intel and apple (here we go again...)

[Thunderstruck]

well, you've been able to install windows on macs since the days of VPC

[Shmi]

stigmata.. dude.. .go get laid or something, really.

It's nice that people value substance in their own posts....  :roll:

hypocritical-much? i think so.

[SwervingVector]

stigmata.. dude.. .go get laid or something, really.

It's nice that people value substance in their own posts....  :roll:

hypocritical-much? i think so.

Back yourself up?

Stigmata puts effort into his posts, he links, he isn't overly verbose, *shrug* what do you have to your name since I've been watching? Immature comments about how everyone needs to get laid... Congrats dude, you look like a fucking retard ^^;

[Shmi]

Stigmata puts effort into his posts, he links, he isn't overly verbose, *shrug* what do you have to your name since I've been watching? Immature comments about how everyone needs to get laid... Congrats dude, you look like a fucking retard ^^;

Have you really been paying attention these past 6 pages? It's been partially off-and-on-again flaming (although happily has died down to just debate) tossed in with some personal attacks. If that's what you consider "isnt overly verbose", then i'll gladly take your insult as a compliment. Comments on getting laid? Yes. Because when you spend 7 pages between mostly two people arguing over which processor is better, while both are talking about different things*, then yeah, you need to get laid. Or offer some lightheartedness to the thread, like, you know, joking.  :roll:

I may look like a "fucking retard," but it's apparent here who is.

*

The problem is:

rusty is talking about pound-for-pound performance, which is where Intel sucks, clearly, since they apparently need to push the clockspeed to keep up with a lower clockspeed by AMD,

while

stigmata is talking about the big picture, which is the end result: Even if they do have to push the clockspeed, they still do end up in front, regardless of how they get there.

[zenny]

No more coffee for the posters.  Instead, you will all now have to drink soy milk.

[Shmi]

No more coffee for the posters.  Instead, you will all now have to drink soy milk.

silk is good.

[zenny]

I prefer rice milk.

[lg_alucard]

blarg, off topic much?

The switch will help apple move forward, in terms of performance, IBM wasn't movin in that direction so Apple had to move.  Hurray Apple.  Now the *book line will be able to upgrade processors.

I know about VPC, but I was more talking about directly on apple hardware, not on top of OS X/Darwin...

[rusty]

what I want to know is; where did I say that I only know about the P4?  For crying out loud....

Pffft....anyhow.

What will Apple do?  It's pretty obvious they're not going to support 32-bit modes using Intel chips, so what do Intel have in store for 64-bit?  Ignoring the actual internal peformance of the CPU's hidden by a high clock-speed and insanely fast FSB, are Intel going to also supply the chipset for the motherboards too?

Something else also bothers me about all desktop system, and that's the way that data being shuffled around memory is STILL the domain of the CPU.

Why not take a look at the  new types DMA controller that are out there, so the CPU doesn't have to be responsible for the transfer of large chuncks of data? Because without this, having multiple cores running in parallel is asbolutely pointless if they have to spend most of their time stuck in Bod's device.

[GiantRobot]

Something else also bothers me about all desktop system, and that's the way that data being shuffled around memory is STILL the domain of the CPU.

Why not take a look at the  new types DMA controller that are out there, so the CPU doesn't have to be responsible for the transfer of large chuncks of data? Because without this, having multiple cores running in parallel is asbolutely pointless if they have to spend most of their time stuck in Bod's device.

What the hell are you talking about? All memory fetches are done by the system's memory controller with little real interaction from the CPU. This is why applications can be memory bandwidth bound without being processor power bound. Besides there's only so much abstraction between the CPU and the main system memory. As far as the CPU is concerned the only memory available is what's in the L1 cache. Everything else is simply a delayed load/store operation. All high level memory operations (protected memory and the like) are performed as software chores in the OSes kernel. Low level access is provided by the system's memory controller.

Moving memory around between devices is handled almost entirely by the DMA controller. Moving data from disk to RAM involves telling the DMA device to start throwing data at an address. This is where memory bandwidth problems can crop up, most data has to pass through the system's memory controller. If the main memory doesn't have enough bandwidth to feed external devices and the CPU(s) there's going to be performance issues on the system.

[rusty]

Something else also bothers me about all desktop system, and that's the way that data being shuffled around memory is STILL the domain of the CPU.

Why not take a look at the  new types DMA controller that are out there, so the CPU doesn't have to be responsible for the transfer of large chuncks of data? Because without this, having multiple cores running in parallel is asbolutely pointless if they have to spend most of their time stuck in Bod's device.

What the hell are you talking about? All memory fetches are done by the system's memory controller with little real interaction from the CPU. This is why applications can be memory bandwidth bound without being processor power bound. Besides there's only so much abstraction between the CPU and the main system memory. As far as the CPU is concerned the only memory available is what's in the L1 cache. Everything else is simply a delayed load/store operation. All high level memory operations (protected memory and the like) are performed as software chores in the OSes kernel. Low level access is provided by the system's memory controller.

Moving memory around between devices is handled almost entirely by the DMA controller. Moving data from disk to RAM involves telling the DMA device to start throwing data at an address. This is where memory bandwidth problems can crop up, most data has to pass through the system's memory controller. If the main memory doesn't have enough bandwidth to feed external devices and the CPU(s) there's going to be performance issues on the system.

