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.
4.7 ghz Wintel...
- Thread starter tjwett
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
e-coli
macrumors 68000
actually, dell makes insanely great computers. their stock video cards generally aren't very good, but you can fix that easily.
apple needs to catch up quickly. it's getting sad and pathetic. especially with the rumors that apple is just now scrambling to find someone to manufacture/replace the G5 or equivalent.
chmorley
macrumors 6502a
Not true...and not true.
When a pipeline (not a "stage", as pipelines are made up of stages) is 3 times longer, there are more opportunities for inefficiencies. While in theory this could make some software 3 times less efficient, in real life this is rarely the case.
Secondly, saying the only time Macs are slower than PCs is when apps haven't been optimized for Altivec is patently false. Having applications utilize AltiVec is great, but it often doesn't make up for the fact that the processor is slower.
I am as Pro-Mac as the next guy, but getting the facts wrong makes us just look like we don't know anything about computers. The biggest pro of the Mac is the OS (and the elegance of the experience). It's foolish, though, not to acknowledge the downside, which is slower chips (some say "inferior hardware", but I think that overstates the importance of speed). Overall in the equation, I prefer Macs by a lot, but they're slower than PCs.
No need to deny it.
Chris
verbose, do you ever give newbies a break with typos these days? 🙄 😀
Great posts, guys. Well worth reading. But I think some of you need to take a closer look at WHY MHz/GHz doesn't matter as much.
First of all, the Px does not have the Velocity Engine, and OS 10.1/2 uses it. There is a dramatic performance over the G4 (and especially later G3s) with 10.2, as the operating system is now more effeciant. Also, OS X takes advantage of dual processors to a certain degree (maybe an extra 50 percent or so). Finally, when you take a look at the new PowerMacs, you are looking at 4MB of L3 Cache (w/ dual 1.25GHz). The Px don't seem to have that (if any). So, basically, that would bring a 64-bit system (in terms of the P4) to about 4 or 5GHz right there.
Now, take a look at the PC. Sure, the PC has incredible boot time, is great for playing games, and has a quick OS. However, the P4 lacks the necessity of an effecient L1 Cache. I do not see how 4Kb will provide enough memory for the complex operations tha Macs can handle. So, instead of a 4.7GHz, you're looking at, maybe, 3.x or 4GHz, assuming, with this new chip, the L1 cache has remained unchanged.
The only reasons Macs appear to be bogged down are because of the slower bus speeds (167MHz (Mac) compared to 333MHz or faster (PC) w/BOTH having DDR-RAM) and because not all applications support the Velocity Engine. It may not be THAT big of a difference, but it does bring the overall speed of the G4 down, when compared to a P4. Apple's apps sure work with OS X and the VE, but not a whole lot of other apps. In these cases (varies on how often, depending on what percentage of application usage involves the VE) the overall speed of the G4 (in relative terms to a P4) would decrease significantly, and that's one of the other reasons why were are getting hit badly.
I honestly don't see how a G5 (IF it comes out) would help, unless it was able to *fool* non-VE apps to thinking that data is going in 64-bit pathways, and the G5 could split that to 128-bit or even 256-bit pathways. Otherwise, the G4 will NOT be beneficial in the long run.
Great posts, guys. Well worth reading. But I think some of you need to take a closer look at WHY MHz/GHz doesn't matter as much.
First of all, the Px does not have the Velocity Engine, and OS 10.1/2 uses it. There is a dramatic performance over the G4 (and especially later G3s) with 10.2, as the operating system is now more effeciant. Also, OS X takes advantage of dual processors to a certain degree (maybe an extra 50 percent or so). Finally, when you take a look at the new PowerMacs, you are looking at 4MB of L3 Cache (w/ dual 1.25GHz). The Px don't seem to have that (if any). So, basically, that would bring a 64-bit system (in terms of the P4) to about 4 or 5GHz right there.
