Computer Graphics with Photoshop - Apple drops PowerPC for Intel

Author

Apple drops PowerPC for Intel

Jason Warren

2005-06-06, 11:14 pm

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

Owen Ransen

2005-06-07, 4:15 am

Duncan Allan

2005-06-07, 4:15 am

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" <willy@wonker.com> wrote in message
news:30aaa1d301c124ou63l4808sr2rgp49mn1@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 01:08:36 GMT, Jason Warren <nerraw_nosaj@ieee.org>
> wrote:
>
>
> Intel machines are outpacing IBM/Motorola machines nowadays,
> probably because the ROI is much better.
>
>

DMC

2005-06-07, 7:16 pm

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[color=darkred]
> & 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" <willy@wonker.com> wrote in message
> news:30aaa1d301c124ou63l4808sr2rgp49mn1@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 01:08:36 GMT, Jason Warren <nerraw_nosaj@ieee.org>

edjh

2005-06-07, 7:16 pm

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

Norm Dresner

2005-06-07, 7:16 pm

"edjh" <edjhann@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_Tgpe.10778$5I5.974345@newshog.newsread.com...
> Jason Warren wrote:
>
> 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

Hecate

2005-06-07, 7:16 pm

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 01:08:36 GMT, Jason Warren <nerraw_nosaj@ieee.org>
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
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

jeecee

2005-06-07, 11:15 pm

In article <if5ca1d1m5vvg895sudiat4kipg2uede7i@4ax.com>, Hecate
<hecate@newsguy.com> 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!

johnboy

2005-06-07, 11:15 pm

"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com>

> [...] 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.

Owen Ransen

2005-06-08, 4:14 am

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:49:40 +0100, Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> 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?

Got Whiz? Cheese that is...

2005-06-08, 7:14 am

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" <nerraw_nosaj@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d0ebda0cd1b6a3d989689@news.verizon.net...
>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

Duncan Allan

2005-06-08, 7:14 am

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..."
<whizwhizwhizwhizwhiz@whizwhizwhizwhizwhiz.com> wrote in message
news:1bxpe.87$p%3.476@typhoon.sonic.net...
> 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" <nerraw_nosaj@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d0ebda0cd1b6a3d989689@news.verizon.net...
>
>

Johan W. Elzenga

2005-06-08, 7:14 am

Got Whiz? Cheese that is...
<whizwhizwhizwhizwhiz@whizwhizwhizwhizwhiz.com> 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/

pedro.pinheiro@gmail.com

2005-06-08, 7:14 am

> 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.

C Wright

2005-06-08, 7:14 pm

On 6/8/05 2:33 AM, in article 1bxpe.87$p%3.476@typhoon.sonic.net, "Got Whiz?
Cheese that is..." <whizwhizwhizwhizwhiz@whizwhizwhizwhizwhiz.com> 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.

johnboy

2005-06-08, 7:14 pm

"C Wright" <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com>
> 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.

Hecate

2005-06-08, 11:14 pm

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 06:15:10 +0200, Owen Ransen <willy@wonker.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:49:40 +0100, Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>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
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

Hecate

2005-06-08, 11:14 pm

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 19:16:39 -0500, "johnboy" <okaynow@nospam.no>
wrote:

>"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com>
>
>
>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
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

Owen Ransen

2005-06-09, 4:14 am

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 23:39:45 +0100, Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 06:15:10 +0200, Owen Ransen <willy@wonker.com>
>wrote:
>
>Intel.

What more could I expect from Hecate?

Hecate

2005-06-09, 7:15 pm

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 06:02:19 +0200, Owen Ransen <willy@wonker.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 23:39:45 +0100, Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>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
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

johnboy

2005-06-09, 11:15 pm

"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> 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

Owen Ransen

2005-06-10, 7:14 am

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 22:55:26 +0100, Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote:

>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"

Owen Ransen

2005-06-10, 7:14 am

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 22:55:26 +0100, Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]

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...

Hecate

2005-06-10, 11:15 pm

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:36:37 -0500, "johnboy" <okaynow@nospam.no>
wrote:

>"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote
>
>
>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
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

Hecate

2005-06-10, 11:15 pm

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:27:58 +0200, Owen Ransen <willy@wonker.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 22:55:26 +0100, Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>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
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

Conrad

2005-06-19, 7:16 pm

Hi,

One interesting sidelight is that Apple has named the 'new' processor
"Mactel" (copyrighted?). :D

--
Conrad