Apple drops PowerPC for Intel

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 01:08:36 GMT, Jason Warren
wrote:

I have never owned a Mac. But I’ve done a lot of work with PowerPC-based machines and generally found them to outperform Intel-based PC’s, especially in the floating-point arena. I don’t know how much floating- point is used by Photoshop, but if it’s significant, does the switch mean that PS performance will suffer in the Intel base?

Intel machines are outpacing IBM/Motorola machines nowadays, probably because the ROI is much better.

I find it strange that Apple are thinking this way. Especially as IBM, Sony & Toshiba have been developing the ‘CELL’ chip.

Designed mainly for the Playstation 3 it has been reported that for graphics it is the way to go in future chips.

I reserve my judgement.

Duncan

"Owen Ransen" wrote in message

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 01:08:36 GMT, Jason Warren
wrote:

I have never owned a Mac. But I’ve done a lot of work with PowerPC-based machines and generally found them to outperform Intel-based PC’s, especially in the floating-point arena. I don’t know how much floating- point is used by Photoshop, but if it’s significant, does the switch mean that PS performance will suffer in the Intel base?

Intel machines are outpacing IBM/Motorola machines nowadays, probably because the ROI is much better.

It’s actually not that surprising. According to the magazine Business
2.0, Intel has about 15 multi-processor core chip projects like CELL in
the works and I would not be surprised to see Apple come to market with the first desktop to utilize a multi-core chip given this new partnership with Intel. CELL sounds to be way too specialized for a desktop, and probably way ahead of software developers for desktop apps anyway. It has 9 separate processor cores.

With that kind of power Photoshop would run the filter before you asked it to. Cool!

DMC

I find it strange that Apple are thinking this way. Especially as IBM, Sony

& Toshiba have been developing the ‘CELL’ chip.

Designed mainly for the Playstation 3 it has been reported that for graphics it is the way to go in future chips.

I reserve my judgement.

Duncan

"Owen Ransen" wrote in message
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 01:08:36 GMT, Jason Warren

wrote:

I have never owned a Mac. But I’ve done a lot of work with PowerPC-based

machines and generally found them to outperform Intel-based PC’s, especially in the floating-point arena. I don’t know how much floating- point is used by Photoshop, but if it’s significant, does the switch mean that PS performance will suffer in the Intel base?

Intel machines are outpacing IBM/Motorola machines nowadays, probably because the ROI is much better.

Jason Warren wrote:

I have never owned a Mac. But I’ve done a lot of work with PowerPC-based machines and generally found them to outperform Intel-based PC’s, especially in the floating-point arena. I don’t know how much floating- point is used by Photoshop, but if it’s significant, does the switch mean that PS performance will suffer in the Intel base?

Chris?

Jason

Why should Photoshop performance be any different than it is on PCs now? From using Photoshop on both platforms, my experience is that performance is about the same depending on the differences in individual machines.

I seem to recall Chris once saying that floating point is not much used by Photoshop, but I could be wrong.

—
Comic book sketches and artwork:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
Comics art for sale:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/batsale.html

"edjh" wrote in message

Jason Warren wrote:

I have never owned a Mac. But I’ve done a lot of work with PowerPC-based machines and generally found them to outperform Intel-based PC’s, especially in the floating-point arena. I don’t know how much floating- point is used by Photoshop, but if it’s significant, does the switch mean that PS performance will suffer in the Intel base?

Chris?

Jason

Why should Photoshop performance be any different than it is on PCs now? From using Photoshop on both platforms, my experience is that performance is about the same depending on the differences in individual machines.

I seem to recall Chris once saying that floating point is not much used by Photoshop, but I could be wrong.

As a programmer who has done some very intensive, scientific graphics processing, I’d like to jump into this argument.

1. In the old days (circa 1995 and earlier 😉 ), most programmers avoided floating point computations like the plague because integer arithmetic was significantly faster, though often sacrificing both accuracy and the predictability of the precision in results.

2. The modern x86 CPUs do floating point computations almost as fast as integer ones and the results are more "predictable", i.e. less subject to the degradation of finite-precision arithmetic.

3. Most Photoshop-type graphics data is 8 or 16 bits wide and doing 32 and even 64-bit integer arithmetic still offers some advantages, especially when (almost) all of the processing data (like weights, filter values, etc) are also only 8 or 16-bits wide.

