Offical: Macs Faster Than PCs

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by hvfsl, Jun 20, 2003.

  1. macrumors 68000

    hvfsl

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #1
    Now that we all know the specs of the new PowerMac G5s, it is clear that Macs have once again taken the performace crown from Intel/AMD. In benchmarking a 1.8Ghz PPC970 was faster than a 3Ghz P4, so I can only imagine how fast a dual 2Ghz that will be released on Monday will be. Apple said on their website before the info got pulled that the new Macs are the fastest Personal Computers ever. I expect SJ will show of some benchmarks of the new Macs on Monday.

    The only thing left is to find out the prices. These new Macs should cost less than the G4s, but how much less.

    For those who missed the specs, get them here http://www.spymac.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=35700&size=big&papass=&sort=1&thecat=

    The picture of the Mac there is a G4 for Mac, Apple put the G5 specs on the G4 Macs bit of the Apple Store.
     
  2. macrumors 68040

    mac15

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2001
    Location:
    Sydney
    #2
    remember the days of jobs showing that macs are faster by bringing PCs to macworld and demoing them and showing mac rip em apart :)

    Now we can do it again! Now we have the best Hardware and software. hands down
     
  3. macrumors 68040

    jxyama

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    #3
    let's wait and see... i don't know if the new power macs will be any cheaper. it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were priced higher. sure, they are still power macs, but they will be called G5 power macs...

    does anyone know what the prices of G4 power macs were when they first came out compared to the G3 power macs?
     
  4. thread starter macrumors 68000

    hvfsl

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #4
    The only reason the G5 macs would be more expensive than current Macs is if Apple makes the prices artifically high. The PPC970 is a lot cheaper than the G4 and the new componants Apple is using do not cost any more than the old parts.
     
  5. macrumors 68040

    jxyama

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    #5
    i wouldn't say artificial... computer's total price needs not be the sum of components. there are other factors involved such as r&d, new case fabs (even if apple doesn't make the case, they need to find someone who can supply), marketing, etc. those are real costs...

    would anyone say the entire restaurant business is inflating the prices artificially high since price of any given dish is higher than the cost of ingredients? i think not...

    i guess i'd rather err on the high side and not get my hopes up. the new machines do seem absolutely fantastic and i don't want to get my hopes waaay up and be tremendously dissappointed when the prices are equally "fantastic" in the wrong direction.

    not that i'd be buying one anyway... my lovely 12" is less than 6 months old... the new machines, however, will give me plenty of reasons to wanting to go by the apple store and play with them for hours and hours and hours... :cool:
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Location:
    Greenville, SC
    #6
    Even though the processor cost could be less what about the motherboard and RAM? 1Ghz system bus seems like the MOBO would be pretty pricey and the RAM could be kinda expensive as well. Hopefully they'll be the same price or cheaper but you never know...
     
  7. macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location
    #7
    Ahhhh, so that's what everyone is talking about. I don't understand the first line, though: "1.6GHz, 1.8GHz, or Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5 processors." Does this mean that ALL the new PM's are dual, or just the 2GHz model?
     
  8. macrumors 68020

    bennetsaysargh

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #8
    i think they'll be a little cheaper, justb to add on another selling point. they want to kick the **** out of the G and they'll definatly do just that.,
     
  9. macrumors 68040

    jxyama

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    #9
    i think only the 2GHz is a dual...
     
  10. macrumors 68000

    pgwalsh

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    #10
    Well that's not entirely true... The cost of a new redesign and SATA drive s are more expensive. There's all new technology going into these PM and I expect the price to be higher, but I hope it's not.
     
  11. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Location:
    Bridgewater NJ
    #11
    Anyone have a link for the benchmarks? I was never aware that a PPC 970 machine was already benched. Thanks :)
     
  12. macrumors 68000

    dongmin

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    #12
    Re: Offical: Macs Faster Than PCs

    I don't know where you got that a 1.8 ghz 970 is faster than a 3 ghz P4. It's not, at least according to SPEC scores. The P4 3 ghz edges out the 1.8ghz 970 by 5-10%. The MacBidouille benchmarks, which claimed some truly incredible performances, are highly dubious. Also remember that dual Xeons are the fastest PCs out there. The dual 2.0 ghz will no doubt give the Xeons a run for their money but we'll have to wait and see.

    Also there were some reports recently that suggested only modestly faster performances than current G4s'. At least until they get the bugs out and optimize the OS for the new hardware.

    Of course, I generally don't care about comparing Macs to PCs. What's truly remarkable is that the new top model should more than double the performance of the old top of the line. Amazing. When's the last time THAT happened? Another thing that's amazing: Apple has managed to upgrade EVERY aspect of the machine.
     
