Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mord

macrumors G4
Aug 24, 2003
10,091
23
UK
The thing is there are no numbers to speak for themselves the g5 dose fairly well on barefeats benchmarks and i have yet to see another site with some opteron-g5 benches, the results are too close to confirm anything.

Show me some links if you can find them, i have looked to no avail for some time.

The water cooling issue has been gone over time and time again, it's to reduce the noise nothing more nothing less, sure the 2.5GHz G5 runs hot but nothing a decent copper heatsink and a 80cfm 120mm fan could not sort out.

If the watercooling were to overclock they would bump the vcore, and there would not be IBM docs on the 2.5GHz G5, the very definition of overclocking is running at a higher speed than specced by the manufacturer and those g5's are specced at 2.5GHz. you want proof crack open a g5 take the water cooling rig off the cpu cards and look at the die, in gold indelible ink there will say: powerpc 970FX 2500MHz, your example of overclocked AMD's bump the vcore, which starts degradation in the cpu core because the electrons jump track and start an effect called electron tunneling where by it get's easier and easier for the electrons to jump track as the cpu is used until it gives up all together.

The reason that the precott did not hit 4GHz is because current motherboards could not supply the power in spec to run them so intel scraped the plans to focus on dual core P4's, remember the prescott p4's have large caches which makes the cpu have a much larger surface area where the heat is mostly bunched up on the cpu part not so much the cache.

My point about AMDs sucky 90nm transition is that it happened almost a year ago, 90nm has happened and AMD is winning no prizes for a 200MHz speed bump a year after everyone elce went 90nm and got speed gains the 90nm.
% wise AMD will never do as well as the transition to 130nm from 180nm but sure it's common sense that 90nm chips will top out at higher speeds than 130nm ones as thats where things are headed, a 200MHz speed improvement on the 90nm process is too little to late. To say that AMD did not release a 2.8GHz cpu sooner because of "lack of competetion" you obiously have not trawled through the benchmarks on a decent comparison of the top of the heap P4 and FX cpu's, AMD by no means have such a clear lead that they dont have to bother to release new cpu's even if they did they would release faster cpu's as they become available not when they feel like it :rolleyes:.

I wrote my last post in a rush to get out the door to go to the globe theatre, and i apologized for the bad spelling as i was in a rush to make such a snide comment even though i made a point of it is just shallow as is sighting my age, i'm more qualified than you will ever be, i'm an apple certified technician passed all my GCSE's doing 5 a-levels and i'm currently doing pretty well at cisco CCNA (already passes IT essentials 2 :p).

The opteron wins on PS and cinema 3d, PS is a big thing but not the end of the world and cinema 3d is so narrow it hardly makes a difference.

People do not spend all day applying filters in photoshop, this is a small collection of benchmarks and is to show how things fair overall even on apps that are not cross platform because to compare premier on the pc to FCP on the mac is unfair, just as it is to compare 3d studio max on the pc to sketchup on the mac is not fair as they are not the same apps, but by comparing cross platform apps you can tell what is in general the faster machine, and they are about neck and neck.

GAMES DO NOT COUNT FOR *****, gamers are not mac users, however mac users can be gamers, it's never been a strong area and never will be, a mac is not a gamers machine, on such a small collection of benchmarks with results so close you can skew results either way, they are pretty close for the real world tests (bar maya dunno WTF is up with that bench).

As things stand the dual core opterons cost the earth and only go to 2.2GHz, the dual core athlons only go to 2.4GHz and are beaten by the G5 in cinébench which when you put the numbers in to the bare feats benchmarks that is will get the same % scores of the dual 2.6GHz opteron the G5 dose well against it, and then there is the dual 2.6GHz opteron, which dose fairly well against it but by no means owns it, neither dose the G5 own the opteron.

Then there is your precious 2.8GHz san diago FX 57, you'd complain if i said the dual 2.5GHz G5 would own it because it's a dual, but apple dose not make high end singles so i will say it, it will get owned in SMP benchmarks which most apps are nowadays.

And we still have not seen what the next G5 update has in store for us.

If you complain about my typing or spelling or grammar i'll start quoting timelessblur :p.

https://forums.macrumors.com/search/?searchid=1362311

why did you join this forum just to argue with people about things you obviously do not know enough about.
 