Now, take a look at the PC. Sure, the PC has incredible boot time, is great for playing games, and has a quick OS. However, the P4 lacks the necessity of an effecient L1 Cache. I do not see how 4Kb will provide enough memory for the complex operations tha Macs can handle. So, instead of a 4.7GHz, you're looking at, maybe, 3.x or 4GHz, assuming, with this new chip, the L1 cache has remained unchanged.
The only reasons Macs appear to be bogged down are because of the slower bus speeds (167MHz (Mac) compared to 333MHz or faster (PC) w/BOTH having DDR-RAM) and because not all applications support the Velocity Engine. It may not be THAT big of a difference, but it does bring the overall speed of the G4 down, when compared to a P4. Apple's apps sure work with OS X and the VE, but not a whole lot of other apps. In these cases (varies on how often, depending on what percentage of application usage involves the VE) the overall speed of the G4 (in relative terms to a P4) would decrease significantly, and that's one of the other reasons why were are getting hit badly.
I honestly don't see how a G5 (IF it comes out) would help, unless it was able to *fool* non-VE apps to thinking that data is going in 64-bit pathways, and the G5 could split that to 128-bit or even 256-bit pathways. Otherwise, the G4 will NOT be beneficial in the long run.
MacBandit
macrumors 604
First of all what do you consider great boot times? Not that this matters a lot. I have a new Dual Ghz/DDR and it starts from cold boot to login in screen in 27secs with 10.2 and from login to operating finder is nearly instantaneous.
Second of all as I have stated before the true reason Mhz doesn't matter is because something like %98 of all computer users are not power users these are the people that will go buy a new computer tomorrow and if there is a 2.8Ghz computer sitting next to a 800Mhz computer they couldn't care they're going to buy the cheap one. They don't even care how much ram it has. I know this because I went computer shopping with my boss for work(yes for a PC). He wanted my help. Well little help I was he bought the cheapest computer he could get with 64MB of Ram I suggested we upgrade it later and he agreed well that was 2 years ago still it sits with 64MB of RAM in it. Oh and I might add it still has all the stickers on the front of it. These people don't care about this stuff all it's used for is mail and the occasional websearch and most people are like this.
scem0
macrumors 604
As soon as athere is a PC that is 3.5x more mehahertz then the most current powermac, then I am switching, even if it is in the 'wrong direction', yeah OS X is a great OS but if I cant afford the already slow-compared-to-PCs hardware to back it up, why get a mac at all. I can live with Windoze, and hope that it gets some major revisions, as long as my computer, that costs a lot less then a mac, runs faster then a mac. My rant is over. This basically sums up what I want to say:
If apple doesnt release a hell of a good computer this Jan then I have got to say bye bye to my whole pro-mac life style, and go out and buy a faster, cheaper machine. A great OS and iApps wont make up for speed, no matter how cool they are.
If apple doesnt release a hell of a good computer this Jan then I have got to say bye bye to my whole pro-mac life style, and go out and buy a faster, cheaper machine. A great OS and iApps wont make up for speed, no matter how cool they are.
>(MacBandit) First of all what do you consider great boot times? Not that this matters a lot. I have a new Dual Ghz/DDR and it starts from cold boot to login in screen in 27secs with 10.2 and from login to operating finder is nearly instantaneous.
With 10.2, sure, boot time on the Mac has significantly improved. But I've noticed that with the PCs at PHHS the PCs boot in under a minute. But, just this past week I thought I logged out of one of the P3s and I actually restarted it. The restart to log-in, then to the OS was approximately the same as you said, MB. What would a computer with 3x/4x the GHz seem like?
>Second of all as I have stated before the true reason Mhz doesn't matter is because something like %98 of all computer users are not power users these are the people that will go buy a new computer tomorrow and if there is a 2.8Ghz computer sitting next to a 800Mhz computer they couldn't care they're going to buy the cheap one.
>(MacBandit, in a previous post) The people that really desire the speed at least most of them know the difference between Mhz and overall system speed.
