not looking good for powermac updates at MWSF

[Bhennies]

...

 

[Bhennies]

come on! every one knows that it is all about how many mhz you have, disk IO is a non-issue. We all need to get more mhz on our computerz yo! then we'll roxor with fast mhz.

Actually understanding computer hardware would be a lot of work, it's so much easier to cry about a single variable for performance.

if this is directed at me...maybe you should read up on what variable is most important for music production before you mock.

there's a meter in both PT and DP that says "CPU performance". It has a little green bar that turns red when the CPU spikes. The audio file stops playing and you get an error message. OVer 70 percent puts it in "CPU spike territory". A low buffer setting (essential to reduce latency for live audio or midi tracking) increases CPU strain. As do real time plug ins.

There's another green bar that says "disk". This one turns red when the disk bandwidth is used up. I never have more than 1/4 used.

RAM is not an issue for me.

don't patronize me. I know what I'm talking about here.

 

[Mantat]

First of all, when I ask people why they need so much power in a computer, its to point out if they are pro or just home user.

And I agree totaly that people refer to Ghz at the sole and only performance scale on a computer while it basicaly mean nothing compared to fast I/O, dedicated processing units, RAID, etc.. Which in turn means nothing compared to good programing. This is why Apple wants to implement Core Graphic so much. It would mean instant rendering of most video and still images filters WITH THE SAME HARDWARE. See? You dont need a faster CPU, you just need better library. Software libs are the single most important thing. I am a programmer, you are an artist, I dont expect you to know/ understand all the intricated work related to software developpement but trust me on this, the improvement on performance of core graphic will be higher than any Ghz gain you can hope for! I just hope it can be exploited in some way for 3D so we could get some blazing fast games too!

As for PCI-X card bug, I know a few people who use them to have SATA RAID and none had any problems so the bug you talk about might be affecting only some units or be card related.

Finaly, if you are a pro, it is totaly stupid to keep a computer for more than a year. The taxes advantages and high resale value of a mac allow you to make a profit by changing computer every year! You should talk to you accountant about it and tell him that mac resale value isnt the same as for pc (fiscal laws are made for pc that lose 60% of their value in a year).

 

[Bhennies]

First of all, when I ask people why they need so much power in a computer, its to point out if they are pro or just home user.

And I agree totaly that people refer to Ghz at the sole and only performance scale on a computer while it basicaly mean nothing compared to fast I/O, dedicated processing units, RAID, etc.. Which in turn means nothing compared to good programing.

I agree with you here. I'm just saying that that's not the case for me. PT is not optimized for OSX and probably won't be for some time, and while I hear you on the 3-D graphics and even core image optimization as far as software is concerned...you're talking about apple and oranges...it's not going to be relevant for pro tools...at least not at first. I most likely won't be able to upgrade to tiger for some time anyway, as digidesign is extremely slow to certify anything (they just apporved the new g5's a couple months ago). performance in pro tools was stronger under os 9.

And while it may be ok to sell a computer every year- it's not "stupid" to keep one for longer than a year. In fact I would say the opposite. I asked my accountant and the recommendation is to make a smart investment up front and run it till it starts to stifle your creativity performance-wise. I kept my last g4 tower for four years. I plan to keep this one 3-4 years (as well as my powerbook). Same as an automobile- it's not smart to lease or flip cars all the time...always pay cash and run it until it's no longer useable.

and finally, i have no problem with people suggesting that there may be other factors besides CPU I should look into (even though I know this already). It's just the derogatory way way he said it that makes it patronizing.

If you can convince digidesign to optimize their software, I'll buy a dual 1.8 refurb. Until then, I'll wait for my dual 2.5 for 1999.

ok, Later....

p.s. what pci-x card bug? I don't think I mentioned that??? how about the fw800 bug...has that been fixed yet?

