New Power Macs Faster than you think. [Archive]

iJon

Sep 19, 2002, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by bond2
Everyone has been complaining so much about the current Macs being so far behind the Pentiums and AMD processors in speed. In actuality the new 1.25ghz Dual G4 is the 3rd fastest consumer PC in the market. It almost matches the fastest AMD processor and is just slightly behind Intels PIV 2.8 ghz machine. Check it out for yourself:

http://www.cpuscorecard.com/
I really dont care about speeds anymore, its more like i care what my computer can do. which my mac can do much more than my pc. but one thing about these benchmarks. it takes apple two processors to almost beat amds and intels chips. i think apple would be in better shape if they could come this close with a single chip, lets hope that those ibm chips with apple rumors are true.

iJon

TyleRomeo

Sep 19, 2002, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by iJon

I really dont care about speeds anymore, its more like i care what my computer can do. which my mac can do much more than my pc. but one thing about these benchmarks. it takes apple two processors to almost beat amds and intels chips. i think apple would be in better shape if they could come this close with a single chip, lets hope that those ibm chips with apple rumors are true.

iJon

right on man, forget GHZ, i want something that works and mac seem to work so much smoother then PCs. I'd like to see those IBM chips come true also, even though we might have to wait until next summer or fall for them to arrive especially with how the current computer market is going.

Tyler

dongmin

Sep 19, 2002, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by iJon

I really dont care about speeds anymore, its more like i care what my computer can do. which my mac can do much more than my pc. but one thing about these benchmarks. it takes apple two processors to almost beat amds and intels chips. i think apple would be in better shape if they could come this close with a single chip, lets hope that those ibm chips with apple rumors are true.

iJon

Does it matter if it's one or two or four, as long as it's fast and get's the job done?

Of course, there's probably a huge difference in hardware costs, but hey, We're Number 3, We're Number 3, We're Number 3!

geniusrock2002

Sep 19, 2002, 05:58 PM

Do y'all know the difference between a "PORTED" app and a true native app. Most applications are written on the PC , then ported on the Mac. They just recompile the app for the Mac. They don't use specific "libraries" or "classes" that takes advantages of the G4. There are certains hardware calls on the X86 platform that do take advantages of the X86 architecture. For example if anyone is running Visual Studio C++, he can download the C++ compiler from Intel that would work with visual studio and programs would run faster. I am not saying that they use "Visual studio" to make all the software, but all I am saying is that most software and games are written on the X86 platform then ported on a Mac.
Like the game "Giants" is about 300 MB on the PC, and it's 900MB on the mac, why ?????SImply because they had ported the game on the Mac.
I would like to really take alook at the code for "Quake III", and see if the benchmarks were totally fair or not.

So please, whoever thinks that Macs are slowers than PC, that is A big fat lie. Ask folks at Nasa who do the real work with computers, or people working in Genetics laboratories, or Physics labs, they kknow the truth about macs.

Windows has 95 % of share, that is simply why apps are always going tp be developped for PC, first, then simply ported on the Mac. Developers would never spend money and time to write apps for something that has less share, because it's all business folks

ddtlm

Sep 19, 2002, 06:03 PM

Ummmm, do you people ever check your sources? Other than the fact that this website said something nice about G4's, why do you choose to believe them?

iJon

Sep 19, 2002, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by dongmin

Does it matter if it's one or two or four, as long as it's fast and get's the job done?

Of course, there's probably a huge difference in hardware costs, but hey, We're Number 3, We're Number 3, We're Number 3!
Yeah your exactly right, it gets the job done, and it gets it done very well, but macs are expensive enough, im sure just one chip would cost less.

szark

Sep 19, 2002, 06:15 PM

Can anyone actually find details about the benchmarks on that site?

All the links I find take me to old articles about DP 800 machines or earlier...

robodweeb

Sep 19, 2002, 09:09 PM

Ask folks at Nasa who do the real work with computers
...
Windows has 95 % of share

Until a year ago, I was the lead Mac systems engineer for one of the largest outsourcing vendors supporting five NASA field centers. These centers were the research centers, not the operational centers (a different vendor suppoorted them). Just as a tidbit, when I left, the share of Macs at these centers was about 28% (Windows ~63%, the rest Linux/Unix, DEC, etc.). Admittedly, this was down about 3-4% over the previous 3 years. One center, NASA Ames, was around 80% Mac. Sadly, this information doesn't get propagated as widely as, say, the improper removal of Macs from NASA Johnson a few years back.

g-rock2K is correct that OS X is being embraced by the scientific and engineering community within NASA, largely because there are ports of computationally-intensive visualization and analysis applications available for OS X and the results can be easily moved into presentation applications. This last par tis significant, I believe, because they have access to faster computers (parallel systems, clusters, etc.) but such computers don't have much support for the presentation and sharing of the results. Clearly, the power of the G4 contributes to its lure, but it's the combination of OS X and the G4 that is selling Macs at NASA. It's not so much how fast they can do individual, specific tasks (which, sadly, are about all that's tested by benchmarks) but how OS X on G4s enables them to do their entire job more quickly, not just the bits and pieces ...

cheerz!

wilburpan

Sep 19, 2002, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by dongmin
Does it matter if it's one or two or four, as long as it's fast and get's the job done?