4. If I was programming a commercial Photoshop plug-in right now, I’d still be using integer arithmetic for everything I could because (almost) all modern CPUs have multiple integer execution units but only one floating point processor. I don’t think that the new dual-core chips are going to change that much; multiple floating point processing is (almost) the exclusive province of super-computer CPUs designed to do heavy scientific processing.

BUT … If I was going to program a Photoshop plug-in for my own use, I’d probably use floating point arithmetic because the accuracy is more predictable than with all-integer processing and I’m (personally) willing to exchange some of my time for that accuracy.

Norm

"Norm Dresner" wrote in message

As a programmer who has done some very intensive, scientific graphics processing, I’d like to jump into this argument.

1. In the old days (circa 1995 and earlier 😉 ), most programmers

avoided

floating point computations like the plague because integer arithmetic was significantly faster, though often sacrificing both accuracy and the predictability of the precision in results.

2. The modern x86 CPUs do floating point computations almost as fast as integer ones and the results are more "predictable", i.e. less subject to the degradation of finite-precision arithmetic.

3. Most Photoshop-type graphics data is 8 or 16 bits wide and doing 32

and

even 64-bit integer arithmetic still offers some advantages, especially

when

(almost) all of the processing data (like weights, filter values, etc) are also only 8 or 16-bits wide.

4. If I was programming a commercial Photoshop plug-in right now, I’d

still

be using integer arithmetic for everything I could because (almost) all modern CPUs have multiple integer execution units but only one floating point processor. I don’t think that the new dual-core chips are going to change that much; multiple floating point processing is (almost) the exclusive province of super-computer CPUs designed to do heavy scientific processing.

BUT … If I was going to program a Photoshop plug-in for my own use, I’d probably use floating point arithmetic because the accuracy is more predictable than with all-integer processing and I’m (personally) willing

to

exchange some of my time for that accuracy.

Norm

A few additional thoughts after hitting the "send" key:

There are certain graphics tasks that absolutely demand floating point arithmetic — image rotation is one — while others like performing brightness/contrast/level adjustment which are expressed to the user as integer-based naturally utilize integer arithmetic in (almost) all implementations [NOTE: although the fractions we designate as 0-100% are inherently floating point numbers, it’s quite easy to do the integer multiplication and then re-scale by dividing by 100 at the end — though most knowledgeable programmers would use a table that converts 0-100 to the range 0-128 and then just bit-shift (a much faster process than dividing) to re-scale].

Norm

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 01:08:36 GMT, Jason Warren
wrote:

I have never owned a Mac. But I’ve done a lot of work with PowerPC-based machines and generally found them to outperform Intel-based PC’s, especially in the floating-point arena. I don’t know how much floating- point is used by Photoshop, but if it’s significant, does the switch mean that PS performance will suffer in the Intel base?

Probably not. They could have, however, speeded things up considerably by switching to AMD instead. I just read a review comparing the new Intel 64 and the latest AMD Athlon 64. The Intel can’t compete. For several years now the leading edge chips have been AMD not Intel. Tying themselves to Intel just makes for average processing power.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

In article , Hecate
wrote:

Probably not. They could have, however, speeded things up considerably by switching to AMD instead. I just read a review comparing the new Intel 64 and the latest AMD Athlon 64. The Intel can’t compete. For several years now the leading edge chips have been AMD not Intel. Tying themselves to Intel just makes for average processing power.

So right!

"Hecate"

[…] I just read a review comparing the new
Intel 64 and the latest AMD Athlon 64. The Intel can’t compete.

Just HOW much faster is the AMD? I had better read a significant multiplier, an order of magnitude would be good, because numbers like 4X mean nothing now-a-days. So, my action runs in 1 second rather than .25 seconds. Big deal. Now let some dipstick tell me the microseconds add up and then I will ask the perp to account for his stupidity in the Rest of the Terms.

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:49:40 +0100, Hecate wrote:

Tying themselves to Intel just makes for average processing power.

If they can build with Intel they can build with AMD. AMD is Intel compatible, and by dropping the PowerPC they get the advantages of being able to choose the best of two *competing* companies.

Could you define "average processing power" please?

