ImAlwaysRight I hope by now you have stopped your completely idiotic posting ! ask Apple if they can replace your brain may be then we'll see better posts !!!!
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.
Early Benchmarks: Dual 1GHz
- Thread starter arn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ImAlwaysRight
macrumors 6502a
I did ask, but they lowered the cache, which, although I got a faster bus, didn't make any difference in the end...
Edit: Did you read all my posts? I may have made a few rebuttal smart-ass remarks, and thrown in a little sarcasm with Apple's benchmarks on their website on the PowerMacs vs. Pentium 4, but for the most part I thought I raised some good points.
Can you tell it is my day off today? And I'm anxiously waiting my new DDR dual gig G4? I've spent waaaayyy to much time on this forum today. When the new Mac comes you won't have to worry about me placing a dozen posts in one thread.
yadmonkey
macrumors 65816
Damn
There are some seriously whiney people in this thread. I think everyone is so caught up in numbers and comparing Quicksilvers to whatever-the-heck-the-new-ones-are-called that they have forgotten the single most important thing: If you buy a Powermac today, you will get a seriously better value than you would have a week ago.
If you are disenchanted by the new dual-1ghz based on some early benchmarks, then get a dual-1ghz Quicksilver for $800 less than you would have paid last week. If you have the money, get the top model this year - 25% clock speed increase ain't shabby and overall performance just might be better than 25% better with the new architecture. If you're smart, you'll wait a little for some more benchmarks.
I don't care if you get an Apple or a Dell, the machine won't ever quite match the company's hype. That is what advertisers and marketers are paid for. Take a deep breath, decide what you need, decide what you are willing to pay, and I am certain you will find a great deal.
There's just no pleasing some people - sheesh!
There are some seriously whiney people in this thread. I think everyone is so caught up in numbers and comparing Quicksilvers to whatever-the-heck-the-new-ones-are-called that they have forgotten the single most important thing: If you buy a Powermac today, you will get a seriously better value than you would have a week ago.
If you are disenchanted by the new dual-1ghz based on some early benchmarks, then get a dual-1ghz Quicksilver for $800 less than you would have paid last week. If you have the money, get the top model this year - 25% clock speed increase ain't shabby and overall performance just might be better than 25% better with the new architecture. If you're smart, you'll wait a little for some more benchmarks.
I don't care if you get an Apple or a Dell, the machine won't ever quite match the company's hype. That is what advertisers and marketers are paid for. Take a deep breath, decide what you need, decide what you are willing to pay, and I am certain you will find a great deal.
There's just no pleasing some people - sheesh!
More Cache info
More info to chew on... The previous generation DP 1 GHz tower, the L3 cache was DDR memory running at 1/2 the processor speed, the new machines however have DDR memory running at full processor speed.(867MHz, 1GHz, 1.25 GHz) Now, I am sure most of you could imagine how expensive DDR RAM running at 1GHz or more would cost.
Yet another improvement in the architecture.
That could help explain some points about same performance with less L3 cache.
More info to chew on... The previous generation DP 1 GHz tower, the L3 cache was DDR memory running at 1/2 the processor speed, the new machines however have DDR memory running at full processor speed.(867MHz, 1GHz, 1.25 GHz) Now, I am sure most of you could imagine how expensive DDR RAM running at 1GHz or more would cost.
Yet another improvement in the architecture.
That could help explain some points about same performance with less L3 cache.
Re: Damn
Oh please. That's appologist rhetoric if I ever heard it. You're paying considerably more for the 25% clock speed boost (because there are considerably less chips available that can be overclocked 25%). With all these wild claims about bottlenecks being removed and such, people just want to know how these new machines stack up to the old. They're consumers trying to make an educated purchase.
You can't blame them either. Mac users are hungry for more power right now. Benchmarking is the only way to find out if these new machines provide it. If they don't, why waste my money. I'll stick to my already depreciated SDR RAM dual GHz.