Mav451

macrumors 68000
Jul 1, 2003
1,657
1
Maryland
Hector:

AMD is not releasing their fastest chip simply b/c it wants to make the most money. The ceiling that the OC communities are revealing (for the 130nm FX-series) is a good indicator of the headroom left for the FX chip. Before 90nm, the FX was already hitting 2.8Ghz with stability (on the FX-53), but why release it if Intel cannot compete against it?

This, on top of AMD's policy of having only a single FX chip, on the market at a time. If they had two FX chips co-existing, it would dictate that one of those chips would have to decrease in cost. Considering how small AMD is (chimp vs chipzilla), AMD could use those "juicy" profit margins.

I also don't know what you are implying "too little, too late". What is the 2.6Ghz FX chip too late for? Nothing on the market is pushing it at all. Games are one of the most intense applications for high-end hardware. After D3, nothing has truly asked for a faster ship than even the FX-53. I don't think the 90nm chip is too late at all.

It came at a time when AMD could do it with no transitional problems. I don't see the atrocious shipping delays that plagued the G5. Neither do i see the ridiculous price hiking of the X800XT PE's (those were one in a million). I thought it was perfectly timed.

If there is one thing I learned in my Java class, it is software that dictates the hardware. It used to be 80:20, but it has become 20:80 (the latter representing the hardware influence). We are at that time. Even though AMD has had the technological advantage for quite a long time, there was no financial need to rush things.
 

Mord

macrumors G4
Aug 24, 2003
10,091
23
UK
Mav451 said:
Hector:

AMD is not releasing their fastest chip simply b/c it wants to make the most money. The ceiling that the OC communities are revealing (for the 130nm FX-series) is a good indicator of the headroom left for the FX chip. Before 90nm, the FX was already hitting 2.8Ghz with stability (on the FX-53), but why release it if Intel cannot compete against it?

This, on top of AMD's policy of having only a single FX chip, on the market at a time. If they had two FX chips co-existing, it would dictate that one of those chips would have to decrease in cost. Considering how small AMD is (chimp vs chipzilla), AMD could use those "juicy" profit margins.

I also don't know what you are implying "too little, too late". What is the 2.6Ghz FX chip too late for? Nothing on the market is pushing it at all. Games are one of the most intense applications for high-end hardware. After D3, nothing has truly asked for a faster ship than even the FX-53. I don't think the 90nm chip is too late at all.

It came at a time when AMD could do it with no transitional problems. I don't see the atrocious shipping delays that plagued the G5. Neither do i see the ridiculous price hiking of the X800XT PE's (those were one in a million). I thought it was perfectly timed.

If there is one thing I learned in my Java class, it is software that dictates the hardware. It used to be 80:20, but it has become 20:80 (the latter representing the hardware influence). We are at that time. Even though AMD has had the technological advantage for quite a long time, there was no financial need to rush things.

What you are suggesting that AMD did not release a 2.8GHz 90nm part because they could not make it cost effective and have the yield to meet demand. This is what stops every chip company from releasing faster chips, intel could release a 4GHz P4 it would just cost the earth as only a very few p4's come off the line that are able to run within spec on current motherboards, same with the G5's no doubt IBM has 3GHz G5 come off the line every now and again just not in the numbers required by apple.


mav you remind me how it can be pleasant to read a post by a pc user and not get pissed off even if i don't agree with you.
 

jiggie2g

macrumors 6502
Apr 12, 2003
491
0
Brooklyn,NY
Hector said:
What you are suggesting that AMD did not release a 2.8GHz 90nm part because they could not make it cost effective and have the yield to meet demand. This is what stops every chip company from releasing faster chips, intel could release a 4GHz P4 it would just cost the earth as only a very few p4's come off the line that are able to run within spec on current motherboards, same with the G5's no doubt IBM has 3GHz G5 come off the line every now and again just not in the numbers required by apple.


mav you remind me how it can be pleasant to read a post by a pc user and not get pissed off even if i don't agree with you.


