G5 is behind yet again. AMD FX-53 announced

[~Shard~]

I was playing with a dual 2ghz G5 in an apple dealer for about 15 min. it was as fast as I would ever want a computer to be and then some. it only had the stock 512mb ram in it also.

See, this gets back to my point about speed being the be-all and end-all. For lots of people (and I’m not saying everyone), speed isn’t a factor – the systems out there right now can do everything you need them to, as fast as you need them to as it is. Who cares if your video decoding takes an extra minute? To go to more of the extreme, who needs a 2 GHz G5 to surf the Net, check their e-mail and use Office? Heck, a current iMac is good enough for those tasks. Now I realize there are those users out there who are pro users, who do intense audio and video editing and require all the horsepower they can muster – some of their livelihoods depend on it – and that’s completely understandable and I appreciate that. But when average users who don’t require that horsepower start complaining, it really makes me shake my head. They just want more speed for the sake of having more speed...

 

[~Shard~]

I swear to god, if you can't be bothered to write out your opinions with at least halfway legitimate syntax and structure, why should anyone take you seriously?

Thank you, I've been biting my tongue on that issue for quite some time now...

Sure, you can build a PC with the latest, fastest AMD/Intel chip for less than a G5. But you can't build a solid dual processor x86 box for any significant amount of money less, and if you do, it's generally with inferior build quality.

For those of us in the professional world who actually use processor power for more than fragging your roommate while you skip Calculus, dual processors are worth a hell of a lot more than the measly $500-600 it costs to get a 2x2.0 G5 over an AMD whatever.

This complements my points above very well – pro users need the speed, and as can be seen in these forums, they have spoken. If you’re simply an average user whining about not enough speed, or a gamer who only needs the biggest and best system to play the latest games, then I think the majority of the members here will have little sympathy for you. "Ooooh, I can’t get 100 fps on UT2004 with everything turned on in 2048x1536 resolution – this sucks - I need a faster machine!"

 

[thatwendigo]

Thank you, I've been biting my tongue on that issue for quite some time now...

Ditto.

I thought it might have just been my own issues, but I tend to have a hard time taking it seriously when someone else doesn't even appear to be making an effort to be understood. Typos are one thing, but a continuous and unending string of poor English just makes me want to skip the entirety of what they're saying. I typed better than that when I was eight, and I argued better when I was ten. I know I'm above average, but I'm not that far over the norm, am I?

This complements my points above very well – pro users need the speed, and as can be seen in these forums, they have spoken. If you’re simply an average user whining about not enough speed, or a gamer who only needs the biggest and best system to play the latest games, then I think the majority of the members here will have little sympathy for you. "Ooooh, I can’t get 100 fps on UT2004 with everything turned on in 2048x1536 resolution – this sucks - I need a faster machine!"

It's amusing how the speed demons keep holding up gaming benchmarks as the hallmark of performance, but most of what that's telling us is how fast the processor can shuttle data to the GPU, and what the add-on is doing. Were they running in pure software mode, I think we'd get a much better idea of how good that processor was.

In any case, though, the ability of the Athlon to catch up to the P4EE on gaming doesn't really say anything for its real-world usability. You might as well decide that the ability to scroll really fast means that a processor is what you need, because going beyond a certain point starts making it moot. How many frames per second can the human eye perceive? There's an interesting discussion of this here. that comes to no real conclusion on the matter, but which does explain why computer FPS seems to matter more than other forms of presentation.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

The reason FPS matters is because there is stuff coming around the corner that will max out the machine and you will be needing more juice to run that stuff. Mac Zealots will use 1 million excuses why the hardware isnt as fast,shouldnt be as fast,doesnt need to be fast and even attack someones sentence structure. Anything but just admit Mac hardware is 2nd class. Why is that? Pride? Arrogance? Denial?
Why did England tell Apple enough of your fastest computer adds B.S? it was a lie.
Please remember Im not a troll and have only used Macs all my life.(except for that commodor 64)

 

[thatwendigo]

The reason FPS matters is because there is stuff coming around the corner that will max out the machine and you will be needing more juice to run that stuff.

