4.7 ghz Wintel... [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

ewinemiller

Sep 13, 2002, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by Haberdasher
Go ahead and flame me...I know that the Mhz of the G4 and P4 don't match up in performance, but there's too big of a speed gap for there to be any doubt in my mind of which is faster.

It's actually a little worse than you think, when the P4s first came out, they were clock for clock significantly slower than a G4, but with the release of the Northwood core and then the 533mhz bus, at least with the stuff I do, my P4 is clock for clock faster than my G4. I've got 6 classes of machines sitting around and when I hit render and then factor out mhz, this is the list fastest to slowest: PIII-mobile, P4-533mhz bus, PIII-coppermine, G4-quicksilver, G3, PII. Of course with the boosted bus on the new G4s, this ranking may well have changed, but the point is, the P4 is no longer the laggard it was at it's introduction. On top of that Intel keeps boosting the clockspeed and is about to introduce another boost in the form of hyperthreads to the consumer P4 line to push it even farther.

I really like my Mac, OSX is nice and I love the iApps. All the kid videos are done using 75% iMovie and iDVD (with a little Premier on the PC when I need something fancy), but frankly that's really not enough and I only keep the Mac to support my customers. When it comes to production, it's just not enough bang for the buck. I have to believe that Steve and Co. have something interesting up their sleeve because to follow Motorola's plodding updates to the G4 seems like a slow suicide and would be a terrible thing to do to the stockholders and fans of the platform.

Before I get flamed about how it's worth the performance hit and cost to avoid the PCs reputation for more downtime. I haven't a problem like that since NT4 with sp3 as long as I use a top tier vender like dell. The handful of homegrown machines I've built since then have been notoriously twitchy, but is probably more an indicator of my skills as a system integrator not of the platform in general.

chmorley

Sep 13, 2002, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by ewinemiller
...and then factor out mhz, this is the list fastest to slowest: PIII-mobile, P4-533mhz bus, PIII-coppermine, G4-quicksilver, G3, PII. Of course with the boosted bus on the new G4s, this ranking may well have changed, but the point is, the P4 is no longer the laggard it was at it's introduction...

...I have to believe that Steve and Co. have something interesting up their sleeve because to follow Motorola's plodding updates to the G4 seems like a slow suicide and would be a terrible thing to do to the stockholders and fans of the platform.

Before I get flamed about how it's worth the performance hit and cost to avoid the PCs reputation for more downtime. I haven't a problem like that since NT4 with sp3 as long as I use a top tier vender like dell. The handful of homegrown machines I've built since then have been notoriously twitchy, but is probably more an indicator of my skills as a system integrator not of the platform in general. Some great, true, and sad points. However, you are comparing old Macs with newer PCs. There are other factors besides processor speed that might be affecting your outcome. In addition, I wonder if the software you're using is optimized for AltiVec.

Secondly, I agree that NT4 is notoriously stable. Isn't it a bit sad, though, that M$ofties have to use an old OS to get stability. Nonetheless, it is true that Wintel users can have greater speed and great stability on their machines. It's still not OS X, but if you're comfortable in the environment and get get things done (sometimes more) efficiently, why would you buy a new (more expensive) Mac.

Thirdly, I think Motorola is keeping up with (the bastardaized interpretation of) Mohr's Law over the past year or two. The problem is that somewhere between their speed superiority and today, they lost ground.

I love Apple, but if they don't find a way to catch up, they're dead in the water.

Chris

p.s., Dell a "top tier" vendor?

edesignuk

Sep 13, 2002, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by chmorley

p.s., Dell a "top tier" vendor?
Funny, I was thinking exactly the same thing :D

gopher

Sep 13, 2002, 09:06 AM

The Mhz myth is true. When Genentech is able to use a dual 1 Ghz Mac to go 5 times faster than their PC counterparts, and Photoshop up to 90 % faster than a Pentium IV 2.53 Ghz on a dual 1.25 Ghz Mac, the myth is true. Even the Athlon 2.6 Ghz is faster than the 2.8 Ghz Pentium IV. In some instances even the 1.6 Ghz Pentium III is faster than the Pentium IV. Mhz has nothing to do with speed. When your stage is 3 times longer, you have to go three times as fast to catch up.

If your Mac is slower than a PC for any reason on the same application it is because the software hasn't been optimized for the Mac. Write the software developer before you complain about the Mac speed. Get them to develop for Altivec. It makes a world of difference.

ewinemiller

Sep 13, 2002, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by chmorley
p.s., Dell a "top tier" vendor?

At least in my book, in my day job we've used Gateway, IBM, Compaq, Micron, and Dell. Dell by far has been the most reliable. Consumer reports' survey put them on top as most reliable, even beating out Apple, through under support I think apple and dell swapped spots. I don't know how else to define top tier if not "works best". Don't let the awful Dell dude commercials color your perception, they make a good product. I grimace everytime someone walks into my office and says "Dude, you got a dell!"

edesignuk

Sep 13, 2002, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by gopher
Even the Athlon 2.6 Ghz
I wasn't aware that AMD made a 2.6Ghz Athlon, they make a 2600+ XP but that IS NOT 2.6Ghz. I think it's something like 2.133 Ghz. However, I'd still take it over the P4 any day!

atomwork

Sep 13, 2002, 09:20 AM

you know what. If Apple would finally give up ther Megaherz Myth and equal up the numbers that PCs have, then dummies out there would understand the need of a mac. So far the service, the own apps and etc is amazing. But what does it matter if my mom would never get it?

