Neotronik Thread

[Neotronik]

I think this is very bad news; The G5 is barely outperforming 32 bit chips. (32 bits people!!!!)
I'd be afraid to test the dual 2 ghz g5 to a dual opteron. The opteron is a very robust processor.

I can't believe people are proud of barely outperforming 32 bit pentium processors. Hell the 32 bit dual xeon's with 533mhz frontside perform well.

This isn't a winner man. This isn't wiping the floor. I actually doubt apple's claims this time around. And am considering cancelling my dual 2ghz order. I may go dual opteron or wait till the amd 64. I'm in shock right now with these tests.
Please; stop the parade on outperforming a 32 bit chip configuration with slower bus speeds and faulted hyperthreading; when HT is turned off the pentiums perform even better.
Dual 2ghz G5 doesn't look so mighty after all. Not this time; Apple has come out the gate a loser with dated technology (it's now 2 months old) and it barely outperfroms the fastest 32 bit chips; forget about the dual xeons and opterons; this is a downright embarrasment.

Good Riddance!

[synthetickittie]

Originally posted by Neotronik
I think this is very bad news; The G5 is barely outperforming 32 bit chips. (32 bits people!!!!)
I'd be afraid to test the dual 2 ghz g5 to a dual opteron. The opteron is a very robust processor.

I can't believe people are proud of barely outperforming 32 bit pentium processors. Hell the 32 bit dual xeon's with 533mhz frontside perform well.

This isn't a winner man. This isn't wiping the floor. I actually doubt apple's claims this time around. And am considering cancelling my dual 2ghz order. I may go dual opteron or wait till the amd 64. I'm in shock right now with these tests.
Please; stop the parade on outperforming a 32 bit chip configuration with slower bus speeds and faulted hyperthreading; when HT is turned off the pentiums perform even better.
Dual 2ghz G5 doesn't look so mighty after all. Not this time; Apple has come out the gate a loser with dated technology (it's now 2 months old) and it barely outperfroms the fastest 32 bit chips; forget about the dual xeons and opterons; this is a downright embarrasment.

Good Riddance!

Ok GRANTED I dont know much about 64bit processors and how everything works but WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT! These tests are of a totally 32bit program and the fact that the g5 is 64 bit means NOTHING AT ALL in these tests. Now as I said I dont know all that much which is why Im going to stop writting at the fear of saying something that is false and sounds stupid like you. Hopefully people that know a lot more about this then I do will elaborate about this for you.

[Edot]

Originally posted by Neotronik
... Apple has come out the gate a loser with dated technology (it's now 2 months old) ...

Isn't it almost a year old since IBM announced the 970!? And over a year, maybe two since Apple started developing it!?

PLEASE...

[Freg3000]

Originally posted by Neotronik
I think this is very bad news; The G5 is barely outperforming 32 bit chips. (32 bits people!!!!)
I'd be afraid to test the dual 2 ghz g5 to a dual opteron. The opteron is a very robust processor.

I can't believe people are proud of barely outperforming 32 bit pentium processors. Hell the 32 bit dual xeon's with 533mhz frontside perform well.

This isn't a winner man. This isn't wiping the floor. I actually doubt apple's claims this time around. And am considering cancelling my dual 2ghz order. I may go dual opteron or wait till the amd 64. I'm in shock right now with these tests.
Please; stop the parade on outperforming a 32 bit chip configuration with slower bus speeds and faulted hyperthreading; when HT is turned off the pentiums perform even better.
Dual 2ghz G5 doesn't look so mighty after all. Not this time; Apple has come out the gate a loser with dated technology (it's now 2 months old) and it barely outperfroms the fastest 32 bit chips; forget about the dual xeons and opterons; this is a downright embarrasment.

Good Riddance!

Hmmmmm....You seem to fall into the 64 bit is 2x faster than 32 bit camp.

First off, the 64 "bitness" of the G5 means nothing yet. Photoshop isn't a 64 bit app, and therefore cannot take advantage of the 64 bit G5.

And about the bus speed, I have not looked at the specs of the competing PCs, but don't the latest P4s have 800 Mhz FSBs? Just like the 1.6 Ghz G5?

I also find it funny that you say the G5 is dated technology. We have waited years for this and in a handful of weeks it has become "dated". May I ask you what you would replace in the G5 now that was acceptable 2 months ago. What computing advancement was made while we were all asleep.

Sorry, if I sound harsh, but I truly think you are overreacting.

[whawho]

Originally posted by Neotronik
I think this is very bad news; The G5 is barely outperforming 32 bit chips. (32 bits people!!!!)
I'd be afraid to test the dual 2 ghz g5 to a dual opteron. The opteron is a very robust processor.

I can't believe people are proud of barely outperforming 32 bit pentium processors. Hell the 32 bit dual xeon's with 533mhz frontside perform well.

This isn't a winner man. This isn't wiping the floor. I actually doubt apple's claims this time around. And am considering cancelling my dual 2ghz order. I may go dual opteron or wait till the amd 64. I'm in shock right now with these tests.
Please; stop the parade on outperforming a 32 bit chip configuration with slower bus speeds and faulted hyperthreading; when HT is turned off the pentiums perform even better.
Dual 2ghz G5 doesn't look so mighty after all. Not this time; Apple has come out the gate a loser with dated technology (it's now 2 months old) and it barely outperfroms the fastest 32 bit chips; forget about the dual xeons and opterons; this is a downright embarrasment.

Good Riddance!

er ok? This is a 32bit app optimized for 32 bit processors. I don't think the Amd 64 or or dual opteron will fair much better than the Dual 2ghz in these tests... Nice try... How convienent that you leave off that the G5 is only 1.6ghz... and wins 5 tests and is close in the rest... the G5 a robust processor to accomplish that... man I doubt you even have a Dual 2 gig on order.... heh...

[avus]

Originally posted by synthetickittie
Hopefully people that know a lot more about this then I do will elaborate about this for you.

No, he is just a troll and I don't believe that he actually ordered a G5 2GHz dual. Just ignore.

[rjwill246]

Originally posted by whawho
er ok? This is a 32bit app optimized for 32 bit processors. I don't think the Amd 64 or or dual opteron will fair much better than the Dual 2ghz in these tests... Nice try... How convienent that you leave off that the G5 is only 1.6ghz... and wins 5 tests and is close in the rest... the G5 a robust processor to accomplish that... man I doubt you even have a Dual 2 gig on order.... heh...

You are right! This troll should not be humoured. Like all the sad Wintellers, stuck with worms and viruses and other nefarious ills, swirling in a spiral of horrifying lethal diseases, he has succumbed and will soon not be with us. In his delirium may he RIP! and let us move on... there is no sense when the sense is not!

[iJon]

i have a feeling this is gonna get good. Neo is getting ready for the flamefest.

iJon

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by Freg3000
Sorry, if I sound harsh, but I truly think you are overreacting.


Overreaction is common after a Stevenote, when you realize that you've been fed a load of over-hyped crap and been shown some meaningless "benchmarks" calculated to favor the home team.

But, it's OK to lie if you're marketing.... At least that seems to be the consensus here.

But don't panic, at last the latest G5 Mac is roughly as fast as a Pentium, so that's a big leap forward from the days when Apple hyped DDR memory (without bothering to mention that their CPUs could only do SDR);.