So, just like Snowy predicted, the reason that FPS matters to you is something that really doesn't matter in the real world. You want games, and the rest of us don't care, which makes us some kind of zealots in your mind. While that's certainly something you're entitled to, it's not a jsutification that's going to hold a lot of water in a community that doesn't seem to consist of people who are buying macs specifically for their gaming performance.

Mac Zealots will use 1 million excuses why the hardware isnt as fast,shouldnt be as fast,doesnt need to be fast and even attack someones sentence structure. Anything but just admit Mac hardware is 2nd class. Why is that? Pride? Arrogance? Denial?

The hardware is as fast, and you have yet to prove that it isn't in any way that actually matters, or to even document your claims. The architecture should be fast, but games performance is a secondary concern, and in tasks that really do count, the G5 is still competitive at 2.0, and will be jumping. Lastly, your use of English does matter, and it reflects on your arguments whether you want it to or not.

You're the one in denial and arrogantly making claims about AMD, while not giving evidence.

Why did England tell Apple enough of your fastest computer adds B.S? it was a lie.

It wasn't a lie, so much as a claim without enough documentation. You and Apple ought to be friends, in that sense, since you're doing the same thing, except you don't even have a business reason to be making your statements.

Please remember Im not a troll and have only used Macs all my life.(except for that commodor 64)

You're a troll, DHM. You start arguments without basis, flame mac users who have actual information and citations, insult left and right, and don't add anything useful to the discussion. It doesn't get much more clear cut than that.

 

[coolsoldier]

I think the real issue behind this thread (and most threads like it) is that Macs underperform at games. This is true, and its worth discussing. But I don't think its because of processor speed. Maybe in the dark days of the G4 the limiting factor on Mac games was processor speed, but today there are two things that really limit Mac game performance:

a) poor porting -- A game that has been ported from the PC was optimized to run on PCs. It takes advantage of the PCs strengths, and avoids the PCs weaknesses. When it gets ported to the Mac, unless they actually rewrite it from scratch, it's not going to perform as well. Games that are written originally for the Mac usually run with higher frame rates than games that were ported. Unfortunately, there aren't many mac-original games around.

b) lousy graphics chips -- This is the biggest shortcoming of Macs in gaming. Frame rates in games are a lot more dependent on having a good graphics chip than having a fast processor. Apple doesn't put high-end graphics chips in their computers, and even if you add your own, the top PC graphics chip is usually a generation ahead of the top Mac graphics chip. Macs hold their own against PCs in applications that rely primarily on processing power, but gaming is much more heavily dependent on the (weak in Macs) graphics card.

So DHM is right on the premise that Apple's hardware isn't the best for games. For a hardcore gamer, that might be a problem. For casual gamers who own a few games that they play every now and then, it probably doesn't matter. (All but the newest games will run acceptably on low-end hardware, and the occasional gamer isn't likely to spend what it costs to get a brand new game) And for professionals for whom "gaming" hardware would be a waste of money, it's an asset.

So Apple's hardware, just as it is, will meet all of the needs of all but the "hardcore" gamer, a segment of the population who, in all likelihood, wouldn't be looking at Macs no matter what frame rates they produced.

 

[tiktokfx]

I might care a slight bit about frames per second if there were any graphics card in existence that could display 7 digit polygon models in real time on a 1600x1200 display.

But there isn't, on any platform.

 

[aswitcher]

SNIP

b) lousy graphics chips -- This is the biggest shortcoming of Macs in gaming. Frame rates in games are a lot more dependent on having a good graphics chip than having a fast processor. Apple doesn't put high-end graphics chips in their computers, and even if you add your own, the top PC graphics chip is usually a generation ahead of the top Mac graphics chip. Macs hold their own against PCs in applications that rely primarily on processing power, but gaming is much more heavily dependent on the (weak in Macs) graphics card.

SNIP

With Quartz Extreme using the Graphics Card rather than the CPU, I sort hope that Apple will address the problem of their graphics cards so that ALL their software performs better. This would have a flow on effect to games which would help with this issue...

 

[coolsoldier]

With Quartz Extreme using the Graphics Card rather than the CPU, I sort hope that Apple will address the problem of their graphics cards so that ALL their software performs better. This would have a flow on effect to games which would help with this issue...

Well, there's a few problems:

--Apple doen't make their own graphics cards. They pretty much have to wait for ATI or NVidia to step up and make a decent Mac graphics chip.

--Graphics cards are expensive for their relatively modest effect on productivity. Even if it does make for a little bit smoother interface, that probably isn't worth the cost of a top-of-the-line graphics card to most consumers.

 

[aswitcher]

Well, there's a few problems:

--Apple doen't make their own graphics cards. They pretty much have to wait for ATI or NVidia to step up and make a decent Mac graphics chip.

Sure. But just like arrangements with IBM surely they could contract to get produced higher performance ones. They could jointly R&D what they need to pull them up or even over the PC market, just like they seem to be doign with IBM... It won't happen overnight, but it could happen.

--Graphics cards are expensive for their relatively modest effect on productivity. Even if it does make for a little bit smoother interface, that probably isn't worth the cost of a top-of-the-line graphics card to most consumers.

Ok. I agree its not cheap. But since they are actually using those graphics cards RAM for things like Quartz Extreme, and likely could also use it for other purposes graphics related and possibly for other processes (?) to keep the CPU free for other things, I think it has promise. I recall one of the current Graphics Card makers a few years back (in wired magazine???) talking about how graphics cards could take on many other RAM/CPU related tasks...

Anyway, I mention it because its cleary a sore point but their might be some hope that Apple address it down the track...maybe after my G5PB is available

 

[SyndicateX]

God, i cant believe I actually wasted 10 minutes of my life reading all this complaining about a 5ghz dual g5 not being fast enough when it comes out. I have a 1.33ghz 17" powerbook with a CRAPPY G4! and as we all know, this processor sucks, but in all fairness, it doesnt matter. My brother and I are creating his schools yearly magazine and are working with 800 dpi images (each file 1 gig). We worked on it on my powerbook and flew through it, the saves took about 45 seconds to an external HD and it NEVER CRASHED! I burnt it all on a DVD and he went to work on it at school on a brand new 3ghz p4 with a gig of ram and he said it crashed 4 times while saving and cost him about an hour of time and each save took about 3 minutes.

My point is I beat the crap out of my computer with photoshop and final cut pro. Yeah, if I had a dual G5 my final cut pro render might only take 40 minutes instead of 45, but how often am I really going to need that extra 10% of processing power an AMD 900$ chip is going to give me, IT STILL RUNS WINDOWS, and as long as it does that it doesnt matter if it is 5000x faster than any mac, Im sticking with an OS that I trust isnt going to crap out and freeze on me and loose my data / work. As for games, Ill stick to my XBOX and use my computer for stuff that matters. When XBOX2 comes out and they can port games over to OSX for nothing, then we will see which processor ends up on top and who ends up whining.

Just on a sidenote, with ALL the measures Apple always takes on secrecy regarding their releases, do you really think they are going to release a processor that was announced 2 months ago? IBM knows apple is their largest customer for G5's, and both the companies are in this to get the upperhand on the companies that have always screwed them both over. I think Apple will releases a dual 3ghz g5 when the next revs come out, apple takes the lead in sheer power and IBM shows they can jump 500mhz in 3 months while intel has hit their processor ceiling and isnt even looking to release a HUGE jump until 2005. Why else would a 500mhz jump using a 90nm processor that uses less power and produces LESS HEAT cause apple to delay their releases because of heat issues??? Because Steve Jobs is going to suprise everyone and say hey, 6ghz 64bit computer 4 months ahead of schedule, everybody be happy.


All this on top of Windows L0nGh0Rn that isnt going to be released until 2006 now...and all its doing is adding the stuff to windows xp that OSX already has! by then we will be at 8ghz macs with 10.5, Ill stick with the company who innovates instead of the one who always imitates.

 

[~Shard~]

Even though this thread appears to have run its course now, I thought I would add in an article I read for some of you to ponder over:

http://www.theinquirer.net/Default.aspx?article=15143

(the corresponding thread is here)

My favorite quote from it would have to be:

And I care not one whit whether your PC is running an overclocked, freon-cooled, ultra-finned CPU. Your machine might be faster than my G5. Oh well. It's not how fast it is, but what you can do with it that counts.

Which pretty much sums things up nicely. I always chuckle when I read posts going on and on about the latest and greatest Intel or AMD chip and how fast they are. Great, good for you - I'll take my"slower" Mac any day - it does what I need it to and I am happy with it, so I don't really care. Saying that though, I realize some epople do care. Fair enough.


Progress is great, and it's nice to see these new chips being released - competition is exactly what Apple needs. I'm sure the AMD is an excellent chip, but since it runs in a PC+Windows world, it's already at a disadvanatge in many respects. It all comes down to what you really need and what your priorities are. If you want a speedy PC that will be obsolete in a few months anyway when yet another new chip is announced, fine. If all you play is the "speed game", you'll never win and never be happy. If you need the fastest system not for pro applications, but just so you can frag a bunch of people with shading, etc. turned on in 30 fps, fine. And if you'd rather use a PC than a Mac for pro apps and your overall productivity, fine.

At any rate, this has all been hashed to death on this thread already, so I'll just stop for now...

 

[invaLPsion]

If a buy a PC due to the lack of powermac updates (which is becoming a posibility) the AMD FX-53 is what I would buy. That, and a spanking new PCI Express Graphics card.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

FX-53 is a nice chip, i'm leaning towards a AMD64 3400+ price vs performance kind of thing and graphics 8agp is fine for me 9600xt or 5700ultra. both match up about the same and are about equal with geforce4 titanium.
I dont like the memory slots on the AMD machine's. Apple has them big time when it comes to available memory slots.
Still waiting for Apple, a 2.0 or better G5 Imac would do or would a dual 1.8 g5 or better. With new video cards around the corner, pci express,faster CPU's all the time might as well wait on Apple and the Pc world to see what unfolds the next month or two.
Man are MacAddicts touchy or what when you make a comment about hardware or marketshare these days. If the Hardware is slow and overpriced say so! why deny it?

 

[~Shard~]

Man are MacAddicts touchy or what when you make a comment about hardware or marketshare these days. If the Hardware is slow and overpriced say so! why deny it?

Who exactly is this comment directed towards? Please back up and quantify your statements rather than just throwing generalizations out there. I realize it wasn't directed at me, as I have never complained about marketshare, nor have I ever denied that the G5s are slower than some other chips, so who exactly are you referring to when you use the term "MacAddicts"? Please identify them so they can at least defend themselves in a proper discussion... I have seen the majority of posters in this thread at least quote other people's comments when replying and commenting, not just making broad statements like that...

Just trying to keep things fair!

 

[invaLPsion]

FX-53 is a nice chip, i'm leaning towards a AMD64 3400+ price vs performance kind of thing and graphics 8agp is fine for me 9600xt or 5700ultra. both match up about the same and are about equal with geforce4 titanium.
I dont like the memory slots on the AMD machine's. Apple has them big time when it comes to available memory slots.
Still waiting for Apple, a 2.0 or better G5 Imac would do or would a dual 1.8 g5 or better. With new video cards around the corner, pci express,faster CPU's all the time might as well wait on Apple and the Pc world to see what unfolds the next month or two.
Man are MacAddicts touchy or what when you make a comment about hardware or marketshare these days. If the Hardware is slow and overpriced say so! why deny it?