Hey Mav451 u wanted me back you got me ..lol

Now for you Hector ,

Mav451 and JCheng are both right Hector. AMD is just sitting on the FX-57 because there is nothing to challange it. The FX-51 was facing stiff competition by the P4 EE, but when the FX-53 was released nothing Intel had could keep up execpt in the form Video and MP3 encoding. Then came the FX-55 and own's all things single core. AMD has the Luxuary of waithing 6-8months between FX's , who's going to stop them? Pentium M's suck at games because of weak Floating Points, and so do Dualcore Pentium D's / Pentiium XE 840's. No games pushes hardware more then Doom 3 and then the FX-55 eats the game up. No game will push the FX series till Unreal 3 when it comes out in 2006.

Intel had officially thrown in the towel when it came to single core Desktop CPU's the day they announced no 4Ghz P4. They abandoned ship and went straight to Dual Core. Still Intel's Pentium D will be crippled by it's slow bus, and Memory controller. They did not think ahead and will pay the price for it. Athlon X2's are even good at games as proven on anandtech.The mid-level
Athlon X2 4400+(dual 2.2ghz 1MB+1MB L2) simply killed the Pentium XE 840(dual 3.2ghz w/HT) and Pentium D(dual 3.2ghz) in just about every benchmark(35/42). It got so embarassing that Anandtech didn't even bother using the 4800+

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2397

As for the Jump to 90nm taking too long. look what happened to IBM and Intel they got sh"t hammered trying to rush technology and now both look like arseholes for doing so. Jobs got pie in the face to promising 3ghz G5's and still almost 2yrs later cannot count to 3. Then Intel said "no mas" for the P4 after they realized Prescott was a thermal disaster. AMD looked from a far and learned from IBM and Intels mistakes then improved on a superior 90nm core. Winchester(kinda thier prototype 90nm) and now Venice/San Diego(same core different CPU's).Venice core is thier fine tuned and Polished 2nd gen 90nm. All Athlon CPU's will be based on this core till 65nm comes out.

So what did AMD get for waiting a little longer well let's see.... no delays , SEE3 , Lower vcore , 1/3rd less heat , improved memory controller , SOI , huge overclocking head room .....Venice average OC hits (2.7 at stock vcore)2.8-2.9ghz on air and 3.2ghz on water it will even boot at 3.5ghz but is unstable. Lastly but not least more mind/market share plus a big laugh at IBM and Intels' expense.
 

eXan

macrumors 601
Jan 10, 2005
4,731
63
Russia
No, you will not see a speed decrease. You will notice a speed increase!

I have compared side-by-side my eMac (specs below) with a PC laptop (specs below) and they were about the same in Photoshop, but in games and in iTunes (AIFF->160KB AAC) Mac was noticably faster (4.0x speed on PC vs 6.0x on Mac)

:)
 

840quadra

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 1, 2005
9,254
5,966
Twin Cities Minnesota
eXan said:
No, you will not see a speed decrease. You will notice a speed increase!

I have compared side-by-side my eMac (specs below) with a PC laptop (specs below) and they were about the same in Photoshop, but in games and in iTunes (AIFF->160KB AAC) Mac was noticably faster (4.0x speed on PC vs 6.0x on Mac)

:)

YAY we are back on topic!!

But I think the original poster has run away scared at this point :(
 

Mord

macrumors G4
Aug 24, 2003
10,091
23
UK
jiggie2g said:
Hey Mav451 u wanted me back you got me ..lol

Now for you Hector ,

Mav451 and JCheng are both right Hector. AMD is just sitting on the FX-57 because there is nothing to challange it. The FX-51 was facing stiff competition by the P4 EE, but when the FX-53 was released nothing Intel had could keep up execpt in the form Video and MP3 encoding. Then came the FX-55 and own's all things single core. AMD has the Luxuary of waithing 6-8months between FX's , who's going to stop them? Pentium M's suck at games because of weak Floating Points, and so do Dualcore Pentium D's / Pentiium XE 840's. No games pushes hardware more then Doom 3 and then the FX-55 eats the game up. No game will push the FX series till Unreal 3 when it comes out in 2006.