My entire previous post, starting from the first lengthy paragraph was trying to explain why MHz doesn't matter. I agree with your point of view, but I am trying to expand the MHz/GHz speeds of a G4 to how it would compare against a P4 of ≈ same speed. My post had approximations, so that's why I say approximately equal to, not =. But my point is that the G4 can actually surpass the P4 at 3 or 4GHz speeds if the right apps are used.
>They don't even care how much ram it has. I know this because I went computer shopping with my boss for work(yes for a PC). He wanted my help. Well little help I was he bought the cheapest computer he could get with 64MB of Ram I suggested we upgrade it later and he agreed well that was 2 years ago still it sits with 64MB of RAM in it. Oh and I might add it still has all the stickers on the front of it.
Well I didn't mention RAM, but I will now. Try running OS X (even 10.1) on ANY computer with 128MB of RAM or less. I have with my iMac 233 (w/64MB of RAM) and my iBook 467 (with 128MB). The iMac was a complete drag. My iBook is rather slow, but it works fine. My Cube G4 has 1GB of RAM and must be at least 2 or 3 times faster than my iBook, depending on what tasks I perform.
>These people don't care about this stuff all it's used for is mail and the occasional websearch and most people are like this.
Now this brings up a different issue (as well as MHz): OS Stability. Sure, XP may have fixed *some* :snicker: of the errors from older versions of Win. Yet it still isn't totally stable.
Wherever there is a PC for that stuff, there is a low-end PowerMac for them. It's called an iMac. 😎
With 10.2, sure, boot time on the Mac has significantly improved. But I've noticed that with the PCs at PHHS the PCs boot in under a minute. But, just this past week I thought I logged out of one of the P3s and I actually restarted it. The restart to log-in, then to the OS was approximately the same as you said, MB. What would a computer with 3x/4x the GHz seem like?
>Second of all as I have stated before the true reason Mhz doesn't matter is because something like %98 of all computer users are not power users these are the people that will go buy a new computer tomorrow and if there is a 2.8Ghz computer sitting next to a 800Mhz computer they couldn't care they're going to buy the cheap one.
>(MacBandit, in a previous post) The people that really desire the speed at least most of them know the difference between Mhz and overall system speed.
My entire previous post, starting from the first lengthy paragraph was trying to explain why MHz doesn't matter. I agree with your point of view, but I am trying to expand the MHz/GHz speeds of a G4 to how it would compare against a P4 of ≈ same speed. My post had approximations, so that's why I say approximately equal to, not =. But my point is that the G4 can actually surpass the P4 at 3 or 4GHz speeds if the right apps are used.
>They don't even care how much ram it has. I know this because I went computer shopping with my boss for work(yes for a PC). He wanted my help. Well little help I was he bought the cheapest computer he could get with 64MB of Ram I suggested we upgrade it later and he agreed well that was 2 years ago still it sits with 64MB of RAM in it. Oh and I might add it still has all the stickers on the front of it.
Well I didn't mention RAM, but I will now. Try running OS X (even 10.1) on ANY computer with 128MB of RAM or less. I have with my iMac 233 (w/64MB of RAM) and my iBook 467 (with 128MB). The iMac was a complete drag. My iBook is rather slow, but it works fine. My Cube G4 has 1GB of RAM and must be at least 2 or 3 times faster than my iBook, depending on what tasks I perform.
>These people don't care about this stuff all it's used for is mail and the occasional websearch and most people are like this.
Now this brings up a different issue (as well as MHz): OS Stability. Sure, XP may have fixed *some* :snicker: of the errors from older versions of Win. Yet it still isn't totally stable.
Wherever there is a PC for that stuff, there is a low-end PowerMac for them. It's called an iMac. 😎
No chance.
Most applications that can take advantage of Altivec already do, there's a lot of processes that can't benefit from Altivec at all and that's where the G4 is getting beaten senseless.
Even Altivec itself is crippled by the bus speed.
The G4 achieves 1.3Gb/s on the dual 1Ghz G4 with the 167Mhz Front Side Bus.