</sarcasm>

[Tiauguinho]

Originally posted by Neotronik
I think this is very bad news ... "And all the bla bla bla you wrote"

Neotronik,


Besides you not knowing what the hell you are talking about, you are just messing things. As some members already explained the 64Bits of the G5 will NOT bring a performance improvement. For sure, it can break the barrier of the 4GB of RAM, but this tests arent made with 8GB of RAM. Please, do cancel your order! And get a Opteron so you can whipe the floor extremely fast with it.The G5 is as you say Dated Technology... BAH!

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by whawho
Let us Mac fans enjoy our G5's and using our Macs... If you don't want to buy into Steve Job's Keynotes and Apple products then don't..

Fair enough - if your subjective decision is to go Mac, then go.

But please, don't cite objective reasons for your choice when those objective points can easily be shown to be false.

Sorry, but there are just so many "64-bit/first/fastest" lies being propogated now it makes me ill.

Your opinions and feelings are fine, but please don't cite any of the marketing statements (AKA "lies") from Cupertino to justify them. I don't attack the Mac - I just try to fight the falsehoods...

[macrumors12345]

Originally posted by Neotronik
I think this is very bad news; The G5 is barely outperforming 32 bit chips. (32 bits people!!!!)
I'd be afraid to test the dual 2 ghz g5 to a dual opteron. The opteron is a very robust processor.

I can't believe people are proud of barely outperforming 32 bit pentium processors. Hell the 32 bit dual xeon's with 533mhz frontside perform well.

Wow, you really have no idea what you are talking about. I won't even try to explain everything that is incorrect in your post (it would take more time than I have), but I guarantee you this: a dual processor Opteron 246 (as Steve would say, "the fastest Opteron money can buy") will NEVER beat a Dual 2 Ghz G5 in Photoshop. NEVER. As in, it won't happen, in case that was unclear. In fact, I would be quite surprised if Opteron could even beat a Dual Xeon in Photoshop.

[Freg3000]

Originally posted by AidenShaw

But, it's OK to lie if you're marketing.... At least that seems to be the consensus here.


This might be splitting hairs, but I do not think it is ok to lie if it is for marketing purposes. I think it is justifiable to lie in order to keep up with everyone else. Everyone lies in marketing, Apple isn't the only one. Why can't they do it too?

I mean, if we weren't Mac-heads, we'd think that Intel invented wireless internet technology with Centrino.

And of course Apple will put their numbers in the most favorable light. What company wouldn't.

Plus, all of those benchmarks were more or less done with the Dual 2 GHz G5, not the single 1.6.

Whatever, it's all good. :)

[Neotronik]

A troll!?? Good lord. Mods; pleez; read the last two pages and let me respond! I'm not a troll; I'm a disappointed person who is about to cancel a dual 2ghz order. (I'll gladly verify)
This is bananas!?? It's uncalled for. Oh and the order is very real; on or before 10/2/03 w/17inch display and an apple care warranty.

I like the way you try to dismiss my post by saying you won't even bother; I'm glad you didn't because it's obvious you don't know yourself!

1.6 Ghz rocks man! It beats the pants off the opteron and xeon! FOREVER MAN!!! Errrr sorry I sound just like you now.

The Mac experience?!!!? What Mac experience? It's a computer man. And it's not the fastest in the world. Well definitley not the 1.6. And oh yah; the fastest computer in the world (which they are referring to the dual 2ghz) is on paper man it's not physically here yet. I can't wait to see the scores against the mighty dual Xeon. Then we can all pat each other on the back an praise steve jobs and ibm for it.
Hmmm? I do see very fast dual opterons at 64 bit 1.6ghz that somehow were overlooked for the fastest computer in the world to go up against.

And this is coming from a G3 owner; a G4 ti-book owner an i-pod owner and soon to cancel dual 2ghz order.
Money is not my issue here folks; Lies and deceit are.

[Neotronik]

Hey Lookie; this is right on apples website:

The Power Mac G5 is the world’s fastest personal computer (is the 1.6 G5 fastest?) and the first with a 64-bit processor — which means it breaks the 4 gigabyte barrier (false that's not the case with the g5 1.6 also please re-read the 1.6 is a 64 bit processor but that doesn't mean in this case that it breaks the 4 gigabyte barrier - lol) and can use up to 8 gigabytes of main memory (false again - you can't do this with the g5 1.6). The new G5 processor — available at speeds up to dual 2GHz with a new ultrahigh-bandwidth system architecture featuring AGP 8X and PCI-X — makes the Power Mac G5 a breakthrough in desktop processing power. (breakthrough; hmm; this isn't the first ive seen of pci-x in fact this doesn't pertain to the 1.6 either) And models start at just $1999 (one model starts at 1999 and it isn't the worlds fastest that breaks the 4 gigabyte barrier; LOL it doesn't have pci-x neither)

[Mav451]

Originally posted by macrumors12345
Wow, you really have no idea what you are talking about. I won't even try to explain everything that is incorrect in your post (it would take more time than I have), but I guarantee you this: a dual processor Opteron 246 (as Steve would say, "the fastest Opteron money can buy") will NEVER beat a Dual 2 Ghz G5 in Photoshop. NEVER. As in, it won't happen, in case that was unclear. In fact, I would be quite surprised if Opteron could even beat a Dual Xeon in Photoshop.

how are you so sure that the Opteron can't outperform a dual xeon setup?

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=opteron244&page=6

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=opteron244&page=3
as you can see for the link above, the test systems are pretty much the latest for each side (Intel with the 533 fsb xeons), but the AMD opteron is running only ddr333.

Even with the slower 333 memory, the dual 1.6Ghz opterons (242) outperforms all xeons under 3.06ghz--basically all other models >> in the photoshop filter test (which you claimed the opteron processor is not competitive in)

The 244 then beats even the 3.06ghz xeon with 1MB of L3 cache.

Gamepc didn't even test the 246, and the considerably older 242's and 244's are already beating out the fastest xeons available.

Gamepc is a site that i don't consider to be either intel or amd biased.

Another thing to be considered is the concluding statement from a typically "pro-intel site":

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030811/dual_xeon-18.html

"... borrowing heavily from the Prescott core, an FSB speed of 166 MHz (FSB667) is expected to provide for more performance. Here's why: AMD's dual Opteron is breathing down its neck - as the benchmarks bear out impressively!"

Now why would they say that if the dual opteron system could NOT compete with a dual xeon? It would be a huge misconception to say that the opteron cannot compete with the xeon.

[Neotronik]

Right - on Mav!!!!! If you hunt around amd's website they have benchmarks too. Good; very Good.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by Neotronik
A troll!?? Good lord. Mods; pleez; read the last two pages and let me respond! I'm not a troll; I'm a disappointed person who is about to cancel a dual 2ghz order. (I'll gladly verify)
This is bananas!?? It's uncalled for. Oh and the order is very real; on or before 10/2/03 w/17inch display and an apple care warranty.

I like the way you try to dismiss my post by saying you won't even bother; I'm glad you didn't because it's obvious you don't know yourself!

1.6 Ghz rocks man! It beats the pants off the opteron and xeon! FOREVER MAN!!! Errrr sorry I sound just like you now.

The Mac experience?!!!? What Mac experience? It's a computer man. And it's not the fastest in the world. Well definitley not the 1.6. And oh yah; the fastest computer in the world (which they are referring to the dual 2ghz) is on paper man it's not physically here yet. I can't wait to see the scores against the mighty dual Xeon. Then we can all pat each other on the back an praise steve jobs and ibm for it.
Hmmm? I do see very fast dual opterons at 64 bit 1.6ghz that somehow were overlooked for the fastest computer in the world to go up against.