Of course, there's probably a huge difference in hardware costs, but hey, We're Number 3, We're Number 3, We're Number 3!
Well, the price differential is not inconsiderable. Based on the www.cpuscorecard.com website, I just spec'ed out a Dell computer with a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 (closest processor to the dual 1.25 Ghz Powermac) and compared it to a similarly outfitted Powermac from the Applestore:

Powermac:
• Power Mac G4 Dual 1.25GHz w/167MHz system bus
• 1GB PC2700 DDR SDRAM - 2 DIMMs
• 120GB Ultra ATA drive
• Optical 1 - Apple SuperDrive
• Optical 2 - None
• NVIDIA GeForce4 Titanium dual-display w/128MB DDR
• 56K internal modem
• Apple Pro Speakers
• Apple Pro Keyboard - U.S. English
• Mac OS - U.S. English
$4,008.00

Dell:
Pentium® 4 Processor at 2.40GHz with 533MHz system bus/ 512K L2 Cache D8224B
Memory: 1GB PC800 RDRAM(4x256M modules)
Keyboard: Dell® Quietkey® Keyboard
Video Card: New 64MB DDR NVIDIA GeForce4™ Ti 4200 Graphics Card with TV Out and DVI
Hard Drive: 120GB 7200RPM Hard Drive with DataBurst Cache™
Floppy Drive: 3.5 in Floppy Drive
Operating System: Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional
Mouse: Dell® 2-button scroll mouse
Broadband Ready/ Ethernet Network Card: Intel® Pro 100 M PCI Ethernet Network Card
Modem: 56K PCI Telephony Modem
CD or DVD Drive: New DVD+RW/+R Drive with CD-RW
Sound Card: Sound Blaster Live! Digital Sound Card
Speakers: New Harman Kardon® HK-206 Speakers
Productivity Software: Microsoft® Office XP Small Business
Virus Protection: Norton AntiVirus™ 2002, 90-day introductory offer
Digital Photography: Dell Picture Studio, Image Expert Standard
Limited Warranty, Services and Support Options: 3 Year Limited Warranty plus 3 Year On-site Service
Internet Access Service: 6 Months AOL,Featuring the Netbusiness Service for Small Business
Video Editing: Premium Dell Movie Studio Bundle
Dual Monitor Support: DVI-VGA Adapter to connect 2 CRT Monitors to Ti4600 or Ti4200 Video Card
$2,616.00

I tried to spec these two machines as close to each other as possible, even adding on some Dell software to account for the iApps in Jaguar, and the price differential is still over $1300. Granted, currently you can get Indesign for free, but that's a $800 value at best, and I didn't factor in the cost of an office suite for the Powermac.

Please let me know if I've missed anything in matching specs. I still am planning on making the switch from Windows to Mac, but I also am aware of the price differential. It's not enough of a difference to deter me, but it is probably asking a bit much to expect everyone considering the purchase of a Mac to ignore the price factor, especially considering the fuss raised when Apple decided to charge $8 a month for .Mac services.

P-Worm

Sep 19, 2002, 11:00 PM

Please, enough with the spec matching. :rolleyes: I'll tell you where the missing $1500 went: research and development, OS X (That's a big one...), and the fact that you know that your computer is an all around better machine.

Don't make me use the Geo and Viper car anology again. :eek:

P-Worm

ColdZero

Sep 19, 2002, 11:27 PM

Oh yea, nice and fast :rolleyes:. A Dual 1.25Ghz G4 vs a single 2.8ghz P4, uhhh isn't that a little unfair. Where is the dual 2.4ghz P4 vs dual 1.25ghz G4 comparison?

LethalWolfe

Sep 20, 2002, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by P-Worm
Please, enough with the spec matching. :rolleyes: I'll tell you where the missing $1500 went: research and development, OS X (That's a big one...), and the fact that you know that your computer is an all around better machine.

Don't make me use the Geo and Viper car anology again. :eek:

P-Worm

I think I'm gonna kill the next person who uses a stupid car anology...;)

Lethal

MisterMe

Sep 20, 2002, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by ColdZero
Oh yea, nice and fast :rolleyes:. A Dual 1.25Ghz G4 vs a single 2.8ghz P4, uhhh isn't that a little unfair. Where is the dual 2.4ghz P4 vs dual 1.25ghz G4 comparison?
You are absolutely correct. We should only compare dual-processor Apple computers to other dual-processor computers. Please list your benchmarks for a dual-processor Dell, HP/Compaq, or Gateway personal computer.

onemoof

Sep 20, 2002, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by wilburpan

Well, the price differential is not inconsiderable. Based on the www.cpuscorecard.com website, I just spec'ed out a Dell computer with a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 (closest processor to the dual 1.25 Ghz Powermac) and compared it to a similarly outfitted Powermac from the Applestore:

Although you are correct that there is a HUGE premium on the top of the line Power Mac. The simple fact is that only corporations buy those machines. The lower end Power Mac is targeted more for actual people so the pricing is much more reasonable.