Intel had officially thrown in the towel when it came to single core Desktop CPU's the day they announced no 4Ghz P4. They abandoned ship and went straight to Dual Core. Still Intel's Pentium D will be crippled by it's slow bus, and Memory controller. They did not think ahead and will pay the price for it. Athlon X2's are even good at games as proven on anandtech.The mid-level
Athlon X2 4400+(dual 2.2ghz 1MB+1MB L2) simply killed the Pentium XE 840(dual 3.2ghz w/HT) and Pentium D(dual 3.2ghz) in just about every benchmark(35/42). It got so embarassing that Anandtech didn't even bother using the 4800+

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2397

As for the Jump to 90nm taking too long. look what happened to IBM and Intel they got sh"t hammered trying to rush technology and now both look like arseholes for doing so. Jobs got pie in the face to promising 3ghz G5's and still almost 2yrs later cannot count to 3. Then Intel said "no mas" for the P4 after they realized Prescott was a thermal disaster. AMD looked from a far and learned from IBM and Intels mistakes then improved on a superior 90nm core. Winchester(kinda thier prototype 90nm) and now Venice/San Diego(same core different CPU's).Venice core is thier fine tuned and Polished 2nd gen 90nm. All Athlon CPU's will be based on this core till 65nm comes out.

So what did AMD get for waiting a little longer well let's see.... no delays , SEE3 , Lower vcore , 1/3rd less heat , improved memory controller , SOI , huge overclocking head room .....Venice average OC hits (2.7 at stock vcore)2.8-2.9ghz on air and 3.2ghz on water it will even boot at 3.5ghz but is unstable. Lastly but not least more mind/market share plus a big laugh at IBM and Intels' expense.

there is something to challenge the fx-55, in video editing the p4 still wins, and in allot of synthetic benchmarks, most sites reviewing the chips focus on games which as i have said before are not what we are talking about we for the topic at hand content creation is what counts, i agree the fx-55 is a kick ass chips and p4's for the most part get pwned by them but it is by no means a landslide

the reasons given that AMD did not because either A: they cannot provide enough chips to meet demands B: they own so much in every area that they "cant be arsed". Now the second option dose not seem so likely, if they could fab 2.6GHz cpu's in quantity they would have replaced the fx-55 with a 90nm part like they did lower down the line, this is the bare minimum

The fact that they still own with the fx-55 is an excuse, imagine if intel could only make 3GHz P4's and kept the top end chip a 3.2GHz northwood, people would be laughing there heads off, they are not at AMD because they did a very good job with the fx-55 and intel are a tad behind in the performance frount, the fact that you can overclock a fx55 to 2.8GHz easy just means it's a good overclocker not that AMD can make on spec 2.8GHz cores with an acceptable reliability to meet demand.

to go back a year and look at the age old "steve promised 3GHz" topic, the whole industry hit the 90nm wall, intel only gained 18% on it, the G5 gained 25% and AMD did not gain anything at all on it and wont until the FX57 comes out which may or may not be a dual core part no one much knows. san diego and venice chips are showing up in stores but there is no news what so ever about the FX only about the dual cores and they ship in june.
 

jiggie2g

macrumors 6502
Apr 12, 2003
491
0
Brooklyn,NY
Hector said:
there is something to challenge the fx-55, in video editing the p4 still wins, and in allot of synthetic benchmarks, most sites reviewing the chips focus on games which as i have said before are not what we are talking about we for the topic at hand content creation is what counts, i agree the fx-55 is a kick ass chips and p4's for the most part get pwned by them but it is by no means a landslide

the reasons given that AMD did not because either A: they cannot provide enough chips to meet demands B: they own so much in every area that they "cant be arsed". Now the second option dose not seem so likely, if they could fab 2.6GHz cpu's in quantity they would have replaced the fx-55 with a 90nm part like they did lower down the line, this is the bare minimum

The fact that they still own with the fx-55 is an excuse, imagine if intel could only make 3GHz P4's and kept the top end chip a 3.2GHz northwood, people would be laughing there heads off, they are not at AMD because they did a very good job with the fx-55 and intel are a tad behind in the performance frount, the fact that you can overclock a fx55 to 2.8GHz easy just means it's a good overclocker not that AMD can make on spec 2.8GHz cores with an acceptable reliability to meet demand.

to go back a year and look at the age old "steve promised 3GHz" topic, the whole industry hit the 90nm wall, intel only gained 18% on it, the G5 gained 25% and AMD did not gain anything at all on it and wont until the FX57 comes out which may or may not be a dual core part no one much knows. san diego and venice chips are showing up in stores but there is no news what so ever about the FX only about the dual cores and they ship in june.