Remembering that there's 8 bits in a byte and memory is 64 bit the Mb/s of the FSB works out as follows :
(100 / 3) x 5 = 166.666 this is just the precise way of calculating the bus speed
64 bit / 8 = 8 bytes
8 x 166.666Mhz = 1.333 GB/s
Remembering that 1.3Gb/s is the most the system controller can transfere to either CPU, altivec is hardly getting any of the juice it needs at all with the current G4 design.
Assuming we're still talking about that dual Ghz G4, Altvec works out like this :
(128 / 8) x 1000Mhz = 15.625 Gb/s
It's only getting a measly 1.3Gb/s, hardly what it needs.
Plus both CPUs and both Altivec units have to share the same 167Mhz FSB to transfere data to and from main memory.
Even though the L2 and L3 cache have a lot to play in getting around the FSB bottleneck, that's 1.3Gb/s of bandwidth shared between cpus and SiMD units that require a total of 33.85Mb/s.
If you're working on data that's less than 256K it fits in the L2 cache and there's no bottleneck, anything bigger than that and it's either got to fit in the L3 which is half the required bandwidth or it's coming from main system memory with that tiny 1.3Mb/s of bandwidth.
fourthtunz
macrumors 68000
It seems like alot of the folks posting on this thread haven't tried the new Macs with osX.2. I'll admit 3 weeks ago the arguements posted above may have been valid, and thats not to say that apple doesn't have to come out with faster stuff to keep up with pcs but right now the Mac is very fast and a good deal.
$1899 for a dual 867 with a dvd burner and the software is pretty close to a similar pc and the included software is a real deal.
The new Hardware is a real improvement too. 2 optical bays and 4 ide drive bays with included raid software, if you haven't installed anything in the new Macs, believe me this is the best!
I use my Macs fulltime in my audio/video studio and for me it doesn't get any better than this!
Yes Macs initially cost more but the new speed/productivity boost quickly makes up of the slight difference.
So buy an emac if you need a cheap computer, maybe not as fast as the cheap pc but more portable!
Peace
Daniel
$1899 for a dual 867 with a dvd burner and the software is pretty close to a similar pc and the included software is a real deal.
The new Hardware is a real improvement too. 2 optical bays and 4 ide drive bays with included raid software, if you haven't installed anything in the new Macs, believe me this is the best!
I use my Macs fulltime in my audio/video studio and for me it doesn't get any better than this!
Yes Macs initially cost more but the new speed/productivity boost quickly makes up of the slight difference.
So buy an emac if you need a cheap computer, maybe not as fast as the cheap pc but more portable!
Peace
Daniel
Who says all the processing can't be finished in the processor before it goes out on the bus. If your software is optimized it will stay on the processor do its Altivec, do its L3 cache stuff, and then when it is ready to issue a result it will go out on the bus. But unfortunately most developers seem to be ignorant they can do that, and instead over utilize the bus slowing things down. The folks at Genentech managed a 5 fold speed boost by avoiding the slowdown on the bus. Remember with less stages it will take less processor time to finish tasks. So there are ways of optimizing software for the G4 that not every software developer has taken advantage of. And believe me my G4 iMac 800 Mhz is mighty fast even without all that L3 cache, and a 100 Mhz bus. I have yet to see a PC that can match it. Get Jaguar and be surprised by how fast a Mac is.
What? That isn't even remotely how pipelines work. The problem with large pipelines with many stages is when there is a miss in branch prediction. At that point everything already in the pipeline is wasted. Branch prediction failure is a very very bad thing. Fortunately both AMD and Intel have gotten really good at it as they have ramped up the stages. This can also be mitigated some with damn good compilers (of which Intel is good at making, but no one really uses).