(Also the laws of economics dictate that the price of any product is exactly the price that people are willing to pay, and has no relation to how "fair" the price is.)

bond2

Sep 20, 2002, 12:26 PM

As the saying goes at Apple: "If you can't beat'em, dual'em"

I say whatever it takes to keep up. Doesn't bother me that there are two CPU's under the hood. Anyways I am sure that OS X is way more optimized for dual Processors than Windows 2000 or XP. Having OS X far outways the slight difference in hardware performance. OS X is specifically designed for Macs, and optimized to take full advantage of the hardware. No one that has a Dell, Compaq, Gateway...etc... can say the same thing about Windows. The only way that would happen is if Microsoft came out with a special Intel version of Windows or AMD version. Never gonna happen. I know most of you already know this but I just thought I'd throw it out there again.

gopher

Sep 20, 2002, 12:57 PM

Have you noticed how the dual 1 Ghz isn't even on the radar of that page? They've constantly underrated Apple's speed, and now while they rate one that probably is close to correct, they ignore the others. That page has always been one for inconsistancies.

MisterMe

Sep 20, 2002, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by onemoof

Although you are correct that there is a HUGE premium on the top of the line Power Mac. The simple fact is that only corporations buy those machines. The lower end Power Mac is targeted more for actual people so the pricing is much more reasonable.
Does your "simple fact" mean that I am a corporation and not an actual person? Please don't break the news to my mom.

Originally posted by onemoof
(Also the laws of economics dictate that the price of any product is exactly the price that people are willing to pay, and has no relation to how "fair" the price is.)
Agreed.

MacCoaster

Sep 20, 2002, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by bond2
As the saying goes at Apple: "If you can't beat'em, dual'em"

I say whatever it takes to keep up. Doesn't bother me that there are two CPU's under the hood. Anyways I am sure that OS X is way more optimized for dual Processors than Windows 2000 or XP. Having OS X far outways the slight difference in hardware performance. OS X is specifically designed for Macs, and optimized to take full advantage of the hardware. No one that has a Dell, Compaq, Gateway...etc... can say the same thing about Windows. The only way that would happen is if Microsoft came out with a special Intel version of Windows or AMD version. Never gonna happen. I know most of you already know this but I just thought I'd throw it out there again.
Windows XP is optimized for both Intel Pentiums and AMD Athlons. You can include optimizations for both and they will be used as needed. Windows XP-64 is also compiled for IA-64 workstations. Apple might have beat Microsoft with the first consumer 32 bit OS, but Microsoft beat Apple with the first consumer 64 bit OS. You're speaking facts and not justifying them; please, next time at least justify yourself.

dricci

Sep 20, 2002, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by ColdZero
Oh yea, nice and fast :rolleyes:. A Dual 1.25Ghz G4 vs a single 2.8ghz P4, uhhh isn't that a little unfair. Where is the dual 2.4ghz P4 vs dual 1.25ghz G4 comparison?

P4s can't go Dual. It's sorta like the G3, it's just not designed to do that. It wouldn't work.

wilburpan

Sep 20, 2002, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by MisterMe

You are absolutely correct. We should only compare dual-processor Apple computers to other dual-processor computers. Please list your benchmarks for a dual-processor Dell, HP/Compaq, or Gateway personal computer.
The reason I spec'ed the Dual 1.25 GHz Powermac to a single 2.4Ghz Dell machine is that at least according to the www.cpuscorecard.com website, these are comparable in terms of speed. Both were given a score of 88-89% (whatever that means).

At the suggestion of onemoof, I went back looked at lower end machines. Comparing a 17" 800 Mhz iMac against a 1.8 Ghz Dell machine (again, based on the www.cpuscorecard.com ratings, iMac=55%, 1.8ghz P4=62%), The Dell was actually the more expensive machine: $2,148.00 for the iMac (including 3 year AppleCare Protection Plan), $2,296.00 for the Dell. The base price for the Dell is $699, but once you add in a 17" LCD screen, a DVD/CD burner, and software that corresponds to all the iApps, the price evens out.

You could even take the $148 you'd save by buying the iMac and get a full price .Mac account. :)

I can print out all the detailed specs if anyone is interested, but trust me -- I am interested in showing that Apple machines are worth their price.

So for "consumer" machines, the iMacs certainly hold their own in price against similarly outfitted WinXP machines. But for top of the end machines, there still is a price differential to be reckoned with.

This makes me feel better -- can't wait for Xmas so I can get an iMac!

mischief

Sep 20, 2002, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

I think I'm gonna kill the next person who uses a stupid car anology...;)

Lethal

You're right, Cars are a bad comparisson:

Better to compare Trucks. :D

Macs are like Semi's : the don't rev very high but they can haul a ****load of cargo from A to B.

PC's are like Chevy Avalanche: A nearly useless SUV with nearly every extra but guarenteed to work and look like **** in less than 5 years and always do a half-assed job on all but the basic navigation. :D

MacCoaster

Sep 20, 2002, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by dricci
P4s can't go Dual. It's sorta like the G3, it's just not designed to do that. It wouldn't work.
That is what the Pentium 4 XEON is for. So yes, P4s can go dual, in the Xeon configuration.

Edit: Hell, it can do 4-way or more. Quad G4 Macs? In your dreams...

avkills

Sep 20, 2002, 05:57 PM

Microsoft has not beat Apple as far as a 64bit consumer OS goes. Name one consumer chip that is 64bit. Thank you. Carry on.

Also, I think NT is limited to 4 processors unless they have updated that recently. Clustering is not the same as a multi-processor machine. Unix scales better than NT, just deal with it. Apple could easily make a rack server that had 16 processors, with a kick arse OpenGL card and teach SGI a lesson. They don't have the market for that though...yet!

