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.
New PowerMacs Released
- Thread starter arn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Let's just hope so. Frankly, I have my reservations, but I'll wait until independent benchmarks and analysis comes out until I make up my mind.
Re: Re: Not too expensive, you are just too cheap
i am pretty confident if you built your own pc that matched the specs of these new powermacs that you would spend more than the powermacs cost.
take a look at the benchmarks on the old machines at barefeats and you will see the old machines though slower were still very close the the pcs, and these new improvements should make that difference very close.
try specing out a new pc and i think you will find these powermacs are very aggressively priced. we will have to wait for some non-apple benchmarks to get a real idea of what is a comparable pc, but judging from the old benchmarks seems like these new macs should be able to go head to head with intel and amds finest.
i am pretty confident if you built your own pc that matched the specs of these new powermacs that you would spend more than the powermacs cost.
take a look at the benchmarks on the old machines at barefeats and you will see the old machines though slower were still very close the the pcs, and these new improvements should make that difference very close.
try specing out a new pc and i think you will find these powermacs are very aggressively priced. we will have to wait for some non-apple benchmarks to get a real idea of what is a comparable pc, but judging from the old benchmarks seems like these new macs should be able to go head to head with intel and amds finest.
OS 9 - Yes
From the apple PDF included software: Mac OS X, OS 9 (obviously they don't tell you x.2 or 9.2), but they do include it, so i have to assume that they wouldn't give you OS 9 if the new machines wouldn't run it.
I do remember hearing that the next PM wouldn't run OS 9, maybe that's for the *next* iteration (not this one). I spent the morning doing the same thing being that my work is looking to purchase new machines (woot!). Talk about good timing. Considering we're upgrading from Beige G3s, all the DDR-speak/confusion/nonsense doesn't worry me, i *think* the new machines will be faster...
Hope this helps.
From the apple PDF included software: Mac OS X, OS 9 (obviously they don't tell you x.2 or 9.2), but they do include it, so i have to assume that they wouldn't give you OS 9 if the new machines wouldn't run it.
I do remember hearing that the next PM wouldn't run OS 9, maybe that's for the *next* iteration (not this one). I spent the morning doing the same thing being that my work is looking to purchase new machines (woot!). Talk about good timing. Considering we're upgrading from Beige G3s, all the DDR-speak/confusion/nonsense doesn't worry me, i *think* the new machines will be faster...
Hope this helps.
Sounds like DDR does nothing
By Apple's own stats, the new 1.25 is only 20% faster in gigaflops than the old 1ghz. So even with DDR, they are actually slower than the 25% speed improvement you'd expect with a Mhz increase. Oh yeah, the bus speed is up to 167 Mhz. So with DDR AND a faster bus speed, the damn thing is even slower than you'd expect if there were no architectural changes. this is totally lame! And they raised the price on an already overpriced machine. Fortunately they've implemented someother improvements, though not enough of them. Why not the top ATI card? Why is the GF4 Ti a $350 premium? Why isn't it standard on the high end?
Leave it to Apple to implement DDR and it provides no speed improvement. Will it at least improve performance if used as a server, like with the Xserve?
Why pay the extra for DDR RAM? Maybe makes more sense to get the old DP Ghz with the larger L3 cache instead of the new machines which will cost a lot more.
By Apple's own stats, the new 1.25 is only 20% faster in gigaflops than the old 1ghz. So even with DDR, they are actually slower than the 25% speed improvement you'd expect with a Mhz increase. Oh yeah, the bus speed is up to 167 Mhz. So with DDR AND a faster bus speed, the damn thing is even slower than you'd expect if there were no architectural changes. this is totally lame! And they raised the price on an already overpriced machine. Fortunately they've implemented someother improvements, though not enough of them. Why not the top ATI card? Why is the GF4 Ti a $350 premium? Why isn't it standard on the high end?
Leave it to Apple to implement DDR and it provides no speed improvement. Will it at least improve performance if used as a server, like with the Xserve?
Why pay the extra for DDR RAM? Maybe makes more sense to get the old DP Ghz with the larger L3 cache instead of the new machines which will cost a lot more.
I'm sorry, but this simply doesnt make sense given the following info on Apple's site:
"256MB or 512MB of PC2100 or PC2700 DDR SDRAM main memory supporting up to 2.7GBps throughput"
AND
"Up to 167MHz system bus supporting over 1.3GBps data throughput"
Notice that the memory bandwidth is TWICE the FSB bandwidth. Until someone PROVES otherwise, the FSB is NOT DDR!
I would like to point out that we have NO REAL WORLD PROOF of the speed of these machines, except for Apple's little blurb.
Let's wait until we really see this thing work to pass judgment.
Let's wait until we really see this thing work to pass judgment.
According to the guys at the Motley Fool messageboard (under the AAPL ticker), the new powermacs are xserves with overclocked system bridges and fsbs. That could explain the vents in the front and the larger heatsink since overclocking raises the cpu's heat dissipation geometrically. Also, it seems believable since there was that guy who overclocked his G4 Dual 1Ghz to 1.2Ghz each.
i am pretty confident if you built your own pc that matched the specs of these new powermacs that you would spend more than the powermacs cost.
Not even close. The PCs are much cheaper. I've built a lot of PCs. And when you hand build, you get cutting edge technology. The ingredients that Apple has put together for today's announcement have been around for quite a while (in computer-life time)
try specing out a new pc and i think you will find these powermacs are very aggressively priced.
Not even close again. I just bought a Micron Millenium XP 2200+ with 512 meg for $1200. You'd have to add $500 for the difference in cost for the Superdrive. But you're still not close on price. When I have the Micron and new Mac in, it will be fun to compare the speeds. I have some renderings in Strata that will be can be used to see how the dualie does. Oops, Strata is not OSX native yet. Maybe that wouldn't be a good test. Maybe something in Photoshop or Illustrator.
If we're going to compare Mac vs PC prices, we're just kidding ourselves. Macs come at a premium. And the reason we pay the premium is that they are that much better than PCs. Or are they?
Not even close. The PCs are much cheaper. I've built a lot of PCs. And when you hand build, you get cutting edge technology. The ingredients that Apple has put together for today's announcement have been around for quite a while (in computer-life time)
try specing out a new pc and i think you will find these powermacs are very aggressively priced.
Not even close again. I just bought a Micron Millenium XP 2200+ with 512 meg for $1200. You'd have to add $500 for the difference in cost for the Superdrive. But you're still not close on price. When I have the Micron and new Mac in, it will be fun to compare the speeds. I have some renderings in Strata that will be can be used to see how the dualie does. Oops, Strata is not OSX native yet. Maybe that wouldn't be a good test. Maybe something in Photoshop or Illustrator.
If we're going to compare Mac vs PC prices, we're just kidding ourselves. Macs come at a premium. And the reason we pay the premium is that they are that much better than PCs. Or are they?
Most likely, unless Apple is using a new processor, this is the same as the Xserve. You can't just take a processor designed for 100 mhz bus and drop it in with DDR and say "Here you go, take it all." It doesn't work like that.
What Apple did is they took the FSB and brought it up to 166.67 mhz (if you want to be technical about it, there is no 167 mhz bus- only if you round it to be!). This is no different than how some overclockers on the other side make their CPU faster- by keeping the multiplier the same but increasing the bus. So, your comparison here:
Old G4: 133 bus x 7.5 multiplier = 1 ghz
New G4: 166 bus x 6 multiplier = 1 ghz
By increasing the FSB, you can get a speed increase because it is the FSB that controls the CPU, not the memory speed. Want proof? Take a look at the P3 and RDRAM and DDR. The P3 was running on a 133 mhz bus, and having more available memory bandwidth than it could use was a waste.
So why go to a DDR bus?
It's simple- it does benefit devices like high performance pci cards that do direct memory transfers. I dunno if this will make it clearer, but here:
_______________PCI Bus___------AGP Bus
CPU 1--\___________|______/
______(166)---System Chipset ----(266/333)---- Memory
CPU 2--/___________|______\
________________IDE____-----Firewire/USB/Sound
(_ = space, board didn't like whitespace in there)
So, the math works out like this:
Memory Bandwidth: Assuming a 166DDR bus (since the specs state either 133 or 166, I'm assuming that it runs at the same frequency as the FSB)
All numbers in MB/sec
Memory: 2660
CPU: -1330 MB/sec
64 bit PCI: -266 MB/sec
4x AGP: -2112 MB/sec
USB -1.2 MB/sec
Firewire -40 MB/sec
Sound -133 MB/sec
Gigabit -125 MB/sec
-----------------------------------
-1347 meg/sec
Now, you have to realize that those are max values, and you usually won't ever saturate the AGP bus, and only come even so close when playing games where you have to swap out AGP card memory with real memory, and Sound will never use 133 megs/sec, but you get the idea. In a SDR memory subsystem you would be cutting into the CPU's bandwidth immediately, whereas with a DDR system you can have many things going on without stealing bandwidth from the CPU.
