why Cell processor was not selected for Mac

[Felger Carbon]

The more trays of 1000 that you buy, the less you pay per tray.

Things have sure changed since I was in the business. No 1000-CPU
trays back then, Yousuf. ;-)

 

[ed]

What it proves is that retail CPUs are holding price, for ~6 months and
even OEM processors are not being dumped on the market at knock-down
prices. What it proves is that your scenario *is* History.

that's history, but of something completely different. how well
processors hold their price at the retail level have little to nothing
to do with a comparison how those prices compare to the wholesale list
price

 

[keith]

Probably they'll start off by assassinating a bunnyman, followed by a
bunnyman running across the screen at the end with the Intel jingle.

Maybe the bunnymen will start carrying drums?

 

[ed]

In

Well sure, that's what I meant: if AMD needed to, AMD could stop
supplying everybody else and supply just Dell.

soooo, when you say amd could "easily" supply dell, you meant that they
would have to give up all their other customers? hahaha!

<snip>

 

[YKhan]

soooo, when you say amd could "easily" supply dell, you meant that they
would have to give up all their other customers? hahaha!

It's about as likely as Dell asking AMD to be able to supply _all_ of
their processor needs, and then Dell actually giving up Intel and going
all AMD. It's all purely hypothetical.

Yousuf Khan

 

[George Macdonald]

that's history, but of something completely different. how well
processors hold their price at the retail level have little to nothing
to do with a comparison how those prices compare to the wholesale list
price

I'll leave you to figure it out.

 

[ed]

In

I'll leave you to figure it out.

you're making a correlation that's simply not there.

 

[George Macdonald]

In

you're making a correlation that's simply not there.

Evidently, it's too complicated for you!Õ_ô

 

[ed]

Evidently, it's too complicated for you!Õ_ô

then spell out the correlation you imagine exists.

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

Well, I'd think it'd be about Intel's compiler more than anything,
since
by sticking with gcc Mac OS applications will run measurably slower
than Windows applications when running on like hardware.

Really? So exactly what programs did You compare on which hardware
configurations? I'm sure You have some references to back up Your claim...

Maybe You don't know it but the vast majority of Windows apps isn't built
with intel compilers but with the Microsoft compilers that come with Visual
Studio. And they are usually quite close to what gcc can produce
performance-wise...

But unless
Apple
has dumped that stupid Objective-C stuff, they are locked into gcc.

I'm quite sure most programmers that work with Objective-C certainly won't
agree with "stupid". And Objective-C isn't bound to gcc and gcc isn't bound
to Objective-C...

Unless, of course, Intel adds support for it to their compiler. I
guess I wouldn't be completely surprised if Intel's compiler supports
it in the next rev...

intel already said that there will be a MacOS X version of the intel
compilers in the near future.

Benjamin

 

[Surf]

Douglas Siebert wrote:




Really? So exactly what programs did You compare on which hardware
configurations? I'm sure You have some references to back up Your claim...

Maybe You don't know it but the vast majority of Windows apps isn't built
with intel compilers but with the Microsoft compilers that come with Visual
Studio. And they are usually quite close to what gcc can produce
performance-wise...




I'm quite sure most programmers that work with Objective-C certainly won't
agree with "stupid". And Objective-C isn't bound to gcc and gcc isn't bound
to Objective-C...




intel already said that there will be a MacOS X version of the intel
compilers in the near future.

Benjamin

will this be like the cell saga? and go on and on?

 

[Maynard Handley]

Here's a hint, dudes. Get a clue; read more textbooks and less slashdot.
Objective C is a fine language for a certain class of problems including
things like UI. No-one pretends it is the highest performing language
ever written, which is why things like codecs are written at Apple in C,
C++ or even PPC assembly as appropriate.
The argument as to whether icc will ever support Objective C is justs
stupid because whether it does or not affects pretty much nothing in the
real world. Of FAR more relevance is the issue of ABIs and the extent to
which the various x86 compilers will choose to or choose not to avoid
Apple's ABI, and the extent to which Apple will choose to, or will
choose not to, link to (statically or dynamically) code written to
non-Apple ABIs.

 

[PT]

Here's a hint, dudes. Get a clue; read more textbooks and less slashdot.

Objective C is a fine language for a certain class of problems including
things like UI. No-one pretends it is the highest performing language
ever written, which is why things like codecs are written at Apple in C,
C++ or even PPC assembly as appropriate.
The argument as to whether icc will ever support Objective C is justs
stupid because whether it does or not affects pretty much nothing in the
real world. Of FAR more relevance is the issue of ABIs and the extent to
which the various x86 compilers will choose to or choose not to avoid
Apple's ABI, and the extent to which Apple will choose to, or will
choose not to, link to (statically or dynamically) code written to
non-Apple ABIs.

Not only: Gcc 4 series is expected to improve very fast now that gcc
has SSA tree support. It's an architectural change that simplify the
process of identification and optimization of special cases and opens
up the door to a wide set of more simple (and maintainable) patches to
the sources. Already done for many (not all) cases of vectorisation of
loops. Did Gcc produce slow code? Things changes.

Cya