-mark

cr2sh

Sep 20, 2002, 06:12 PM

i learned a few years ago that you can never try to show someone else their mistakes, theyll only hate you for it... at this point its become a disgusting obsession with a lot of mac-junkies to show that a g4 is faster than a pentium. at this point its not, the OS is better, the software is better, the user experience is so much more enjoyable its idiotic to even argue.. but lets face it, head to head, single cpu to single cpu th3y got us beat.

ill agree with everyone though, theres a big-storm coming, and when the g5s with 5megs l3 operating at 2gHz are released in mid-2003... its over... for a while.

ive seen dual AMD systems with both cpus at 1.8, and it is amazing... but so what? im not about to trade speed and windows, for enormous power and osX. i dont play games so theres no edge there...

we're right, we know it, and the rest are idiots (except the gamers and CAD, they know what theyre doing)... but i think the matter has been argued enough already, so let me exit with another thing thats been said FAR TOO often...

give us the g5 goddamnit!!

Cappy

Sep 20, 2002, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by avkills
Microsoft has not beat Apple as far as a 64bit consumer OS goes. Name one consumer chip that is 64bit. Thank you. Carry on.

And your point is? There really isn't a need for 64bit cpu's let alone OS's for most consumers. AMD is essentially responsible for putting the pressure on the industry to move toward 64bit as soon as it is.

For consumers a 64bit cpu and OS is nothing more than bragging rights...at least for a few years.

Originally posted by avkills
Also, I think NT is limited to 4 processors unless they have updated that recently. Clustering is not the same as a multi-processor machine. Unix scales better than NT, just deal with it. Apple could easily make a rack server that had 16 processors, with a kick arse OpenGL card and teach SGI a lesson. They don't have the market for that though...yet!

-mark

I'm not sure where you get your info but keep dreaming. You fail to mention what cpu's they would use. I don't think your going to see current G4's in 16 processor servers ever. It's just not designed to do it. That's not to say it cannot be done...just that it would be a waste of manpower and money to do it and not be very efficient at it no matter the market.

wilburpan

Sep 20, 2002, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by cr2sh
...head to head, single cpu to single cpu th3y got us beat.
Please reread my post above. According to the www.cpuscorecard.com website, an iMac 800 MHz machine is comparable in performance to a 1.8Ghz P4 machine. And if you compare the cost of the iMac to a similarly equipped Dell 1.8Ghz P4 machine, the iMac is actually the cheaper of the two.

This was a real eye opener for me.

cr2sh

Sep 20, 2002, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by wilburpan

Please reread my post above. According to the www.cpuscorecard.com website, an iMac 800 MHz machine is comparable in performance to a 1.8Ghz P4 machine. And if you compare the cost of the iMac to a similarly equipped Dell 1.8Ghz P4 machine, the iMac is actually the cheaper of the two.

This was a real eye opener for me.

Fine, lets just assume that a 800mhz imac and a 1.8gigahertz dell are similar in performance, equiptment and cost... this thread is about speed. i realize the differences in the two chips, and i agree largely with apple that frequency isnt everything.. that aside, intel is still kicking motorola's ass (for the time being).

the g4 cannot beat the p4 in performance, so you drag cost ratios in to muddy up the water.. why? the p4 beats the g4. if you want an imac fine, buy it. but dont confuse yourself by saying 'the g4 is just as fast as the p4...' because its not. :)

we're all mac lovers here, and a lot of the pc equivalent software to iapps is total crap! ill agree with you there. you get a LOT of high quality software within the max os. (xp doesnt even include a dvd playing app does it?)

the imac is pretty, its more pleasant to use, and it might bench equivalently.. but like i said, toe to toe... the p4 comes out swining at 2.8gigahertz, the g4 is having a hardtime beating that.

MacCoaster

Sep 20, 2002, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by avkills
Microsoft has not beat Apple as far as a 64bit consumer OS goes. Name one consumer chip that is 64bit. Thank you. Carry on.

Also, I think NT is limited to 4 processors unless they have updated that recently. Clustering is not the same as a multi-processor machine. Unix scales better than NT, just deal with it. Apple could easily make a rack server that had 16 processors, with a kick arse OpenGL card and teach SGI a lesson. They don't have the market for that though...yet!

-mark
The Intel Itanium. Granted, it's not for consumers per se, but it's still for high-end consumers. Compare that with Power Mac G4s.

NT can do up to 32 processors per machine as of the Windows .NET family.

wilburpan

Sep 21, 2002, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by cr2sh
Fine, lets just assume that a 800mhz imac and a 1.8gigahertz dell are similar in performance, equiptment and cost... this thread is about speed.....

[snip]

the g4 cannot beat the p4 in performance....
Granted www.cpuscorecard.com doesn't really clarify what benchmarks they use, but in their estimation, a dual 1.25GHz Mac beats a 2.4 Ghz P4 by a hair, and is just a little behind a 2.8 GHz P4. Likewise, a 800MHz G4 is very comparable to a 1.8 Ghz P4. The important thing that I see in this ranking is that in perusing the rest of this website, the people who came up with these ratings do not look to be particularly Mac friendly.