So why did the Xserve DDR systems do no better than a MP Powermac?
One problem that is shared with both Intel and Apple (but not AMD) is that the FSB is shared by BOTH CPUs. That means that if both chips are doing 100% work, they have half the bandwidth the the chipset. So, any increase in the available bandwidth (which we'll get to next) is effectively halved, giving only around a 50 megs/sec advantage of a SDR system.
Which brings up the second point: Very few things are done independently of the CPU. So, even though a gigabit network card can have memory bandwidth independent of the CPU, it still needs to communicate with the CPU, using the CPU bandwidth and CPU time.
So, the main difference between this and the Xserve will be the FSB. And that WILL make a difference in benchmarks. They didn't need DDR, but since that's where the general trend is going, it's not a bad idea to implement it into current systems so that you can use the ram again in your new system. But, I repeat, without a major architecture revision in the CPU, it will NOT benefit from DDR as much as Apple would want people to think. The 166.67 mhz bus, however, will. _______________
What Apple did is they took the FSB and brought it up to 166.67 mhz (if you want to be technical about it, there is no 167 mhz bus- only if you round it to be!). This is no different than how some overclockers on the other side make their CPU faster- by keeping the multiplier the same but increasing the bus. So, your comparison here:
Old G4: 133 bus x 7.5 multiplier = 1 ghz
New G4: 166 bus x 6 multiplier = 1 ghz
By increasing the FSB, you can get a speed increase because it is the FSB that controls the CPU, not the memory speed. Want proof? Take a look at the P3 and RDRAM and DDR. The P3 was running on a 133 mhz bus, and having more available memory bandwidth than it could use was a waste.
So why go to a DDR bus?
It's simple- it does benefit devices like high performance pci cards that do direct memory transfers. I dunno if this will make it clearer, but here:
_______________PCI Bus___------AGP Bus
CPU 1--\___________|______/
______(166)---System Chipset ----(266/333)---- Memory
CPU 2--/___________|______\
________________IDE____-----Firewire/USB/Sound
(_ = space, board didn't like whitespace in there)
So, the math works out like this:
Memory Bandwidth: Assuming a 166DDR bus (since the specs state either 133 or 166, I'm assuming that it runs at the same frequency as the FSB)
All numbers in MB/sec
Memory: 2660
CPU: -1330 MB/sec
64 bit PCI: -266 MB/sec
4x AGP: -2112 MB/sec
USB -1.2 MB/sec
Firewire -40 MB/sec
Sound -133 MB/sec
Gigabit -125 MB/sec
-----------------------------------
-1347 meg/sec
Now, you have to realize that those are max values, and you usually won't ever saturate the AGP bus, and only come even so close when playing games where you have to swap out AGP card memory with real memory, and Sound will never use 133 megs/sec, but you get the idea. In a SDR memory subsystem you would be cutting into the CPU's bandwidth immediately, whereas with a DDR system you can have many things going on without stealing bandwidth from the CPU.
So why did the Xserve DDR systems do no better than a MP Powermac?
One problem that is shared with both Intel and Apple (but not AMD) is that the FSB is shared by BOTH CPUs. That means that if both chips are doing 100% work, they have half the bandwidth the the chipset. So, any increase in the available bandwidth (which we'll get to next) is effectively halved, giving only around a 50 megs/sec advantage of a SDR system.
Which brings up the second point: Very few things are done independently of the CPU. So, even though a gigabit network card can have memory bandwidth independent of the CPU, it still needs to communicate with the CPU, using the CPU bandwidth and CPU time.
So, the main difference between this and the Xserve will be the FSB. And that WILL make a difference in benchmarks. They didn't need DDR, but since that's where the general trend is going, it's not a bad idea to implement it into current systems so that you can use the ram again in your new system. But, I repeat, without a major architecture revision in the CPU, it will NOT benefit from DDR as much as Apple would want people to think. The 166.67 mhz bus, however, will. _______________
i really suggest everyone go to apple's website and read some of the info on the powermac. and no not just to educate you (though some of you definitely need some educating, especially those holding on to biege g3s) but to see some of the very agressive marketing speak. they are attacking both old powermacs and peecees. very interesting marketing if you ask me.
on ata100
ok, so this one is the best. all you spec morons read closely.
well ive already auoted a lot, but theres lots of other great lil tid bits. so head on over to apple. got to love the aggressive marketing.
on ata100
ok, so this one is the best. all you spec morons read closely.
well ive already auoted a lot, but theres lots of other great lil tid bits. so head on over to apple. got to love the aggressive marketing.
So...this basically means that you could have left off all the fancy DDR, because this thing is limited to 1.3GB/sec due to the BUS???
Originally posted by mdurg
i am pretty confident if you built your own pc that matched the specs of these new powermacs that you would spend more than the powermacs cost.
Not even close. The PCs are much cheaper. I've built a lot of PCs. And when you hand build, you get cutting edge technology. The ingredients that Apple has put together for today's announcement have been around for quite a while (in computer-life time)
try specing out a new pc and i think you will find these powermacs are very aggressively priced.
Not even close again. I just bought a Micron Millenium XP 2200+ with 512 meg for $1200. You'd have to add $500 for the difference in cost for the Superdrive. But you're still not close on price. When I have the Micron and new Mac in, it will be fun to compare the speeds. I have some renderings in Strata that will be can be used to see how the dualie does. Oops, Strata is not OSX native yet. Maybe that wouldn't be a good test. Maybe something in Photoshop or Illustrator.
If we're going to compare Mac vs PC prices, we're just kidding ourselves. Macs come at a premium. And the reason we pay the premium is that they are that much better than PCs. Or are they?
i seriously doubt your 1200$ pc was similiarly speced. that is my point. sounds lie you had a barebones system. thats why it is cheap. spec out a new pc right now, matching each and every component. you will find the powermacs are well priced. people have done this on these boards time and time again and found that the pc is not cheaper. sure you can build a stripped down pc, and claim it is cheaper but thats not really fair now is it? you would have to compare that to a stripped mac then.
That's all G(r)eek to me, but...
Did anyone notice the ambiguous wording in Apple's press release: "Mac OS X version 10.2 "Jaguar," Apple's next-generation operating system as the startup operating system, as well as Mac OS 9.2.2." It's not actually clear that these machines will boot in 9.
Did anyone notice the ambiguous wording in Apple's press release: "Mac OS X version 10.2 "Jaguar," Apple's next-generation operating system as the startup operating system, as well as Mac OS 9.2.2." It's not actually clear that these machines will boot in 9.
I think this revision, under the hood, is a very decent one.
I don't think the rumors of a Power4 based Mac for this time frame were very accurate, and as seeing as I'm stuck with an old slot-loading iMac (400Mhz!), the new mid-range tower looks very nice indeed.
But can someone please tell me whether a larger L3 cache is better or a faster bus (i.e. comparing the dual 867 and the dual 1Ghz)
Oh, I also think the slight price increase may be due to the inclusion of X.2....
I don't think the rumors of a Power4 based Mac for this time frame were very accurate, and as seeing as I'm stuck with an old slot-loading iMac (400Mhz!), the new mid-range tower looks very nice indeed.
But can someone please tell me whether a larger L3 cache is better or a faster bus (i.e. comparing the dual 867 and the dual 1Ghz)
Oh, I also think the slight price increase may be due to the inclusion of X.2....
What about pro mouse/keyboard?
Has anyone else noticed that Apple includes absolutely no (zero) keyboards nor mice in their photographs of the new G4 PowerMac? I'm curious if the color of the new keyboards will be white or black. I'd guess white given the rumors of black has been EOL'ed.
Has anyone else noticed that Apple includes absolutely no (zero) keyboards nor mice in their photographs of the new G4 PowerMac? I'm curious if the color of the new keyboards will be white or black. I'd guess white given the rumors of black has been EOL'ed.