New PowerMacs Released

[job]

Re: G4 bus

Originally posted by soilchmst
To address the cache vs. bus issue, more cache will help if your doing high end graphics or gene research, but a faster bus makes the less tasking even application (even games) faster.

Thanks mate.

 

[dandy]

How to open 2 drives with 1 keyboard eject?

How to open 2 drives with 1 keyboard eject?

I've been bothered ever since they removed the eject key from the drives in the last powermac rev. I actually had a problem on a quicksilver where the drive wouldn't open even though nothing was in it! The drive even failed to show up in System Profiler!. It was extremely annoying 'cause I couldn't even boot off a system cd -- even using all the tricks to open the drive on startup wouldn't work. Running disk utility and fixing drive errors finally let the drive be recognized again. This was in 10.1.5.

Anyway... how do you think you'll control which optical drive to eject with one keyboard key?



Maybe the good old command+shift+1 and command+shift+2 returns??

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by ddtlm
AmbitiousLemon:

"ok, so this one is the best. all you spec morons read closely."

As in SPEC, the industry-standard benchmark where G4's get their asses kicked by P3's, P4's, Athlon's, Sparc's, Power4's, Itaniums, and a few more? Anyway, all you did was quote Apple marketing speak... that means exactly nothing. (Zero.).

guess you didnt read closely. i always find it interesting how these spec benchmarks show the mac as being 'crushed' by the wintel world and then in real world benchmarks surprisingly you find that the pc isnt actually all that much faster. btw if you cant understand what was written there (its not just marketing speak) then you shouldnt be claiming it means nothing. it might mean nothing to you. pretend as you like, but pipeline length is important. and if you cant get that then i am sorry.

and for you guys trying to build pcs. good try but still not quite there yet. and im curious why you choose the ultra discounted dell pc and compare it to the highest end mac. and you still didnt configure it to match the mac. keep trying. and remember the low end pm is only 1700. and the dual 1ghz is only 2500. an amd machine may be cheaper (agreed) but it wont be all that reliable (not as much as a pm) stick with intel if you want to compare. you build a intel computer with similiar specs to that dual ghz model and it will come out around 2000 to 2700.

some of you mac guys around here have some serious inferiority complexes. i suspect most of you have not built a pc before ro seen real benchmarks comparing the machines. the old dual ghz sat 20% behind a 1900+ amd. was nearly head to head with a 2ghz intel. these new machines are more than 20% faster (although how much we will have to wait and see). that leads me to believe that the speed difference between these powermacs and the wintel world (as if any of us cares how fast winxp will run) is negligable. this release may not be all that we were hoping for, but it does close the gap (for now). with a power4 at least 6-18months away i think macdom can hold its head high (ok maybe not high but you can at least look a wintel zealot in the eye again). i think the past few months with those lame dual ghz machines or yore damaged some of your self esteems. no these arent the machines that will place pentium4s on snails backs again. but we are in the race. and before you mention a 3ghz pentium or a hammer read those power4 rumors again. apple has something cooking just like amd and intel. the dard days of moto are nearing and end, osx is finally fleshing out to the more complete os we were promised for so long. its a good day for macdom. so please chill

 

[pgwalsh]

Re: Re: Not too expensive, you are just too cheap

Originally posted by topicolo


True, but any self-respecting pc user (trust me they actually exist) would buy/build a clone with much better specs than that. Practically all of the good motherboards out there have 4 IDE channels, 2 of which are on an onboard RAID chip. They all use at least PC2100 DDR RAM, and many have onboard ethernet and as much as 5 usb ports. Some even have USB 2.0 onboard. Granted, they don't have gigabit ethernet or firewire, but aside from firewire, how many people actually use the full gigabit connection?

I agree. I built my PC with everything noted above about 9 months ago and it cost less than 1K. You can go online and get OEM version of parts etc. However, it'll never replace my Mac or the new one I'm going to buy this week.

 

[eirik]

Originally posted by hitman
Can anyone answer my question though :

Which is better for overall performance, a larger L3 cache or a faster system bus?

I'll take a crack at it.

For big jobs such as rendering large 2D animations that require hours and hours of processing, the faster bus is far more beneficial. In fact. L3 would not offer any signficiant benefit.