Cheers
Dave

nuckinfutz

Sep 13, 2002, 09:24 AM

when the P4s first came out, they were clock for clock significantly slower than a G4, but with the release of the Northwood core and then the 533mhz bus, at least with the stuff I do, my P4 is clock for clock faster than my G4.

I think you're mistaking what "Clock for Clock" means. What it means is that if you leveled the playing field so to speak by matching the megahertz of each processor. Which machine would have the inherent advantage due to design. That was and still is the G4. If a G4 in it's current state could run at 3Ghz it would easily beat a P4. The 533mhz bus hasn't really that much to do with it. Anandtech tested and found only a 6% advantage in measurable speed by moving from 400mhz to 533 which is over a %30 percent hike in bus bandwidth. Benchmarking an app rendering is a reflection not only of the Processors and system design but of the app itself and it's optimizations for various platforms.

but is probably more an indicator of my skills as a system integrator not of the platform in general.

Agreed. Stability soon will be something the avg user can take for granted. However it does sound like you know how to tweak.

Apple is behind the curve in this battle but the next battle looms.

Who will :

1. Move to and quickly establish 64bit computing on the Desktop. Intel always has the upper hand. Apple may be closer than most people realize. .

2. Integrate new tech. RapiIO, Hypertransport and PCIExpress all factor into the race for a leap in Mainboard performance. While the uninitiated squabble over DDR buses the near future holds much more opportunity.

3. Whether MS or Apple can really evolve their os. Apple being smaller and more nimble should pull out to a commanding lead here. Much work needs to be done but the infrastructure is building and OSX is a good base. Hopefully we'll have a new Filesystem in the next 2 years and Apple maintains it's current course of action by embracing standard muliplatform protocols(like Rendezvous/zeroconf)

4. Expansion into new markets- Is a must for Apple. More iPod like successes. Apple must attempt to stay single platform unless there is much money to be made in Wintel. Driving customers to Apple has always been a priority but it must be done more keenly.

5. Continue to grow Pro apps. Final Cut Pro and the growing family of Pro Apps from Apple should converge as a sort of High End Digital Lifestyle. Support Open Standards when Applicable and augment them with Apple Tech like Applescript to automate the workflow.

Fellas the fun is just beginning.

SilvorX

Sep 13, 2002, 09:26 AM

bout time for apple to release a dual 2.5 ghz powermac ;)

is apple affected by that hardware thing that microsoft signed up amd and intel so that ppl cant download music n such?

ewinemiller

Sep 13, 2002, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by nuckinfutz

I think you're mistaking what "Clock for Clock" means. What it means is that if you leveled the playing field so to speak by matching the megahertz of each processor. Which machine would have the inherent advantage due to design. That was and still is the G4. If a G4 in it's current state could run at 3Ghz it would easily beat a P4. The 533mhz bus hasn't really that much to do with it. Anandtech tested and found only a 6% advantage in measurable speed by moving from 400mhz to 533 which is over a %30 percent hike in bus bandwidth. Benchmarking an app rendering is a reflection not only of the Processors and system design but of the app itself and it's optimizations for various platforms.

No, I understand, my p4 2.26ghz finishes the render in less than 1/3 the time of my G4 800mhz. If my P4 were clocked at 753 mhz, keeping bus, etc all the same, it would still beat my G4 800 by a few percentage points.

In altivec enabled applications the G4 certainly shines, but for non optimized code the overwhelming performance just isn't there, in the things I do. Noticed I qualified in my original post and here, for the things I do. The G4 may kick some serious butt in photoshop, but to justify the price difference I'd want to see that kind of performance everywhere and it just doesn't show. I think that Apple and the user community in general does itself a great disservice in touting the mhz myth as if it applied to everything. I was incredibly disappointed when I bought a G4 expecting the amazing performance attributed to the G4. It just wasn't there, a PIII at the same clock, 1 year older (and half the cost new), beat it by 10%! I felt ripped off and completely disenchancted with Apple. Things got a little better when the software I was using released a new version compiled on a newer compiler, but it was still behind by a few percentage points.

The G4 was an amazing chip when it came out and it's competition was a PIII-katmai or a AMD K6-3, it ran circles around them at the same clock speed. When the P4 came out, the P4 was a dog. I think unfortunately most Mac folks perceptions of the intel chips remain back there today without having noticed the big jumps in efficiency that intel picked up with PIII-coppermines, PIII-tualitins, and P4-northwoods.

Hopefully, however, Apple has noticed and plans to do something about it. The technologies that you mention certainly will help that, but right now I don't see anything telling me who will be the first out of the gate with them and which ones might be the must have technology in the next few years. I suspect 64bit computing will be pretty cool, but even with the delay AMD announced today it still looks like they will be the first to a consumer/pro level 64bit chip. Basing OSX on a unix variant is probably the best thing Apple could have done, there is an awful lot of free development and research they can benefit from by having done that. It probably gets them on par or a little ahead of the tons o' cash that MS can throw at Windows. If Apple would just fix the frickin critical sections, but that's another story.

MacBandit

Sep 13, 2002, 10:34 AM

What you need to realize is there are very few people out there that are actually complaining about there machine not being fast enough. Most people just use there computer for email these are the people that will replace there PC in 3 or 4 years not because it's to slow but because it's dead. Apples market share is not as dependent on the Mhz as one would think. The people that really desire the speed at least most of them know the difference between Mhz and overall system speed. Trust me on this one I have several friends with PC's well exceeding 2Ghz and when they came over and watched me using my new Dual Ghz/DDR there jaws hit the floor and they said in unison that they had to have one. We need to quit complaining about the could have beens and the maybes and help sell the awesome computers that we have right now. The more we b*tch about how slow these computers are the more newbies and pc people will pick up on this and not knowing what they're talking about believe it.

