Both pipelines begin at 5:43. Short finishes at 6:29, long at 6:51.
So, short takes 46 seconds, long 68 seconds. Adjusted for clockspeed, the long would have taken about 34 seconds. That would have put the processor with a 100% speed advantage at a mere 35% performance advantage.
@Uejji but it you had the g4 overclocked than that would be a lot faster still and with 2 g4s it world be over 100% faster than the pentium 4 because how small the g4 was thats why pentium 4's sucked back then
Very good showing by apple, before their ethics went out the window and became rampant suing scumbags submitting shoddy manipulated evidence to legal courts.
I hated Pentiums so much, but I do love the later CPUs such as the Core 2 Duo and i5/i7. I wish PowerPC did evolve further. It would be friggin' awesome. However, I like the recent Apple generation better; something just doesn't hit home with these new intel Macs and new iDevices like the iPhone and iPad, despite having both along with a 15" Mid 2009 MacBook Pro. Maybe it's because I still have my G4 tower and iMac G3. :)
@peterthethinker it's true that a high end PowerPC G4 probably beats most Intel Atom systems. But that's more a testament to the crappiness of Intel atom than anything else ;)
I actually don't think that the first gen x86 Macs were slow. They Core Solos were severely hampered because most apps were still PowerPC and they lacked a second core to offload Rosetta's work of translating PPC to x86 instructions. This was a problem of software, not a problem intrinsic to the chip. If you look at the Geekbench scores, for example, the 1.5GHz Mac Mini powered by Intel Core Solo scores just slightly lower than a dual core PowerMac G5 at 1.8GHz.
@peterthethinker POWER6 managed those ridiculous clock rates by moving to a very simplistic architecture which culled off advanced features such as speculative and out of order execution in order to stay within thermal and power requirements. Even then, POWER6 systems featured ridiculous cooling systems. The chip or anything similar never would have been suitable for laptop systems.
This is a surprisingly technical talk to come out of marketing, but of course there are inaccuracies. Penalties due to branching are not nearly so severe as depicted because deeply pipelined CPUs feature speculative execution (they guess which way the branch goes) and generally they are right 90% of the time (so no need to flush). Data dependencies are hidden through out of order execution. There's no need to wait on dependent instructions if other non dependent instructions can execute.
@aflockofmusic2 I'm not. It's just that the POWER line of processors have always been used for IBM's mainframe and server hardware. PowerPC is a different line of processor with a different purpose.
Why doesn't the video show (at least in the first ideal case (4:24-5:03) the processor with the longer pipeline executing faster than the short pipeline? If there's 20 pipeline stages, when the pipeline is full, wouldn't the instructions be executing almost 3 times quicker than that of the shorter pipeline (7 instructions/clock cycle vs 20 instructions/clock cycle) or am I completely missing the point here?..
@kyungjinn When the pipelines are full, my take is that yes the data will be flowing through at twice the speed of the G4, due to twice the clockspeed .. not 3x, remember that the pipeline length allows the chip to run at higher speeds because basically the components of the chip r each doing less on each clock.
Problem: Branch prediction gone wrong = flushing of the pipe! Lost time! Latency!
That is why the P4 sucks. Less efficient per clock cycle than the P3 or G3.
@ez45 As much as I too would of loved to have seen the powerpc chips evolve more the problem was IBM completely turned their back on apple and put all of their efforts into making their own chips as well as the more lucrative video game business and Motorola couldn't do it on their own. The G5 was a complete disaster as it was a huge power hog which meant that apple could never put it in one of their biggest segments, portables. Thus they had to switch to Intel to be competitive.
If you watch any of these Apple PowerPC presentations from over the years, you'll notice a certain brand is never mentioned. AMD.
Why?
Because Athlon XP, Athlon 64, 64 X2 was king, nothing could touch those CPU's.
I wonder what Apple will do if AMD takes the top spot again with Bulldozer in 2011. No doubt Intel is on top now, nothing can touch Core arch, but what if Bulldozer really kicks the shit out of Intel Sandy Bridge? Would Apple use AMD?
This was a very well composed presentation. I hope this helps people understand that the numbers on the outside don't necessarily coincide with the processing performance on the inside. It's like comparing a Chevy V8 (Intel) engine to a smaller and more efficient Porsche 6 cylinder (PowerPC).
@EddieBear631 I think these "myths" not only apply to proccers but to alot of technology. Take for instance digital cameras, where megapixel is used to determine performance. i guess this happens because it is easiest for the consumers if the onyl have one number to think about, so the producents just pick a number and goes with that.
And this is why iPad's A4 1GHz CPU is helluva more powerful than many people think it is... With Apple designing their own processors, they can go back in time and use many of the tricks that made PowerPCs superior to Intels even with lower clock.... until IBM's lazyness to develop G6 forced Apple to go for Intel as well.
@monkeychipsx2 Marker Felt, actually. Looks WAY better than Comic Sans. Much more presentable. They switcvhed to the much more presentable, Myriad Pro, though. Myriad Pro and Segoe UI are my personal favorite fonts.
It's nice to see that Intel got its head out of its @SS and started making good stuff starting with the Hyper-Threading P4 processors. AMD may have been pretty good during the early Pentium 4 days, but they haven't been relevant since Athlon XP because Intel finally got back on track around that time and since then it's been all Intel. AMD started the mainstream Dual-Core and 64bit game but Intel is the one dominating it right now in both Dual-Core and 64bit processors and even Quad-Core.lol
Um what? The P4 sucked ass it's entire life-cycle. If you look at it's internal design, it's nothing but brute-force, the worst design imaginable. Athlon XP was great, a tiny bit behind the P4 in performance, but factor in price, and the XP was a no brainer. Then Athlon 64 annihilated the P4. Took intel 2 and 1/2 years to catch up to AMD after that. Now AMD may once again be a little bit behind Intel in performance, but you CANNOT beat AMD's price to performance ratio with the Phenom II's.
Intel should have never made the Pentium 4 in the first place. 1999-2001, the Pentium III. 2000-2006, the Shituim 4. 2003-2006, the Pentium M. 2005-2006, the Shitium D. 2007-present, the Pentium Dual-core
At 2.4 GHz it took my old Dell Dimension 4600 w/2.4 GHz Pentium 4 over 5 minutes to download and processor 1 SONG! And some people think the Pentium 4 is the best processor out there. The only good Pentium 4s were the Northwood-based ones. Besides, it never reached 10 GHz, only 3.8 GHz. The Athlon XP usually outperformed it. Athlon 64 X2 outperformed the shitty Pentium D. My Pentium Dual-Core laptop can outperform some desktop Pentium Ds. In sort: the NetBurst microarchitecture sucked.