The FX line will continue as a high end gamers chip as long as single core run games better (FX-57 should be out in may-june), as of now the single core Athlon 64(non-fx) will no longer be updated past 4000+. 4200+ and beyond will all be dualcore X2's. Venice will be the last single core Athlon 64...everything else will be San Diego(FX) and Toledo(X2) til mid 2006 when they all go Socket 1207(Windsor) then they get DDR2 667 or 800 and Virtualization(AMD Hyper-treading).

AMD will release the Venice chips in 3000+ , 3200+ , 3500+ and 3800+. Kinda a consolation prize for thier not putting out a dual core X2 3800+ , 4000+.
besides benchmarks have proven the lowend Athlon 64's fare pretty well against the low end Pentium D's expect in heavy multi-tasking and DVD Shrink , but low clocked Pent D's are horrendus at games unlike the X2's or any Athlon 64.

Right now AMD can't be touched gotta give them credit for all thier hardwork , They own the Desktop Performance market, Gamers Market , Server and Workstation Market(Dual Dual Opteron 275's :eek: ). Plus with the Turion 64 will finally have something to challenge the Pentium M.

Hollywood Studio's are jumping ship to AMD and everyone from Dreamworks to LucasFilms is singing the praises of AMD. Sharks Tale, Sin City , Star Wars Episode III and Madagascar(upcoming CG animated film) were all made on Opterons.Don't be surprised if someone gets a Spy shot of Pixar unloading Huge Server Boxes with Opteron Logo's. :D ......Kinda like Microsoft 2yrs ago with the G5 boxes.
 

Mord

macrumors G4
Aug 24, 2003
10,091
23
UK
thanks for the clarification, it's hell trawing through AMDzone ect,

currently FYI i'm about to upgrade my age old 550MHz athlon to somehtinga tad newer, initialy i thought of getting a sempron 3000+ with a DFI lanparty mobo and a cheapo 512MB stick of ram, now i'm a little tempted to get somthing a little better but the overclocking potential is the sempron is too tempting.
 

jiggie2g

macrumors 6502
Apr 12, 2003
491
0
Brooklyn,NY
Hector said:
thanks for the clarification, it's hell trawing through AMDzone ect,

currently FYI i'm about to upgrade my age old 550MHz athlon to somehtinga tad newer, initialy i thought of getting a sempron 3000+ with a DFI lanparty mobo and a cheapo 512MB stick of ram, now i'm a little tempted to get somthing a little better but the overclocking potential is the sempron is too tempting.


Hey don't bother , Sempron's are cool but no 64 bit is the deal breaker 4 me , plus they cut the cache in half. I think socket 754 will be EOL'd by the end of 2005.

Just go nForce 4 ,if you lived i the US you'd have a great time with newegg.com , i don't know who's the big component retailer in the UK , i'm sure you do.you guys already have the Venice and San Diego chips and we are still waiting for those.

Want something cheap just go for Athlon 64 3000-3200+(Venice) You can OC's the crap outta venice and an Nforce 4 Ultra Motherboard , Foxconn NF4UK8AA-8EKRS $99 USD it's a very good budget NF4U MB there's also the CHAINTECH VNF4 $95 USD. Both are very well priced for what you get. If u like the VIA K8T890 chipset there's the SOLTEK SL-K890Pro-939 $108 USD.

as for cheap ram nothing beats Corsair Value Select I get them in 1GB (512x2) for $88 , DDR3200 2.5ns cas lantency 2.5-3-3-6 Timing.

You guys in the UK get most of the cool stuff 1st, Cars , 3G UMTS , computer hardware. but you also get screwed on the broadband and you get our movies wayyy too late.

My DFI Lanparty UT NF4 Ultra-D runs for about $130 USD so it's prob cheaper out there. It's hailed as the best OC'ing Motherboard ever made by countless hardware sites. Rirght now got it collecting dust till i get me a cheap Venice CPU to hold me over then i'll get me an X2 4400+. :D
 

Mord

macrumors G4
Aug 24, 2003
10,091
23
UK
The thing is i'm too cheap, i dont use my pc for much, i did play a few games when i first got it but WoW on 10.4 runs just fine on my g4 cube so i dont feel a need for anything that fast, also 64bit is not a deal breaker for me, i'll be running a distro of linux on it maybe BSD and 2k for games/compatibility.

