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.
MWNY: G4 will be at 1.5 Ghz
- Thread starter groov'
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Motorola isn't all that far behind
Motorola has chosen to emphasize more on better caching and RISC processing than Mhz, as well as vector processing. The problem is for some people all they see is Mhz. Macs are up to 5 times faster than PCs of even twice the Mhz if the software takes advantage of the full capabilities of the G4. Look at the RC5 and Blast tests on the G4, neither of which use dual processors, and both ended up 5 times faster on a 1 Ghz G4 than a 2 GHz Pentium IV.
For the results check:
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/dual_1ghz_performance_test.html
and
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/feb/07blast.html
The problem of course is developers aren't
aware of how to develop for the G4 exclusively, and tend to try to focus only on
graphics cards. The good news is the Radeon 8500 is a 64MB of VRAM card, and Quartz Extreme which will be built-in to Jaguar http://www.apple.com/macosx/newversion
will take advantage of any videocard that has 16MB of VRAM or more on a Mac.
There is more about the development for Altivec and how simple it is here:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/mac/2002/04/05/altivec.html
Now if you can get your developer to read that article, perhaps they could develop your software with the Altivec more in mind and make software that is more up to speed on the Mac.
Mac OS X also slows down because developers don't update their prebinding when installing Mac applications (Apple does). Prebinding fixes many of the file links. The good news is that you can update prebinding on the whole system to fix those speed problems with freeware such as Pacifist: http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=12743&db=mac
So before you think that Motorola is behind, the problem isn't that. Developers are behind, and don't know the tools available to their disposal. Not to mention the G4 has half as many stages on its pipeline making processing of code with error quicker,
as errors get cleared through on each process earlier allowing more processes to move through. There is a whole discussion about this at:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html
Motorola has chosen to emphasize more on better caching and RISC processing than Mhz, as well as vector processing. The problem is for some people all they see is Mhz. Macs are up to 5 times faster than PCs of even twice the Mhz if the software takes advantage of the full capabilities of the G4. Look at the RC5 and Blast tests on the G4, neither of which use dual processors, and both ended up 5 times faster on a 1 Ghz G4 than a 2 GHz Pentium IV.
For the results check:
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/dual_1ghz_performance_test.html
and
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/feb/07blast.html
The problem of course is developers aren't
aware of how to develop for the G4 exclusively, and tend to try to focus only on
graphics cards. The good news is the Radeon 8500 is a 64MB of VRAM card, and Quartz Extreme which will be built-in to Jaguar http://www.apple.com/macosx/newversion
will take advantage of any videocard that has 16MB of VRAM or more on a Mac.
There is more about the development for Altivec and how simple it is here:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/mac/2002/04/05/altivec.html
Now if you can get your developer to read that article, perhaps they could develop your software with the Altivec more in mind and make software that is more up to speed on the Mac.
Mac OS X also slows down because developers don't update their prebinding when installing Mac applications (Apple does). Prebinding fixes many of the file links. The good news is that you can update prebinding on the whole system to fix those speed problems with freeware such as Pacifist: http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=12743&db=mac
So before you think that Motorola is behind, the problem isn't that. Developers are behind, and don't know the tools available to their disposal. Not to mention the G4 has half as many stages on its pipeline making processing of code with error quicker,
as errors get cleared through on each process earlier allowing more processes to move through. There is a whole discussion about this at:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html
Re: Re: New Mack
I wish we had a breakdown in sales numbers per Mac product. I tend to agree with Ovi whereas the high-end price of the high-end PowerMac is such that a very small percentage of Mac folk buy them. Consequently, I expect that the volume is very low, so low that two times this volume is still considerably lower than that of the 933 and 800 meg CPU's. To keep volume low, Apple has to price them upward. To justify the high price, Apple has to place two CPU's in the box.
Eirik
I wish we had a breakdown in sales numbers per Mac product. I tend to agree with Ovi whereas the high-end price of the high-end PowerMac is such that a very small percentage of Mac folk buy them. Consequently, I expect that the volume is very low, so low that two times this volume is still considerably lower than that of the 933 and 800 meg CPU's. To keep volume low, Apple has to price them upward. To justify the high price, Apple has to place two CPU's in the box.
