Wouldn't you need to re-compile xbench in order to get any kind of real world numbers? If so, then the number look pretty good for an emulated app. I'm sure once these machines roll out on with 2x dual core p4s ppc will run fast enough.

Reply

I guess this means no more liquid cooling in macs with Intel. Boy did that sound cool.

Reply

That's why they're releasing the first commercial Intel-based Mac within a year, this build of OS X for Intel is very raw, product of a "fall-back" plan, there's a lot of workaround to do to make the OS ineract natively and seemlessly with the processor. Plus, nobody said the Pentium 4 would be the processor that Macintels (!) will use, they are probably developing a new chip, who knows.
And, as chris said, the computer is running a PPC version of XBench, which means it's emulated, we'd need a recompiled app for real numbers.

Changing the subject, does anyone have pictures of the inside (like the one on this post) of this "Apple Development Platform" and a clue of how is the new PowerMac will be called? It would be intersting to see/read any pics or guesses.

Reply

I had no way of recompiling XBench while in front of the box (nor could I without first doing a boatload of research), so yes it was XBench running in PPC Rosetta emulation, which definitely skewed the scores. So it's not truly accurate to compare the two boxes, only interesting.

I'm still impressed at how fast most of the apps were. Nothing like the dual 2.7Ghz sitting next to it, but plenty fast enough for average use. And I suspect that as Apple polishes the code and the Rosetta emulator, it'll only get faster.

Reply

I'll keep my PPC thankyou very much...unless the mactels are cheap

Reply

Stop the presses!

A PPC binary on a 2CPU G5 is many times faster than a PPC binary running in an emulated PPC environment on a single CPU pentium!

(Damien & tuaw, you might want to edit your posts to mention that the benchmark ran *within Rosetta*. Otherwise three years from now we will still be hearing your benchmark results used as anecdotal evidence for why "Macs suck".)

Reply

Yeah, you should probably change the headline to "Rosetta seamlessness confuses Mac user".

Reply

Hmm. I'd rather see some XP or Longhorn on an x86 Mac vs. Tiger on an x86 Mac. Now there's a fight!

Reply

1. There is no Intel Mac, except for the early release Developer box. This is just a hacked together box that runs Mac OS X and will be available to developers so they can test and port their apps.

2. Intel has started Dual Core production. By the time Apple ships a retail Intel Mac, I am sure it will kick some serious booty! Apple will of course be doing a bunch of their own engineering to make this happen, so look for innovations in the motherboard design that are not seen on normal x86 clones.

3. Intel has a bunch of instructions that hardly anyone uses. For example, Windows uses mostly the 386 instruction set and does not take advantage of the newer instructions. Linus Torvalds and the Linux Dev's have optimized Linux on different architectures to use most of the CPU's featues. Look to Apple pushing the processors abilities with Altivec like libraries. i.e. by default a compiled app won't take advantage of the extra instructions, but if you include some additional libraries you can make your app sing on the Intel processor. Remember, anyone with Altivec code is going to have to re-write it a bit to get it to run the Intel CPU. Anyone writing Altivec had to do their own thing anyways, not much new there. Most apps don't use the Altivec instructions.

4. Mac OS X has been running on x86 CPU's for 5 years. This is because NeXTStep/OpenStep ran on X86, PowerPC, SPARC, etc. Since the core of OS X comes from NeXT. By the way, Windows NT ran on Alpha, MIPS, and PowerPC as well as x86 too ya know. Project Marklar was reality and not just a rumor, Steve confirmed that in the keynote. Everything already runs on x86 and always has.

5. Apple will start the Intel Macintosh line from the low-end up-to the highend. This means it will be in the Mac Mini, eMac, iMac, etc. Long before you see a PowerMac running the CPU. This is because, at the moment, the PowerMac G5 spanks a single CPU Intel box! Apple needs time to engineer a highend PowerMac running Intel CPU's. Imagine a bi-dual core box. i.e. Quad PowerMac running 3.x Ghz each! Imagine a PowerBook running a single dual core Intel CPU. Apple's always done great things in the past, they will do great things in the future.

Bottom Line: Keep bitching, whining, and freaking out. Make sure you get all the zealots worked up to the maximum levels of freakitude. Get everyone to stop buying Mac's and wait for the Intel hardware. That way, the stock will drop and I can finally get in on the ground floor this time! *** Dripping Sarcasm ***

Seriously, don't hold off on purchases, it will be late 2007 before the highend Intel boxen gets good and everything will be cross platform. I say, stick with PowerPC for now and don't hold off on your purchases, it's a year and half to two years away. The early Intel boxes will be low cost, low end and technically, they will be spanked by the current G5 stuff. Apple will eventually bring the Intel chipset to the PowerMac and then it will be some serious power!

Reply

heh. The dude pulled his post. Seems he got shouted down. awww ...

Reply

"I refuse to use the word 'Mactel,' thank you very much"


Maybe "Macintel" will hit closer to home? :)

Reply

There is no reason that the Mac intel boxes won't be as cool as current Mac boxes. There is no reason they won't have water cooling and all the other fun stuff. Remember they said MacOS will only run on these boxes; maybe because that's they'll have extra stuff that the macs will need and utilize.

I'm only hoping that cheaper mass marker chips will mean cheaper Mac computers. They need to get that market share up. Every time (most times) they make major switches they seem to lose some people.

But having an intel chip should make for better (i.e. faster) emulation for windows emulators and that might help sell a few more boxes.

Reply