And this is coming from a G3 owner; a G4 ti-book owner an i-pod owner and soon to cancel dual 2ghz order.
Money is not my issue here folks; Lies and deceit are.

The logic behind your first post in this thread was severely flawed. As others have pointed out you obviously misunderstand the whole 32bit/64bit situation that's going on right now and the ways it will, and will not, increase performance. Also, for the low end of a brand new chip line to come out this strong against mature chip lines is a good sign IMO. Remember how unimpressive the P4 was when it first came out?

If you want to cancel yer order I really doubt anyone here cares. That just means that someone who actually comprehends what is going on might get their rig sooner than expected.


Lethal

[Docrjm]

Originally posted by Neotronik
Hey Lookie; this is right on apples website:

The Power Mac G5 is the world’s fastest personal computer (is the 1.6 G5 fastest?) and the first with a 64-bit processor — which means it breaks the 4 gigabyte barrier (false that's not the case with the g5 1.6 also please re-read the 1.6 is a 64 bit processor but that doesn't mean in this case that it breaks the 4 gigabyte barrier - lol) and can use up to 8 gigabytes of main memory (false again - you can't do this with the g5 1.6). The new G5 processor — available at speeds up to dual 2GHz with a new ultrahigh-bandwidth system architecture featuring AGP 8X and PCI-X — makes the Power Mac G5 a breakthrough in desktop processing power. (breakthrough; hmm; this isn't the first ive seen of pci-x in fact this doesn't pertain to the 1.6 either) And models start at just $1999 (one model starts at 1999 and it isn't the worlds fastest that breaks the 4 gigabyte barrier; LOL it doesn't have pci-x neither)
Why are you upset about this now? All of this info was available before you ordered? Did you not read it?

[Neotronik]

I'm not asking anyone to care if I cancel my order; just merely expressing myself like everyone else here.
The G5 1.6 isn't the worlds fastest computer...........(previously posted)
What does the ad from apples website have to do with my dual 2ghz? I placed my order after getting a glimpse of the wwdc about 5 weeks ago where apple gloated about it's spec tests. My point on apples ad is just that it's false. The 1.6 G5 is not what is claimed in their ad.

PS
Good stuff once again Mav; no ones touching that one.

[theRebel]

Originally posted by Neotronik
The G5 1.6 isn't the worlds fastest computer...........(previously posted)
What does the ad from apples website have to do with my dual 2ghz? I placed my order after getting a glimpse of the wwdc about 5 weeks ago where apple gloated about it's spec tests. My point on apples ad is just that it's false. The 1.6 G5 is not what is claimed in their ad.

What are you talking about?

Apple never claimed that the 1.6Ghz G5 PowerMac was the world's fastest computer. Never happened.

Obviously there are faster computers (ie the other G5 PowerMacs).

BTW, FYI, Apple's statement was that the Dual 2Ghz G5 was the world's fastest personal computer.

[Neotronik]

PS -- Neo, you're treading dangerously close to flamebait/total moron/troll status. I really doubt you want to incur the wrath of a moderator.

For what? Bothering to reply to someone who called me a moron. I was able to post without any name calling. I'll leave it at that. Your posts are baseless. But nonetheless you have a right to post no matter how baseless as do I.

Rebel where does it say in that part of the ad that it's the dual 2 that's the fastest. There's even a commercial; does it mention which g5 computer is the worlds fastest?
Oh here's the link to the commercial
http://www.apple.com/hardware/ads/g5/
I'll take another look at the 1.8 with 900 mhz frontside bus and all 8 gigs of ddr 400 ram dedicated to that single 1.8 procesor as opposed to the dual 2 with same.

[MrEFord]

I don't quite understand where this logic is going. I don't really feel like arguing intensely about what's been said here, but c'mon, let's use some common knowledge.

Apple has a three G5's, with a low-end, mid-end, and a high-end CPU. When Apple makes claims about which is the fastest CPU and such, it's pretty obvious they're referring to the high-end Dualie.

You're basically nit-picking about fine points made in Apple's adverstising. In the commercial, does it have to be so absolute specific about which computer they offer is the fastest? Isn't it obvious that the most expensive high-end (Dual 2Ghz) would be the fastest CPU? In what world does the lower end CPU upend the high-end? It just doesn't make sense in my opinion, what you're arguing.

I'm just really trying to understand where you're coming from, but from my end (and I think the end of many other posters), it just doesn't seem to make much sense.

[Neotronik]

Sorry; I don't see any other pc maker (Dell; gateway; micron) in the past or present that made a claim that it had the fastest computer. Then not be clear about which computer that was. Hope that clears up your dilemma.

[xpormac]

nothing on a $2,000 computer should be considered low end....hehe.

[MrEFord]

Well... when I mean low-end... hehe you know what I mean..

The "cheaper model." There we go :) Although 2000 isn't really cheap to begin with :D

[MacsRgr8]

Here we go again. I h8 this:
We got benchmarks and people interpret them differently. Then different opinions become flame wars....
If Neotronik decides he is misinformed, and therefore feels he should cancel his order, then he has the right to do so.
Others argue that the 1.6 Ghz performed accordingly, expecting the Dual 2 GHz running Panther to do a lot better, thus still believing the Dual 2 GHz is the fastest overall desktop computer out there.
Good, let there be different opinions. Let there be discussion. Don't flame eachother.

[Neotronik]

Well said; I didn't think I was flaming but defending my opinion.
You get that way after watching Michael Moorer.
What's that corporate police phone number?

Boy I'd have some fun with the legal issues regarding apples advertisement as well as the commercial. If I ordered a 1.6 based on the commercial or based on the fact that they say in the ad and in the commercial that the g5 (not specifying which one) is the worlds fastest personal computer. Theh add also says it breaks the 4 gigabyte barrier (this is the ad on the website)
It seems confusing. I go to other websites and they seem to be clear and don't claim that the processor they are using is the worlds fastest;
Hmmmmm????

[Analog Kid]

He lost all basis for his argument with the "the 30second spot doesn't go into enough detail about which is faster-- the cheap one or the expensive one..."

It's funny, but Intel doesn't go out of their way to point out that "HyperThreading" is really just SMT and that their implementation slows down most applications rather than speed them up, or that the first P4s were slower than the current P3s....

AMD doesn't go out of their way to point out that an Athlon 2700 isn't running at 2.7GHz.

Microsoft... well, their honesty can hardly be questioned...

I think some people believe the Apple folks keep a careful eye on these boards and shake in their boots when they hear "I'm going to cancel my order".

Personally I think looking at this one set of numbers and saying "I'm buying an Opteron" is as foolish as buying a G5 based on one set of numbers, but if they make you more comfortable with making a large purchase on AMD and you're more happy when you open the AMD box then it's good they were published.


Back to the subject--

The benchmarks look good to me. I just wish one of the folks saying they've bm'd their G4s would post the stats.

There's going to be plusses and minuses between any two architectures. BLAST (did I get that right?) ran faster on a G4 than a Pentium because it played to the G4 strengths. Some PS functions will stay faster on the P4, I suspect and some faster on the G5-- we already know the P4 seems faster on integer ops and the G5 on floats.

Does Adobe publish what functions were optimized? Can someone run the test without the plugin?