From what I have read neither Apple or Intel have said what chip they are going to use. It is possible that Apple is having Intel design something specific for them. Until new Mac’s ship who knows what this means.

Myself I would like to see the Mac OS work on Windows PC’s. I would dump Windows like rats fleeing a flaming garbage barge. That is of course if all currently PC software, hardware and drivers worked with it. Doing this could cause some major problems for Microsoft and make a ton of money for Apple. Though I doubt it will happen. The semi-creative minds at Apple are bright enough to do this and I doubt they have the balls for it either. Lets face it our government didn’t have the balls to control Microsoft so why should Apple have them to dent their business.

In fact I read one article on Cnet that would seem to indicate that Microsoft plans more of its software for Mac’s one the chip change is complete. I doubt this is a good thing.

"Jason Warren" wrote in message

I have never owned a Mac. But I’ve done a lot of work with PowerPC-based machines and generally found them to outperform Intel-based PC’s, especially in the floating-point arena. I don’t know how much floating- point is used by Photoshop, but if it’s significant, does the switch mean that PS performance will suffer in the Intel base?

Chris?

Jason

Strictly speaking it wasn’t so much the government that didn’t stop Microsoft but the loss of the case where Apple lost it’s ‘Look and Feel’ in court.

To me it was unbelievable that Apple lost as it was simply a take off IMO of the Apple system of the time.Though Apple execs did pick up the Ideas from Xerox in the first place at Palo Alto!

Duncan

"Got Whiz? Cheese that is…"
wrote in message

From what I have read neither Apple or Intel have said what chip they are going to use. It is possible that Apple is having Intel design something specific for them. Until new Mac’s ship who knows what this means.
Myself I would like to see the Mac OS work on Windows PC’s. I would dump Windows like rats fleeing a flaming garbage barge. That is of course if

all

currently PC software, hardware and drivers worked with it. Doing this

could

cause some major problems for Microsoft and make a ton of money for Apple. Though I doubt it will happen. The semi-creative minds at Apple are bright enough to do this and I doubt they have the balls for it either. Lets face it our government didn’t have the balls to control Microsoft so why should Apple have them to dent their business.

In fact I read one article on Cnet that would seem to indicate that Microsoft plans more of its software for Mac’s one the chip change is complete. I doubt this is a good thing.

"Jason Warren" wrote in message

I have never owned a Mac. But I’ve done a lot of work with PowerPC-based machines and generally found them to outperform Intel-based PC’s, especially in the floating-point arena. I don’t know how much floating- point is used by Photoshop, but if it’s significant, does the switch mean that PS performance will suffer in the Intel base?

Chris?

Jason

Got Whiz? Cheese that is…
wrote:

From what I have read neither Apple or Intel have said what chip they are going to use. It is possible that Apple is having Intel design something specific for them. Until new Mac’s ship who knows what this means.

That is quite possible. Remember that processors for Windows PC’s need to be backward compatible with a lot of legacy stuff, dating back as far as the 1980’s. A Macintosh with Intel processor doesn’t need that, so in theory Intel could strip of lot from the processor that Apple doesn’t need.

Myself I would like to see the Mac OS work on Windows PC’s.

That won’t happen, at least Apple will try to stop that by using things like ROM chips. There may be a hack one day, but it’s questionable how well that would work.

I would dump Windows like rats fleeing a flaming garbage barge. That is of course if all currently PC software, hardware and drivers worked with it.

That really won’t happen. Your applications are Windows applications and an Intel Macintosh will still be a Macintosh running MacOS X. What might happen though, is a version of VirtualPC (already existing software that emulates a PC on a Macintosh) running a near native speed on such an Intel Macintosh. You would still be running Windows then, of course.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

That really won’t happen. Your applications are Windows applications and an Intel Macintosh will still be a Macintosh running MacOS X. What might happen though, is a version of VirtualPC (already existing software that emulates a PC on a Macintosh) running a near native speed on such an Intel Macintosh. You would still be running Windows then, of course.

Or since MacOSX is so much like *nix already, if the Intel processor to be used is compatible with x86 instructions, something like Wine could run the applications by themselves, without Windows.

On 6/8/05 2:33 AM, in article 1bxpe.87$p%, "Got Whiz? Cheese that is…" wrote:

From what I have read neither Apple or Intel have said what chip they are going to use. It is possible that Apple is having Intel design something specific for them. Until new Mac’s ship who knows what this means.

