Apple's new black trashcan

[Steffen]

Originally Posted by Astro_Bot

And you could still have most, if not all, of that power, for (probably) half the cost if you built your own PC. (You only get quad-core for US$3000).

People have tried to spec up similar PCs but couldn't match Apple's price, e.g.:

http://techgage.com/article/apples-n...thanks-to-amd/
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computi...sts-even-9599/

Cheers
Steffen.

[baileys2611 (Simon Bailey)]

Is there a difference in Apple's architecture for this vs. what would be an x86 equivalent?

Sure, one can buy the chip and design something one's self, but isn't the idea that Apple have a different chip instruction set and better compatibility between components? My knowledge is old on this (circa 1997).

I've heard that Macs excel at image processing, because of the RISC instruction set used for their OS and hardware vs. the alternative for x86 architecture - but that could be me being swayed by popular myth and old concepts of the 90's...

[OICURMT]

Originally Posted by Steffen

People have tried to spec up similar PCs but couldn't match Apple's price, e.g.:

http://techgage.com/article/apples-n...thanks-to-amd/
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computi...sts-even-9599/

Cheers
Steffen.

These articles mis-represent the facts (although they explain why later)... self-builds costings are based on online retail pricing whereas manufacturers get wholesale bulk discounts, clearly articulated in the first article toward the bottom.

So, the PC version would easily be cheaper if the likes of Dell built and sold their version based on the Dell business model versus the Apple business model (they are significantly different marketing models btw...), with the AMD discount being the primary reason for the "cheaper" cost of the Apple.


OIC!

[2stroke (Jay)]

Originally Posted by baileys2611

Is there a difference in Apple's architecture for this vs. what would be an x86 equivalent?

Sure, one can buy the chip and design something one's self, but isn't the idea that Apple have a different chip instruction set and better compatibility between components? My knowledge is old on this (circa 1997).

I've heard that Macs excel at image processing, because of the RISC instruction set used for their OS and hardware vs. the alternative for x86 architecture - but that could be me being swayed by popular myth and old concepts of the 90's...

Yer living is the 90's there like many other sheep still today. RISC was powermac's g4 ect CISC is any intel x86. Today in supercomputers, RISC is still used alot but really cheaper power is coming from GPU's like the nvidia Telsa, a good example of gpu parallel processing used by home user a bit coin mining. RISC has alot of advantages over CISC though there are disadvantages, like floating point would enovole many instructions on a RICS and only 1 cycle on a CISC.

The truth or the fact is apple was going broke in the early 90's and if Jobs never went with arm and made the first iphone and ipad apple and arm would be dead today. I believe apple went with x86 because it had no choice, how can apple design and build a cpu and compete with Intel in a power race? They simply can't, Hell intel own there own fab plants and lead the way in the nm race, it like a apple's a lemonade stand vs wallmart.

Anyhow i like the new trash can but it lacks the upgrade path of the former Powermacs.