Eirik
To look at the past and let it govern the future is just not a accurate way to predict what will happen. Now, you can use it as a guage, but here is my question. Moto has been producing processors that are very strong, and in most tests will run right with a Pentium that is twice as fast. So, why make it faster? Keep your chips going as needed, and then when you need a 500 MHZ boost, boom, there it is. Why not?
I don't know the hows or why's, but I can tell you there will be dual 1.4's at NY. Bank on it.
I don't know the hows or why's, but I can tell you there will be dual 1.4's at NY. Bank on it.
Do you think that they will not be serious Pentium Burning Machines? Patiently awaiting response.
Hey B2TM good to see someone n here fighting the good fight. ive been shocked reading post after post of self proclaimed experts tell us all that we are all stupid and they have some special crystal ball into the future. seems like ovi needs to get out the windex and clean the smudges off that crystal ball of his.
so what if apple has never done a 500mhz jump before, apple has never been deaing with such large numbers before. the speed increases are doubtless to increase in magnitude. i prefer to think of percentage increases. apple has doubled mhz in the past on a number of occassions. a 50% increase in mhz today therefore does not seem so unlikely. especially when considering the things gopher pointed out. now here is someone who knows whats up, apple hasnt focused on mhz in awhile now, but per the article it seems like that may be changing (did you even read the article naysayers?). with a sudden switch in focus i would not be at all surprised to hear of a 400 or 500 mhz jump.
and then the pentium burning machines comment. i guess because so many of you are new to the platform you dont understand the speed of macs. we have experts who think proclaiming that they have watched apple for a whole 4 years as if that is a long time. apple computers even today are comparable in speed to the fastest pentiums. and it was not too long ago that apple completely dominated the speed market. things have evened out lately, with apple being faster in some areas and intel/amd being faster in others. imagining that with all the new technology apple is supposed to be dumping into the powermacs over the next year and a half the apples will regain their dominance is really not all that far out. apple has been able to stay on level ground with the wintel world despite using some old tech that is slowing down the new stuff. unleashing the power of the g4 by giving it a new board and ram along with a significant speed bump to the g4 could make for a very powerful computer.
so what if apple has never done a 500mhz jump before, apple has never been deaing with such large numbers before. the speed increases are doubtless to increase in magnitude. i prefer to think of percentage increases. apple has doubled mhz in the past on a number of occassions. a 50% increase in mhz today therefore does not seem so unlikely. especially when considering the things gopher pointed out. now here is someone who knows whats up, apple hasnt focused on mhz in awhile now, but per the article it seems like that may be changing (did you even read the article naysayers?). with a sudden switch in focus i would not be at all surprised to hear of a 400 or 500 mhz jump.
and then the pentium burning machines comment. i guess because so many of you are new to the platform you dont understand the speed of macs. we have experts who think proclaiming that they have watched apple for a whole 4 years as if that is a long time. apple computers even today are comparable in speed to the fastest pentiums. and it was not too long ago that apple completely dominated the speed market. things have evened out lately, with apple being faster in some areas and intel/amd being faster in others. imagining that with all the new technology apple is supposed to be dumping into the powermacs over the next year and a half the apples will regain their dominance is really not all that far out. apple has been able to stay on level ground with the wintel world despite using some old tech that is slowing down the new stuff. unleashing the power of the g4 by giving it a new board and ram along with a significant speed bump to the g4 could make for a very powerful computer.
Lemon,
Man, I agree! It is out of control! Prior to man walking on the moon, no one had ever walked on the moon, but so what they did it. I can't wait till NY so I can come back and rub the accuracy of the predictions in some people faces. I am normally very level headed you know that, but I cannot stand rants. Inhale 420 and I have gone at it before in here, and he posts like he was Cyrus. Troll, through and through.
Man, I agree! It is out of control! Prior to man walking on the moon, no one had ever walked on the moon, but so what they did it. I can't wait till NY so I can come back and rub the accuracy of the predictions in some people faces. I am normally very level headed you know that, but I cannot stand rants. Inhale 420 and I have gone at it before in here, and he posts like he was Cyrus. Troll, through and through.
