you have). A quad i7 only has 8 threads, many RISC CPUs have 64 per core. The software is what makes the diff
TalesOfWar 3 years ago 2
how ironic...
evanllama18 3 years ago
wats the song they used for this called
MacintoshWizard 3 years ago
Can't argue that because IBM PPC processor
IS FASTER than PII at that time. Too bad IBM
only prefers to manufacture those for it's
own servers only so Apple can't just wait for
the Big Blues to drag 'em down. Plan & break
away fast. We will be looking at Mac Pros with
Nehalem's i7 from Intel next year.
rachaelteh 3 years ago
Guess Who is very proud to use Intel processors now ?!!
dodo309 3 years ago 2
apple was being mighty hypocritical here. 9 years later...
gojira931 3 years ago
at the time it was true, but intel has advanced alot
reallyred123 3 years ago
tHIS ONE OF THE FUNNIEST CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT I'VE EVER HEARD BECAUSE NOW ALL MACS HAVE SWITCHED TO INTELL PROCESSORS LOL!!!!
TheShreder757TdP 3 years ago
but now, mac and pc are getting close to each other(not the same though) both are fairly stable at some degree while crash for good at some degree. one has something the other doesn't have while luck of some abilities that the other has. extremists from both suck just about the same as well.
plumlove1995 3 years ago
A mac equivalent to a pc results in a much higher price. Unless said mac is a laptop.
chilly15bourassa 3 years ago
by chilly15bourassa
'A mac equivalent to a pc results in a much higher price. Unless said mac is a laptop.'
You prefer cheaper PCs because you're using loads of pirates & bootleg stuff, bozo. MS Windows won't give you warranty on your hardwares and the hardware vendors doesn't guarantee 100% compatibility with your softwares & games. That's why it's cheaper because it's simply PLUG 'n' PRAY.
rachaelteh 3 years ago
well, twice expensive as well, even though some may claim otherwise, "no, macs are twice less expensive and it runs twice fast than PC." the comparison i got when i was in high school is, a $3000 Mac G3 333 beats an $1000 PC P3 333... yeah, i'm sure your bmw 328 beats my corona. if you spend the same amount of a mac on a pc, you get a workstation class pc(two cpus, more ram).
plumlove1995 3 years ago
i got a g3 chip in my imac, it really is fast!
even to todays standards it is =D
igadgetmovies 3 years ago 2
My iMac G3 333 MHz 128 MB memmory is also super speedy.
Animalpalace 3 years ago
right? I have an old Blue&White g3 that runs OS X like a champ.
digitalpretzel 3 years ago
yeah but it's still shit compared to what we got now
julianbell90 3 years ago
Intel Core 2 Quad at 2.8 GHz.
Faster than the Celeron, cheaper than the Extreme, gotta love it.
CyberneticWarrior 3 years ago
Soooooo, if they said intel was so lame, why did they just admit that PPC is shit and intel rules? Hmmmm, sounds a bit like they don't have a clue.
SLKxMonsooN 3 years ago
The intel core due are probably better that the ppc and thats why they switched. Also cause IBM didn't deliver on alot of promises they had for Apple and at that time the core due was coming out
eddyr78 3 years ago
intel rapes ppc and amd
SLKxMonsooN 3 years ago
If you want to know more ho to the Mehahertz myth vedio and you wil see.
eddyr78 3 years ago
if ppc was so much better why did apple say (and I quote from steve jobs) "With the new intel chips, we're seeing results of almost 4-5 times the performance over our old ppc chips" It wouldn't make sense for a company like apple to switch to intel if they honestly believed that ppc was "faster and cheaper and more reliable".
SLKxMonsooN 3 years ago
Because the intel core 2 due Chips are. The reason for the switch is because at the time that the core 2 dues came out IBM was making promises to apple but were not delivering So apple had to switch to intel. But yeah the intel core 2 due chips are faster. Since IMB Didn't deliver we dont know what they had to go had on with the core due.
eddyr78 3 years ago
lolololololol excuses, excuses.
SLKxMonsooN 3 years ago
Its not excuses its the truth
eddyr78 3 years ago
What, that intel owns ppc? Yea, it is the truth
SLKxMonsooN 3 years ago
Well not the pentium PPC smoked them and right now we won't know what IBM would have had for the core due but i guess we wont know sine apple is using intel now.
eddyr78 3 years ago
Look, dude, are you trying to tell me that a 1.2GHz PPC POS will smoke my 2.4GHz Pentium 4?
SLKxMonsooN 3 years ago
Well im a 867MHZ was faster than a 1.7GHz pentium4 it probably is The pipe lines is what was hurting the pentiums
eddyr78 3 years ago
ah, well my p4 was made in 2003 and it wasn't even the best CPU. The best to date then I believe was a 3.4GHz Pentium 4, can a PPC compete with that?