 

[Mantat]

And while it may be ok to sell a computer every year- it's not "stupid" to keep one for longer than a year. In fact I would say the opposite. I asked my accountant and the recommendation is to make a smart investment up front and run it till it starts to stifle your creativity performance-wise. I kept my last g4 tower for four years. I plan to keep this one 3-4 years (as well as my powerbook). Same as an automobile- it's not smart to lease or flip cars all the time...always pay cash and run it until it's no longer useable.

and finally, i have no problem with people suggesting that there may be other factors besides CPU I should look into (even though I know this already). It's just the derogatory way way he said it that makes it patronizing.


p.s. what pci-x card bug? I don't think I mentioned that??? how about the fw800 bug...has that been fixed yet?

Here is why you should replace your computer every years. Of course, fiscal laws change between countries / region so it might not be relevant to you but here is my situation in Canada.
let say I buy a 4000$, taxes arent relevant because I get them back.
The depreciation of the computer is 125% on the first year for the provincial gov and 30% for the federal gov. That mean that I I reduce my taxable income on the provincial level by 5000$ and 1333$ on the federal.
I dont have the charts in front of me but let suppose both gov take an equal share of my income, and I am taxed at 50% (yes, thats the joy of taxation in canada). The computer decrease my taxable revenue for a total of 6333$ before taxes which translate to a return of 3166$. so the computer only costed me 4000$-3166$ = 834$. Now you sell the computer for let say 3000$ which is a very decent and realistic amount. You make a profit (in book) of 3000 - (4000 - (4000 x 30%))= 200$ which will be taxable at 50% so you will finaly turn out a profit of 100$.

Btw, these numbers are bogus because I dont have all the charts in front of me but the point is that the depreciation allowed by the gov is much higher than in the 'real world' for mac so you basicaly can sell computers for more than their book value so you are making money changing your computer!

When you talked to your accountant, did you tell him that you can sell your computer at the end of the year for probably over 80% of its cost? Also, looking at my calculation, the big part of the benefit comes from the fact that we are taxed there for 50% over 50k$ so if this is less for you the impact will be lower.

I am planning to one day start a business selling mac while my sole selling pitch would be to show them how cheap these computers can be by showing real numbers.

 

[aussie_geek]

Another point of view...

Why do you want a 3Ghz PM?
Would you buy one? (really?)
Do you need such a powerfull system?
You know that sorfware optimisation give better wield than Mhz increasement?
What so you do with your system that make it top priority to get a faster CPU compared to simply getting new powerfull software?

One the other hand, if they spend another 30mins talking about the iPod I think I will go on a killing sprea. iPod are just an entertainement gadget, they need to focus on production tools!

Bring the the 3Ghz firecracker I say. The sooner they bring out the 3Ghz, it will push the prices of the 2.5Ghz and 2Ghz down and make them more financially attainable!!

aussie_geek

 

[morkintosh]

don't patronize me. I know what I'm talking about here.

well I'm sorry but you really don't. I'm sure that you could benefit from a faster clock speed, but you act like a 3.0 ghz G5 would solve your problem, you say nothing of an L2 (or really an L1) cache increase, the use of a faster bus, better chipset etc. There are lots of factors that contribute your your magical green bar, the clock speed is only one. If you really need so much horse power why don't build yourself a cluster, would a 200 node G5 2.3 ghz XServe cluster cut it for you?

 

[Bhennies]

well I'm sorry but you really don't. I'm sure that you could benefit from a faster clock speed, but you act like a 3.0 ghz G5 would solve your problem, you say nothing of an L2 (or really an L1) cache increase, the use of a faster bus, better chipset etc.

I just typed a long point for point response...but the server ***** up and erased it so I'll keep it short.

obviously all these things contribute to CPU speed and overall computer performance. You seem to suggest that clock cycle adds less to performance than the sum of the other factors. But, lemme ask you this...why then does the g4 stand up so well against the g5? we're talking a 167 mhz system bus versus 600-1.25 ghz? Not to mention ATA versus s-ata, less backside cache etc.