  13. macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #13
    well i look at it like this, since the processor part of the computer are suppose to be cheaper, maybe they are making the price even by adding better hard drives, little bit better video cards, pcix and all that stuff. but will we find out monday iguess if its all true or not.

    iJon
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2001
    #14
    benchmarks

    it will all depends on what benchmarks are used, 32-64bit, if there are any altivec enhancements, dual processor enhancements, hard drive model, video card drivers, and who is doing the benchmarks.
    in games pcs may have the lead because of raw ghz unless they are 64 bit, ativec or dual optimized.
    but even if the macs are slower it wont be by much, so i am still happy to say by to the G$!
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2001
    #15
  16. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #16
    i wouldn't put too much faith on those benchmarks, alot of people tend to feel they are fake for mutiple reasons including many or thos numbers copied from elsewhere, the version of bryce used and the fact that are dramatic increases on certain programs with dual processors that can take no advantage of a dual processor
     
  17. macrumors 68020

    sparkleytone

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC
    #17
    i just really really hope that if and when the new powermacs are announced on monday, the stores will have at least a demo model or two in stock. i really just wanna feel OS X on a 970. and run xbench too :D
     
  18. macrumors 68000

    Daveman Deluxe

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Corvallis, Oregon
    #18
    I don't put faith in benchmarks in general and particularly in SPEC scores because a good programmer can artificially inflate the score. You see, SPEC benchmarks allow you to use your own compiler when benchmarking your product, and doing compiler gymnastics works wonders on the performance of your chip. Furthermore, there are a lot of benchmarks in the suite that mean nothing to the rest of us--things like simulations of weather patterns and simulations of a part in a nuclear power plant. SPEC benchmarks are typically useful for people investing tens of thousands or millions of dollars on high-end workstations. That's why the SPEC benchmark is normalized to a Sparc workstation--a computer none of us will ever own.
     
  19. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Location:
    Bridgewater NJ
    #19
    A faulty and commonly mistaken assumption, the SPEC benchmark suites have two scores, a base score and a peak score differing in that the base score allows for no compiler optimizations whereas the peak score allows for moderate compiler optimizations as long as they can be reflected in real world applications. All submitted SPEC results are carefully analyzed to ensure that they follow these rules and others in order to be a official SPEC result. Considering that most chip makers use the same or similar level compilers, I consider SPEC a most accurate method of measuring pure processing power and most people in the industry agree. That SPEC cannot be hand optimized (like so many Altivec, SSE2 optimized benchmarks commonly used today) puts it in a different class altogether.

    Also, perhaps you should take a look at the kernels used in each SPEC CPU2000 benchmark suite, it is quite widely accepted that the various kernels used to bench are very accurate at reflecting the performance of a processor in integer code and floating point code. The Nuclear Reactor/Weather kernels you were referring to was from the SPECfp suite which reflects a CPU's performance in floating point code. As many of you may or may not know, floating point code is primarily useful in scientific and engineering programs.
     
  20. macrumors 68000

    Freg3000

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    #20
    xBench.....mmmmmmm

    Does the app have the ability to display results in the ten thousands? :)
     
  21. macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #21
    Bull. Bull. No freakin' way can you get a dual ported 1GHz memory controller, fast DDR ram (probably dual channel), SerialATA, PCI-X, AGP Pro, and a bigger, newer processor made on a more advanced manufacturing process for less money. That would be like someone saying Ferraris are cheaper to make than VW Bugs.

    AFAICT there are three options:
    1) Moto was MASSIVELY overcharging for the G4 + associated parts
    2) You're making things up
    3) You're taking rumors as fact

    Given that Moto doesn't make the associated parts for the G4 (Apple does), how likely do you think option 1 is? Not very.
     
  22. macrumors 68000

    ZildjianKX

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    #22
    Sure you can, its called a PC, lol... but seriously though, I bet they'll keep prices the same... jeez, you really can't raise the price on a mac, can you?
     
  23. macrumors 6502a

    MorganX

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Location:
    Midwest
    #23
    I don't know. Canterwood and Springdale mobos have an 800MHz FSB overclockable to 1GHz with all that including Serial ATA Raid for about $120 retail. Along with USB2 and FW400. Of course, I doubt anyone can produce chipsets in mass quantity as cheaply as Intel at the moment.
     
  24. macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #24
    I doubt SATA will be that much more then what we have now, cant be to drastic. i would assume 8x agp is the same price as 4x, kind of like usb 2 and 1. i dont think lower prices will come, i just have a feeling they will make the powermac worth the money.

    iJon
     
  25. macrumors 68000

    ZildjianKX

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    #25
    Not to be a downer... but even if its snowing in hell right now and Macs are faster than PCs... its not going to last.

    What competition does Apple have to keep making processors faster? PCs have AMD vs Intel... and that's why the G4s of today are so slow. Apple just has to keep processors relatively fast... or keep optimizing operating systems to make the systems appear faster.
     

Share This Page