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.
No apparent speed gains from new powermacs READ!
- Thread starter OKComputer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One word.. "WOW"
Who is to blame here, well that is obvious.
APPLE is responsible for their company and what it produces and NO ONE else!
Moto is a pain in the buttocks to be sure, but Apple is not their company.
And Moto is NOT telling Apple the manner in which to HYPE machines that will SO obviously be uncovered by those technically ableminded.
Its sad that Apple is in a TECH HOLE, whatever the reasons!
Yet, it's Apple's responsibility to get OUT of it and back into the computer game that they make such HUGE claims of being the best at!
I think that the new HUGE heat sink and fan speaks for itself.
The slow FSB speaks for itself!
The prices increases for no speed inprovements speaks for itself!
The slowwitted case with addon cd doors and vents for overclocked chips...
Speaks for itself!
There isnt any confusion here , this is Apple at its worst, for whatever reasons.
Be it Moto or Jobs or the newest big breasted secretary that has reduced Jobs mind to mush, it doesnt matter.
The realities are still there.
So I will say what I have said before many times...
We are not stupid, Apple.
We will not buy OLD hardware at premium prices.
Get it together and bring out the GOOD stuff.
Although, I think that for those of us that "Refuse to Lose" and move to the Pcheese world.
There is a decent hole here and thats the pricing on the old Gigers!
If you can find an older 1 giger for maybe 1200 or something like that.
I say thats the BUY!
Who is to blame here, well that is obvious.
APPLE is responsible for their company and what it produces and NO ONE else!
Moto is a pain in the buttocks to be sure, but Apple is not their company.
And Moto is NOT telling Apple the manner in which to HYPE machines that will SO obviously be uncovered by those technically ableminded.
Its sad that Apple is in a TECH HOLE, whatever the reasons!
Yet, it's Apple's responsibility to get OUT of it and back into the computer game that they make such HUGE claims of being the best at!
I think that the new HUGE heat sink and fan speaks for itself.
The slow FSB speaks for itself!
The prices increases for no speed inprovements speaks for itself!
The slowwitted case with addon cd doors and vents for overclocked chips...
Speaks for itself!
There isnt any confusion here , this is Apple at its worst, for whatever reasons.
Be it Moto or Jobs or the newest big breasted secretary that has reduced Jobs mind to mush, it doesnt matter.
The realities are still there.
So I will say what I have said before many times...
We are not stupid, Apple.
We will not buy OLD hardware at premium prices.
Get it together and bring out the GOOD stuff.
Although, I think that for those of us that "Refuse to Lose" and move to the Pcheese world.
There is a decent hole here and thats the pricing on the old Gigers!
If you can find an older 1 giger for maybe 1200 or something like that.
I say thats the BUY!
Umm, the 1.25 GHz won't be shipping until the last week of Sept, first week of Oct. Then you've got to fill the backlog, so it'll be mid/late Oct. before Apple gets caught up. And you'd like a 1.33MHz bump in Nov? Sorry, don't think so. We're stuck with these speeds until at least the remainder of 2002. January/February next year will hopefully bring our next speed bump.
Re: One word.. "WOW"
Dude, this guy just got through explaining how the Barefeats benchmarks measure mostly just the CPU performance and you go off ranting about how Apple is to blame for everything. Apple does not design or manufacture the CPU, Moto does.
Of course, that doesn't mean that Apple is free from blame. But let's be a little more rational here. Let's withold judgement about the new tech Apple has put into the new PowerMacs UNTIL someone does some decent benchmarks that measures system-wide performance. Certain benchmarks, like the ones done by Xinet, show some substantial performance advantages of the Xserve architecture.
I think the biggest problem with Apple is that it has essentially one supplier for its chips. I fault them for not having developed enough of a contingency plan. We need a healthy competition like you see between AMD and Intel. Hopefully, IBM with its new PowerPC chip will give Apple some more options. But who knows when that'll happen...
Dude, this guy just got through explaining how the Barefeats benchmarks measure mostly just the CPU performance and you go off ranting about how Apple is to blame for everything. Apple does not design or manufacture the CPU, Moto does.