Oh please. That's appologist rhetoric if I ever heard it. You're paying considerably more for the 25% clock speed boost (because there are considerably less chips available that can be overclocked 25%). With all these wild claims about bottlenecks being removed and such, people just want to know how these new machines stack up to the old. They're consumers trying to make an educated purchase.
You can't blame them either. Mac users are hungry for more power right now. Benchmarking is the only way to find out if these new machines provide it. If they don't, why waste my money. I'll stick to my already depreciated SDR RAM dual GHz.
deepkid
macrumors regular
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ridiculous responses...
I believe that you should go back to the page and carefully study it. Unless Barefeats has greatly revised the manner in which it's reported the test results as of this writing, there are quite a few holes in the presentation.
BTW, the info isn't all there. Stating the exact OS/version, RAM, video cards, etc. should be clear, concise and upfront in such a critical study.
You say:
Huh??? That's about as clear as the hanging chad explanations in Fla.
Anyway, if the tests are haphazardly-performed and reported, then they are of no use to anyone. They are more of a disservice.
About personal attacks... I won't get into that. I only care about sound benchmarking, as I mentioned before. It does not matter who performs/reports.
I believe that you should go back to the page and carefully study it. Unless Barefeats has greatly revised the manner in which it's reported the test results as of this writing, there are quite a few holes in the presentation.
BTW, the info isn't all there. Stating the exact OS/version, RAM, video cards, etc. should be clear, concise and upfront in such a critical study.
You say:
Huh??? That's about as clear as the hanging chad explanations in Fla.
Anyway, if the tests are haphazardly-performed and reported, then they are of no use to anyone. They are more of a disservice.
About personal attacks... I won't get into that. I only care about sound benchmarking, as I mentioned before. It does not matter who performs/reports.
Accuracy in commenting
AmbitiousLemon has some things in common with the guy at Barefeats. One missed that all the specs listed were just the available options, and the other forgot to notice that he did not 4D xl results, just a second copy of the Photoshop 7 results. That is what happens to people who rag on other intelligence.😎
AmbitiousLemon has some things in common with the guy at Barefeats. One missed that all the specs listed were just the available options, and the other forgot to notice that he did not 4D xl results, just a second copy of the Photoshop 7 results. That is what happens to people who rag on other intelligence.😎
Sun Baked
macrumors G5
Re: More Cache info
L3 cache is clocked at 1/4 of the CPU clock speed.
Look at the Dual 1GHz Mirror Mac with 166MHz bus example
MaxBus - 166 MHz clock -> 166 MHz effective -> 1.3 GBps
DDR - 166 MHz clock -> 333 MHz effective -> 2.7 GBps
L3 Cache - 250 MHz clock -> 500 MHz effective -> 4 GBps
If the L3 cache was clocked at 1/2 the CPU's frequency, the bandwidth would double, and Apple claims 4 GBps to L3 cache.
Note that L3 is 1/4 clock, L2 1/2 clock, and L1 at full CPU clock speed.
L3 cache is clocked at 1/4 of the CPU clock speed.
Look at the Dual 1GHz Mirror Mac with 166MHz bus example
MaxBus - 166 MHz clock -> 166 MHz effective -> 1.3 GBps
DDR - 166 MHz clock -> 333 MHz effective -> 2.7 GBps
L3 Cache - 250 MHz clock -> 500 MHz effective -> 4 GBps
If the L3 cache was clocked at 1/2 the CPU's frequency, the bandwidth would double, and Apple claims 4 GBps to L3 cache.
Note that L3 is 1/4 clock, L2 1/2 clock, and L1 at full CPU clock speed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ridiculous responses...
and
Okay, you can't have it both ways. Either the test is intended to see how the new DDR/bus architecture performs or it is to see how the systems perform as a whole. In the former case, ImAlwaysRight is right (well, with that name, duh... 🙂), and the RAM amount, OS version, hard drive, etc. need to be the same so that the isolated variable is the DDR/bus architecture (ok, throw L3 into the pot too). Then you will have the scientific test you were trumpeting in your first post.