NETBURST FTW! ATHLON BOOO! Dell and many retail didn't sell any computers with Athlon a reason: they sucked, sure they were a lot cooler and sustain a higher temperature, also their multiplicator could be changed after application with pencil, but who cares? REAL GHZ count! With the P4 technology up to 10 GHZ!!! The longer the pipelines the better! And after P4 there is an even brighter future awaiting us: the revolutionary Itanium technology!!!1
im thinking of buying a dual processor 1 GHZ Quicksilver for $300. i think with that, some good HDD in there, and 1.5 GB RAM it should run good for everyday use. Will it do iMovie HD 6 and iDVD? my iDVD from 2006 won't run on any leopard later than 10.5.2 so to get the best performance i was going to run it on panther if it is compatible, if not, tiger.
now i'm thinking about buying a DP 1.33 GHZ MDD Powermac G4 for doing the same things above. it comes triple booting with 9.22, 10.2, and 10.3.9. for only $30 more, I think it's a good deal. anyone else got ideas?
IBM PowerPC processors were starting to become less efficient than intel processors. So Apple switched to intel to produce faster processors for their powerbook line, at least that was the original plan. But intel was becoming much better than PowerPC and their technology was moving much faster than that of IBM so Apple went with them instead.
It was actually because IBM didn't have the resources to advanced PowerPC to what Apple wanted and then they went Intel. Second reason is that Intel finally woke up to the megahertz myth and toned down the pipeline in their Core Microarchitecture and later generations.
Because processor architecture and advancement doesn't stagnate. Back then the G4 was much faster than the Pentium 4. But today the G4 and the Pentium 4 are archaic, the current Intel processors are faster and more efficient than the PPC chips Apple used to use.
IBM the maker of the PowerPC Cpu's couldn't deliver what Apple wanted. Apple couldn't put a G5 CPU in a there PowerBook notebooks due to its heat & Power consumption. Also time had seen the PowerPC by, Intel caught up sad in away, PowerPC macs are great even now, but intel's the future
1. During the intro of the Power Mac G5, Steve Jobs promised that the PowerPC G5 would reach 3 GHz within 1 year. But two years later, the PowerPC G5 still didn't reach that clock speed.
2. IBM could not keep the heat intensity and power consumption of the PowerPC G5 low enough for them to be used the iBooks or PowerBooks.
3. The Intel processors would offer 70 units of performance per watt while the IBM PowerPC only offered 15.
people say mac is better than windows well macs world is about to crumble cuz windows 7 in beta is already better than mac and on release its gonna destroy mac and microsoft is already making windows 8 so buh bye mac ur days are over enjoy ur last few years
thats funny. Microsoft stock is like $20, Apple's is about $170... let's rewrite that.
people say windows is better than macs well windows world is about to crumble cuz snow leopard is almost done and is already better than windows and on release its gonna destroy windows and apple is already making os 10.7 so buh bye windows ur days are over enjoy ur last few years
microsoft started the os making so u should appreciate it and plus snow leopard is better than windows 7 beta but well see on release and on 2012 windows 8 comes
Apple got the graphical user interface from Xerox, and then Microsoft stole it. You should see the list of other features... it goes on and on of what Microsoft has taken from Apple.
I'm an Apple fanboy, but you don't know about the stock market, do you? MS's total stock value is in the 200 Billion range, while Apple's is around 160 billion dollar range last time I checked. It's not just the price, it's also the amount of shares. In any tech area, other companies "copy" the others features. Apple and MS copied the research from Xerox, this was established more than a decade ago in the Supreme Court case. I hope MS's market share keeps on shrinking!
stfu ur another of those faggots who dont think they are equal cuz snow leopard is good for programming and windows 7 comes to same level with gaming and stability so is snow leopard stable i think havent seen videos of it
they switch to intel was because conroe was too powerful back in period of 2005~2006, conroe destroyed power series from ibm, ultra spec from sun micro in performance and pricing. not to mention it ran cooler and capable to emulating risc environment without loss of performance. and also it's x86 with more app support it. ever since then the risc mark the dead end in performance market and only exist in embedded device today.
because xenon/cell came out a year before conroe, plus they did edge pentium 4 in performance per watt and cost which both microsoft/sony did not have much of choice. for m$ they switch to risc was because intel discontinued p3 line and pentium 4 performs horribly on home console due to heat issue and cost/ sony wouldn't switch to totally different arc when netburst is just as bad as powerpc while cost twice as much....
(pentium 4 is still the most costly desktop cpu intel ever made, period).
Power PC was something else at that time, the Pen 4s were complete dog shit, until Intel Realize whats up and they started to make the Core duos based on the Pentium 3s... Now intel core 2 duos are up par in a ironic way...but I wonder how powerful are PowerPC G5s says on xbox 360 or even ps3
Yes way! The Pentium III was one of the best processors out there. While slower than the Athlon, the Pentium III was faster than the first Pentium 4s..The fastest Pentium 4 is roughly twice as fast as the fastest Pentium III but gives off much more heat. The Pentium III was so effecient, that Intel used the P6 microarchitecture (and morphed it by adding a QDR FSB) in the kickass Pentium M, and then in the even-more-kickass Core processors.
@Fishcake21 I don't know if you meant this or not, but the PPC chips in the 360 and PS3 have a long pipeline similar to the Pentium 4 (this was how they got them running at 3.2GHz when IBM couldn't even give apple a 3GHz G5) they also have no OOE and were made to take up very small amounts of die space to fit additional cores in the 360's case and additional SPE's on the PS3 on the die.
@Fishcake21 The power PC cores in the 360 and PS3 have VERY long pipelines with NO branch prediction.
I.D. software have stated that one Power PC core in the 360 or the PS3 power pc core performs VERY bad... they said around a 1.5Ghz Pentium 4.... the saving grace is that there are many of them.
there aint many of them on die, their most only dual core with 3 SMT(simultaneous multithreading) each core. like. for instant it's act as a virtaul processor but no physical structure and dedicate cache and share resource with physical core. however the difference from i7's hyper threading is they can instantly issue multiple thread in each cycle while hyper threading 2.0 have to wait for scheduler. cell/xenon having less l1/l2cache and spec that allow them to have complex SMT than i7.