Based on this, I would have to disagree with your assertion that "the g4 cannot beat the p4 in performance", unless your only criteria for performance is sheer GHz speed. It seems to me that at the high end, the two chips are at least competitive, and in the middle of the pack, I would say that Macs are a better buy.

theranch

Sep 21, 2002, 11:21 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong...but, did any of you notice on that site that they gave an A+ rating to the Celeron machine and D & C's to the top 8 in the list? If you click on the colored bar for each system then scroll down the page there is a chart to explain the rating. It's a joke. I wouldn't depend on this site at all.

MacCoaster

Sep 22, 2002, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by wilburpan

Granted www.cpuscorecard.com doesn't really clarify what benchmarks they use, but in their estimation, a dual 1.25GHz Mac beats a 2.4 Ghz P4 by a hair, and is just a little behind a 2.8 GHz P4. Likewise, a 800MHz G4 is very comparable to a 1.8 Ghz P4. The important thing that I see in this ranking is that in perusing the rest of this website, the people who came up with these ratings do not look to be particularly Mac friendly.

Based on this, I would have to disagree with your assertion that "the g4 cannot beat the p4 in performance", unless your only criteria for performance is sheer GHz speed. It seems to me that at the high end, the two chips are at least competitive, and in the middle of the pack, I would say that Macs are a better buy.
I wouldn't say that 800MHz G4 would match 1.8GHz. Notice the 1.25GHz they used is *DUAL* processor 1.25GHz. Maybe *DUAL* 800MHzs.

avkills

Sep 22, 2002, 06:40 AM

Ok, so Intel has the Itanium, well they have the Itanium2 I guess if you want to get super current, so what! The Itanium is based on a brand new design that looks good on paper, but Intel will be the first to admit it has not performed as good as they hoped.

Sun, IBM and SGI have had 64bit processors way before Intel. So if you say the Itanium is ok for the high-end consumer, then It's safe to say that a Sun Ultra10 or a SGI Octane would also be a high-end consumer machine.

What makes you so sure that a 16 processor G4 machine would not perform, because of the bus speed. What about super high-end servers like the CM5 or the Cray T3D. I seriously doubt those machines have 500Mhz bus speeds, or DDR memory. I know for a fact that the CM5 had dedicated memory for each processor node, and each node had 2 vector units. If you want, I can find out specifics from my brother, who has actually programmed code for it, when he worked at Las Alamos. Whether a 16 processor G4 machine is relevant or not, it could be built and if built right, would be very fast.

So the .NET family is limited to 32 processors huh....Weak, very weak. You can say what you want, UNIX still scales better than Windows, no matter what the flavor.

In my opinion, Microsoft is beginning to die a slow painful death. Everyone is tired of their ************ and half-assed attempts of secure computing. Everyone always complains that Macs are not open enough, well I think the opposite is true. Apple embraces open standards and even invents and shares them when none exist, while Microsoft shuns and sometimes even steals others work, in a attempt to push their own proprietary formats and stifle progress.

I find it funny that Intel invented USB, but it was Apple that took the leap of faith and pushed it into the mainstream. Apple, in my opinion is the only company thinking "outside the box" and in the end, they will win because of it.

-mark

wilburpan

Sep 22, 2002, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by MacCoaster

I wouldn't say that 800MHz G4 would match 1.8GHz. Notice the 1.25GHz they used is *DUAL* processor 1.25GHz. Maybe *DUAL* 800MHzs.
Here's the link to their rating of an iMac 800MHz G4 and a 1.8Ghz P4, which puts the two within shouting distance of each other.

http://www.cpuscorecard.com/sys_premium.htm

wilburpan

Sep 22, 2002, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by theranch
It's a joke. I wouldn't depend on this site at all.
I fully agree that this site is less than ideal in it's rating system. My points are:

