Pentium M out the door, what's next
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 24, 2005 1:48 PM EST- Posted in
- Anand
As promised the Pentium M Desktop article using ASUS' Socket-478 to 479 adapter is live. I hope you all enjoy it. It doesn't look like there's too much potential for the Pentium M (Dothan) on the desktop, but Yonah may be another story. ASUS did an excellent job with the CT-479 adapter though, it's by far the best solution if you do want to use a Pentium M on the desktop.
With the Pentium M article out of the way, I'm going to spend this weekend working on the ATI Theater 550 review as well as a $999 MCE review I had pushed aside for a little while. I've received a lot of requests for articles similar to the WoW Performance Guide but for other games (e.g. Everquest 2). I've had the idea for a while but never really had the time, but I think my schedule may be open enough to squeeze in a few game performance articles.
I'm eagerly awaiting Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, unfortunately it comes out the day I leave to go visit AMD in Austin. It'll be a short trip so I should be able to enjoy the game over the weekend at least.
Splinter Cell Chaos Theory is the perfect example of what's wrong with gaming on the Mac. Looking at the Mac game library you'll see a lot of the major titles, Doom 3, UT2004, WoW, etc... but the issue with games that are released on the Mac is that they usually take far too long to get there. Doom 3 is finally out on the Mac, and at one time I would've waited to play through it on the Mac but I grew bored of it last year on the PC and have no desire to play it on the Mac now. I'm eagerly awaiting the release of the next Splinter Cell, but it's not going to be out on the Mac so there's no way I'm waiting for it to be ported before playing it.
Then there's the issue of performance, both WoW and Doom 3 appear to run at about half the speed on the Mac as they do on the PC. Granted the Mac isn't a gaming platform, but this type of performance is just unacceptable since, architecturally, there's no explanation for the performance. It's a software/OS issue somewhere, but I'm hardly qualified to say where or why it still remains un-addressed by Apple. I guess I'd just like to be able to play the handful of games that I do play on the Mac, apparently that's too big of a wish.
So either this weekend or next week I'll be putting together a game machine in preparation for Chaos Theory :)
With the Pentium M article out of the way, I'm going to spend this weekend working on the ATI Theater 550 review as well as a $999 MCE review I had pushed aside for a little while. I've received a lot of requests for articles similar to the WoW Performance Guide but for other games (e.g. Everquest 2). I've had the idea for a while but never really had the time, but I think my schedule may be open enough to squeeze in a few game performance articles.
I'm eagerly awaiting Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, unfortunately it comes out the day I leave to go visit AMD in Austin. It'll be a short trip so I should be able to enjoy the game over the weekend at least.
Splinter Cell Chaos Theory is the perfect example of what's wrong with gaming on the Mac. Looking at the Mac game library you'll see a lot of the major titles, Doom 3, UT2004, WoW, etc... but the issue with games that are released on the Mac is that they usually take far too long to get there. Doom 3 is finally out on the Mac, and at one time I would've waited to play through it on the Mac but I grew bored of it last year on the PC and have no desire to play it on the Mac now. I'm eagerly awaiting the release of the next Splinter Cell, but it's not going to be out on the Mac so there's no way I'm waiting for it to be ported before playing it.
Then there's the issue of performance, both WoW and Doom 3 appear to run at about half the speed on the Mac as they do on the PC. Granted the Mac isn't a gaming platform, but this type of performance is just unacceptable since, architecturally, there's no explanation for the performance. It's a software/OS issue somewhere, but I'm hardly qualified to say where or why it still remains un-addressed by Apple. I guess I'd just like to be able to play the handful of games that I do play on the Mac, apparently that's too big of a wish.
So either this weekend or next week I'll be putting together a game machine in preparation for Chaos Theory :)
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
32 Comments
View All Comments
jrk - Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - link
As some others have suggested: it's the drivers.Apple rolls their own drivers, with some limited help/input from ATI and NVIDIA. They have fewer resources than ATI or NVIDIA for this task, and they have largely focussed on flexibility to cleanly integrate with their window manager (which runs atop GL, and also has GL contexts within it).
For several years, NVIDIA tried to convince Apple to let them supply drivers from their same unified codebase used for the Linux and Windows x86 drivers specifically in the interest of increasing the Mac performance of their hardware substantially over what the Apple drivers were able to achieve. At the time, however, Apple was too interested in making their own extensions for e.g. the window manager integration mentioned above to consider performance a top priority.
There have recently been substantial rumors about Apple prioritizing graphics hardware performance in 10.4 and subsequent incremental releases. However, committed or not, I don't think Apple has either the resources or the expertise to ever reach the performance of NVIDIA's (or likely ATI's) own drivers on Windows. There are certainly a great many optimizations to be made to the system and drivers -- 50% performance loss is just ridiculous, especially on a game like Doom 3 which should be more bound by shader computation and framebuffer bandwidth (stencil shadows are bandwidth-limited) performance (internal to the chip/board) -- but I wouldn't expect Apple to ever surpass 90% of NVIDIA/Windows performance on comparable hardware.
