PDA

View Full Version : IBM and Motorola Diverging


arn
Apr 22, 2002, 10:55 AM
This MacCentral article (http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0204/22.ibmmot.php) reports on IBM and Motorola's continued divergance in goals and projects in regards to the PPC alliance.

IBM, Apple Computer and Motorola worked together to create the PowerPC almost a decade ago. However, the three companies paths have diverged since then. Loughran says that there are no co-development activities currently between IBM and Motorola.


IBM is currently sampling 1Ghz G3 750FX processors... though it's uncertain if these will be featured in any future Apple computers. The iBook is the only shipping Macintosh with a G3 processor at this time.

whfsdude
Apr 22, 2002, 11:15 AM
What about the old iMacs? Those are still important for schools. They do need a fricken fan because mine overheated. :(

Hemingray
Apr 22, 2002, 11:16 AM
Personally I think Apple should just give Moto the Royal Boot and start from scratch with IBM. And by start from scratch I mean scratch. Drop the G3, take the scalable aspects of the G4, and develop a completely new chip. Is that likely? Who knows, but probably not...

All I see is that Moto's become practically nothing but a weight around Apple's neck... and it's hurting them as well as us.

burningwheel
Apr 22, 2002, 11:21 AM
the original iMac also has the G3. Apple still sells those:eek:

iGav
Apr 22, 2002, 11:27 AM
Now I think that Motorola really needs abit of sprucing up and a couple of Kompressors fitted to speed things up!!

But I've been reading here that IBM have had a G3 chip at 1Ghz for the last 2 years at least...... and they're still at 1Ghz???:confused: if thats true they're just as slow at developing as Motorola!!

What would be more benificial though is if they all started working as a ********* alliance again........

The only losers here are Apple..... :(

TechLarry
Apr 22, 2002, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Hemingray
Personally I think Apple should just give Moto the Royal Boot and start from scratch with IBM. And by start from scratch I mean scratch. Drop the G3, take the scalable aspects of the G4, and develop a completely new chip. Is that likely? Who knows, but probably not...

All I see is that Moto's become practically nothing but a weight around Apple's neck... and it's hurting them as well as us.

I absolutely, totally, unequivacably AGREE!

Motorola hasn't been upholding their end of the bargain for years, and I hold them 99% responsible for the performance gap between Mac's and PC's.

I hold Apple 1% responsible for not booting Motorola off the Apple Campus years ago.

I _know_ this isn't a popular thought, but frankly I would like to see Apple make a hard-core deal with AMD to use Athlon XP's and AMD chipsets in future Mac's.

The Athlon XP is for real, folks. The performance is outstanding, and it is a LOW-COST chip.

TL (Ducking) :)

ejm625
Apr 22, 2002, 12:09 PM
The Athlon consumes more power and runs hotter. Putting Apple on an x86 processor would be the death of Apple computers in no time. They would be assimilated and destroyed.

I don't know if you guys are paying attention but there is a major economic slowdown right now especially in the Tech sector. The fact that Motorola is still even making the PPC chip is amazing. And just because Intel can cram enough transistors into a chip to make it run at 2 GHz does not ever EVER make it a better processor. The actually processing power of the Intel chips is reaching it's ceiling. They can raise the chip to 3 or 4 GHz but the actual speed hasn't gotten any faster and meanwhile it just set your house on fire.

Motorola's chip design is by far superior to Intels when you look at the basics of it. Right now the problem with speed has to do with the system bus. When all of ya'll get your powermacs with DDR you can stop whining about speed.

rice_web
Apr 22, 2002, 12:36 PM
Motorola's chip design is by far superior to Intels when you look at the basics of it. Right now the problem with speed has to do with the system bus. When all of ya'll get your powermacs with DDR you can stop whining about speed.

I completely agree. A PowerMac with RapidIO will kill just about anything, and a 64-bit G5 will easily kill the Hammer and Itanium. Why? Because of the advances that Apple is making, behind closed curtains, to increase the speed of other factors.

In other words, it's not only the CPU that Apple is worrying about. The new G4 that is supposedly coming in July will sport RapidIO and hella fast DDR memory. This, along with AGP ports running, I believe, at 2x the x86 counterparts. Imagine, a deal with ATI or NVidia to make the ultimate video card running on the fastest video card bus in the industry.

I'm just rambling right now, but with RapidIO, the speed gap will instantly be filled.

Backtothemac
Apr 22, 2002, 12:39 PM
Yes, it may fill the speed gap, but will it ever fill the perception gap? Will it make the majority of PC users say, "Man, those Mac sure are fast, I want one of those?"

No it won't because the average consumber sees numbers only. 2.2 GHZ and 1 GHZ. They think the 2.2 is better even though we all know that is not the case.

SubFredZero
Apr 22, 2002, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No it won't because the average consumber sees numbers only. 2.2 GHZ and 1 GHZ. They think the 2.2 is better even though we all know that is not the case.

The only tests were the G4 1Ghz is faster then the P4 2.2 Ghz are the tests by Apple. When you search for independent tests you'll see that the G4 is a little bit slower then the P4... I'm sorry i have to say this :( but i think the independent tests are more relyeble then the tests by apple.

SubFredZero
Apr 22, 2002, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by arn
IBM is currently sampling 1Ghz G3 750FX processors... though it's uncertain if these will be featured in any future Apple computers. The iBook is the only shipping Macintosh with a G3 processor at this time.

I realy hope that apple will use this G3 soon, cause the ibook isn't gonna be a g4 for a long time and the 600mhz make me laugh... I want a 1Ghz ibook !

rice_web
Apr 22, 2002, 01:17 PM
I am fully aware that the megahertz myth is poppycock. However, the G4 will utilize the Altivec processing at an amazing rate once the bus speed is improved. DDR memory alone would make a huge difference, but an improved data pipeline will be a boost that might mean a, and I'm completely guessing here, 30-40% speed boost at the same clock speeds.

Codemonkey
Apr 22, 2002, 01:28 PM
Hey all. First post!

Here's my take on the PowerPC/Wintel analogy (which, I agree has always been a longstanding contention amongst fellow Mac zealots):

Industry Example
AMD recently changed their chip model numbers. The 1600+ model is actually only a 1.4GHz chip, but benchmarks showed that it beat out a 1.6 GHz P4. Therefore, rather than doing what Apple continuously does, they changed their model #'s to reflect these fantastic benchmarks. The same thing can be said for the 1900+, etc.

Is it misleading? I don't think so. As we all know, it's not about the numbers silk screened onto the chip, it's about performance. Can anyone be justified in pointing a crooked finger at Apple for 'false advertising'? Again, I don't think so. The AMD chip model #'s aren't '1600 MHz', they're just '1600'. And they let the public interpret it any way they want.

This method will prove especially useful if the higher bus speeds, faster ram and faster card slots come to fruition. Measure it as a whole, not as individual components.

Pants
Apr 22, 2002, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by rice_web


I completely agree. A PowerMac with RapidIO will kill just about anything, and a 64-bit G5 will easily kill the Hammer and Itanium. Why? Because of the advances that Apple is making, behind closed curtains, to increase the speed of other factors.


umm forgive me for asking, but if its 'behind closed curtains' how do you actually *know*?

gjohns01
Apr 22, 2002, 02:49 PM
I've owned an Apple computer since the IIc. I've always loved them and I still have one sitting under my desk at home next to my pc. Yes I use a pc and all of you Mac zealots out there keep one thing in your head. When the following things happen, you can claim ultimate superiority to the wintel world.

1) The "superior" G4/G5 or whatever you're waiting on hits the same Mhz level as Intel/AMD.
2) They offer DDR, ATA100/133 on the motherboard.
3) They offer enterprise class servers and enterprise apps and not just Microsoft Office and a tower machine with a server badge slapped on it.
4) You donít have to work in an OS that has have the graphics subsystem accelerated and the other so slow you might as well draw on the screen with a pencil.

I won't keep going, because you get the idea. You can yap about how Macs are superior all you want. The fact is I built a dual gigahertz machine (with RAID) for less than 500 bucks. It works and it's never crashed on me. Ever. When Apple can show me a machine that blows away wintel performance on something other than Photoshop and it doesn't cost me $4000 to buy it then you can be as smug as you want. Until then, Iíll get paid for writing apps for Windows or Solaris. How many people want to be graphics designers anyway?

iH8Quark
Apr 22, 2002, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by gjohns01
How many people want to be graphics designers anyway?

Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. I'm a Graphic Designer. Not a Graphics Designer. Those people make water bongs. :rolleyes: ;)

eirik
Apr 22, 2002, 04:28 PM
Apple is aspiring to be the creative digital hub for ordinary and professional users. Apple suffers from both a real and perceived performance gap with the Winx86 platforms. AltiVec enhanced applications show that Apple can compete and even win.

To compare performance, Apple should assemble a small set of benchmark comparisons. For example, how long does it take to render a five minute 1200 x 800 video clip (or whatever standard specs for a clip). Tabulate the results for the Macs and their competition, possibly using averages to account for different software on same platforms.

Repeat the same for other digital hub actions/applications.

Notify Apple's suppliers to prepare for an increase in volume!!!

Eirik

ThorPrime
Apr 22, 2002, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by eirik
To compare performance, Apple should assemble a small set of benchmark comparisons. For example, how long does it take to render a five minute 1200 x 800 video clip (or whatever standard specs for a clip). Tabulate the results for the Macs and their competition, possibly using averages to account for different software on same platforms.

Do you even watch the mac worlds? Every time apple comes out with a Apple and a PC running Photoshop,Quake,.... And shows how the mac blows the PC away. How true these test are is still a raging debate.

eirik
Apr 22, 2002, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by ThorPrime


Do you even watch the mac worlds? Every time apple comes out with a Apple and a PC running Photoshop,Quake,.... And shows how the mac blows the PC away. How true these test are is still a raging debate.

There are thousands of Photoshop users. But, there are millions of camcorder users that want to be able to edit their content. Photoshop is not an omnipresent and thoroughly understood piece of software. The Photoshop comparisons only appeal to a segment slightly larger than that of the Photoshop community.

The metrics must be more relevant to the MILLIONS of targeted consumers. Video rendering, audio/video latency, MP3/AAC rendering, CD/DVD ripping, ... These and other metrics, if the story is not told in a stupid, narrow manner, would provide greater yet more understandable appeal to the MILLIONS of users.

What does Photoshop performance tell me about those things? If I am an ordinary consumer, lacking Photoshop savy skills, not much.

BTW, I've watched nearly every 'World for the last several years.

Eirik

Rower_CPU
Apr 22, 2002, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by eirik
There are thousands of Photoshop users. But, there are millions of camcorder users that want to be able to edit their content. Photoshop is not an omnipresent and thoroughly understood piece of software. The Photoshop comparisons only appeal to a segment slightly larger than that of the Photoshop community.

The metrics must be more relevant to the MILLIONS of targeted consumers. Video rendering, audio/video latency, MP3/AAC rendering, CD/DVD ripping, ... These and other metrics, if the story is not told in a stupid, narrow manner, would provide greater yet more understandable appeal to the MILLIONS of users.

How about this then:
From Apple's PowerMac homepage- "The first Power Mac to blast through the 1GHz barrier, the new twin-engined G4 runs professional applications like Adobe Photoshop up to 72 percent faster ó and crunches digital video over 300 percent faster ó than a 2GHz Pentium 4-based PC

Does that address your video question?

I've noticed HORRIFIC audio playback in XP (pops, crackles, etc.) that didn't exist when I was running 98/Me/2K.

CD/DVD ripping is more dependant on your optical drive than the CPU.

Back to topic, if ANYONE, IBM or Motorola can give Apple a great performing chip, I'm for it!

Mr. Anderson
Apr 22, 2002, 08:42 PM
I'm truly worried about this whole thing. Moto has dropped the ball and needs to get going on getting faster processors. Leaving Apple only one option to get faster machines by adding multiple processors is not a long term solution. MHz myth be damned, its hurting Apple not to have a single processor/motherboard/system bus that can stand up against the top end PCs.

eirik
Apr 22, 2002, 09:20 PM
If Apple's market share were 20%, do you think that AIM would have failed to live up to our hopes? I don't think so.

Apple wasn't buying enough CPU's from either IBM or Motorola to dictate their strategic directions, respectively.

BTW, Apple moving more of its products to Motorola's G4 increases volume and hence Apple's influence over Motorola's strategic direction. This is something of a speculative strategy in that it lessens Apple's influence and relationship with IBM. Fortunately, Apple may have the option of purchasing the intellectual fruits of its alliance with Motorola and outsourcing to IBM or another manufacturer.

In fact, compared to their embedded markets, I believe Apple is a small fish. Does anybody know what kind of overall CPU volume that IBM and Motorola each crank out per year in PowerPC chips?

As I've said before, the embedded market, and to a lesser extent IBM's server market, prefer low power consumption over raw computational speed. While this point is arguable as to the degree that this is so, it clearly is a fact.

We can bitch about Motorola and IBM failing to produce PowerPC chips that enable Apple to indisputably kick butt in the PC world. But, what Apple needs is both a top-notch semiconductor supplier and enough market power to motivate that supplier to devote the necessary resources to delivering the devices that Apple needs to kick butt.

Now, if Apple waived a magic wand and instantly had 20% market share, the semiconductor supplier issue would practically tend to itself. Well, that is not going to happen!

In lieu of instant market share, Apple has two options to increase its volume high enough to COMMAND the devotion of a top-notch semiconductor supplier.

First, Apple could guarantee the purchase of a minimum number of CPU's, regardless of whether Apple resells them in PC's or not. This speculative strategy probably isn't in the realm of practicality.

I say 'probably' because Apple might be able to (may be contractually forbidden) resell their excess CPU's to embedded customers, such as Cisco, below cost. Even so, this speculative strategy is extremely risky. I probably wouldn't do it unless the numbers increased my confidence as well as if there could be a short-term radical performance improvement as a consequence of this volume committment.

The second approach is less speculative. Apple would seek partners of like-needs. This strategic alliance would create the demand for the dream G5 or whatever that Apple has been unable to do so alone.

But who would Apple partner with such that they as a collective could command sufficient volume-demand to motivate a semiconductor supplier to achieve the desired results? SGI? Sun? IBM?

I don't know what these and other companies are doing and thinking about with regard to CPU's. If you know something about them, you might contribute to this discussion by shedding some light such that we might conceptualize a strategic alliance formed for the creation of the dream G5.

Well, enough with this post.

Eirik

G4scott
Apr 22, 2002, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by gjohns01
The fact is I built a dual gigahertz machine (with RAID) for less than 500 bucks. It works and it's never crashed on me. Ever.

Uh, did you actually buy the case/power supply/processors/ram/hd/cd or dvd drives/graphics card/sound card/keyboard/mouse/motherboard, and all that stuff, or did you just find it all laying around. If you bought it all at the same quality that Apple makes their computers, you would spend well over 500 bucks.

Also, for your computer to crash on you, you have to actually use it. If it just sits there, and does nothing but browse the internet and check e-mail, then almost any computer can do it without crashing. Have you tried to run a server, or processor intensive applications?

Not everyone may want to be a graphic designer, but even home users with a camcorder need fast processing to do fun effects and things like that on their iMacs, and the such.

gbojim
Apr 22, 2002, 10:56 PM
In fact, compared to their embedded markets, I believe Apple is a small fish. Does anybody know what kind of overall CPU volume that IBM and Motorola each crank out per year in PowerPC chips?

Not sure about IBM, but Motorola presented a paper last year that stated about 12% of their PPC volume went to end user computers and I think Apple is their only customer using them for this purpose.

BTW- I don't think Apple has to grow to 20% market share to increase their influence that much, increasing their volume by 50% - 100% would likely do it. I only mention it because I think that is quite feasible.

TechLarry
Apr 22, 2002, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by ejm625
The Athlon consumes more power and runs hotter. Putting Apple on an x86 processor would be the death of Apple computers in no time. They would be assimilated and destroyed.

I don't know if you guys are paying attention but there is a major economic slowdown right now especially in the Tech sector. The fact that Motorola is still even making the PPC chip is amazing. And just because Intel can cram enough transistors into a chip to make it run at 2 GHz does not ever EVER make it a better processor. The actually processing power of the Intel chips is reaching it's ceiling. They can raise the chip to 3 or 4 GHz but the actual speed hasn't gotten any faster and meanwhile it just set your house on fire.

Motorola's chip design is by far superior to Intels when you look at the basics of it. Right now the problem with speed has to do with the system bus. When all of ya'll get your powermacs with DDR you can stop whining about speed.

Ah, Horsepuckies...

Any processor installation can be designed to be cooled properly. I've got several PC's in the house along with the iMac, including Athlon XP 1800's, and cooling is not an issue.

The economic slow down has NOTHING to do with the fact that Motorola is NOT getting the job done, and deserves to be booted. I think legal agreements between Motorola and IBM prevent IBM from taking up the slack. I know there are issues where IBM can't use Altivec, I believe.

And I'll whine about speed until this is fixed. I use PC's all day, and while the user experience on my LCD iMac is far superior, the performance IS NOT.

TL

TechLarry
Apr 22, 2002, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by rice_web


I completely agree. A PowerMac with RapidIO will kill just about anything, and a 64-bit G5 will easily kill the Hammer and Itanium. Why? Because of the advances that Apple is making, behind closed curtains, to increase the speed of other factors.

In other words, it's not only the CPU that Apple is worrying about. The new G4 that is supposedly coming in July will sport RapidIO and hella fast DDR memory. This, along with AGP ports running, I believe, at 2x the x86 counterparts. Imagine, a deal with ATI or NVidia to make the ultimate video card running on the fastest video card bus in the industry.

I'm just rambling right now, but with RapidIO, the speed gap will instantly be filled.

My God, we've been hearing promises like this from the PowerPC Camp for YEARS now.

I'm personally tired of reading the current collection of Buzz-Words, and then seeing NOTHING come out of it.

My position is not to convince anyone this is a good idea. I'm not even sure it's a good idea. I just know that Motorola isn't getting the job done, has had MORE than enough of a chance, and deserves to be shown the door.

TL

TechLarry
Apr 22, 2002, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by gjohns01
I've owned an Apple computer since the IIc. I've always loved them and I still have one sitting under my desk at home next to my pc. Yes I use a pc and all of you Mac zealots out there keep one thing in your head. When the following things happen, you can claim ultimate superiority to the wintel world.

1) The "superior" G4/G5 or whatever you're waiting on hits the same Mhz level as Intel/AMD.
2) They offer DDR, ATA100/133 on the motherboard.
3) They offer enterprise class servers and enterprise apps and not just Microsoft Office and a tower machine with a server badge slapped on it.
4) You donít have to work in an OS that has have the graphics subsystem accelerated and the other so slow you might as well draw on the screen with a pencil.

I won't keep going, because you get the idea. You can yap about how Macs are superior all you want. The fact is I built a dual gigahertz machine (with RAID) for less than 500 bucks. It works and it's never crashed on me. Ever. When Apple can show me a machine that blows away wintel performance on something other than Photoshop and it doesn't cost me $4000 to buy it then you can be as smug as you want. Until then, Iíll get paid for writing apps for Windows or Solaris. How many people want to be graphics designers anyway?

You make a few good points, but you destroy your credibility with your $500 dual-processor RAID rant.

I've built over 20 PC's in the last 3 years. Just finished one.

So you say you built a dual processor RAID system for $500?

You got a motherboard, two processors, RAM, case, video card, ethernet card, two hard drives, RAID controller, floppy drive, etc... for $500?

Either you personally know Tony Soprano, have one HELL of a discounter for a supplier, or are just plain full of doo-doo.

TL

TechLarry
Apr 22, 2002, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet
I'm truly worried about this whole thing. Moto has dropped the ball and needs to get going on getting faster processors. Leaving Apple only one option to get faster machines by adding multiple processors is not a long term solution. MHz myth be damned, its hurting Apple not to have a single processor/motherboard/system bus that can stand up against the top end PCs.

Duke gets it...

TL

eirik
Apr 22, 2002, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by TechLarry


My God, we've been hearing promises like this from the PowerPC Camp for YEARS now.

I'm personally tired of reading the current collection of Buzz-Words, and then seeing NOTHING come out of it.

TL

Definitely!!! Promises, promises!!!

Now I know how all the women in my past feel.

Eirik

alex_ant
Apr 23, 2002, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by eirik
But who would Apple partner with such that they as a collective could command sufficient volume-demand to motivate a semiconductor supplier to achieve the desired results? SGI? Sun? IBM?
This reminds me of that rumor from macosrumors.com a few months back that mentioned SGI working feverishly behind closed doors to port IRIX 7.0 to PowerPC. It seemed pretty far-out to me at the time, but what you've said would make it seem a bit more plausible. The MIPS R1x000 is dying a slow and steady death. It would make sense for SGI to partner with a company that has the cutting-edge chips it needs to remain competitive.

IBM's PowerPCs may not be so hot at the moment, but what about it's POWERs? Power4 is currently one of the only high-end CPUs left in the massive wake of vapor the Itanium has left behind, and it's probably the best scientific chip in the world at the moment. Alpha is dying... MIPS (high-end MIPS, that is) is dying... PA-RISC is dying... Itanium sucks arse... what's left? SPARC, Power, and 64-bit PowerPC (which AFAIK doesn't exist yet). It could make sense for SGI to switch the big iron over to Power4, and switch the desktop boxes over to PowerPC... thus increasing demand for both chips, and creating a bit more incentive for IBM to be more active in its development of the PPC, thus providing fresh new fruit to Apple. (Minus AltiVec, though... Hmmmmmm..........)

Alex

alex_ant
Apr 23, 2002, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by TechLarry
Either you personally know Tony Soprano, have one HELL of a discounter for a supplier, or are just plain full of doo-doo.
He said 500 bucks. Not 500 dollars. You know - male deer. I can see how the meat alone from those could be worth thousands of dollars. :)

Alex

Scottgfx
Apr 23, 2002, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant

He said 500 bucks. Not 500 dollars. You know - male deer. I can see how the meat alone from those could be worth thousands of dollars. :)

Alex

Mmmmm, Jerkey! :)

I'm another one who can say that a dual for under $500 is complete BS. I have a Tyan Tiger with dual 1.2Ghz. Just the motherboard and processors alone were over $500. The guy did say Two hard drives... He just never mentioned that they were 1995 vintage 5.25" full-hight Micropolis drives. :)

iGav
Apr 23, 2002, 03:12 AM
Definitely!!! Promises, promises!!!

Now I know how all the women in my past feel.

LOL :p :p :p There's alot of people who'd agree with that statement.........

I still think if the AIM alliance could actually be a*sed to work together and share the technology... it might me more conducive to fast processors than if either one went out on there own and developed their own cpu's!!!

The new G5 is going to have to be something special, as is the rest of the machine if it is going to re-address the current percieved imbalance between the Intel/AMD world and that of Apple and PPC!!

Apple will take up the challenge though........... Holdtight!! :D

Mr. Anderson
Apr 23, 2002, 08:00 AM
We already have a G4 in the iMac - Apple's consumer machine.
The G4s are in everyone of the desktops.
G5s will be in the proline/desktops someday.

What do all these have in common? They're all Moto chips!

If Apple keeps updating the other low end machines with newer processors, G4s, then that leaves IBM with zero, 0, nada, rien.

If the GHz G3 has been around why wasn't it put in the iBook or CRT iMac? Under the current view of the Apple progress scheme, it looks to me the IBM is out, which leaves us in the hands of Moto:(

I hate to say it, but I hope the G5 comes out soon and kicks some butt, because if it doesn't, start selling you stock now.

mcrain
Apr 23, 2002, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by eirik


Definitely!!! Promises, promises!!!

Now I know how all the women in my past feel.

Eirik

Frustrated and horny?

eirik
Apr 23, 2002, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by mcrain


Frustrated and horny?

You're very perceptive!!!
:cool:

mcrain
Apr 23, 2002, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by eirik


You're very perceptive!!!
:cool:

Sorry, I couldn't resist. It was like a slow pitch waiting to be whacked.

Ifeelbloated
Apr 23, 2002, 04:24 PM
Damn. Ya'll just gave ME some perspective! All I ever hear from her is I hear and I don't listen, blah blah blah, peck peck peck.

gjohns01
Apr 23, 2002, 06:04 PM
TechLarry,

How did I hit the $500 dollar price point? Easy. I did something you can only do in the Wintel world. I cannabalized my previous machine for Memory, Case, etc. and bought the following.

1 ABIT VP6 Motherboard for $135 bucks
2 1Ghz CPUs for $140 bucks.
1 Geforce 2 MX for $50 bucks.

See. Brand new machine. :)

If you want to get technical, I added the RAID functionality later. I added 2 additional drives (there's 4 total) for $120 bucks. See I've got room inside the case too. 4 hard drives and a cd-rw. :) I couldn't do that in my Beige G3.

gjohns01
Apr 23, 2002, 06:17 PM
Scottgfx,

Obviously you don't know what you're talking about. A Tiger 230 S2507D can be had for about $100 bucks. 1.2Ghz P3s are $125. That adds up to $350. Maybe you should stop buying your PC parts from Comp USA too. Moron. Let me give you some help. Go to PriceWatch.com and see if you can save some money next time.

TechLarry look around. You can get a dual motherboard with RAID, NIC, Audio etc for cheap. Less than $150.

Rower_CPU
Apr 23, 2002, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by gjohns01
Obviously you don't know what you're talking about. A Tiger 230 S2507D can be had for about $100 bucks. 1.2Ghz P3s are $125. That adds up to $350. Maybe you should stop buying your PC parts from Comp USA too. Moron. Let me give you some help. Go to PriceWatch.com and see if you can save some money next time.

Apples and oranges. In order to fairly evaluate them you have to start from scratch...meaning NO parts ahead of time. Scrapping a machine to make a second one is not really making a new machine. Obviously you feel that using old, obsolete technology to prove your point is a valid argument. You also forgot to add on the cost of the OS.

OS X servers are VERY robust machines. They will saturate a network LONG before they become overloaded. Enterprise, schmenterprise. Streaming gigabytes of video is enough to prove they are for real. It's even more astonishing that they do this in a desktop form factor, which doesn't require special cooling or storage requirements. But wait, there's more. Have you actually USED and setup an IIS server? It's utterly ridiculous compared to the ease and SECURITY of OS X.

Please save your wolf-in-sheep's-clothing antics for someone who's interested.

alex_ant
Apr 23, 2002, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
OS X servers are VERY robust machines. They will saturate a network LONG before they become overloaded. Enterprise, schmenterprise. Streaming gigabytes of video is enough to prove they are for real. It's even more astonishing that they do this in a desktop form factor, which doesn't require special cooling or storage requirements. But wait, there's more. Have you actually USED and setup an IIS server? It's utterly ridiculous compared to the ease and SECURITY of OS X.
This is kind of off-topic, but I guess if I needed a server and I had $5000 to spend, I'd first look at the likes of Sun IBM - and, if they weren't an option, I'd look at a solid x86 server vendor (w/ FreeBSD or OpenBSD for an OS) - before I looked at Apple. I don't want to start a flame war here, but while I think OS X is a great desktop and workstation OS, it's simply too slow, resource-intensive, and unproven for me to use it on a server. If I had to use it, I would probably turn off Quartz and run it from the command line - but if I were doing that, I would be cancelling out quite a bit of what makes OS X OS X, and in that case, it would be little more than a slow PowerPC version of FreeBSD with a Mach kernel and a filesystem that's horrible for servers. (Yes, I'm aware of UFS, but that's not much better...)

Alex

Rower_CPU
Apr 23, 2002, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
This is kind of off-topic, but I guess if I needed a server and I had $5000 to spend, I'd first look at the likes of Sun IBM - and, if they weren't an option, I'd look at a solid x86 server vendor (w/ FreeBSD or OpenBSD for an OS) - before I looked at Apple. I don't want to start a flame war here, but while I think OS X is a great desktop and workstation OS, it's simply too slow, resource-intensive, and unproven for me to use it on a server. If I had to use it, I would probably turn off Quartz and run it from the command line - but if I were doing that, I would be cancelling out quite a bit of what makes OS X OS X, and in that case, it would be little more than a slow PowerPC version of FreeBSD with a Mach kernel and a filesystem that's horrible for servers. (Yes, I'm aware of UFS, but that's not much better...)

No flames from me...yet.;)

Are you saying you want to use OS X Server as a desktop? I'm not sure I'm reading your intent correctly...

You can buy the low-end Server G4 for $2800.

The thing about OS X Server is that Apache, PHP, MySQL, etc are all background tasks, running via the command line. I don't need to be logged in (in fact that's how you ensure no-one gets on and fools with it - leave it sitting at the login screen) in order for it to run. It's not worrying about all of the transparency and shadows when it's just sitting there waiting for someone to log in.

In my experience it has been VERY fast on our campus network, and it's _only_ a G4 500 w/ 1 GB RAM.

TechLarry
Apr 23, 2002, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by gjohns01
TechLarry,

How did I hit the $500 dollar price point? Easy. I did something you can only do in the Wintel world. I cannabalized my previous machine for Memory, Case, etc. and bought the following.

1 ABIT VP6 Motherboard for $135 bucks
2 1Ghz CPUs for $140 bucks.
1 Geforce 2 MX for $50 bucks.

See. Brand new machine. :)

If you want to get technical, I added the RAID functionality later. I added 2 additional drives (there's 4 total) for $120 bucks. See I've got room inside the case too. 4 hard drives and a cd-rw. :) I couldn't do that in my Beige G3.

First, pretty sleezy man, though we all pretty much figured out what you were talking about.

And I am well aware of the merits of canibalizing machines and building 'new' one's.

That's how I have two Win2K Servers running...

Finally, your situation now has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed here, now that we all know what you were _really_ talking about.

TL

TechLarry
Apr 23, 2002, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by gjohns01
Scottgfx,

Obviously you don't know what you're talking about. A Tiger 230 S2507D can be had for about $100 bucks. 1.2Ghz P3s are $125. That adds up to $350. Maybe you should stop buying your PC parts from Comp USA too. Moron. Let me give you some help. Go to PriceWatch.com and see if you can save some money next time.

TechLarry look around. You can get a dual motherboard with RAID, NIC, Audio etc for cheap. Less than $150.

Oh, for CRYING out loud people!

Build me a WHOLE machine for $500, as the original poster insinuated, and THEN call me.

Using these guys methodology, I could say I own a Cadillac Eldorado ETC (which I dearly want), but in reality only own the floormats!

TL

gjohns01
Apr 23, 2002, 08:19 PM
I could still build the same machine from scratch for less than $1000. I could have paid an extra $1000 grand to get a server motherboard, cpus; SCSI drives and built a "real" server. I still would have come out cheaper than buying a brand new Apple G4 Tower/Server.

As for the OS. I paid for the MSDN Universal Subscription. Do you know what that is? For $2800 bucks I own every Microsoft App/OS/SDK/Dev Tool they make. Do I receive the same resources from Apple? LOL. Right!

Have I set up an IIS server before absolutely. Is my box secure? Absolutely! Can I run and Oracle database? (and Ellison is on the damn board) DB2? Sybase? Exchange server? Websphere? MQSeries? Use a Java IDE that doesn't suffer from redraw problems because the OS isn't completely finished? NO!

I can do all of that on my PC. I can run all of those applications in the comfort of my home so that I don't have to go to work everyday. Do I give a damn about streaming video? Using Photoshop? Do I care if I can arrange all of my photos nicely and order a book? Care if my machine runs hot? Hell NO!

What's your point? That you don't care about the enterprise because that's not what you do for a living? Well I do. And Apple isn't playing on the same level. Case closed.

Rower_CPU
Apr 23, 2002, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by gjohns01
I could still build the same machine from scratch for less than $1000. I could have paid an extra $1000 grand to get a server motherboard, cpus; SCSI drives and built a "real" server. I still would have come out cheaper than buying a brand new Apple G4 Tower/Server.

Prove it.

I look forward to shooting it down...

alex_ant
Apr 23, 2002, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Are you saying you want to use OS X Server as a desktop? I'm not sure I'm reading your intent correctly...
No, I'm just saying I'd rather use a tried-and-true Unix than OS X Server in the case where I need a server that's rock solid and under consistently very heavy load.
The thing about OS X Server is that Apache, PHP, MySQL, etc are all background tasks, running via the command line. I don't need to be logged in (in fact that's how you ensure no-one gets on and fools with it - leave it sitting at the login screen) in order for it to run. It's not worrying about all of the transparency and shadows when it's just sitting there waiting for someone to log in.
Yes, I know you can do that. When you do that, though, as I said, you're negating most of the advantages it gives you over other Unixes. (The GUI admin tools.) Running a Mac server headless puts it on the same playing field as all other Unix boxes, and on that playing field it *generally* is quite inferior as a server. Depending on the type of server, of course.
In my experience it has been VERY fast on our campus network, and it's _only_ a G4 500 w/ 1 GB RAM.
Depending on the task, I think Power Mac servers can be anywhere from very competitive to not competitive at all against equivalently-priced x86 servers. I'm not saying your G4 server isn't fast, I'm saying x86 at the same price is generally quite a bit faster. For lots of server applications, CPU speed is not the limiting factor, and the Mac's 32-bit 33MHz PCI really hurts... not enough bandwidth for Ultra160 SCSI. Not to mention the crappy memory bandwidth and the poor energy efficiency.

That said, I think a Power Mac server would be a good choice if you can't afford to keep a Unix admin around, or just don't want to deal with Unix yourself. the GUI tools are pretty foolproof, and just because it's a bit slower than an x86 server doesn't mean it's vastly less useful.

Alex

alex_ant
Apr 23, 2002, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Prove it.

I look forward to shooting it down...
Actually I think he's got a point...

$100 Tyan Tiger dual P3 motherboard
$100 Full-tower ATX case w/ 500 watt power supply
$250 Two 1.2GHz Pentium IIIs ($125 each)
$250 1GB DDR SDRAM
$50 cheapo video & sound cards (this is a server after all)
$50 32X SCSI CD-ROM
$560 Two 50GB Ultra160 SCSI hard drives ($280 each)
$100 Ultra160 SCSI controller
$80 Dual gigabit Ethernet controllers ($40 each)
$20 Cheapo keyboard/mouse, if needed
$0 OS (Linux or one of the BSDs)
--------------------------------------
<$1600 for a machine that will match or beat a $4500 Power Mac server. These are not no-name parts, either (well, except for the keyboard, mouse, video, and sound cards, but none of those are important in a server). Add a monitor and a few other misc. parts and this thing is still less than half the cost of the Mac. Sorry but it's true. :(

Alex

Scottgfx
Apr 23, 2002, 11:50 PM
To: gjohns01

Ahh, I forgot to mention. I built a system from scratch. The Tyan Tiger was a dual ATHLON. 1.2Ghz Athlon MPs were a bit expensive at the time but faster than your PIII. The system has 512MB of the proper ECC DDR RAM that the MB REQUIRES. At the time that I bought the parts, the MB was $380. I'm sure it's cheaper now. And I know how to use PriceWatch, thank you.

I also put in in a nice $300 case, Enermax 400W power supply, Radeon 8500, Soundblaster Audigy. Your right, I am a moron. It's still not a mac!

And put down that micropolis, it's heavy and you'll hurt yourself.

Rower_CPU
Apr 23, 2002, 11:54 PM
alex-

Good points.
At least we come to consensus on one point, the ease of use of the GUI.

As for heavy loads, I'm not sure what your qualifications are. Please elaborate so that I can understand better. To me, it doesn't get heavier than streaming video...

If you're looking at enterprise servers, sure the PowerMac doesn't match up...but how much do they cost? For an off-the-shelf system, they are amazing!

As for your <1800 machine, not bad...but he claimed under 1000.
I'm still waiting.

gjohns01
Apr 24, 2002, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
alex-

Good points.
At least we come to consensus on one point, the ease of use of the GUI.

As for heavy loads, I'm not sure what your qualifications are. Please elaborate so that I can understand better. To me, it doesn't get heavier than streaming video...

If you're looking at enterprise servers, sure the PowerMac doesn't match up...but how much do they cost? For an off-the-shelf system, they are amazing!

As for your <1800 machine, not bad...but he claimed under 1000.
I'm still waiting.

I'm sure I can put together a single processor AMD system that will clean a dual G4's clock on pretty much any test you want to offer up. It's the sad truth buddy. They picked the wrong chip partners and haven't moved their motherboard to new technology.

gjohns01
Apr 24, 2002, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by Scottgfx
To: gjohns01

Ahh, I forgot to mention. I built a system from scratch. The Tyan Tiger was a dual ATHLON. 1.2Ghz Athlon MPs were a bit expensive at the time but faster than your PIII. The system has 512MB of the proper ECC DDR RAM that the MB REQUIRES. At the time that I bought the parts, the MB was $380. I'm sure it's cheaper now. And I know how to use PriceWatch, thank you.

I also put in in a nice $300 case, Enermax 400W power supply, Radeon 8500, Soundblaster Audigy. Your right, I am a moron. It's still not a mac!

And put down that micropolis, it's heavy and you'll hurt yourself.

Yep. Dual Athlons are nice, but I already had a stockpile of PC100/133 DIMMS. No need to throw them out. In any case, are you sitting around playing with your digital hub? or are you trying to make a living? No old Mac or new one will provide a return on my investment. So I'll deal with Windows 2000, Solaris, and AIX until Apple can get it ****** together. Until that happens you can sit on that micropolis and spin.

gjohns01
Apr 24, 2002, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by gjohns01


I'm sure I can put together a single processor AMD system that will clean a dual G4's clock on pretty much any test you want to offer up. It's the sad truth buddy. They picked the wrong chip partners and haven't moved their motherboard to new technology.

oh and i can do that for under a $1000.

gjohns01
Apr 24, 2002, 12:28 AM
This is my last word. At the end of the day, if you can use your Mac or PC for the purpose you purchased it for it's a good thing. If it's word processing, graphic design, video production, software development, running your business, playing games, or whatever the choice of what system you end up working on usually fits the following criteria:

- It has all the hardware you need
- It has all the software you need or it's readily available
- You're comfortable with the system (GUI and/or OS)
- It serves more than one function (home use/school use/work use)
- You don't have to mortgage your house to buy it.

That's obviously overly simplified. But depending on the person, you may pick a mac or you may pick a pc. The problem is that at this point in time, the Mac has limited use for some people. Sure you can use it at home. Sure you can use it at school (depending on where you go). Sure I can use it for some work related functions. But you know what?! I can't use it for every work related function because my company doesn't support it. There's no VPN software that works with my companies firewall. There's no Outlook client. There's no MS Access. Oh I need to run Websphere on my development machine but I can't. etc etc. I don't see the Mac as the greatest machine with the best architected cpu, the best looking case, and the price premium as a compelling argument anymore. I wish them all the luck in the world, but they haven't fulfilled my needs for a very long time.

Rower_CPU
Apr 24, 2002, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by gjohns01
I'm sure I can put together a single processor AMD system that will clean a dual G4's clock on pretty much any test you want to offer up. It's the sad truth buddy. They picked the wrong chip partners and haven't moved their motherboard to new technology.

Once again, prove it. Show me the parts and prices and I'll offer a fair comparison. I'm pretty sure I could grow wings if I really tried, but in reality it ain't gonna happen.

I'm not in denial about the fact that Moto is way behind in terms of clock speed and memory bandwidth. But they still are great performers.

And, again, the OS is a crucial factor in the equation...

Scottgfx
Apr 24, 2002, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by gjohns01


Yep. Dual Athlons are nice, but I already had a stockpile of PC100/133 DIMMS. No need to throw them out. In any case, are you sitting around playing with your digital hub? or are you trying to make a living? No old Mac or new one will provide a return on my investment. So I'll deal with Windows 2000, Solaris, and AIX until Apple can get it ****** together. Until that happens you can sit on that micropolis and spin.

Re: Micropolis
Not untill you're done using it as the parking brake for you're car. :O

I do design work (Print and Video) for a TV station and 8 radio stations. I have 5 mac systems that I admin and use on a daily basis. We crank out tons of work on these things. Yes, I get paid to play.

ROI? I've been very impressed with the RIO on my mac systems. I had a two year old G3-450 system that gave back 1/3 of it's original price when I sold it last year. Show me a PC system that will hold it's value like that. I can't even find buyers for the two athlon systems I've built.

Rower_CPU
Apr 24, 2002, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by Scottgfx
ROI? I've been very impressed with the RIO on my mac systems. I had a two year old G3-450 system that gave back 1/3 of it's original price when I sold it last year. Show me a PC system that will hold it's value like that. I can't even find buyers for the two athlon systems I've built.

Thank you for pointing that out. I was going to address it...but something came up...:rolleyes:

gjohns01
Apr 24, 2002, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by Scottgfx


Re: Micropolis
Not untill you're done using it as the parking brake for you're car. :O

I do design work (Print and Video) for a TV station and 8 radio stations. I have 5 mac systems that I admin and use on a daily basis. We crank out tons of work on these things. Yes, I get paid to play.

ROI? I've been very impressed with the RIO on my mac systems. I had a two year old G3-450 system that gave back 1/3 of it's original price when I sold it last year. Show me a PC system that will hold it's value like that. I can't even find buyers for the two athlon systems I've built.

You proved my point. You're a designer. So what. I'm not a designer and neither is the majority of the population.

Rower_CPU
Apr 24, 2002, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by gjohns01
You proved my point. You're a designer. So what. I'm not a designer and neither is the majority of the population.

The majority of the population just uses email and surfs the web and knows jack**** about computers, too. I thought we were discussing usefull machines here.

Design work is a good barometer of system performance, since it requires more from the hardware and OS than the quotidian tasks aforementioned.

Why do you keep sidestepping the issues we bring up? No answers?

My count is two, so far:
1) sub $1000 server
2) ROI

Waiting for a third...?

gjohns01
Apr 24, 2002, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Once again, prove it. Show me the parts and prices and I'll offer a fair comparison. I'm pretty sure I could grow wings if I really tried, but in reality it ain't gonna happen.

I'm not in denial about the fact that Moto is way behind in terms of clock speed and memory bandwidth. But they still are great performers.

And, again, the OS is a crucial factor in the equation...

Do I really need to prove it? alex_ant already configured a machine for you. And that was with SCSI and dual cpus. Subtract the price of the SCSI drives, the Ultra160 controller, and the second NIC card drops you to $860. Add a 80GB Ultra ATA HD for $87 and you reach $940. Single processor will drop the price below $900. Add a Geforce card and it's still below $1000. Is the OS really worth a $1400-$1800 premium? You're telling me that OS X's ease of use/feature set over Windows 2000/XP, Linux, BSD is worth that much money? You're telling me that the time it takes to sit down with an OS for a few days, pick up a "Name your OS for Dummies" book, or use some common sense makes OS X a better OS? Stop smoking.

alex_ant
Apr 24, 2002, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
As for heavy loads, I'm not sure what your qualifications are. Please elaborate so that I can understand better. To me, it doesn't get heavier than streaming video...
Are you talking about the server doing on-the-fly video decompression? Streaming video puts strain on the disk subsystem and not much else. Disk I/O is one of the Mac's big weaknesses (on the server). The Mac can't saturate an Ultra160 bus, and HFS+ and UFS (whichever you decide to use) are very bad, not only in terms of performance but in terms of features. On an x86 server you have the option of using Linux, and if you choose Linux you can go with XFS, which simply rocks at the kind of streaming you speak of. Dynamic web hosting is a good example of a "well-rounded" task that stresses every aspect of a server. The Mac will fall behind here. It's got all the right software, but it's simply not as fast as the competition, and that includes the competition at just about any price point. Again I'm not saying the Mac sucks, I'm just saying that it doesn't currently make as good a server as the competition in terms of performance.
If you're looking at enterprise servers, sure the PowerMac doesn't match up...but how much do they cost? For an off-the-shelf system, they are amazing!
No more amazing than an off-the-shelf Dell, or Compaq, really. The only advantage a Power Mac server has over an x86 server is that it's much easier to administer. And that's a valid selling point for the niche Apple sells to. So, like I said, I can see a niche market for the Mac server, but it is nothing more than a niche.

Alex

gjohns01
Apr 24, 2002, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU


The majority of the population just uses email and surfs the web and knows jack**** about computers, too. I thought we were discussing usefull machines here.

Design work is a good barometer of system performance, since it requires more from the hardware and OS than the quotidian tasks aforementioned.

Why do you keep sidestepping the issues we bring up? No answers?

My count is two, so far:
1) sub $1000 server
2) ROI

Waiting for a third...?

LOL. What issues? You haven't said anything but make the point that you can stream video and use photoshop on your Mac. How does design work make a good barometer of system performance if that's not what you use it for? That's like saying you drive a dump truck, but it's good for grocery shopping too. Get real.

Rower_CPU
Apr 24, 2002, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by gjohns01
Do I really need to prove it? alex_ant already configured a machine for you. And that was with SCSI and dual cpus. Subtract the price of the SCSI drives, the Ultra160 controller, and the second NIC card drops you to $860. Add a 80GB Ultra ATA HD for $87 and you reach $940. Single processor will drop the price below $900. Add a Geforce card and it's still below $1000. Is the OS really worth a $1400-$1800 premium? You're telling me that OS X's ease of use/feature set over Windows 2000/XP, Linux, BSD is worth that much money? You're telling me that the time it takes to sit down with an OS for a few days, pick up a "Name your OS for Dummies" book, or use some common sense makes OS X a better OS? Stop smoking.

OK, I see how it is. Make a claim and let someone else prove your point for you...interesting strategy.

You're telling me the time it takes for a qualified tech to setup and maintain on of those other OSes makes OS X worse? Can you say CodeRed?

You're telling me the salary of said person is worth it? Hmmm, monthly salary of such a person is what...$4000 a month? There goes your budget...

Maybe you should start smoking. Might loosten you up some...

alex_ant
Apr 24, 2002, 01:46 AM
Although I will admit that it is very possible to build an x86 server that costs 1/3 as much as the best Power Mac server, I think there's one issue that hasn't been brought up yet - Reliability and support. If that x86 server crashes on me at 4pm Friday afternoon, I basically have no option but to stay late and fix it myself, or have another employee do it - and hope I have the right parts on hand to do the job. There's no peace of mind and no guarantee that the thing isn't going to start behaving weirdly in exactly 34.26 hours, as x86 machines are so prone to doing. I would NEVER use a self-built x86 server ANYWHERE I needed something even remotely reliable - not even if I had a professional computer wank on-hand 24 hours a day. There is a big advantage to buying the whole computer from a reputable company (and that doesn't just include Apple). It all boils down to how much your time, and your employees'/clients'/users' time, is worth.

Alex

alex_ant
Apr 24, 2002, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
You're telling me the salary of said person is worth it? Hmmm, monthly salary of such a person is what...$4000 a month? There goes your budget...
Actually if it matters, I'd be willing to settle for less than $3000. :)

Rower_CPU
Apr 24, 2002, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by gjohns01
LOL. What issues? You haven't said anything but make the point that you can stream video and use photoshop on your Mac. How does design work make a good barometer of system performance if that's not what you use it for? That's like saying you drive a dump truck, but it's good for grocery shopping too. Get real.

Have you used Photoshop?
No, I mean have you really used it?

Large images and complex filters take up enormous amounts of RAM and put your system to the test. Slower machines will come up lacking.

How does a Quake3 benchmark indicate performance to me if I'm not a gamer? Any program can be dismissed as arbitrary if you really want to.

What then is your standard for testing system performance? I'm real, are you?

PS. ROI?

alex_ant
Apr 24, 2002, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by gjohns01
Is the OS really worth a $1400-$1800 premium? You're telling me that OS X's ease of use/feature set over Windows 2000/XP, Linux, BSD is worth that much money? You're telling me that the time it takes to sit down with an OS for a few days, pick up a "Name your OS for Dummies" book, or use some common sense makes OS X a better OS?
I think for some people it does. I can imagine that a small business or school that can't afford to hire an IT guy would be interested in an OS - like OS X Server - that takes very little technical knowledge to administer. For some people, being asked to pick up and study a "For Dummies" book is like being asked to pick up a "Paris During the Haussmann Infrastructural Revolution of 1852-1870" book. Not all people are zit-faced nerds who live in their parents' basement and whose idea of a good Friday night is setting up PostgreSQL on an old RS/6000 they got off eBay. :) In fact most people aren't... most people don't even care about computers... most people truly despise even the thought of setting up a server. So for them, a Mac server could be worth it. They will save time and energy at the cost of their computer's performance, although I don't see why that has to be a bad thing.

Alex

gjohns01
Apr 24, 2002, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Have you used Photoshop?
No, I mean have you really used it?

Large images and complex filters take up enormous amounts of RAM and put your system to the test. Slower machines will come up lacking.

How does a Quake3 benchmark indicate performance to me if I'm not a gamer? Any program can be dismissed as arbitrary if you really want to.

What then is your standard for testing system performance? I'm real, are you?

PS. ROI?

Yes I've used Photoshop. I used to use version 4 daily. I know exactly what it's capable of. I don't play Quake 3. I'm not dismissing Photoshop as a benchmark, just not a relevant one for what I need to know. Can Photoshop tell me what kind of network throughput I'm getting? Number of http connections? Number of database connections? How long it takes to compile a quarter million lines of code? No. It has no relevance for me.

Rower_CPU
Apr 24, 2002, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by gjohns01
Yes I've used Photoshop. I used to use version 4 daily. I know exactly what it's capable of. I don't play Quake 3. I'm not dismissing Photoshop as a benchmark, just not a relevant one for what I need to know. Can Photoshop tell me what kind of network throughput I'm getting? Number of http connections? Number of database connections? How long it takes to compile a quarter million lines of code? No. It has no relevance for me.

OK, we're starting to make headway here.

PS was brought up as an indicator of performance for Macs in general, but not specifically for the servers.

What tools do you use to test your network throughput, etc on your x86 server? Are they available for the Mac?

I would love to pit my _old_ server at work against one of your machines...if we can establish a level playing field. As far as I'm concerned, that alone would settle the debate for me. I will gladly admit I'm wrong if we can run a series of tests that definitively show your system winning out over the mine.

As the saying goes: "Put up, or shut up."

gjohns01
Apr 24, 2002, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU


OK, I see how it is. Make a claim and let someone else prove your point for you...interesting strategy.

You're telling me the time it takes for a qualified tech to setup and maintain on of those other OSes makes OS X worse? Can you say CodeRed?

You're telling me the salary of said person is worth it? Hmmm, monthly salary of such a person is what...$4000 a month? There goes your budget...

Maybe you should start smoking. Might loosten you up some...

LOL. What claim is that? My original claim that I could buld a system for $500? Under a $1000? Build one for less than a similarly configured Mac? Not be able to do the work that I do on a Mac? Because I think I proved those points. You've done nothing but spew typical "Macs are best because it rocks at Photoshop. " I don't use Photoshop. I don't use Final Cut. I never used Premiere. I never had that need to edit or stream video. I don't use my pc as a replacement for my stereo. I don't ever plan on ordering a nice pretty photo album. I don't see any reason for my Mac running OS X Server to even be on except to say "It's on".

alex_ant
Apr 24, 2002, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Large images and complex filters take up enormous amounts of RAM and put your system to the test. Slower machines will come up lacking.
The Mac's only speed advantages in Photoshop are due to AltiVec, which makes it kind of an unfair comparison.

What then is your standard for testing system performance? I'm real, are you?
How about SPEC_CPU2000, which would make a good approximation of Photoshop performance if not for AltiVec, which skews everything...

Int/FP
866MHz PowerPC: 259/153 (peak)
1GHz PowerPC: 306/178 (peak, from the DP Mac, per-CPU)
1GHz Pentium III: 309/unknown (peak, from a DP machine, per-CPU)
1.13GHz Pentium III: 461/320 (base - peak is higher)
1.4GHz Pentium III: 648/715 (base - peak is higher)
1.4GHz Athlon: 495/426 (peak)
Athlon XP 2000+: 697/596 (base - peak is higher)
2GHz Pentium 4: 648/715 (base - peak is higher)
2.2GHz Pentium 4: 790/779 (base - peak is higher)
400MHz MIPS R12000A: 328/382 (base - peak is higher)
1.3GHz IBM POWER4: 790/1098 (base - peak is higher)
866MHz Alpha 21264B: 497/643 (base - peak is higher)

And yes... the 1GHz PowerPC G4 is slower than even the 800MHz Itanic, which scored a 358/715. Ouch.

Alex

gjohns01
Apr 24, 2002, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant

I think for some people it does. I can imagine that a small business or school that can't afford to hire an IT guy would be interested in an OS - like OS X Server - that takes very little technical knowledge to administer. For some people, being asked to pick up and study a "For Dummies" book is like being asked to pick up a "Paris During the Haussmann Infrastructural Revolution of 1852-1870" book. Not all people are zit-faced nerds who live in their parents' basement and whose idea of a good Friday night is setting up PostgreSQL on an old RS/6000 they got off eBay. :) In fact most people aren't... most people don't even care about computers... most people truly despise even the thought of setting up a server. So for them, a Mac server could be worth it. They will save time and energy at the cost of their computer's performance, although I don't see why that has to be a bad thing.

Alex

I don't dispute that at all. I agree with you. The point of my original post was to say that Macs are not offering "ME" what I need. They don't have the apps or tools I need and they cost too much. That was my point. I can't comment on what other people need. I know what I need. I know what my coworkers need to do their jobs. Macs offer a consumer machine, and a pro machine. They offer "servers" but they are not what I consider a server to be. The fact of the matter is that there is more than one kind of Pro. Apple's definition of Pro is centered around the creative types. They failed to address other needs. So by all means use OS X and OS X Server. I'm just letting you know that as a product (hardware and software) Apple is seriously deficient in some areas..

alex_ant
Apr 24, 2002, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by gjohns01
I don't dispute that at all. I agree with you. The point of my original post was to say that Macs are not offering "ME" what I need. They don't have the apps or tools I need and they cost too much. That was my point. I can't comment on what other people need. I know what I need. I know what my coworkers need to do their jobs. Macs offer a consumer machine, and a pro machine. They offer "servers" but they are not what I consider a server to be. The fact of the matter is that there is more than one kind of Pro. Apple's definition of Pro is centered around the creative types. They failed to address other needs. So by all means use OS X and OS X Server. I'm just letting you know that as a product (hardware and software) Apple is seriously deficient in some areas..
OK! Sooo... what ARE we arguing about? :)

sunbear191
Apr 24, 2002, 05:01 AM
Is there any reason why Apple could not use IBM's POWER3 or POWER4 cpus? They are compatible (except for AltiVec), aren't they?

alex_ant
Apr 24, 2002, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by sunbear191
Is there any reason why Apple could not use IBM's POWER3 or POWER4 cpus? They are compatible (except for AltiVec), aren't they?
I was under the impression that IBM is not keen on letting other companies use the cream of their crop. Also, these chips are very expensive and complex. Because you can't buy these chips off the shelf like you can an Intel or AMD chip, it's difficult to say exactly what they cost, but just to give a bit of perspective, the Power4 is not currently sold in any system costing less than $40,000. The least expensive Power3 system can be had for just under $6,000. There are heat and power consumption issues as well... but hoo boy, would I ever want a Power4 on my desk! ******** wicked! :)

Apple has to have something big up their sleeves. They just have to. THEY HAVE TO!!! (*Bursts into tears*) OHHHH GOD, PLEASE TELL ME THEY DOOOO!!!!!!!

Alex

Rower_CPU
Apr 24, 2002, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant

The Mac's only speed advantages in Photoshop are due to AltiVec, which makes it kind of an unfair comparison.

How about SPEC_CPU2000, which would make a good approximation of Photoshop performance if not for AltiVec, which skews everything...

How does AltiVec make the comparison unfair? If a chip has performance enhancing instructions, why is it "unfair" to use them? That's like saying "The P4 has a quad-pumped memory bus, so that skews everything". If a chip has advantages over another they should be taken into account.

SPEC has long since been discounted as a completely unfair benchmark for the PPC platform. Here's a thread that discussed it a while ago:
http://www.macrumors.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=2845

It simply floods the CPU with perfect instructions, not taking into account dependancy issues or the "pipeline" tax". NOT a good indicator of overall system performance.

TechLarry
Apr 24, 2002, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by gjohns01
I could still build the same machine from scratch for less than $1000. I could have paid an extra $1000 grand to get a server motherboard, cpus; SCSI drives and built a "real" server. I still would have come out cheaper than buying a brand new Apple G4 Tower/Server.

As for the OS. I paid for the MSDN Universal Subscription. Do you know what that is? For $2800 bucks I own every Microsoft App/OS/SDK/Dev Tool they make. Do I receive the same resources from Apple? LOL. Right!

Have I set up an IIS server before absolutely. Is my box secure? Absolutely! Can I run and Oracle database? (and Ellison is on the damn board) DB2? Sybase? Exchange server? Websphere? MQSeries? Use a Java IDE that doesn't suffer from redraw problems because the OS isn't completely finished? NO!

I can do all of that on my PC. I can run all of those applications in the comfort of my home so that I don't have to go to work everyday. Do I give a damn about streaming video? Using Photoshop? Do I care if I can arrange all of my photos nicely and order a book? Care if my machine runs hot? Hell NO!

What's your point? That you don't care about the enterprise because that's not what you do for a living? Well I do. And Apple isn't playing on the same level. Case closed.

Just curious as to who this response was meant for...

TL

TechLarry
Apr 24, 2002, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant

Actually I think he's got a point...

$100 Tyan Tiger dual P3 motherboard
$100 Full-tower ATX case w/ 500 watt power supply
$250 Two 1.2GHz Pentium IIIs ($125 each)
$250 1GB DDR SDRAM
$50 cheapo video & sound cards (this is a server after all)
$50 32X SCSI CD-ROM
$560 Two 50GB Ultra160 SCSI hard drives ($280 each)
$100 Ultra160 SCSI controller
$80 Dual gigabit Ethernet controllers ($40 each)
$20 Cheapo keyboard/mouse, if needed
$0 OS (Linux or one of the BSDs)
--------------------------------------
<$1600 for a machine that will match or beat a $4500 Power Mac server. These are not no-name parts, either (well, except for the keyboard, mouse, video, and sound cards, but none of those are important in a server). Add a monitor and a few other misc. parts and this thing is still less than half the cost of the Mac. Sorry but it's true. :(

Alex

LOL!

First, it was $500. Then somewhere along the line it changed to "Less than $1000".

Now, it's "<1600".

I just love this stuff :)

TL

TechLarry
Apr 24, 2002, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by TechLarry


LOL!

First, it was $500. Then somewhere along the line it changed to "Less than $1000".

Now, it's "<1600".

I just love this stuff :)

TL

Oh, since you need server software, let's throw in Server Software for, oh, 1000 users.

And to keep it interesting, let's keep it commercial :)

The Mac server will obviously use MacOS X Server.

Just for fun :)

TL

TechLarry
Apr 24, 2002, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by gjohns01


I'm sure I can put together a single processor AMD system that will clean a dual G4's clock on pretty much any test you want to offer up. It's the sad truth buddy. They picked the wrong chip partners and haven't moved their motherboard to new technology.

I have to agree with the last sentence.

I believe I started all this fun nonsense with something similar :)

TL

Rower_CPU
Apr 24, 2002, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by gjohns01
... Macs offer a consumer machine, and a pro machine. They offer "servers" but they are not what I consider a server to be. The fact of the matter is that there is more than one kind of Pro. Apple's definition of Pro is centered around the creative types. They failed to address other needs. So by all means use OS X and OS X Server. I'm just letting you know that as a product (hardware and software) Apple is seriously deficient in some areas..

Once again, what do your servers do that OS X doesn't? How are they not "server" enough for you?

I'm fully aware of Apple's "deficiencies", but for me the pros still outweigh the cons. I'm not missing playing Starcraft or any of that crap. If there's something that you absolutely have to run, get VPC. Can your Wintel do that?

I use Photoshop, Premiere and Final Cut all of the time. If I'm on a slow machine, the process is painful. If I'm on a fast one, it's effortless. Therefore, they are a good determinant of system performance for my needs.
I'm sorry you have less creative things to do. What do you do with your machine?


BTW - You have still failed to address the ROI question, and you're now ignoring my (quite fair) challenge...why?

gjohns01
Apr 24, 2002, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Once again, what do your servers do that OS X doesn't? How are they not "server" enough for you?

I'm fully aware of Apple's "deficiencies", but for me the pros still outweigh the cons. I'm not missing playing Starcraft or any of that crap. If there's something that you absolutely have to run, get VPC. Can your Wintel do that?

I use Photoshop, Premiere and Final Cut all of the time. If I'm on a slow machine, the process is painful. If I'm on a fast one, it's effortless. Therefore, they are a good determinant of system performance for my needs.
I'm sorry you have less creative things to do. What do you do with your machine?


BTW - You have still failed to address the ROI question, and you're now ignoring my (quite fair) challenge...why?

Actually you've completely ignored me. I've stated what I need to do. Read through the posts. But just to speed things up here I'll repeat myself. There are no enterprise databases available on OS X. (i.e. No 8i, No DB2, No Sybase, No SQL Server) Using mySQL, Postgresql, Frontbase, or Openbase won't cut it. I can't develop to those we don't use them. There is no official J2EE release for Mac OS X. And yes I am aware that you can use one from a JBoss distribution or some other source. There is no JBuilder for Enterprise available for OS X. There is no Visual Studio. There is no Visual Age. No Websphere, No IPlanet, No Vignette, or any other application I deal with in my everyday life. Therefore, OS X Server and hardware have ZERO to offer me. I'm sure everyone's favorite board member Larry Ellison feels the same way, because he hasn't ported 8i to OS X. He has no reason to. Apple doesn't have the hardware to run it and doesn't command any respect in the enterprise for Oracle to make the effort. Now go design something. And will you're at it, tell me how Photoshop, Premiere and Final Cut can tell me how many transactions per minute I can achieve on my hardware.

alex_ant
Apr 24, 2002, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
How does AltiVec make the comparison unfair? If a chip has performance enhancing instructions, why is it "unfair" to use them? That's like saying "The P4 has a quad-pumped memory bus, so that skews everything". If a chip has advantages over another they should be taken into account.
Unfair was the wrong word, I suppose. The reason I said unfair was because, at the moment, AltiVec 1) requires a fair amount of hand-tuning of code in order to be taken advantage of, and 2) is taken advantage of by only a few apps. This is atypical for a CPU. Any good CPU is not supposed to require tedious optimization; you're supposed to be able to compile your code for it, get great performance off the bat, and be done. If/when there ever exists a decent compiler for AltiVec-enabled chips, then I will stand corrected.
SPEC has long since been discounted as a completely unfair benchmark for the PPC platform. Here's a thread that discussed it a while ago:
http://www.macrumors.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=2845

It simply floods the CPU with perfect instructions, not taking into account dependancy issues or the "pipeline" tax". NOT a good indicator of overall system performance.
I've read that thread. All I can say is, SPEC is the most widely accepted CPU benchmarking test there is. Its so-called pipeline tax doesn't seem to affect any other CPUs. You can whine all you want about unfairness, but that's to be expected from anyone getting butt-raped like Motorola's PPCs are.

If only software that has been hand-optimized for AltiVec can squeeze a decent amount of speed out of the G4, then that makes the G4 a speciality chip. Nobody wants to optimize for AltiVec because doing so results in completely non-portable code.

If it looks slow... and smells slow... it probably is.

Alex

alex_ant
Apr 24, 2002, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by TechLarry


LOL!

First, it was $500. Then somewhere along the line it changed to "Less than $1000".

Now, it's "<1600".

I never claimed I could build a server for $500 or $1000. What I proved was that it's possible to build a server faster than the fastest Mac server for less than half the price. Not taking into account service, support, reliability, etc... but it can be done.

Alex

Rower_CPU
Apr 24, 2002, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

Unfair was the wrong word, I suppose. The reason I said unfair was because, at the moment, AltiVec 1) requires a fair amount of hand-tuning of code in order to be taken advantage of, and 2) is taken advantage of by only a few apps. This is atypical for a CPU. Any good CPU is not supposed to require tedious optimization; you're supposed to be able to compile your code for it, get great performance off the bat, and be done. If/when there ever exists a decent compiler for AltiVec-enabled chips, then I will stand corrected.

I've read that thread. All I can say is, SPEC is the most widely accepted CPU benchmarking test there is. Its so-called pipeline tax doesn't seem to affect any other CPUs. You can whine all you want about unfairness, but that's to be expected from anyone getting butt-raped like Motorola's PPCs are.

If only software that has been hand-optimized for AltiVec can squeeze a decent amount of speed out of the G4, then that makes the G4 a speciality chip. Nobody wants to optimize for AltiVec because doing so results in completely non-portable code.

If it looks slow... and smells slow... it probably is.

Alex

By the same token we should eliminate MMX and SSE instructions on the x86. Give me a friggin' break.

In the perfect world, a CPU never has branching instructions, and a perfect flow of data to it. Guess what? We don't live in that world.
By not taking into account REAL WORLD performance issues you create a completely worthless benchmark. The pipeline tax applies to P4s, not PPCs.
Their longer pipeline causes a slowdown when they have to dump the whole thing when they get a bad instruction.

You seem to be quite knowledgeable about sodomy...you wouldn't happen to be a Catholic priest, would you?

alex_ant
Apr 24, 2002, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
By the same token we should eliminate MMX and SSE instructions on the x86. Give me a friggin' break.
Intel's compiler optimizes for both MMX and SSE automatically. There is no such compiler that optimizes for AltiVec. I'm not saying AltiVec should not be a part of the picture, I'm just saying that it is not an automatic performance boost, and is also not a very desirable performance boost for software developers because it requires them to eliminate the portability of their code. Nor does it support double-precision FP, crucial to quite a few scientific apps. AltiVec is a hack designed to save the PPC from utter FP disgrace (which it does, more or less). So again, until someone delivers a compiler that takes advantage of AltiVec on non-specialized code by default, any benchmark performance gains due to AltiVec should have an asterisk next to them.
In the perfect world, a CPU never has branching instructions, and a perfect flow of data to it. Guess what? We don't live in that world.
By not taking into account REAL WORLD performance issues you create a completely worthless benchmark. The pipeline tax applies to P4s, not PPCs.
Their longer pipeline causes a slowdown when they have to dump the whole thing when they get a bad instruction.
This explains the P4's good benchmark results. What about the P3, all of the Athlons, the Power3, the Power4, the RS64, the Alpha 21164 and 21264, the MIPS R12K and R14K, the UltraSPARC, the Itanium, and the PA-RISC? Is the PowerPC so unique that any benchmarking done on it is wildly inaccurate and irrelevant?

Again. If it looks slow and smells slow... it's probably slow (at everything not heavily hand-optimized for AltiVec).

Alex

TechLarry
Apr 24, 2002, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

I never claimed I could build a server for $500 or $1000. What I proved was that it's possible to build a server faster than the fastest Mac server for less than half the price. Not taking into account service, support, reliability, etc... but it can be done.

Alex

>>Not taking into account service, support, reliability, etc... <<

And, of course, no IT manager worth their salt would EVER take those little, niggling details into account...

This has become so funny :)

TL

Rower_CPU
Apr 24, 2002, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by gjohns01


Actually you've completely ignored me. I've stated what I need to do. Read through the posts. But just to speed things up here I'll repeat myself. There are no enterprise databases available on OS X. (i.e. No 8i, No DB2, No Sybase, No SQL Server) Using mySQL, Postgresql, Frontbase, or Openbase won't cut it. I can't develop to those we don't use them. There is no official J2EE release for Mac OS X. And yes I am aware that you can use one from a JBoss distribution or some other source. There is no JBuilder for Enterprise available for OS X. There is no Visual Studio. There is no Visual Age. No Websphere, No IPlanet, No Vignette, or any other application I deal with in my everyday life. Therefore, OS X Server and hardware have ZERO to offer me. I'm sure everyone's favorite board member Larry Ellison feels the same way, because he hasn't ported 8i to OS X. He has no reason to. Apple doesn't have the hardware to run it and doesn't command any respect in the enterprise for Oracle to make the effort. Now go design something. And will you're at it, tell me how Photoshop, Premiere and Final Cut can tell me how many transactions per minute I can achieve on my hardware.

Once again you've completely side-stepped my two very simple and straightforward questions...ROI and a side-by-side real world challenge...

Rower_CPU
Apr 24, 2002, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
This explains the P4's good benchmark results. What about the P3, all of the Athlons, the Power3, the Power4, the RS64, the Alpha 21164 and 21264, the MIPS R12K and R14K, the UltraSPARC, the Itanium, and the PA-RISC? Is the PowerPC so unique that any benchmarking done on it is wildly inaccurate and irrelevant?

Again. If it looks slow and smells slow... it's probably slow (at everything not heavily hand-optimized for AltiVec).

Alex

I'll have to check the specs on all of those CPUs and get back to you.
BTW - Here's the actual article I was referring to: http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/ (graphs at the bottom)

Funny...it says the G4 performs poorly, but it seems match or outperform the Pentium at each task. Where are you getting your results from?

alex_ant
Apr 24, 2002, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by TechLarry
>>Not taking into account service, support, reliability, etc... <<

And, of course, no IT manager worth their salt would EVER take those little, niggling details into account...

This has become so funny :)
Who said they wouldn't? Certainly not me. You have a good point. Have you been following the thread? The issue of support and reliability has already been brought up.

Alex

alex_ant
Apr 24, 2002, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Funny...it says the G4 performs poorly, but it seems match or outperform the Pentium at each task.
Yes... the 1GHz Pentium III. Which is pretty obsolete today. And don't forget the G4's raw FP speed, which is anemic. If you want to put the 1GHz G4 up against a processor of equal cost, the Athlon XP 2100 actually costs less and will piss all over the G4, AltiVec or no AltiVec. (I heard a figure that Motorola charges $250 for the 1GHz Apollo in quantities of 10,000... it sounds about right.)

Please be aware that I'm not slagging off the Mac. As I said, I think it's a great platform, and I wouldn't want to use anything else as my main computer. But the topic right now seems to be servers and raw CPU performance, and this is one area where the Mac just does not cut it, no matter which way you look at it.
Where are you getting your results from?
http://www.mtl.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~nminoru/memo/spec_cpu2000.html

It's in Japanese, but the graphs are still readable.

Alex

alex_ant
Apr 24, 2002, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Once again you've completely side-stepped my two very simple and straightforward questions...ROI and a side-by-side real world challenge...
I'm just curious about that challenge you've offered. The Mac is slower and generally less capable than just about everything else available as a server at the same price point, as we've already established. What do you need proven that the very telling statistics already presented to you don't? Do you think that the Power Mac has some sort of secret speed-booster chip on the motherboard that causes it to defy all benchmarks but shoot ahead in the real world? Gjohns has already brought up software compatibility. I've brought up CPU performance. What else do you need? Memory bandwidth statistics (on which the Mac will get demolished)? I/O performance statistics? Transactions per second, hits per second, network streams per second, what?

It just sounds like you're unwilling to accept the fact that the Mac is a relatively poor-performing server with a limited selection of proprietary software. Which is not to say it's necessarily a bad choice... I mean, I just don't understand - it seems like the only reason you could possibly be requesting a real-world challenge is because 1) you're hoping your challenge-ee will decline, therefore giving you victory by default, or 2) you are simply too blindly devoted to Apple to believe that the Mac might not possibly be the best choice for every task for which it is marketed, and you are in denial about the fact that it isn't.

Alex

eric_n_dfw
Apr 24, 2002, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

Yes... the 1GHz Pentium III. Which is pretty obsolete today. And don't forget the G4's raw FP speed, which is anemic. If you want to put the 1GHz G4 up against a processor of equal cost, the Athlon XP 2100 actually costs less and will piss all over the G4, AltiVec or no AltiVec. (I heard a figure that Motorola charges $250 for the 1GHz Apollo in quantities of 10,000... it sounds about right.)
[/B]
But you really can't say "AltiVec or no AltiVec". Look at the RC5 stats or QuickTime rendering times. Code that takes advantage of AltiVec smokes that which uses MMX/SSE/etc... on the x86 chips at even twice the clock speed.

alex_ant
Apr 24, 2002, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
But you really can't say "AltiVec or no AltiVec". Look at the RC5 stats or QuickTime rendering times. Code that takes advantage of AltiVec smokes that which uses MMX/SSE/etc... on the x86 chips at even twice the clock speed.
Fair enough. As I said before, the G4 with AltiVec will do better at some specialized tasks, like those like RC5 and QuickTime And FCP and Photoshop filters which are able to do well with mad single-precision FP ability.

Alex

Rower_CPU
Apr 24, 2002, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
Please be aware that I'm not slagging off the Mac. As I said, I think it's a great platform, and I wouldn't want to use anything else as my main computer. But the topic right now seems to be servers and raw CPU performance, and this is one area where the Mac just does not cut it, no matter which way you look at it.

I understand. I never meant to imply that the G4 would beat the P4 in EVERY task out there. I just don't like it when people look at one aspect of a chip's performance and dismiss it entirely.

I am painfully aware of the shortcomings of the PPCs. My 1.33 GHz Athlon rig is much faster in certain applications. But for what I do, the G4 is a far better chip. And I don't have to deal with the horrible Windows OS.

I'm really looking forward to advances in Moto's technology (DDR, RapidIO, etc.). Apple definitely needs some new technology to remain competitive. :)

eirik
Apr 24, 2002, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

Intel's compiler optimizes for both MMX and SSE automatically. There is no such compiler that optimizes for AltiVec.

Again. If it looks slow and smells slow... it's probably slow (at everything not heavily hand-optimized for AltiVec).

Alex [/B]

Alex,

What you said about SIMD implementations, quoted above, confuses the hell out of me. From what I've read, it is the other way around.

AltiVec is a generalized vector processor or co-processor. Exploiting AltiVec is generally accomplished by writing your algorithms in terms of vector/matrix operations. That's it, the compiler does the rest.

MMX, SSE, and AMD's flavor (?), are actually much more specialized for multimedia applications. While more specialized, I don't believe there are such convenient functions that one can simply call and get an instant photoshop filter, per se.

In fact, from what I've read, the x86 world is lacking in SIMD optimized applications because implementation is actually harder on the x86 platforms. Has this changed in the last three years? Has Intel finally made it simple?

Well, this is what I've read in every head to head comparison of the SIMD architectures. I haven't actually done any programming in this myself. So, there's a grain of salt to go with this post.

Has anybody on this thread actually programmed in both G4 and x86 SIMD?

Eirik

alex_ant
Apr 24, 2002, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by eirik


Alex,

What you said about SIMD implementations, quoted above, confuses the hell out of me. From what I've read, it is the other way around.

AltiVec is a generalized vector processor or co-processor. Exploiting AltiVec is generally accomplished by writing your algorithms in terms of vector/matrix operations. That's it, the compiler does the rest.

MMX, SSE, and AMD's flavor (?), are actually much more specialized for multimedia applications. While more specialized, I don't believe there are such convenient functions that one can simply call and get an instant photoshop filter, per se.

In fact, from what I've read, the x86 world is lacking in SIMD optimized applications because implementation is actually harder on the x86 platforms. Has this changed in the last three years? Has Intel finally made it simple?

Well, this is what I've read in every head to head comparison of the SIMD architectures. I haven't actually done any programming in this myself. So, there's a grain of salt to go with this post.

Has anybody on this thread actually programmed in both G4 and x86 SIMD?

Eirik
There's an equally-sized grain of salt to go with my post as well. I was under the impression that although there was no suitable parallel to AltiVec in the x86 world, the SIMD implementations on x86, although somewhat ugly hacks in comparison to AltiVec, are actually taken into account by Intel's compilers without any extra effort on the part of the programmer. I was also under the impression that, while AltiVec does not need to be written for specifically, it does require code to be written in terms of vector/matrix operations... which will render said code sub-optimal on a chip without an onboard vector unit. The Apple C compiler (GCC 2.95.2 is it?) will not vectorize non-vector code for you - you have to do it yourself.

Although I could be entirely full of it... :p

Alex

eirik
Apr 24, 2002, 09:38 PM
Alex,

I think we're totally in agreement.

I especially like your point about vector/matrix operations. It hadn't ocurred to me that if a platform handles vector/matrix operations poorly, very general operations BTW, then portis to that platform would suck.

On the other hand, with the x86 SIMD implementations, if you port to another platform, from what I understand, the software won't work at all because the functions are too specialized.

I hope somebody whose worked with both can help us better understand the x86 SIMD shortcomings.

Eirik

TechLarry
Apr 25, 2002, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

Who said they wouldn't? Certainly not me. You have a good point. Have you been following the thread? The issue of support and reliability has already been brought up.

Alex

Who could _possibly_ follow this thread? The 'conditions' keep changing!

Which is basically the point I'm trying to make :)

To indicate how out of hand it's gotten, please remember that the INITIAL, ridiculous post was the guy claiming he could build a dual-processor computer system for under $500.

And here we are :)

TL

gjohns01
Apr 25, 2002, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by TechLarry


Who could _possibly_ follow this thread? The 'conditions' keep changing!

Which is basically the point I'm trying to make :)

To indicate how out of hand it's gotten, please remember that the INITIAL, ridiculous post was the guy claiming he could build a dual-processor computer system for under $500.

And here we are :)

TL

Guess what buddy. Ridiculous? NOT! Do a little digging on PriceWatch and you can pick up the following.

ECS D6VAA Dual P3 Mother board - $49
2 x Pentium III 733 - $84/per
512MB DIMM - $65
16x10x40 CD-RW - $37
40GB Hard Drive - $52
Geforce2 MX200 32MB - $30
Creative Labs SoundBlaster Live 5.1 - $26
Generic Tower Case with 400W PS. - $25
Floppy Drive - $3
MS Natural Elite Keyboard - $14
MS Intellimouse Explorer - $27
---------------------------------
Grand Total - $492

What?!!?! Sounds like a dual processor system to me. Oh so sorry forgot the NIC. You can grab a Netgear for $6. So it's still good. I just happened to have extra parts lying around. But it's completely possible. Throw in Linux or a BSD. You have a $500 low end server. Is there anything else you'd like to be schooled on Larry?

TechLarry
Apr 26, 2002, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by gjohns01


Guess what buddy. Ridiculous? NOT! Do a little digging on PriceWatch and you can pick up the following.

ECS D6VAA Dual P3 Mother board - $49
2 x Pentium III 733 - $84/per
512MB DIMM - $65
16x10x40 CD-RW - $37
40GB Hard Drive - $52
Geforce2 MX200 32MB - $30
Creative Labs SoundBlaster Live 5.1 - $26
Generic Tower Case with 400W PS. - $25
Floppy Drive - $3
MS Natural Elite Keyboard - $14
MS Intellimouse Explorer - $27
---------------------------------
Grand Total - $492

What?!!?! Sounds like a dual processor system to me. Oh so sorry forgot the NIC. You can grab a Netgear for $6. So it's still good. I just happened to have extra parts lying around. But it's completely possible. Throw in Linux or a BSD. You have a $500 low end server. Is there anything else you'd like to be schooled on Larry?

And what a mighty fine system it is :)

TL

gjohns01
Apr 26, 2002, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by TechLarry


And what a mighty fine system it is :)

TL

:) The point is that it can be done. If someone would like to build a system that matches and/or exceeds the current top of the line Mac, they can do it for a roughly 1/2 the price. Let's see a maxed out G4 Server for $7400 versus the following:

SuperMicro P4DC6+ Dual Xeon Mobo w/ 2 x 2ghz Xeon processors - $1461
Adaptec Raptor Zero-CH Raid Card - $273
4 x 512MB RIMM - $122/per
SuperMicro 4U Rackmount/Tower Chasis w Power Supply and 7 Ultra160 SCSI hot swap carriers - $425
3 x Seagate 73 GB 10000RPM Ultra-160 Drives - $385/per
2 x SMC Networks Gigabit Ethernet Card - $102/per
-----------------
Total $4006 - throw in another $100+ for cd-rom, sound, video, keyboard and mouse. You've got a machine that will out do your best with hardware raid and dual gigabit NICS.

All I was suggesting in my initial statement was that Apple needs to really price better and take steps into the enterprise where I would love for them to be. I used to use my Mac everyday, now it's powered off. The situation is getting increasingly worse because Intel, AMD, Microsoft are not sitting idle. Altivec or no Altivec, the better design won't keep up with raw power for long. And without the dev tools and software I need to work with I can't justify buying another one.