Well, now they advertise their computers as "intuitive," or "easy to use" they no longer, for instance, advertise their notebooks as a "portable super computer"
They really can't advertise them as "portable supercomputers" andymore cause EVERY PC manufactuere uses Intel, and Apple saying their notebooks are "portable supercomputers" would imply there is something special in the new Macs when PCs will just catch up with it 1-4 months later.
yeah but if you go to a computer store, you will never see that specifications... maybe l2 cache size. so you got to search manufacturer website to see the specifications...
It takes Dual 867mhz G4 to get to same level of performance in Geekbench as Pentium 4 1.5 Ghz, tested this on Hackintosh 10.5.6.
Also the gaming performance with G4 has been terrible, I recently saw benchmark of PB 1.67 where the reviewer noticed that the GPU was heavily limited by processor.
G4 started to become ineffictive at high Mhz and it couldn't compete with P4 or Athlon in most tests or general performance, only in those tests which where heavily optimized for G4 it could compete.
Apparently I can't post any direct links. My Hackitontosh had 1.5 Ghz P4 and 512mt RAM. The PowerMac score I'm referring was measured by PrimateLabs, creators of Geekbench, they have a list of Mac Performance, dunno how much ram their test machine had. MDD Dual 867 scores 730 according those tests.
....and my Hackintosh scored 727. I didn't actually use that machine a lot, tried web browsing and stuff.... in pure performance G4 was not as great as Steve and Apple claimed.
G4 is not that fast, I did own Dual G4 867MHz machine and that P4 Hackintosh-machine didn't feel any slower. According to benchmarks they are at the same level of performance, however P4 wins a lot in memorybench part thanks to its higher FSB.
I now own iMac G5 1.6GHz and according to benchmarks it equivalent to Athlon XP 1800+ - 2000+ which do run around same amount of MHz.
However, probably due poor Flash-optimization even some YouTube -videos bring the single G5 down to its knees.
intel has seriously gotten better, and it doesn't create a lot of heat, and since apple is more on the energy efficient side, the chose intel because it offered more performance per watt. go on youtube and search apple intel switch
Because you only pump in something daft like 100mhz to the processor. It uses a phase lock loop to scale it up. 3000MHZ is a pretty number for humans, but for a crystal being passed into a PPL it's just silly and isn't one of it's resonance frequencies and that.
The irony is that intel's new cpu's being x86-64EMC (64bit) is that they all use lower pipelines. Notice that Intel has only shipped 2 distinct cpu models over 3Ghz?! We've been sitting at 3Ghz for quite a few years now. Due to smaller & thinner copper wiring and electricity limitations on speed vs heat vs power consumption - I think that the megahertz myth was pretty much proven; even with today's cpu's. Problem is they're comparing a RISC =G4 cpu vs a CISC=Intel (x86) cpu. apples to oranges.
Haha, if you had 15.6Ghz, your CPU would be burnt away, the data lines would be full and it would be unusable. You don't times clock speed by core number, that's stupid. They all use different data at different times whilst using the same pipelines.
And again most programs today only use one core anyway.
I never did buy the Intel propaganda about their alleged speeds. Fooled MILLIONS of PieceOfCrappers though! Look how brainwashed they are about the x86. While being soaked in poison that Macs are just marketing and trendiness.
These people are BAFFLED when Switchers post stuff saying they're running XP/Vista faster on their Intel-chipped Macs ~ IT'S THE ARCHITECTURE STOOPID! ... a long legacy made to every Mac user by engineer Steve Wozniak.
Intel is selling Apple 2ND RATE gear. Go with AMD!
as much as i would like to point out the obvious flaws and how much bullshit spewed out from that guys mouth in the presentation, still no mac user in hell would believe it so id rather not..
I love how in the example that they give the pentium is still a LOT faster. The G4 took about 46 seconds to complete, and the P4 took about 68 seconds to complete, but at a more than double clock speed the P4 would still have a shorter execution time.
That being said, this is still a good video for pointing out the MHz myth. It is just too bad that when trying to point out bias they bias it towards themselves (especially with the unknown "task" at the beginning).
Too bad that just a moment before in this same WWDC they put a Pentium @ 2.00 GHz and a G4 @ 867 MHz and the G4 ended an heavy photoshop work way before than the Pentium... and a dual G4 ended it in less than half the time.
Too bad you can't read. I said that this video has a valid point, but that the demo itself contradicts what they are saying.
Also, just because a G4 is faster at one task doesn't make it a better processor. Guess what: these guys don't just show you some random test. They pick one that happens to prove a point. The G4 is better than the Pentium in some things, and the Pentium is better at others. That's how it works.
You're even less smart, and you have fallen for marketing tricks.
True. Unless your including the PPC G6. Then ummmm, NO! They actually still eat PPC ballz. There are many reasons for the intel switch. Speed is one of the "bottom of the list reasons". Still, AMD shits all over intel.
Similarly priced yes, but not necessarily every P4. I didn't know price had much to do with it when you compared the actual performance from two different platforms. As I said, it had an advantage, but it did not "run circles around the P4:s" as an architecture itself.
So yes, the Athlon XP:s was better than the P4:s, a bit more when taking price into account and less when taking it in architecture wise.
I was supposed to hit the "Reply" and accidentally marked you as spam :(
now even apple computers and laptops use intel!!
hamzachilling 1 day ago
Shouldn't the P4 pipeline run twice as fast?
DonOfTheInternet 3 months ago
@DonOfTheInternet You're right, of course.
Both pipelines begin at 5:43. Short finishes at 6:29, long at 6:51.
So, short takes 46 seconds, long 68 seconds. Adjusted for clockspeed, the long would have taken about 34 seconds. That would have put the processor with a 100% speed advantage at a mere 35% performance advantage.
Of course, it's all a theoretical demo.
Uejji 2 months ago
@Uejji but it you had the g4 overclocked than that would be a lot faster still and with 2 g4s it world be over 100% faster than the pentium 4 because how small the g4 was thats why pentium 4's sucked back then
hamzachilling 1 day ago
Now sadly, everyone's fooled into the smartphone myth.
Stashmyash 4 months ago
My oh my...the times have changed, haven't they? Really enjoying watching some of these old Stevenotes.
