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

Originally posted by weezerophile
i only got the mid-range but the pricetag topped out at $4196.00!!! The sals tax blows horribly, but at least there is no shipping for ground delivery.

man I'm so lucky there's no sale tax here in Hong Kong, I'm gonna get one when it has enough stock!!!:p :p :p :D :D :D
 
A few things:

A 167MHz FSB is nothing to jump around about, especially when the Athlons are @ 266MHz (133MHz Double Pumped), and the P4's are @ 533MHz under RDRAM. It's certainly not industry leading.

And then, the bus is shared between 2 CPU's. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.

You can have DDR memory running as fast as you like, but until your FSB can make use of the bandwidth properly, then you're pushing **** uphill.

And there's the perennial fact that SMP simply doesn't provide the performance under a lot of situations. Often, it's no better than one CPU plus a bit. Running a FSB/RAM intensive bandwidth operation on a SMP 167MHz FSB system is pointless. Once you bottleneck the bus, the second CPU will do two parts of nothing.

Using an SMP config (everywhere!!) to cover your lack of single CPU performance is nothing more than a joke.

If i owned a Mac, i'd be pissed.
 
huh oh....

Originally posted by Tooth
A few things:

A 167MHz FSB is nothing to jump around about, especially when the Athlons are @ 266MHz (133MHz Double Pumped), and the P4's are @ 533MHz under RDRAM. It's certainly not industry leading.

And then, the bus is shared between 2 CPU's. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.

You can have DDR memory running as fast as you like, but until your FSB can make use of the bandwidth properly, then you're pushing **** uphill.

And there's the perennial fact that SMP simply doesn't provide the performance under a lot of situations. Often, it's no better than one CPU plus a bit. Running a FSB/RAM intensive bandwidth operation on a SMP 167MHz FSB system is pointless. Once you bottleneck the bus, the second CPU will do two parts of nothing.

Using an SMP config (everywhere!!) to cover your lack of single CPU performance is nothing more than a joke.

If i owned a Mac, i'd be pissed.


man if this for real I'm really piss too, should I get mine or later???
 
If you want a Mac, then it's your one and only option at the moment.

Like it or lump it, it's the unfortunate situation you've been put in. You have to pay for SMP, even if it's not going to help you much.
 
front page article

http://www.macosrumors.com/

has anyone else seen this. i just read it and i am having second thoughts about getting those new powermacs despite the fact that i have been sitting around waiting for the new ones. and if i choose to wait....how long will it be till another new line of macs comes out...?!:(
 
Originally posted by sumosanta
front page article

http://www.macosrumors.com/

has anyone else seen this. i just read it and i am having second thoughts about getting those new powermacs despite the fact that i have been sitting around waiting for the new ones. and if i choose to wait....how long will it be till another new line of macs comes out...?!:(

who cares about mac rumors? all they ever do is bitch about how the updates are never good enough. all they look at is megahertz and marketshare. and before anyone starts flaming me, yes i know that megahertz are kind of important in terms of compting power, i meant it to repersnt how closed minded they are over there.
 
Re: disappointment...

Originally posted by wildcat4100
[BAGP4X....why not AGP8X??? Radean 9700 is AGP8X [/B]
I checked ATI's website. The 9700 will work with 2X, 4X, and 8x slots. However you need to provide a power cable to the card. Tells you what a beast it is.
 
Re: Re: disappointment...

Originally posted by pgwalsh
I checked ATI's website. The 9700 will work with 2X, 4X, and 8x slots. However you need to provide a power cable to the card. Tells you what a beast it is.

For sure it'll work but that's like using dual processor with OS9, wasted.
 
Re: Re: Re: disappointment...

Originally posted by wildcat4100
For sure it'll work but that's like using dual processor with OS9, wasted.

I doubt it will be wasted. You'll see a performance gain regardless. There's only a few boards in the PC world that will take full advantage of the 9700 right now anyway. However, you will see a gain on any 4x AGP computer. I'm not here to tell you what to do, but you really don't need to be so negative. The new machines kick arse. What are you doing or using that needs so much power?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: disappointment...

Originally posted by pgwalsh
What are you doing or using that needs so much power?

I do 2D and 3D graphic work and I want to play WC3 in no lag even there're 100+ unit on screen(my ibook 600 is uncontrollable when the screen has 30+ units)
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: disappointment...

Originally posted by wildcat4100


I do 2D and 3D graphic work and I want to play WC3 in no lag even there're 100+ unit on screen(my ibook 600 is uncontrollable when the screen has 30+ units)
So the top end mac doing 167 fps is not fast enough? The real world figure may be slightly lower (145 -150), but you'll still get more with the 9700. You may even break the 180 fps mark. You could throw in the GeForce Ti if you need it now. That should eat your other computer for lunch and have you singing dixie with WarCraft III.

I have the Radeon 8500 64mb in one of my PC's and it seems to be humping along quite well. My pc is no where near as good as any of these Macs.
 