SLKxMonsooN 3 years ago
I never had a ppc mac i have an intel mac so i dont know all the The G4 chips they had but they probably had something to compete with it. Like i said the pipelines was what hurt them. But right now the intel core dues are better than the PPC. I dont know what IBM would have come out with.
eddyr78 3 years ago
I like the intel macs, they rape face
SLKxMonsooN 3 years ago
Yeah they are nice thats what i have a core 2 due 2.4GHz
eddyr78 3 years ago
Yea my macbook has a 2.2GHz C2D and 2GB of RAM, it's speedy but the gma950 is SUCH a bottleneck, I feel like my computer could do so much more graphic demanding tasks like photoshop and FCE if it didn't have a POS GPU, but to get a mac with at least a semi decent gpu I'd have to cross the price jump from $1k to $2k for a MBP, apple needs a good mid laptop
SLKxMonsooN 3 years ago
thats true cause the have the macbook and then they jump to the macbook pro which is price but worth it. they need something in between but they are bringing out new mac book and mac book pros in september so lets see how they are.
eddyr78 3 years ago
What pissed me off is tat i have the imac 2.4 which you could get in stores and the 2.8 you had to oder online and 3 months later the they bring out the 3.0 and start selling the 2.8 at stores for the price i bought mines for. I should have waited 3 more months and gotten a 2.8 for $1,799 same price i paid for mines but apple never let us know anything until the day it was released
eddyr78 3 years ago
Yea that's why I never buy anything from apple if it lacks the tiniest of feature I might want, because in a couple months they'll have a new one out that most likely will have it. Take the iPhone for instance, I wanted it to be faster, so I just waited. But it still isn't as light weight and as small as I want it, so I'll keep waiting. Apple won't get any of my money pulling this shit
SLKxMonsooN 3 years ago
Yea the macbook pro is so worth the money, great machine. But I just want a middle of the range computer and apple doesn't have anything like that. THAT (if you ask me) is the main reason why apple fails compared to PC (market share wise). Think about it, no one wants a computer that has such a terrible bottleneck forcing it to be placed in the low end range for $1k bucks, but they don't need or want to pay for the macbook pro. They need middle!
SLKxMonsooN 3 years ago
Watch this video: Mehahertz myth you will see what im talking about.
eddyr78 3 years ago
Intel was shit at the time. The pentium 2 was a terrible chip, it was slow, hot, not power efficient, and expensive, it was quite a feat for a chip to suck so bad. PPC raped its ass on a daily basis, and still does today. IBM's PPC chips kill Intel in every way shape and form.
niceveritt 3 years ago 2
As far as I know IBM dropped their PPC business a long time ago. How would that possibly be able to compete with the newer Intel models?
BorkaBonum 3 years ago
They never dropped PPC. PPC is alive and well. IBM have just built the roadrunner, the fastest computer in the world, made primarily of PPC chips and a few opterons.
niceveritt 3 years ago
Th Xbox 360 is PPC.
niceveritt 3 years ago
lololol ok then. you can have your g5 I'll stick with my xeon quad.
Oh and if you honestly believe the MHz myth, you're an idiot, seriously.
If IBM PPC was so amazing, why does apple admit they suck compared to intel?
SLKxMonsooN 3 years ago
Because back when this advert was made intel did suck. Apples $1000 iMac was faster than than a $4000 Intel, and people say macs are expensive.
IBM chips today are still faster but those chips never went into the ppc macs because they require cooling like the size of a small car lol.
And the mhz myth is totally true. For instance a 1.6ghz Core 2 Duo is faster than a 3.6ghz Pentium 4. Same with PPC, a 867mhz G4 was faster than a 1.7ghz Intel.
niceveritt 3 years ago
... wow you're an idiot about the MHz myth. Of COURSE a c2d 1.6 is faster than a p4 3.6. Because a c2d has TWO cores. 1.6x2=3.2 and the combined FSB and L2 make the c2d faster. But if you honestly believe that an 867MHz g4 is faster than a 1.7 intel, you're an idiot. Stop believing everything steve jobs tells you. They ALWAYS lie. Look at MS word, Apple said all this stuff about how it sucks, then when they get to use it, somehow it's magically the best. You don't see the pattern?
SLKxMonsooN 3 years ago
Macs have Microsoft Office now as part of a deal with Microsoft so they didn't get dragged through the courts for infringing on copyright and patents owned by Apple. They settled it without resorting to suing, which is admirable you must admit. Also you may want to look at multithreading and RICS vs CISC CPU's, which is what a PPC and x86 is respectively. They work differently. RISC gets more done in less cycles so a lower clock speed can indeed be "faster" then the Intel.
TalesOfWar 3 years ago 2
So yeah if your talking on a consumer level, Intels are better because there cheaper and they don't require that much cooling. But PPC is the fastest in the world, make no mistake.
As I said earlier, IBM have just built the roadrunner, the fastest super computer in the world, built primarily on PPC chips.
niceveritt 3 years ago
anyone remeber the scene in pirates of silicon valley when steve jobs denies intel the contract. look who's laughing know
westnile456 3 years ago
lol people thaught a 800 mhz pc in 2001 was huge and 64k isdn and 512 mb ram, they got no idea!
samssoftwareuser 3 years ago
I do love thees old ads. I have a staples catalog from 93. "now with 100 mb hard drive"
DonHoraldo 3 years ago
and wile the lintel vs Powerpc race was going AMD was tailing both by very little and catching up. now its Intel or AMD. what dose that say.
DonHoraldo 3 years ago
that AMD rules
haxor98 3 years ago
correct
DonHoraldo 3 years ago 2