ScottBookG4 4 months ago
Well the Pentium 4 sucked
thebloxxeronroblox 5 months ago
Very good showing by apple, before their ethics went out the window and became rampant suing scumbags submitting shoddy manipulated evidence to legal courts.
m0s3s 5 months ago
I hated Pentiums so much, but I do love the later CPUs such as the Core 2 Duo and i5/i7. I wish PowerPC did evolve further. It would be friggin' awesome. However, I like the recent Apple generation better; something just doesn't hit home with these new intel Macs and new iDevices like the iPhone and iPad, despite having both along with a 15" Mid 2009 MacBook Pro. Maybe it's because I still have my G4 tower and iMac G3. :)
SuperMario811 5 months ago
Hahahaha this isn't biased at all, it's only got Steve Jobs involved.
multiHappyHacker 8 months ago
@peterthethinker it's true that a high end PowerPC G4 probably beats most Intel Atom systems. But that's more a testament to the crappiness of Intel atom than anything else ;)
holmesfutrell 10 months ago
Comment removed
m0s3s 5 months ago
I actually don't think that the first gen x86 Macs were slow. They Core Solos were severely hampered because most apps were still PowerPC and they lacked a second core to offload Rosetta's work of translating PPC to x86 instructions. This was a problem of software, not a problem intrinsic to the chip. If you look at the Geekbench scores, for example, the 1.5GHz Mac Mini powered by Intel Core Solo scores just slightly lower than a dual core PowerMac G5 at 1.8GHz.
holmesfutrell 10 months ago
@peterthethinker POWER6 managed those ridiculous clock rates by moving to a very simplistic architecture which culled off advanced features such as speculative and out of order execution in order to stay within thermal and power requirements. Even then, POWER6 systems featured ridiculous cooling systems. The chip or anything similar never would have been suitable for laptop systems.
holmesfutrell 10 months ago
This is a surprisingly technical talk to come out of marketing, but of course there are inaccuracies. Penalties due to branching are not nearly so severe as depicted because deeply pipelined CPUs feature speculative execution (they guess which way the branch goes) and generally they are right 90% of the time (so no need to flush). Data dependencies are hidden through out of order execution. There's no need to wait on dependent instructions if other non dependent instructions can execute.
holmesfutrell 10 months ago
octium FTW! its a conspiracy damnit!
bzho101 1 year ago
Shut up all of you!! the Octium IV is the best processor ever made :D
liquidus2172 1 year ago
deeeam this is crazy
dan123el1 1 year ago
Jon rubinstein ftw!
kalashnikova06 1 year ago
I think this is the most technical thing I've ever heard at a mainstream Apple keynote.
drygnfyre 1 year ago 8
Just an excuse for nerds that have small dicks
julianbell90 1 year ago
Just put one pipeline then.
chand36 1 year ago
The current PowerPC chips are so fast, IBM uses them to make supercomputers, that are not available to the general public.
aflockofmusic2 1 year ago
@aflockofmusic2 Those aren't PowerPC, they're POWER.. There is a difference.
NerdInHisShoe 1 year ago
@NerdInHisShoe It's still what Apple would use today if the had stayed with IBM.
aflockofmusic2 1 year ago
@aflockofmusic2 No it's not.
NerdInHisShoe 1 year ago
@NerdInHisShoe Now you're just being an asshole.
aflockofmusic2 1 year ago
@aflockofmusic2 I'm not. It's just that the POWER line of processors have always been used for IBM's mainframe and server hardware. PowerPC is a different line of processor with a different purpose.
NerdInHisShoe 1 year ago
I think the megahertz myth applies a lot to AMD. In many current AMD chip, a lower-clocked intel processor beats it. by a LOT.
weinerschnitzelboy 1 year ago
Jobs is awesome
alexbaron08 1 year ago
0:45 "The name that WE'VE given it." Classic Steve claiming he created things. He didn't coin that phrase.
Regunirun 1 year ago
@Regunirun It looks to me like he meant we as in "the industry". AMD were using the same name at the time.
sipefree 1 year ago
If they competed with amd they would have lost ....no more apples. intel + apple = epic fail. they are good only in their own imaginary tests.
TUTUREL 1 year ago
Why doesn't the video show (at least in the first ideal case (4:24-5:03) the processor with the longer pipeline executing faster than the short pipeline? If there's 20 pipeline stages, when the pipeline is full, wouldn't the instructions be executing almost 3 times quicker than that of the shorter pipeline (7 instructions/clock cycle vs 20 instructions/clock cycle) or am I completely missing the point here?..
kyungjinn 1 year ago
@kyungjinn When the pipelines are full, my take is that yes the data will be flowing through at twice the speed of the G4, due to twice the clockspeed .. not 3x, remember that the pipeline length allows the chip to run at higher speeds because basically the components of the chip r each doing less on each clock.
Problem: Branch prediction gone wrong = flushing of the pipe! Lost time! Latency!
That is why the P4 sucks. Less efficient per clock cycle than the P3 or G3.
danwat1234 1 year ago
very good explanation of why pentiums sucked back then.
i'd have liked to see the PowerPCs evolve further... x86 has been a low-cost chip in the 80s after all..
ez45 1 year ago 8
@ez45 As much as I too would of loved to have seen the powerpc chips evolve more the problem was IBM completely turned their back on apple and put all of their efforts into making their own chips as well as the more lucrative video game business and Motorola couldn't do it on their own. The G5 was a complete disaster as it was a huge power hog which meant that apple could never put it in one of their biggest segments, portables. Thus they had to switch to Intel to be competitive.
Alexlfm 1 year ago
4.2 P4 Prescott vs 2.5 AMD Sempron..
1Million pi they both 37 Second.
MGHZ minth in life.... My sempron Owned the Pentium.
NamelessNLS 1 year ago
Great presentation, interesting topic :)
If you watch any of these Apple PowerPC presentations from over the years, you'll notice a certain brand is never mentioned. AMD.
Why?
Because Athlon XP, Athlon 64, 64 X2 was king, nothing could touch those CPU's.
I wonder what Apple will do if AMD takes the top spot again with Bulldozer in 2011. No doubt Intel is on top now, nothing can touch Core arch, but what if Bulldozer really kicks the shit out of Intel Sandy Bridge? Would Apple use AMD?
Aaronage1 1 year ago
The Megahertz Myth is busted!