Qardinal - Saturday, April 2, 2005 - link
lol! Anand is biased, out of touch with his readers and advertisers, and pushes reviews out the door too fast? All because he didn't push overclocking the slowest PM to satisfy the vast number of people who wanna stick their PC in a unventilated closet (and to whom the few grams of weight difference means less time in the gym)?This would be truly funny, if I wern't so saddened by the realization that Anandtech must be about to go belly-up as a result of this. I just had no idea the UVCOs (unventilated closet overclockers)wielded such influence... but I guess it was only a matter of time before the crowd who's top priority of saving $2/month on electricity, managed to piggybank enough pennies to begin flexing their buying power on top-of-the-line technology =)
I'm just glad I found out in time to come out of my (well ventilated) closet and make my 1st post in the 3 years I've been reading Anand... and say thanks for making me the most computer litereate Carpenter anyone has ever met (at least, acording to all the people I've helped) =)
Disclaimer: author has a Pro-Anand bias ;)
Michael2k - Friday, April 1, 2005 - link
The problem exists that when Anand 'pushes customer requirements' that "customers" don't agree with, the "customers" see bias.Note the anti-Apple crowd that rises with every Apple article.
Or the people who complain about photo articles; or the people who complain about the PC-Club article.
Mark - Friday, April 1, 2005 - link
I perceive bias when I see parroting of vendor marketing and vendor engineering messages rather than evidence that a writer has sought out contrary communities of thought (and credits those sources).Pitching AMD's opinion against Intel's, or vice versa, does not separate fact from fiction. I would love to see Anand "make the news" through capturing and pushing customer requirements. This proposition helps all of us loyal readers.
Michael2k - Thursday, March 31, 2005 - link
Yes, especially since he has been pushing small, silent, and energy efficient systems lately; he's been pushing Macs for a little while now, and they do solve all the same problems the Pentium M can/could, but are cheaper and available now.Someone - Thursday, March 31, 2005 - link
Mark: Alright, so how does that make AnandTech biased?Mark - Thursday, March 31, 2005 - link
(Somebody)Anandtech's advertiser's have a different take than you. They like being in tune with consumers who buy technology for themselves and their families. They like decision makers in the business world who influence product purchases.
Anandtech built a readership through his ability to position products. Early on, there was a focus on longevity for the components and products reviewed here. That early focus on how to get ahead of Moore's Law brought a tangible value to readers beyond, "what is the latest fad". The recommendation to snap up celeron 300A's and recognized quality chipsets kept the same PC in place longer, it saved money.
Products come and go. The opportunity to sound off the call for Pentium M's in the desktop was lost on anandtech.com. If the call had been made more than a year ago, we would have this product today the way we want it. Now you have to wait for Intel to double up the chips and buyers must wait many months without products that have a longer term shelf life to fit today's requirements.
The Pentium M is just too practical to pass up. I believe Anand was too myopic on this one. He tested the priciest M chip rather than testing the least expensive one next to it. In the early days he would not have missed the chance to OC the 725 chip alongside the fastest chip. A 725 looks more like a 300A in terms of dialing up performance.
This little M chip and the processes and methodologies that brought it together saved Intel from a decline. Smaller, lighter more portable, with the potential for cost effective energy efficientcy is a driver in 225 countries and territories around the world. I would consider putting the Pentium M to work everywhere its capability yields results. In 1U appliance boxes or desktops to run firewalls, distributed net app servers, video systems that can hide in a closet without concern about ventilation changes or isolating circuits. Widespread adoption by established PC makers will have much impact for my ability to deploy it. I watch eagerly for vendors to standardize on the platform or its successor.
If you really like all the noise and heat belching out of your desktop PC, and are eager give up real estate to accomodate larger boxes, I don't speak for you. You'll tire of the noise and heat eventually. Until then, tolerate a different point of view.
Someone - Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - link
#24 (Mark): Do you have any clue what you are talking about? Things get changed all the time and companies make new announcements literally every day. It's not possible for Anand and the staff (or others for that matter) to update their reviews whenever the company decides to do something new and different.I think Anand would've a better idea of what his readers want since many of them contact him directly. Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean you can make such broad statements. 915 chipset is the board you want, majority may not want that.
And please stop acting like an advocate for AnandTech's entire readership - you sound pathetic. Stop coming here if you don't like it.
Mark - Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - link
Anand,Stop pushing reviews out the door. The ct-479 review was rushed. There are significant bios updates available that change the numbers.
When this adapter hits the streets they are going to be gobbled up. ASUS has compatibility with 3 Motherboards today and two chipsets. Their PAGD1 Motherboard is on its way! It is a socket 478 on the 915 chipset. This is the board we want.
If we wanted space heaters under our desks we would buy them! We want silent and powerful desktops!
You're biased, and you are wrong about what your readers want!
Michael2k - Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - link
#22:What about the power supply fans?
What about the hard drives?
The point of a rewiew/comparison is which is more effective? Which is more cost effective? Which is cheaper?
Can you get a silent PC for less than $500? How about less than $1,000?