Originally posted by iamspooky


A design failure ??

What I have seen from apple is a nice steady progression in design from the Blue & White G3, through the G4's, to the quicksilver. This design has to be the worst yet.

You put it perfectly...a design failure!!!!:( :( :( :(
 
PRO RANGE

Originally posted by Buggy
I too am impressed how they are updating their lines. They are not always waiting for the "next big show", this new way seems much more natural to the way that technology evolves. Unfortunately Steve does not get as big of "wow" factors, but maybe that is a sign he is maturing... he does not need to get verification of his self worth by how many people he can control and surprise. OK maybe he still does this to his staff, but at least our purchases are not being as effected by his internal lack or self esteme.

The reason he isn't after teh 'wow' and oos and aahhhs is because this is the pro range, he doesn't need to make it catch peoples eye's he just needs to show that the specs are good.

To all of you losers out there who think it's ugly.... have you ever thought, that maybe they concetrated more on making the inside better... instead of the outside. (it's not ugly anyway).
You buy a computer to use it not show it off! you idiots

If you want to show of yourt computer get an imac or a titanium. Let the pros do there stuff!
 
a design failure???

Originally posted by manirami


What I have seen from apple is a nice steady progression in design from the Blue & White G3, through the G4's, to the quicksilver. This design has to be the worst yet.

You put it perfectly...a design failure!!!!:( :( :( :(

Yes a design failure of course. The twin processors and the ddr ram are just sheer failure.... what are they going to come up with next... probably yet another failure like an all round 64-bit chip.... complete failure. you morons!!!

Look at the computer, not it's shell!!!
 
Originally posted by crazy_will


who cares about mac rumors? all they ever do is bitch about how the updates are never good enough. all they look at is megahertz and marketshare. and before anyone starts flaming me, yes i know that megahertz are kind of important in terms of compting power, i meant it to repersnt how closed minded they are over there.

what are you talking about... we only ever bitch about how the upgrades are never good enough!!! you ***** hypocrit!
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: disappointment...

Originally posted by pgwalsh

So the top end mac doing 167 fps is not fast enough? The real world figure may be slightly lower (145 -150), but you'll still get more with the 9700. You may even break the 180 fps mark. You could throw in the GeForce Ti if you need it now. That should eat your other computer for lunch and have you singing dixie with WarCraft III.

I have the Radeon 8500 64mb in one of my PC's and it seems to be humping along quite well. My pc is no where near as good as any of these Macs.

you're talking about 167 fps for WC3? For which mac? I know I know my ibook only sports a 8Mb Rage, but I want top speed to make sure I'll still be doing ok for the next 2 yrs or so(since I used my 8500 for about 7 yrs now, not to mention my Dell Precision 6100's Intense3D Wildcat can't play WC3 'coz it's not support DirectX!!!!!!), that's why I want AGP 8X instead of the yesterday technology.

also for gaming, can't compare PC and Mac since in other thread about WC3, some guy run WC3 under his 3 yr old Dell still fast enough, also running it under OSX is about 30% slower then under OS9(by my own experience), hope jaguar will fix that performance problem with games...
 
but you don't

Originally posted by Tooth
A few things:

A 167MHz FSB is nothing to jump around about, especially when the Athlons are @ 266MHz (133MHz Double Pumped), and the P4's are @ 533MHz under RDRAM. It's certainly not industry leading.

And then, the bus is shared between 2 CPU's. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.

You can have DDR memory running as fast as you like, but until your FSB can make use of the bandwidth properly, then you're pushing **** uphill.

And there's the perennial fact that SMP simply doesn't provide the performance under a lot of situations. Often, it's no better than one CPU plus a bit. Running a FSB/RAM intensive bandwidth operation on a SMP 167MHz FSB system is pointless. Once you bottleneck the bus, the second CPU will do two parts of nothing.

Using an SMP config (everywhere!!) to cover your lack of single CPU performance is nothing more than a joke.

If i owned a Mac, i'd be pissed.


You don't own a mac... so F- off!!!
You obiously don't see the point with apple.... there moto isn't 'make really fast chips that beat everything else' it's think different.
So just shut up... and stop saying your crap about multiprocesors not proforming because of bottlenecks.
I'm sure they'll proform alot better than the older G4's!!! which is the whole point of updates!
 
Re: a design failure???

Originally posted by Paolo


Yes a design failure of course. The twin processors and the ddr ram are just sheer failure.... what are they going to come up with next... probably yet another failure like an all round 64-bit chip.... complete failure. you morons!!!

Look at the computer, not it's shell!!!