My sister's 1.8ghz Athlon 2850e is 10% faster than my 2.93ghz pentium 4 in benchmark testing.
commodore256 1 year ago
This was a very well composed presentation. I hope this helps people understand that the numbers on the outside don't necessarily coincide with the processing performance on the inside. It's like comparing a Chevy V8 (Intel) engine to a smaller and more efficient Porsche 6 cylinder (PowerPC).
EddieBear631 2 years ago
@EddieBear631 I think these "myths" not only apply to proccers but to alot of technology. Take for instance digital cameras, where megapixel is used to determine performance. i guess this happens because it is easiest for the consumers if the onyl have one number to think about, so the producents just pick a number and goes with that.
ismetteren 1 year ago
And this is why iPad's A4 1GHz CPU is helluva more powerful than many people think it is... With Apple designing their own processors, they can go back in time and use many of the tricks that made PowerPCs superior to Intels even with lower clock.... until IBM's lazyness to develop G6 forced Apple to go for Intel as well.
lukeskymac 2 years ago
Cannot take this seriously. Comic Sans? Really? REALLY?
monkeychipsx2 2 years ago
@monkeychipsx2 that's not comic sans.
prisonfish 2 years ago
hmm. in that case it's close enough that I couldn't tell the difference through my bleeding eyes.
monkeychipsx2 2 years ago
@prisonfish whatever it is it does look a lil ridiculous lol
donkeyass5042 1 year ago
@monkeychipsx2 hahahaha srsly
donkeyass5042 1 year ago
@monkeychipsx2 Marker Felt, actually. Looks WAY better than Comic Sans. Much more presentable. They switcvhed to the much more presentable, Myriad Pro, though. Myriad Pro and Segoe UI are my personal favorite fonts.
BarricadeSlade 1 year ago
should the pipeline of intel goes twice faster???
phaze180 2 years ago
It's nice to see that Intel got its head out of its @SS and started making good stuff starting with the Hyper-Threading P4 processors. AMD may have been pretty good during the early Pentium 4 days, but they haven't been relevant since Athlon XP because Intel finally got back on track around that time and since then it's been all Intel. AMD started the mainstream Dual-Core and 64bit game but Intel is the one dominating it right now in both Dual-Core and 64bit processors and even Quad-Core.lol
jsnowbordr47 2 years ago
Um what? The P4 sucked ass it's entire life-cycle. If you look at it's internal design, it's nothing but brute-force, the worst design imaginable. Athlon XP was great, a tiny bit behind the P4 in performance, but factor in price, and the XP was a no brainer. Then Athlon 64 annihilated the P4. Took intel 2 and 1/2 years to catch up to AMD after that. Now AMD may once again be a little bit behind Intel in performance, but you CANNOT beat AMD's price to performance ratio with the Phenom II's.
Appule69 1 year ago
Pentium 4 was the worst ever; the heat created from it melted my GPU soldier running in a cold room; Enough said AMD is where it Is at
Shadikku 2 years ago
@Shadikku I'm using a pentium 4 right now, but I wish I could use my pentium d.
commodore256 2 years ago
Well, Intel processorsdo outperform AMD processors now, but that doesn't make AMD a bad option. Although in 2000-2006 AMD was the way to go.
ikilluish 2 years ago
wow....... O_O
RoulettemanP 2 years ago
Intel should have never made the Pentium 4 in the first place. 1999-2001, the Pentium III. 2000-2006, the Shituim 4. 2003-2006, the Pentium M. 2005-2006, the Shitium D. 2007-present, the Pentium Dual-core
ikilluish 2 years ago
At 2.4 GHz it took my old Dell Dimension 4600 w/2.4 GHz Pentium 4 over 5 minutes to download and processor 1 SONG! And some people think the Pentium 4 is the best processor out there. The only good Pentium 4s were the Northwood-based ones. Besides, it never reached 10 GHz, only 3.8 GHz. The Athlon XP usually outperformed it. Athlon 64 X2 outperformed the shitty Pentium D. My Pentium Dual-Core laptop can outperform some desktop Pentium Ds. In sort: the NetBurst microarchitecture sucked.
ikilluish 2 years ago
notice the neva showed the clock speed at twice tho. if they showed the p4 running twice as fast (approx) it wouldnt have fallen so far behind.
kinamod2k 2 years ago
Comment removed
ikilluish 2 years ago
Pentium 4 sucks!!! It always did!!! the Pentium III was better than that piece of shit
ikilluish 2 years ago 2
NETBURST FTW! ATHLON BOOO! Dell and many retail didn't sell any computers with Athlon a reason: they sucked, sure they were a lot cooler and sustain a higher temperature, also their multiplicator could be changed after application with pencil, but who cares? REAL GHZ count! With the P4 technology up to 10 GHZ!!! The longer the pipelines the better! And after P4 there is an even brighter future awaiting us: the revolutionary Itanium technology!!!1
4K4K1K0 2 years ago
Comment removed
ikilluish 2 years ago
Are you serious? Because I wasn't... >_>
4K4K1K0 2 years ago
im thinking of buying a dual processor 1 GHZ Quicksilver for $300. i think with that, some good HDD in there, and 1.5 GB RAM it should run good for everyday use. Will it do iMovie HD 6 and iDVD? my iDVD from 2006 won't run on any leopard later than 10.5.2 so to get the best performance i was going to run it on panther if it is compatible, if not, tiger.
KingofComputing 2 years ago
now i'm thinking about buying a DP 1.33 GHZ MDD Powermac G4 for doing the same things above. it comes triple booting with 9.22, 10.2, and 10.3.9. for only $30 more, I think it's a good deal. anyone else got ideas?