1.5GHz. Wow. That would perform like lightning.
However, let's take a look at what would enable (1) Motorola to reach that level, and (2) Apple using this technology in their computers.
(1)
Motorola is rumored to be using the following in their upcoming processors:
- 0.13 micron manufacturing process
- A longer pipeline
With those two additions to the G4, it may easily scale to 1.5GHz, and possibly beyond. The pipeline, from what I have read, is rumored to be nearly doubled to 12 stages.
(2)
Apple is changing things up lately. They haven't followed a pattern of product releases, and have been difficult to predict. So, 1.5GHz may be a possibility. With the discounts that are currently offered on PowerMacs ($300 rebate, discount on monitor purchase, and a free firewire hard drive), something fairly large must be on the way.
------------
All in all, I'd say that the conditions are right for Apple to release a 1.5GHz machine, although I still wouldn't hold my breath. All I'd care to see is 1.2GHz with DDR memory.
However, let's take a look at what would enable (1) Motorola to reach that level, and (2) Apple using this technology in their computers.
(1)
Motorola is rumored to be using the following in their upcoming processors:
- 0.13 micron manufacturing process
- A longer pipeline
With those two additions to the G4, it may easily scale to 1.5GHz, and possibly beyond. The pipeline, from what I have read, is rumored to be nearly doubled to 12 stages.
(2)
Apple is changing things up lately. They haven't followed a pattern of product releases, and have been difficult to predict. So, 1.5GHz may be a possibility. With the discounts that are currently offered on PowerMacs ($300 rebate, discount on monitor purchase, and a free firewire hard drive), something fairly large must be on the way.
------------
All in all, I'd say that the conditions are right for Apple to release a 1.5GHz machine, although I still wouldn't hold my breath. All I'd care to see is 1.2GHz with DDR memory.
B2TM: 
rice: well said, i knew we could count on someone to sum it up better.
one more thing is that this rumor is completely in line with all the other. all rumors have been saying that moto is sampling chips at 1.2 1.4 and 1.5 ghz. each author then decides which to back with his personal prediction. must have guessed 1.4ghz, this rumor simply states that they have info that the 1.5ghz may be a possibility.
rice: well said, i knew we could count on someone to sum it up better.
one more thing is that this rumor is completely in line with all the other. all rumors have been saying that moto is sampling chips at 1.2 1.4 and 1.5 ghz. each author then decides which to back with his personal prediction. must have guessed 1.4ghz, this rumor simply states that they have info that the 1.5ghz may be a possibility.
Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
B2TM:
rice: well said, i knew we could count on someone to sum it up better.
one more thing is that this rumor is completely in line with all the other. all rumors have been saying that moto is sampling chips at 1.2 1.4 and 1.5 ghz. each author then decides which to back with his personal prediction. must have guessed 1.4ghz, this rumor simply states that they have info that the 1.5ghz may be a possibility.
I posted specs back in February or March, can't remember which about what I was hearing, and the cool thing is that almost all of the rumors out there are fitting in line with what I have been saying all along. There are also a couple of suprises that are just going to blow everyone away. I can't wait till July.
should be interesting. apple hasnt been hyping this as much as the imac debut. just wish i was going to be near a tv or internet connection come july.
Won't a longer pipeline cripple the cpu ?
when the first 7450 based macs came out, even with the 1Mb of level 3 cache, the 733Mhz Model wasn't competing well with the 533Mhz model, that was only a modest increase from 4 to 7 pipeline stages and a 1Mb DDR cache (there was no mention of this in the specs but someone identified the L3 cache as being DDR in an overclocking article).
If we do get a 1533 or 1466Mhz G4 in the new macs with a 10 or 12 stage pipeline, it's not going to be faster than the current PPC7455 chips at the same clock speed. I imagine DDR ram on the motherboard, a 512K L2 and 4Mb L3 would probably make the a 1466 or 1533Mhz G4 perform around 50% faster than a 1Ghz G4 but it could be less than that.