Does anyone know enough about image manipulation to know if Adobe can use the 64bits for anything other than memory depth?

The disk access does put the results into question, but again there's no such thing as apples to apples here anyway-- just a case by case analysis.

The sum totals don't really tell the story. One user on the MacNN board made a pretty convincing case that the places where the G5 was slow were less important to him as a professional. Again subjective, but it all depends on what mix of functions you benchmark and how you weight it.

For example, I think the reason the Keynote demos looked so dramatic is because they relied heavily on main memory size and bandwidth-- maybe RAIDed the drives for faster swaps? Again, playing to the PMG5 strengths.


We work with the numbers we have as we get them. The fact is: the ignorant consumer will never make the optimal choice. What the benchmarks tell me though is there are fewer bad choices to be made now, and there's less of a penalty or possibly a bonus for choosing the operating environment you prefer.

Looking forward to seeing how the specs evolve as things get optimized and processor generations continue.

[kaos_de_moria]

The 1.6 is 80% of the speed of the top G5, and it's second to February's Pentium. Even linear scaling will put the 2.0GHz more or less even to a 3.2 GHz P4 with a current 800MHz mobo.

hmm... the double G5 has half bus speed per processor... therefor i'd rather expect the 2.2 Ghz to be about twice as fast as a 1.6 Ghz... at least in realworld with various programs running and working at the same time.

[kaos_de_moria]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Fair enough - if your subjective decision is to go Mac, then go.

But please, don't cite objective reasons for your choice when those objective points can easily be shown to be false.

Sorry, but there are just so many "64-bit/first/fastest" lies being propogated now it makes me ill.

Your opinions and feelings are fine, but please don't cite any of the marketing statements (AKA "lies") from Cupertino to justify them. I don't attack the Mac - I just try to fight the falsehoods...


YEAH... sure... you fight falsehood in the world. anything you do as a dayjob?

what's your problem. most of the people here were working for years with machines witch we're slow and they admitted this fact. now we get machines which are fast and we're happy, maybe they're not the fastest (who cares except render farms?) and maybe our little celebration is a bit too loud for some PC users... but c'mon don't be the neighbor which spoils the party when it's just really starting to be fun...

[avus]

Originally posted by Neotronik
I placed my order after getting a glimpse of the wwdc about 5 weeks ago where apple gloated about it's spec tests.

You took Apple's claim so wholeheartedly, you placed an order for $3000 computer 5 weeks ago - and now you expect us to believe that you are the true voice exposing cooperate lies. Yeah, that makes sense.

:rolleyes:

[kaos_de_moria]

Originally posted by theRebel
The price that I came up with was $2261 before the rebate and that did not include any FireWire and only had a basic CD-RW drive (no DVD capabilities at all; no read and no write). What did you take off the config in order to lower the price?

Also you should be aware that you can buy a 1.8Ghz G5 PowerMac with a CD-RW/DVD Combo drive for $2199 from the Apple Store. Thus, when you figure in that Dell also charges at least $75 for shipping (whereas the PowerMac ships for free), your Dell Workstation costs more than the 1.8Ghz PowerMac.

what's your problem? when you see a porsche ad and the guy driving the car gets the sexiest women... you believe the same thing will happen to you because you buy a porsche or that the girls are even delivered with the car?

i'm quite happy that apple's marketing lies from time to time. they say that a G5 wrecks your house... happy that won't happen *g*

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by Neotronik
Sorry; I don't see any other pc maker (Dell; gateway; micron) in the past or present that made a claim that it had the fastest computer. Then not be clear about which computer that was. Hope that clears up your dilemma.

I don't mean to sound insulting, but isn't it completely obvious that when Apple says they have the fastest PC in the world, they're talking about the fastest PC model they make???

Mike.

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by kaos_de_moria
YEAH... sure... you fight falsehood in the world. anything you do as a dayjob?


Funny, that's how it sounded to me too!

"Faster than a speeding building! Can leap tall bullets in a single bound!! Fighting evil falsehoods with his (patented) Anti Reality- Distortion Field!!! It's... SuperShaw!"

(No offence intended! I just thought it sounded funny!)

[Kamu-San]

Ehm.

Apple don't specify which computer is the fastest?

Ehm.

We do agree that 1.6 < 2.0, now do we?

So, if Apple sells 3 computers. One is 1.6, one is 1.8 and one is 2.0GHz.
Now what can we say about this. Hmmm.
Can we expect that the speed order is something like
1.6 < 1.8 < 2GHz?

And if so, does Apple need to specify *which* of these computers is the fastest?

Looks blindingly obvious to me.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by rjwill246
You are right! This troll should not be humoured. Like all the sad Wintellers, stuck with worms and viruses and other nefarious ills, swirling in a spiral of horrifying lethal diseases, he has succumbed and will soon not be with us. In his delirium may he RIP! and let us move on... there is no sense when the sense is not!

I hope you folks aren't psychologists. I think Neotronik is a Mac user who is disappointed that the Mac isn't beating the PC on benchmarks. The tone of his post is disappointment, not glee. So don't just call him a troll and dismiss him. If he is technically incorrect about some things, then discuss those things.



Originally posted by AidenShaw
But don't panic, at last the latest G5 Mac is roughly as fast as a Pentium, so that's a big leap forward from the days when Apple hyped DDR memory (without bothering to mention that their CPUs could only do SDR);.

LOL. Yes, that was pretty sleazy. You're right, there's a limit to how much marketing-lying we should take.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by hose this!
Those of you talking about banning/censoring him for raising a voice of dissent should consider a job as White House Press Secretary. Wait a minute... Ari Fleischer, I know you've been retired for the past few months - is that you?

LOL.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by kaos_de_moria
what's your problem...

A lot of people buy into the hype and get disappointed. Is disappointment good for the Mac community? Instead of getting defensive and jumping on him, thereby causing both sides to leap into the flames, why not open your mind and learn something? If you don't need the education, then at least let others benefit from it.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by theRebel
How do you figure the single 1.6Ghz G5 PowerMac with a slower bus, slower RAM, etc, to be 80% of the speed of a Dual 2Ghz PowerMac?

Point 1: The bus and memory are synchronous with the CPU - so that "slower" memory is still matched to the CPU. The CPU isn't starved - it has as much bandwidth per GHz as the 2.0GHz.

You make it sound like the 1.6 somehow is on par with the G4's SDR bus....


Point 2: Adding a second 2.0GHz CPU doesn't make it a 4.0GHz CPU, many programs don't (and will never) utilize the second CPU. It's useful to compare single processor speeds, since for many applications that's all you get.

I also don't compare the G5 to a quad processor Xeon 3.06GHz, or a sixteen processor Xeon 2.8MP system with 2MiB of L3 on each CPU and 256 MiB shared L4 cache. By your logic I should compare the G5 to a 16-way, right?

[123]

Originally posted by MacsRgr8
If Neotronik decides he is misinformed, and therefore feels he should cancel his order, then he has the right to do so.


Yes, he has the right to do so and I don't think anybody questioned that. However, if his opinion is based on illogical thinking, people on this board also have the right to call him a troll or a retard (my opinion).
Seriously, if someone still doesn't understand what this 32/64 bit thing is all about and doesn't care to look for information on the web or read the forums before he posts angry rants, and if this someone also doesn't understand that if A faster than B, then B can't be the fastest by the definition of the word fastest (nothing is faster), then he well deserves some flames.