If however you want to defend the different amounts of RAM/hard drive models instead, then you are talking about system vs. system tests and not scientifically comparing architecture components. In this case it is very important to note that the current mid-range system is being compared to the old high-end system, along with the attendant price difference.
In either case, these tests (as others have noted) point out the fact that for CPU intensive tasks the systems are very similar, which should surprise no one since they use the same CPUs! For other types of tasks we can't compare the systems because the tests don't stress the other parts of the machine as much. In this you are correct that we need to wait for more tests.
and
Okay, you can't have it both ways. Either the test is intended to see how the new DDR/bus architecture performs or it is to see how the systems perform as a whole. In the former case, ImAlwaysRight is right (well, with that name, duh... 🙂), and the RAM amount, OS version, hard drive, etc. need to be the same so that the isolated variable is the DDR/bus architecture (ok, throw L3 into the pot too). Then you will have the scientific test you were trumpeting in your first post.
If however you want to defend the different amounts of RAM/hard drive models instead, then you are talking about system vs. system tests and not scientifically comparing architecture components. In this case it is very important to note that the current mid-range system is being compared to the old high-end system, along with the attendant price difference.
In either case, these tests (as others have noted) point out the fact that for CPU intensive tasks the systems are very similar, which should surprise no one since they use the same CPUs! For other types of tasks we can't compare the systems because the tests don't stress the other parts of the machine as much. In this you are correct that we need to wait for more tests.
The test are likely to become even _more_ skewed when the processors are _really_ taxed. From what I can see, the DDR PowerMac is actually SLOWER than the SDRAM model. That situation is unlikely to improve. In subsequent testing, it will likely widen the DDR Mac's disadvantage.
IMHO.
IMHO.
Why don't we all drive Mustangs?
To all of those who think higher GHz means faster and superior, I suppose you think we should all drive higher HP Mustangs and Camaros and Corvettes? Having a faster engine under the hood, and a really big and loud muffler (an oxymoron) doesn't mean that you'll get across town any faster than someone in a Lexus or Mercedes or Audi. You'll just make more noise.
I spend 8 hours a day, sometimes more, working with my computer to accomplish a variety of tasks. I'd rather do it with a computer that works *with* me rather than against me. Why not enjoy the process? Windows gets in my way, and even with a billion GHz, I'll still get more done on my Mac because the OS makes more sense. I'll spend far less time jumping through the hoops the OS puts in front of me.
With the combination of Jaguar and SMP-aware apps, Apple is fully justified comparing its dual 1.25 GHz systems to 2.5+ GHz single-processor Pentium systems. What Apple doesn't have an answer to is dual processor Intel and AMD systems, but I suspect those types of systems comprise a very small part of the Wintel market.
Overall, the situation isn't as grim as people seem to think. The doom-and-gloom camp is caught up in the GHz numbers game, and not real-world use.
To all of those who think higher GHz means faster and superior, I suppose you think we should all drive higher HP Mustangs and Camaros and Corvettes? Having a faster engine under the hood, and a really big and loud muffler (an oxymoron) doesn't mean that you'll get across town any faster than someone in a Lexus or Mercedes or Audi. You'll just make more noise.
I spend 8 hours a day, sometimes more, working with my computer to accomplish a variety of tasks. I'd rather do it with a computer that works *with* me rather than against me. Why not enjoy the process? Windows gets in my way, and even with a billion GHz, I'll still get more done on my Mac because the OS makes more sense. I'll spend far less time jumping through the hoops the OS puts in front of me.
With the combination of Jaguar and SMP-aware apps, Apple is fully justified comparing its dual 1.25 GHz systems to 2.5+ GHz single-processor Pentium systems. What Apple doesn't have an answer to is dual processor Intel and AMD systems, but I suspect those types of systems comprise a very small part of the Wintel market.