I just want a mac that not only costs around £1,350 - £1,500 including V.A.T. but at least matches the performance on a 2Ghz Pentium 4. It's got to last me 4 years at least without me getting frustrated with how slow it becomes after a year or 2 like I did with my beige G3, I've pretty much being waiting for 1.2Ghz before I look at buying another mac so I get a 4 fold speed increase over my beige G3 and a modern motherboard. Obviously I could have gone for an entry level 800Mhz model earlier in the year, it performs just over 3 times faster than my 300Mhz beige in protools LE and it would obviously scream at running software synths but baring in mind how much faster the 933Mhz model is with the L3 cache, I need more Mhz and DDR on the entry level model before I can be sure it's worth saving for.
I doubt I'll be getting a new mac this year but if I set my sights on one of the new models, at least I can stand a chance of affording it right before MWSF next year. I made the biggest mistake of my life buying a beige G3 2 weeks before the B & W G3s we're reviewed properly, I just bought what I could for £1,400 and made do. It's more clean cut buying a G4, it's got guaranteed specs and I know what I'm getting if I buy an end of life model. Plus I could put the money I'd save of buying new on something like a 17" LCD to go with it.
Protools X & Unity Session running under OS X on a single CPU 1.2Ghz G4 with DDR sounds like a realistic goal for my next mac and future audio setup to me.
when the first 7450 based macs came out, even with the 1Mb of level 3 cache, the 733Mhz Model wasn't competing well with the 533Mhz model, that was only a modest increase from 4 to 7 pipeline stages and a 1Mb DDR cache (there was no mention of this in the specs but someone identified the L3 cache as being DDR in an overclocking article).
If we do get a 1533 or 1466Mhz G4 in the new macs with a 10 or 12 stage pipeline, it's not going to be faster than the current PPC7455 chips at the same clock speed. I imagine DDR ram on the motherboard, a 512K L2 and 4Mb L3 would probably make the a 1466 or 1533Mhz G4 perform around 50% faster than a 1Ghz G4 but it could be less than that.
I just want a mac that not only costs around £1,350 - £1,500 including V.A.T. but at least matches the performance on a 2Ghz Pentium 4. It's got to last me 4 years at least without me getting frustrated with how slow it becomes after a year or 2 like I did with my beige G3, I've pretty much being waiting for 1.2Ghz before I look at buying another mac so I get a 4 fold speed increase over my beige G3 and a modern motherboard. Obviously I could have gone for an entry level 800Mhz model earlier in the year, it performs just over 3 times faster than my 300Mhz beige in protools LE and it would obviously scream at running software synths but baring in mind how much faster the 933Mhz model is with the L3 cache, I need more Mhz and DDR on the entry level model before I can be sure it's worth saving for.
I doubt I'll be getting a new mac this year but if I set my sights on one of the new models, at least I can stand a chance of affording it right before MWSF next year. I made the biggest mistake of my life buying a beige G3 2 weeks before the B & W G3s we're reviewed properly, I just bought what I could for £1,400 and made do. It's more clean cut buying a G4, it's got guaranteed specs and I know what I'm getting if I buy an end of life model. Plus I could put the money I'd save of buying new on something like a 17" LCD to go with it.
Protools X & Unity Session running under OS X on a single CPU 1.2Ghz G4 with DDR sounds like a realistic goal for my next mac and future audio setup to me.
Re: Won't a longer pipeline cripple the cpu ?
Look, no offense here ok. There are already systems that compete with a 2GHZ PIV for the money your talking about. All of the current PowerMacs will compete with a PIV and smoke it in most apps. To think that a system is going to stay crisp and "snappy" for 4 years is just unreal. Don't ever fool yourself into thinking that could happen. Sure there are people out there with iMacs from 99 and it is just as fast as it was when it was bought. And it always will be as fast as it was in 99, but through 10.1.4 on there and Photoshop 7 and it isn't so fast anymore.
Buy a new dual 1.4 GHZ with a 2 Gigs of DDR, and a 120 GB hard drive and it will blow the doors off anything out there. Now in four years, it will not run the most modern software in the world. Think of computer years as dog years. 1 year = 7 years in all other buisnesses.