[kaos_de_moria]

Originally posted by soggywulf
A lot of people buy into the hype and get disappointed. Is disappointment good for the Mac community? Instead of getting defensive and jumping on him, thereby causing both sides to leap into the flames, why not open your mind and learn something? If you don't need the education, then at least let others benefit from it.

hi soggywulf... did you read the whole posting? yeah? you didn't realize it was a joke? hmm... sad sad sad

i'm just a bit surprised people BELIEVE in advertisement. hey... capitalism and shopping is no religion...

whatever

[3-22]

Originally posted by Neotronik
Well said; I didn't think I was flaming but defending my opinion.
You get that way after watching Michael Moorer.
What's that corporate police phone number?

Boy I'd have some fun with the legal issues regarding apples advertisement as well as the commercial. If I ordered a 1.6 based on the commercial or based on the fact that they say in the ad and in the commercial that the g5 (not specifying which one) is the worlds fastest personal computer. Theh add also says it breaks the 4 gigabyte barrier (this is the ad on the website)
It seems confusing. I go to other websites and they seem to be clear and don't claim that the processor they are using is the worlds fastest;
Hmmmmm????

Neotronik, your logic here is completely off.. (I blame too much of that Michael Moore brain washing)

No where in the ads, does Apple say the 1.6 is the fastest computer in the world. With your logic... Porsche comes out and states they make the fastest car in world. I then go out and purchase an old Porsche 944 (econo) car, according to you I then have the right to complain about unfair advertising. Sure they may have meant the 911, but I'm a stupid consumer.

I thought Apple was very upfront with information; I read the PDF's and made my buying decision. I never had an Apple before, so I have no customer loyalty.

Anyway, please cancel your dual G5 there is a real shortage right now. It would do someone else good, maybe even me. This would free up your time to go after the laundry detergent ad's and there deceptive whites whiter ad campaign.

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Point 1: The bus and memory are synchronous with the CPU - so that "slower" memory is still matched to the CPU. The CPU isn't starved - it has as much bandwidth per GHz as the 2.0GHz.



There's no guarantee bus & memory read/writes will scale linearly with CPU clockspeed. Far from it. It's entirely possible a 1.6GHz machine with 800MHz bus might choke, while a (entirely theoretical) 1.6GHz machine with 1GHz bus might not.


Point 2: Adding a second 2.0GHz CPU doesn't make it a 4.0GHz CPU, many programs don't (and will never) utilize the second CPU. It's useful to compare single processor speeds, since for many applications that's all you get.

Most modern apps are multithreaded, so this isn't an issue. Look at the tests done by the NASA employee in Jet3D - these displayed a c. 95% increase in performance from employing the second CPU.

Plus, even in the worst case scenario, you can run CPU-intensive single threaded apps on separate CPUs without any noticeable slowdown. Indded, the only time you don't derive any benefit from MP machines, is if you're running only one process - how often does that happen??

It's difficult to imagine any scenario where the 1.6GHz machine will be in the same ballpark, performance wise, as the 2.0GHz machine. Unless you're just typing messaes on MacRumours, that is! ;-)

Mike.

[Neotronik]

LOL!!!! I just caught up from my last post!!! I guess a whole lot of you don't realize that I've been a bonafide mac user; there's hope as I saw some form of intelligence that actually addressed that.
You took Apple's claim so wholeheartedly, you placed an order for $3000 computer 5 weeks ago - and now you expect us to believe that you are the true voice exposing cooperate lies. Yeah, that makes sense
Cooperate lies (lol) That would be corporate lies.
Thats right I'm not bitching about 3,000 dollars; as that is not my issue; I can afford to make that decision and even absorb it as a mistake; where it seems to be headed.
Now I'm accused of not knowing the difference between 32 bits and 64 bit. At best it doubles the amount of data a CPU can process per clock cycle in most cases (amd and intel's opteron and Itanium2) it allows you to address more memory - what happened to the 1.6 g5 breaking that barrier? ). I guess i should stop before I get accused of trolling because i'm exposing someone else's lack of intelligence who keeps posting but doesn't offer the facts and tries to cover it up by saying they won't bother to explain it. I'm willing to debate you to the floor man; I'm just itching for you to say something; you apparent lack of knowledge speaks for itself.
I love the intelligent responses
"Cancel yer [sic] order so's another one's of us could"
"He's some sort of PC God that has it in for Apple"
"people have a right to call him a retard (my opinion)" I'm almost to scared to ask for your overall opinion (lol) my mac genius"

AT least they are honest in the car commercials; there's always that small print.
Gee I guess I was so stupid that when I placed my order I just happened to order the dual 2ghz overhyped machine. Not the worlds fastest fledging 1.6 G5.
I mean this from the bottom of my heart;
Have a nice day!!! ;-)

[synthetickittie]

Now I'm accused of not knowing the difference between 32 bits and 64 bit. At best it doubles the amount of data a CPU can process per clock cycle in most cases

correct but only if the program that it is running is written to do so. The tests we are looking at (photoshop 7) is ONLY a 32 bit app.

[Neotronik]

Is this not the optimized version? Let's be fair; it's being compared to code that is not optimized for the pc and isn't impressivley outperforming 32 bit code and a 32bit chipset with a tweaked 32 bit OS and Panther's not going to be 64 bit natively. I'll save that for the Panther debate.

[synthetickittie]

the upgrade adobe put out for the g5 does NOT turn photoshop's code into 64bit code... and if you look up a few posts I did the exact same test on my 1.42 powermac g4 it even with my mac having more ram (2gbs I have and the 1.6 that was tested had only 1gb) it got killed in most tests.

[Neotronik]

I never said the upgrade adobe put out for the g5 does turns photoshop's code into 64bit code, I think everyone else could see that. Go ahead; this is what I was waiting for. Reading is fundamental; my friend.

[synthetickittie]

Originally posted by Neotronik
I never said the upgrade adobe put out for the g5 does NOT turn photoshop's code into 64bit code, I think everyone else could see that. Go ahead; this is what I was waiting for. Reading is fundamental; my friend.

what do you mean this is what you were waiting for? Im did not make fun or try to flame you in any way at all Im just trying to state facts to the best of my intelligence. I thought you were thinking that the new photoshop update made the code 64bit, if you didnt mean that then I just misunderstood you. Now if you know that photoshop is only 32bit why do you keep making such a deal that the g5 is 64bit because it seems like you are saying the g5 has such a huge advantage because of this over all the 32bit pc processors? The fact is that the g5 being 64bit gave it no advantage AT ALL in these tests.

[Neotronik]

Yah; I slapped my knee and hee-hawed myself after experiencing that post. Great contributer he is amongst the Mac Zealots.

[theRebel]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Point 1: The bus and memory are synchronous with the CPU - so that "slower" memory is still matched to the CPU. The CPU isn't starved - it has as much bandwidth per GHz as the 2.0GHz.

You make it sound like the 1.6 somehow is on par with the G4's SDR bus....

Point 2: Adding a second 2.0GHz CPU doesn't make it a 4.0GHz CPU, many programs don't (and will never) utilize the second CPU. It's useful to compare single processor speeds, since for many applications that's all you get.

I also don't compare the G5 to a quad processor Xeon 3.06GHz, or a sixteen processor Xeon 2.8MP system with 2MiB of L3 on each CPU and 256 MiB shared L4 cache. By your logic I should compare the G5 to a 16-way, right?