I have case HD psu ect all i need is a motherboard cpu and ram and i want them dirt cheap.

a 3000+ venice comes in at about £130 compared to a 3000+ winnie at £90 i can get both much cheaper but the gap is still there just for SSE3 which is not that amazing. but for the cost of a 3000+ i could get a semperon 3000 and OC it to 2.4GHz on a dfi board and spent the saved money on ram and the system will own the athlon, cache dose not effect speed that much on the athlons, a 100MHz speed increase will bridge the gap between 128k cache and 512k cache.

In the general scheme of things i could spend about £100 and get a semperon + mobo + ram or spend double for a not that much faster rig all for the honor of dual channel ram.

If only with asrock boards did not suck as much as they do as the idea of an upgrade card to socket 939 is appealing.

then again i could just save the money and add it to the cube upgrade fund and get a dual 1.5GHz 4MB L3 cache upgrade :)

here in the uk we have dabs, but i tend to get one of my friends to buy a bulk of 10x cpu's or 10x motherboards a buy one of each at a discount and he either ebays the rest or takes them down to a computer fair.

a few weeks ago he bought a box of 10x 2.8GHz p4's for £400 sold them on ebay for £80 each.

oh and a need agp, i have a 8500 LE which is good enough for most games.
 

calyxman

macrumors 6502a
Apr 17, 2005
610
0
jiggie2g said:
Hey don't bother , Sempron's are cool but no 64 bit is the deal breaker 4 me , plus they cut the cache in half. I think socket 754 will be EOL'd by the end of 2005.

Jiggie, I'm not a big speed hawk, but I'm just curious what does the Mobile Sempron 3000+ compare to on the desktop line both in the AMD and Intel lineup?
 

JCheng

macrumors newbie
Feb 20, 2005
28
0
Hector said:
mav you remind me how it can be pleasant to read a post by a pc user and not get pissed off even if i don't agree with you.

What can I say? I just don't tolerate slanted interpretations well (even though I suppose we are all susceptible to our own bias ;) ). Clean up your act and you won't have to hear from me again, hear? :cool:
 

jiggie2g

macrumors 6502
Apr 12, 2003
491
0
Brooklyn,NY
calyxman said:
Jiggie, I'm not a big speed hawk, but I'm just curious what does the Mobile Sempron 3000+ compare to on the desktop line both in the AMD and Intel lineup?


Well the Mobile Sempron 3000+ and 3300+ run Socket 754 on the Radeon Xpress 200M , and have the 90nm Palermo core which is based on Winchester. It should perform very similar to a standard Athlon 64 3000+ maybe slightly slower due to the cache cut in half. They are Killer overclockers some have been reported to hit 2.8-2.9ghz.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2395

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/print/sempron-3100e.html


Hector,
The reason why I mention buying an Athlon 64 instead is because there is a good chance that if u buy a sempron for a desktop you will be here next year asking me about an Athlon 64 after AMD kills socket 754. plus with NF4 you ge the future security of PCIe.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/print/athlon64-venice.html :D
 

Mord

macrumors G4
Aug 24, 2003
10,091
23
UK
jiggie2g said:
Well the Mobile Sempron 3000+ and 3300+ run Socket 754 on the Radeon Xpress 200M , and have the 90nm Palermo core which is based on Winchester. It should perform very similar to a standard Athlon 64 3000+ maybe slightly slower due to the cache cut in half. They are Killer overclockers some have been reported to hit 2.8-2.9ghz.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2395

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/print/sempron-3100e.html


Hector,
The reason why I mention buying an Athlon 64 instead is because there is a good chance that if u buy a sempron for a desktop you will be here next year asking me about an Athlon 64 after AMD kills socket 754.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/print/athlon64-venice.html :D


i wont be asking anyone i can decide for myself thanks very much, the future of a socket is of no consequence to me as my pc upgrade cycle is a very slow one and i get what is best for a pitifully small amount of money and make it last, thats why i dont want pci express as my 8500LE will do for now and i can pick up an agp x800XL when the prices go down.

and that x-bit labs artical confirms what i was talking about with the 90nm transition, the winnie never clocked too high as it was not a good transition for AMD.
 

jiggie2g

macrumors 6502
Apr 12, 2003
491
0
Brooklyn,NY
Hector said:
i wont be asking anyone i can decide for myself thanks very much, the future of a socket is of no consequence to me as my pc upgrade cycle is a very slow one and i get what is best for a pitifully small amount of money and make it last, thats why i dont want pci express as my 8500LE will do for now and i can pick up an agp x800xt when the prices go down.

and that x-bit labs artical confirms what i was talking about with the 90nm transition, the winnie never clocked too high as it was not a good transition for AMD.