1. Here is, as far as I can tell, a not particularly Mac friendly site that compares the performance of Macs vs. PC's.

2. Based on these ratings, an iMac is actually the best buy for middle of the pack machines.

3. Again, based on these ratings, the top of the line Mac and P4 machines are closely matched in performance.

4. These conclusions are probably more significant in that they are based on data from a site that is not pro-Mac.

MacCoaster

Sep 22, 2002, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by avkills
Ok, so Intel has the Itanium, well they have the Itanium2 I guess if you want to get super current, so what! The Itanium is based on a brand new design that looks good on paper, but Intel will be the first to admit it has not performed as good as they hoped.
I simply meant the Itanium family, including both the original Itanium and the current Intamium 2.
Sun, IBM and SGI have had 64bit processors way before Intel. So if you say the Itanium is ok for the high-end consumer, then It's safe to say that a Sun Ultra10 or a SGI Octane would also be a high-end consumer machine.
Sure, okay. Compare the prices. The Itanium solution is much cheaper.
What makes you so sure that a 16 processor G4 machine would not perform, because of the bus speed. What about super high-end servers like the CM5 or the Cray T3D. I seriously doubt those machines have 500Mhz bus speeds, or DDR memory. I know for a fact that the CM5 had dedicated memory for each processor node, and each node had 2 vector units. If you want, I can find out specifics from my brother, who has actually programmed code for it, when he worked at Las Alamos. Whether a 16 processor G4 machine is relevant or not, it could be built and if built right, would be very fast.
Very irrevelant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the G4 wasn't designed to be run in anything more than a dual configuration.
So the .NET family is limited to 32 processors huh....Weak, very weak. You can say what you want, UNIX still scales better than Windows, no matter what the flavor.
Windows isn't designed nor targeted at customers with more than 32 processors. If anyone wanted a 2048-way server, they'd either custom build it and load UNIX on it or have some large corporation develop the computer. It's a lot cheaper clustering 32 high-availablity servers than buying that one 2048-way server. Duh, Windows isn't scalable. It was NEVER designed primarily to be used on 2048-way supercomputers. That's way out of Microsoft's scope and market.
In my opinion, Microsoft is beginning to die a slow painful death. Everyone is tired of their ************ and half-assed attempts of secure computing. Everyone always complains that Macs are not open enough, well I think the opposite is true. Apple embraces open standards and even invents and shares them when none exist, while Microsoft shuns and sometimes even steals others work, in a attempt to push their own proprietary formats and stifle progress.
Funny that Microsoft pushed the ever-so-slow W3C to standardize further dynamic HTML/etc. technologies to become standard. Of course, W3C can't keep current to allow people to innovate in the web presentation standards. Microsoft is even pushing XML very hard with .NET Web Services. And yes, Macs are closed. Not in software, but in hardware. Maybe you were confused by the definition of Macs being closed. The older Macintosh hardware is so proprietary it's not funny. Recent Macs adopt technology that had been in PCs before, except FireWire of course, because Apple invented that. But the hardware is still proprietary. I don't see that we are able to take off-the-shelf high quality components and build our own PowerPC computers then slap Mac OS X on it. Also, Microsoft indeed is "against" open source, and yet they maintain a "shared source" implementation of .NET for FreeBSD. In fact, it's a very well done implementation -- not that most-feeble-possible-implementation that we thought could possible be.
I find it funny that Intel invented USB, but it was Apple that took the leap of faith and pushed it into the mainstream. Apple, in my opinion is the only company thinking "outside the box" and in the end, they will win because of it.

-mark
Maybe it was Apple and Microsoft (Windows 98) who popularized USB, but you've got to realize this. PCs have had USB a few years before Apple. It wasn't until iMac/Windows 98 (note, same year: 1998) that USB got popular.

MacCoaster

Sep 22, 2002, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by wilburpan

Here's the link to their rating of an iMac 800MHz G4 and a 1.8Ghz P4, which puts the two within shouting distance of each other.

http://www.cpuscorecard.com/sys_premium.htm
I stand corrected, however, they are still 7 percentiles apart. So yes, shouting distance. But what would the 55-percentile Pentium 4 speed be? 1.5-1.6GHz? Maybe less?

P-Worm

Sep 22, 2002, 10:07 AM

Isn't it amazing that no matter what the topic of a thread is about it always seems to degrade into people getting mad at how expensive a Macintosh is? Not to change the subjedt or anything...Carry on.

P-Worm

avkills

Sep 22, 2002, 11:21 AM

Okay, I'll agree with you about not being able to "custom" build your own Macintosh. It has drawbacks and advantages. Mostly advantages in my opinion. Apple has always made systems that perform more predictably. Simply put, the software (OS) and the hardware work better hand in hand. Although Microsoft has done pretty good with XP, it does some neat stuff, but I still prefer OS X. However, even though you can't build your own Mac, it is very easy to add after market upgrades such as hard drives, RAM, PCI cards, etc etc...at least in the towers. Obviously, the iMac is for the person who does not care to go inside their computer, they just want something that turns on and works. Today, most of the hardware is pretty interchangeable.

In the future I'd like to see the hardware makers standardize even more, so maybe all the PCI cards could work in both systems without the need for different ROMS, but that will probably never happen, due to the stark differences in how Apple and Intel/AMD design the MB.

I don't know about the 2 processor limit on the G4. I always thought if the processor supported SMP, then you could go to town.

I never remember seeing any PCs with USB until after Apple released the original iMac. If they did, they sure were not using it much. In fact, they still mostly use the PS/2 ports. Maybe because the PC liked to crash back in the Win98 days. USB was definitely plug and pray for them back then.

I personally don't mind what Apple charges, since they make a product that works. I never go a week without hearing someone crying about something being wrong with their PC and Windows.

-mark

nixd2001

Sep 22, 2002, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by P-Worm
Isn't it amazing that no matter what the topic of a thread is about it always seems to degrade into people getting mad at how expensive a Macintosh is? Not to change the subjedt or anything...Carry on.

P-Worm

Continuing this brief diversion...

I've seen no attempt to quantitively factor quality into all these price comparisions that get thrown around. The build quality on my shiny doors is better than the build quality on any PC I've personally seen since a really nice Intel (yes, Intel) built PC from about '93.

If there's a desire to compare simply on price, then you might as well use a random number generator - it's too much Apple and Oranges.

I remember the storm caused a few years ago when a number of the UK PC manufacturers admitted that a 5% - 10% failure rate was the rates they operated on. I've just witnessed 3 motherboards out of about 15 go "phut" at work - due to design defects rather than going out of warranty as well. So should I conclude that they're good value for money because they are cheaper?

Cappy

Sep 22, 2002, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Maybe it was Apple and Microsoft (Windows 98) who popularized USB, but you've got to realize this. PCs have had USB a few years before Apple. It wasn't until iMac/Windows 98 (note, same year: 1998) that USB got popular.