KingofComputing 2 years ago
So why do macs run on intel processorsnow?
nytebrew 2 years ago
Cause the developers of the powerpc Mac's couldn't produce the equipment small enough to construct a PPC chip that would run at 3 Ghz.
ingaman 2 years ago
and they didnt have it energy effecient in a good period of time
irulethe70s 2 years ago
IBM PowerPC processors were starting to become less efficient than intel processors. So Apple switched to intel to produce faster processors for their powerbook line, at least that was the original plan. But intel was becoming much better than PowerPC and their technology was moving much faster than that of IBM so Apple went with them instead.
benjamoon 2 years ago 2
It was actually because IBM didn't have the resources to advanced PowerPC to what Apple wanted and then they went Intel. Second reason is that Intel finally woke up to the megahertz myth and toned down the pipeline in their Core Microarchitecture and later generations.
deltatux 2 years ago
Because processor architecture and advancement doesn't stagnate. Back then the G4 was much faster than the Pentium 4. But today the G4 and the Pentium 4 are archaic, the current Intel processors are faster and more efficient than the PPC chips Apple used to use.
tuffluffjimmy 2 years ago
IBM the maker of the PowerPC Cpu's couldn't deliver what Apple wanted. Apple couldn't put a G5 CPU in a there PowerBook notebooks due to its heat & Power consumption. Also time had seen the PowerPC by, Intel caught up sad in away, PowerPC macs are great even now, but intel's the future
macnerd93 2 years ago
They use Intel processors for three main reasons:
1. During the intro of the Power Mac G5, Steve Jobs promised that the PowerPC G5 would reach 3 GHz within 1 year. But two years later, the PowerPC G5 still didn't reach that clock speed.
2. IBM could not keep the heat intensity and power consumption of the PowerPC G5 low enough for them to be used the iBooks or PowerBooks.
3. The Intel processors would offer 70 units of performance per watt while the IBM PowerPC only offered 15.
ikilluish 2 years ago 2
I think John Made it a little boring (not like an apple presentation). Not that it was bad presentation, but didn't feel like an apple presentation.
thelegendarypaki 2 years ago
They (in the video) are discussing CPUs while you (in the comments) are discussing OS'.
Amazing...
Ty4ons 2 years ago 2
windows > mac. period.
crackwhore2007 2 years ago
people say mac is better than windows well macs world is about to crumble cuz windows 7 in beta is already better than mac and on release its gonna destroy mac and microsoft is already making windows 8 so buh bye mac ur days are over enjoy ur last few years
2mario23 2 years ago
thats funny. Microsoft stock is like $20, Apple's is about $170... let's rewrite that.
people say windows is better than macs well windows world is about to crumble cuz snow leopard is almost done and is already better than windows and on release its gonna destroy windows and apple is already making os 10.7 so buh bye windows ur days are over enjoy ur last few years
Microsoft always copies Apple and Google!
kylevk 2 years ago 2
microsoft started the os making so u should appreciate it and plus snow leopard is better than windows 7 beta but well see on release and on 2012 windows 8 comes
2mario23 2 years ago
Apple got the graphical user interface from Xerox, and then Microsoft stole it. You should see the list of other features... it goes on and on of what Microsoft has taken from Apple.
Some examples:
Widgets. MS: gadgets
Spotlight. MS: "Search"
Even the Mac had a chess game before windows!
kylevk 2 years ago
MS didn't Make the first OS, nor did they make the first GUI
te9055 2 years ago 3
I'm an Apple fanboy, but you don't know about the stock market, do you? MS's total stock value is in the 200 Billion range, while Apple's is around 160 billion dollar range last time I checked. It's not just the price, it's also the amount of shares. In any tech area, other companies "copy" the others features. Apple and MS copied the research from Xerox, this was established more than a decade ago in the Supreme Court case. I hope MS's market share keeps on shrinking!
SCSNSE 2 years ago
I've noticed that Apple stock tends to rise and Microsoft's tends to fall. (YAY) I've only got 2 shares in AAPL though.
kylevk 2 years ago
kylevk
APPLE FTW!
WindowsAndMacintosh 2 years ago
yesssss!
kylevk 2 years ago
Snow leopard is going to fuck up windows 7 bitch
arnolddisco 2 years ago
stfu ur another of those faggots who dont think they are equal cuz snow leopard is good for programming and windows 7 comes to same level with gaming and stability so is snow leopard stable i think havent seen videos of it
2mario23 2 years ago
Haha I do doubt that.
Petchhyy 2 years ago
After so much criticism of intel they it is surprising they finally switched to intel
rohit1original 2 years ago 20
they switch to intel was because conroe was too powerful back in period of 2005~2006, conroe destroyed power series from ibm, ultra spec from sun micro in performance and pricing. not to mention it ran cooler and capable to emulating risc environment without loss of performance. and also it's x86 with more app support it. ever since then the risc mark the dead end in performance market and only exist in embedded device today.
hanrinch 11 months ago
@hanrinch RISC is still on gaming consoles bro
JohnHFilms 7 months ago
because xenon/cell came out a year before conroe, plus they did edge pentium 4 in performance per watt and cost which both microsoft/sony did not have much of choice. for m$ they switch to risc was because intel discontinued p3 line and pentium 4 performs horribly on home console due to heat issue and cost/ sony wouldn't switch to totally different arc when netburst is just as bad as powerpc while cost twice as much....
(pentium 4 is still the most costly desktop cpu intel ever made, period).
hanrinch 7 months ago
Power PC was something else at that time, the Pen 4s were complete dog shit, until Intel Realize whats up and they started to make the Core duos based on the Pentium 3s... Now intel core 2 duos are up par in a ironic way...but I wonder how powerful are PowerPC G5s says on xbox 360 or even ps3
Fishcake21 2 years ago 22
The core duos are based off the Pentium 3s???
No way!
BarricadeSlade 2 years ago
Yes way! The Pentium III was one of the best processors out there. While slower than the Athlon, the Pentium III was faster than the first Pentium 4s..The fastest Pentium 4 is roughly twice as fast as the fastest Pentium III but gives off much more heat. The Pentium III was so effecient, that Intel used the P6 microarchitecture (and morphed it by adding a QDR FSB) in the kickass Pentium M, and then in the even-more-kickass Core processors.
ikilluish 2 years ago 3
@Fishcake21 I don't know if you meant this or not, but the PPC chips in the 360 and PS3 have a long pipeline similar to the Pentium 4 (this was how they got them running at 3.2GHz when IBM couldn't even give apple a 3GHz G5) they also have no OOE and were made to take up very small amounts of die space to fit additional cores in the 360's case and additional SPE's on the PS3 on the die.
Protoking 1 year ago
@Fishcake21 wii and 360 use powerpc equivalents
Jakkinator45 1 year ago
@Jakkinator45 Ummm no they are using powerpc cpus from IBM. You mean the mac G4/G5 equivalents, I think :)
Bluedino549 1 year ago
@Bluedino549 they use ibm cpus close to powerpc architecture
Jakkinator45 1 year ago
@Jakkinator45 close to? I thought they were... I mean if you look at the cpu directly it says IBM powerpc.