Touchy aren't we? No one was saying you couldn't decide 4 yourself. It's your money , just trying to help. Whateva.

I already said winchester was more like thier Prototype and Venice being the finished product with the addition of a lower Vcore 1.3 vs 1.42, improved memory controller , SOI , SSE3 and much more OC head room. so that £90-£130 difference gets you more then just SSE3. With Venice AMD also worked out to major bugs that hampered Winchester those were not being able to post with sub zero cooling , and not accepting 4 Dimms at a time. These chips will Hit 3Ghz in the FX-59 before the G5.
 

Mord

macrumors G4
Aug 24, 2003
10,091
23
UK
jiggie2g said:
Touchy aren't we? No one was saying you couldn't decide 4 yourself. It's your money , just trying to help. Whateva.

I already said winchester was more like thier Prototype and Venice being the finished product with the addition of a lower Vcore 1.3 vs 1.42, improved memory controller , SOI , SSE3 and much more OC head room. so that £90-£130 difference gets you more then just SSE3. With Venice AMD also worked out to major bugs that hampered Winchester those were not being able to post with sub zero cooling , and not accepting 4 Dimms at a time. These chips will Hit 3Ghz in the FX-59 before the G5.

i dont plan on having 4 dimms of ram and i'll just OC to the highest possible with the minimum allowable bump to vcore on a thermaltake slk800. also i dont plan on running any version of windows but 2k and i dont see the appeal of running a 64-bit version of linux/BSD, not much for me to gain with it

i'd probably be ok with a socket A board and a athlon XP 3000+.
 

jiggie2g

macrumors 6502
Apr 12, 2003
491
0
Brooklyn,NY
Hector said:
i dont plan on having 4 dimms of ram and i'll just OC to the highest possible with the minimum allowable bump to vcore on a thermaltake slk800. also i dont plan on running any version of windows but 2k and i dont see the appeal of running a 64-bit version of linux/BSD, not much for me to gain with it

i'd probably be ok with a socket A board and a 3000+.


You were going Socket A , I thought u were going 754. now you really should listen to me if you are going socket A then an XP-M is your best bet it's what i'm using now , with a decent nForce 2 ultra MB. I kept hearing that socket A semprons were bad at multitasking. you could get an XP-M 2400+ 0r 2500+ dirt cheap and hit 2.4ghz-2.6ghz. plus you get to keep cache the 512k L2 cache and have the tried and true Barton core.

I got my Athlon XP-M 2400+(1.8ghz) hitting 2315mhz / 420Mhz FSB. Runs perfectly stable cooled with Artic Silver 5 and Thermaltake Silent Boost.
 

Mord

macrumors G4
Aug 24, 2003
10,091
23
UK
jiggie2g said:
You were going Socket A , I thought u were going 754. now you really should listen to me if you are going socket A then an XP-M is your best bet it's what i'm using now , with a decent nForce 2 ultra MB. I kept hearing that socket A semprons were bad at multitasking. you could get an XP-M 2400+ 0r 2500+ dirt cheap and hit 2.4ghz-2.6ghz.

I got my Athlon XP-M 2400+ hitting 2315mhz / 420Mhz FSB. Runs perfectly stable cooled with Artic Silver 5 and Thermaltake Silent Boost.


i was not suggesting that i was going to go socket A i'm just saying my needs would be fulfilled with a socket A mobo + 3000+ barton.

i'm not really looking for advice here i just said i was planning on picking up some kit a while back along the thread, i'm pretty much set on a 3000+, with such a small cache the overclock like hell and are dirt cheap. i also dont want a dual channel rig as i dont want to have to by a pair of dimms when i upgrade for such a small increase in speed.
 

thomastsui

macrumors newbie
Apr 19, 2005
19
0
Following the argurments.

Switch from a PC to mac, or talking about the deifferent between this two platforms. People have two different argurments, that is,

1. User's Experiences
2. Real performance in in terms ... technically.

And I would like to share my experiecnes here, with my PC-Windows machine and My Macs.