MacBandit

Sep 13, 2002, 10:37 AM

Oh, and another thing cpu manufacturors demonstrate maxed out cpu fairly frequently this is done to show the potential of a cpu not that they're going in to production. I would be that they scoured production for months before they found one cpu that could achieve what they did with some kind of special cooling. They probably had the thing in a freezer with some kind of special gas instead of air to cool it.

Moto and IBM do demonstrations like this also.

ewinemiller

Sep 13, 2002, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by MacBandit
What you need to realize is there are very few people out there that are actually complaining about there machine not being fast enough. Most people just use there computer for email these are the people that will replace there PC in 3 or 4 years not because it's to slow but because it's dead.

That is so very true, I was reminded of this yesterday when my mother called asking about adding wireless to her laptop. The mininum spec to use the card was a 200mhz Pentium and she only has a 133mhz! It still works fine for email, word, etc. I guess some folks have a lot more patience than I.

nuckinfutz

Sep 13, 2002, 10:49 AM

I think that Apple and the user community in general does itself a great disservice in touting the mhz myth as if it applied to everything. I was incredibly disappointed when I bought a G4 expecting the amazing performance attributed to the G4. It just wasn't there, a PIII at the same clock, 1 year older (and half the cost new), beat it by 10%! I felt ripped off and completely disenchancted with Apple. Things got a little better when the software I was using released a new version compiled on a newer compiler, but it was still behind by a few percentage points.

Interesting. My situation was just the opposite. A couple of years ago I built to PIII systems and I was expecting to be blown away because PC users are so tweaky. What I found was that straight line speed was good but unfortunately Win98 was a very poor OS. I'm now on Win2k and things are better stability wise. I've followed the P4 since before it's inception and it's clear that Intels design goals were to develop a Proc that can clock very easily. Hence the 20+ Pipleline stages. They've done a masterful job increasing the speed of the proc with the northwood core but overall I believe the processor is not that impressive. I'm not saying the G4 is for all circumstances but I do like chips that support SMP and run cool enough to be used in a laptop. So I myself am willing so sacrafice top speed for efficiency.

Can't wait until OCT 15. I'm curious about this new Power4 Lite Proc from IBM. Despite rumors to the contrary I believe it plays a part in Apple's future.

Apple's not playing nice guy anymore. They're ready to compete. This is good for us Mac users because they have been setting up an infrastructure for success(Apple Stores, iApps). It's time to shore up the Hardware.

fourthtunz

Sep 13, 2002, 04:06 PM

I think peecees are a great value if, you aren't using pci cards and you build your own but I just got the new dual 867 and it rocks! If your doing video you should check out final cut pro on OSX.2 Very solid and very fast!
I adimit I don't have the very newest pc with the newest apps but the reason the Mac is now an even better deal is the very real speed of the new Machines,the new OS, and the Included apps are very good. Final cut does not exist for the Pc, its nearest competitor, from avid is about $700 more and not as good,so if you factor in everything,the New Macs are the best values in a long time. It will be interesting to see what happens on both sides next year:D
Daniel

hazz4121

Sep 13, 2002, 05:37 PM

I notice quite a few folks referring to how fast a machine is mhz for mhz and how if software were properly developed that the Mac would be faster than the equivalent pc. There is one flaw in that thought process you can only buy and use what is on the market. I have been designing on Macs since '92. In the end of 2001 after being laid off I needed a pc to test and developed on. I built an Athlon XP 1800+ system with Win2k. Prior to that I was working on a G4 500 agp with OS 9.1. My new testing PC absolutely killed my G4. Now I realize the G4 is old technology and the Athlon new. The speed of the machines is a 3:1 ratio 500mhz(G4) to 1.54ghz(Athlon) but for my tasks in After Effects and Photoshop it is 4 times faster. Not to mention Flash which Macromedia has done a terrible job developing for the Mac. I now see actual frame rates rather than two thirds frame rate. To get that sort of performance on a new Mac (in late 2001) I would have had to shell out $3000 and it still wouldn't have been as fast at the time. I paid $1100 for the pc. I love OS X and I run 10.5 on my G4 but I can't justify spending the cash on a new Mac since I would have to upgrade all my primary aps to run in OS X. Not to mention win2k is solid. I rarely have to restart and have crashed maybe twice in the 10 months I've had the pc.

I'm at the crossroads though. I need to get a laptop soon and I would love to see a reasonably priced Ti Powerbook. But I'll probably end up with a 2ghz pc laptop for $1500. apple needs to get more competitive with bang for the buck. I'm just waiting for a reason to go back to working on a Mac!

edesignuk

Sep 13, 2002, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by hazz4121
I run 10.5 on my G4
10.5 huh? Lucky you! I hope it's something the rest of us can look forward to! :) :D ;) j/k, of course it's a typo, but I just couldn't resist.

hazz4121

Sep 13, 2002, 06:34 PM

sorry 10.1.5

e-coli

Sep 13, 2002, 08:26 PM

Dell a top tier vendor?

actually, dell makes insanely great computers. their stock video cards generally aren't very good, but you can fix that easily.

apple needs to catch up quickly. it's getting sad and pathetic. especially with the rumors that apple is just now scrambling to find someone to manufacture/replace the G5 or equivalent.

chmorley

Sep 13, 2002, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by gopher
...When your stage is 3 times longer, you have to go three times as fast to catch up.

