Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
G5 is behind yet again. AMD FX-53 announced
- Thread starter Dont Hurt Me
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
jiggie2g said:
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
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.
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.
Basically, to tie all my comments together and address some other complaints about Apples expensive, behind-the-times hardware, I say this:jiggie2g said: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?
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?
LethalWolfe said:
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.
jiggie2g said:
Actually, maybe Mac is like a Volvo
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... 
Mehmet said:
Yea because Prescotts have at least 30 stages or something insane like that.
Makes you want to go hug a RISC.
jiggie2g said:
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.
jiggie2g: I want to know where you're getting your info from. This Does not Look like a Floor-mopping to Me, nor Does this. 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
At this point, I have to say that some of DHM and jiggie2g's posts could be included here
god damn mother****ing pessimists!
yes, I meant in general.
At this point, I have to say that some of DHM and jiggie2g's posts could be included here
god damn mother****ing pessimists!
yes, I meant in general.
jiggie2g said:
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
Counterfit said:
Heh heh - nice one, I like this site! I wonder how many more additions will be made to it in the upcoming future...
Counterfit said:
I almost missed this, ya sneaky bastard!
Counterfit said:jiggie2g: I want to know where you're getting your info from. This Does not Look like a Floor-mopping to Me, nor Does this. 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
At this point, I have to say that some of DHM and jiggie2g's posts could be included hereCounterfit said:
Wow.crackpip said:
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.
jiggie2g said:
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.
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?
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.
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.
You don't know that any more than I do, but it's fun to watch you prognosticate. Shine on, you crazy diamond!
MrMacman said:
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.
thatwendigo said: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!
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.
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.
I'll just say, in reponse to thatwendigo's post, well done on a comprehensive post. 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.
thatwendigo said:
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.
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.
Anandtech Athlon 64 vs. P4 Shootout
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
Also, checking at newegg, 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.
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.
G5 Tech Specs
# 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
The new Power Mac G5s 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 an advance thats especially welcome when youre working with enormous files. In addition, direct memory access (DMA) works with the point-to-point system controller to give each subsystem such as PCI cards and graphics processing units its own 6.4GBps interface to main memory, without siphoning power from your processors.
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!
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.
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.
jiggie2g said:
Anandtech Athlon 64 vs. P4 Shootout
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
Also, checking at newegg, 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.
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.
G5 Tech Specs
# 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
The new Power Mac G5s 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 an advance thats especially welcome when youre working with enormous files. In addition, direct memory access (DMA) works with the point-to-point system controller to give each subsystem such as PCI cards and graphics processing units its own 6.4GBps interface to main memory, without siphoning power from your processors.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Dont Hurt Me said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Status