Of course, that doesn't mean that Apple is free from blame. But let's be a little more rational here. Let's withold judgement about the new tech Apple has put into the new PowerMacs UNTIL someone does some decent benchmarks that measures system-wide performance. Certain benchmarks, like the ones done by Xinet, show some substantial performance advantages of the Xserve architecture.
I think the biggest problem with Apple is that it has essentially one supplier for its chips. I fault them for not having developed enough of a contingency plan. We need a healthy competition like you see between AMD and Intel. Hopefully, IBM with its new PowerPC chip will give Apple some more options. But who knows when that'll happen...
Re: Re: One word.. "WOW"
I guess Apple could be faulted for not having enough money to convince Moto to only build chips to its specifications. The fact of the matter is that most CPU architectures have very little competition, and the x86 only has it because of a mistake Intel made in the 1980s. Believe me, Intel has no desire to compete with AMD. Incidentally when everyone moves to 64bit, this competition goes by by, IA64 and x86-64 cannot be made binary compatible.
Given the trials and tribulations of the G4 CPU arch, what do you want Apple to do, in the short term? Switching to the x86 is not feasible, considering the effort it would take to make Carbon portable. Apple must look at the long term to fix this problem. Apple's only choice is to spend money on R&D, both internally and externally. To do this Apple needs good gross margins, i.e. in the 20%-30% range. Note: gross margins != net margins. This is not the case for peoples like Dell, or the PC divisions of HP & IBM, which do much less R&D. Given the lead times required, even if Apple started spending this money 2.5 years ago, you would only start seeing the stuff about now, i.e. the motherboard controller from the XServe/PMG4.
If you want to argue about these facts, you need to get a book on economics and try and understand it first. If you want cheeper kit from Apple, you have to give up the future of the Mac
I guess Apple could be faulted for not having enough money to convince Moto to only build chips to its specifications. The fact of the matter is that most CPU architectures have very little competition, and the x86 only has it because of a mistake Intel made in the 1980s. Believe me, Intel has no desire to compete with AMD. Incidentally when everyone moves to 64bit, this competition goes by by, IA64 and x86-64 cannot be made binary compatible.
Given the trials and tribulations of the G4 CPU arch, what do you want Apple to do, in the short term? Switching to the x86 is not feasible, considering the effort it would take to make Carbon portable. Apple must look at the long term to fix this problem. Apple's only choice is to spend money on R&D, both internally and externally. To do this Apple needs good gross margins, i.e. in the 20%-30% range. Note: gross margins != net margins. This is not the case for peoples like Dell, or the PC divisions of HP & IBM, which do much less R&D. Given the lead times required, even if Apple started spending this money 2.5 years ago, you would only start seeing the stuff about now, i.e. the motherboard controller from the XServe/PMG4.
If you want to argue about these facts, you need to get a book on economics and try and understand it first. If you want cheeper kit from Apple, you have to give up the future of the Mac
Re: Re: Re: One word.. "WOW"
About that Carbon portable, do you mean Cocoa? NeXT was once running on x86, and Darwin is running on x86. So it's quite possible. All Apple would need to do is recompile the OS with x86 as host processor. They might do this when Mac OS X is very mature and has a lot of Cocoa applications. These Cocoa apps would just have to be recompiled with VERY little code change. This is synonymous to Linux on x86 then later ported to the PowerPC. You can compile most x86 Linux programs on PowerPC provided you have the libraries. See, KDE runs on Linux/PPC just as fine as it does on x86.
Re: Re: Re: Re: One word.. "WOW"
No I mean Carbon. I am talking short term, i.e. the next 6 to 18 months. While Cocoa is quite portable, some of it exists on other platforms as we speak, it is called Webobjects. A lot of carbon is tied to the PPC. It could be made portable, but it would take a fair amount of effort, and there is no guarantee that it would be a simple recompile, (That is also the case with a lot of Altivec based code). The nice thing about Cocoa is that the libraries can change and one doesn't necessarily have to rework the code. Porting MacOS X especially the Quartz layer to X86 is not a trivial undertaking, since it is designed for PPC and more specifically Altivec usage (Quartz did not exist under NexT).