Look, no offense here ok. There are already systems that compete with a 2GHZ PIV for the money your talking about. All of the current PowerMacs will compete with a PIV and smoke it in most apps. To think that a system is going to stay crisp and "snappy" for 4 years is just unreal. Don't ever fool yourself into thinking that could happen. Sure there are people out there with iMacs from 99 and it is just as fast as it was when it was bought. And it always will be as fast as it was in 99, but through 10.1.4 on there and Photoshop 7 and it isn't so fast anymore.
Buy a new dual 1.4 GHZ with a 2 Gigs of DDR, and a 120 GB hard drive and it will blow the doors off anything out there. Now in four years, it will not run the most modern software in the world. Think of computer years as dog years. 1 year = 7 years in all other buisnesses.
I'd like to comment on the expanded pipeline:
When the 733 was released as a low-end CPU, it was STILL FASTER than a single 533, except in a couple of tests. Still, the 733 was, on average, about 7% faster than the 533 (the biggest increases in speed were obvious in Quake).
So, a jump to 12 pipelines from 7 can hurt performance. Much like a P4 is easily beat out by a P3 running at the same clock speed, the new G4s will be killed by current G4s at the same clock speed, except for the new goodies that we will see.
The new G4s are expected to carry DDR memory, a possible 4MB L3 cache (at least 2), and possibly a 512K L2 cache. Plus, this new chip might incorporate a 0.13 micron manufacturing process along with SOI. SOI has proven to boost performance up to 20% at the same clock speeds.
So, I'd expect that the new G4s will run faster than current G4s at the same clock speed, even with the hike in pipeline stages. Plus, the new G4 (based upon more pipeline stages and better manufacturing process) should scale well.
When the 733 was released as a low-end CPU, it was STILL FASTER than a single 533, except in a couple of tests. Still, the 733 was, on average, about 7% faster than the 533 (the biggest increases in speed were obvious in Quake).
So, a jump to 12 pipelines from 7 can hurt performance. Much like a P4 is easily beat out by a P3 running at the same clock speed, the new G4s will be killed by current G4s at the same clock speed, except for the new goodies that we will see.
The new G4s are expected to carry DDR memory, a possible 4MB L3 cache (at least 2), and possibly a 512K L2 cache. Plus, this new chip might incorporate a 0.13 micron manufacturing process along with SOI. SOI has proven to boost performance up to 20% at the same clock speeds.
So, I'd expect that the new G4s will run faster than current G4s at the same clock speed, even with the hike in pipeline stages. Plus, the new G4 (based upon more pipeline stages and better manufacturing process) should scale well.
12 stages still better than the 21 of the P IV
Apple has at least that to thank for.
And don't think the Itanium will make it better for Intel. So far the Itanium can only make it to 800 Mhz. Should really debunk the Mhz myth once and for all if that is what they release.
Apple has at least that to thank for.
And don't think the Itanium will make it better for Intel. So far the Itanium can only make it to 800 Mhz. Should really debunk the Mhz myth once and for all if that is what they release.
Okay, maybe 4 years was pushing it a bit
I'm not trying to start an argument but I know for a fact the entry level G4 can match at least a 1.8Ghz Pentium 4 for what I spend most of my time doing. It's just a few other things where it would lag behind.
For protools LE, the mac stacks up pretty well against a PC
G4 800 : 135 plugins
P4 1.8Ghz : 125 plugins
This is from the Dave C test on the Digidesign site, I've done it myself and managed only 30 plugins with all the tweaking I could do to get them. I know I'm in for treat when I buy a new mac!
I was over-exagerating a little on the 4 year thing, I just know that for my main application, Protools LE, my beige G3 is slow but (just about) usable, I don't doubt that if I had a 1Ghz+ G4, It would easily last 4 years at a push if it took me that long top save up for a new one. I've had my beige G3 for nearly 4 years and I've only begun to feel the lack of speed over the past 18 months or so. To be honest, I'd really be looking at a new mac every year if I could afford to upgrade that frequently.