I never actually talked about moving memory around devices.  I know what the DMAC traditionaly as taught in any high school computing class, but I'm afraid modern computing has moved on quite from that sort of thing.

You said yourself that the data has be loaded into cache before the CPU even gets to deal with it.  

Instead of thinking about memory caches....think instead of "local memory".  The programmer is responsible for making sure that data is in local memory to be operated on, and on multiple CPU system this especially handy as you can then stagger access to for loads/writes ensuring that very little time is spent waiting for the bus to become free.

The N64 and PS2 do this using a very flexible (and fast) DMA controller.  One of the great features the PS2 DMA controller is that you can create DMA chains, of non-contiguous areas of memory, and lets the controller issue commands to the CPU (such as, "start processing now", "load this micro code program" etc.)

Having a cache mechanism that is responsible for moving data around RAM is horrible.  You can never be 100% sure as to when your data will be in cache, and when it will not be in cache.  

In OOP this is a big issue for languages such as C++ where a call to a single virtual function will possible cause many D$ and I$ misses before and after it is returns.

And another thing...when you think that somebody is wrong, it might be best to ask them; "please explain your reasoning" rather than "what the hell are you talking about".

[stigmata]

cant you two.. like.. you know.. shut the fuck up and keep it to PMs? Christ, we dont all need to sit through 3 pages of bickering and bitching when something actually valuable could be brought to the thread...

stigmata.. dude.. .go get laid or something, really.

Wow, flaming us for "not bringing anything valuable to the thread", and then randomly telling us to go have sex?

Does that strike anyone else as hypocritical?

Have you really been paying attention these past 6 pages? It's been partially off-and-on-again flaming

You mean, like that?

Comments on getting laid? Yes. Because when you spend 7 pages between mostly two people arguing over which processor is better, while both are talking about different things*, then yeah, you need to get laid

And I can totally see how that's a "valuable" insight in a thread called "Apple and Intel". :roll:

I may look like a "fucking retard," but it's apparent here who is.

The individual who complains about the presence of an active debate in what would otherwise be a stagnant forum; the one that fails miserably to practice what they preach; the one that's incapable of dealing with the concept of hypocrisy and what it entails; the one that's attempted to derail this thread multiple times; and the one that's a fucking retard.

So, yes, you.

what I want to know is; where did I say that I only know about the P4? For crying out loud....

Probably about the same time that you confessed that you knew nothing about the Pentium M, coupled with your insistence on talking exclusive about the Pentium 4. I mean, you might know something about the Xeon or the Itanium, but you've never said anything to suggest so.

And let us not forget your apparent lack of knowledge about the Emotion Engine. That, in itself, is enough to suggest you're arguing with precious little knowledge of Sony's hardware, let alone Intel's.

Ignoring the actual internal peformance of the CPU's hidden by a high clock-speed and insanely fast FSB

Oh, for fuck's sake :roll:

You've already admitted that Intel's current design has served them well, and we've already come to the conclusion that the Pentium M is more than efficient enough for the future. So why the hell do you keep bringing this up?

Further, what point are you trying to make about the FSB speed? Are you aware that Apple's PowerMac line ships with FSB speeds of up to half the clock of the CPU (1.35Ghz at the top end)?

And another thing...when you think that somebody is wrong, it might be best to ask them; "please explain your reasoning" rather than "what the hell are you talking about".

Those are both exactly the same question, phrased differently.

[rusty]

[

And another thing...when you think that somebody is wrong, it might be best to ask them; "please explain your reasoning" rather than "what the hell are you talking about".

Those are both exactly the same question, phrased differently.

[/quote]

If you hadn't already told me you were only 16, I would have guessed you had no real world experience from that statement alone.  

Now try that with say...a member of staff you work with?  Even if it's somebody who is a member of your team and you are the manager; you just can't talk to people that way because it gets in the way of having thier willing cooperation that you need to get the job done.

Try it with somebody you don't know; a friend of a friend that you've just been intrduced to for example.  You disagree with them and say "what the hell/fuck are you talking about" what's to say they're not going lay you out flat right there and then?

[SwervingVector]

[

And another thing...when you think that somebody is wrong, it might be best to ask them; "please explain your reasoning" rather than "what the hell are you talking about".

Those are both exactly the same question, phrased differently.

If you hadn't already told me you were only 16, I would have guessed you had no real world experience from that statement alone.  

Now try that with say...a member of staff you work with?  Even if it's somebody who is a member of your team and you are the manager; you just can't talk to people that way because it gets in the way of having thier willing cooperation that you need to get the job done.

Try it with somebody you don't know; a friend of a friend that you've just been intrduced to for example.  You disagree with them and say "what the hell/fuck are you talking about" what's to say they're not going lay you out flat right there and then?

He doesn't know you, you've proven yourself in his eyes to be worthy of contempt, therefore I doubt he sees much need to be civil with you. I see it as a failing of his on the internet, but hey... Judged by the way you express yourself and all...

[rusty]

He doesn't know you, you've proven yourself in his eyes to be worthy of contempt, therefore I doubt he sees much need to be civil with you. I see it as a failing of his on the internet, but hey... Judged by the way you express yourself and all...

Well...my behaviour has been less than perfect, and I'll be buggered if I'm going to even attempt to defend that.  There were quite a few instances where I acted wrongly, and that's all there is to it.

I'm still right about everything else though  :wink: