New PowerMac...thoughts?

[tcmcam]

It has a FAN, it's still NOISY

I just spent 2 hours with the new PowerMac yesterday at the Apple Store.

YES, it has a fan. It actually has 3, one big one that blows across the huge heatsink that cools the processors. Yes, this is a quiet big fan, horray Apple!! But, they blew it on the next two.

A second one blows across the internal CD/DVD drives.

A third fan inside the PowerSupply of the unit.

The POWER SUPPLY fan is VERY NOISY. This was a busy store and the whine of that fan was unmistakable. I walked over to an older PowerMac and it was quieter!!!

YIKES!! So don't congratulate Apple just yet. It's a really loud and noisy box.

But the 867 and 1 ghz boxes do perform well with the final release of Jaguar.


OTHER:
- They are now using IBM hard drives and not Seagate Barracuda's. Too Bad, Seagate's were the quietest drives on the planet. Guess they had to start buying IBM's hard drives to use IBM's PowerPC Processors.

- They still are not going to steal a single Windows XP user with a new PC with this box. They are only going to steal Windows 3.x users who haven't updated in a while and think that $3500 is a reasonable price for a computer!

- Wake up Apple, you're falling behind......

 

[Chryx]

Re: It has a FAN, it's still NOISY

Originally posted by tcmcam

- They are now using IBM hard drives and not Seagate Barracuda's. Too Bad, Seagate's were the quietest drives on the planet. Guess they had to start buying IBM's hard drives to use IBM's PowerPC Processors.

Eek, IBM's recent lineup of disks aren't known for their reliability..

Personally I think Western Digital WD1200JB's would be the way to go, 8MB of cache per disk. If only they'd add hardware RAID logic to the system controller

 

[macwannabe]

I think these new powermacs are finally good enough to get PC users like me to convert. Any PC user who knows a little about computers wasn't going to buy a computer without DDR and with an ATA66 drive, especially for the price. Finally Apple has sorted that out and coupled with the L3 cache these machines are now the first serious contenders to high end PCs (in my opinion) and well worth looking at.

 

[macwannabe]

Oh and BTW Apple hasn't updated the PowerMac datasheet on the UK Store website. They are still listing the specs of the old dual 1GHz as the fastest machine, doh!

 

[drastik]

Originally posted by pgwalsh


Couldn't find the Audio specs. I'm under the impression there isn't 5.1 surround. Not that it's that necessary for audio work, but it would be great for DVD etc. I also wouldn't mind having it for movies etc.

Mixing audio in 5.1 can get pretty freaking complicated, and I was edumicated in it for twelve weeks. I think 5.1 on computers is a little strange. Sure its nice for movies and games, but get a Suround system and a PlayStation if that's what you want, It's cheaper, and your TV is probably a tad bigger than our monitor.

Also, most of these 5.1 systems I see in stores for computers look lke crap, push about 40 watts, and many aren't 5.1, as they don't have a center speaker.

PS. no offense pgwalsh, I was just ranting about the speakers, not your post.

 

[Chryx]

Originally posted by drastik

Mixing audio in 5.1 can get pretty freaking complicated

So you have dedicated hardware onboard that can take all the load away from the CPU Like the Nforce MCP

 

[drastik]

Originally posted by Chryx


So you have dedicated hardware onboard that can take all the load away from the CPU Like the Nforce MCP

I understand your point, I was just saying that the ability to mix in 5.1 is a little uneccesary for a stock machine, adn that the use of 5.1 in computers is very limited at this time.

To do real audio production, you need boards and good monitors and synths and HArd disk recorders. I don't think apple is going to throw in the fuinctionality of an O2R anytime soon, though it would be sweet.

 

[Chryx]

Originally posted by drastik

I understand your point, I was just saying that the ability to mix in 5.1 is a little uneccesary for a stock machine, adn that the use of 5.1 in computers is very limited at this time.

I personally think it could be a "useful addition" to the digital hub/college dormroom to be able to play back a DVD on an iMac and have full 5.1 sound out of it, in addition, if you've got the 5.1 speakers then games should be able to utilise them properly IMO (hence realtime 5.1 encoding)

 

[jefhatfield]

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...?!

prolly mwsf or later

six months is not a long time to wait if you are wating for a new car model

but in the computer world, six months is an eternity

many, for sure, have thought there would be a g5 by now

 

[Kethoticus]

Chryx wrote...

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.)

So why does Apple claim DDR memory? Or... DO they??? This sounds like nothing more than a slightly faster SDR FSB. How can Apple claim DDR??

 

[jefhatfield]

Re: Chryx wrote...

Originally posted by Kethoticus


So why does Apple claim DDR memory? Or... DO they??? This sounds like nothing more than a slightly faster SDR FSB. How can Apple claim DDR??

a high end engineer (i am a low end one), explained it to me using his jargon and high math reasoning that double data rate ram is never truly double data rate in real world tests because of the way they manipulate the rise and fall of the sine curve

sure, there is an improvement, and the cost is ok, so no need to bother

it is kind of like some software engineers making minute distinctions on different versions of unix to the point that only "their" favorite flavor is really unix and all the others are "unix-like"

if you really want to get into it, ask a phd in computer science (really computer programming as us hardware types would see it) and ask them what constitutes a computer language...and then ask ten other computer scientists/professors

i say we should change their major to computer psuedo-science

 

[mischief]

For all you whiney lamers out there:

You really are beginning to piss me off.

Macs don't have a Front Side Bus. Picking the closest parallel for comparisson is useless. Saying that a 167 main bus isn't fast because it isn't "Quad Pumped" is equally useless because there is NO conclusive evidence that it does ANYTHING to increase performance except on paper. Look at JUST the SDR numbers for a minute because MOST of the slowest components (like drives) don't do ANY kind of "Pumping". and DON'T talk to me about how SMP is slow because that's not what it's for. It's there to increase the number of simultanious operations that can be executed. When an x86 manufacturer takes two 1.5Ghz chips/cores and just adds the two numbers together THEY'RE LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH.

Also: Before you go shooting your mouth off I suggest that you not only go read ALL the architecture data and then compare it to Hypertransport (remember that "custom ASIC?" I think you'll find them nearly identical); but that you also GO USE ONE FIRST.

In terms of "Why doesn't Apple put in the 6 most expensive technologies out there?" stop and think for a minute: would you buy a $10,000.00 tower? No, you'd whine about how expensive it is and how Apple has "lost touch with it's customers"

BTW: If you're still using an 8*00 PPC and you're waiting for Apple to have the latest, cutting edge tech in every aspect of their product design while staying inexpensive enough for the average hobo to purchase I suggest you sell that ancient POS and go buy an Athlon cuz it aint gonna happen.

If I see ONE MORE POST whining about how BAD this new design is for some stupid reason like it being ugly or too expensive I'll take you appart in ways you never thought possible in text. I bet most of you idiot whiners own Cammaros and SUV's because the HP numbers are BIG and ROUND. Guess what folks: Just like PC companies, Car manufacturers lie to you. The HP numbers are taken on the test courses without Governors or Emissions controlls so the actual street output is NO GREATER than any smaller Japanese car with a 1.8 Liter engine attatched to a smaller car.

 

[Chryx]

Re: Chryx wrote...

Originally posted by Kethoticus

So why does Apple claim DDR memory? Or... DO they??? This sounds like nothing more than a slightly faster SDR FSB. How can Apple claim DDR??

Because the _memory_ IS DDR.

 

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by drastik


Mixing audio in 5.1 can get pretty freaking complicated, and I was edumicated in it for twelve weeks. I think 5.1 on computers is a little strange. Sure its nice for movies and games, but get a Suround system and a PlayStation if that's what you want, It's cheaper, and your TV is probably a tad bigger than our monitor.

Also, most of these 5.1 systems I see in stores for computers look lke crap, push about 40 watts, and many aren't 5.1, as they don't have a center speaker.

PS. no offense pgwalsh, I was just ranting about the speakers, not your post.

Well I've already hooked myself up with the M&K s 150 Satellites and the MX-350 Sub (http://www.mksound.com/). I bought the system in dark cherry wood which are no longer available and were hand made. I also have the B&K AVR 305 receiver. So I've certainly taken care of myself when it comes to 5.1 surround sound.

This doesn't negate the need for 5.1 surround in a computer, especially if you're using Logic Audio, which supports 5.1 surround. Now, if I buy the 23" flat screen, which I plan to do, I'd like the option to watch a dvd or play a game with 5.1 surround. That's not asking too much when I'm paying over 7K for a computer. My PC's have it and as you said, it's not so great. However, Klipsch make some pretty awesome surround speakers for a computer. I remember someone else saying they like options and so do I. This is an option that Apple should include. Many manufactures are adding 5.1 and 6.1 surround to the motherboard. Apple should do the same.

Well I now would like to know if anyone has heard of a good surround sound card that can be used with OS X?

 

[mischief]

Oh, and just 1 more thing.....

There haven't been Seagate drives in Macs since SCSI was standard on the mobo. That would be about 10 years ago so I get the feeling you haven't opened a Mac case in about that long so I suggest you either buy a new Mac, buy a new Athlon or at the very least SHUT UP AND LET ANYONE WITH A CLUE TALK.

 

[Chryx]

Re: For all you whiney lamers out there:

mischief

Macs don't have a Front Side Bus.
Uh, yes, they do. they also have a backside bus (which the L3 cache connects to)

The only processor that springs to mind as "FSB-less" is AMD's Hammer series, which have Hypertransport links for I/O (PCI/AGP etc) and a direct core <-> memory interlink (on-die memory controller)

Saying that a 167 main bus isn't fast because it isn't "Quad Pumped" is equally useless because there is NO conclusive evidence that it does ANYTHING to increase performance except on paper.

You clearly missed all the examples of Athlons and Pentium 4's being able to get more data to/from their memory subsystems.. hell, some P4's approach the L3 bandwidth of a 7455 (PC1066 RDram + Pentium 4B = +3GB/s EFFECTIVE memory bandwidth after taking into account efficiency), of course the L3 cache is lower latency, but even so... O_O

Look at JUST the SDR numbers for a minute because MOST of the slowest components (like drives) don't do ANY kind of "Pumping".

You can't do DDR or QDR on a drive, I'm thinking that you don't actually know what DDR means. it means that data is transferred on the rising AND falling edges of a clock cycle.

( . = data, the rest is self explanatory)
SDR (like the G4 front side bus) :

_./--\_./--\_./--\_./--\_./--\

DDR (like the EV6 bus) :

_./-\._./-\._./-\._./-\._./-\.

Data is transferred twice for each clock pulse, giving slightly less than double the throughput at the same clockspeed. (notice it's called double DATA rate, the commands are tied to the rising edge IIRC)

There isn't much point doing that with the interface logic for a harddisk since the platters are the bottleneck.

When an x86 manufacturer takes two 1.5Ghz chips/cores and just adds the two numbers together THEY'RE LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH.

I've never seen an x86 manufacturer do that?

In terms of "Why doesn't Apple put in the 6 most expensive technologies out there?"

6 most expensive technologies out there?.. like what?

AMD Durons use the EV6 bus (@200Mhz - 1.6GB/s, point to point SMP architecture), I can buy one of those for $30

Nforce mainboards (which have Hypertransport tech on them) can be had for <$100

Anyway, I don't want Apple to use THE BESTEST THINGS EVER, I want them to follow up on this "balanced architecture" angle they seem to be going with by actually providing one, dual processors prevented from using their memory subsystem to it's fullest by a slow FSB doesn't count as balanced architecture in my book.

BTW: If you're still using an 8*00 PPC and you're waiting for Apple to have the latest, cutting edge tech in every aspect of their product design while staying inexpensive enough for the average hobo to purchase I suggest you sell that ancient POS and go buy an Athlon cuz it aint gonna happen.

Okay then, how about they just have tech _on a par with that Athlon_ whilst being inexpensive enough for the average Joe, ya think they could manage that maybe?

There is some really nice tech in the new Powermacs, and one huge gigantic flaw that stops it performing as well as Apple would like everyone to believe it does. that annoys me so much. (most of that annoyance is directed at Motorola though)


If I see ONE MORE POST whining about how BAD this new design is for some stupid reason like it being ugly or too expensive

It's a good design in that Apple did the most with what they had available to them, it doesn't mean that what they had available to them was optimal though.

BTW, I'm a fully paid up member of the "Apple should ditch Motorola and get their chips from IBM" club.

 

[pgwalsh]

Re: For all you whiney lamers out there:

Originally posted by mischief
BTW: If you're still using an 8*00 PPC and you're waiting for Apple to have the latest, cutting edge tech in every aspect of their product design while staying inexpensive enough for the average hobo to purchase I suggest you sell that ancient POS and go buy an Athlon cuz it aint gonna happen.

ha ha ha

 

[Chryx]

Re: Oh, and just 1 more thing.....

Originally posted by mischief
There haven't been Seagate drives in Macs since SCSI was standard on the mobo. That would be about 10 years ago

Could you please direct me to the universe where Febuary 1997 was 10 years ago? my calculator makes that 5 years ago...

so I get the feeling you haven't opened a Mac case in about that long so I suggest you either buy a new Mac, buy a new Athlon or at the very least SHUT UP AND LET ANYONE WITH A CLUE TALK.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

[jefhatfield]

Re: Re: Oh, and just 1 more thing.....

Originally posted by Chryx
Originally posted by mischief
There haven't been Seagate drives in Macs since SCSI was standard on the mobo. That would be about 10 years ago

Could you please direct me to the universe where Febuary 1997 was 10 years ago? my calculator makes that 5 years ago...

come visit silicon valley..feb '97 could have just as easily been 100 years ago

this high tech field moves so fast that if you want a perfect example, come here and go to one of the six fry's locations and see the chaos

 

[Chryx]

Re: Re: Re: Oh, and just 1 more thing.....

Originally posted by jefhatfield
come visit silicon valley..feb '97 could have just as easily been 100 years ago

Is that where Steve tests his RDF generator technology?

 

[mischief]

Re: Re: For all you whiney lamers out there:

Originally posted by Chryx
mischief

Macs don't have a Front Side Bus.
"Uh, yes, they do. they also have a backside bus (which the L3 cache connects to)"

Find me the words "Front Side Bus" ANYWHERE in the description of the new mobo and I'll relent. Finding it on a PC website doesn't cout, it must be from Apple's resources.

Saying that a 167 main bus isn't fast because it isn't "Quad Pumped" is equally useless because there is NO conclusive evidence that it does ANYTHING to increase performance except on paper.

You clearly missed all the examples of Athlons and Pentium 4's being able to get more data to/from their memory subsystems.. hell, some P4's approach the L3 bandwidth of a 7455 (PC1066 RDram + Pentium 4B = +3GB/s EFFECTIVE memory bandwidth after taking into account efficiency), of course the L3 cache is lower latency, but even so... O_O

Look at JUST the SDR numbers for a minute because MOST of the slowest components (like drives) don't do ANY kind of "Pumping".

You can't do DDR or QDR on a drive, I'm thinking that you don't actually know what DDR means. it means that data is transferred on the rising AND falling edges of a clock cycle.

( . = data, the rest is self explanatory)
SDR (like the G4 front side bus) :

_./--\_./--\_./--\_./--\_./--\

DDR (like the EV6 bus) :

_./-\._./-\._./-\._./-\._./-\.

Data is transferred twice for each clock pulse, giving slightly less than double the throughput at the same clockspeed. (notice it's called double DATA rate, the commands are tied to the rising edge IIRC)

There isn't much point doing that with the interface logic for a harddisk since the platters are the bottleneck.

Actually I am perfectly aware of how DDR and QDR works, my point is that you seem to be under the impression that there have been NO changes to chip architecture to support DDR, you are in fact GUESSING that the newest G4 has no DDR support. Again, back it up from the horses mouth and I'll leave you alone.

When an x86 manufacturer takes two 1.5Ghz chips/cores and just adds the two numbers together THEY'RE LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH.

I've never seen an x86 manufacturer do that?

Look at any Intel CPU beginning with the P2 or most AMD CPU's recently. Have you ever wondered why the card is roughly the size of a VHS cassette and has 2 fans? There are 2 chips, and I can tell you right now that beginning with the P2 the common practice has been to just add the numbers up and call it a speed.

In terms of "Why doesn't Apple put in the 6 most expensive technologies out there?"

6 most expensive technologies out there?.. like what?

AMD Durons use the EV6 bus (@200Mhz - 1.6GB/s, point to point SMP architecture), I can buy one of those for $30

Nforce mainboards (which have Hypertransport tech on them) can be had for <$100

Anyway, I don't want Apple to use THE BESTEST THINGS EVER, I want them to follow up on this "balanced architecture" angle they seem to be going with by actually providing one, dual processors prevented from using their memory subsystem to it's fullest by a slow FSB doesn't count as balanced architecture in my book.

All this would actually mean something if a PPC used a mobo in exactly the same way as an x86 chip. I'm pretty sure you couldn't just stick a PPC daughter card on a PC mobo and magically get it to work. There is an inherent cost in the custom mobo neccesary to tie PPC to the data paths correctly. Not to mention the Unique socket issue of the ZIF tech.

BTW: If you're still using an 8*00 PPC and you're waiting for Apple to have the latest, cutting edge tech in every aspect of their product design while staying inexpensive enough for the average hobo to purchase I suggest you sell that ancient POS and go buy an Athlon cuz it aint gonna happen.

Okay then, how about they just have tech _on a par with that Athlon_ whilst being inexpensive enough for the average Joe, ya think they could manage that maybe?

There is some really nice tech in the new Powermacs, and one huge gigantic flaw that stops it performing as well as Apple would like everyone to believe it does. that annoys me so much. (most of that annoyance is directed at Motorola though)

See above. If you can find me a STOCK PC mobo that will fit an Apple daughtercard without modification I'll relent. Argueing that there are cheap alternatives without engaging the reality of HW R&D will just make it more obvious you are WAY more clueless than you'd like us all to believe.

If I see ONE MORE POST whining about how BAD this new design is for some stupid reason like it being ugly or too expensive

It's a good design in that Apple did the most with what they had available to them, it doesn't mean that what they had available to them was optimal though.

BTW, I'm a fully paid up member of the "Apple should ditch Motorola and get their chips from IBM" club.

Good disclaimer. the point there was aimed not at you but at the minor Trolls that have been toadying around your rather assenine posts.

 

[snoopy]

Re: Re: For all you whiney lamers out there:

Originally posted by Chryx

It's a good design in that Apple did the most with what they had available to them, it doesn't mean that what they had available to them was optimal though.

I think that sums it up quite nicely.

 

[Horne]

Question

When I insert my backup hard drive (IBM 75 GXP) into this NEW dual 1 GHz Mac, will it run on the ATA 100 at full speed?
Thanks in advance......

 

[jefhatfield]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, and just 1 more thing.....

Originally posted by Chryx


Is that where Steve tests his RDF generator technology?

that's where steve races his plane against ellison's forgetting what happened to woz

did you see charlie's angels...tim curry did a perfect, egotistical ellison...too funny

 

[ftaok]

Re: For all you whiney lamers out there:

Originally posted by mischief
I bet most of you idiot whiners own Cammaros and SUV's because the HP numbers are BIG and ROUND. Guess what folks: Just like PC companies, Car manufacturers lie to you. The HP numbers are taken on the test courses without Governors or Emissions controlls so the actual street output is NO GREATER than any smaller Japanese car with a 1.8 Liter engine attatched to a smaller car.

mischief,

You may want to re-think that. In the US, the HP ratings are done with the emissions attached to the engine for all vehicles. Just because they do the ratings on a bench, doesn't mean it's not valid. Regardless of whether the car is American, German or Japanese, the ratings are done to SAE standards.