Ahhh... I got it. There are Modfications for OEMreasons, right?
Bluedino549 1 year ago
@Fishcake21 The power PC cores in the 360 and PS3 have VERY long pipelines with NO branch prediction.
I.D. software have stated that one Power PC core in the 360 or the PS3 power pc core performs VERY bad... they said around a 1.5Ghz Pentium 4.... the saving grace is that there are many of them.
Protoking 1 year ago
there aint many of them on die, their most only dual core with 3 SMT(simultaneous multithreading) each core. like. for instant it's act as a virtaul processor but no physical structure and dedicate cache and share resource with physical core. however the difference from i7's hyper threading is they can instantly issue multiple thread in each cycle while hyper threading 2.0 have to wait for scheduler. cell/xenon having less l1/l2cache and spec that allow them to have complex SMT than i7.
hanrinch 11 months ago
I think I might like Apple if they still used honest facts and reporting that they used a few years ago.
Now they just use mudslinging and exaggeration and even lies to sell their products. I can't take a company like that seriously.
TherapudicCaffeine 2 years ago
Well, now they advertise their computers as "intuitive," or "easy to use" they no longer, for instance, advertise their notebooks as a "portable super computer"
johnblack627 2 years ago
They really can't advertise them as "portable supercomputers" andymore cause EVERY PC manufactuere uses Intel, and Apple saying their notebooks are "portable supercomputers" would imply there is something special in the new Macs when PCs will just catch up with it 1-4 months later.
BarricadeSlade 2 years ago
yeah but if you go to a computer store, you will never see that specifications... maybe l2 cache size. so you got to search manufacturer website to see the specifications...
raptorbsp 2 years ago
It takes Dual 867mhz G4 to get to same level of performance in Geekbench as Pentium 4 1.5 Ghz, tested this on Hackintosh 10.5.6.
Also the gaming performance with G4 has been terrible, I recently saw benchmark of PB 1.67 where the reviewer noticed that the GPU was heavily limited by processor.
G4 started to become ineffictive at high Mhz and it couldn't compete with P4 or Athlon in most tests or general performance, only in those tests which where heavily optimized for G4 it could compete.
huutoapaljon 2 years ago
May I just ask...
Ram
Intel Pentium 4 :
Dual Power PC G4 :
maxsuperdudeisawesom 2 years ago
Apparently I can't post any direct links. My Hackitontosh had 1.5 Ghz P4 and 512mt RAM. The PowerMac score I'm referring was measured by PrimateLabs, creators of Geekbench, they have a list of Mac Performance, dunno how much ram their test machine had. MDD Dual 867 scores 730 according those tests.
huutoapaljon 2 years ago
....and my Hackintosh scored 727. I didn't actually use that machine a lot, tried web browsing and stuff.... in pure performance G4 was not as great as Steve and Apple claimed.
huutoapaljon 2 years ago
I immagine a 1.5GHz Pentium 4 would SUCK on leopard.
According to Apple, a 1GHz Pentium 4 is equivalent to a 400MHz PowerPC G4.
BarricadeSlade 2 years ago
G4 is not that fast, I did own Dual G4 867MHz machine and that P4 Hackintosh-machine didn't feel any slower. According to benchmarks they are at the same level of performance, however P4 wins a lot in memorybench part thanks to its higher FSB.
I now own iMac G5 1.6GHz and according to benchmarks it equivalent to Athlon XP 1800+ - 2000+ which do run around same amount of MHz.
However, probably due poor Flash-optimization even some YouTube -videos bring the single G5 down to its knees.
huutoapaljon 2 years ago
Flash is AWFUL on the PowerPC Macs.
It's like Adobe coded it with blindfolds for a bet while they were at the bar, drunk.
BarricadeSlade 2 years ago
Comment removed
huutoapaljon 2 years ago
Sure. The PPC is faster according to Steve, then why the hell did they switch from PowerPC to Intel?!
Dojan5 2 years ago
intel has seriously gotten better, and it doesn't create a lot of heat, and since apple is more on the energy efficient side, the chose intel because it offered more performance per watt. go on youtube and search apple intel switch
weinerschnitzelboy 2 years ago
Oh, why? You just explained it to me. Thanks ;)
Dojan5 2 years ago
Sun UltraSpark 3 ain't even a real processor... They should've put in an AMD Atlon,
BarricadeSlade 2 years ago
Most processors still don't run at 3. They run at like 2.93 or something.
maskedscientist 2 years ago
Why 2.93, I'm pretty sure the extra 70MHz wouldn't do much, but it'll make it make more sense.
BarricadeSlade 2 years ago
Because you only pump in something daft like 100mhz to the processor. It uses a phase lock loop to scale it up. 3000MHZ is a pretty number for humans, but for a crystal being passed into a PPL it's just silly and isn't one of it's resonance frequencies and that.
iwantagoodnameplease 2 years ago
Ask Steve why he switched to X86 Core 2 Duo now!
mrchen1211 2 years ago
6 core xeons now exist soon to be 6 core i7 then 8 cores then intel should finaly release their 80 core cpu
rysliv 2 years ago
X86 eliminated the compatibility myth.
ORUPRANKSTAZ 2 years ago
fucking moron, go learn stuff before missinforming people. wanker.
1xxxDre4mxxx1 2 years ago
ignore that fucking idiot, you dont quadrupple it at all. it doesnt work like that mate.
1xxxDre4mxxx1 2 years ago
haha, true.
i was about to comment when i figured that some idiots never get it.
oskArtist 2 years ago
and then apple went to intel ....
oh the irony ...
IhaveGreenPaper 2 years ago
The irony is that intel's new cpu's being x86-64EMC (64bit) is that they all use lower pipelines. Notice that Intel has only shipped 2 distinct cpu models over 3Ghz?! We've been sitting at 3Ghz for quite a few years now. Due to smaller & thinner copper wiring and electricity limitations on speed vs heat vs power consumption - I think that the megahertz myth was pretty much proven; even with today's cpu's. Problem is they're comparing a RISC =G4 cpu vs a CISC=Intel (x86) cpu. apples to oranges.