How long do you think a dual 2 would last in terms of gaming? I'm debating whether to get a dual 2 with 9800pro, wait for new powermacs, or get an FX-53 and wait for PCI express graphics, or buy an FX-53 now with FX5950 Ultra. Choices... What do you think, DHM?

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

as we get a OS that is 64 bit and we start seeing stuff optimized for G5 so I would say a dual 2.0 would have a long life. but we know whats coming and that is 970fx. it pays to be patient.
Video, 9800 is solid, period. any variation will only get better except perhaps the SE version.
AMDs FX53 & FX5950 is top from what i have seen, or tied for top but new videocards are coming?
This is when everyone starts rolling out a bunch of stuff so I would say be patient watch the show wait for Doom3 then make a choice. Dont buy last years stuff unless you are forced. also I wish we had Far Cry for Mac.

 

[tpjunkie]

A dual 2 with a 9800 will certainly last you a good three years for gaming I'd say. My dual 533 G4 tower (with a 9800 installed) is capable of playing just about all of the latest games, although there are a few it doesn't play amazingly well (halo needs to have most options turned off) and I think there may be 1 or two that wont play at all. However, it is now more than 3 years old.

 

[invaLPsion]

Thanks for the advice guys. I'm pretty sure I will be sticking with a G5 though, but the PC is always a good option.

As for gaming, I am not into all those latest games like Doom 3 and Half Life 2 but I will be playing Warcraft 3, UT2k4, TrueCombat, and COD (when it comes out.)

 

[invaLPsion]

A dual 2 with a 9800 will certainly last you a good three years for gaming I'd say.

That's good because I'm going to college in 2 years and I don't think I will be doing much gaming then.

 

[yamabushi]

I think it makes sense for most people to pair a level of cpu power with a comparable level of gpu power. A high end computer such as a dual 2GHz PM should have a high end graphics card such as the R9800 Pro by default in my opinion. Of course an option to downgrade for those that feel they don't need such graphics power would also be welcome. Each user has their own unique needs.

By no means do I mean to imply that there should be a R9800 in every model. I think that an approriate card should be used for each level of perfomance with the option to upgrade or downgrade if possible for a given form factor. The new eMac seems to be a very good match with the G4 1.25 and R9200. The old model seemed to have a graphics chipset one step too low (7500) for an entry level machine (or the cpu power and total price was a step too high). I think it is particularly important for those models where we are not able to customize the configuration to have an appropriate pairing for a given price point. High end, midrange, and entry level for each from a given range of chips available.

 

[1macker1]

Umm, if you dont like the graphics card that Apple is providing, take it out and get the one you want. What's the big deal.

 

[Counterfit]

(or the cpu power and total price was a step too high)

I don't think it's a good idea to hold back on CPU power because the GPU doesn't have the appropriate level of it.

 

[arogge]

Umm, if you dont like the graphics card that Apple is providing, take it out and get the one you want. What's the big deal.

The problem is getting it to work with the Mac. Unlike other systems, the Mac is restricted to the ATI and NVIDIA products that are Made4Mac. Those cards are overpriced and I don't want them. I want to install one of these professional graphics cards. I was hoping that Apple would eventually support this hardware, and when "pro" card support was announced at the keynote, I assumed that meant Apple was finally going to get proper graphics support for the PowerMac.

 

[LethalWolfe]

The problem is getting it to work with the Mac. Unlike other systems, the Mac is restricted to the ATI and NVIDIA products that are Made4Mac. Those cards are overpriced and I don't want them. I want to install one of these professional graphics cards. I was hoping that Apple would eventually support this hardware, and when "pro" card support was announced at the keynote, I assumed that meant Apple was finally going to get proper graphics support for the PowerMac.

Have you tried contacting 3dlabs and asking them when they are going to start making Mac compatible drivers/firmware/software?

I see a lot of examples of people saying "Why doesn't Apple support such-and-such?" Well instead talking to Apple talk to the 3rd party developers and let them know there are Mac users that want to buy their product.


Lethal