I am now studying in Australia, I have a Powerbook G4 667 DVI- 512MB and a Pentium 3 800 - 394MB on my desktop.

And every summer hoilday, I go back to HK and work in a studio, we have
PM G4 - Dual 867 - 7xxMB,
Powerbook G4 1.5Ghz - 1G-RAM,
Intel Celeron 3.2Ghz - 512 MB, onboard ATI Radeon 9200,
Some imacs g3 and beige g3s.

In terms og technologics, I agree that Intel/AMD CPU nowadays beats G4 (I havn't try G5)

And went I was in the studio, I and my friends in studio did a simply test to test the performace of the Intel Celeron (coz It's cheap, and we would like to see how much things the AU$500 Celeron system can do.)

We basically use photoshop in studio, editing photos from 60MB RAW, and expand it into 100/150MB (depends...) And ...well.....after adding layers, the files go up to 5xxMB to 7xxMB.

In our simply test, wew just simply pick up a 150MB retouched photo, add simply add 500% unsharpen mask in photoshop (why 500%? well, just take it as slow as possible to see difference.....)

The the candidates for this test is:

1. Powermac D867
2. Powerbook 1.5G and my Powerbook 667
3. The only PC machine in studio

Well, when all computers start in this filers at the same time (i know, it's impossible to start at SAME time, but we did our best)

The D867 simply finished the job the first, but one thing interesting is, The PC is like just slower than the POwerbook 1.5G for like 2-3 sec, (you may say, well, 7200rpm HDD have advantages, comparing to the 4200rpm HDD on Powrbook.)
True, but, we are not professional IT guys, so, what a AU$500 PC can do , and how fast it can do, is really amazing for all mac guys in the studio.
REMEMBER, it is just a Intel Celeron D CPU.

WEll. I forgot the Powerbook 667.........it is ...slow. and cannot even scoll within the photo after the filter finished. ( infact, you can still move around, but take secs to render again te photo.....)

Of course, after this test we still use to MAcs for main purpose, for in door shooting, we use Duel 867, and powerbook 1.5G are for locations. We use macs because it's industrial standard (^.^) .

Actually,we use macs because it gives us stable firewire connection between computer and our Digital Back. (we tried to use Sony VAIO for locations, well. windows maintains the Buffers and Connections, not so prefect, it works, and if some wrong, infact, after reboot, it still works, but for us, professional, we don't want see our machine reboot during the shooting.)

And my PowerBook 667, is still my only machine travel with me between Hong Kong and Australia, I love it.
 

jiggie2g

macrumors 6502
Apr 12, 2003
491
0
Brooklyn,NY
thomastsui said:
Celeron D 2.2G


I almost find that commical that a Crappy Celeron D 315 2.26ghz $70 USD CPU can keep up with a Dual 867 G4 , I remember almost buyin one of those back in late 2002 when apple released the all dual Quicksilver Powermac line Dual 1.25 , Dual 1ghz and dual 867mhz . I guess it was a good thing I didn't.

I know my Athlon XP-M , renders faster then a single 1.8ghz G5 and on par with a single 2.0ghz G5 , however since my CPU is OC'd i guess that's kinda a one sided but then again the G5 does has a much faster FSB.
 

840quadra

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 1, 2005
9,254
5,966
Twin Cities Minnesota
jiggie2g said:
I almost find that commical that a Crappy Celeron D 315 2.26ghz $70 USD CPU can keep up with a Dual 867 G4 , I remember almost buyin one of those back in late 2002 when apple released the all dual Quicksilver Powermac line Dual 1.25 , Dual 1ghz and dual 867mhz . I guess it was a good thing I didn't.

I know my Athlon XP-M , renders faster then a single 1.8ghz G5 and on par with a single 2.0ghz G5 , however since my CPU is OC'd i guess that's kinda a one sided but then again the G5 does has a much faster FSB.

An other snide comment directed at the Macintosh. :eek: :D


Oh well I don't expect everyone to love them.

I wouldn't be ashamed to admit the Celeron is faster then my Digital Audio, The technology is slightly newer on the Celeron, and it supports faster Bus speeds then my 133 MHZ system.

I tip my hat to the Celeron, though I will not trade in my Powermacs, or my Athalon XP Linux box for one. ;)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.