Macs are awesome integrated platforms. However the G4 CPU is now an old dog.
edit: typos
fourthtunz
macrumors 68000
What I meant was for $1899 you get a very fast well built Mac that with the new Os will allow you go right to work, with a DVD burner, a software you can do REAL work with! Oh Yeah and the new Macs With X.2 are now truly twice a fast, at least in my tests with real work. Point me to ANY PC with included great software, a DVD burner, and awesome case, gig ethernet, an included firewire setup that works with drives and cameras for even $1699! I'm not talking a custom built pccee with a cheapo box, thats not the same thing. If you think it is then you haven't been doing real work, you're surfing the net and playing games something that the Imac or emac excells at for less money,peace
Daniel
>Does this include everything that comes standard on a Mac box?
You certainly don't get the most stable OS with a PC.
>Does this include everything that comes standard on a Mac box?
You certainly don't get the most stable OS with a PC.
😀
scem, I think in due time the price of Apple's hardware will come down. Take a look at the prices of the Macintosh/Apple product line. The Macintosh II was valued at I think over $6000. The G4/G3 motherboard was worth up to $3500 I think. Now, the Dual 1.25GHz model sells for around $3300, if you don't feel like chugging in THAT much RAM.
My guess is that in a couple of years Apple's PowerMacs will be reduced to near equivalent prices as when the first dual GHz PowerMacs came out, topping out at $3000.
You certainly don't get the most stable OS with a PC.
>Does this include everything that comes standard on a Mac box?
You certainly don't get the most stable OS with a PC.
😀
scem, I think in due time the price of Apple's hardware will come down. Take a look at the prices of the Macintosh/Apple product line. The Macintosh II was valued at I think over $6000. The G4/G3 motherboard was worth up to $3500 I think. Now, the Dual 1.25GHz model sells for around $3300, if you don't feel like chugging in THAT much RAM.
My guess is that in a couple of years Apple's PowerMacs will be reduced to near equivalent prices as when the first dual GHz PowerMacs came out, topping out at $3000.
MacBandit
macrumors 604
I'm sorry about that double post it won't let me delete them and things went crazy for me there for a couple moments and I accidentally pressed the back and forward arrow.
I feel that Macs are competitively priced now. I just configured a Dell which I feel is the cheapest of the major name brand PC's and also know for there lack of quality. I ended up with a 2Ghz PC no monitor with similar hardware except no firewire and less expansion possibilities in the future because of used up PCI slots etc. for $1,288. I made the comparison to a Dual 867 and modified the Apple config. when I couldn't make the two match any other way. I personally feel that OS X and the whole Mac experience is worth the difference for a computer that will without a doubt whip the pants off that Dell and continue to do it after it the Dell is dead and gone.
I did the same thing with a 2.4Ghz Compaq and it has Firewire and it came up to $1,455. I repeat myself again in everything I said above about the Dual867 being a better deal because of OSX and I still believe it would be faster at most tasks especially multitasking and it still having a longer life without failure.
>I'm sorry about that double post it won't let me delete them
Heh. Someone else had that problem. You have to be one of us, muhahahahaha! 😱
>I personally feel that OS X and the whole Mac experience is worth the difference for a computer that will without a doubt whip the pants off that Dell and continue to do it after it the Dell is dead and gone.
I think Gatelaid may suffer first: Sleep forever standing up, like a cow. 😀
OS X absolutely *kills* all the other OSs, as most of us know (especially with 10.2). You won't see that with a Windoze update. Upgrading to ME is sort of a 50:50 deal, whether you upgrade successfully, or upgrade in heck. And constant Windoze upgrades come in the fashion of "kill a bug/get one free". But as long as you don't have upgrader cards or such with your Mac, OS 10.2 really doesn't need so many updates, except for add-ons and stuff.
Heh. Someone else had that problem. You have to be one of us, muhahahahaha! 😱
>I personally feel that OS X and the whole Mac experience is worth the difference for a computer that will without a doubt whip the pants off that Dell and continue to do it after it the Dell is dead and gone.