Overall, the situation isn't as grim as people seem to think. The doom-and-gloom camp is caught up in the GHz numbers game, and not real-world use.
Re: Why don't we all drive Mustangs?
But they do comprise a very LARGE part of the vertical markets Apple is trying to target (3D, effects, video compositing...the general Hollywood markets).
Apple isn't justified at all in comparing their hardware to top end Intel hardware. In a render farm, all the fancy schmancy Aqua goodness doesn't matter because it's not used. Linux on x86 works just fine. Cost effective performance matters and Apple simply isn't providing it with this iteration of the PowerMac line.
But they do comprise a very LARGE part of the vertical markets Apple is trying to target (3D, effects, video compositing...the general Hollywood markets).
Apple isn't justified at all in comparing their hardware to top end Intel hardware. In a render farm, all the fancy schmancy Aqua goodness doesn't matter because it's not used. Linux on x86 works just fine. Cost effective performance matters and Apple simply isn't providing it with this iteration of the PowerMac line.
Gelfin
macrumors 68020
Re: Re: Damn
You're absolutely right. But that's also why it's so important to have responsible benchmarks performed by knowledgeable people. Good benchmarks are hard to design and the results are often tricky to interpret. BareFeats' documented testing procedure is strictly amateur. There's no sophistication, no evidence of any training in performance analysis.
Compare this with analyzing the performance of an automobile. An uninformed consumer is going to ask, "is car A faster than car B?" An uninformed tester is going to make up a test he thinks is significant and say "yes" or "no." More informed people are going to ask whether you mean low-end acceleration or top-end speed. Even more informed people are going to want to know at what RPM the peak torque and horsepower are reached, what the transmission gear ratios are and so forth. A more informed analyst will be able to compile multiple sources of data and tell you under what circumstances car A might be expected to outperform car B and vice versa. This requires a detailed knowledge of how a car works and how the different elements affect performance. It's a very complicated proposition, beyond the capabilities of an untrained enthusiast with a stopwatch to measure.
You guys, the uninformed consumers on these boards (not everyone falls into this category, of course) have proven on multiple occasions that you are very susceptible to getting worked up over irresponsible performance claims because you just don't know any better. I've done this stuff for a living, and I'm telling you those numbers are neither surprising nor meaningful. Switching over to a DDR architecture is only going to produce a distinct difference in a very limited set of cases, none of which were isolated and tested in BareFeats' results. The slight performance decrease in certain MP tasks could indicate an unexpected side-effect of the architecture change, but the tests do not eliminate enough alternate possibilities to say for certain.
Most notable is that the guy is soliciting possible explanations for the speed discrepancy from his reader base. Anyone with training in performance analysis knows that isolating and explaining bottlenecks can be 3/4 of the job, and that's what he is supposed to know how to do, preferably before releasing numbers to an audience that doesn't understand the implications.
You're absolutely right. But that's also why it's so important to have responsible benchmarks performed by knowledgeable people. Good benchmarks are hard to design and the results are often tricky to interpret. BareFeats' documented testing procedure is strictly amateur. There's no sophistication, no evidence of any training in performance analysis.
Compare this with analyzing the performance of an automobile. An uninformed consumer is going to ask, "is car A faster than car B?" An uninformed tester is going to make up a test he thinks is significant and say "yes" or "no." More informed people are going to ask whether you mean low-end acceleration or top-end speed. Even more informed people are going to want to know at what RPM the peak torque and horsepower are reached, what the transmission gear ratios are and so forth. A more informed analyst will be able to compile multiple sources of data and tell you under what circumstances car A might be expected to outperform car B and vice versa. This requires a detailed knowledge of how a car works and how the different elements affect performance. It's a very complicated proposition, beyond the capabilities of an untrained enthusiast with a stopwatch to measure.
You guys, the uninformed consumers on these boards (not everyone falls into this category, of course) have proven on multiple occasions that you are very susceptible to getting worked up over irresponsible performance claims because you just don't know any better. I've done this stuff for a living, and I'm telling you those numbers are neither surprising nor meaningful. Switching over to a DDR architecture is only going to produce a distinct difference in a very limited set of cases, none of which were isolated and tested in BareFeats' results. The slight performance decrease in certain MP tasks could indicate an unexpected side-effect of the architecture change, but the tests do not eliminate enough alternate possibilities to say for certain.
Most notable is that the guy is soliciting possible explanations for the speed discrepancy from his reader base. Anyone with training in performance analysis knows that isolating and explaining bottlenecks can be 3/4 of the job, and that's what he is supposed to know how to do, preferably before releasing numbers to an audience that doesn't understand the implications.
benchmarks aren't everything...
Just for S&G I ran the Unreal Tournament benchmark on my system.
Test system:
QS G4 933Mhz
OS X 10.1.5
1.25GB ram
60GB 7200RPM HD
UT set-up:
res= 1024x768, color depth= 32bit, world texture= high
skin detail= high, min frame rate= 0, decals= on, dynamic light= on
sound quality= high, gore level= normal, game speed= 100%
dodging= on, weapons flash= on, ngStats Local= off, hud= all checked
results from Wicked400 demo= 23.62fps average
real game play:
all UT prefs the same
practice session DM-Fractal
7 bots set at godlike
real world results = 41.05fps average
real world game play is about 74% better than the benchmark.
You can take it or leave it.
While we all know the wicked400.dem to be one of the de facto benchmarks for gamers, I have found that my average fps during real game play is considerably higher than what the benchmark says.
Barefeats may or may not have accurate benchmarks for the machines, that point should be moot by now.
I for one dont care.
You really shouldnt base your desission to buy a computer solely on benchmarks because your real world usage will not be the same as the benchmark.
And regaurdless whether the new dual 1GHz is faster/slower/equal than the old dual 1GHz, it is a better deal now than it was before. And I'll bet in real world performace will be faster (maybe not by much) than the old dual 1GHz.
We live in the real world not in benchmarks.
Just for S&G I ran the Unreal Tournament benchmark on my system.
Test system:
QS G4 933Mhz
OS X 10.1.5
1.25GB ram
60GB 7200RPM HD
UT set-up:
res= 1024x768, color depth= 32bit, world texture= high
skin detail= high, min frame rate= 0, decals= on, dynamic light= on
sound quality= high, gore level= normal, game speed= 100%
dodging= on, weapons flash= on, ngStats Local= off, hud= all checked
results from Wicked400 demo= 23.62fps average
real game play:
all UT prefs the same
practice session DM-Fractal
7 bots set at godlike
real world results = 41.05fps average
real world game play is about 74% better than the benchmark.
You can take it or leave it.
While we all know the wicked400.dem to be one of the de facto benchmarks for gamers, I have found that my average fps during real game play is considerably higher than what the benchmark says.
Barefeats may or may not have accurate benchmarks for the machines, that point should be moot by now.
I for one dont care.
You really shouldnt base your desission to buy a computer solely on benchmarks because your real world usage will not be the same as the benchmark.
And regaurdless whether the new dual 1GHz is faster/slower/equal than the old dual 1GHz, it is a better deal now than it was before. And I'll bet in real world performace will be faster (maybe not by much) than the old dual 1GHz.
We live in the real world not in benchmarks.
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Looking at the 133 MHz bus diagram for the DDR tower that Arcady kindly left here
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=130228#post130228
and marking up the diagram a little, you see that on a 133 MHz bus, even if you give the MaxBus everything it wants, you still have memory bandwidth left over for video and storage. And the same would still be the case on the 166 MHz bus.
So why on all these 3 multitasking/SMP machines should all the benchmarks be so similar?