There are lots of factors that contribute your your magical green bar, the clock speed is only one.

this thread wasn't titled..."please xplain to me how computers work". everything you're saying is completely irrelevant to the topic. It doesn't matter WHY the "magical green bar" is at 70 percent...it just matters that it IS, and if a faster, newer computer can fix that...I will buy it.

Here's the deal, you're not going to convince me to go buy a g5 just because you say it's enough power for me. I work with these things in the real world, and I know what I need and will need.

What woud you have me do...buy a dual 1.8 and magically increase the FSB, cache, and somehow eliminate the disk bottleneck (because according to you the 1.8 is enough processor)? I'm also not able to program a new os or Pro tools to fully take advantage of the current offerings so there goes the other suggestion.

If you really need so much horse power why don't build yourself a cluster, would a 200 node G5 2.3 ghz XServe cluster cut it for you?

If I needed it and could justify it financially I would. What the hell is your problem anyway? Why do you care what I want to buy? Why do you care how much horsepower I need?

If you don't have anything constructive to say, go piss on another thread.

 

[Mantat]

obviously all these things contribute to CPU speed and overall computer performance. You seem to suggest that clock cycle adds less to performance than the sum of the other factors. But, lemme ask you this...why then does the g4 stand up so well against the g5? we're talking a 167 mhz system bus versus 600-1.25 ghz? Not to mention ATA versus s-ata, less backside cache etc.

I think you try to generalize your special case to all G4 vs G5. Maybe ProTools doesnt see a big improvement going G5 but saying that a G4 stad well vs a G5 is untrue. Your system bus argument isnt valid because bus is only used to transfer data from the ram to the cpu, as big as the G5 improvement in bus speed of the G5, its nothing compared to the large amount of L2 et L3 cache of some G4. These cache are right on the CPU which make them much faster but they have small amount of memory so they cant hold much. This is why, depending of the type of task, the G4 might be as good as a G5. But when you talk about large amount of data passing thru the CPU the G5 will blow away G4 and benchmarks clearly illustrate this.

As for ATA vs SATA, again, this is a common misconception. The difference isnt that big because the limiting factor in a single disk setup isnt as much the connection than the drive itself! So plugging a 50mb/s drive on ATA or SATA would provide the same performance. The advantages of the SATA pop in when you are doing RAID or using fast drives, other than that, the difference is minimal. Also, SATA is way easier to setup than ATA.

Anyways, I dont know the type of processing algo type of Protools so I cant comment on your situation but statement like you did might confuse some reader in thinking that G5 arent fast while they are ridiculously high improvement in, for exemple, my case... So here we go again in the all mighty and important software optimisation job that each developper should do!

 

[morkintosh]

If you don't have anything constructive to say, go piss on another thread.

Since I see that someone has already point out that what you are saying is still flawed I won't take the time to do so myself. I am merely stating that, particularly in your case, even with a 3.0 ghz G5 you will still spike the CPU at 70% or more, the amount of time that this happens my decrease a little, but it's not the silver bullet that you seem to suggest. It is fairly constructive in that perhaps some reader who is willing to admit that they don't know dick-all about these sorts of things can learn something and make more informed decisions about future purchases. Sadly I can only place you in half of that previous equivalency class; as such you should ignore this as it wasn't directed at you

 

[Bhennies]

Since I see that someone has already point out that what you are saying is still flawed I won't take the time to do so myself. I am merely stating that, particularly in your case, even with a 3.0 ghz G5 you will still spike the CPU at 70% or more, the amount of time that this happens my decrease a little, but it's not the silver bullet that you seem to suggest. It is fairly constructive in that perhaps some reader who is willing to admit that they don't know dick-all about these sorts of things can learn something and make more informed decisions about future purchases. Sadly I can only place you in half of that previous equivalency class; as such you should ignore this as it wasn't directed at you

OK so now you're saying that even a 3.0 ghz g5 won't be fast enough for me after you just mocked me in the last post for wanting more horsepower? your logic is impossible to follow.