The new 1.25GHz chips are overclocked PowerPC 7455 processors, not the PPC 7470 (Xserve). the PPC 7455 cannot take advantage of DDR memory. 1.3GB/s actual processor bandwidth despite 2.7GB/s memory bandwidth. Yeah, thats design failure!
 
my impressions

Well, my feelings are mixed. This is was a great overall announcement, I think, but it was lacking in some regards, taking some of the shine off. Here're some of my impressions:

Pros:

* Faster CPUs, duals across the board (doesn't hurt, even at 1.5x the single processor speed as opposed the the 2-fold many might think this means);

* DDR-SDRAM ('bout frickin' time!! And I'm not sure what some here are saying about it not being "real" DDR-RAM. It sounds like Apple's done exactly AMD's been doing for a long time now. Am I wrong?);

* Good graphics card options;

* Beautiful case, better, in my opinion, than any minitower design Apple's ever unveiled. It's sharp, modern.

Cons:

* CPU upgrades not fast enough. I would have really been impressed if Apple had unveiled even a single 1.4GHz G4;

* The Mac needs more OpenGL graphics cards options than the hi-end gaming cards. For us 3Ders, that means a Mac-compatible Wildcat;

* No firewire 2 (aka 1394b). C'mon Apple, let's get goin' with this. I don't wanna hear about how USB 2.0 is starting to take away customers.


Well anyway, just my 3 or 4 cents.
 
Re: my impressions

Originally posted by Kethoticus

* DDR-SDRAM ('bout frickin' time!! And I'm not sure what some here are saying about it not being "real" DDR-RAM. It sounds like Apple's done exactly AMD's been doing for a long time now. Am I wrong?);


AMD's processors have a 133Mhz double data rate Frontside bus, which link to memory controller, which handles 133Mhz DDR memory

the PPC 7455 has a 133 or 167Mhz SINGLE data rate frontside bus, which links to the memory controller, which handles 133Mhz or 167Mhz DDR memory

the Athlon can utilise the 2.1GB/s the memory system can provide (oddly enough, if you pair an Athlon up with DDR333 you get a 0.01% speedup as the FSB is the bottleneck), the G4 on the other hand can only utilise 1.3GB/s of the memory bandwidth, and it's even worse with dual processors, as they only have 1.3GB/s between them. (whereas Athlon SMP has a seperate 2.1GB/s link to each processor from the northbridge.)
 
I'm impressed...more resources for trying to switch friends :)...and the cases look pretty cool compared the the same/similar pictures posted a while ago for some reason...may be the light but anyway, overall I'm happy..
 
Re: but you don't

Originally posted by Paolo
You don't own a mac... so F- off!!!
You obiously don't see the point with apple.... there moto isn't 'make really fast chips that beat everything else' it's think different.
So just shut up... and stop saying your crap about multiprocesors not proforming because of bottlenecks.
I'm sure they'll proform alot better than the older G4's!!! which is the whole point of updates!

If think different means 'accept whatever we do as fantastic, even if it doesn't make sense from a hardware point of view'.

They will perform better, but they're still crippled. And if Apple marketed it as a simple update, that would be fine. But they're not. They're showing one of two things:

1) A lack of understanding of the technology, which i doubt
2) A belief that their users will take whatever they're given as gospel.

I think you fall into the second category. And if apple thinks the majority of their users DO fit into the second category, then i think they're mistaken. Belief in Apple is a justified viewpoint for many, but not everyone is willing to put up with below-par hardware for ever.

The memory controller is a perfect point. Each CPU on an AMD MP system has FOUR TIMES the memory bandwidth that the G4 has.

AGP 8X isnt' a big issue - by the time that you start to need the system bus for AGP transfers, the latency and lack of bandwidth starts to hurt performance that much it's not an issue.

As for the appearance - does it really matter? I'm into computers for the computer, not for the box.
 
Re: Re: but you don't

Originally posted by Tooth

The memory controller is a perfect point. Each CPU on an AMD MP system has FOUR TIMES the memory bandwidth that the G4 has.

Four times the effective BUS bandwidth, not four times the memory bandwidth

AMD SMP Architecture - lame ascii art :

CPU <-> 2.1GB - \
**************| - memory controller - <-> 2.1GB - memory
CPU <-> 2.1GB - /

Each cpu hence gets about half the memory bandwidth to work with (but it can use the additional FSB bandwidth to do other things like talk directly to PCI/AGP devices etc)

G4 SMP Architecture - lame ascii art :

CPU - \
***** | <-> 1.3GB - Memory Controller <-> 2.7GB/s - memory
CPU - /

Each CPU gets around 1/4th the memory bandwidth, but between them they get half of the bus bandwidth each.

(so the G4 has _HALF_ the Athlons per processor bandwidth in an SMP config, not one quarter) (this of course excludes situations where more memory bandwidth to a single processor would be hugely beneficial.)

OTOH, the Athlon doesn't have any L3 cache, and that is BOUND to help a huge amount if the dataset fits into the L3 cache. (hmm, are the caches on the PPC 7455 inclusive or exclusive?)

the ideal (IMO) would be point to point links from the processors to the memory controller and a memory subsystem that could keep them both fed, like so :

CPU <-> 2.1GB/s \
**************|- Memory controller - 4.2GB/s - Memory
CPU <-> 2.1GB/s /
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.