Make an AMV. Buy a Powerbook.

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 12:11 pm

the Black Monarch wrote:Speaking of juicy rumors, do you have any new ones for us?

Not to be rude, but I'd never tell you any. I signed an NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) and I take it very seriously. Leaks like that may sound cool since you tell people and they get all excited, but it also tells Intel what is going on (given they generally know and vice versa) and that means they can prepare for it and thus our stock and sales go down.

Well...then again I *would* point out rumors that are bad for Intel though. Like the fact that Prescott has been delayed so long is because they can't fabricate any of them correctly. They have a fab in a higher elevation than most of their fabs and the change in pressure is causing their Prescott chips to not fabricate well..that's the reason for the (almost) half a year delay

.

Happy?

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:27 pm

cool.

Since this is a powerbook-oriented thread, what are your thoughts on Apple chips?

alternatefutures · Post by **alternatefutures** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:29 pm

Heh, that's funny, an AMD employee ribbing Intel for its delay in Prescott... oh yeah, how long was the Athlon 64 pushed back again?

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 1:00 am

the Black Monarch wrote:cool.

Since this is a powerbook-oriented thread, what are your thoughts on Apple chips?

They're slow...?

alternatefutures wrote:

Y'know I knew you were going to respond with that while I was posting. However, again...I said I'd exclusively say things about Intel...never us . I know it sounds stupid, but it does make sense...and yes I do concede your point and in fact knew you'd ask it when I posted...just thought it'd be fun...and it is .

I will add that it is a good thing Prescott got delayed like us...pretty much makes for the same launch scenario that both of us had in mind...just both pushed back .

alternatefutures · Post by **alternatefutures** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 1:06 am

Hey, as long as both chips are good and there is no vapor launch "cough"2800"cough" I'll be happy. I just wonder how both are going to measure up to the PPC 970. You never know, I may have to actually switch (provided all the rumors are true and G5s are coming out on the 23rd). At least by the time all players have their new offerings I'll get to see how well the PPC 970 ramps up to see if a switch would be wise in the long term.

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 1:23 am

alternatefutures wrote:Hey, as long as both chips are good and there is no vapor launch "cough"2800"cough" I'll be happy. I just wonder how both are going to measure up to the PPC 970. You never know, I may have to actually switch (provided all the rumors are true and G5s are coming out on the 23rd). At least by the time all players have their new offerings I'll get to see how well the PPC 970 ramps up to see if a switch would be wise in the long term.

Well we're not the only ones who have done a paper launch before (I think you meant to say paper..since that's the term we use). Intel has done it too...and in turn we've both gotten burned for it

.

As for the Power PC...if all the things I hear about it in my little nerd cliques is true...it's not that spectacular. I mean it's a step-up, but...not amazing. I mean...look at Apples...they *have* to build dual set-ups since they can't scale their processors anymore and thus are getting mauled...I know frequency isn't everything, but they are down 3x to the 3 Ghz part...as demonstrated by the equation...they are pretty far out in the performance equation even with an elegant architecture like the P3 or Athlon (which I think...there's is around the efficiency...but obviously 1 Ghz is still too slow).

So...I guess what I'm saying is...it's good and it'll help them, but at the rates Intel and AMD are going...they'll still be left in the dust. This is all based on the rumors of clock speed and whatnot I've heard from fairly reliable sources...so take it as you may.

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 1:24 am

Forgot to say...I will be the first to admit when we launch Athlon 64, Intel launches Prescott and Apple launches...it'll be a very interesting time...probably tons of benchmarks, high prices, new MB and so on...so it's sort of good for you consumers...well...maybe not since high prices

.

alternatefutures · Post by **alternatefutures** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 1:43 am

So I take it the Athlon 64 is not going to continue in AMD's fine tradition of dirt cheap performance? I'm kinda concerned about that, as from my perspective, the Athlon 64 will have to be hot competition for Prescott in the 32-bit arena alone to get the market to really get on board the 64-bit train. Right now, Opteron only looks decent there, and $300 is the low end. So, I'm a bit nervous and am afraid of sticker shock (which would really suck as then Intel wouldn't have to offer it's processors for as cheap either).

With the PPC 970, I've heard a 150% increase in performance over the G4 on non-Altivec, and 200-250% in AltiVec enabled programs, which, if offered in a dual configuration WITHOUT RAISING THE CURRENT PRICE OF A MAC, should allow for better performance than current x86 chips in the same price range.

So, does that sound about right (although the NDA will probably keep you shut up about the price thing).

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:01 am

alternatefutures wrote:So I take it the Athlon 64 is not going to continue in AMD's fine tradition of dirt cheap performance? I'm kinda concerned about that, as from my perspective, the Athlon 64 will have to be hot competition for Prescott in the 32-bit arena alone to get the market to really get on board the 64-bit train. Right now, Opteron only looks decent there, and $300 is the low end. So, I'm a bit nervous and am afraid of sticker shock (which would really suck as then Intel wouldn't have to offer it's processors for as cheap either).

With the PPC 970, I've heard a 150% increase in performance over the G4 on non-Altivec, and 200-250% in AltiVec enabled programs, which, if offered in a dual configuration WITHOUT RAISING THE CURRENT PRICE OF A MAC, should allow for better performance than current x86 chips in the same price range.

So, does that sound about right (although the NDA will probably keep you shut up about the price thing).

Uhm...the price thing I wouldn't know. I'm in design. Like I said it's need-to-know and well..I dont need to know anything about prices. As for performance...again I dont' know a lot about Hammer, but what I do know is that we're not worried which would imply to me that things are alright (shrug). Sorry for the lack of info.

As for the PowerPC yeah, I know about the dual configuration and how THAT might be comprable. I was talking about a single PowerPC compared to current technology because it maybe a lot better, but it'd still be lagging behind slighty...and when new stuff comes out it'll be a lot more behind. Given...duals are have bad. I run a dual set-up and it's a dream for editing

.

Edo · Post by **Edo** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 9:24 am

Well I'm gonna be honest with yah. . .

Mac are stable and clean, the OS X is great and the portability is great! but. . . If your gonna use it for video editing, stay far away from it!!!! Now people say oh well the Mac's are way better in graphics and stuff. Well they are right!

BUT! They are "not anymore" on the video end of things.

Trust me I know, I've used PC and MAC's for 3 years now in and out of my work enviroment. The Mac's DO have the fastest pipelining but rendering and compression is a nightmare!

I've use the G4 Powerbooks, iMacs and the G4 Power Mac dual proccessors. Then I have my own custom made PC and I've used some Dells and other systems.

At my school we have the latest G4 Power Mac Dual 1.42GHz Processors with a 21" LCD screen and 17" screen with a ATI 9700 Pro. We just got it recently, only have 3 of them so far and are in the production editing room.

I did a little test cause I was jelous with my own PC and I was intersted. I took a 3 min file about 4.3GB big (raw data) and compresed it. I timed it and it ended up my windows PC won! I was surprised at first, but then realized that well MAC's arn't all that are cracked up to be on the power end. My PC is a P4 2.4GHz with a GeForce Ti4600, the mac had a 400MHz speed over me and a graphics card that is supposed to be almost twice as good as mine! Also it had way more RAM than mine did and a way bigger HDD. I did more than one test to be sure.

So there you have it! Only way you would get me to tell you to buy one of those power books is that the computer you have is way slower. But then again those Lappys are expensive why don't you put your money into a custom built PC instead. Or get a top of the line Toshiba Laptop!