PDA

View Full Version : New Power Macs Coming ?


robotrenegade
Jan 23, 2003, 08:43 AM
Any idea when the new G4 will be coming?

peter2002
Jan 23, 2003, 09:06 AM
The new PMs are on their way, but are currently stuck in a container ship off Long Beach, CA. The longshoremen just haven't caught up since the strike a few months ago.

Pete :D

wormy
Jan 23, 2003, 09:34 AM
There was a rumor going around that they'll be released on Jan 25th with iLife, which doesn't make any sense to me. Why would Apple release them on a Saturday? I would think they'd do it early in the week. My guess is early February. But it's just a random guess...

jrv3034
Jan 23, 2003, 09:48 AM
They'd better have a decent FSB and full use of DDR to compete with Intel/AMD until the PPC970 comes out...

Or, if not, then seriously cut the prices on those machines.:mad:

gopher
Jan 23, 2003, 10:30 AM
jrv, you think you can compare Apple's to PCs. Read http://www.macvspc.info/

The speed is not in the FSB on the Mac. It is the L3 cache, and the RISC processing, the lower number of pipeline stages making processes finish their time on the CPU faster, and the lower heat in the CPUs themselves being actually smaller CPUs. Go back and read my prior posts on the issue. The problem with speed is in software and not hardware.

Also for Mac OS X speed visit my FAQ:

http://www.macmaps.com/Macosxspeed.html

jrv3034
Jan 23, 2003, 10:49 AM
I had actually read your website before. I'm just saying that Apple needs better hardware to compete with the Wintel world when it comes to high performance applications (Image manipulation, 3D rendering, DV editing, etc.) For pretty much any other task Macs are completely up to par with PC's. If you're surfing the web or doing word processing or sending emails or listening to music, there's no difference, and of course the Mac OSX experience is infinitely more satisfying than that of Windows.

As far as the technicalities go, I'm sure you have more know-how of what affects performance on a PowerPC than I do (heck I don't even HAVE a Mac yet, but I really want one...) and if I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it. But just from hearing benchmark results and the postings of others here, it's more than just software that is making Macs go slower.

mangoduck
Jan 23, 2003, 10:50 AM
we've reached a point where the limiting factor IS largely fsb. bottleneck! bottleneck!

what good is fewer pipeline stages and less on-chip time if the instructions are molasses getting to and leaving it? and getting to anything else on the board as well.

jrv3034
Jan 23, 2003, 11:01 AM
Ok, folks. Sorry for veering the thread into a different direction.

As far as when the new PowerMacs will come out, I would venture to say sometime in February, maybe late February. My guess is this because if they release it then, that generation of PowerMacs could be enough to hold us all until the PPC970 comes out in September or so. Pure speculation here, of course.;)

The upcoming Powermacs would do well to have integrated bluetooth, FireWire 800, ATI Radeon 9700 Pro?, Superdrive AND Combo Drive, 512MB RAM minimum, 120GB HDD (or 2 80GB drives), and if all goes well at Motorola, speeds from 1Ghz to 1.5Ghz, all dual procs, not to mention the cool displays coming soon. Throw in another sweet deal like the "InDesign for free", maybe with Final Cut Pro 4, and you've got an instant switcher right here.:D

ddtlm
Jan 23, 2003, 11:36 AM
mangoduck:

we've reached a point where the limiting factor IS largely fsb. bottleneck! bottleneck!
No we have not. I've gotten far better performance out of my old PC133 Athlon than I've ever seen come from any Mac ... and Athlons don't even have L3 cache (which reduces the traffic on the FSB and main memory). It's time for everyone to stop making excuses about it, the sad fact is that the G4 is a major cause of current Mac performance woes.

gopher:

and the RISC processing
Irrelevant.

jrv3034:

They'd better have a decent FSB and full use of DDR to compete with Intel/AMD until the PPC970 comes out...
Won't happen.

Or, if not, then seriously cut the prices on those machines
Won't happen.

gopher
Jan 23, 2003, 11:40 AM
RISC processing is not irrelevant. Why else is emulation of Mac OS X impossible on Intel/AMD hardware? The best Mac you can emulate on that hardware is Mac OS 8.0. Irrelevant! Macs can emulate more operating systems than any PC hardware. If you want an all in one solution, get a Mac.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 23, 2003, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by peter2002
The new PMs are on their way, but are currently stuck in a container ship off Long Beach, CA. The longshoremen just haven't caught up since the strike a few months ago.