I'm glad there's someone who remembers that. I find it amazing that so many Mac fanatics are so out of tune with the rest of the world that they never even realized that Win98 came out at the same time and is why USB is where it is. You don't see Apple making claims that they were first or created the USB market. People need to get out more so to speak.

Remember folks Intel developed USB. It was on motherboards for previous years. It was destined to happen. They just needed MS to develop a decent OS to handle it(Win95 2.1 only had partial USB support) and products to take advantage of it. Developers came onboard once they saw MS get onboard with Win98. You wouldn't have seen the iMac USB support you saw if it wasn't for Win98.

Sorry to go off on a tangent but I get tired of people making false claims with misinformation. Remember folks being a fanatic is ok but know your enemy. ;)

Doctor Q

Sep 23, 2002, 06:58 PM

My personal benchmarking tool is SETI@home (http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/).

I let it rip on my 1.25GHz G4 last night and set a record for the MacRumors team: the "Average CPU time per work unit" was a new low: 5 hr 52 min 11.2 sec.

I can see that SETI@home made use of the dual processors because my elapsed time (5 hr 10 min per unit) was less than my CPU time!

Check out the numbers at http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_139691.html. My member name is (surprise surprise) "Doctor Q".

barkmonster

Sep 23, 2002, 08:19 PM

I think they're slower than you think if you're talking raw DSP muscle.

The price/performance of a mac is terrible at the moment but the interface, available software and midi management (especially patchnames) is still way ahead of the PC.

There's a thread on the Protools LE for Windows forum on the Digidesign User Conference where they've put together the best PC for under $800 and tested it in protools LE using the same 5 plug-ins per track test as those of us in the mac forum have performed.

This PC, an Athlon XP2200+ handles 180 plug-ins

The fastest mac currently tested, with an original retail value of $3,499 handles only 135 plug-ins.

Now concidering the mac in question is only running 1 of it's cpus, has a 133MHz FSB to the 333Mhz FSB on the PC and it's less than half the clock speed, it's quite impressive on paper but 4 times the price just for a superdrive, firewire and an OS that doesn't make me puke just looking at it isn't really very good.

A plus point is those plug-in counts will soar in OS X once Protools LE is dual CPU aware and I know any mac I buy will be more than fast enough to handle at least 4 times what my beige G3 can. It's just annoying that when I do get round to getting a faster model a used dual 800 SQ or maybe even a dual 1Ghz QS is the best I can hope for and both are thoroughly battered senseless by a dirt cheap PC.

Mind you, once I've got a new mac I doubt I'll care what those other brands can do. It's the OS that's kept me hooked on macs and OS X looks absolutely fantasic for audio.

{1984}

Sep 23, 2002, 08:37 PM

i guess everyone knows about the whole "MHz myth" thing...
Reason for G4 processors killing the Pentium 4 is cuz of the pipeline and i'm not gonna bother cuz everyone probably knows...

shadowfax0

Sep 23, 2002, 09:06 PM

You sure it was 5H and 52M? My friend's single 867 get like 6-7 hours...but any details on how you ran it would be nice too :) But still, I'm liking that time, about ( about people, about, I swear if I hear about this someone's gonna die...) 5 workunits a day, not bad, not bad at all...

Doctor Q

Sep 24, 2002, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by shadowfax0
You sure it was 5H and 52M? My friend's single 867 get like 6-7 hours...but any details on how you ran it would be nice too :) But still, I'm liking that time, about ( about people, about, I swear if I hear about this someone's gonna die...) 5 workunits a day, not bad, not bad at all...

Yup, 5:52:11.2 per unit. I ran it in screensaver mode, watching the display for the first 1/2 hour (I couldn't help it - the flashing lights hypnotized me!) and then letting it turn off the display after that. I have yet to try command-line mode (no GUI), which would presumably tweak the speed still further.

shadowfax0

Sep 24, 2002, 01:33 PM

Oh ok, SCREEN SAVER mode, well that makes sense, I can't wait until you do it with the CLI version ::drool::

MacCoaster

Sep 24, 2002, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by {1984}
i guess everyone knows about the whole "MHz myth" thing...
Reason for G4 processors killing the Pentium 4 is cuz of the pipeline and i'm not gonna bother cuz everyone probably knows...
Funny that Motorola had to add a few more pipelines just to have the G4 catch up to the Pentium 4. Sorry bud, in pure performance, the Pentium 4 2.8GHz and Athlon XP 2.13GHz 2600+ has got it beat. *IF* the G4 was at ~2.x GHz, sure it'd beat the Pentium 4, but the fastest one is 1.25GHz. Dual 1.25 GHz != 2.5GHz in real world so, as pointed by the "benchmarks," Approximately 2.25 GHz G4 (1.25x2) performs just as good as a single Pentium 4 2.8GHz. There are also *A LOT* other things that contribute to performance other than just the stupid pipelines. Memory controller, bus, pretty much anything.

Right now, the G4 simply sucks. We need the G5 or the new IBM PowerPC. G4 isn't living up to its expectations unless Motorola has performed some miracle to boost the G4 to 3GHz overnight. That ain't happening, either. The best G4 Motorola has ever done was the 7410. Those Dual 533MHzs kicked other arses!

