Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New High End machines - speedy?

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Anderson

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Nov 1, 2001
22,568
6
VA
Looking at the new PowerMacs I'm thinking they're fast, but on the Apple website I found this image. Now I have a 450 MHz original powermac and its not that much slower than the 500 MHz. But how can it be that a machine with almost 6 times the processing power, faster bus and better cache is only twice as fast?

I don't get it. Anyone got any answers on this one?

Personally, I don't think I'm going to be upgrading to a new machine unless I can get something at least an order of magnitude faster (10x) than what I have now.

I hope the IBM 970s can do it.

D
 

Attachments

  • chartfcp01282003.gif
    chartfcp01282003.gif
    7.2 KB · Views: 321
K

King Cobra

macrumors 603
Mar 2, 2002
5,403
0
Actually, 204% faster means about 3x as fast as the 500MHz model.

Now you got me thinking, as well. I'm guessing this particular operation relies much more heavily on the memory over the processor. The 500MHz model has a 100MHz bus, while the 1GHz model has a 133MHz bus with DDR-RAM.

The fastest PowerMacs have dual processors and a 167MHz bus. But Apple's DDR-RAM was not fully effective with the older "windtunnel" PowerMac models, due to the hardware configuration. This could still be the issue here.

My guesses, man.
 
2

240vac

macrumors newbie
Feb 15, 2002
9
0
Except that, if we believe the graph rather than the numbers to be correct, it is actually only 104% faster - or 204% "as fast"...
 
2

240vac

macrumors newbie
Feb 15, 2002
9
0
In fact, looking at it again, that graph must be completely bogus - I'm sure some Apple market person must have made a mistake, and the numbers should either read "154, 176 and 204 % as fast as", or "54, 76 and 104 % faster than". Its either that or the bars aren't linearly proportional to performance on Final Cut Pro, which is also misleading and just as bad. I'm guessing that Tufte, "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information" isn't in the Apple library...
 
Mr. Anderson

Mr. Anderson

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Nov 1, 2001
22,568
6
VA
Originally posted by King Cobra
Actually, 204% faster means about 3x as fast as the 500MHz model.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what math you're using here, but 200% in my books is twice as fast, its not saying 100% + 200%.

It is strange though and I'm wondering if it is an error.

D
 
DakotaGuy

DakotaGuy

macrumors 601
Jan 14, 2002
4,226
3,791
South Dakota, USA
Dukestreet,

Nothing against your orginal 450Mhz G4, because, well to think of it I don't even have a G4, but I have this little feeling graph or no graph the new 1.42GHz Dual would have your 450 for lunch, supper, and a midnight snack... ;o)
 
Mr. Anderson

Mr. Anderson

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Nov 1, 2001
22,568
6
VA
I agree, it should smoke my machine, but I was just wondering what the graph really showed or if it was right because it just didn't add up - even if KCs new math is right and its 3x my machine.

And l have a TiPB as well, but I'm not going to buy a new 5k+ machine until I get something a lot faster, especially with the potential of the IBM 970 coming out this year.

D
 
K

Kid Red

macrumors 65816
Dec 14, 2001
1,428
157
How is it 6X your 500? It's not even a 1.5ghz which means slightly less then 2 15s divided by 500=3. So it should be a little less then 3x as fast. You don't add the duals, you simply have 2 instead of one. They are great for doing 2 things at once but doesn't mean you have a 3.0ghz machine. Also keep in mind the faster the machine past a certain point is measured in seconds if not miliseconds. Do you really need a machine that a few seconds faster? I guess not because you're on a 450. So wait for the 970 to come out which should be 1.3 seconds faster then the 1.42ghz G4s.
 
Mr. Anderson

Mr. Anderson

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Nov 1, 2001
22,568
6
VA
Originally posted by Kid Red
They are great for doing 2 things at once but doesn't mean you have a 3.0ghz machine. Also keep in mind the faster the machine past a certain point is measured in seconds if not miliseconds. Do you really need a machine that a few seconds faster? I guess not because you're on a 450.
Click to expand...

What I do takes days not seconds to do, so speed is an issue. I've had a 3D animation run for over 100 hours on the machine. If the new machine I get is 10x I can do that over night.

And I know about duals not being 2x a single processor, but there are significant differences aside from the processors with these machines.

And FCP is optimized for multiple processors so it really should be more than 2x.

