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

Duals, Quads & the unfortunate facts

madamimadam

madamimadam

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 3, 2002
1,281
0
There has been a lot of talk over the time and, once again, in a current thread about Quad Gxs and how good they would been but has anyone looked at Apple's stats?

I was quite disappointed when the G4 1GHz came out and, looking at the comparisons Apple does, it just does not stack up.

Basically, as you would know, there are 3 models: 800; 933; and DP1GHz. Now, a 800MHz G4 will, apperently, outperform a 2GHz Pentium by 26%; a 933MHz G4 will outperform by 51%; and a DP1GHz G4 will outperform by 72% based on Photoshop testing.

Now, if I am not mistaken, Photoshop has been dual processing, at least on the Mac (a PC guy tried to tell me it is not but I don't know whether he was right or not) for a very long time. Working on this basis, the DP1GHz machine has the same increase in % performace over the 933 as the the 933 has on the 800. I don't know about anyone else but I would have been expecting a SP1GHz to outperform the pentium at 72% and the DP to be closer to 100%.

Note: after writing the above I confirmed with Adobe that Photoshop can DP.

So, I would not see that the gain from DP to QuadP would be all it is made out to be.
 
get your point, but last summer, the dp 800 was faster than the sp 867 in Apples Photoshop test (50+% compared to 83% faster than a 1.7 GHz P4)....

Hmmmmmmmmm.....
 
Originally posted by crassusad44
get your point, but last summer, the dp 800 was faster than the sp 867 in Apples Photoshop test (50+% compared to 83% faster than a 1.7 GHz P4)....

Hmmmmmmmmm.....
Click to expand...

MAYBE what it is coming down to is that the G4 is just being pushed to hard, esp. on that bus and RAM ect. and it just can not perform much better. I would be COMPLETELY shocked if Apple does not release a new Motherboard in the mid-year, though.
 
PS 7 under OS X

I would like to see how Photoshop 7 performs under OS X on a DP1GHz system. That would be interesting to say the least.
 
I agree

The mobo needs a major revision.
I've posted in similar discussions before how strongly I feel about DDR support on the Mac.
Intel this last week pretty much said flat out that it's moving to an all DDr chipset line later this year (RDRAM will still hang around, but it appears to be on its last legs). What does that mean: the P4's already impressive memory bandwidth is going to be much larger than the Mac's, making it very difficult for the G4 based systems to keep up at all.
In fact I'm very suprised the 133 mhz bus on Macs has held up as well as it has. That's a testament to the G4 architecture and Motorola squeezing every last drop of performance possible out of its chips.
The fact remains that PC CPUs are being updated and improved constantly because Intel and AMD are in a tough battle for the CPU market. They are going to keep putting out faster and faster chips at lower and lower prices just to keep alive. Motorola is slacking off because they have the Mac market locked down. No competition equals no incentive to make advancements.
I really hope the G4 is getting long in the tooth because they're putting the finishing touches on something amazing.

Let's all hope together...
 
Re: PS 7 under OS X

Originally posted by AlphaTech
I would like to see how Photoshop 7 performs under OS X on a DP1GHz system. That would be interesting to say the least.
Click to expand...

Is Photoshop carbon????

While it would DP either way, it could be nice for it to take advantage of the Mac OS to its potential.
 
I suppose it is a lot to ask for companies that develop programs with millions of lines of code to write whole new versinos of their software in a matter of months
 
Re: Quad

Originally posted by Mac_User
Quads would need like a 600 MHz bus, am i right?
Click to expand...

Yes and no

Too many dependencies such as cache levels and amount and speed of RAM. To simplify, though, a 600MHz BUS would FLY, yes.

One of the problems, though, with multiplying processors by bus speed is that, in certain situations, the same results can be gained from a slower bus. For example, if the processor is sent an equasion to work out visually to a presice measurement in multiple diamentions it might have to sit on the one equasion for many cycles sending out information without bringing in more where are other situations might require an extremely fast movement in and out. Also, is the processors has/d large amounts of cache it would rarely need to access the RAM.

That is a VERY simplified explaination, anyway, but I will continue to dream w/ you about a Quad processor machine on a 600MHz Bus, Quad and 133MHz would definately not push the boundaries of processing power.
:)
 
Carbon vs. Cocoa

I read an article that by the ceo of realbasic and he said that most of these apps will never be written in cocoa. Companies won't re write millions of lines of codes for something that can't be ported to other operating systems. He said that apple could allow carbon apps to take the same advantages as cocoa. they just haven't yet. I don't have time to find the link. but it was on maccentral a few weeks ago. you should all read it. It did a good job of explaining the difference between carbon and cocoa.
 
Re: Carbon vs. Cocoa

Originally posted by jermsmingy
I read an article that by the ceo of realbasic and he said that most of these apps will never be written in cocoa. Companies won't re write millions of lines of codes for something that can't be ported to other operating systems. He said that apple could allow carbon apps to take the same advantages as cocoa. they just haven't yet. I don't have time to find the link. but it was on maccentral a few weeks ago. you should all read it. It did a good job of explaining the difference between carbon and cocoa.
Click to expand...

Good points; I think if I was in one of those companies I would see that the cost of reproducing the apps would be so great that most of their profit for the version of software they are making would be lost. On top of that, recoding an app halts the ability to write new code... you can not add to an app that does not yet exist.

I am sure Apple could do more with Carbon but they are very well known for trying to push the market along. Writing Carbon to take advantage of Cocoa is more like something you would see done in the PC industry where they like to make claims of great new products but are reluctant to use it effectively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back