Pete :D This doesnt sound right and ill tell you why, Powermacs are made in the good ol USA at least my quicksilver was. It clearly states made in California. I would think this holds true for the wind tunnels. Anyone outthere have one and can comment?

ddtlm
Jan 23, 2003, 02:55 PM
gopher:

RISC processing is not irrelevant. Why else is emulation of Mac OS X impossible on Intel/AMD hardware? The best Mac you can emulate on that hardware is Mac OS 8.0. Irrelevant! Macs can emulate more operating systems than any PC hardware. If you want an all in one solution, get a Mac.
This is one of the most bizzarre ways to justify a Mac that I have ever heard. Is it possible that you are searching a little too hard? Most people would just laugh in your face, and tell you that since they want nothing to do with anything Apple, they'd get an x86 machine and run everything natively, for less money.

Anyway, emulation of any OS is possible (as long as someone spends the time to write the emulator) on any other OS, although performance will probably be poor. I don't know where you got the idea that the opposite was true.

MrMacMan
Jan 23, 2003, 03:08 PM
Anyway, the rumors stat that apple will release the newer PowerMacs in Feb.

It will be a slight boost and we may see another small boost during MWNY (Or summer/fall if there is no MWNY).

That is the rumor for now.

gopher
Jan 23, 2003, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
gopher:


This is one of the most bizzarre ways to justify a Mac that I have ever heard. Is it possible that you are searching a little too hard? Most people would just laugh in your face, and tell you that since they want nothing to do with anything Apple, they'd get an x86 machine and run everything natively, for less money.

Anyway, emulation of any OS is possible (as long as someone spends the time to write the emulator) on any other OS, although performance will probably be poor. I don't know where you got the idea that the opposite was true.

Right but the Windows machines are too hard to setup. They make what is a walk in the country on a Mac look as difficult as climbing Everest when doing it on the PC. I want to be able to do everything I like on the machine that is easiest to work with. If Windows machines were as easy to setup as Macs, as compatible, and were as fast at genetics and photo and video editing routines as Macs, perhaps you'd have a reason. It is true many applications aren't optimized, and this makes the Macs look less worthy, but for applications where power is needed Macs have the best software. Macs are cheaper in the long run because you replace them less often.

All this and more is covered in http://www.macvspc.info/

arogge
Jan 23, 2003, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Powermacs are made in the good ol USA at least my quicksilver was. It clearly states made in California. I would think this holds true for the wind tunnels. Anyone outthere have one and can comment?

I saw that label too, but I was not convinced; so I opened the cases of some MDD PowerMacs and was disappointed to find that the ATI and NVIDIA graphics cards were Made in Elbonia. The parts for the PowerMac come from all over the World, with the Elbonian parts being the least desirable. Oftentimes, "Made in USA" has to be translated to mean "Assembled in USA from domestic and foreign components." The graphics cards are the most disappointing component of the PowerMacs. I have no interest in playing ID Software's Quake 3, and I would rather have a professional graphics card instead of a cheap card from Elbonia that is designed for pushing pixels in games. I've been waiting for new PowerMacs, but professional graphics cards don't seem to be on the list of future upgrades.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 23, 2003, 04:20 PM
I wonder what video card you have in the mdd,and you dont want to play quake3 ??Well then you need to try Return to Castle Wofenstein cause it ROCKS in Multiplayer. I was really referring to the unit as a whole where they are assembled in the good old USA which i dont think this is true of the imacs at least not of the classics i think ours were maid in Malysia.

arogge
Jan 24, 2003, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I wonder what video card you have in the mdd,and you dont want to play quake3 ??Well then you need to try Return to Castle Wofenstein cause it ROCKS in Multiplayer.

I talked about the limitations of the modern first-person-shooter games in the thread entitled: "any return to castle wolfenstein fans here?" To get an idea of what you're missing by using the limited graphics available for the PowerMac, check out these sites:

http://mirror.ati.com/products/builtworkstation.html
http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?PAGE=workstation
http://www.3dlabs.com/product/index.htm

Until the PowerMac includes this type of workstation-class hardware, it will always be more of a consumer PC than a real workstation.

daveg5
Jan 25, 2003, 04:17 PM
Other then true ddr support and faster fsb i think the should if they can up the L2 cache back up to the oringinal 1MB+, as it is the measly 256k has to be emptied in filled 4 times going to main memory while 1MB would only have to do this once better performance on almost everything, exspensive, not sure?

8thDegreeSavage
Jan 25, 2003, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by arogge


I talked about the limitations of the modern first-person-shooter games in the thread entitled: "any return to castle wolfenstein fans here?" To get an idea of what you're missing by using the limited graphics available for the PowerMac, check out these sites:

http://mirror.ati.com/products/builtworkstation.html
http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?PAGE=workstation
http://www.3dlabs.com/product/index.htm

Until the PowerMac includes this type of workstation-class hardware, it will always be more of a consumer PC than a real workstation.