If your Mac is slower than a PC for any reason on the same application it is because the software hasn't been optimized for the Mac. Write the software developer before you complain about the Mac speed. Get them to develop for Altivec. It makes a world of difference. Not true...and not true.

When a pipeline (not a "stage", as pipelines are made up of stages) is 3 times longer, there are more opportunities for inefficiencies. While in theory this could make some software 3 times less efficient, in real life this is rarely the case.

Secondly, saying the only time Macs are slower than PCs is when apps haven't been optimized for Altivec is patently false. Having applications utilize AltiVec is great, but it often doesn't make up for the fact that the processor is slower.

I am as Pro-Mac as the next guy, but getting the facts wrong makes us just look like we don't know anything about computers. The biggest pro of the Mac is the OS (and the elegance of the experience). It's foolish, though, not to acknowledge the downside, which is slower chips (some say "inferior hardware", but I think that overstates the importance of speed). Overall in the equation, I prefer Macs by a lot, but they're slower than PCs.

No need to deny it.

Chris

King Cobra

Sep 13, 2002, 08:50 PM

verbose, do you ever give newbies a break with typos these days? :rolleyes: :D

Great posts, guys. Well worth reading. But I think some of you need to take a closer look at WHY MHz/GHz doesn't matter as much.

First of all, the Px does not have the Velocity Engine, and OS 10.1/2 uses it. There is a dramatic performance over the G4 (and especially later G3s) with 10.2, as the operating system is now more effeciant. Also, OS X takes advantage of dual processors to a certain degree (maybe an extra 50 percent or so). Finally, when you take a look at the new PowerMacs, you are looking at 4MB of L3 Cache (w/ dual 1.25GHz). The Px don't seem to have that (if any). So, basically, that would bring a 64-bit system (in terms of the P4) to about 4 or 5GHz right there.

Now, take a look at the PC. Sure, the PC has incredible boot time, is great for playing games, and has a quick OS. However, the P4 lacks the necessity of an effecient L1 Cache. I do not see how 4Kb will provide enough memory for the complex operations tha Macs can handle. So, instead of a 4.7GHz, you're looking at, maybe, 3.x or 4GHz, assuming, with this new chip, the L1 cache has remained unchanged.

The only reasons Macs appear to be bogged down are because of the slower bus speeds (167MHz (Mac) compared to 333MHz or faster (PC) w/BOTH having DDR-RAM) and because not all applications support the Velocity Engine. It may not be THAT big of a difference, but it does bring the overall speed of the G4 down, when compared to a P4. Apple's apps sure work with OS X and the VE, but not a whole lot of other apps. In these cases (varies on how often, depending on what percentage of application usage involves the VE) the overall speed of the G4 (in relative terms to a P4) would decrease significantly, and that's one of the other reasons why were are getting hit badly.

I honestly don't see how a G5 (IF it comes out) would help, unless it was able to *fool* non-VE apps to thinking that data is going in 64-bit pathways, and the G5 could split that to 128-bit or even 256-bit pathways. Otherwise, the G4 will NOT be beneficial in the long run.

MacBandit

Sep 14, 2002, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by King Cobra
verbose, do you ever give newbies a break with typos these days? :rolleyes: :D

Great posts, guys. Well worth reading. But I think some of you need to take a closer look at WHY MHz/GHz doesn't matter as much.

First of all, the Px does not have the Velocity Engine, and OS 10.1/2 uses it. There is a dramatic performance over the G4 (and especially later G3s) with 10.2, as the operating system is now more effeciant. Also, OS X takes advantage of dual processors to a certain degree (maybe an extra 50 percent or so). Finally, when you take a look at the new PowerMacs, you are looking at 4MB of L3 Cache (w/ dual 1.25GHz). The Px don't seem to have that (if any). So, basically, that would bring a 64-bit system (in terms of the P4) to about 4 or 5GHz right there.

Now, take a look at the PC. Sure, the PC has incredible boot time, is great for playing games, and has a quick OS. However, the P4 lacks the necessity of an effecient L1 Cache. I do not see how 4Kb will provide enough memory for the complex operations tha Macs can handle. So, instead of a 4.7GHz, you're looking at, maybe, 3.x or 4GHz, assuming, with this new chip, the L1 cache has remained unchanged.

First of all what do you consider great boot times? Not that this matters a lot. I have a new Dual Ghz/DDR and it starts from cold boot to login in screen in 27secs with 10.2 and from login to operating finder is nearly instantaneous.

Second of all as I have stated before the true reason Mhz doesn't matter is because something like %98 of all computer users are not power users these are the people that will go buy a new computer tomorrow and if there is a 2.8Ghz computer sitting next to a 800Mhz computer they couldn't care they're going to buy the cheap one. They don't even care how much ram it has. I know this because I went computer shopping with my boss for work(yes for a PC). He wanted my help. Well little help I was he bought the cheapest computer he could get with 64MB of Ram I suggested we upgrade it later and he agreed well that was 2 years ago still it sits with 64MB of RAM in it. Oh and I might add it still has all the stickers on the front of it. These people don't care about this stuff all it's used for is mail and the occasional websearch and most people are like this.

scem0

Sep 14, 2002, 01:43 AM

As soon as athere is a PC that is 3.5x more mehahertz then the most current powermac, then I am switching, even if it is in the 'wrong direction', yeah OS X is a great OS but if I cant afford the already slow-compared-to-PCs hardware to back it up, why get a mac at all. I can live with Windoze, and hope that it gets some major revisions, as long as my computer, that costs a lot less then a mac, runs faster then a mac. My rant is over. This basically sums up what I want to say:

If apple doesnt release a hell of a good computer this Jan then I have got to say bye bye to my whole pro-mac life style, and go out and buy a faster, cheaper machine. A great OS and iApps wont make up for speed, no matter how cool they are.

MacBandit

Sep 14, 2002, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by scem0
As soon as athere is a PC that is 3.5x more mehahertz then the most current powermac, then I am switching, even if it is in the 'wrong direction', yeah OS X is a great OS but if I cant afford the already slow-compared-to-PCs hardware to back it up, why get a mac at all. I can live with Windoze, and hope that it gets some major revisions, as long as my computer, that costs a lot less then a mac, runs faster then a mac. My rant is over. This basically sums up what I want to say:

If apple doesnt release a hell of a good computer this Jan then I have got to say bye bye to my whole pro-mac life style, and go out and buy a faster, cheaper machine. A great OS and iApps wont make up for speed, no matter how cool they are.

Not truly cheaper. Not truly faster.

King Cobra

Sep 14, 2002, 07:08 AM

>(MacBandit) First of all what do you consider great boot times? Not that this matters a lot. I have a new Dual Ghz/DDR and it starts from cold boot to login in screen in 27secs with 10.2 and from login to operating finder is nearly instantaneous.

With 10.2, sure, boot time on the Mac has significantly improved. But I've noticed that with the PCs at PHHS the PCs boot in under a minute. But, just this past week I thought I logged out of one of the P3s and I actually restarted it. The restart to log-in, then to the OS was approximately the same as you said, MB. What would a computer with 3x/4x the GHz seem like?

>Second of all as I have stated before the true reason Mhz doesn't matter is because something like %98 of all computer users are not power users these are the people that will go buy a new computer tomorrow and if there is a 2.8Ghz computer sitting next to a 800Mhz computer they couldn't care they're going to buy the cheap one.

>(MacBandit, in a previous post) The people that really desire the speed at least most of them know the difference between Mhz and overall system speed.

My entire previous post, starting from the first lengthy paragraph was trying to explain why MHz doesn't matter. I agree with your point of view, but I am trying to expand the MHz/GHz speeds of a G4 to how it would compare against a P4 of ≈ same speed. My post had approximations, so that's why I say approximately equal to, not =. But my point is that the G4 can actually surpass the P4 at 3 or 4GHz speeds if the right apps are used.

>They don't even care how much ram it has. I know this because I went computer shopping with my boss for work(yes for a PC). He wanted my help. Well little help I was he bought the cheapest computer he could get with 64MB of Ram I suggested we upgrade it later and he agreed well that was 2 years ago still it sits with 64MB of RAM in it. Oh and I might add it still has all the stickers on the front of it.

Well I didn't mention RAM, but I will now. Try running OS X (even 10.1) on ANY computer with 128MB of RAM or less. I have with my iMac 233 (w/64MB of RAM) and my iBook 467 (with 128MB). The iMac was a complete drag. My iBook is rather slow, but it works fine. My Cube G4 has 1GB of RAM and must be at least 2 or 3 times faster than my iBook, depending on what tasks I perform.

>These people don't care about this stuff all it's used for is mail and the occasional websearch and most people are like this.

Now this brings up a different issue (as well as MHz): OS Stability. Sure, XP may have fixed *some* :snicker: of the errors from older versions of Win. Yet it still isn't totally stable.

Wherever there is a PC for that stuff, there is a low-end PowerMac for them. It's called an iMac. :cool:

barkmonster

Sep 14, 2002, 09:01 AM

If your Mac is slower than a PC for any reason on the same application it is because the software hasn't been optimized for the Mac. Write the software developer before you complain about the Mac speed. Get them to develop for Altivec. It makes a world of difference.

No chance.

Most applications that can take advantage of Altivec already do, there's a lot of processes that can't benefit from Altivec at all and that's where the G4 is getting beaten senseless.

Even Altivec itself is crippled by the bus speed.

The G4 achieves 1.3Gb/s on the dual 1Ghz G4 with the 167Mhz Front Side Bus.

Remembering that there's 8 bits in a byte and memory is 64 bit the Mb/s of the FSB works out as follows :

(100 / 3) x 5 = 166.666 this is just the precise way of calculating the bus speed

64 bit / 8 = 8 bytes

8 x 166.666Mhz = 1.333 GB/s

Remembering that 1.3Gb/s is the most the system controller can transfere to either CPU, altivec is hardly getting any of the juice it needs at all with the current G4 design.

Assuming we're still talking about that dual Ghz G4, Altvec works out like this :

(128 / 8) x 1000Mhz = 15.625 Gb/s

It's only getting a measly 1.3Gb/s, hardly what it needs.

Plus both CPUs and both Altivec units have to share the same 167Mhz FSB to transfere data to and from main memory.

Even though the L2 and L3 cache have a lot to play in getting around the FSB bottleneck, that's 1.3Gb/s of bandwidth shared between cpus and SiMD units that require a total of 33.85Mb/s.