It already has been announced that Apple will use Intel’s x86 chips. And the computer that is now being made available to developers has an x86 CPU. Apple *could* be among the first to use one of Intel’s dual core processors.

"C Wright"

It already has been announced that Apple will use Intel’s x86 chips. And the computer that is now being made available to developers has an x86 CPU.
Apple *could* be among the first to use one of Intel’s dual core processors.

Now won’t this just tick-off Adobe one more time? Apple already has the premier (no pun) motion editing software, and now there won’t even be a distinguishing platform to give the illusion of separateness.

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 19:16:39 -0500, "johnboy"
wrote:

"Hecate"

[…] I just read a review comparing the new
Intel 64 and the latest AMD Athlon 64. The Intel can’t compete.

Just HOW much faster is the AMD? I had better read a significant multiplier, an order of magnitude would be good, because numbers like 4X mean nothing now-a-days. So, my action runs in 1 second rather than .25 seconds. Big deal. Now let some dipstick tell me the microseconds add up and then I will ask the perp to account for his stupidity in the Rest of the Terms.

Nope, it was a review, I can’t remember which magazine offhand (if you want I can search through over the next few days) which compared the processors using real world benchmarks i.e. complex rendering using 3DS Max, Photoshop batch processing using some of the more processor intensive filters, database, spreadsheet and word processing and so forth. I remember thinking I was surprised at the difference the time.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 06:15:10 +0200, Owen Ransen
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:49:40 +0100, Hecate wrote:

Tying themselves to Intel just makes for average processing power.

If they can build with Intel they can build with AMD. AMD is Intel compatible, and by dropping the PowerPC they get the advantages of being able to choose the best of two *competing* companies.
Could you define "average processing power" please?

Intel.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 23:39:45 +0100, Hecate wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 06:15:10 +0200, Owen Ransen
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:49:40 +0100, Hecate wrote:

Tying themselves to Intel just makes for average processing power.

If they can build with Intel they can build with AMD. AMD is Intel compatible, and by dropping the PowerPC they get the advantages of being able to choose the best of two *competing* companies.
Could you define "average processing power" please?

Intel.

What more could I expect from Hecate?

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 06:02:19 +0200, Owen Ransen
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 23:39:45 +0100, Hecate wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 06:15:10 +0200, Owen Ransen
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:49:40 +0100, Hecate wrote:

Tying themselves to Intel just makes for average processing power.

If they can build with Intel they can build with AMD. AMD is Intel compatible, and by dropping the PowerPC they get the advantages of being able to choose the best of two *competing* companies.
Could you define "average processing power" please?

Intel.

What more could I expect from Hecate?

Ask anyone. Both the G5 processors and the AMD processors are faster for comparable processors.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

"Hecate" wrote

Ask anyone. Both the G5 processors and the AMD processors are faster for comparable processors.

My friend, that is true but the question is How much faster? Even doubling execution speed of our most common tasks is not enough (and the AMD doesn’t even double). I’m more indebted to fast discs and plenty of RAM, and CS’s batch, actions and droplets than processor speeds. Now you must understand that I was one of the very first Mac users (not Lisa) and use G5 dual processors today beside heavy PC architectures, and it ain’t no longer worth the trouble and $ of apple hardware. Let the OS wars have their own way and we will work doing good things regardless. Art and craft are our life, not computer arguments.

Peace
You are, indeed the Real One, but confused

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 22:55:26 +0100, Hecate wrote:

Could you define "average processing power" please?

Intel.

What more could I expect from Hecate?

Ask anyone. Both the G5 processors and the AMD processors are faster for comparable processors.

Your extensive knowledge and extremely logical thinking and first hand experience is summed up in that phrase

"Ask anyone"

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 22:55:26 +0100, Hecate wrote:

Could you define "average processing power" please?

Intel.

This sub thread started because I was annoyed at that
off the cuff remark by Hecate. She obviously does not like Intel for some reason.

I used to work in the processor industry, designing and
testing processors, and I *know* for a fact that Intel is not an "average company", where average is used in a derogotary way.

I have 4 PCs two have AMD and two have INTEL processors, and I cannot tell the difference in speed when ACTUALLY
WORKING ON REAL JOBS rather than very specific
speed tests.