Those workstation cards are being planned to be supported in 10.3

jaxbrokenheart
Jan 25, 2003, 05:04 PM
my ibook was assembled in taiwan (took a hell of a long time to get it, too), but if the new powermacs are just slightly better than the windtunnels, they are probly assembled in the same place.

also, if they go for feb, than they wont do summer unless they get the ppc970. if they're not getting a g5 in summer/fall, they'd be better off having new pm's come out around march/april, then again in sept/oct to stretch the g4 out as long as possible, the less updates, the less cost. if they will get g5's in summer/fall, we'll see new pm's in early feb and that'll be the last pmg4. when apple first came out with the g4, how long did it take them to put it into powerbooks (just wondering since i'm waiting for a powerbook g5)?

arogge
Jan 25, 2003, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by 8thDegreeSavage


Those workstation cards are being planned to be supported in 10.3

When is 10.3 supposed to arrive? Is Apple going to promote better graphics cards as standard equipment, or is this just passive driver support? I'd be happy with either, but Apple should make professional graphics the standard for the PowerMac.

austincpy
Jan 26, 2003, 12:16 AM
the pb g4's were released in 2001, and the pm in i think 99, so about one year and a half. But the 970 will be easier to get into pb because they use less heat, i think

MacCoaster
Jan 26, 2003, 03:31 AM
Originally posted by gopher
jrv, you think you can compare Apple's to PCs. Read http://www.macvspc.info/

The speed is not in the FSB on the Mac. It is the L3 cache, and the RISC processing, the lower number of pipeline stages making processes finish their time on the CPU faster, and the lower heat in the CPUs themselves being actually smaller CPUs. Go back and read my prior posts on the issue. The problem with speed is in software and not hardware.

Also for Mac OS X speed visit my FAQ:

http://www.macmaps.com/Macosxspeed.html
Then explain to us why the latest single processor 3.06 GHz Pentium 4s beat the crap out of dual processor 1.25 GHz, at a factor close to 2.

Have you ever seen this infamous one: http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm ?

FSB is always an issue. The faster the FSB, the more memory bandwidth it has. You should take a look at the PowerPC 970. That's right 900 MHz dual'ed up, 450 MHz per channel.

Pentium 4s are at 533 now, four 133 MHz channels. Feeding gigabytes and gigabytes more data in the processor than the G4 ever can take. However, they're approaching the 800 MHz bus, which is comparable to the 970s, because IIRC, 970 has more instructions for memory transfers and therefore its really effective around 800 MHz. The more bandwidth you have, the faster you'll be able to work with huge datasets.

And what's that? Pentium 4 3.06 GHzs don't even have L2s. L3s only matter if you have slow memory, READ: PC133/gimmick DDR. Dual-channeled DDR400 can very well beat DDR L3 in the Power Mac by a factor or more given the right circumstances. Besides L3 only helps if you stay in one application and one dataset. Huge databases [gigabytes, mind you] or even large Photoshop files [100 MB] won't fit on the L3 and therefore unable to take full advantage of the L3.

RISC is very irrelevant these days. Did you know that the Pentium Pro/II/III/4 are RISC? The Athlon is RISC? Yep they are, they just have CISC interfacing the RISC, which is a great design decision, IMO. Make it easy to program for with CISC, but still maintain the power of RISC.

Pipelines are important, yes, but as Intel has proved, you can ramp up the processor with long pipelines and get extremely fast processor speeds.

That guy who runs that site needs to be informed, IMO. He says NT hasn't changed that much since its first incarnation. ?!?!?!?! Ok, his credibility has been lost.

He also points out that when "Macs are properly set up, they won't have problems. The same is true can be said for the PC.

So OS X now has the industrial strength benefits of UNIX (preemptive multitasking, full symmetric multiprocessing, memory protection, etc.), combined with significant digital media architectures (QuickTime, OpenGL, PDF, etc.), and all this power has the world renowned, intuitive Mac interface. Quite a package!
The NT platform has been delivering these since 1993. I think we all can agree Apple was late to the game, but they do indeed have a very nicely and well done OS. [edit: oh don't forget about the free Unices... here long before Mac OS X--guess what Mac OS X is based on? FreeBSD! And that is primarily an x86 OS.

I don't think the solution to today's problems are bitching and moaning about either Mac or PC. I think today's problems should be heeded to compatibility, standards--of which both Mac OS X and Windows XP are going for. A mix-and-match environment is best, because of course, if everyone used Macs, there would be just as many "problems" with Macs as there are on PCs nowadays.

Can't Mac and PC users just get along and interoperate. That's what I do.

Isn't the original topic about new Power Macs? :p And yes, bring the damned prices down and up the performance!

[edit: a deceiving spelling error didn't catch my eye]