My post was meant to address those who want Apple to fix the PowerMac deficiencies now, it just isn't a reasonable desire, kind of like the desire to fly across the ocean twice as quickly for half the price. While I can't guarantee that Apple is working on remedies to these problems, I assume they are.
In the end it makes little difference, if you don't want to buy a Mac, don't; however, if enough of you swear off Macs & Apple, there is no way they will improve to anywhere near what you desire.
No I mean Carbon. I am talking short term, i.e. the next 6 to 18 months. While Cocoa is quite portable, some of it exists on other platforms as we speak, it is called Webobjects. A lot of carbon is tied to the PPC. It could be made portable, but it would take a fair amount of effort, and there is no guarantee that it would be a simple recompile, (That is also the case with a lot of Altivec based code). The nice thing about Cocoa is that the libraries can change and one doesn't necessarily have to rework the code. Porting MacOS X especially the Quartz layer to X86 is not a trivial undertaking, since it is designed for PPC and more specifically Altivec usage (Quartz did not exist under NexT).
My post was meant to address those who want Apple to fix the PowerMac deficiencies now, it just isn't a reasonable desire, kind of like the desire to fly across the ocean twice as quickly for half the price. While I can't guarantee that Apple is working on remedies to these problems, I assume they are.
In the end it makes little difference, if you don't want to buy a Mac, don't; however, if enough of you swear off Macs & Apple, there is no way they will improve to anywhere near what you desire.
I am not sure what you are trying to say, but the results are to be expected. According to several posts both at Macrumors and Arstechnica, and more importantly, most of these tests are either CPU bound, or are memory constrained. Incidentally, I think the memory throughput graph tells it all. You will notice the the DDR main memory is actually faster than the SDR memory, this would be attributable to the faster FSB. None of these tests will show any of the benefit available to the peripherals. I would love to see the 1K windows bloom test for comparison.
As an aside you will notice the the random64 DDR scores are identical to the SDR if not a little lower. This is actually to be expected as the latency for DDR SDRAM is slightly higher than that for the SDR SDRAM.
A final comment of the BareFeats test. They could not be called statistically accurate, hell he doesn't even use enough test points to apply the mean value theorem. As it stands he only uses one data point, the best, for his observations. Any statistician would laugh him off the web. Right now the Standard deviation for all of his tests is infinity[\B]. This is because all benchmarks are not perfectly repeatable. Hell even if those values were perfectly repeatable. There is ~34% chance that the XServe and SDR PMac photoshop 7 scores are identical. This is not what I would call statistically significant
I think you guys are missing the point.
Just because the dual 1 Ghz machin'e tied is not a bad thing. What that means simply is that the new mid range machine can keep up with the old high end machine. That's right the new MID RANGE can perform up there with the HIGH END. When do you see that in the PC world? Does Intel or AMD make it so a not as good computer can match their best from before? If anything we should all be VERY excited to see what this dual 1.25 Ghz can do!
Just because the dual 1 Ghz machin'e tied is not a bad thing. What that means simply is that the new mid range machine can keep up with the old high end machine. That's right the new MID RANGE can perform up there with the HIGH END. When do you see that in the PC world? Does Intel or AMD make it so a not as good computer can match their best from before? If anything we should all be VERY excited to see what this dual 1.25 Ghz can do!
Does anyone know how much of a bottle neck SD RAM was with the current G4 chip? Is it true that the LSU on the G4 is limited to one load or one store per cycle? If so the major improvement of ram access would be tied to higher CPU clock speeds.
Also the debate about moving to other CPU's cannot be tied solely to performance. Apple uses the one chip architecture for its servers, desktops and laptops, and software is tied to this chip architecture. What would apple use for its notebooks if it moved to AMD for example, their chips have around twice the number of transistors as the G4 and so drawing more power. (The G4 powerbook cuts it with most other laptops in performance). Would we be prepared to pay the price to replace all our software for recompiled versions, so soon after OSX debut?