D
 
MacBandit

MacBandit

macrumors 604
Aug 9, 2002
7,440
8
Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
I know from my own test that my Dual/GHz/DDR PowerMac is 6x as fast as my old B/W G3 400 with ATI Radeon and 768MB of Ram. I expect that the new Dual 1.42 is probably 4-5x as fast as your machine in real world tasks. The biggest thing that the picture and test don't show is true multitasking. Try running the Final Cut Pro task while ripping cds to MP3 and burning an iMovie on your computer and on the new Dual/1.42. I would be in this situation that the new machine is even more then 5x faster maybe more like 6 or 7x faster.
 
Mr. Anderson

Mr. Anderson

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Nov 1, 2001
22,568
6
VA
Well, I have a gig of RAM, but only a Rage128 Pro video card, so there would be a significant difference in 'feel' there. But again, it comes down to the number crunching and rendering time. FCP also takes advantage of the video card to do realtime stuff, but when you go for final output you still have to render the whole thing.

D
 
C

cubist

macrumors 68020
Jul 4, 2002
2,075
0
Muncie, Indiana
Hey Duke, have you considered the 1GHz Powerlogix board for your G4. For $525 you may extend the life of your machine to the brilliant sunrise of the awesome 970.
 
Mr. Anderson

Mr. Anderson

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Nov 1, 2001
22,568
6
VA
Yeah, I've even looked at the dual upgrade cards, but its a sizeable chunk of change regardless and I'd rather save that money for a new machine. If I get a freelance job that's time critical its always an option, that and dropping a couple hundred more on a better video card.

But the next system I get will most likely be the IBM 970 equipped PowerMac, dual 20" monitors, 300+ gig of HD, 2Gig of RAM. That and I'm thinking of getting a new scanner, slide scanner and digital SLR camera. This won't be cheap, so if I can hold out, that's what I'm going to do.

D
 
Mr. Anderson

Mr. Anderson

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Nov 1, 2001
22,568
6
VA
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I thought that 100% faster meant twice as fast, so wouldn't KC's 200% = 3x faster be correct?
Click to expand...

Ah, after looking more closely to the chart, I noticed its not linear, which I assumed.

dukestreet = idiot

oh well, so that's not that bad, with all the additional optimizations the new machine is 3x the speed of the original.

I'm still waiting though...

D
 
mnkeybsness

mnkeybsness

macrumors 68030
Jun 25, 2001
2,511
0
Moneyapolis, Minnesota
100% does not equal faster...it means processor x runs at 100% the same potential as the processor b...meaning x=b...when you are saying 200% faster, you mean x=2b...or processor x runs at the speed twice that of b
 
Rower_CPU

Rower_CPU

Moderator emeritus
Oct 5, 2001
11,219
2
San Diego, CA
Originally posted by mnkeybsness
100% does not equal faster...it means processor x runs at 100% the same potential as the processor b...meaning x=b...when you are saying 200% faster, you mean x=2b...or processor x runs at the speed twice that of b
Click to expand...

That's true if you say that CPU x runs AT 100% speed of CPU b, but if you say CPU x runs 100% FASTER than CPU b, then CPU x is twice as fast (x=2b).

Therefore, 200% faster is x=3b.
 
Mr. Anderson

Mr. Anderson

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Nov 1, 2001
22,568
6
VA
To make it simpler

50% faster means its 150% the original speed, not 50% slower.

You 2 and your polynomial equations.....;)

D
 
howard

howard

macrumors 68020
Nov 18, 2002
2,017
4
if you have a 500mhz maching and a 1000mhz machine the 1ghz will not be 2x as fast as the 500mhz, it just doesn't work that way. Its not like it'll take half the time to do calculations as compared to the 500mhz. the actual speed increase or number of seconds it takes to do something will not be cut in half...maybe by 25% or so...depending on other things.
 
Rower_CPU

Rower_CPU

Moderator emeritus
Oct 5, 2001
11,219
2
San Diego, CA
Originally posted by howard
if you have a 500mhz maching and a 1000mhz machine the 1ghz will not be 2x as fast as the 500mhz, it just doesn't work that way. Its not like it'll take half the time to do calculations as compared to the 500mhz. the actual speed increase or number of seconds it takes to do something will not be cut in half...maybe by 25% or so...depending on other things.
Click to expand...

Take a look at the graph in the first post. We're not really discussing MHz here, but Apple's claims of relative speed.
 
Backtothemac

Backtothemac

macrumors 601
Jan 3, 2002
4,222
16
San Destin Florida
Duke, think about this. That rendering that you do that takes 100 hours, would only take about 20 or so with the Dual 1.42. So, I would say get one now, and then unload it on say me, when you get the 970. Makes your life a lot easier you know, plus, brother will hook you up in price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom