PDA

View Full Version : G5 is behind yet again. AMD FX-53 announced


Dont Hurt Me
Mar 18, 2004, 04:02 PM
Well it looks like AMD has taken their Fx series to another high without increasing the core voltage. now running at 2.4 ghz. this is one mean chip but you can read more herehttp://www.legitreviews.com/reviews/fx53 turns out this chip can run at 2.6 with little problem. I think it time for Apple to at least start putting those older G5s in every product and release those 90nm G5s in powermacs. If not it will be the G4 game allover again. By the way this is a 64 bit CPU from AMD.

JesseJames
Mar 18, 2004, 04:40 PM
Ahhh dude, I ain't worried. I'm sure Steve has something up his sleeve. He got outpaced before and I don't think he'll let it get as bad as before.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 18, 2004, 05:22 PM
AMD has a very nice processor there if you ask me, I would say that since they have released a 2.4 vesion of this 64 bit Cpu then we should see Apples next bump in the coming month. One thing I noticed was that this was still on the 130 nm process. Intel is falling a little behind. This is the ultimate gamers chip from the benches they posted at Toms Hardware.

Counterfit
Mar 18, 2004, 05:28 PM
I don't think he'd waste the 970 FX on the PowerMac, probably need all they can for the PowerBook. I still think we could use a PM update soon, like, next week. Been a while, and I'm wondering if we'll actually see 3GHz by summer...

invaLPsion
Mar 18, 2004, 05:28 PM
We don't need powermac updates at 2.4 GHz. We need them at higher clock speeds. That way the powermac will be the temporary numer one again, and maybe even a longer number one.

I still am going to buy a rev B however, no matter what the speed.

invaLPsion
Mar 18, 2004, 05:34 PM
If you take a look at the specs and the price it's not worth it. It shows speed increases of only 6% over the 3400+! Overall, it is a mere 8% difference. Hardly noticeable... :rolleyes:

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 18, 2004, 05:47 PM
If you take a look at the specs and the price it's not worth it. It shows speed increases of only 6% over the 3400+! Overall, it is a mere 8% difference. Hardly noticeable... :rolleyes:what you are missing is that it is a increase.

Bigheadache
Mar 18, 2004, 05:50 PM
Not sure why some people are so hung up on the beating the clock speed of an Athlon64. By the time they start actually shipping in quantities faster G5s will probably be available.

Personally I think the biggest point of differentiation is PowerMacs are rumored to be going all dual processors. Athlon64s cannot be used as dual processors, for that you need Opteron 2xx's with their extra HT links. I don't believe Opteron 250 (2.4Ghz) are available yet (I could be wrong), and besides, Opterons tend to be pricey.

Dippo
Mar 18, 2004, 06:09 PM
If you take a look at the specs and the price it's not worth it. It shows speed increases of only 6% over the 3400+! Overall, it is a mere 8% difference. Hardly noticeable... :rolleyes:


You are missing the fact that the FX-53 comes with a dual channel memory subsystem.

Look at the difference:
http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1079620909XLankjgaRT_1_4_l.gif

Now if only AMD would implement HyperThreading then we would be in business.
Of course I would guess HT is patented by Intel?

Dippo
Mar 18, 2004, 06:19 PM
Not sure why some people are so hung up on the beating the clock speed of an Athlon64. By the time they start actually shipping in quantities faster G5s will probably be available.

Personally I think the biggest point of differentiation is PowerMacs are rumored to be going all dual processors. Athlon64s cannot be used as dual processors, for that you need Opteron 2xx's with their extra HT links. I don't believe Opteron 250 (2.4Ghz) are available yet (I could be wrong), and besides, Opterons tend to be pricey.


I have to agree, even Intel has realized that clock speed is no longer a good indication of overall speed (Intel to drive home chip-numbering system in May (http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-5174895.html?tag=nefd_top) ).

And the Operaton 250's are not out yet...but the 2.2Ghz Opteron 248 is out and costs about $900 each!

invaLPsion
Mar 18, 2004, 07:54 PM
what you are missing is that it is a increase.

VERY TRUE!

COME ON APPLE!

~Shard~
Mar 18, 2004, 10:00 PM
Let's hope we see the Rev B G5 PMs soon. I don't mind if we don't see the 3 GHz right away, but if we don't I'll definitely be expecting them in August, like Jobs promised - if they don't show up, I'll be very disappointed!

Ensoniq
Mar 18, 2004, 10:34 PM
Okay, let's see: Brand new chip that isn't shipping in any real widely marketed systems may be a little better than a 9 month old G5 chip. Wow, that is SO AMAZING! Apple should just fire everyone and close shop tomorrow.

The PPC 970 FX is ready to go, and is guaranteed to be in Apple's next machines. We don't even know yet what the maximum speeds IBM will ship are yet, and we're claiming that it won't be good enough.

How about we pit the AMD and G5 machines against each other in real tests when both are ready to go. Pissing all over yourself based on a few specs on a piece of paper isn't exactly a scientific argument proving ANYTHING.

Apple and IBM have long term plans, and both know exactly what AMD and Intel are up to. If, god forbid, AMD has a faster chip for 3 whole months, who cares? Is the complete system as good as a Dual PPC 970 FX machine will be? Or do you only care about the speedometer?

Reading the doom and gloom and obsessive speed-aholic threads all the time is sucking the life right out of most of us. Give it a rest. :)

~Shard~
Mar 18, 2004, 11:21 PM
Okay, let's see: Brand new chip that isn't shipping in any real widely marketed systems may be a little better than a 9 month old G5 chip. Wow, that is SO AMAZING! Apple should just fire everyone and close shop tomorrow.

The PPC 970 FX is ready to go, and is guaranteed to be in Apple's next machines. We don't even know yet what the maximum speeds IBM will ship are yet, and we're claiming that it won't be good enough.

How about we pit the AMD and G5 machines against each other in real tests when both are ready to go. Pissing all over yourself based on a few specs on a piece of paper isn't exactly a scientific argument proving ANYTHING.

Apple and IBM have long term plans, and both know exactly what AMD and Intel are up to. If, god forbid, AMD has a faster chip for 3 whole months, who cares? Is the complete system as good as a Dual PPC 970 FX machine will be? Or do you only care about the speedometer?

Reading the doom and gloom and obsessive speed-aholic threads all the time is sucking the life right out of most of us. Give it a rest. :)

I'll second that - well put. If all you care about is processor speed, then go ahead and buy an AMD and just forget about all the other hardware components that make a system great, as well as the advantages of using a Mac from an app/OS/user-friendly perspective. I agree - let's just wait until both machines are out, do the tests, and then we'll see. And you know what? Even if the new AMD outperforms the new G5 PMs in raw processor power, the AMD will lose in my books due to Windows vs. Panther, among many other points...

absolut_mac
Mar 19, 2004, 12:22 AM
By the way this is a 64 bit CPU from AMD.

AMD = Always Melting Down.

If you like blue screens and rebooting often, then AMD is the chip for you :D

altair
Mar 19, 2004, 01:20 AM
Phew, good thing that new AMD is coming out, my intensive use of IE, Word, email, and WinAmp, as well as my crazy game playing with Counterstrike and The Sims, has been making my 2month old AMD 2.2ghz chip so slooooowwwww. Now i can browse teh web even faster!!!!!!

Come on people, at what point do faster speeds make any difference to the average user? sheesh. I have said it before and I will say it again, the *average* user hardly needs anythign more than a 1ghz machine, if that, my parents are fine on a 333mhz rev B iMac.

Of course if you just want a 2.4ghz chip just so you can brag about it and feel special, well, then thats a better reason then thinking you *need* it.

Altair



::disclaimer:: of course you professional types with your maya and photoshop crap dont apply to the above statement.

caveman_uk
Mar 19, 2004, 03:35 AM
Ah clockspeed, clockspeed. It seems odd that after years of going 'MHz don't matter' that mac users (when finally in a position to do so) start believing it as well :rolleyes:

Strangely, if this (http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1079200740.html) article is correct, Intel are about to diss the Megahertz myth themselves. The centrino (Banias) pentium-M technology, though running at slower clock speeds than the Pentium4 (Netburst) processors, is actually a more efficient design - doing more at lower clockspeeds. The pentium4 was designed to run at high clock speed even if it wasn't very efficient at doing it. It'd be quite nice to see Intel get shafted by a myth they created....

Savage Henry
Mar 19, 2004, 04:30 AM
G5 is still in the infancy.

Mhz numbers or not, there's still plenty o'fuel left in Big Blue's tank to support the Pro-Users needs for a good few years.

Consumer lines can then enjoy the 18 time lag before they get a taste of the high life.

No need to panic on the chip front.

briankonar
Mar 19, 2004, 05:01 AM
i haven't seen any "upgrades" to the Intel line in a long time, aside from these Extreme pieces of marketing crap. Has Intel finally hit a ceiling with their architechture or am i missing something?

Bigheadache
Mar 19, 2004, 05:08 AM
i haven't seen any "upgrades" to the Intel line in a long time, aside from these Extreme pieces of marketing crap. Has Intel finally hit a ceiling with their architechture or am i missing something?

They only just introduced the Prescott 90nm core so I imagine they will be trying to ramp that up now.

Dippo
Mar 19, 2004, 09:49 AM
AMD = Always Melting Down.

If you like blue screens and rebooting often, then AMD is the chip for you :D


I think that's a little unfair. I have used AMD processors for years and I still haven't had any chip related problems. Even the one I have that overclocks to 2.7Ghz doesn't "melt down".

Of course windows is a different matter...

Dippo
Mar 19, 2004, 09:51 AM
i haven't seen any "upgrades" to the Intel line in a long time, aside from these Extreme pieces of marketing crap. Has Intel finally hit a ceiling with their architechture or am i missing something?


Well Intel is hoping to puch their new chipset to 4.0Ghz...

But even Intel has come to realize that clockspeed isn't everything, and so they are going to copy AMD and implement a numbering scheme.

Intel to drive home chip-numbering system in May (http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-5174895.html?tag=nefd_top)

blackfox
Mar 19, 2004, 09:57 AM
Nice to see some industry competetion...the technology helps us all...but I will stay w/the chip that supports OSX. I have never been interested in bragging rights...I have a pismo and a DA733 and they are plenty fast (on the old-school G4) Later this year/early 2005 I will be updating my desktop to whatever G5 is around, and news like this can only be of positive influence. Yay for technical ingenuity, regardless of platform, I salute AMD.(still buy Apple)

GFLPraxis
Mar 19, 2004, 11:18 PM
Nice to see some industry competetion...the technology helps us all...but I will stay w/the chip that supports OSX. I have never been interested in bragging rights...I have a pismo and a DA733 and they are plenty fast (on the old-school G4) Later this year/early 2005 I will be updating my desktop to whatever G5 is around, and news like this can only be of positive influence. Yay for technical ingenuity, regardless of platform, I salute AMD.(still buy Apple)

FX-53...the difference is hardly noticeable between it and the 51.
Since the FX-51 ties or just loses to the (dual 2 ghz) G5 in most benchmarks I've seen, the FX-53 should be about an even match.

The only good thing about the FX-53 is that it means the 51 is no longer the fastest PC processor, meaning the FX-51 will be cheaper. Muwahaha!

jiggie2g
Mar 20, 2004, 06:55 AM
FX-53...the difference is hardly noticeable between it and the 51.
Since the FX-51 ties or just loses to the (dual 2 ghz) G5 in most benchmarks I've seen, the FX-53 should be about an even match.

The only good thing about the FX-53 is that it means the 51 is no longer the fastest PC processor, meaning the FX-51 will be cheaper. Muwahaha!


Actually the FX-51 mops the Floor with the G5 and P4 in just about every category except Video Encoding where Altivec and Hypertreading are utilized. Check Mac and PC world Plus add to the Fact that FX-51 systems are like $500-$700 less than a Dual 2Ghz G5. I find this Disturbing that even if the G5 was slightly Faster we are still talking about just 1 chip Vs. 2 , and their is no excuse like with the P4's because of Higher Clock speed. The FX is only 2.2 Ghz on 1 Processor Vs. Dual 2Ghz G5's . u see why Jobs won't dare try one of his cute little Photoshop tests against an AMD chip. Chip per chip clock per clock the Athlon 64/FX is just the Best Processor in the Market. The Numbers they put up expecially in games are just incredible. Then to add that they whip P4's that are clocked atleast 1-1.4ghz higher than them. This just goes to show you how much time and effort AMD put into this chip it's Arcitecture is Amazing.

AMD is the New Speed King the Athlon64 3400+ is just as fast as an FX-51 and is only $410, FX-53's are already on sale at Newegg.com for $800 and AMD will soon be rolling the Athlon64 3600+ in late April.

I'll soon be Building my own Athlon64 System as soon as they Bring out a 4000+ model and PCI-X ,FW800 motherboards are out come summer.

~Shard~
Mar 20, 2004, 07:40 AM
AMD is the New Speed King the Athlon64 3400+ is just as fast as an FX-51 and is only $410, FX-53's are already on sale at Newegg.com for $800 and AMD will soon be rolling the Athlon64 3600+ in late April.

I'll soon be Building my own Athlon64 System as soon as they Bring out a 4000+ model and PCI-X ,FW800 motherboards are out come summer.

If speed is all you care about then go nuts! Me, I prefer the ease of use, reliabliity, user friendliness, stability - well, I could go on and on - of a Mac. There are so many more benefits in my opinion that Macs have over PCs, well, a faster chip doesn't make up for all the shortcomings of PCs and Windows.

But, from your above comment, it sounds like you NEED the absolute fastest machine, NEED PCI-X and NEED FW800, so if that's the case, then go right ahead. I'm curious, what type of intense video/graphics design, audio remastering, and other pro applications are you using? And how many PCI-X/FW800 devices do you have?

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 20, 2004, 07:42 AM
Here are some earlier benches, it must be noted that both are not running in 64 bit mode yet, I just find it interesting. also i see a lot of Mac Zealots refuse to think anyone but Mac sells a good system.
Apple has a history of selling overpriced and underperforming hardware most of the yrs I have been using Macs. We all know of the G4 fiasco. I feel Apple has to stop being so stingy with its hardware and start selling at least hardware that matches the other side in all products. This is evident in the consumer line big time. I know people are busting on AMD but from what i have read this CPU in a Aurora is a screamer and sells for what the dual 2.0 G5 does. One more note and that is this bench is a little unfair because its 2 cpu's vs 1.
sorry for the small picture,how can you increase these attachments size? just click on it for a better view.

~Shard~
Mar 20, 2004, 07:42 AM
Hmm, I thought there used to be a thing called "the megahertz myth", that Apple users always used to bash the Intel world for trying to take advantage of - based on some posts in this thread, it sounds like that some Mac users are now falling into this trap themselves... curious and amusing...

blue&whiteman
Mar 20, 2004, 08:14 AM
I wouldn't care if PC's were 100 times faster. I would still use macs.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 20, 2004, 08:16 AM
I wouldn't care if PC's were 100 times faster. I would still use macs.and so would those 2 out 100 new computer buyers. :rolleyes: that really helps the platform.

edesignuk
Mar 20, 2004, 08:21 AM
I wouldn't care if PC's were 100 times faster. I would still use macs.
You might, but anyone with anything serious to do would not. Time is money, and rendering or whatever on a machine "100" times faster would save a lot of time.

Dont Hurt Me, I wouldn't even bother trying to argue your case here. It's pointless, you know how people are. We've been in many of these types of threads. You're just wasting your breath, you'll never get your point accross, and people will bury their heads in the sand spouting "windows blows, it BSODS, it crashes, you get virii blah blah" :rolleyes:

jiggie2g
Mar 20, 2004, 08:47 AM
If speed is all you care about then go nuts! Me, I prefer the ease of use, reliabliity, user friendliness, stability - well, I could go on and on - of a Mac. There are so many more benefits in my opinion that Macs have over PCs, well, a faster chip doesn't make up for all the shortcomings of PCs and Windows.

But, from your above comment, it sounds like you NEED the absolute fastest machine, NEED PCI-X and NEED FW800, so if that's the case, then go right ahead. I'm curious, what type of intense video/graphics design, audio remastering, and other pro applications are you using? And how many PCI-X/FW800 devices do you have?


Wow must have hit a Nerve.... The Mac Nuts Strike Back

Well let state that I am a Mac user and the Proud owner of a 15in iMac G4 800Mhz w/ Superdrive. My comments were pretty Much for the sole Purpose of saying that the Athlon FX/64 chips kick ass. but i see ur Ignorance and Blind Loyalty to a Platform impair your judgement and cause you to make stupid remarks. I Love Apple and Really like the G5, But I refuse to spend $3000 on a PC that get's it's ass kicked by a computer that cost nearly $1,000 less (refering to Athlon64 3400+). Power Macs are Nice but are Grossley Over Priced and Apple always loves to Cripple the Consumer Line Macs either with a Much Slower Processor , Less Ram or a Missing feature here and there ,in fear of a having Power Mac Sales eaten up.

This Leaves me in a Catch 22 Because a Low end Power Mac would be Overpriced and Underpowered. but High end consumer is even less powerful even though the price may be right. Apple seems to Ignore a Increasing Demand of the Prosumer Market. so someone like myself would be better off just buying an AMD Machine because I would get much more for my money , let's face it $2000 on the Apple side gets you a Half ass 1.6 G5 while $2000 on the windows side can get u a freakin Rocket ship, I can config a

Athlon 64 3400+ ,
1GB DDR400mhz Corsairs XMS ,
2 120GB Seagate SATA drives in Raid 0
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256MB DDR2
8X DVD+-R/RW / 52X CD-RW / 7 in 1 Multicard reader
Cooler Master Wavemaster Case Black or Silver Anodized Alu
all this and more for just under $2000
I set this up and i gurantee this Machine will Destroy any G5 and still be $1000-1500 less depending on G5 Config.

Now i'm not Bashing the G5 or Apple just saying that there is still Large Gap in terms of Hardware value. Apple just likes to Hold back or be cheap with thier Components.

Lastly to the Rude person who flamed me. my reason for waithing for a 4000+ chip is because it's right around the corner and will be priced the same as the 3400+ is now , and while at this moment I may not need FW800 and PCI-X, I will and so will u eventually so i'd rather purchase a MotherBoard that's as Future ready as possible. G5's have PCI-X and FW800 already. so by fall i Predict the 4000+chips along with Motherboards that support PCI-X, FW800 will be out. just at the right time i plan to make my next Comp Purchase. Which will be Perfect for My DV Editing , Games and Photoshop.

P.S. Alienware Aurora's Kick ASS

LethalWolfe
Mar 20, 2004, 09:09 AM
Here are some earlier benches, it must be noted that both are not running in 64 bit mode yet, I just find it interesting. also i see a lot of Mac Zealots refuse to think anyone but Mac sells a good system.
Apple has a history of selling overpriced and underperforming hardware most of the yrs I have been using Macs. We all know of the G4 fiasco. I feel Apple has to stop being so stingy with its hardware and start selling at least hardware that matches the other side in all products. This is evident in the consumer line big time. I know people are busting on AMD but from what i have read this CPU in a Aurora is a screamer and sells for what the dual 2.0 G5 does. One more note and that is this bench is a little unfair because its 2 cpu's vs 1.
sorry for the small picture,how can you increase these attachments size? just click on it for a better view.


OMG I can't believe you posted the results of those half-@ssed PCworld tests from last fall.


Lethal

ingenious
Mar 20, 2004, 09:42 AM
AMD = Always Melting Down.

If you like blue screens and rebooting often, then AMD is the chip for you :D


Still, if i absolutely HAD to buy a PC for something (which i hope never happens!) then i would go the AMD way instead of Intel- It seems that AMD's actually live up to their numbers and Intel (esp. Celeron) just stick on a number and says thats what it is.

~Shard~
Mar 20, 2004, 09:44 AM
Wow must have hit a Nerve....
... My comments were pretty Much for the sole Purpose of saying that the Athlon FX/64 chips kick ass. but i see ur Ignorance and Blind Loyalty to a Platform impair your judgement and cause you to make stupid remarks.


A word of advice - if you want your comments and points of view to be taken seriously by others, perhaps you shouldn't resort to immature behavior like calling people "ignorant" and saying that they "make stupid remarks". This completely destroys your creditbillity and it's hard to take anyone seriously who simply resorts to petty behavior like insulting people when they don't like their point of view. In fact, from your response, it seems like YOU are the one who had a nerve hit. ;)

I was simply stating my opinion, that I prefer Macs over PCs, and that speed is not a factor for me. I completely realize it is for some people and I appreciate that. I then questioned quite legitamately what you were requiring all that power for, and inquired about your usage. No need to get so defensive - calm down my friend!

Lastly to the Rude person who flamed me

Please identify who you are referring to - I have read no posts in which you have been flamed. The definition of a flame is "a searing e-mail or newsgroup message in which the writer attacks another participant in overly harsh, and often personal, terms". Please show me where you have been attacked harshly and on personal terms. Once again, you need to relax - I believe you are the one with the nerve that has been hit! I'm sure many members herer are silently chuckling at your overreacting over all of this...

So just calm down, relax, buy your new AMD, and enjoy it! AMD makes great chips, and you can get a great system for less than a G5. It's all pretty simple, no need to lower yourself to insulting people, overreacting and becomg so defensive! :cool:

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 20, 2004, 04:07 PM
Wow must have hit a Nerve.... The Mac Nuts Strike Back

Well let state that I am a Mac user and the Proud owner of a 15in iMac G4 800Mhz w/ Superdrive. My comments were pretty Much for the sole Purpose of saying that the Athlon FX/64 chips kick ass. but i see ur Ignorance and Blind Loyalty to a Platform impair your judgement and cause you to make stupid remarks. I Love Apple and Really like the G5, But I refuse to spend $3000 on a PC that get's it's ass kicked by a computer that cost nearly $1,000 less (refering to Athlon64 3400+). Power Macs are Nice but are Grossley Over Priced and Apple always loves to Cripple the Consumer Line Macs either with a Much Slower Processor , Less Ram or a Missing feature here and there ,in fear of a having Power Mac Sales eaten up.

This Leaves me in a Catch 22 Because a Low end Power Mac would be Overpriced and Underpowered. but High end consumer is even less powerful even though the price may be right. Apple seems to Ignore a Increasing Demand of the Prosumer Market. so someone like myself would be better off just buying an AMD Machine because I would get much more for my money , let's face it $2000 on the Apple side gets you a Half ass 1.6 G5 while $2000 on the windows side can get u a freakin Rocket ship, I can config a

Athlon 64 3400+ ,
1GB DDR400mhz Corsairs XMS ,
2 120GB Seagate SATA drives in Raid 0
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256MB DDR2
8X DVD+-R/RW / 52X CD-RW / 7 in 1 Multicard reader
Cooler Master Wavemaster Case Black or Silver Anodized Alu
all this and more for just under $2000
I set this up and i gurantee this Machine will Destroy any G5 and still be $1000-1500 less depending on G5 Config.

Now i'm not Bashing the G5 or Apple just saying that there is still Large Gap in terms of Hardware value. Apple just likes to Hold back or be cheap with thier Components.

Lastly to the Rude person who flamed me. my reason for waithing for a 4000+ chip is because it's right around the corner and will be priced the same as the 3400+ is now , and while at this moment I may not need FW800 and PCI-X, I will and so will u eventually so i'd rather purchase a MotherBoard that's as Future ready as possible. G5's have PCI-X and FW800 already. so by fall i Predict the 4000+chips along with Motherboards that support PCI-X, FW800 will be out. just at the right time i plan to make my next Comp Purchase. Which will be Perfect for My DV Editing , Games and Photoshop.

P.S. Alienware Aurora's Kick ASSCant agree with you more, as a long time Mac user i to have come to the conclusion that for over $1000 less I can have a machine that matches or exceeds the dual G5 2.0. my conclusion is the Aurora with AMDs 64 bit 3400+ and a top video card. I can compare this machine price wise to a 1.6 single G5 and the 1.6 isnt even close performance wise. Apple still has not made up for the years of motostagnation. Aurora is a kick ass machine otherwise there wouldnt be so many publications saying so.It seems to be the benchmark in the PC world these days. seems review after review holds this machine in high status. And i can choose every componet and my color. I do love Macs software and so decided to wait to see what they do with Powermacs and the Imac line but right now there is no comparison. a Alienware Aurora blows the Imac right out the door, and matches dual G5s with no problem. Imac has a great form factor but im sure Apple will make a nice machine stale so it dont hurt Powermac sales and Powerbook sales.

adamjay
Mar 20, 2004, 04:28 PM
my livelihood does not depend on the 2 second differential it takes to render a quicktime movie.

it DOES depend on not getting the blue screen of death on stage in front of 2,500 people.

so, yea, i'll stick with the mac. ;)

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 20, 2004, 04:58 PM
my livelihood does not depend on the 2 second differential it takes to render a quicktime movie.

it DOES depend on not getting the blue screen of death on stage in front of 2,500 people.

so, yea, i'll stick with the mac. ;)I respect that to a point,my livelihood doesnt so much depend on the mac though i use it to print my bills and letterhead and business envelopes. ill still have a mac(own2 at the moment or make that 3 daughter is using) but i like to play current games at the end of the day and the Aurora is very hard to beat. plus there is just so much on the otherside software wise and i can walk into any store and find it. Then that Aurora is very cool with its colors, saucer silver with blue alien ice and is laid out on the inside very much like the new G5s. very little clutter. AMD has some nice cpu's and they have cool and quiet so they throttle down when not being pushed. one more thing is they are making constant advances and have not even gone to the 90nm process yet so their future to me looks as bright as the G5 or even brighter since they sell a lot more then Apple can with its only 1 product with G5s. heres a picture in case you are interested in a Nasty and Fast PC.

jiggie2g
Mar 20, 2004, 06:01 PM
Aurora's are Killer Machines , even HP has some great AMD 64 configs for the Money. Dell can go 2 Hell I can't stand those Ugly Boxes.

I can still Config a DIY(do-it yourself) PC for less and be better spec 4 spec than the Aurora. Thats the only realy thing that I love about the Windows side is that u have a choice , u have options. You can either buy a Box like the Aurora or DIY and cherry pick your components. your not stuck with whatever Apple feels is adequate. Apple likes to put cheap Componets and Jack up the price, that just pisses me off because the PC that u really want you can't afford Honsetly there is no reason a $3000+ G5 should not come with the absolute best Parts standard (Raid, Radeon 9800Pro , 7.1 Soundcard ,Wireless Keyboard ,Wireless 2 Button Mouse ...Jobs stop being a Prick and just give us a damn 2 button wheel mouse already).

See if i'm going to Spend $3000 on a freakin' G5 i demand the absolute best Both hardware and software. That piece of mind of having a PC that is hardly ever crashes is still not going to make me forget that I overspent $1,000+ on a Comp that is not any faster or in some cases slower than PC's
costing a 1/3rd Less.

I am not like some of these Mac Heads that let thier Blind Loyalty keep them from seeing the Obvious (that in the Hardware dept the current crop of Macs are not a good deal and still have a ways to go. i mean come'on 9 months and still no G5 Updates , are we are back to the Motorola Days again....Apple get your ***** Together). My Loyalty is to My Money getting the Best Bang for my Buck and if at the time of a PC purchase Mac's offer a Bettter option then i will go Mac if not I will go AMD.


Check out those CoolerMaster Wavemaster's (Black Anodized Alu makes me Drool).

This goes Back to what every Analyst , and PC expert says. for Macs to survive in the long run as a Desktop they have to go Intel/AMD. cuz in the end IBM will Dump Apple just like Moto did as Apples Market share continues to shrink. Macs will not sell well enough for IBM to Justify the Production cost. IBM will most likely just Make G5's for XBox 2 when it is all said and done. Apple in 2 yrs can go AMD and occupy the Place Sony's Vaio once had.

My Dream PC Aurora AMD FX-53 Running OSX

Dippo
Mar 20, 2004, 06:04 PM
I respect that to a point,my livelihood doesnt so much depend on the mac though i use it to print my bills and letterhead and business envelopes. ill still have a mac(own2 at the moment or make that 3 daughter is using) but i like to play current games at the end of the day and the Aurora is very hard to beat. plus there is just so much on the otherside software wise and i can walk into any store and find it. Then that Aurora is very cool with its colors, saucer silver with blue alien ice and is laid out on the inside very much like the new G5s. very little clutter. AMD has some nice cpu's and they have cool and quiet so they throttle down when not being pushed. one more thing is they are making constant advances and have not even gone to the 90nm process yet so their future to me looks as bright as the G5 or even brighter since they sell a lot more then Apple can with its only 1 product with G5s. heres a picture in case you are interested in a Nasty and Fast PC.

Just to be fair, I must point out that Alienware isn't known for their inexpensive PC's. The top of the line system that you pictured cost $3,200.

Personally I prefer to build my own rig...

Of course AMD does have some nice processors (I am running an AMD at the moment), and if I remember correctly they license some of their tech from IBM.

I am sure Apple and IBM are working very had to bring us some faster G5's...I think that the transistion to 90nm might have been tougher than expected. Of course the FX-53 is still made using 130nm.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 20, 2004, 07:30 PM
Actually the rig I posted you can get for under 2 grand with a 9800xt in it. jiggie2g im not sure what that is that you posted? is that a current model or older model?
Apple lovers must realize that Apple has been screwing them in the hardware dept for years. sure they have allways had all the connectors,firewire usb,ethernet,etc but video options and cpu options have been piss pot poor. Without G5 they would have to be making Intel/AMD machines because Moto has been lost for years. Apple doesnt let you pick and choose much of anything. I would like these options in a single cpu flavor mac. cpu speed,video card, memory without taking my firstborn, and optical drive. Apple wont let you. :confused: they have forgotten consumer is KING not Jobs and not Apple. its their way or the PC maker. Alienware is looking Great but should i go with silver?blue?yellow?purple?black?green? with Mac its Sterile Aluminum styling from the 50s. If you pull up those posts from day 1 of G5 release a lot of us said YUK! My god ! with so many cool concepts floating around and then seeing the cheesgrate was almost to much. they need to find what they had from 98.

jiggie2g
Mar 20, 2004, 11:16 PM
Actually the rig I posted you can get for under 2 grand with a 9800xt in it. jiggie2g im not sure what that is that you posted? is that a current model or older model?
Apple lovers must realize that Apple has been screwing them in the hardware dept for years. sure they have allways had all the connectors,firewire usb,ethernet,etc but video options and cpu options have been piss pot poor. Without G5 they would have to be making Intel/AMD machines because Moto has been lost for years. Apple doesnt let you pick and choose much of anything. I would like these options in a single cpu flavor mac. cpu speed,video card, memory without taking my firstborn, and optical drive. Apple wont let you. :confused: they have forgotten consumer is KING not Jobs and not Apple. its their way or the PC maker. Alienware is looking Great but should i go with silver?blue?yellow?purple?black?green? with Mac its Sterile Aluminum styling from the 50s. If you pull up those posts from day 1 of G5 release a lot of us said YUK! My god ! with so many cool concepts floating around and then seeing the cheesgrate was almost to much. they need to find what they had from 98.

Cheesegrate LOL good one. Sorry about the confusion , Those are CoolerMaster Wave Master Cases in Silver or Black made of Anodized Aluminum, they go for $150 each and are very Solid, Tough as a Hummer. For those people saying Don't Hurt Me Posted rigged Bench marks from a PC Mag , take a look at the one's from Macworld and Look as the G5 get it's ass handed by the Aurora FX-51 and even some of the P4's in about every Benchmark except DVD encoding.

Let's face it Motorola hads delt the Mac a Fatal Wound that may not cause the Mac to die now but instead slowly bleed to death over time as marketshare continues to shrink. I like Jobs but not as the Head of Apple because he lets his Personal Feeling and Ego impair His Judgement. Hurting Apple because of his age old Grudge with Bill Gates. He's a creative Genius and Excellent Marketer , but as a Leader i don't like Him because he dosen't do what is Best for Apple ... even small things like a 2 button mouse. This little ********* just to show his Defiance towards windows , but at the same time something as simple as not having a 2 button mouse impair's a persons everyday productivity. Even Jobs has to see that the Mac in it's current form is a sinking ship and that a company cannot survive on a less than 3% marketshare. they are Living off the iPod and thier Money Surplus of $4.5bill from the old Candy iMac days which will not last them forever.

don't even get me started with the Laptops and how The Centrino's are just kiling everyone. the Pentium M is Intels Best Processor I think they go like this.
According to Voodoo PC
Pentium M
M 1.4 = 2.5 P4
M 1.5 = 2.7 P4
M 1.6 = 2.9 P4
M 1.7 = 3.06 P4

Lets See a PowerBook do That with it's Turtle speed 1.25-1.33 G4 and i've seen Centrino's get over 5hrs battery life with no prob once the batter is Conditioned right. just another Reason 4 Apple to go Intel/AMD

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 20, 2004, 11:33 PM
its almost like Motorola all over again and i do agree with you on Jobs, he is missing what consumers want. blame ego,blame status,or culture but he is out of touch with mainstream computer users or rather consumer gamers. Moto has given Apple a wound that cant seem to heal. Apple coming out and making a OS(markler or whatever it was called would stop the bleeding but another year of G4 will not) they waited to long to get rid of that monkey. 2 G5s match one Intel or AMD? before you know it we will hear more spin from Apple. I would suggest they fire some top brass and hire some down to earth people from this forum. they are out of touch. not having Games and not having Tv in the digital hub is a mistake. consumers love Tv and love gaming. If they only want to sell to the pro photoshop user then they have hit the mark of 1% marketshare.

LethalWolfe
Mar 21, 2004, 12:20 AM
I'm not trying to be flippant here but if you don't like what Apple is currently offering then buy something that you do like. I think everyone knows you don't like Apple's line-up, and haven't for sometime, sense you bring it up on a regular basis. Yes you have to pay attention to what customers want but you can't let the inmates run the asylum<sp?>. No one company can please everyone. Dell caters to certain markets. Alienware caters to certain markets. eMachines caters to certain markets. Apple caters to certain markets. If you want to play the latest games and have hardware w/the highest m/ghz rating for the lowest price then Apple is probably not the company you should be purchasing from.

And, just for ****** and giggles, don't forget that a dual proc G5 running the latest version of FCP 4 can do more streams of full res, uncompressed video than the dual 2.8ghz Xeon workstations made by HP that Avid uses for it's PC-based editing solutions. That's software only out pacing a software+hardware hybred approach.


Lethal

MrMacMan
Mar 21, 2004, 12:53 AM
AMD = Always Melting Down.

If you like blue screens and rebooting often, then AMD is the chip for you :D
Uhhh...

Not if you COOL your CPU... :o


And please stop posting about Alienware this and Alienware that.


Alienware is like apple:
OVERPRICED.

Buy the parts and assmble your own frikken coputer people!

Don't be so lame!

aswitcher
Mar 21, 2004, 01:29 AM
its almost like Motorola all over again and i do agree with you on Jobs, he is missing what consumers want. blame ego,blame status,or culture but he is out of touch with mainstream computer users or rather consumer gamers.

So if you had the Apple helm until June 2006 (2+ years), what would you do to turn things around?

yamabushi
Mar 21, 2004, 01:40 AM
LethalWolfe- If you are tired of reading posts about lackluster Apple hardware, feel free to ignore posts and threads by DHM and others that bring up this point.

I love Macs but they aren't perfect. I can't fault someone for pointing out the weak points in the platform until they get fixed. This is how something good becomes something great.

Outside criticism of business decisions made by Apple executives is valid at this time. Declining computer sales and market share is proof of failure, not an indication of success in catering to a specific market segment. Suggestions for improvement are made out of love, not hate. The most frustrating part is that many proposed solutions would be relatively easy to implement.

crackpip
Mar 21, 2004, 02:08 AM
Uhhh...

Buy the parts and assmble your own frikken coputer people!

Don't be so lame!

I'm sorry Mr133t, but the idea that all people should build their own computer is just wrong. Building your own computer is fine for people who are either experts, hobbyists or people who don't value their time, but there are many people, maybe even most, who don't fall into those categories. These people need to do real work. These people are too busy to spend the extra time making sure all their components are compatible and would rather just be playing games. In addition, some organizations (e.g. some major universities) prohibit or add extra charges (+50% in my case) to buying the parts to build the machines when using research or grant funding for example.

I've built my own computers. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who isn't an expert and values their time. I built a small cluster, and saved a couple grand. Big ****ing deal, I lost more money in downtime and lost productivity in trying to sort out various incompatibilities (some due to wrong technicians) and waiting for replacment parts. Unfortunately for me, it was just before the g5's came out and the funds needed to spent or lost; otherwise, there'd be a small cluster of g5's in my lab.

So to anyone thinking of building their first PC, consider the extra time and effort required not just the pricetag. It could be significant.

crackpip

sethypoo
Mar 21, 2004, 02:36 AM
AMD = Always Melting Down.

If you like blue screens and rebooting often, then AMD is the chip for you :D

I just want to say that that is a completely unfounded, unproven, and (what I believe to be) a very untrue statement.

AMD's are great processors, comparable to Apple's processors (yes, even the G4).

Go AMD!

jiggie2g
Mar 21, 2004, 02:36 AM
So if you had the Apple helm until June 2006 (2+ years), what would you do to turn things around?

Well if i or anyone was at the Helm it would sure take more than 2yrs to see any real progress. but here's what i Would do.

1. I know Apple was working on Marklar(x86 version of OSX) While i like the concept. If apple made any such attempt to penitrate the Windows Market head on it would be Crushed by an 800lbs Gorilla called Microsoft. They hate Linux but Ignore it for the most Part because it's not really a Treat to them on the Consumer Level , Lindows OS is a Small pebble in Microsofts shoe and I see they are already Setting up a Sledge Hammer for it with all these Petty Name Likeness Lawsuits. So Imaging how hard they would comedown on Apple if they Tried to Port OSX on Intel/AMD Hardware.

If I was head of Apple I would Give Gates what he Wants, OSX. Persuade him intergate it into Longhorn or whatever new Version of Windows in exchange for a small percentage on it's sales and the sales of future Versions that feature OSX Technology. Making a new OS. it's no secret that Gates Covets OSX it's Apparent in XP when u see all the stuff they ripp off. Let Microsoft spend Billions on R&D for the OS.

2. Port iLife to x86 and Push it to become the Dominant Consumer Creative Suite sell it for $79. along with iSight cut it to $99 or $79 bundle it with iChat AV/ AIM for Windows. Port Final Cut Pro , DVD Studio Pro and all the Pro Apps so Adobe and Avid can Piss in thier Pants.

3. Abandon the PPC Market and Switch in Wintel. Sony's Vaio is as good as dead this leaves a huge space and oppertunity for a Creative PC maker like apple to step up and show everyone that your PC dosen't have to look like crap. i'm sure Jonathan Ive can come up with some amazing designs. Probabally design an OSX emulator for x86 to ease the Transition. Imagine how iMacs would sell if they sold for $1399 with an Athlon 64's and that lovely 17in wide screen.

4. Abandon the Mac name, call it something else the name Macintosh always has a negative affect on Wintel Users , the moment they hear it they say Blah Mac's Suck. move away from that negative image. Keep the Apple Logo of course.... :-)

5. Let the Hardware Makers do the work 4 you , Let Asus, Lite-on , Pioneer, AMD, Intel, make the parts. let them fight and out bid eachother so u can carry thier hardware. you just pick them and make the Cases. now manufaturing Cost are Down. since the only hardware u makes are Desktop , note book cases , iSight and iPods. no more Costly Mother Boards to design. cut the Prices on Apple Displays to be competitive.
now since we are saving a ton on R&D and Manufaturing. we can bring those savings to the consumer by being able to sell Apple Comps at Prices Competitive to Dell and HP, but our software bundle is wayyy better and PC's actually look cool. 15in PowerBooks running Intel Pentium M Centrino fully loaded for $1999 w/real 6hr battery life.

6. Give The Consumer a Choice let them customize the Apple PC thats right 4 them , not what you feel is best. now Isn't this what made Dell King of the Hill. Offer rebates and fair trade-in's to current Mac owners who want to switch for a Limited time of course.

7. Cut Deals with Stores Best Buy, Circuit City, Walmart(i Dare say)and all the Major Players in the Consumer Electronics Retail Market.

8. Huge Marketing Campaign , call all Papers , Mags, TV Stations get free exposure. Plaster Citys with Ad's,and flood TV with Commmercials.......Apple Does Windows.

Apple does this and we'll bust the market wide open.

Just a Few Sudgestions... what do u think people?

sethypoo
Mar 21, 2004, 02:39 AM
Just a Few Sudgestions... How do u Like

Good suggesstions, but what's with the rAndom CapitaL letTers?

LethalWolfe
Mar 21, 2004, 11:00 AM
Just a Few Sudgestions... what do u think people?


If you do you first few suggestions (regarding software) you'll turn Apple into a software company, which are currently not, so your last few suggestions (regarding hardware) are moot. I don't think porting over the pro apps will go quiet as you planned it. Currently all of Apple's pro apps, heck I'd say almost all of Apple's software, is sold pretty cheaply. It's the lure to get to buy the hardware (which has the bigger mark-up on it). So Apple would have to stop under pricing their software. FCP 4 is easily a $2500 software bundle you get for $999. Couple that with an $8000 G5 (external SCSI HDDs, uncompressed capture card, monitors, etc.,) and you've got a machine that rivals about a ~$30,000 Avid. And one of the reasons Apple can do this is because they control OS X, they control FCP, and they control the hardware it runs on. And how is the Mac software bunlde going to be better when there is no more OS X and no Mac specific software? No one will buy Mac computers they'll just buy, or build, for less and run Apple software on it.

I think you are overlooking something fairly important, IMO. And that is the is the added stability and performance that can come from controlling both the hardware and the software that make up the computer. Personally I don't think the MS/x86 world can get much more stable than they are now. There are just too many variables to consider (literally millions of possible hardware, firmware, chipset, driver, proc, OS, and motherboard combonations). And MS's domination of the market works against it in a way because they have so much legacy stuff they have to support. There is no way MS could make an OS jump like Apple did from 9 to X. MS is just too big.

It sounds like you are trying to save Apple the company by sacrificing the Mac platform. I think that's a bad idea. One thing that draws customers to Apple is people looking for an alternative to Windows. It also sounds like you are trying to turn Apple into Dell and that's a bad idea IMO. Gateway tried to "out-Dell" Dell and may close its doors because of it. Apple and Dell have two widely different approaches to the computer market but they are currently the only companies in their field that keep making a profit.

Assuming the partnership w/IBM doesn't work out I think Apple would go to an AMD or Intel solution but they would still keep it a closed platform (and smartly so). You can't turn a company around in a day, and from what I've seen the Mac has been making headway the past few years. At least in terms of people's perception of the platform. 2 years ago mentioning anything about Macs on some of the PC forums I visit would have been an instant flamefest. Now, it's not instant flamebait to talk about Macs. More and more people are talking about them, less people are bashing them, and the phrase, "I wish I could afford one" is typically seen as often as "MACS sux." OS X is maturing and is turning a lot of heads and the introduction of the G5's closed the speed gap enough to make Macs comparible instead of s-l-o-w.

EDIT: I also agree that Apple needs to get G5's into the iMacs and Powerbooks as soon as possible. They are under-powered and really need to drop the stigma-heavy G4.


Lethal

adamjay
Mar 21, 2004, 11:29 AM
The last time i was in Germany, i DJ'd at a club in a little town called Hirschau in Bavaria (Population: 1200). The club owner was running OS9 on a Sawtooth and was completely happy with it. He had never seen OSX nor really heard about it that much. I showed him OSX.3 on my powerbook and he was amazed...
anyways....
As always, we had a broken-english philosophical discussion about music and such and he said something to the degree of "If i wanted to make money, i wouldn't own a club in Hirschau, i'd be doing this in Munich or Frankfurt. Obviously i do this because i love it, its in my heart." ...... and then the conversation switched to Macintosh and he ended up drawing the same parallel with Steve Jobs, between Apple and Microsoft.

and i totally agree with him. If Jobs was in it to make a ton of loot, Apple would be a company ran entirely different. But he's not (Gates is).
Its what the whole Think Different campaign was about.

If i were Jobs, i would only build computers and software within my ''vision'', because my earlier ''vision'' in Pixar made me an absolute fortune.
Then again, i wouldn't have to be Jobs because that is exactly what he is doing anyway.

blackfox
Mar 21, 2004, 01:40 PM
Well if i or anyone was at the Helm it would sure take more than 2yrs to see any real progress. but here's what i Would do.

1. I know Apple was working on Marklar(x86 version of OSX) While i like the concept. If apple made any such attempt to penitrate the Windows Market head on it would be Crushed by an 800lbs Gorilla called Microsoft. They hate Linux but Ignore it for the most Part because it's not really a Treat to them on the Consumer Level , Lindows OS is a Small pebble in Microsofts shoe and I see they are already Setting up a Sledge Hammer for it with all these Petty Name Likeness Lawsuits. So Imaging how hard they would comedown on Apple if they Tried to Port OSX on Intel/AMD Hardware.
I think OSX would actually be well-received despite any microsoft efforts, but I don't think it is going to happen(more on this later)..a good os is a good os...
If I was head of Apple I would Give Gates what he Wants, OSX. Persuade him intergate it into Longhorn or whatever new Version of Windows in exchange for a small percentage on it's sales and the sales of future Versions that feature OSX Technology. Making a new OS. it's no secret that Gates Covets OSX it's Apparent in XP when u see all the stuff they ripp off. Let Microsoft spend Billions on R&D for the OS.
This runs counter to the spirit of open competion and would lead to the dissolution of Apple...bad idea...
2. Port iLife to x86 and Push it to become the Dominant Consumer Creative Suite sell it for $79. along with iSight cut it to $99 or $79 bundle it with iChat AV/ AIM for Windows. Port Final Cut Pro , DVD Studio Pro and all the Pro Apps so Adobe and Avid can Piss in thier Pants.
This idea I kinda like, especially the iLife idea...the competition is so heavy though...with the pro apps, however, the myriad of hardware configurations to support on the windows side would probably ruin much of their effectiveness or at least make it a real bit*h to port...
3. Abandon the PPC Market and Switch in Wintel. Sony's Vaio is as good as dead this leaves a huge space and oppertunity for a Creative PC maker like apple to step up and show everyone that your PC dosen't have to look like crap. i'm sure Jonathan Ive can come up with some amazing designs. Probabally design an OSX emulator for x86 to ease the Transition. Imagine how iMacs would sell if they sold for $1399 with an Athlon 64's and that lovely 17in wide screen.
Always a possibility, but Apple makes it money in hardware, and would not make any money...would be lost in the turbulent sea of x86
4. Abandon the Mac name, call it something else the name Macintosh always has a negative affect on Wintel Users , the moment they hear it they say Blah Mac's Suck. move away from that negative image. Keep the Apple Logo of course.... :-)
NO.
5. Let the Hardware Makers do the work 4 you , Let Asus, Lite-on , Pioneer, AMD, Intel, make the parts. let them fight and out bid eachother so u can carry thier hardware. you just pick them and make the Cases. now manufaturing Cost are Down. since the only hardware u makes are Desktop , note book cases , iSight and iPods. no more Costly Mother Boards to design. cut the Prices on Apple Displays to be competitive.
now since we are saving a ton on R&D and Manufaturing. we can bring those savings to the consumer by being able to sell Apple Comps at Prices Competitive to Dell and HP, but our software bundle is wayyy better and PC's actually look cool. 15in PowerBooks running Intel Pentium M Centrino fully loaded for $1999 w/real 6hr battery life.
I understand this logic, but again no...
6. Give The Consumer a Choice let them customize the Apple PC thats right 4 them , not what you feel is best. now Isn't this what made Dell King of the Hill. Offer rebates and fair trade-in's to current Mac owners who want to switch for a Limited time of course.
Apple has never been designed that way, and probably won't ever...sad in a way, but it has its' merits...
7. Cut Deals with Stores Best Buy, Circuit City, Walmart(i Dare say)and all the Major Players in the Consumer Electronics Retail Market.
It is hard to cut deals w/ so little marketshare...leverage?
8. Huge Marketing Campaign , call all Papers , Mags, TV Stations get free exposure. Plaster Citys with Ad's,and flood TV with Commmercials.......Apple Does Windows.
no comment...
Apple does this and we'll bust the market wide open.

Just a Few Sudgestions... what do u think people?
Basically, to tie all my comments together and address some other complaints about Apples expensive, behind-the-times hardware, I say this:
Apple works as a company because it is so integrated hardware-software wise. This is why osX is unlikely to be ported, or any pro apps, it is also why Apple does not allow a large amount of customization...As far as the state of hardware, well it is expensive and time-consuming designing your own hardware (motherboards etc), and Apple cannot be expected to keep up with the bevy of dedicated hardware manufacturers in x86 land, but again, it is part of the price you pay for the integrated experience that mac lovers have grown to appreciate...and Apple can not be blamed for video cards not being available at the same level (as PCs) for use in their machines. Yes, I believe Apple has made some dumb moves (such as crippling its consumer line), but it is more complicated than Apple just being spiteful/dumb/arrogant/etc...they depend on suppliers too, for example
I, for one, like the way Apple does business...yes, its' hardware is overpriced and a little behind the x86 world, but that could easily change (well, probably not the expensive part)...before 5 years ago, Apple/PPC performance was better than x86 counterparts...it might be again...even if not, it will soon get to a point in computing when computers will be so fast, that for a majority of users, performance issues will become moot (to a point). If in 2008, the x86 offerings are at 20ghz and PPC/Apple @ 18Ghz...well.
I acknowledge and regret the limitations using macs bestow on me, but also acknowledge and respect all that it has done to make my computing experience a pleasant and rewarding use of time. I made my choice, and I do not wish to make anyone elses'...I respect the right of anyone to draw judgements and make informed decisions...which is why I am glad that AMD has this chip, as I am a fan of quality and progress where I find it...remember a computer is just a tool...would you argue over hammers?

jiggie2g
Mar 21, 2004, 03:04 PM
If you do you first few suggestions (regarding software) you'll turn Apple into a software company, which are currently not, so your last few suggestions (regarding hardware) are moot. I don't think porting over the pro apps will go quiet as you planned it. Currently all of Apple's pro apps, heck I'd say almost all of Apple's software, is sold pretty cheaply. It's the lure to get to buy the hardware (which has the bigger mark-up on it). So Apple would have to stop under pricing their software. FCP 4 is easily a $2500 software bundle you get for $999. Couple that with an $8000 G5 (external SCSI HDDs, uncompressed capture card, monitors, etc.,) and you've got a machine that rivals about a ~$30,000 Avid. And one of the reasons Apple can do this is because they control OS X, they control FCP, and they control the hardware it runs on. And how is the Mac software bunlde going to be better when there is no more OS X and no Mac specific software? No one will buy Mac computers they'll just buy, or build, for less and run Apple software on it.

I think you are overlooking something fairly important, IMO. And that is the is the added stability and performance that can come from controlling both the hardware and the software that make up the computer. Personally I don't think the MS/x86 world can get much more stable than they are now. There are just too many variables to consider (literally millions of possible hardware, firmware, chipset, driver, proc, OS, and motherboard combonations). And MS's domination of the market works against it in a way because they have so much legacy stuff they have to support. There is no way MS could make an OS jump like Apple did from 9 to X. MS is just too big.

It sounds like you are trying to save Apple the company by sacrificing the Mac platform. I think that's a bad idea. One thing that draws customers to Apple is people looking for an alternative to Windows. It also sounds like you are trying to turn Apple into Dell and that's a bad idea IMO. Gateway tried to "out-Dell" Dell and may close its doors because of it. Apple and Dell have two widely different approaches to the computer market but they are currently the only companies in their field that keep making a profit.

Assuming the partnership w/IBM doesn't work out I think Apple would go to an AMD or Intel solution but they would still keep it a closed platform (and smartly so). You can't turn a company around in a day, and from what I've seen the Mac has been making headway the past few years. At least in terms of people's perception of the platform. 2 years ago mentioning anything about Macs on some of the PC forums I visit would have been an instant flamefest. Now, it's not instant flamebait to talk about Macs. More and more people are talking about them, less people are bashing them, and the phrase, "I wish I could afford one" is typically seen as often as "MACS sux." OS X is maturing and is turning a lot of heads and the introduction of the G5's closed the speed gap enough to make Macs comparible instead of s-l-o-w.

EDIT: I also agree that Apple needs to get G5's into the iMacs and Powerbooks as soon as possible. They are under-powered and really need to drop the stigma-heavy G4.


Lethal

To say that no one will buy Mac computers just build them is just plain crazy . I say less than 15% of the PC user Population Actually Bother to Build thier Comps , simply because most people either just don't want to , don't know how or are just afraid they will screw something up. Only Geeks and Gamers Build thier Comps from scratch. Jane and Joe Shopper will always stick to buying a prebuild brand PC cuz they want to play it safe ,
and Jane & Joe Shopper represent the Majority of PC users.

Apple can no longer affor to live in the Bubble it's in. The Controlled enviournment concept is a failure and Marketshare has Proven that. you say people in other fourms say "I Wish i could afford one". well while they keep on wishing the Apple Ship will continue to take on water. The Mac Platform as we know it is going to Die weather you chooses to except this fact or not , and there is noting u , me or Jobs can do about it. All the bad decision making and Motorola Delaying of the 90's has finally caught up with Apple and will now cause Apple to just slowly Bleed to death. The only 2 things that are keeping Apple Afloat are the iPod and it's $4.5 Bill surplus Jobs got them during Candy Color G3 Days. Apple needs to take that 4.5 Billion and use it to restructure it's company.

People are just no buying Mac , and with only 8 million active OSX users in the whole world. each of them maybe buying a new comp every 3yrs how is Apple going to survive. how long before 8 million turns to 6-4-2 , 1 Million. The Switchers Campaign was a Disaster. what was once 5% is now closer to 2.6% Marketshare.

I'll put it like this The Mac is the equalivalent of a Slow Porshe, sure a Porshe is a Mighty fine car , well built and Greatly Engineered but who the FU*K wants to buy a Porshe that only goes 120mph. Better yet who would want to spend $80K on a Sports car that gets it's ass spanked the by $30k street racer crowd (350Z, Lancer Evo, WRX STI ,RX-8, S2000). People buy the Porshe not cuz it's pretty , but because it offers World Class Performance. Something that Macs don't. If all people cared about what was just getting from point A to Point B then we all would buy Honda Civics.

so Yes Speed is important People not because of bragging rights , but because it's about getting more for less , more done in less time. the Less time i spend waithing for renders, filters, Convering , encoding. The more time I have for myself and my social life.

Mehmet
Mar 21, 2004, 11:49 PM
They only just introduced the Prescott 90nm core so I imagine they will be trying to ramp that up now.

You know its funny, only intel can screw up 90nm so much. Prescotts run HOTTER, and SLOWER than their equivalent northwoods, (which are on 130nm btw).

aswitcher
Mar 21, 2004, 11:55 PM
SNIP

I'll put it like this The Mac is the equalivalent of a Slow Porshe, sure a Porshe is a Mighty fine car , well built and Greatly Engineered but who the FU*K wants to buy a Porshe that only goes 120mph. Better yet who would want to spend $80K on a Sports car that gets it's ass spanked the by $30k street racer crowd (350Z, Lancer Evo, WRX STI ,RX-8, S2000). People buy the Porshe not cuz it's pretty , but because it offers World Class Performance. Something that Macs don't. If all people cared about what was just getting from point A to Point B then we all would buy Honda Civics.



Actually, maybe Mac is like a Volvo :p It is well engineered, safe to drive, and will last a while but there is a stigma attached to it by the larger population of faster, cheaper in design and cost car drivers... :D

Dippo
Mar 22, 2004, 10:11 AM
You know its funny, only intel can screw up 90nm so much. Prescotts run HOTTER, and SLOWER than their equivalent northwoods, (which are on 130nm btw).


Yea because Prescotts have at least 30 stages or something insane like that.
Makes you want to go hug a RISC.

~Shard~
Mar 22, 2004, 10:46 PM
I'll put it like this The Mac is the equalivalent of a Slow Porshe, sure a Porshe is a Mighty fine car , well built and Greatly Engineered but who the FU*K wants to buy a Porshe that only goes 120mph. Better yet who would want to spend $80K on a Sports car that gets it's ass spanked the by $30k street racer crowd (350Z, Lancer Evo, WRX STI ,RX-8, S2000). People buy the Porshe not cuz it's pretty , but because it offers World Class Performance. Something that Macs don't. If all people cared about what was just getting from point A to Point B then we all would buy Honda Civics.

so Yes Speed is important People not because of bragging rights , but because it's about getting more for less , more done in less time. the Less time i spend waithing for renders, filters, Convering , encoding. The more time I have for myself and my social life.

I totally understand your point - don't get me wrong - but let's try to stay away from the car analogies. These have been used over and over on these forums to death, and over and over people comment on how the car/computer analogy isn't quite fair nor do things translate properly between these worlds. For instance, using your above rationale, Apple shouldn't worry about marketshare whatsoever. Porsche, BMW, etc. all have a lower marketshare in the auto world than Apple does in the computer world, and they don't seem concerned at all... ;)

Anyway, not disagreeing with you, but I always have to sigh a little bit when I read yet ANOTHER car analogy being used trying to justify things in the Apple/PC/cost/quality etc. debate.

Counterfit
Mar 22, 2004, 11:22 PM
jiggie2g: I want to know where you're getting your info from. This (http://www.barefeats.com/g5op.html) Does not Look like a Floor-mopping to Me, nor Does this (http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html). Granted, neither Test features an Athlon 64, but Wouldn't you expect an Opteron to beat a G5? As for Moto dumping Apple? Riiiiight, that''s why they're trying to sell off their semiconductor business (http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/06/news/companies/motorola/index.htm) :rolleyes:

At this point, I have to say that some of DHM and jiggie2g's posts could be included here (http://www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/)










god damn mother****ing pessimists!

yes, I meant in general.

.a
Mar 23, 2004, 05:17 AM
I'll soon be Building my own Athlon64 System as soon as they Bring out a 4000+ model and PCI-X ,FW800 motherboards are out come summer.

i will order a g5 rev b system anyway ... os X is giving me an incredible workflow with almost always 12 apps running on my dual g4 450mhz with 2gb ram ... and it is not that slow ... well i just dream how a g5 rev b would be to work with!
.a

~Shard~
Mar 23, 2004, 06:41 AM
At this point, I have to say that some of DHM and jiggie2g's posts could be included here (http://www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/)

Heh heh - nice one, I like this site! I wonder how many more additions will be made to it in the upcoming future...


god damn mother****ing pessimists!

yes, I meant in general.

I almost missed this, ya sneaky bastard! ;)

jiggie2g
Mar 23, 2004, 10:21 AM
[QUOTE=Counterfit]jiggie2g: I want to know where you're getting your info from. This (http://www.barefeats.com/g5op.html) Does not Look like a Floor-mopping to Me, nor Does this (http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html). Granted, neither Test features an Athlon 64, but Wouldn't you expect an Opteron to beat a G5? As for Moto dumping Apple? Riiiiight, that''s why they're trying to sell off their semiconductor business (http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/06/news/companies/motorola/index.htm) :rolleyes:

At this point, I have to say that some of DHM and jiggie2g's posts could be included here (http://www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/)[QUOTE=Counterfit]

Funny that you use the handel Counterfit as those Benchmarks are a total fraud. how can u even post those i Did not see a single Athlon FX or 64 in any of those benchmarks. the Benchmarks i quoted from were from the Horses Mouth (Macworld Mag). has anyone seen those new Phony G5 Benchmarks on the Apple site which now include the Alienware Aurora, it's funny how Apple tries to lie to people on how fast the almost 10 month old G5 really is. it's even funnier how on the Apple website the G5 just magically destroys the AMD FX-51(now an old chip) but Macworld Mag says the exact opposite. you want to see something that will make Apple lose sleep checkout this Athlon FX/64 roadmap http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1985

BTW i included the Athlon 64 mainly because it's almost the same chip as the FX save for the 64bit vs. 128bit interal memory controller and Dual Channel DDR Support. Plus Socket 754 for the Athlon 64 vs. Socket 940 for the FX , however both Processors will soon be moving to the new Socket 939 b4 summer that will boost Perfomance even further by 5-10% plus Support Dual Channel DDR2 and step up to the 90nm Process, that's when these chips will really get Fast and Furious.

Not being Pro AMD because if the Dual 2ghz G5 sold for $2000(as it should) i'd get one right now but for the money and Perfomance the Athlon 64/FX series is Pound for Pound the best Chip in the market. G5 2nd, then Pentium M.

1 last thing , I see most people have now noticed that Apple has been posting thier G5 ads on the main page for the past 2 weeks , this to me seems like act of desperation on Apple's part so people won't forget about thier almost 10 month old G5, it's March 23rd people no update's today still?? at this rate it now seems very unlikely that the G5 will reach the Promised 3ghz in 12months, as i don't see Apple updating the G5 twice b4 June/July to reach it. if this is the case I will Personally Hand Steve Jobs the towel he'll need to wipe the Pie off his Face. I'll say it again , Apple get your ***** together.

MrMacMan
Mar 23, 2004, 10:52 PM
I'm sorry Mr133t, but the idea that all people should build their own computer is just wrong. Building your own computer is fine for people who are either experts, hobbyists or people who don't value their time, but there are many people, maybe even most, who don't fall into those categories. These people need to do real work. These people are too busy to spend the extra time making sure all their components are compatible and would rather just be playing games. In addition, some organizations (e.g. some major universities) prohibit or add extra charges (+50% in my case) to buying the parts to build the machines when using research or grant funding for example.

I've built my own computers. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who isn't an expert and values their time. I built a small cluster, and saved a couple grand. Big ****ing deal, I lost more money in downtime and lost productivity in trying to sort out various incompatibilities (some due to wrong technicians) and waiting for replacment parts. Unfortunately for me, it was just before the g5's came out and the funds needed to spent or lost; otherwise, there'd be a small cluster of g5's in my lab.

So to anyone thinking of building their first PC, consider the extra time and effort required not just the pricetag. It could be significant.

crackpip
Wow.

You have to be a total idiot to screw up building your own computer.


I'm just saying people 'who want the hi-end gaming machine' like alienware want you to believe.

I have built many many computers, never had problems expect getting the parts myself.

I built one 'before I learned how to build a computer' and after I 'learned about computers' I built many more faster.

thatwendigo
Mar 24, 2004, 02:14 PM
Funny that you use the handel Counterfit as those Benchmarks are a total fraud. how can u even post those i Did not see a single Athlon FX or 64 in any of those benchmarks.

Wow! You didn't see an Athlon FX or 64 in the tests? Maybe that's because it's a test of high-end workstations, and so the top of the line G5 and the top of the line AMD chip were put against each other?

My understanding is that the Opteron and FX differ in only one really important way, and that's the inclusion of an on-die memory controller that AMD licensed from Cray on the more expensive chip. It's actually faster than the Athlon at almost everything, but a pricier solution, so the comparison is somewhat valid. Also, if you read carefully, Barefeats explains their methods right out in the open, along with configurations and reasons for making them. How, exactly, is that unfair, unless you're going to sit there and pout because Counterfit didn't do your legwork for you and find some test that's exactly what you want?

the Benchmarks i quoted from were from the Horses Mouth (Macworld Mag). has anyone seen those new Phony G5 Benchmarks on the Apple site which now include the Alienware Aurora, it's funny how Apple tries to lie to people on how fast the almost 10 month old G5 really is. it's even funnier how on the Apple website the G5 just magically destroys the AMD FX-51(now an old chip) but Macworld Mag says the exact opposite.

Actually, the Apple figures fit right with independent tests of all platforms that I've seen. The FX-51 was destroyed by the P4 on a regular basis at a number of PC sites, on tasks ranging from gaming to 3D rendering, audio encoding, and a number of other tests. Of course, in almost all cases, this is because 64-bit enabled OSes, programs, and other factors that would also benefit the G5 are not widespread enough to take full advantage of the hardware yet. Since the G5 stomps the P4 with an equal frequency, Apple's numbers don't look all that off to me.

you want to see something that will make Apple lose sleep checkout this Athlon FX/64 roadmap http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1985

Yep, I bet they're quivering in their shoes, since the 3.0 G5s are set to come out in Q2-Q3 2004... I mean, it would be terrible to not only be at parity, but to pass where AMD expects to be around the middle of next year. They're shooting for 2.8 by H1 of 2005, after all, according to that chart you were throwing around. As things stand, they're only up on clock by 200mhz.

Also... So what? AMD and IBM are not only using the fab space that was leased out at Fishkill, they're working together on things like die-shrinks, Hypertransport, and other technological elements. At this point in time, what helps AMD is likely to help us, too, because Big Blue is the one holding the patents. You know what's making those Athlons faster? There's 300mm wafers, which they get from IBM, SOI, which they get from IBM, a modern fab, which they get from IBM... Should I go on?

BTW i included the Athlon 64 mainly because it's almost the same chip as the FX save for the 64bit vs. 128bit interal memory controller and Dual Channel DDR Support. Plus Socket 754 for the Athlon 64 vs. Socket 940 for the FX , however both Processors will soon be moving to the new Socket 939 b4 summer that will boost Perfomance even further by 5-10% plus Support Dual Channel DDR2 and step up to the 90nm Process, that's when these chips will really get Fast and Furious.

Ho-hum... Dual Channel? Apple's got it. 90nm? Same there. Summer? Well, we'll see what happens. I'm looking for that nice little chunk of silicon that clocks at 3.0 and has three beautiful alphanumerics across the top, myself.

Not being Pro AMD because if the Dual 2ghz G5 sold for $2000(as it should) i'd get one right now but for the money and Perfomance the Athlon 64/FX series is Pound for Pound the best Chip in the market. G5 2nd, then Pentium M.

As it should? Under what alien sky? How many times must I discuss economies of scale?

Apple can't just go out and grab commodity parts on some things. We will be paying a premium for some time, because that's just how the game has shaken out. All things considered, we're doing amazingly well in the mac world right now, and things are looking bright.

1 last thing , I see most people have now noticed that Apple has been posting thier G5 ads on the main page for the past 2 weeks , this to me seems like act of desperation on Apple's part so people won't forget about thier almost 10 month old G5, it's March 23rd people no update's today still??

You know, Apple doesn't just have a lever somewhere they can flip to make a new G5 come out on demand. As much as you and I (along with every other mac fan out there) would like to see the machines updated, there are issues of supply, technology, and marketing to be taken into account. Apple isn't going to just sit on a box that would leapfrog their sales. They know what Motorola did to us already, and they're not going to risk that again.

at this rate it now seems very unlikely that the G5 will reach the Promised 3ghz in 12months, as i don't see Apple updating the G5 twice b4 June/July to reach it. if this is the case I will Personally Hand Steve Jobs the towel he'll need to wipe the Pie off his Face. I'll say it again , Apple get your ***** together.

You don't know that any more than I do, but it's fun to watch you prognosticate. Shine on, you crazy diamond! :p

thatwendigo
Mar 24, 2004, 10:25 PM
Wow.

You have to be a total idiot to screw up building your own computer.

Or, you know, you could just be someone who hasn't had the benefit of growing up around as much technology as some of us have. Of course, you could just be an elitist and start calling everyone who doesn't know a RAM slot from a PCI slot an idiot. That would be just as valid, though it would make you look a bit of a jerk.

I can build machines, but I've been around computers since I was three years old. Lots of my coworkers, who are either less intelligent or less tech-savvy can't say the same thing. It doesn't mean that they're stupid.

While we're on the subject, thought...

I'm just saying people 'who want the hi-end gaming machine' like alienware want you to believe.

They want us to believe? In what?

Maybe you're just an idiot, when it comes to using the English language. I guess I should write you off for that, since anyone who doesn't build their own machines has to be stupid.

I have built many many computers, never had problems expect getting the parts myself.

Don't you mean "many, many computers?"

Here, let me fix that sentence for you:
I have built many, many computers, but I've never had any problems except for getting the parts.

I built one 'before I learned how to build a computer' and after I 'learned about computers' I built many more faster.

Do I really need to keep going?

Don't be so quick to judge others, Macman. Sometimes it comes back to bite you on the rear, especially when those of us who have had good friends experience serious issues with their computers are about. It's kind of off-putting to hear you call my associates idiots because they haven't chosen to spend as much time with computers as you and I have.

jiggie2g
Mar 24, 2004, 10:41 PM
Wow! You didn't see an Athlon FX or 64 in the tests? Maybe that's because it's a test of high-end workstations, and so the top of the line G5 and the top of the line AMD chip were put against each other?

My understanding is that the Opteron and FX differ in only one really important way, and that's the inclusion of an on-die memory controller that AMD licensed from Cray on the more expensive chip. It's actually faster than the Athlon at almost everything, but a pricier solution, so the comparison is somewhat valid. Also, if you read carefully, Barefeats explains their methods right out in the open, along with configurations and reasons for making them. How, exactly, is that unfair, unless you're going to sit there and pout because Counterfit didn't do your legwork for you and find some test that's exactly what you want?



Actually, the Apple figures fit right with independent tests of all platforms that I've seen. The FX-51 was destroyed by the P4 on a regular basis at a number of PC sites, on tasks ranging from gaming to 3D rendering, audio encoding, and a number of other tests. Of course, in almost all cases, this is because 64-bit enabled OSes, programs, and other factors that would also benefit the G5 are not widespread enough to take full advantage of the hardware yet. Since the G5 stomps the P4 with an equal frequency, Apple's numbers don't look all that off to me.

[Jiggie2G]
Really , is that a fact i'd for one would like to see the proof if you're gonna come talking crap you'd better put up the links to prove it. Go to Tom's Hardware, Geek.com , Hot Hardware. then tell me some shi^ty P4 kills a FX-51 , the only chips that can say that is the P4Extreme which cost almost $1,000 just for the freakin chip not to mention melt or explode in ur tower, and that got beat by the FX-53 so thats that. Athlon 64/FX's beat the P4's in over 70% of the benchmarks that they were compared in, not to mention runnin at an average of 1ghz less. Ho dare you say a P4 kills a Athlon in games are u nuts , now i know u are talking out ur bung hole. See if Tech TV will ever use a P4 for thier Ultimate gaming machine's again. i've seen Athlon 64's and FX's score over 20K in 3Dmark just bone stock no overclocking , see if a P4 can say the same.[jiggie2g]

Yep, I bet they're quivering in their shoes, since the 3.0 G5s are set to come out in Q2-Q3 2004... I mean, it would be terrible to not only be at parity, but to pass where AMD expects to be around the middle of next year. They're shooting for 2.8 by H1 of 2005, after all, according to that chart you were throwing around. As things stand, they're only up on clock by 200mhz.

[jiggie2g]
3.0GHZ G5 IN Q2-Q3 2004 , C'MON MAN YOU'RE KILLIN ME , I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING. Dosen't Apple need to 1st update the 2ghz dualies. it's almost April for god sake. try oct-nov the earliest. 3ghz would have to be a 3rd gen G5 and Apple will milk Gen 2 like the Greedy lil Pigs they are b4 they update again. [jiggie2g]

Also... So what? AMD and IBM are not only using the fab space that was leased out at Fishkill, they're working together on things like die-shrinks, Hypertransport, and other technological elements. At this point in time, what helps AMD is likely to help us, too, because Big Blue is the one holding the patents. You know what's making those Athlons faster? There's 300mm wafers, which they get from IBM, SOI, which they get from IBM, a modern fab, which they get from IBM... Should I go on?



Ho-hum... Dual Channel? Apple's got it. 90nm? Same there. Summer? Well, we'll see what happens. I'm looking for that nice little chunk of silicon that clocks at 3.0 and has three beautiful alphanumerics across the top, myself.

[jiggie2g]
Dual Channel must have missed that? cuz i sure as hell didn't see it anywhere on apples web site or anyone even selling DC DDR for the G5. maybe in ur dreams. u must have ment dual buses, not Dual Channel Mem.
not to mention the Athlon is still on 13nm and kicking ass, plus will have Real PCI Express not bootleg PCI-X, by summer. meaning up to 4GB/s each way, 8GB/s total for Graphics cards and 1-2GB/s- min each way per slot for the rest.

The G5 is a great chip i'd take it over the P4 anyday but is still inferior to the Athlon 64/FX series and simply cannot compete clock per clock, Apple needs Dual Processor systems just to be competitive , that really doesn't say much for your precious G5. if it's One G5 chip at lets say 2ghz vs. an Athlon 64 at 2ghz the G5 will simply get ass raped everytime no question.

The fact of the matter is you still need 2 G5's just to match up with one
64/FX. Apple and IBM should be ashamed about this ,c'mon they said they invested 3yrs into this chip and this is the best they can come up with ,as it's the same story as the G4 vs. P4 you need 2 to beat 1. [jiggie2g]

As it should? Under what alien sky? How many times must I discuss economies of scale?

Apple can't just go out and grab commodity parts on some things. We will be paying a premium for some time, because that's just how the game has shaken out. All things considered, we're doing amazingly well in the mac world right now, and things are looking bright.



You know, Apple doesn't just have a lever somewhere they can flip to make a new G5 come out on demand. As much as you and I (along with every other mac fan out there) would like to see the machines updated, there are issues of supply, technology, and marketing to be taken into account. Apple isn't going to just sit on a box that would leapfrog their sales. They know what Motorola did to us already, and they're not going to risk that again.

[jiggie2g]
well guess what this is the reason why Apple's market share has plummeted to 2.6 percent/8 million active OSX users world wide. The same reason why people like me get frustrated with Apple's incompetence so we jump ship and go Windoze. if they would have just listed to what the whole Tech industry was saying years ago (Apple go Intel/AMD ) they wouldn't be in this sinking ship they are stuck in. they wouldn't be at the Mercy of Motorola and IBM. Instead Apple would have had an x86 OSX , with Athlon 64's and the latest greatest hardware, rather than being 6-9 months behind the PC World in overall technology.

Speaking about economics there is something called , Supply and Demand. something Apple obviously has never herd about. as usual they get a Hot product and always fail to capitalize on the demand because they don't have the means to keep up, that makes them incompetent. only Apple would Announce a new Product then wait 3 months 2 ship it (G5 Xserves, 1st gen G5). I remember when i 1st got my 15in Flatpanel iMac G4 i had 2 wait 6-7 weeks for mine back in 2002. see if Dell would ever pull that Bullsh^t and i hate Dell PC's. if Apple doen't have thier crap together by oct. I am jumping ship with a self built Athlon 64 3800+/4000+ system.[jiggie2g]


You don't know that any more than I do, but it's fun to watch you prognosticate. Shine on, you crazy diamond! :p

~Shard~
Mar 24, 2004, 10:54 PM
I was going to post an additional reply, however thatwendigo has pretty much stolen my thunder, for lack of a better expression. ;) I'll just say, in reponse to thatwendigo's post, well done on a comprehensive post. :cool:

In general though, the fact as I see it is that due to the situation, (like it or not), Apple can't simply acquire commodity parts for their machines, and (again, like it or not), these are the facts. So we have to figure this into situations like this when we are trying to compare what AMD, Dell, HP, Intel, etc. are doing, and what their business models are, compared to Apple. I guess some people might not appreciate this point though unless they understand economies of scale, which I don't expect everyone to.

And lastly, for what it's worth, we all benefit from competition, so as far as these new AMD chips and the AMD roadmap go, I say kudos to AMD. I hold nothing against them (I am by no means an Apple zealot!) and in fact I say thank you to them. They have pushed the envelope, provided PC users with an excellent chip and have pressured others, like Apple, to continually raise the bar. Companies like AMD and their technological advancements will only aid in furthering the advancement and technology of companies like Apple, which we will all benefit from.

That being said, I still do not see these new AMD chips as "G5 killers", as some posters seem to have indicated here. I have looked at the benchmarks, done my research, and personally, I'm not too convinced that these AMD chips are miles and miles above the G5s. Better, perhaps, but utterly superior, I think not.

jiggie2g
Mar 24, 2004, 11:14 PM
Or, you know, you could just be someone who hasn't had the benefit of growing up around as much technology as some of us have. Of course, you could just be an elitist and start calling everyone who doesn't know a RAM slot from a PCI slot an idiot. That would be just as valid, though it would make you look a bit of a jerk.

I can build machines, but I've been around computers since I was three years old. Lots of my coworkers, who are either less intelligent or less tech-savvy can't say the same thing. It doesn't mean that they're stupid.

While we're on the subject, thought...



They want us to believe? In what?

Maybe you're just an idiot, when it comes to using the English language. I guess I should write you off for that, since anyone who doesn't build their own machines has to be stupid.



Don't you mean "many, many computers?"

Here, let me fix that sentence for you:
I have built many, many computers, but I've never had any problems except for getting the parts.



Do I really need to keep going?

Don't be so quick to judge others, Macman. Sometimes it comes back to bite you on the rear, especially when those of us who have had good friends experience serious issues with their computers are about. It's kind of off-putting to hear you call my associates idiots because they haven't chosen to spend as much time with computers as you and I have.

LOL , Wow that's serious.

As for calling people who don't know how to build computers , I guess it would take an idiot to know one.Perhaps you should focus more on improving your grammer. Not everyone is that Tech savvy to build their own comps. Building a comp from stratch is not like Building a Piece of furniture from Ikea. there are many thing to screw up like Bios config, setting Jumpers, Placing parts properly.

Even though i Like the hardware, windows is still plug and pray and , any number of things can go wrong witch can intimidate people from even trying.

thatwendigo
Mar 25, 2004, 12:02 AM
Jesus, if I didn't want to prove you wrong, it wouldn't be worth the work to cut and paste to clean up your mistakes.

Really , is that a fact i'd for one would like to see the proof if you're gonna come talking crap you'd better put up the links to prove it. Go to Tom's Hardware, Geek.com , Hot Hardware. then tell me some shi^ty P4 kills a FX-51 , the only chips that can say that is the P4Extreme which cost almost $1,000 just for the freakin chip not to mention melt or explode in ur tower, and that got beat by the FX-53 so thats that. Athlon 64/FX's beat the P4's in over 70% of the benchmarks that they were compared in, not to mention runnin at an average of 1ghz less. Ho dare you say a P4 kills a Athlon in games are u nuts , now i know u are talking out ur bung hole. See if Tech TV will ever use a P4 for thier Ultimate gaming machine's again. i've seen Athlon 64's and FX's score over 20K in 3Dmark just bone stock no overclocking , see if a P4 can say the same.

Anandtech Athlon 64 vs. P4 Shootout (http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2002&p=2)

Tests won by the Athlon FX:
Business Winstone 2004 (1.5 point lead)
Content Creation Winstone 2004 (4.8 point lead)
SYSMark 2004 Communications (3 point lead)
Halo Framerate 1024x768 (0.1 FPS lead)
GunMetal 1024.768 (0.1 FPS lead)
UT2k3 Flyby 1024x768 (12.2 FPS lead)
UT2k3 Botmatch 1024x768 (17.8 FPS lead)
Warcraft 3: Frozen Throne 1024x768 (0.7 FPS)
Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory 1024x768 (1.4 FPS)
Quake III Source Compile (2.3 second lead)

Tests won by the P4 EE:
SYSMark 2004 Overall (4 point lead)
SYSMark 2004 Internet Content Creation (4 point lead)
SYSMark 2004 3D Content Creation (1 point lead)
SYSMark 2004 2D Content Creation (10 point lead)
SYSMark 2004 Web Publication (4 points lead)
SYSMark 2004 Office Productivity (3 point lead)
SYSMark 2004 Document Creation (9 point lead)
SYSMark 2004 Data Analysis (3 point lead)
Aquamark DirectX9 CPU Score (315 point lead)
Quake III 1024x768 (35 FPS lead)
Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy 1024x768 (2.7 FPS)
DivX 5.1.1 Encoding (2.9 point lead)
3dStudio render time (30 second lead)
Lightwave render time (3.4 second lead)

Ties:
Aquamark DirectX9 FPS

The closing thoughs:
Yes, FX-53 is a fast performer. It's just not fast enough to warrant spending all that necessary money on a platform that is guaranteed to be non-upgradeable in a short while. With socket 939, there will be a much wider selection of processors to fill the platform, and there is much more room for future upgradeability. Add PCI Express to that and you've got a platform that could last for a (relatively) long time.

Of course, when socket 939 does hit the streets, we will have to re-evaluate the situation. The FX-53 has potential, but that's not always enough. If we get some good performance gains from using high quality unbuffered RAM with the FX-53, and if we start to see overclocker-friendly boards with plenty of PCI Express slots on them, we might just be talking after a price drop. Right now, both the very high end Intel and AMD parts are priced too high to recommend. The performance gains that we see in our tests just aren't enough to warrant the kinds of price differences currently seen in the marketplace.

So, the final recommendation? If you absolutely need a system now, go with either a Pentium 4 or an Athlon 64 3000+ (Newcastle) depending on your usage model. But just wait if that's at all possible. The end is near, we promise.

Tom's Hardware Overclocked for their numbers, which they state outright: Read it yourself (http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040318/athlon-fx53-05.html)

Also, checking at newegg (www.newegg.com), I find that the two processors are basically neck and neck. Performance-wise, they're pretty close, and they're almost exactly the same on the pricetag. Nice try, but the numbers say you lose.

3.0GHZ G5 IN Q2-Q3 2004 , C'MON MAN YOU'RE KILLIN ME , I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING. Dosen't Apple need to 1st update the 2ghz dualies. it's almost April for god sake. try oct-nov the earliest. 3ghz would have to be a 3rd gen G5 and Apple will milk Gen 2 like the Greedy lil Pigs they are b4 they update again.

No, they don't need to update anything right now. As long as 3.0s show up in August, then they've still met the deadline. I think it would be pretty strange to have held the machines that long without bumping them, but it doesn't mean that the big deal isn't coming.

Dual Channel must have missed that? cuz i sure as hell didn't see it anywhere on apples web site or anyone even selling DC DDR for the G5. maybe in ur dreams. u must have ment dual buses, not Dual Channel Mem.

G5 Tech Specs (http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html)
# 1.8GHz systems and 2Ghz systems
* 512MB of PC3200 (400MHz) DDR SDRAM
* Eight DIMM slots supporting up to 8GB of main memory
# Support for the following DIMMs (in pairs):
* 128MB DIMMs (64-bit-wide, 128- or 256-Mbit)
* 256MB DIMMs (64-bit-wide, 128- or 256-Mbit)
* 512MB DIMMs (64-bit-wide, 256-Mbit)
* 1GB DIMMs (64-bit-wide, 256-Mbit)

G5 Architecture (http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html)
The new Power Mac G5ís memory controller supports fast 400MHz, 128-bit DDR SDRAM, and enables main memory to address two banks of SDRAM at a time, reading and writing on both the rising and falling edge of each clock cycle. This effectively doubles the bandwidth, enabling the Power Mac G5 to reach a maximum memory throughput of up to 6.4GB per second ó an advance thatís especially welcome when youíre working with enormous files. In addition, direct memory access (DMA) works with the point-to-point system controller to give each subsystem ó such as PCI cards and graphics processing units ó its own 6.4GBps interface to main memory, without siphoning power from your processors.

not to mention the Athlon is still on 13nm and kicking ass, plus will have Real PCI Express not bootleg PCI-X, by summer. meaning up to 4GB/s each way, 8GB/s total for Graphics cards and 1-2GB/s- min each way per slot for the rest.

Take a look at the end of that last section I copy/pasted. 6.4 GB/S to cards and peripheral systems. Oh no, not 4 GB/S from AMD! :eek: :p

well guess what this is the reason why Apple's market share has plummeted to 2.6 percent/8 million active OSX users world wide. The same reason why people like me get frustrated with Apple's incompetence so we jump ship and go Windoze. if they would have just listed to what the whole Tech industry was saying years ago (Apple go Intel/AMD ) they wouldn't be in this sinking ship they are stuck in. they wouldn't be at the Mercy of Motorola and IBM. Instead Apple would have had an x86 OSX , with Athlon 64's and the latest greatest hardware, rather than being 6-9 months behind the PC World in overall technology.

You left off one more thing they'd be: DEAD. Without the PowerPC, integration and stability of controlling the hardware, and other things that mac the Mac the Mac, we're nothing but a tiny company in the Windows world. OS X on Intel would be suicide, because it would be cracked, pirated, and put on cheap boxes other than Apple's so fast that Jobs would barely have had time to blink.

Speaking about economics there is something called , Supply and Demand. something Apple obviously has never herd about. as usual they get a Hot product and always fail to capitalize on the demand because they don't have the means to keep up, that makes them incompetent. only Apple would Announce a new Product then wait 3 months 2 ship it (G5 Xserves, 1st gen G5). I remember when i 1st got my 15in Flatpanel iMac G4 i had 2 wait 6-7 weeks for mine back in 2002. see if Dell would ever pull that Bullsh^t and i hate Dell PC's. if Apple doen't have thier crap together by oct. I am jumping ship with a self built Athlon 64 3800+/4000+ system.

You don't get it... Even with supply and demand, Apple is a victim of an economy of scale that they're basically trapped into. Going with commodity parts kills their reputation as a good, solid manufacturer, and using Intel/AMD would destroy the Mac in less than a year. There is no good solution, other than to soldier on and do the best they can, and that's what Apple has always done.

Oh, and if you go, I hope you're happy with your x86 box, and that it does these things you need to eke out each slight little arbitrary tick-mark of performance for. Me, I'll stick with the most reliable, unbreakable, and easy to use computers I've ever seen.

thatwendigo
Mar 26, 2004, 12:17 AM
So where are those replies, DHM and jiggie? I've put up some material, and neither of you are even close to responding to it.

crazzyeddie
Mar 26, 2004, 08:34 AM
I think it time for Apple to at least start putting those older G5s in every product and release those 90nm G5s in powermacs. If not it will be the G4 game allover again. By the way this is a 64 bit CPU from AMD.

Dude, you are such a freakin pessimist it drives me crazy. All you ever do is compare Apple to AMD and Intel... would you please report news without a HUGE bias once in a while? Oh no... AMD is at 2.4ghz... thats where Apple is going to be in a month or less. Its a logical step for Apple to go to 2.5ghz, so does that mean that AMD will be in trouble because Apple is 100mhz ahead of them? I still dont see many (if any) mainstream PC sales using the AMD FX processors.

blue&whiteman
Mar 26, 2004, 09:07 AM
I was playing with a dual 2ghz G5 in an apple dealer for about 15 min. it was as fast as I would ever want a computer to be and then some. it only had the stock 512mb ram in it also.

tiktokfx
Mar 26, 2004, 10:49 AM
I swear to god, if you can't be bothered to write out your opinions with at least halfway legitimate syntax and structure, why should anyone take you seriously?

All I'll comment on in this discussion is: Any relevant benchmarks I've seen comparing the latest/greatest x86 stuff vs. G5s have the AMD/Intel chips at maybe 2, 3% range faster on some tests. Pretty much the same thing going the other way for the G5s.

Sure, you can build a PC with the latest, fastest AMD/Intel chip for less than a G5. But you can't build a solid dual processor x86 box for any significant amount of money less, and if you do, it's generally with inferior build quality.

For those of us in the professional world who actually use processor power for more than fragging your roommate while you skip Calculus, dual processors are worth a hell of a lot more than the measly $500-600 it costs to get a 2x2.0 G5 over an AMD whatever.

tiktokfx
Mar 26, 2004, 10:53 AM
Oh yeah. To further clarify what I meant by relevant benchmarks...

I don't consider page scrolling speed in Word to be a relevant benchmark of computer speed. Nor do I think comparing the speed of Premiere to be terribly relevant, as what sane Mac user uses Premiere to begin with?

Things that matter to me are render speeds. Which for the most part have the G5 at least on par with everything else available.

If you want to game, buy a PC, they're better for games. If you want to make money, buy a Mac.

~Shard~
Mar 26, 2004, 03:09 PM
I was playing with a dual 2ghz G5 in an apple dealer for about 15 min. it was as fast as I would ever want a computer to be and then some. it only had the stock 512mb ram in it also.

See, this gets back to my point about speed being the be-all and end-all. For lots of people (and Iím not saying everyone), speed isnít a factor Ė the systems out there right now can do everything you need them to, as fast as you need them to as it is. Who cares if your video decoding takes an extra minute? To go to more of the extreme, who needs a 2 GHz G5 to surf the Net, check their e-mail and use Office? Heck, a current iMac is good enough for those tasks. Now I realize there are those users out there who are pro users, who do intense audio and video editing and require all the horsepower they can muster Ė some of their livelihoods depend on it Ė and thatís completely understandable and I appreciate that. But when average users who donít require that horsepower start complaining, it really makes me shake my head. They just want more speed for the sake of having more speed...

~Shard~
Mar 26, 2004, 03:13 PM
I swear to god, if you can't be bothered to write out your opinions with at least halfway legitimate syntax and structure, why should anyone take you seriously?

Thank you, I've been biting my tongue on that issue for quite some time now...

Sure, you can build a PC with the latest, fastest AMD/Intel chip for less than a G5. But you can't build a solid dual processor x86 box for any significant amount of money less, and if you do, it's generally with inferior build quality.

For those of us in the professional world who actually use processor power for more than fragging your roommate while you skip Calculus, dual processors are worth a hell of a lot more than the measly $500-600 it costs to get a 2x2.0 G5 over an AMD whatever.

This complements my points above very well Ė pro users need the speed, and as can be seen in these forums, they have spoken. If youíre simply an average user whining about not enough speed, or a gamer who only needs the biggest and best system to play the latest games, then I think the majority of the members here will have little sympathy for you. "Ooooh, I canít get 100 fps on UT2004 with everything turned on in 2048x1536 resolution Ė this sucks - I need a faster machine!" :rolleyes:

thatwendigo
Mar 26, 2004, 05:59 PM
Thank you, I've been biting my tongue on that issue for quite some time now...

Ditto. :p

I thought it might have just been my own issues, but I tend to have a hard time taking it seriously when someone else doesn't even appear to be making an effort to be understood. Typos are one thing, but a continuous and unending string of poor English just makes me want to skip the entirety of what they're saying. I typed better than that when I was eight, and I argued better when I was ten. I know I'm above average, but I'm not that far over the norm, am I?

This complements my points above very well Ė pro users need the speed, and as can be seen in these forums, they have spoken. If youíre simply an average user whining about not enough speed, or a gamer who only needs the biggest and best system to play the latest games, then I think the majority of the members here will have little sympathy for you. "Ooooh, I canít get 100 fps on UT2004 with everything turned on in 2048x1536 resolution Ė this sucks - I need a faster machine!" :rolleyes:

It's amusing how the speed demons keep holding up gaming benchmarks as the hallmark of performance, but most of what that's telling us is how fast the processor can shuttle data to the GPU, and what the add-on is doing. Were they running in pure software mode, I think we'd get a much better idea of how good that processor was.

In any case, though, the ability of the Athlon to catch up to the P4EE on gaming doesn't really say anything for its real-world usability. You might as well decide that the ability to scroll really fast means that a processor is what you need, because going beyond a certain point starts making it moot. How many frames per second can the human eye perceive? There's an interesting discussion of this here (http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm). that comes to no real conclusion on the matter, but which does explain why computer FPS seems to matter more than other forms of presentation.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 26, 2004, 06:17 PM
The reason FPS matters is because there is stuff coming around the corner that will max out the machine and you will be needing more juice to run that stuff. Mac Zealots will use 1 million excuses why the hardware isnt as fast,shouldnt be as fast,doesnt need to be fast and even attack someones sentence structure. Anything but just admit Mac hardware is 2nd class. Why is that? Pride? Arrogance? Denial?
Why did England tell Apple enough of your fastest computer adds B.S? it was a lie.
Please remember Im not a troll and have only used Macs all my life.(except for that commodor 64)

thatwendigo
Mar 26, 2004, 06:53 PM
The reason FPS matters is because there is stuff coming around the corner that will max out the machine and you will be needing more juice to run that stuff.

So, just like Snowy predicted, the reason that FPS matters to you is something that really doesn't matter in the real world. You want games, and the rest of us don't care, which makes us some kind of zealots in your mind. While that's certainly something you're entitled to, it's not a jsutification that's going to hold a lot of water in a community that doesn't seem to consist of people who are buying macs specifically for their gaming performance.

Mac Zealots will use 1 million excuses why the hardware isnt as fast,shouldnt be as fast,doesnt need to be fast and even attack someones sentence structure. Anything but just admit Mac hardware is 2nd class. Why is that? Pride? Arrogance? Denial?

The hardware is as fast, and you have yet to prove that it isn't in any way that actually matters, or to even document your claims. The architecture should be fast, but games performance is a secondary concern, and in tasks that really do count, the G5 is still competitive at 2.0, and will be jumping. Lastly, your use of English does matter, and it reflects on your arguments whether you want it to or not.

You're the one in denial and arrogantly making claims about AMD, while not giving evidence.

Why did England tell Apple enough of your fastest computer adds B.S? it was a lie.

It wasn't a lie, so much as a claim without enough documentation. You and Apple ought to be friends, in that sense, since you're doing the same thing, except you don't even have a business reason to be making your statements. :D

Please remember Im not a troll and have only used Macs all my life.(except for that commodor 64)

You're a troll, DHM. You start arguments without basis, flame mac users who have actual information and citations, insult left and right, and don't add anything useful to the discussion. It doesn't get much more clear cut than that.

coolsoldier
Mar 26, 2004, 07:49 PM
I think the real issue behind this thread (and most threads like it) is that Macs underperform at games. This is true, and its worth discussing. But I don't think its because of processor speed. Maybe in the dark days of the G4 the limiting factor on Mac games was processor speed, but today there are two things that really limit Mac game performance:

a) poor porting -- A game that has been ported from the PC was optimized to run on PCs. It takes advantage of the PCs strengths, and avoids the PCs weaknesses. When it gets ported to the Mac, unless they actually rewrite it from scratch, it's not going to perform as well. Games that are written originally for the Mac usually run with higher frame rates than games that were ported. Unfortunately, there aren't many mac-original games around.

b) lousy graphics chips -- This is the biggest shortcoming of Macs in gaming. Frame rates in games are a lot more dependent on having a good graphics chip than having a fast processor. Apple doesn't put high-end graphics chips in their computers, and even if you add your own, the top PC graphics chip is usually a generation ahead of the top Mac graphics chip. Macs hold their own against PCs in applications that rely primarily on processing power, but gaming is much more heavily dependent on the (weak in Macs) graphics card.

So DHM is right on the premise that Apple's hardware isn't the best for games. For a hardcore gamer, that might be a problem. For casual gamers who own a few games that they play every now and then, it probably doesn't matter. (All but the newest games will run acceptably on low-end hardware, and the occasional gamer isn't likely to spend what it costs to get a brand new game) And for professionals for whom "gaming" hardware would be a waste of money, it's an asset.

So Apple's hardware, just as it is, will meet all of the needs of all but the "hardcore" gamer, a segment of the population who, in all likelihood, wouldn't be looking at Macs no matter what frame rates they produced.

tiktokfx
Mar 26, 2004, 08:24 PM
I might care a slight bit about frames per second if there were any graphics card in existence that could display 7 digit polygon models in real time on a 1600x1200 display.

But there isn't, on any platform.

aswitcher
Mar 26, 2004, 08:30 PM
SNIP

b) lousy graphics chips -- This is the biggest shortcoming of Macs in gaming. Frame rates in games are a lot more dependent on having a good graphics chip than having a fast processor. Apple doesn't put high-end graphics chips in their computers, and even if you add your own, the top PC graphics chip is usually a generation ahead of the top Mac graphics chip. Macs hold their own against PCs in applications that rely primarily on processing power, but gaming is much more heavily dependent on the (weak in Macs) graphics card.

SNIP



With Quartz Extreme using the Graphics Card rather than the CPU, I sort hope that Apple will address the problem of their graphics cards so that ALL their software performs better. This would have a flow on effect to games which would help with this issue...

coolsoldier
Mar 26, 2004, 08:37 PM
With Quartz Extreme using the Graphics Card rather than the CPU, I sort hope that Apple will address the problem of their graphics cards so that ALL their software performs better. This would have a flow on effect to games which would help with this issue...

Well, there's a few problems:

--Apple doen't make their own graphics cards. They pretty much have to wait for ATI or NVidia to step up and make a decent Mac graphics chip.

--Graphics cards are expensive for their relatively modest effect on productivity. Even if it does make for a little bit smoother interface, that probably isn't worth the cost of a top-of-the-line graphics card to most consumers.

aswitcher
Mar 26, 2004, 08:45 PM
Well, there's a few problems:

--Apple doen't make their own graphics cards. They pretty much have to wait for ATI or NVidia to step up and make a decent Mac graphics chip.



Sure. But just like arrangements with IBM surely they could contract to get produced higher performance ones. They could jointly R&D what they need to pull them up or even over the PC market, just like they seem to be doign with IBM... It won't happen overnight, but it could happen.



--Graphics cards are expensive for their relatively modest effect on productivity. Even if it does make for a little bit smoother interface, that probably isn't worth the cost of a top-of-the-line graphics card to most consumers.

Ok. I agree its not cheap. But since they are actually using those graphics cards RAM for things like Quartz Extreme, and likely could also use it for other purposes graphics related and possibly for other processes (?) to keep the CPU free for other things, I think it has promise. I recall one of the current Graphics Card makers a few years back (in wired magazine???) talking about how graphics cards could take on many other RAM/CPU related tasks...

Anyway, I mention it because its cleary a sore point but their might be some hope that Apple address it down the track...maybe after my G5PB is available :p

SyndicateX
Mar 26, 2004, 08:51 PM
God, i cant believe I actually wasted 10 minutes of my life reading all this complaining about a 5ghz dual g5 not being fast enough when it comes out. I have a 1.33ghz 17" powerbook with a CRAPPY G4! and as we all know, this processor sucks, but in all fairness, it doesnt matter. My brother and I are creating his schools yearly magazine and are working with 800 dpi images (each file 1 gig). We worked on it on my powerbook and flew through it, the saves took about 45 seconds to an external HD and it NEVER CRASHED! I burnt it all on a DVD and he went to work on it at school on a brand new 3ghz p4 with a gig of ram and he said it crashed 4 times while saving and cost him about an hour of time and each save took about 3 minutes.

My point is I beat the crap out of my computer with photoshop and final cut pro. Yeah, if I had a dual G5 my final cut pro render might only take 40 minutes instead of 45, but how often am I really going to need that extra 10% of processing power an AMD 900$ chip is going to give me, IT STILL RUNS WINDOWS, and as long as it does that it doesnt matter if it is 5000x faster than any mac, Im sticking with an OS that I trust isnt going to crap out and freeze on me and loose my data / work. As for games, Ill stick to my XBOX and use my computer for stuff that matters. When XBOX2 comes out and they can port games over to OSX for nothing, then we will see which processor ends up on top and who ends up whining.

Just on a sidenote, with ALL the measures Apple always takes on secrecy regarding their releases, do you really think they are going to release a processor that was announced 2 months ago? IBM knows apple is their largest customer for G5's, and both the companies are in this to get the upperhand on the companies that have always screwed them both over. I think Apple will releases a dual 3ghz g5 when the next revs come out, apple takes the lead in sheer power and IBM shows they can jump 500mhz in 3 months while intel has hit their processor ceiling and isnt even looking to release a HUGE jump until 2005. Why else would a 500mhz jump using a 90nm processor that uses less power and produces LESS HEAT cause apple to delay their releases because of heat issues??? Because Steve Jobs is going to suprise everyone and say hey, 6ghz 64bit computer 4 months ahead of schedule, everybody be happy. :)


All this on top of Windows L0nGh0Rn that isnt going to be released until 2006 now...and all its doing is adding the stuff to windows xp that OSX already has! by then we will be at 8ghz macs with 10.5, Ill stick with the company who innovates instead of the one who always imitates.

~Shard~
Apr 4, 2004, 10:27 AM
Even though this thread appears to have run its course now, I thought I would add in an article I read for some of you to ponder over:

http://www.theinquirer.net/Default.aspx?article=15143

(the corresponding thread is here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=780134#post780134))

My favorite quote from it would have to be:

And I care not one whit whether your PC is running an overclocked, freon-cooled, ultra-finned CPU. Your machine might be faster than my G5. Oh well. It's not how fast it is, but what you can do with it that counts.

Which pretty much sums things up nicely. I always chuckle when I read posts going on and on about the latest and greatest Intel or AMD chip and how fast they are. Great, good for you - I'll take my"slower" Mac any day - it does what I need it to and I am happy with it, so I don't really care. Saying that though, I realize some epople do care. Fair enough.


Progress is great, and it's nice to see these new chips being released - competition is exactly what Apple needs. I'm sure the AMD is an excellent chip, but since it runs in a PC+Windows world, it's already at a disadvanatge in many respects. It all comes down to what you really need and what your priorities are. If you want a speedy PC that will be obsolete in a few months anyway when yet another new chip is announced, fine. If all you play is the "speed game", you'll never win and never be happy. If you need the fastest system not for pro applications, but just so you can frag a bunch of people with shading, etc. turned on in 30 fps, fine. And if you'd rather use a PC than a Mac for pro apps and your overall productivity, fine.

At any rate, this has all been hashed to death on this thread already, so I'll just stop for now... :cool:

invaLPsion
Apr 4, 2004, 11:34 AM
If a buy a PC due to the lack of powermac updates (which is becoming a posibility) the AMD FX-53 is what I would buy. That, and a spanking new PCI Express Graphics card.

Dont Hurt Me
Apr 4, 2004, 12:25 PM
FX-53 is a nice chip, i'm leaning towards a AMD64 3400+ price vs performance kind of thing and graphics 8agp is fine for me 9600xt or 5700ultra. both match up about the same and are about equal with geforce4 titanium.
I dont like the memory slots on the AMD machine's. Apple has them big time when it comes to available memory slots.
Still waiting for Apple, a 2.0 or better G5 Imac would do or would a dual 1.8 g5 or better. With new video cards around the corner, pci express,faster CPU's all the time might as well wait on Apple and the Pc world to see what unfolds the next month or two.
Man are MacAddicts touchy or what when you make a comment about hardware or marketshare these days. If the Hardware is slow and overpriced say so! why deny it?

~Shard~
Apr 4, 2004, 01:00 PM
Man are MacAddicts touchy or what when you make a comment about hardware or marketshare these days. If the Hardware is slow and overpriced say so! why deny it?

Who exactly is this comment directed towards? Please back up and quantify your statements rather than just throwing generalizations out there. I realize it wasn't directed at me, as I have never complained about marketshare, nor have I ever denied that the G5s are slower than some other chips, so who exactly are you referring to when you use the term "MacAddicts"? Please identify them so they can at least defend themselves in a proper discussion... I have seen the majority of posters in this thread at least quote other people's comments when replying and commenting, not just making broad statements like that...

Just trying to keep things fair!

invaLPsion
Apr 4, 2004, 01:36 PM
FX-53 is a nice chip, i'm leaning towards a AMD64 3400+ price vs performance kind of thing and graphics 8agp is fine for me 9600xt or 5700ultra. both match up about the same and are about equal with geforce4 titanium.
I dont like the memory slots on the AMD machine's. Apple has them big time when it comes to available memory slots.
Still waiting for Apple, a 2.0 or better G5 Imac would do or would a dual 1.8 g5 or better. With new video cards around the corner, pci express,faster CPU's all the time might as well wait on Apple and the Pc world to see what unfolds the next month or two.
Man are MacAddicts touchy or what when you make a comment about hardware or marketshare these days. If the Hardware is slow and overpriced say so! why deny it?

How long do you think a dual 2 would last in terms of gaming? I'm debating whether to get a dual 2 with 9800pro, wait for new powermacs, or get an FX-53 and wait for PCI express graphics, or buy an FX-53 now with FX5950 Ultra. Choices... What do you think, DHM?

Dont Hurt Me
Apr 4, 2004, 02:16 PM
as we get a OS that is 64 bit and we start seeing stuff optimized for G5 so I would say a dual 2.0 would have a long life. but we know whats coming and that is 970fx. it pays to be patient.
Video, 9800 is solid, period. any variation will only get better except perhaps the SE version.
AMDs FX53 & FX5950 is top from what i have seen, or tied for top but new videocards are coming?
This is when everyone starts rolling out a bunch of stuff so I would say be patient watch the show wait for Doom3 then make a choice. :D Dont buy last years stuff unless you are forced. also I wish we had Far Cry for Mac.

tpjunkie
Apr 4, 2004, 02:16 PM
A dual 2 with a 9800 will certainly last you a good three years for gaming I'd say. My dual 533 G4 tower (with a 9800 installed) is capable of playing just about all of the latest games, although there are a few it doesn't play amazingly well (halo needs to have most options turned off) and I think there may be 1 or two that wont play at all. However, it is now more than 3 years old.

invaLPsion
Apr 4, 2004, 02:45 PM
Thanks for the advice guys. I'm pretty sure I will be sticking with a G5 though, but the PC is always a good option.

As for gaming, I am not into all those latest games like Doom 3 and Half Life 2 but I will be playing Warcraft 3, UT2k4, TrueCombat, and COD (when it comes out.)

invaLPsion
Apr 4, 2004, 02:46 PM
A dual 2 with a 9800 will certainly last you a good three years for gaming I'd say.

That's good because I'm going to college in 2 years and I don't think I will be doing much gaming then.

yamabushi
Apr 15, 2004, 12:34 PM
I think it makes sense for most people to pair a level of cpu power with a comparable level of gpu power. A high end computer such as a dual 2GHz PM should have a high end graphics card such as the R9800 Pro by default in my opinion. Of course an option to downgrade for those that feel they don't need such graphics power would also be welcome. Each user has their own unique needs.

By no means do I mean to imply that there should be a R9800 in every model. I think that an approriate card should be used for each level of perfomance with the option to upgrade or downgrade if possible for a given form factor. The new eMac seems to be a very good match with the G4 1.25 and R9200. The old model seemed to have a graphics chipset one step too low (7500) for an entry level machine (or the cpu power and total price was a step too high). I think it is particularly important for those models where we are not able to customize the configuration to have an appropriate pairing for a given price point. High end, midrange, and entry level for each from a given range of chips available.

1macker1
Apr 15, 2004, 04:00 PM
Umm, if you dont like the graphics card that Apple is providing, take it out and get the one you want. What's the big deal.

Counterfit
Apr 15, 2004, 04:40 PM
(or the cpu power and total price was a step too high) I don't think it's a good idea to hold back on CPU power because the GPU doesn't have the appropriate level of it.

arogge
Apr 15, 2004, 05:20 PM
Umm, if you dont like the graphics card that Apple is providing, take it out and get the one you want. What's the big deal.

The problem is getting it to work with the Mac. Unlike other systems, the Mac is restricted to the ATI and NVIDIA products that are Made4Mac. Those cards are overpriced and I don't want them. I want to install one of these professional graphics cards (http://www.3dlabs.com/product/wildcat4/index.htm). I was hoping that Apple would eventually support this hardware, and when "pro" card support was announced at the keynote, I assumed that meant Apple was finally going to get proper graphics support for the PowerMac. :(

LethalWolfe
Apr 15, 2004, 05:36 PM
The problem is getting it to work with the Mac. Unlike other systems, the Mac is restricted to the ATI and NVIDIA products that are Made4Mac. Those cards are overpriced and I don't want them. I want to install one of these professional graphics cards (http://www.3dlabs.com/product/wildcat4/index.htm). I was hoping that Apple would eventually support this hardware, and when "pro" card support was announced at the keynote, I assumed that meant Apple was finally going to get proper graphics support for the PowerMac. :(


Have you tried contacting 3dlabs and asking them when they are going to start making Mac compatible drivers/firmware/software?

I see a lot of examples of people saying "Why doesn't Apple support such-and-such?" Well instead talking to Apple talk to the 3rd party developers and let them know there are Mac users that want to buy their product.


Lethal

arogge
Apr 15, 2004, 10:32 PM
Have you tried contacting 3dlabs and asking them when they are going to start making Mac compatible drivers/firmware/software?

Yes, but the reply is always that the Mac market isn't big enough. That's what they used to say about Linux, and enough requests from users and distributors finally got Wildcat drivers for Linux. Like the problem with getting full OpenOffice.org support on OS X, Apple could help by giving resources to alternative projects. The difference between getting Linux support for AMD and Intel systems and getting support for the PowerMac is that there is a rapidly growing market for Linux support. People are tired of using Microsoft Windows and want to migrate to Linux on the same hardware platforms. Companies like 3Dlabs understand that rapidly growing markets, as are caused by the migration from Microsoft to Open Source, mean more potential sales if those new demands are supported. There are few people who will contact 3Dlabs, or any company that does not make products for the Mac, and hope that the company will support the platform. The people who are looking to buy a system with professional graphics might go to Apple, and, finding no graphics support, go to IBM or any of the other high-end computer manufacturers that will support their needs. They don't usually wait for years hoping that Apple will wake up.

LethalWolfe
Apr 15, 2004, 11:36 PM
Yes, but the reply is always that the Mac market isn't big enough. That's what they used to say about Linux, and enough requests from users and distributors finally got Wildcat drivers for Linux. Like the problem with getting full OpenOffice.org support on OS X, Apple could help by giving resources to alternative projects. The difference between getting Linux support for AMD and Intel systems and getting support for the PowerMac is that there is a rapidly growing market for Linux support. People are tired of using Microsoft Windows and want to migrate to Linux on the same hardware platforms. Companies like 3Dlabs understand that rapidly growing markets, as are caused by the migration from Microsoft to Open Source, mean more potential sales if those new demands are supported. There are few people who will contact 3Dlabs, or any company that does not make products for the Mac, and hope that the company will support the platform. The people who are looking to buy a system with professional graphics might go to Apple, and, finding no graphics support, go to IBM or any of the other high-end computer manufacturers that will support their needs. They don't usually wait for years hoping that Apple will wake up.


I'm still not sure what you want Apple to "wake up" and do, exactly? What can Apple do to make 3dlabs write drivers and such for the Mac? It's a bit of a catch 22 I guess. 3Dlabs won't make Mac products because there is not enough demand. But there can't be any demand because the product doesn't exist yet.


Lethal

arogge
Apr 16, 2004, 12:36 AM
What can Apple do to make 3dlabs write drivers and such for the Mac?

Apple could create some demand for the hardware by increasing customer awareness of the products. How many people would buy the cards as upgrades and how many more sales would Apple get if it had comparable graphics to the competing workstations? The problem is that Apple doesn't even recognize the mid- to high-end graphics market. Apple pushes the small selection of ATI and NVIDIA cards at inflated prices and won't talk about anything else.

thatwendigo
Apr 16, 2004, 10:25 AM
The problem is that Apple doesn't even recognize the mid- to high-end graphics market. Apple pushes the small selection of ATI and NVIDIA cards at inflated prices and won't talk about anything else.

Has it ever occured to you that there might be some factor outside of Apple's control that is causing this, like 3dlabs and other companies not cooperating? For some companies, the balance sheet doesn't come out how they'd like when looking at the mac world, and so there isn't much done for them. ATI and nVidia are both guilty of this in smaller degrees (the underperforming, overpriced cards you mentioned), but what you're not talking about is the fact that they mostly optimize for DirectX performance.

Since the mac has no DirectX, there will be performance lags. Period.

Peyote
Apr 16, 2004, 12:55 PM
I get so tired of all these doom and gloom whiners on here, predicting the fall of Apple every time they don't upgrade their product line all the time.

Guess what people, Apple doesn't have to do business the way you think they should...how many businesses have you run? That's what I thought. Enough is enough.

Everyone that thinks Apple is collapsing or some such nonsense needs to think about the following:

Apple is a niche company. That means it's not out to get every bit of marketshare....so quit bitching about marketshare numbers! It's irrelevent until it effects something like third party product development. Everyone complaining about marketshare numbers needs to realize this: the population of the world grows very fast... 5% of one million people is the same as 2.5% of two million people....get it? Just because market share goes down, doesn't mean that less people own macs.

Apple's stock is higher than it's ever been...and it doesn't matter the cause if we're talking about Apple staying afloat.


Lastly, if you don't like how Apple is doing business, think macs suck, think they're overpriced, or think that they are too slow, BUY SOMETHING ELSE. Don't waste your time and everyone else's time here whining about Apple or Apple products. Buy something else and quit bitching.