If you're working on data that's less than 256K it fits in the L2 cache and there's no bottleneck, anything bigger than that and it's either got to fit in the L3 which is half the required bandwidth or it's coming from main system memory with that tiny 1.3Mb/s of bandwidth.

fourthtunz

Sep 14, 2002, 03:13 PM

It seems like alot of the folks posting on this thread haven't tried the new Macs with osX.2. I'll admit 3 weeks ago the arguements posted above may have been valid, and thats not to say that apple doesn't have to come out with faster stuff to keep up with pcs but right now the Mac is very fast and a good deal.
$1899 for a dual 867 with a dvd burner and the software is pretty close to a similar pc and the included software is a real deal.
The new Hardware is a real improvement too. 2 optical bays and 4 ide drive bays with included raid software, if you haven't installed anything in the new Macs, believe me this is the best!
I use my Macs fulltime in my audio/video studio and for me it doesn't get any better than this!
Yes Macs initially cost more but the new speed/productivity boost quickly makes up of the slight difference.
So buy an emac if you need a cheap computer, maybe not as fast as the cheap pc but more portable!
Peace
Daniel

gopher

Sep 14, 2002, 06:33 PM

Who says all the processing can't be finished in the processor before it goes out on the bus. If your software is optimized it will stay on the processor do its Altivec, do its L3 cache stuff, and then when it is ready to issue a result it will go out on the bus. But unfortunately most developers seem to be ignorant they can do that, and instead over utilize the bus slowing things down. The folks at Genentech managed a 5 fold speed boost by avoiding the slowdown on the bus. Remember with less stages it will take less processor time to finish tasks. So there are ways of optimizing software for the G4 that not every software developer has taken advantage of. And believe me my G4 iMac 800 Mhz is mighty fast even without all that L3 cache, and a 100 Mhz bus. I have yet to see a PC that can match it. Get Jaguar and be surprised by how fast a Mac is.

porovaara

Sep 14, 2002, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by gopher
When your stage is 3 times longer, you have to go three times as fast to catch up.

What? That isn't even remotely how pipelines work. The problem with large pipelines with many stages is when there is a miss in branch prediction. At that point everything already in the pipeline is wasted. Branch prediction failure is a very very bad thing. Fortunately both AMD and Intel have gotten really good at it as they have ramped up the stages. This can also be mitigated some with damn good compilers (of which Intel is good at making, but no one really uses).

Macs are awesome integrated platforms. However the G4 CPU is now an old dog.

edit: typos

scem0

Sep 14, 2002, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit

Not truly cheaper. Not truly faster.

I dont see how anyone can say this when I can get a 2.8 GHz custom built speed-demon for 1,300 after shopping around, and I cant get **** from apple for 1,300. Well I could get something, but nothing that compares speed-wise to the pentium 4.

fourthtunz

Sep 15, 2002, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by scem0

I dont see how anyone can say this when I can get a 2.8 GHz custom built speed-demon for 1,300 after shopping around, and I cant get **** from apple for 1,300. Well I could get something, but nothing that compares speed-wise to the pentium 4.

What I meant was for $1899 you get a very fast well built Mac that with the new Os will allow you go right to work, with a DVD burner, a software you can do REAL work with! Oh Yeah and the new Macs With X.2 are now truly twice a fast, at least in my tests with real work. Point me to ANY PC with included great software, a DVD burner, and awesome case, gig ethernet, an included firewire setup that works with drives and cameras for even $1699! I'm not talking a custom built pccee with a cheapo box, thats not the same thing. If you think it is then you haven't been doing real work, you're surfing the net and playing games something that the Imac or emac excells at for less money,peace
Daniel

MacBandit

Sep 15, 2002, 12:16 PM

MacBandit

Sep 15, 2002, 12:23 PM

King Cobra

Sep 15, 2002, 12:31 PM

>Does this include everything that comes standard on a Mac box?

You certainly don't get the most stable OS with a PC.

>Does this include everything that comes standard on a Mac box?

You certainly don't get the most stable OS with a PC.

:D

scem, I think in due time the price of Apple's hardware will come down. Take a look at the prices of the Macintosh/Apple product line. The Macintosh II was valued at I think over $6000. The G4/G3 motherboard was worth up to $3500 I think. Now, the Dual 1.25GHz model sells for around $3300, if you don't feel like chugging in THAT much RAM.

My guess is that in a couple of years Apple's PowerMacs will be reduced to near equivalent prices as when the first dual GHz PowerMacs came out, topping out at $3000.

MacBandit

Sep 15, 2002, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by King Cobra
>Does this include everything that comes standard on a Mac box?

You certainly don't get the most stable OS with a PC.

>Does this include everything that comes standard on a Mac box?

You certainly don't get the most stable OS with a PC.

:D

scem, I think in due time the price of Apple's hardware will come down. Take a look at the prices of the Macintosh/Apple product line. The Macintosh II was valued at I think over $6000. The G4/G3 motherboard was worth up to $3500 I think. Now, the Dual 1.25GHz model sells for around $3300, if you don't feel like chugging in THAT much RAM.

My guess is that in a couple of years Apple's PowerMacs will be reduced to near equivalent prices as when the first dual GHz PowerMacs came out, topping out at $3000.

I'm sorry about that double post it won't let me delete them and things went crazy for me there for a couple moments and I accidentally pressed the back and forward arrow.

I feel that Macs are competitively priced now. I just configured a Dell which I feel is the cheapest of the major name brand PC's and also know for there lack of quality. I ended up with a 2Ghz PC no monitor with similar hardware except no firewire and less expansion possibilities in the future because of used up PCI slots etc. for $1,288. I made the comparison to a Dual 867 and modified the Apple config. when I couldn't make the two match any other way. I personally feel that OS X and the whole Mac experience is worth the difference for a computer that will without a doubt whip the pants off that Dell and continue to do it after it the Dell is dead and gone.