Seeing as photoshop is the main benchmarking application Apple use, here's some numbers that prove how slow the entry level G4 is for photoshop:
It's taken from Barefeats
1.8Ghz Pentium 4 : 59 seconds
933Mhz G4 : 72 seconds
There were no comparable results for the 800Mhz model so here's the results from another test on the site using the same benchmark action:
933Mhz G4 : 71 seconds
800Mhz G4 : 101 seconds
from that you can see that a 1.8Ghz Pentium 4 is around 70% faster for photoshop than an 800Mhz G4. Again, I'm not trying to start an argument here, You can prove anything with facts and the old "reality distortion field" stuff doesn't work on me
I just think whatever Apple bring out at MWNY, people who've held out a few years on upgrading will be pretty happy with the performance they'll get out of it.
I'm not trying to start an argument but I know for a fact the entry level G4 can match at least a 1.8Ghz Pentium 4 for what I spend most of my time doing. It's just a few other things where it would lag behind.
For protools LE, the mac stacks up pretty well against a PC
G4 800 : 135 plugins
P4 1.8Ghz : 125 plugins
This is from the Dave C test on the Digidesign site, I've done it myself and managed only 30 plugins with all the tweaking I could do to get them. I know I'm in for treat when I buy a new mac!
I was over-exagerating a little on the 4 year thing, I just know that for my main application, Protools LE, my beige G3 is slow but (just about) usable, I don't doubt that if I had a 1Ghz+ G4, It would easily last 4 years at a push if it took me that long top save up for a new one. I've had my beige G3 for nearly 4 years and I've only begun to feel the lack of speed over the past 18 months or so. To be honest, I'd really be looking at a new mac every year if I could afford to upgrade that frequently.
Seeing as photoshop is the main benchmarking application Apple use, here's some numbers that prove how slow the entry level G4 is for photoshop:
It's taken from Barefeats
1.8Ghz Pentium 4 : 59 seconds
933Mhz G4 : 72 seconds
There were no comparable results for the 800Mhz model so here's the results from another test on the site using the same benchmark action:
933Mhz G4 : 71 seconds
800Mhz G4 : 101 seconds
from that you can see that a 1.8Ghz Pentium 4 is around 70% faster for photoshop than an 800Mhz G4. Again, I'm not trying to start an argument here, You can prove anything with facts and the old "reality distortion field" stuff doesn't work on me
I just think whatever Apple bring out at MWNY, people who've held out a few years on upgrading will be pretty happy with the performance they'll get out of it.
Mac for Music
I feel in a similar position to Barkmonster.
I'm hoping to get a new mac this summer to run logic audio.
At the moment I'm using a PBG3 333, and look forward to seeing a massive performance leap in whichever G4 I go for. Having said that, I know this'll be lost to some extent by the switch from OS9 to OSX (which won't perform decently on this machine in any of the versions I've tried so far (320Mb RAM)).
Anyway, I'm going to get a G4 tower of some description, hopefully a DP (though if they keep the middle/low-end machines Single processor, this won't happen).
What concerns me is that I'll need a 4/6/8 input soundcard of some description, but I would find it incredibly galling to go and buy something like the MOTU 828 (which is very expensive anyway - are there ANY firewire alternatives?!) only to find out that MOTU don't come out with any OS X drivers, stranding me in crash-prone OS 9 land.
The Tascam 428 looks like it might be okay, and I really like the idea of the control surface, but I wonder whether USB can handle enough throughput to properly record 4 channels of audio simultaneously (and there are OSX drivers, and it's a lot cheaper than the MOTU)?
The reason why I'm looking primarily at external solutions and not PCI-related ones is that I'd like to be able to employ whatever recording solution on both my new G4 and my old powerbook for on-location recording.
Anyone have any ideas? And yes, I really want a desktop G4, NOT a G4 powerbook (for upgradeability, extra hard drives etc)
I feel in a similar position to Barkmonster.
I'm hoping to get a new mac this summer to run logic audio.
At the moment I'm using a PBG3 333, and look forward to seeing a massive performance leap in whichever G4 I go for. Having said that, I know this'll be lost to some extent by the switch from OS9 to OSX (which won't perform decently on this machine in any of the versions I've tried so far (320Mb RAM)).
Anyway, I'm going to get a G4 tower of some description, hopefully a DP (though if they keep the middle/low-end machines Single processor, this won't happen).