Especially when 2 are DDR, 2 have 133 MHz buses, 2 have 2 MB/CPU of L3 cache, 2 have ATA-100, and 2 have G4 Ti video 😉
why can't there be special pathways from the memory to the processors, gfx card, hard disk, etc that run at higher speed than the bus? wouldn't it be possible to create special high-speed pathways where they're needed?
Re: One more thing
Actually, no its not. You need at least a 30% increase in performance to notice any difference in normal use. Where you would see the most immediate difference is in cpu intensive tasks. And it would have to be a time consuming one at that. However, there are so many factors regarding performance(disk speed, bus, ram, video, i/o) that simply increasing the cpu by 25% is about the least important thing you could do. Better to increase drive-i/o speed if you ask me.
And in case your wondering, I have a new ddr dual 1Ghz(does anyone know of a name for this box to distinguish it from the last dual 1Ghz?? Its a real mouthful to say "new powermac g4 dual 1Ghz with DDR). I'm still in the process of transferring files(first time I've gone X to X). No matter how fast this new machine is compared to my old one, 3GB of file transfer still takes a loooong time. And I'd ahve to say, I'm somewhat disappointed in the performance. Its faster, sure, but in a lot of ways it feels about as fast as my old B&W running 9. Kind of annoying that I had to spend 2700 just to upgrade to jaguar...
Actually, no its not. You need at least a 30% increase in performance to notice any difference in normal use. Where you would see the most immediate difference is in cpu intensive tasks. And it would have to be a time consuming one at that. However, there are so many factors regarding performance(disk speed, bus, ram, video, i/o) that simply increasing the cpu by 25% is about the least important thing you could do. Better to increase drive-i/o speed if you ask me.
And in case your wondering, I have a new ddr dual 1Ghz(does anyone know of a name for this box to distinguish it from the last dual 1Ghz?? Its a real mouthful to say "new powermac g4 dual 1Ghz with DDR). I'm still in the process of transferring files(first time I've gone X to X). No matter how fast this new machine is compared to my old one, 3GB of file transfer still takes a loooong time. And I'd ahve to say, I'm somewhat disappointed in the performance. Its faster, sure, but in a lot of ways it feels about as fast as my old B&W running 9. Kind of annoying that I had to spend 2700 just to upgrade to jaguar...
Re: Man you guys are ridiculous
I am 100% behind this concern as all Mac Users should be. It is the writing on the wall. Case in point at the recent MacWorld Expo in New York, they presented this great new technology they created - "Rendevous" - when in fact that technology was created by others and has been in development for some time.
Apple also has released aspects of their OS that mimic shareware features created by independent developers with often times no royalties for the original developer. I suppose the capitalistic engine is getting the better of them and they are becoming more the lesser of two evils [Microsoft], and less about thinking different. All we can do is support the independent developer as much as possible because this is what is driving the mac platform now more than ever. Apple will have its hands full just trying to copy all of the creativity out there.
I am 100% behind this concern as all Mac Users should be. It is the writing on the wall. Case in point at the recent MacWorld Expo in New York, they presented this great new technology they created - "Rendevous" - when in fact that technology was created by others and has been in development for some time.
Apple also has released aspects of their OS that mimic shareware features created by independent developers with often times no royalties for the original developer. I suppose the capitalistic engine is getting the better of them and they are becoming more the lesser of two evils [Microsoft], and less about thinking different. All we can do is support the independent developer as much as possible because this is what is driving the mac platform now more than ever. Apple will have its hands full just trying to copy all of the creativity out there.
Attachments
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ridiculous responses...
Aren't things getting a bit dirty in here? He probably has the older test page cahced in his browser. What about benefit of the doubt? I mean aren't we all giving apple that these days 🙂
Aren't things getting a bit dirty in here? He probably has the older test page cahced in his browser. What about benefit of the doubt? I mean aren't we all giving apple that these days 🙂
I TOLD YOU SO!!!