I did the same thing with a 2.4Ghz Compaq and it has Firewire and it came up to $1,455. I repeat myself again in everything I said above about the Dual867 being a better deal because of OSX and I still believe it would be faster at most tasks especially multitasking and it still having a longer life without failure.

King Cobra

Sep 15, 2002, 01:07 PM

>I'm sorry about that double post it won't let me delete them

Heh. Someone else had that problem. You have to be one of us, muhahahahaha! :eek:

>I personally feel that OS X and the whole Mac experience is worth the difference for a computer that will without a doubt whip the pants off that Dell and continue to do it after it the Dell is dead and gone.

I think Gatelaid may suffer first: Sleep forever standing up, like a cow. :D

OS X absolutely *kills* all the other OSs, as most of us know (especially with 10.2). You won't see that with a Windoze update. Upgrading to ME is sort of a 50:50 deal, whether you upgrade successfully, or upgrade in heck. And constant Windoze upgrades come in the fashion of "kill a bug/get one free". But as long as you don't have upgrader cards or such with your Mac, OS 10.2 really doesn't need so many updates, except for add-ons and stuff.

MacBandit

Sep 15, 2002, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by KC

Heh. Someone else had that problem. You have to be one of us, muhahahahaha!

I'm being made into one of you by this. I had to fashion that post manually without all the automatic code. I'm doing it for this message to. I'm learning by doing hahahahahahahhaha. :p :p

Going CrAzy :p :rolleyes: :D

Is there a tutorial or something that explains all the formatting so I can do everything manually without trial and error?

King Cobra

Sep 15, 2002, 02:23 PM

I'll PM you about it, since it would move the thread well off topic.

fragiledreams

Sep 15, 2002, 04:04 PM

What you are saying are untrue stereotypes about Windows OS. Windows NT4, 2000 and XP are extremely stable and, if you like it or not, service packs realy work. Finaly that thing about new bugs is only in your imagination.

I am not a fan of Microsoft (the opposite realy) but some things must be said as they really are.

King Cobra

Sep 15, 2002, 04:44 PM

At Pascack Hills, I have been on computers running NT4 and Windoze 2000, and both have *rarely* crashed on me. However, it's not common for me to see OS X crash on me. Even when I had 10.1 on my iMac 233 for a short time, it did not crash one time.

My point is that as stable as the Windoze OS is, as you point out, OS X, simply put, is even more stable. Although there are some issues with hardware, usually, that's with upgraded hardware, the OS performs very well under the power of the G4.

I have also heard about XP not crashing as much as the previous OSs. So I'll say it as it is: The Windoze OS is improving, but incremently closer to perfect. If an error pops up, at least explain what should be done about.

solvs

Sep 15, 2002, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by King Cobra
I'll PM you about it, since it would move the thread well off topic.

Yeah, cuz that never happens. ;)

Actually, I just wanted to point out to everyone that the G4 uses a 167 MHz FSB, and the new G3 is CAPABLE of a 200 MHz FSB. The P4s use a Quad pumped 133 FSB (533 effective, kinda). The "old" one used a Quad 100 (400 effective). Now the Celeron uses the 400. But they are HOT, and take A LOT of energy to run.

The AMDs used a 100 MHz DDR FSB for the old Athlons and the Durons (200 kinda, because it's rising and falling), and DDR 133 for the "newer" Athlons (which they call 266). No CPU yet uses a 333 FSB, DDR or otherwise. AMD will soon, but it's Vaporware for now. And if DDRSDRAM only adds about a 5-20% increase over SDRAM, even when used properly, do the math.

Do you really think they're getting the full 533 or 266?

Just thought I'd clear that up.

I would go off about MHz myths and pipeline stages and other boring things that are often misunderstood, but I'm tired. And I'd rather not put myself to sleep. I just hope Apple can win oer the newbies with something cheap and easy, and keep the professionals with something fast enough to at least keep paces in some stuff with a similarly configured WinTel.

OS X is great, but if I can render something in 1/3 the time for 1/3 the price, what do you think I'm gonna choose?

fragiledreams

Sep 15, 2002, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by King Cobra
At Pascack Hills, I have been on computers running NT4 and Windoze 2000, and both have *rarely* crashed on me. However, it's not common for me to see OS X crash on me. Even when I had 10.1 on my iMac 233 for a short time, it did not crash one time.

My point is that as stable as the Windoze OS is, as you point out, OS X, simply put, is even more stable. Although there are some issues with hardware, usually, that's with upgraded hardware, the OS performs very well under the power of the G4.

I have also heard about XP not crashing as much as the previous OSs. So I'll say it as it is: The Windoze OS is improving, but incremently closer to perfect. If an error pops up, at least explain what should be done about.

Ok.. you're right too.... I just don't like the fact that in some threads mac people use the "crapy OS" as a point in order for example to overcome the speed differences. If you like say that you prefer better the GUI in OSX, I don't have any problem with that. But saying that it is crap, bugy or unstable is untrue to say the least.

fourthtunz

Sep 15, 2002, 07:55 PM

OS X is great, but if I can render something in 1/3 the time for 1/3 the price, what do you think I'm gonna choose? [/B][/QUOTE]

Sounds like your not using X.2 or a New Mac.
Why do you waste your time on here?
Again, find a better deal than the New dual 867 on the Pc side, I'll buy it.
Daniel

Sun Baked

Sep 15, 2002, 08:14 PM

If cheaper is always better...

Buy a Daewoo, up to 60% discount on some models.

---

I still don't understand making the effort in keeping a reverse switchers, let them make the mistake. The joy in seeing them suffer with Windows is well worth it.