What concerns me is that I'll need a 4/6/8 input soundcard of some description, but I would find it incredibly galling to go and buy something like the MOTU 828 (which is very expensive anyway - are there ANY firewire alternatives?!) only to find out that MOTU don't come out with any OS X drivers, stranding me in crash-prone OS 9 land.
The Tascam 428 looks like it might be okay, and I really like the idea of the control surface, but I wonder whether USB can handle enough throughput to properly record 4 channels of audio simultaneously (and there are OSX drivers, and it's a lot cheaper than the MOTU)?
The reason why I'm looking primarily at external solutions and not PCI-related ones is that I'd like to be able to employ whatever recording solution on both my new G4 and my old powerbook for on-location recording.
Anyone have any ideas? And yes, I really want a desktop G4, NOT a G4 powerbook (for upgradeability, extra hard drives etc)
Re: Okay, maybe 4 years was pushing it a bit
A couple of problems that I have on this test is that it is Photoshop 6. Was it run under classic or X. If X, then that means it had to be run under classic, and that is not a fair test. Actually, when you think about it, it really shows how strong the Mac is. Not to mention that it smoked the Pentium in other tests, look at the Bryce 5 test. I would like to see them re-run it with Photoshop 7. Bet the outcome would be different.
A couple of problems that I have on this test is that it is Photoshop 6. Was it run under classic or X. If X, then that means it had to be run under classic, and that is not a fair test. Actually, when you think about it, it really shows how strong the Mac is. Not to mention that it smoked the Pentium in other tests, look at the Bryce 5 test. I would like to see them re-run it with Photoshop 7. Bet the outcome would be different.
RE: was it classic or X ?
The benchmarks are a few months old now, there are tests on barefeats that show that running Photoshop 7 under OS X is faster than 6 in OS 9. I imagine running the PC vs Mac benchmark again with Photoshop 7 under OS X would be even more impressive.
I doubt it would bring the entry level or mid range G4s upto speed against a recent Pentium 4 chip though.
The benchmarks are a few months old now, there are tests on barefeats that show that running Photoshop 7 under OS X is faster than 6 in OS 9. I imagine running the PC vs Mac benchmark again with Photoshop 7 under OS X would be even more impressive.
I doubt it would bring the entry level or mid range G4s upto speed against a recent Pentium 4 chip though.
First post
Hi folks
This is my first post! I've just converted to Macs when I started my current post (during my PhD I used PCs - took a long time to write my thesis what with crashes and all!).
Anyway, to the point. I think the Mhz gap is important but that Apple has many other strengths. I intend to buy an eMac soon, and I don't care that it "only" has a 700Mhz G4 - yes, I could probably get a 2Ghz P4 PC for the same money but the user experience with Apple is light years ahead of anything Wintel can offer. That is why I'll be buying a Mac. Even if I move to a new post which uses PCs I'll stick with a Mac at home - they really are so much better, regardless of speed.
So, I think Apple is (and should be) pushing the end user experience more than raw speed, which, lets face it, most people will never use.
Just my tuppence worth.
Hi folks
This is my first post! I've just converted to Macs when I started my current post (during my PhD I used PCs - took a long time to write my thesis what with crashes and all!).
Anyway, to the point. I think the Mhz gap is important but that Apple has many other strengths. I intend to buy an eMac soon, and I don't care that it "only" has a 700Mhz G4 - yes, I could probably get a 2Ghz P4 PC for the same money but the user experience with Apple is light years ahead of anything Wintel can offer. That is why I'll be buying a Mac. Even if I move to a new post which uses PCs I'll stick with a Mac at home - they really are so much better, regardless of speed.
So, I think Apple is (and should be) pushing the end user experience more than raw speed, which, lets face it, most people will never use.
Just my tuppence worth.
Re: First post
Very well thought out and stated. Welcome to the forurms, and I have to agree with you. I would love to see Apple do commercials showing off OS X. Hopefully with Jaguar they will.
Very well thought out and stated. Welcome to the forurms, and I have to agree with you. I would love to see Apple do commercials showing off OS X. Hopefully with Jaguar they will.