Jaggabone 2 years ago
Well said...but I'm sitting at 4.6 GHz. XD
94XJ 2 years ago 4
you overclocked? what proccesor?
planefreak3 2 years ago
QX9650, liquid cooled
Bus at 420, multi at 11 with VID at 1.25
94XJ 2 years ago
what is the QX9650?
planefreak3 2 years ago
only a 420 mhz bus???
planefreak3 2 years ago
Haha, if you had 15.6Ghz, your CPU would be burnt away, the data lines would be full and it would be unusable. You don't times clock speed by core number, that's stupid. They all use different data at different times whilst using the same pipelines.
And again most programs today only use one core anyway.
You tool.
therevengeofsaladboy 2 years ago
no you don't, cuz thats not the way it works.
children....
oskArtist 2 years ago
Comment removed
oskArtist 2 years ago
Actually might not be the best but the IBM Xenon is very, very powerful it's a triple core (correct me if im wrong) 3.02GHz processor.
edwin768 3 years ago
I believe the 360 version is 3.6GHz, it's a very fast GP CPU.
therevengeofsaladboy 2 years ago
This is false, it's very weak.
It has many pipelines stages and only 1MB l2 cache shared across 3 cores.
It also lacks Out of Order Execution slowing it even further.
Protoking 2 years ago
amd sucks
kara12 3 years ago
I never did buy the Intel propaganda about their alleged speeds. Fooled MILLIONS of PieceOfCrappers though! Look how brainwashed they are about the x86. While being soaked in poison that Macs are just marketing and trendiness.
These people are BAFFLED when Switchers post stuff saying they're running XP/Vista faster on their Intel-chipped Macs ~ IT'S THE ARCHITECTURE STOOPID! ... a long legacy made to every Mac user by engineer Steve Wozniak.
Intel is selling Apple 2ND RATE gear. Go with AMD!
HughHue 3 years ago
as much as i would like to point out the obvious flaws and how much bullshit spewed out from that guys mouth in the presentation, still no mac user in hell would believe it so id rather not..
tech4idiots 3 years ago
well i learned alot ^^
Majadi7 3 years ago
POWER > x86
NerdInHisShoe 3 years ago
Yes when Stephen utilizes PowerPC, it was the faster processor in the world. Now, its not, the Intel processor is.
JanjaBoy 3 years ago
Comment removed
aLmOsTSK8ar 3 years ago
But, Jobs don't think....
JanjaBoy 3 years ago
No intel is faster then amd :\
SantaClause49 3 years ago
i love my G4 =D
PowerMacUser 3 years ago 3
Anybody els notice how buggy YouTube has been in the last week. Sometimes, you click on a video, and it does absolutely nothing, but a white box.
BarricadeSlade 3 years ago 3
yes
ps4real000 3 years ago
yes
djdevil360 3 years ago
ya but they still went to intel
har32 3 years ago
once intel was better though,
reallyred123 3 years ago
How come the longer pipeline wasn't moving instructions twice as fast as the shorter pipeline?
NerdInHisShoe 3 years ago
because it sucked, thats why.
or mabye it couldn't move instructions twice as fast.
or mabye it wasn't designed to be fast, only to look fast.
metasuperhyper 3 years ago
Overclock it.
etoangfavoriteko 3 years ago
lol apple laying claim to the term "mergahertz myth". Idiots.
gerv55 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
FAIL. G4 sucked ass.
momothelemur 3 years ago
Yeah, except it didn't.
niceveritt 3 years ago
Well, PP sure was good, but P4 sucked really hard.
piratapan 3 years ago
WEll, your first problem is you used Intel, if it was AMD, you would have no chance :)
PurplePanda1233 3 years ago
I love how in the example that they give the pentium is still a LOT faster. The G4 took about 46 seconds to complete, and the P4 took about 68 seconds to complete, but at a more than double clock speed the P4 would still have a shorter execution time.
That being said, this is still a good video for pointing out the MHz myth. It is just too bad that when trying to point out bias they bias it towards themselves (especially with the unknown "task" at the beginning).
n3rdytux 3 years ago
Too bad that just a moment before in this same WWDC they put a Pentium @ 2.00 GHz and a G4 @ 867 MHz and the G4 ended an heavy photoshop work way before than the Pentium... and a dual G4 ended it in less than half the time.
You're not smart.
applerulez67 3 years ago
Too bad you can't read. I said that this video has a valid point, but that the demo itself contradicts what they are saying.
Also, just because a G4 is faster at one task doesn't make it a better processor. Guess what: these guys don't just show you some random test. They pick one that happens to prove a point. The G4 is better than the Pentium in some things, and the Pentium is better at others. That's how it works.
You're even less smart, and you have fallen for marketing tricks.
n3rdytux 3 years ago 2
Sorry, my fault.
But now tell me when a G4 is slower than a P4 @ 2.00 GHz.
applerulez67 3 years ago
Like, the pentium is better at running Windows.
A Cell processor (which is PowerPC) would run Windows XP like a K6 with only 32mb of ram.
BarricadeSlade 2 years ago
have u heard of the mac myth? just because its a mac, doesn't mean its better!!
Gotskillz88 3 years ago 2
Have you heard of the WInPC fact? If its Windows, it sucks balls. If it's a PC, it's sucks cock. Put them together, and they suck my cock and balls.
jungiantheology 3 years ago 3
cool! too bad I don't like windows either. =/
Gotskillz88 3 years ago
but they still turned to Itel processors
jrguillett2 3 years ago 2
Because the PowerPC architecture was stale and old. Today's Intel processors are leaps and bounds better than the pentiums.
phoneunlisted 3 years ago
True. Unless your including the PPC G6. Then ummmm, NO! They actually still eat PPC ballz. There are many reasons for the intel switch. Speed is one of the "bottom of the list reasons". Still, AMD shits all over intel.
jungiantheology 3 years ago
ApEx1HP:
Similarly priced yes, but not necessarily every P4. I didn't know price had much to do with it when you compared the actual performance from two different platforms. As I said, it had an advantage, but it did not "run circles around the P4:s" as an architecture itself.
So yes, the Athlon XP:s was better than the P4:s, a bit more when taking price into account and less when taking it in architecture wise.
I was supposed to hit the "Reply" and accidentally marked you as spam :(
johanbogg 3 years ago
My Macintosh Classic whit 8 Mhz is faster than my Amd 4000+ :P
Intellivision78 3 years ago
So, my powerbook g4 is like that? (It is 867mhz, but is faster than you think.)
MinnesotaMan13 3 years ago