...The difference isnt that big...

Exactly what I've been saying...my point has been that the CPU is a big factor in performance...especially after hearing a complaint about disk i/o....

Your system bus argument isnt valid because bus is only used to transfer data from the ram to the cpu, as big as the G5 improvement in bus speed of the G5, its nothing compared to the large amount of L2 et L3 cache of some G4

As far as the g4 versus g5 comment...I was referring to a bare feats test sometime back where they stacked the 1.6 g5 against the 1.5 powerbook. The powerbook fared very well against the g5 in all sorts of operations. NOt to mention the rumor of the freescale chip...people have been syaing on these boards for a long time that the g4 "clock for clock" stacks well against the g5. I never said it would beat it hands down...I just said it will stack favorably. I also never said that the g5 is a slow chip- that's a misrepresentation of my argument. I don't really know enough about the innerworkings to make a blanket statment like that. But I've worked with lots of these computers (owned a dual g4, powerbook and work with g5's) and I'm making real world comments based on performance and the decent bit of computer knowledge I have. I was merely stating the differences between the setups and asking you all to explain the performance differences (or similarities). You can draw your own conclusions as to why the results stack like they do.


I think what you guys have failed to understand about why I want new updates, is that apple doesn't just update the CPU and then leave everything else alone. Usually, a clock speed update comes hand in hand with updated hardware across the board (look at the dual 2.5- with an increase to 1.25 ghz fsb etc.). PLus there are bugs that apple still has yet to work out (according to barefeats...the FW800 bug is still around even in the 2.5's)

so let's just leave it at that. I'll reiterate...I didn't start this thread to find out about the inner workings of computers. I started it because i've been waiting since last february for g5 updates that still haven't come and it's kind of annoying. The reasoning honestly shouldn't matter- even though I think I stated my defense pretty well.

p.s. and maybe finally airport and bluetooth will come standard.

 

[morkintosh]

OK so now you're saying that even a 3.0 ghz g5 won't be fast enough for me after you just mocked me in the last post for wanting more horsepower? your logic is impossible to follow.
Exactly what I've been saying...my point has been that the CPU is a big factor in performance...especially after hearing a complaint about disk i/o....

I haven't ever said anything about "fast enough", as I make no particular assumptions about what is / isn't fast enough for you. All I am saying is that you can wait until hell freezes over for updates and it will likely not matter, so stop crying about CPU speed. I am mocking you because you deserved to be mocked, not because you want more horsepower. What's so hard to follow about that?

 

[Bhennies]

Th

I am mocking you because you deserved to be mocked, not because you want more horsepower. What's so hard to follow about that?

honestly, I can't believe I got caught up in your little arguing game. I should have kept my mouth shut...there are always a few trolls like you who like to pick fights. Judging by your attitude and irrational logic (not to mention your syntax and grammar), you are probably some kid who spends all his time starting **** on forums and really never has anything constructive to say. Are you even a pro user?

This thread never even MENTIONED a question about the specs of the current g5's...just updates. IN fact...if you read my original post, I never even said I wanted an update exclusively for a faster CPU- I simply pointed out that steve jobs annouced that we'd have 3.0 ghz g5's by LAST summer and that updates were way behind schedule. There are MANY things I'd like to see updated.

Honestly man, you have the wrong attitude for this forum...i've rarely seen a post in the past year since I've visited where someone "deserved to be mocked". And it certainly wasn't warranted in this case...that's for sure. If you'll remember correctly, you stated out of the blue "Actually understanding computer hardware would be a lot of work, it's so much easier to cry about a single variable for performance." What a childish and immature way to enter a discussion. Listen, it's not even worth me typing any longer, so grow up and come correct or don't come at all. Don't even bother responding 'cause I already know what you're gonna say and I'm done with you. I'll say it again..."go piss on another thread".