:confused:
Ummm, no that is not what I said at all. What are you talking about?

The question that I asked was "How do you figure the single 1.6Ghz G5 PowerMac with a slower bus, slower RAM, etc, to be 80% of the speed of a Dual 2Ghz PowerMac?"

I do not see how your 2 "points" explain the statement about the 1.6Ghz G5 model being 80% the speed of the Dual 2Ghz G5 model.

A single 2Ghz G5 processor with DDR400 SDRAM ought to be about 25% faster than a single 1.6Ghz G5 with DDR333 SDRAM. Add to that a second 2Ghz G5 and performance of everything improves because OS X itself is SMP. There is just no way that the single 1.6Ghz G5 PowerMac is 80% of the speed of a Dual 2Ghz PowerMac.

[Neotronik]

Web Order Number
W5594897

Sales Order Number
7005652221

Order Date
07/23/2003
11:00 AM PST

Payment Method
CRLN
XXXXXXXXXXXX91

Billing Address
David xxxxx
xxxxxxxx
NY, NY
xxxxx

Shipping Address
David xxxxxx
xxxxxxxx
NY, NY
xxxxx

Shipping Options
Items shipped when all items are available.



Order Items Part No. Est. Ship Unit Price Qty Ext. price


PMG5 2.0GHZDP/512/160/SD/R9600PRO-USA M9032LL/A On or before
10/02/2003 $2,999.00 1 $2,999.00

Open



APP FOR PM W/ OR W/O DSP-E/K-USA M8850LL/A On or before
10/02/2003 $249.00 1 $249.00

Open



APPLE STUDIO DISPLAY 17IN LCD-ZML M7649ZM/B On or before
10/02/2003 $699.00 1 $699.00
Open

I just cancelled the order!!!! No regrets. So's I cancelled my order now someone can have the fastest computer in the world (so apple says)
Sorry guys; maybe they'll have it together by next year; I just won't be one of those pissed off people who bought into the hype and got stuck with the worlds most hyped computer that barely outperforms 32 bit chipsets with optimized 32 bit apps and a 32 bit os that will be upgraded yet again to 32 bit and not natively 64 bit.

[mustang_dvs]

Neo,

[ EDIT -- Just noticed Neo's new post.]
I take back any uncertainty, you are a moron -- you're complaining about the 1.6 not being the fastest computer, yet you ordered (and now cancelled) a Dual 2.0. Shut up. Go Away.
[ /EDIT ]

Your argument about the 1.6GHz vs the "World's Fastest Personal Computer" claim is a little like arguing that Ford advertises that one of it's cars has a DOHC V-8 that produces 350 horsepower, but the Festiva you bought, with it's inline-4 only produces 16 horsepower.

As I said before, it's all about the OS -- if the G5 makes Mac OS X and its applications that much faster, then great. I couldn't care less how it performs vs a CISC chip.

[Neotronik]

08/27/2003
W5594897 • PMG5 2.0GHZDP/512/160/SD/R9600PRO-USA
• APP FOR PM W/ OR W/O DSP-E/K-USA
• APPLE STUDIO DISPLAY 17IN LCD-ZML
Cancelled


7 others just followed suit. Of the seven 4 have the dual 1.25 1 has dual 1.4 the other dual 867. We can still do what we need to do (produce/remix/extreme audio editing) on our current machines (I and two others switched to AMD xp 2800+ a month and a half ago but still use the mac for dp3 and logic, the effects in logic; what can I say; top notch.) Anyhow; How much did apple just lose? That's what happens when you piss people off man. Not us; not now; not this time.
Quick Now there's 8 of yall that can have the fastest dual 2ghz in the world; hurry now.

[Trekkie]

Originally posted by Neotronik
I just cancelled the order!!!! No regrets. So's I cancelled my order now someone can have the fastest computer in the world (so apple says)
Sorry guys; maybe they'll have it together by next year; I just won't be one of those pissed off people who bought into the hype and got stuck with the worlds most hyped computer that barely outperforms 32 bit chipsets with optimized 32 bit apps and a 32 bit os that will be upgraded yet again to 32 bit and not natively 64 bit. [/B]

How stupid was that? You took a single 1.6GHz benchmark and cancelled an order for a dual 2.0GHz?

[Dave K]

Originally posted by Neotronik
Now I'm accused of not knowing the difference between 32 bits and 64 bit. At best it doubles the amount of data a CPU can process per clock cycle
No. When dealing with CPU's N Bitness merely defines the maximum memory that can be addressed by the processor.

That's it.

There are 32 Bit processors that are capable of handling 64 bit calculations and they're still 32 Bit processors because they can only address ~2^32 Bits of RAM.

GPU's, Audio, and other specialty chips are an entire other kettle of fish and would be closer to your amount of data processed idea. Although amount is probably the wrong word as what you're really dealing with is accuracy. You're either doing math with 16 Bits of precision, or math with 32 Bits of precision, or 64, or 128, or 2^whatever multiple of 8 (or sometimes 10 lately), is applicable within that processor.

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by Neotronik
I just won't be one of those pissed off people who bought into the hype and got stuck with the worlds most hyped computer that barely outperforms 32 bit chipsets with optimized 32 bit apps and a 32 bit os that will be upgraded yet again to 32 bit and not natively 64 bit.

Well, that was a bit presumptive. Are you basing your decision on this benchmark?

If so, you're upset about the performance of a machine you haven't used; based on a benchmark of a different machine! You seem surprised that a 64bit machine doesn't drastically outperform a 32 bit machine, even though it's running a 32 bit app.

Unless you need more than 4GB of memory per app, I don't see the basis of your complaint. A fully 64bit Panther won't make the G5 very much faster, if at all. But there's likely to be a flurry of other optimizations in Panther, and beyond, that should improve performance nicely - I'd be astonished if Apple were able to fully tweak the OS to such a new architecture yet.

Mike.

[Neotronik]

Trekkie' it wasn't based on the 1.6 benchmark; it was a personal decision. I've been borderlining cancelling for two weeks now. It just so happens I don't see the dual 2ghz 64 bit super duper G5 worlds fastest as being that much more advantageous than what I currently have.
Maybe I'll order one next year as true 64 bit versions of Logic; Digital Performer; and on the pc front; Sonic Foundry and Steinberg; come out with native 64 bit versions of their software.
Next year there'll be much more choices and actual hands on with the apps I intend to use. Oh yah; and isn't that going to piss everyone off who bought now and miss out on what apple clearly stated (3ghz within a year) LOL
I'll be back!

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by Dave K
No. When dealing with CPU's N Bitness merely defines the maximum memory that can be addressed by the processor.

That's it.

Err... and 64bit integer registers and logic. So, the PPC 970 should derive a slight performance benefit when running processes using 64bit integer math - how much benefit? No idea.

Mike.

[theRebel]

Originally posted by Neotronik
I just cancelled the order!!!! No regrets.

You may not have any regrets at the moment, but your reasons for cancelling the order are still absurd.

According to the presented benchmarks, the 1.6Ghz G5 PowerMac outperforms a 3.06Ghz HT Pentium 4 on some of the tests. The Dual 2Ghz G5 PowerMac is signifigantly faster than the 1.6Ghz. There is no reason to think that the Dual 2Ghz PowerMac will not outperform the 3.06Ghz HT Pentium 4.