Intel had to design the whole architecture, AMD took the specifications and made their own machines which meets
those specs. But making the initial specs (and getting them as right as possible) is the most important job. Without them no Intel compatible AMD processor could exist.

I’m glad AMD has done this, and their job is not easy
either, but that does not make Intel processing power
"average".

If someone copied the Mona Lisa, and the copy was "better" in some way than Leonardo’s original, would that make
Leonardo’s original "average"? (Substitute your favorite artwork instead of "Mona Lisa" if you prefer.

Hecate into the kill filter now, all those off the cuff remarks…

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:36:37 -0500, "johnboy"
wrote:

"Hecate" wrote

Ask anyone. Both the G5 processors and the AMD processors are faster for comparable processors.

My friend, that is true but the question is How much faster? Even doubling execution speed of our most common tasks is not enough (and the AMD doesn’t even double). I’m more indebted to fast discs and plenty of RAM, and CS’s batch, actions and droplets than processor speeds. Now you must understand that I was one of the very first Mac users (not Lisa) and use G5 dual processors today beside heavy PC architectures, and it ain’t no longer worth the trouble and $ of apple hardware. Let the OS wars have their own way and we will work doing good things regardless. Art and craft are our life, not computer arguments.

You’re absolutely right, of course. 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:27:58 +0200, Owen Ransen
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 22:55:26 +0100, Hecate wrote:

Could you define "average processing power" please?

Intel.

This sub thread started because I was annoyed at that
off the cuff remark by Hecate. She obviously does not like Intel for some reason.

I couldn’t care less one way or the other. If the company collapsed tomorrow I couldn’t care less. If they continue providing average processing power to those who don’t know any better, I couldn’t care less either.

I used to work in the processor industry, designing and
testing processors, and I *know* for a fact that Intel is not an "average company", where average is used in a derogotary way.

Average wasn’t used in a derogatory way. It was used in terms of their performance compared to AMD and G5 processors. The fact that you didn’t like my "ask anyone" suggests that you’ve never read a comparison test in your life, and, quite possibly, that you work/ed for Intel.

I have 4 PCs two have AMD and two have INTEL processors, and I cannot tell the difference in speed when ACTUALLY
WORKING ON REAL JOBS rather than very specific
speed tests.

This is a Photoshop group and I have seen the figures from real world tests using Photoshop which show that you’re wrong. Maybe you just don’t do any processor intensive work in PS.

Intel had to design the whole architecture, AMD took the specifications and made their own machines which meets
those specs. But making the initial specs (and getting them as right as possible) is the most important job. Without them no Intel compatible AMD processor could exist.

Big deal. That’s history. History is littered with companies who do the "ground work" but then can’t cut it in the future. All I’m interested in is what provides the best processing power for the best price. And that surely isn’t Intel.

I’m glad AMD has done this, and their job is not easy
either, but that does not make Intel processing power
"average".

What makes Intel processing average is the capability of their processors compared to those from AMD and in the Mac.

If someone copied the Mona Lisa, and the copy was "better" in some way than Leonardo’s original, would that make
Leonardo’s original "average"? (Substitute your favorite artwork instead of "Mona Lisa" if you prefer.

Irrelevant. We’re talking about technology not art.

Hecate into the kill filter now, all those off the cuff remarks…

Oh, dear, I’m so hurt…

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

A few additional thoughts after hitting the "send" key:
There are certain graphics tasks that absolutely demand floating point arithmetic — image rotation is one — while others like performing brightness/contrast/level adjustment which are expressed to the user as integer-based naturally utilize integer arithmetic in (almost) all implementations [NOTE: although the fractions we designate as 0-100% are inherently floating point numbers, it’s quite easy to do the integer multiplication and then re-scale by dividing by 100 at the end — though most knowledgeable programmers would use a table that converts 0-100 to the range 0-128 and then just bit-shift (a much faster process than dividing) to re-scale].

Until the addition of HDR images in Photoshop CS2, the calculations in Photoshop were almost entirely integer.

Yes, you can do rotations with integer calculations (and still get it right).

Chris

Hi,

One interesting sidelight is that Apple has named the ‘new’ processo "Mactel" (copyrighted?). :

—
Conrad