On the other hand, for productivity, the Macintosh experience is the simply best and fastest, but as a research computer, I'll take a quad Xeon running FreeBSD 5.0 for the price of a high end Power Mac G4, thank you. Otherwise, if I want to get my **** done, I'll simply buy an iMac 800MHz with the best desktop OS.

Doctor Q

Sep 26, 2002, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by shadowfax0
Oh ok, SCREEN SAVER mode, well that makes sense, I can't wait until you do it with the CLI version ::drool::

I am now benchmarking the CLI version of SETI@home on the Dual 1.25GHz G4. I was surprised that it was only marginally faster than the GUI version (a little under 6 hours per unit), but SETI's FAQ explains that the GUI on a dual processor uses one processor for the graphics and one for the computation, so the graphics "don't count" much. And, when running SETI CLI version, you still don't get the benefit of the dual processors (except to run something besides SETI at the same time, of course) unless you explicitly start two SETI processes at the same time, each in its own directory.
I will report my results of single-CLI runs after I determine the effect of the Energy Saver settings and the effect of the -verbose option that reports progress in the Terminal window. Then I will try double-CLI runs.

Doctor Q

Sep 27, 2002, 09:05 PM

I just posted my SETI@home benchmark results in Mac Forums > Mac Discussion > Distributed Computing.

UnixMac

Oct 2, 2002, 06:22 PM

Lets put OS X onto the PC platform and get the best of both words.

Because while I admit that the G4 is faster than the P4 on a cycle to cycle comparison, the fact that P4 is pushing 3GHz while we are still at 1.25 is a bit sad.

Plus you are talking about 533mhz busses and RD RAM, many other hardware issues set the PC platfrom above the Mac.

I give apple an "A" for aesthetic design and a "D" for engineering design.

I give Unix and the OS X version of it an A for both design and aesthitcs.

That is my honest view. BTW I am waiting on a PB with a faster FSB and 1.0GHz because I can't bring myself to spend $3500+ on a PC133 machine!

ooartist

Oct 2, 2002, 07:23 PM

To squash some WinTel people in this forum/post trying to say Windows scales better than UNIX.

Spec of a Sun machine running UNIX.

Key Specifications:

Up to 106 UltraSPARC® III Cu 900-MHz processors.
Big memory - more than 1/2 TB.
Up to 18 fifth-generation Dynamic System Domains, which are fully configurable while applications are running.
Hot-swappable Uniboard design CPU/memory boards that are common across Sun Fire server family.
Redundant, high-performance Sun[tm] Fireplane Interconnect with up to 172.8 GBps peak bandwidth.
Full redundancy of power and cooling systems.

Oh yeah! OS X is UNIX also. Hmmm.

Single CPU vs. Multi CPU. Who cares?

Macs are the whole package.

Nuff said!

ddtlm

Oct 2, 2002, 08:16 PM

ooartist:

While both Solaris and OSX are Unix OS's, that does not mean that OSX can scale as well as Solaris any more than it means that Solaris can run the OSX interface (which it obviously cannot).

The fact that OSX is some sort of Unix means a lot less than you seem to think. It is good because it means it adheres to certain standards, but it says little or nothing about the machinery that makes it go.

MacCoaster

Oct 2, 2002, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by ooartist
To squash some WinTel people in this forum/post trying to say Windows scales better than UNIX.
I never said it scaled better. In fact, I said the opposite.

However, the fact that Mac OS X's kernel is *NOT* BSD, but Mach remains. Mach is a microkernel and a freaking good one, but Mach microkernels that OS X uses has poor task switching; I'm not sure if the Mach microkernels in OS X is based on GNU/Mach (based off CMU's Mach) or the actual Mach microkernel from Carnegie-Mellon. So some of the scalability of UNIX is lost through this. But trust me, UNIX scales way beyond Windows. I've said Windows isn't for computers with more than 32 processors--that's what UNIX is for--pure science--no one needs the crap from Mac OS X and Windows to do science and mathematics research. Real men use UNIX on 8192-way systems. :) :D :)

ddtlm

Oct 2, 2002, 08:34 PM

People are throwing around "Unix" and "Windows" like they used to throw around "RISC" and "CISC". There is no reason of which I am aware why a future version of Windows cannot scale to as many processors as any version of Unix, just like the nasty ol x86 ISA has yielded top-notch processors like the P4 and Athlon.

I think that everyone here who argues otherwise is engaged in a desperate attempt to justify their worldview that equates Apple with perfection and wisdom, or perhaps equates Microsoft with evil and boundless stupidity.

MacCoaster

Oct 2, 2002, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by ddtlm
People are throwing around "Unix" and "Windows" like they used to throw around "RISC" and "CISC". There is no reason of which I am aware why a future version of Windows cannot scale to as many processors as any version of Unix, just like the nasty ol x86 ISA has yielded top-notch processors like the P4 and Athlon.

I think that everyone here who argues otherwise is engaged in a desperate attempt to justify their worldview that equates Apple with perfection and wisdom, or perhaps equates Microsoft with evil and boundless stupidity.
Amen. Although I think the Windows' scalability vs. Unix's scalability is a valid argument because reasons stated in my post above. It's true that there shouldn't be a reason that Windows cannot scale to as many processors, but as I've said... it's not worth it because it isn't Microsoft's market.