[macrumors12345]

Originally posted by Neotronik
Cancelled


Because you honestly don't think that the Dual 2 Ghz will run Photoshop faster than any other SP or DP machine out there? If so, I am speechless. The Dual G5 certainly won't win every benchmark, but trust me, it will win in Photoshop.

Adobe has run a REAL Photoshop benchmark - one that took 4 HOURS to run on a DP G4, not 4 minutes - and the G5 really is twice as fast as the G4, which itself was already quite competitive as a Photoshop machine. But they are just Adobe - what do they know about Photoshop?


Quick Now there's 8 of yall that can have the fastest dual 2ghz in the world; hurry now.

I plan to - thanks!

[Neotronik]

Apple already has SPEC tests on their website with the dual 2Ghz and the pentium Xeon (not the itanium2 or opteron; I wonder why?)
And the SPEC tests don't impress me; let me rephrase the dual 2ghz doesn't impress me. What does impress me is how these 32 bit dual and single chips perform with slower bus speeds as well. Again; the Spec tests/ benchmarks from everywhere else doesn't merit a purchase it clearly tells me that there isn't a significant advantage over what's currently on the market (again they wont go near the Itanium 2 or the Opteron 64 bit chips that have been out for quite some time) Sorry dudes; you all can get sucked in on this one.

[F/reW/re]

Originally posted by Neotronik
Apple already has SPEC tests on their website with the dual 2Ghz and the pentium Xeon (not the itanium2 or opteron; I wonder why?)

Most likely because Intel is the ONE and because Opteron would beat G5 hard!

[Neotronik]

F/reW/re
Well said!
This coming from a long time macrumor member.

[wizard]

What I don't understand about your post and the others that are uspset with the performance of the G5, is that Apples own documentation clearly points out that there are performance limits to the 970 processor. If a manufacture posts poor SPEC results, relative to other porcessors, that is a pretty obvious indication that your not going to get balanced performance from the machine.

Yes Apple spent a lot of tiime and effort talking up the positive aspects of the 970. Would you expect them to do any less? Further many people would be interested in specific performance capabilities. If a machine does have specific capabilities, such as floating point, that are applicable to your needs that does not mean that other issues with the machine should be ignored. Like I've said many times the 1.6GHz G5 is a very odd machine, there are many reasons not to purchase the machine, performance should not be one of them - it is the bottom of the G5 line.

There are numerous issues that may be impacting the performance of the G5's. One may be that it isimply not the optimal design that it has been made out to be. I say this because it would be reasonable to design a new processor that at least had some facility to handle existing code. In some aspects the 970 is coming up a bit short clock to clock with a G4, no amount of code optimizations will overcome issues with the vector units or integer units. In the end Apple will either have to rev the processor or increase clock rate. The reality is though that no one should be surprised at the less than stunning performance of 970 based Macs.

Thanks
Dave



Originally posted by Neotronik
A troll!?? Good lord. Mods; pleez; read the last two pages and let me respond! I'm not a troll; I'm a disappointed person who is about to cancel a dual 2ghz order. (I'll gladly verify)
This is bananas!?? It's uncalled for. Oh and the order is very real; on or before 10/2/03 w/17inch display and an apple care warranty.

I like the way you try to dismiss my post by saying you won't even bother; I'm glad you didn't because it's obvious you don't know yourself!

1.6 Ghz rocks man! It beats the pants off the opteron and xeon! FOREVER MAN!!! Errrr sorry I sound just like you now.

The Mac experience?!!!? What Mac experience? It's a computer man. And it's not the fastest in the world. Well definitley not the 1.6. And oh yah; the fastest computer in the world (which they are referring to the dual 2ghz) is on paper man it's not physically here yet. I can't wait to see the scores against the mighty dual Xeon. Then we can all pat each other on the back an praise steve jobs and ibm for it.
Hmmm? I do see very fast dual opterons at 64 bit 1.6ghz that somehow were overlooked for the fastest computer in the world to go up against.

And this is coming from a G3 owner; a G4 ti-book owner an i-pod owner and soon to cancel dual 2ghz order.
Money is not my issue here folks; Lies and deceit are.

[Neotronik]

Wizard: i applaud you. ALL intelligent opinions are welcome.

[macrumors12345]

Originally posted by Neotronik
[BWhat does impress me is how these 32 bit dual and single chips perform with slower bus speeds as well. Again; the Spec tests/ benchmarks from everywhere else doesn't merit a purchase it clearly tells me that there isn't a significant advantage over what's currently on the market (again they wont go near the Itanium 2 or the Opteron 64 bit chips that have been out for quite some time) Sorry dudes; you all can get sucked in on this one. [/B]

Ugh. 64 bit DOES NOT EQUAL twice as fast. It just equals more precision for large integers. If it DID equal twice as fast, then you would have no doubt that the G5 is twice as fast as the G4, remember? (in fact, it is twice as fast, but that is because of higher clock speeds, higher bandwidth, and a better architecture - NOT because it is 64 bit)

Yes, the Itanium 2 does get very impressive SPEC scores. So does the Power4+. And either of those processors would cost more than an entire Dual 2 Ghz G5 SYSTEM. But please, go ahead, build a $15,000 Dual 1.5 Ghz Itanium workstation. I'm sure it will run Photoshop really fast in x86 emulation mode. If you are lucky it might beat my iBook 500 in most of the filters.

[Mav451]

Originally posted by theRebel
You may not have any regrets at the moment, but your reasons for cancelling the order are still absurd.

According to the presented benchmarks, the 1.6Ghz G5 PowerMac outperforms a 3.06Ghz HT Pentium 4 on some of the tests. The Dual 2Ghz G5 PowerMac is signifigantly faster than the 1.6Ghz. There is no reason to think that the Dual 2Ghz PowerMac will not outperform the 3.06Ghz HT Pentium 4.

Please remember that these benchmarks are in photoshop ONLY. If you are primarily interested in photoshop, then by all means base your entire perception of the G5 on this one test. But i caution you--do not have the same line of thinking that the 1.6GHz G5 will be competitive with the 3.06 in OTHER applications (e.g. gaming/business software).

The 3.06 P4 B model is actually quite cheap @ $370, and was running on the considerably older (Nov 18th '02 release date) Granite Bay chipset. The 845 chipset is held back by ddr266.

A more contemporary example would be the 3.0 p4 C model (800fsb) running on the Canterwood chipset (875 chipset, release date around April '03) running on ddr400 (quad pumped 200fsb). You might be suprised how much of a difference 5-6 months can make in the pc world :)

[Neotronik]

Mac 12345 UGH; I never said the mac G5 was supposed to be twice as fast LOL!!! Need I bother to touch on the rest of that pointless post!
A dual opteron isn't that far out of range as the dual 2ghz G5 in price and I wouldn't go near the dual opteron performance wise; tread lightly son!!! I'm a waitin fer yah!

[Neotronik]

Wow; I kind of think adobe is the clear winner here!

[Neotronik]

Mav
EEEEEWWWW!!! the 875p norhbridge; that's serious man. It is indeed very fast.

[Dave K]

Originally posted by whooleytoo
Err... and 64bit integer registers and logic. So, the PPC 970 should derive a slight performance benefit when running processes using 64bit integer math - how much benefit? No idea.

Mike.
Irrelevant to the "bitness" definition of a CPU.