I think Gatelaid may suffer first: Sleep forever standing up, like a cow. 😀
OS X absolutely *kills* all the other OSs, as most of us know (especially with 10.2). You won't see that with a Windoze update. Upgrading to ME is sort of a 50:50 deal, whether you upgrade successfully, or upgrade in heck. And constant Windoze upgrades come in the fashion of "kill a bug/get one free". But as long as you don't have upgrader cards or such with your Mac, OS 10.2 really doesn't need so many updates, except for add-ons and stuff.
MacBandit
macrumors 604
Originally posted by KC
I'm being made into one of you by this. I had to fashion that post manually without all the automatic code. I'm doing it for this message to. I'm learning by doing hahahahahahahhaha. 😛 😛
Going CrAzy 😛 🙄 😀
Is there a tutorial or something that explains all the formatting so I can do everything manually without trial and error?
I'm being made into one of you by this. I had to fashion that post manually without all the automatic code. I'm doing it for this message to. I'm learning by doing hahahahahahahhaha. 😛 😛
Going CrAzy 😛 🙄 😀
Is there a tutorial or something that explains all the formatting so I can do everything manually without trial and error?
What you are saying are untrue stereotypes about Windows OS. Windows NT4, 2000 and XP are extremely stable and, if you like it or not, service packs realy work. Finaly that thing about new bugs is only in your imagination.
I am not a fan of Microsoft (the opposite realy) but some things must be said as they really are.
I am not a fan of Microsoft (the opposite realy) but some things must be said as they really are.
At Pascack Hills, I have been on computers running NT4 and Windoze 2000, and both have *rarely* crashed on me. However, it's not common for me to see OS X crash on me. Even when I had 10.1 on my iMac 233 for a short time, it did not crash one time.
My point is that as stable as the Windoze OS is, as you point out, OS X, simply put, is even more stable. Although there are some issues with hardware, usually, that's with upgraded hardware, the OS performs very well under the power of the G4.
I have also heard about XP not crashing as much as the previous OSs. So I'll say it as it is: The Windoze OS is improving, but incremently closer to perfect. If an error pops up, at least explain what should be done about.
My point is that as stable as the Windoze OS is, as you point out, OS X, simply put, is even more stable. Although there are some issues with hardware, usually, that's with upgraded hardware, the OS performs very well under the power of the G4.
I have also heard about XP not crashing as much as the previous OSs. So I'll say it as it is: The Windoze OS is improving, but incremently closer to perfect. If an error pops up, at least explain what should be done about.
solvs
macrumors 603
Yeah, cuz that never happens. 😉
Actually, I just wanted to point out to everyone that the G4 uses a 167 MHz FSB, and the new G3 is CAPABLE of a 200 MHz FSB. The P4s use a Quad pumped 133 FSB (533 effective, kinda). The "old" one used a Quad 100 (400 effective). Now the Celeron uses the 400. But they are HOT, and take A LOT of energy to run.
The AMDs used a 100 MHz DDR FSB for the old Athlons and the Durons (200 kinda, because it's rising and falling), and DDR 133 for the "newer" Athlons (which they call 266). No CPU yet uses a 333 FSB, DDR or otherwise. AMD will soon, but it's Vaporware for now. And if DDRSDRAM only adds about a 5-20% increase over SDRAM, even when used properly, do the math.
Do you really think they're getting the full 533 or 266?
Just thought I'd clear that up.
I would go off about MHz myths and pipeline stages and other boring things that are often misunderstood, but I'm tired. And I'd rather not put myself to sleep. I just hope Apple can win oer the newbies with something cheap and easy, and keep the professionals with something fast enough to at least keep paces in some stuff with a similarly configured WinTel.
OS X is great, but if I can render something in 1/3 the time for 1/3 the price, what do you think I'm gonna choose?
Ok.. you're right too.... I just don't like the fact that in some threads mac people use the "crapy OS" as a point in order for example to overcome the speed differences. If you like say that you prefer better the GUI in OSX, I don't have any problem with that. But saying that it is crap, bugy or unstable is untrue to say the least.