But at least they'll have the games to make them happy about their endless suffering.

void

Sep 15, 2002, 10:26 PM

I hate to say this but, Intel really designed a good chip. The P4 still has alot of life in it even though the P5 is going to be introduced in 2nd QTR of 2003. The G4 either has to step aside for the Power4 or really get it's act together.

solvs

Sep 16, 2002, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by fourthtunz

Sounds like your not using X.2 or a New Mac.
Why do you waste your time on here?
Again, find a better deal than the New dual 867 on the Pc side, I'll buy it.
Daniel

I was speaking mostly of what others see when comparing. Believe it or not it, matters. True, numbers don't mean that much. It's all about the real-world performance. But you know what? Apple gets their butt kicked most of the time. You can quote benchmarks all you want, and for light stuff who cares? But for the hardcore stuff, Macs need to be faster and cheaper. That's all there is to it. They want to entice more Audio/Video/Image editing people, that's what they're gonna have to do.

Why is it anytime anyone critizes the Mac, they are automatically written off as trolls? Are you just going to accept whatever Apple does? They aren't perfect you know (though they do seem that way next to a PC). I've had many, many computers. Several of them were Apples. My 6400 was slow as molasess and froze all the time, but it got the job done (most of the time). I've since sold off or given away all but a custom built AMD running Windows 2000. I would have had a new G4 Tower, but my project lost funding and now I'm moving.

For the record, after I get settled in the new place, I was going to get an iBook and a Tower later (or a new PowerBook maybe). Why you ask? Because video editing in Windows sux. But it still bothers me that a very fast computer I built for a very small amount of money bests a $3,000 "SuperComputer". I'd rather use FCP (I've played with it, it's nice) instead of Premier. And OS X instead of Windows (any version, don't get me started on why XP sux so much).

But not all of us can always afford a Lexus when a Toyota will work just fine (notice I didn't say Kia or something. I didn't buy a Gateway).

Don't get me wrong, I'm actually happy with the 167 FSB, the large drive support, the dual CD Drives, etc. The Dual 1.25s look pretty zippy. But compare it to a PC (don't fool yourself, people do. Don't just tell them to buy a PC if they don't like it, cuz you know what, that's exactly what they do), it doesn't look so good. Apple is a business. WinTels are their competitors. We all have to recognize this. Apple has to keep up to stay alive in the long run.

I'd rather have a Mac, but don't fool yourself. You can build a really nice PC for less than $2,000 (with plenty of basic software that helps you crash Windows even faster) that blows the $3,000+ machines out of the water. You get a nice, out of the box experiance with OS X.2, but is it worth it for the higher price and slower performance. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

I'm just so tired of PC weenies saying Macs are all style, no substance. And like many computer users who actually use their computers, I'm torn. Speed and price, or style and stability?

Only when Real-Time is really Real-Time, only then will I be truly happy.

fragiledreams

Sep 16, 2002, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by solvs

I'm just so tired of PC weenies saying Macs are all style, no substance. And like many computer users who actually use their computers, I'm torn. Speed and price, or style and stability?

Only when Real-Time is really Real-Time, only then will I be truly happy.

Please stop the stability ************. We are not living in the age of windows 95 any more. Some of you guys live with illusions.

fourthtunz

Sep 16, 2002, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by solvs
[B]

.I'd rather have a Mac, but don't fool yourself. You can build a really nice PC for less than $2,000 (with plenty of basic software that helps you crash Windows even faster) that blows the $3,000+ machines out of the water. You get a nice, out of the box experiance with OS X.2, but is it worth it for the higher price and slower performance. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Again, you are living in the past. Macs are now fast and a very good deal. Premiere is not a pro video app and is not optimized for the Mac, Imovie(a free app) and Final cut render much faster. I still have premiere but is very slow on the Mac and I won't upgrade. You can do audio and video on any computer but when you do it to make your living you have to look at the whole picture and that means looking at everything pcs included, and right now the Mac is a better deal overall.
Daniel

Sun Baked

Sep 16, 2002, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by fragiledreams
Please stop the stability ************. We are not living in the age of windows 95 any more. Some of you guys live with illusions.

But sometimes fantasy can be so much better than reality.

And if you deviate too much, the drugs they'll give you in the looney bin will really warp your mind.

---

Note: the above post has no basis in reality. But for those that have always used Apples, sometimes it's really hard to think like a PC user without drugs.

fragiledreams

Sep 16, 2002, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Sun Baked

But sometimes fantasy can be so much better than reality.

And if you deviate too much, the drugs they'll give you in the looney bin will really warp your mind.

---

Note: the above post has no basis in reality. But for those that have always used Apples, sometimes it's really hard to think like a PC user without drugs.

The truth is that it is too hard for me to follow some of you guys when you compare Ferarri / Mercedes with Daewoo / Yugo. Is this the best you can do to make a point?

Really pathetic, may I say. :rolleyes:

Sun Baked

Sep 16, 2002, 04:00 PM

Nah, that was for the cheaper is better debate.

If that were true we would all be buying Daewoo's right now.

And you'll note I didn't compare them to Mercedes, because I would have purchased the big Daewoo (the one with the Mercedes powertrain) if they imported it for under 20k.

However the 200MPH Yugo is just plain silly, and could be considered a cheap suicide note.

I just didn't want to get into the Apple vs. PC debate - because I lack the reality distorting drugs.

Once again
Note: the above post has no basis in reality. But for those that have always used Apples, sometimes it's really hard to think like a PC user without drugs.