For the CPU memory allocation is considered paramount as it theoretically has to deal with all the tasks/data in the system. Therefore, a CPU can have 64 bit integer/FP/whatever registers and their related processing calls but, if it can only address ~2 ^ 32 Bits of external memory, it's still a 32 bit CPU.

As noted before, specialty PU's (Graphics, Audio, etc) operate on different rules which are closer to those you've stated above because in those cases the accuracy of the work they're doing is usually far more relevant to their end users than how much memory they can address.

[macrumors12345]

Originally posted by Neotronik
Mac 12345 UGH; I never said the mac G5 was supposed to be twice as fast

You have repeatedly implied that there is an inherent performance advantage to a 64 bit processor. This is simply not true unless you are using 64 bit integers (which is pretty rare). If you are do not understand this, please have someone else explain it to you, as I have already explained it probably a dozen times on these forums and am growing quite tired of doing so.


A dual opteron isn't that far out of range as the dual 2ghz G5 in price and I wouldn't go near the dual opteron performance wise

First of all, the price difference is substantial. But more importantly, the Opteron really is not that impressive compared to the Pentium 4 except in server benchmarks (maybe you have been reading too much AMDZone material). For example, check out http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030422/opteron-23.html and you will see that the Dual Opteron 244 (fastest available at the time) beats the Dual Xeon 3.06 in all of 1 out of 14 workstation benchmarks. Wow, that is SO impressive. Yes, AMD has now announced the Opteron 246, but a 10% clock speed boost will hardly be enough to turn the tide completely in Opteron's favor.

Now, don't get me wrong, this is not to say that Opteron is a bad chip. It does quite well in the server benchmarks, and that is what it is intended to be: a server chip. But it is not the greatest workstation chip in the world, so if you are planning to use it as such, then you are going to be disappointed, especially for the price you pay.

[Neotronik]

Oh man; Toms workbench rocks!
And no I don't read AMD zone.
I'm thrilled about the benchmarks all over the place but for different reasons.
Amd and Ibm have been partners in R&D. Apple's G5 was created by who? Ibm.
Who just became a supporter of Hypertransport?; where could that have come from.
I remember a line from Steve Jobs from Triumph of the Nerds DVD This is Steve Jobs himself quoting a quote that's not his (LOL)
Good artists create Great artists steal.

Please continue to split the thread; pointless!!!!

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by Dave K
Irrelevant to the "bitness" definition of a CPU.


Not at all, the address and integer logic normally go hand in hand. Indeed, addresses are normally stored in the integer registers, in which case the size of the integer registers is a determining factor in the amount of addressable RAM.

Mike.

[Mr. Anderson]

I don't get all the hostility and ranting going on. The G5 *is* the fastest mac, that's a fact. If you're interested a fast machine and want to/need to use a mac that's your choice for a machine. If you have other options fine.

Getting upset about your own decisions and then ranting on about your own stupidity is unnecessary as far as I'm concerned. You're only going to get more people in hysterics and then things go bad.

We've discussed the speed/performance issues of the G5 and its claim of fastest PC in quite a few threads since the announcement at WWDC. This is all just rehashing things from a personal perspective.

D

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by 123
Yes, he has the right to do so and I don't think anybody questioned that. However, if his opinion is based on illogical thinking, people on this board also have the right to call him a troll or a retard (my opinion).

Have you ever been mistaken on a technical issue? Does that make you a retard?

And no, he is not a troll either.

[rickag]

Originally posted by Neotronik
08/27/2003
We can still do what we need to do (produce/remix/extreme audio editing) on our current machines

Since you are involved in, "produce/remix/extreme audio editing", canceling your order for the dual 2.0GHz G5 may have been your single most important mistake in a long long time.

Good luck with your other machines though( I mean this and am not offering this as flame bait.)

[Sun Baked]

LOL...

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?postid=169551

[Neotronik]

OMG; a neotronik thread because I had a difference of opinion?; it's a form of censorship; what's the deal?
Anyow; I see where that thread went. South baby!!!! Just like mine went to hardware discussions and help! Go Figure!

The single most biggest mistake that I made in a long time was cancelling my G5 order? Nah man. I have everything to gain and a cruise I'm probably going to book to have some fun.

The biggest mistake was jumping in too early. This dual 2 ghz will be creamed by the upcoming Amd 64 on september 23rd.
Apple finally made me switch for good. I'm very disappointed nonetheless; the count is up to TEN now that have cancelled their dual 2ghz orders. LOL. My LIL ole opinion cost apple 30k and then some.

[harry4000]

Well this has got to be the most petty thread in this forum. Why I read most of the 75 messages I have no idea. Perhaps I am just fascinated by the magnitude of this pettyness.

As for the complaint about the speed, benchmarks don't mean a darn thing. You can't compare this chip to a chip with a different instruction set any more than you can compare an Orange to a Bananna. The only real way to determine which is faster is to test each application that you are interested in one at a time. Each app will handle the different instruction sets differently.

Further, CPU speed is only one of many factors in determining how fast your apps will run. The system architecture as a whole includes memory speed, bus speed, hard disk speed, graphics card, and many more components than I can possibly list.

Cancel your order without having any real practical information.. I don't think the G5 will miss you.

Hey I just realized that since you canceled your order, I will be moved up on the waiting list. Yes! Yes! Yes! The G5 in my home could be the one that would have been yours!

[Neotronik]

No the G5 won't miss me but maybe some stockholders will; there's over 40 grand and counting on cancelled orders over here.
As we speak others have gotten in touch with me who have cancelled simply because School is starting and there's no computer coming for weeks?!?!?!? LOL
I honestly hope you do get mine or one of the other 9 people and counting who have cancelled their G5orders; you truly deserve to have this so called fastest computer in the world as much as anyone else. LOL!! OMG I must say that Mac people are definitley different






_____________________________________________
A mac user who is as real as they get!!!!
"The internet is filled with cowards who now have something
new to hide behind"

[patrick0brien]

-All

Please, dear God, stop feeding the Troll!

This is the "Neotronic Thread" after all!

He has no evidence to back up his position, yet continues to flog it.

I personally only entered this thread to see what person would be self-aggrandizing enough to start a thread about himself - and I find this dreck.

We're smarter than this!!

Mr. Anderson, please wasteland this puppy as soon as you can - it's brain-sink.

[harry4000]

LOL.. Well as long as we're both happy. I will let you know how many FPS I get while playing multiplayer Quake over the Internet with 30 people because that to me is the only important benchmark. And we can play online and I will shoot your guts out because my box will have smoother gameplay since my Mac G5 is going to rock!

And maybe just for spite I will try to find 9 people who I can convince to buy a Mac... (well ok maybe that's going a little too far. :D )

Oh, and by the way, I'm not a Mac person. I own a Linux box and a Windows XP box. This will be my first Mac ever and it will complete my collection of mainstream operating systems. I'm only interested in owning the best technology available at the time. I belive that this is the first time ever that a Mac will be better than the best available Windows box.

One more thing, you may have cancelled your order for now, but I predict that when you see that the G5 isn't the evil conspiracy of lies you seem to think it is, you'll get one sooner or later. The investors will win. I just wish I had enough money to buy Apple stock but I blew it all by buying the fastest personal computer in the world. :cool:

-Harry

[Tiauguinho]

Originally posted by harry4000
... I just wish I had enough money to buy Apple stock but I blew it all by buying the fastest personal computer in the world. :cool:

-Harry

LOL! That was very well said! You have to make an add for Apple! ;)