Would we be prepared to have different software for different chip architectures to accomodate everyones specialist needs or do we prefer the 'one OS for all' that we enjoy on the Mac.
What encourages me about the new line of towers is that the bus architecture has been redesigned to make the tower a real pro range. This architecture can't possibly find it's way into the iMac or eMac, they're too compact. I'm in no hurry for faster clocks, Moto or IBM have to make the grade sooner or later or else Apple is sunk, if they move to Intel they will have to make the same decisions as everyone else on that roadmap. I buy our macs on a 3-4 year cycle, so every time I upgrade, the Macs are about 3-4x faster, not just a percentage boost. I'm happy.
Also the debate about moving to other CPU's cannot be tied solely to performance. Apple uses the one chip architecture for its servers, desktops and laptops, and software is tied to this chip architecture. What would apple use for its notebooks if it moved to AMD for example, their chips have around twice the number of transistors as the G4 and so drawing more power. (The G4 powerbook cuts it with most other laptops in performance). Would we be prepared to pay the price to replace all our software for recompiled versions, so soon after OSX debut?
Would we be prepared to have different software for different chip architectures to accomodate everyones specialist needs or do we prefer the 'one OS for all' that we enjoy on the Mac.
What encourages me about the new line of towers is that the bus architecture has been redesigned to make the tower a real pro range. This architecture can't possibly find it's way into the iMac or eMac, they're too compact. I'm in no hurry for faster clocks, Moto or IBM have to make the grade sooner or later or else Apple is sunk, if they move to Intel they will have to make the same decisions as everyone else on that roadmap. I buy our macs on a 3-4 year cycle, so every time I upgrade, the Macs are about 3-4x faster, not just a percentage boost. I'm happy.
Re: I think you guys are missing the point.
Thankyou!!! Just what I was going to say! If you want to see how much this machne has improved over it's predecessor you need to do some comparisons with the single 933 mhz, My bets are on this new machine opening several cans of whoopass on it!
Originally posted by P-Worm
Just because the dual 1 Ghz machin'e tied is not a bad thing. What that means simply is that the new mid range machine can keep up with the old high end machine. That's right the new MID RANGE can perform up there with the HIGH END. When do you see that in the PC world? Does Intel or AMD make it so a not as good computer can match their best from before? If anything we should all be VERY excited to see what this dual 1.25 Ghz can do!
Thankyou!!! Just what I was going to say! If you want to see how much this machne has improved over it's predecessor you need to do some comparisons with the single 933 mhz, My bets are on this new machine opening several cans of whoopass on it!
Mac speeds..Or not!
I dunno much about the tech jargon or the over hyped speed tests, but I do know this..I am a professional musician working with a G4 running Logic Audio, and right now my blood is boiling. I am sick and tired of watching the guys in PC land kick my audio arse with machines that cost less than half what I pay. They get loads more firepower, and when running Logic with loads of plug ins and soft synths running, they win by a LONG mile! If Jobs expects me to keep forking over the hard earned cash to buy overpriced boat anchors he's got another thing coming. Don't get me wrong, I love my G4, but like alot of my friends in the music industry I'm growing ever impatient at waiting for the kick butt macs I keep being promised. We need faster machines NOW! The only thing keeping me in a G4 is the fact that Apple bought Emagic. Sorry for the rant peeps, I'm calm now...
Ivan Gough.
I dunno much about the tech jargon or the over hyped speed tests, but I do know this..I am a professional musician working with a G4 running Logic Audio, and right now my blood is boiling. I am sick and tired of watching the guys in PC land kick my audio arse with machines that cost less than half what I pay. They get loads more firepower, and when running Logic with loads of plug ins and soft synths running, they win by a LONG mile! If Jobs expects me to keep forking over the hard earned cash to buy overpriced boat anchors he's got another thing coming. Don't get me wrong, I love my G4, but like alot of my friends in the music industry I'm growing ever impatient at waiting for the kick butt macs I keep being promised. We need faster machines NOW! The only thing keeping me in a G4 is the fact that Apple bought Emagic. Sorry for the rant peeps, I'm calm now...
Ivan Gough.