[geeks] Dual Xeon vs Dual G4 (links)

[Dave McGuire]

On Saturday, February 1, 2003, at 03:36 AM, William S. wrote:
> http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html

   This is interesting...this guy suggests that Apple is "at a 
crossroads" and needs to decide whether it should stick with PPC or 
switch to Intel processors because G4s are "falling further and further 
behind".  I guess this guy doesn't know about the clock speed wall.

   If something crazy happens and Apple does switch to Intel 
processors...if they become Yet Another PeeCee Manufacturer...Well, we 
see where that got DEC, Data General, Unisys, Honeywell/Bull, and very 
nearly SGI.  And pretty much every other company that's tried it, 
except for IBM who had sense enough to get out while the gettin' was 
good.

   While Intel has impressive process (not processor, *process*) 
technology that allows them to get their clock speeds way up, 
unfortunately the rest of the processor design isn't up to par...which 
is why a dual 1.25GHz G4 beats the pants off a dual 1.6GHz Athlon by at 
least one of this guy's benchmarks.  But that's not the big issue...The 
speed margins on these Intel chips are WAY too low; I suspect that's 
one reason why these machines tend to be so unstable compared to 
everyone else's hardware, OS issues aside.  They push and push and push 
to get their clock speeds up, sacrificing reliability in the process.  
Anything to satisfy the Megahertz Kidz I suppose.

   The clock speed wall is looming...everybody will top out there, 
barring any miracle of physics.  Whose processors do you think will be 
on top?  Intel will no longer be able to rely on the brute force of 
great process (again not processor) technology and high clock speeds to 
get any speed out of their designs.  Eventually they're going to have 
to get out of the dark ages and dump their circa-1976 
architecture...everyone else has been very busy designing processors 
that don't *need* ridiculously fast clock rates to get reasonable 
performance.

   Oh wait, they tried that...they called it Itanium.  Is it 
discontinued yet?  Does anyone you know have one?  I'm thinking of 
getting one just so I can save it as a rarity.  They really shot 
themselves in the foot with their "if it ain't x86 it's BAAAAD" 
attitude over the past several years.  I guess they didn't anticipate 
that they'd eventually be trying to sell a processor that...wait for 
it......ain't x86.

   The exception to all this, in my opinion, is this hyperthreading 
business...I think it might have a chance at being something useful, 
maybe.  But then I thought the same thing about micro-ops in the 
PentiumPro design, and we see how far THAT processor got. :-(

> http://www.simkiss.net/mac.html

   $4999 for a dual 1.25GHz G4?  I call "bullshit".  The Apple Store 
says $1999.  For those too lazy to do the math, that's LESS THAN HALF 
the price stated in the web paged referenced by the URL above.  Indeed, 
the dual 1.42GHz machine comes in at $2699, slightly more than half.

> http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/200203131/dual-02.html

   Where's the neon, and where are you supposed to put the exhaust tips 
and the yellow oriental lettering?

   This should come as a surprise to no one, as someone on this list 
once observed that I have no tolerance for inferior hardware...I lean 
heavily toward the G4.  Better software, better performance, better 
scalability, better reliability...Better, faster, no Windows, no 
Windows crashing, no Windows reloading, no Windows registry corruption, 
no Windows spyware...the list goes on and on.

   Wow, I'm tired and overcaffeinated.  Sorry for being so long-winded.  
Chris Byrne I'm certainly not, though! ;)

       -Dave

--
Dave McGuire                 "Rubber duckies *are* important."
St. Petersburg, FL                            -Doc Shipley