Not to toot my own horn, but check out my pre-introduction post about DDR and L3 cache here... (down the page a bit)
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=7591&ddr
Not to toot my own horn, but check out my pre-introduction post about DDR and L3 cache here... (down the page a bit)
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=7591&ddr
eric_n_dfw
macrumors 68000
Re: Re: Man you guys are ridiculous
and, from the first paragraph of the Rendezvous Developers Page:
Now, if you want to argue about iPhoto, iTunes or iDVD swallowing up developers, then you might have some points. Rendezvous, however, is not pushing anybody out of anything or taking money from the pockets of anyone.
You may have a point, but pick your battles better, Apple has repeatedly stated that Rendezvous is based on open standards. They have included it because that's the way they want the market to go.
and, from the first paragraph of the Rendezvous Developers Page:
That same page has a link to http://www.zeroconf.org/ , the official site of the whole standard.
Now, if you want to argue about iPhoto, iTunes or iDVD swallowing up developers, then you might have some points. Rendezvous, however, is not pushing anybody out of anything or taking money from the pockets of anyone.
Other variables
Noooobie here...
I just dropped Rob at Barefeats a note suggesting that he install 10.2 on all the tested systems (you know, the $199 Apple family discount for 5 copies of OS X 10.2!). There may be an issue with Jaguar default install having more CPU background applications open for one reason or another (Rendevoux, etc.). Also I suggested that he run Norton defrag on all the systems, as I have read on other forums that Apples software can come fragmented and unoptimized from the factory.
And I saw no indication of the exact memory configuration of the machines. *If* the default was used the SDRAM PowerMac has 512MB of RAM and the DDR PowerMac has 256MB.
I am excited though...I ordered a dual 1GHz from Apple store on the web 5 minutes after the product was announced! Paid the $100 for the 120GB upgrade, and have since received a 2nd 120GB HD (IBM Deskstar 7200RPM 8.5ms) and another GB of RAM from Googleware.com. BTW those aforementioned 3 items (HD + RAM) cost $391 delivered! 😀
Unfortunately it's Saturday morning, and the order progress page on the Applestore site still says "being assembled." I guess that's what happens when custom configs are specified (3 - 5 days to get it out the door).
Cheers
Noooobie here...
I just dropped Rob at Barefeats a note suggesting that he install 10.2 on all the tested systems (you know, the $199 Apple family discount for 5 copies of OS X 10.2!). There may be an issue with Jaguar default install having more CPU background applications open for one reason or another (Rendevoux, etc.). Also I suggested that he run Norton defrag on all the systems, as I have read on other forums that Apples software can come fragmented and unoptimized from the factory.
And I saw no indication of the exact memory configuration of the machines. *If* the default was used the SDRAM PowerMac has 512MB of RAM and the DDR PowerMac has 256MB.
I am excited though...I ordered a dual 1GHz from Apple store on the web 5 minutes after the product was announced! Paid the $100 for the 120GB upgrade, and have since received a 2nd 120GB HD (IBM Deskstar 7200RPM 8.5ms) and another GB of RAM from Googleware.com. BTW those aforementioned 3 items (HD + RAM) cost $391 delivered! 😀
Unfortunately it's Saturday morning, and the order progress page on the Applestore site still says "being assembled." I guess that's what happens when custom configs are specified (3 - 5 days to get it out the door).
Cheers
BobVB
macrumors 6502a
Re: Other variables
Not just custom configurations. I placed my order for the stock dual 1 GHz immediately after they were available too - mine is still 'being assembled' too.
Why do they say 1-3 days when they know there is no chance of them actually shipping it in that time frame?
Not just custom configurations. I placed my order for the stock dual 1 GHz immediately after they were available too - mine is still 'being assembled' too.
Why do they say 1-3 days when they know there is no chance of them actually shipping it in that time frame?