For small jobs, particularly many small jobs, such as web browsing, email, M$ Office, and others apps running simultaneously with blocks of data smaller aggregately than the size of the L3 cache, then the L3 cache kicks butt over the faster bus (33 MHz delta for the bus versus an L3 to CPU bus that is typically 500 MHz or so...much faster than main bus).

So, large L3 and L2 cache, benefits all operations that are small enough to place most or all of its data into the cache for quick computation when the CPU's need it. But, if you're rendering or doing something on blocks of data that far exceed the L2 and L3 cache, then you're dependent upon the front side bus.

This is why many posters are expressing dismay over the new PowerMacs. Because, the throughput from the system controller to the CPU's is 1.3 GB/s, up from 1.05 GB/s. Well, this is still a good speed bump for large jobs. You're essentially gettting a 33% (roughly) improvement on large jobs because of the larger throughput from main memory to the CPU's.

Many of us had hoped that Motorola would have re-worked the CPU's so that they could take in far more throughput. Afterall, if you only have 1.3 GB/s of throughput from main memory to CPU's for big jobs, the 18 GLOPS of super duper potential aint gonna happen. The faster CPU's and the large L2 and L3 cache will give us a snappier response.

I seriously question the benefit and value of faster CPU's. I don't regard 'snappier response' as a truly practical offering. I see faster overall data throughput from main memory to CPU's to results (computation) as the ideal metric, as opposed to "real world" performance.

Here's a block diagram from macteens.com to illustrate:

 

[MacArtist]

Originally posted by mdurg
About time! The dual 1 gig is looking good to me at this early point in time. Also good that it is shipping right away. I'll probably order Monday when I'm back from vacation.

Will these towers accept a 3rd party IDE burner? Apple isn't giving us much choice in this department. $250 for an additional combo drive is a little steep. Also I'm worried about the door arrangement.

Ditto for memory. I will fill it with memory from Crucial or elsewhere for much cheaper.

Yes. Just check the itunes compatability for the drive mechanism. You can get a Lite-On 48x12x48 internal for ~$70 that'll work with the new PowerMacs.

 

[topicolo]

Originally posted by locovaca


As for your little quoting of the Apple specs- maybe you should go read a good CprE book on processor design instead of just quoting Apple. Apple is not the be all end all source on computing architecture- they just want you to buy their products.

A processor with a shorter pipeline is more efficient, however, a processor with a longer pipeline scales to higher speeds. So, it becomes a math equation- efficiency over clock speed. Additionally, the effiency only comes into play when a processor miscalculates a branch and has to abort the pipeline. So, while the P4 may have a longer pipeline, it has a faster clock to make up for aborted pipeline efficiency, and it also has a very good BPU.

If you want to be an educated consumer, Apple's (Or Intel's or Amd's or VIA's or Transmeta's) website is not the place to learn from. Take a class, read a book, but don't copy and paste something from the seller's website and take it as 100% truth.

As for my little quoting of Apple specs, I didn't mention pipeline design at all. I already know about the advantages and disadvantages of pipeline lengths and cache hits/misses. You may have me confused with somebody else. All I pointed to is the fact that a 166Mhz 64bit bus gives only 1.3Gb/s of throughput.

 

[job]

Originally posted by eirik

I seriously question the benefit and value of faster CPU's.

Yeah, me too.

I am also wondering about spending an extra $450 for a 133Mhz increase in the CPU speed. I compared similarly configured Towers in a previous post; the dual Ghz does not seem to offer that many benefits over the baseline...

Anyways, your post seems to have answered my question. Thanks.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Originally posted by giovanni
look, we all know that if the architecture does mimic the Xserve (as Apple states) then this implemtation of DDR does not give any, absolutely ZERO, performance improvement. Again, I wonder what the real improvement is of going from a 133Mhz bus to 167Mhz. We'll see soon some tests

That's nonsense! The XServe is much faster than any of the Quicksilvers. Check out the benchmarks at Xinet.com.

This is DDR RAM... It's being clocked at 167Mhz, and pushes data through at 333Mhz. Not too shabby. The only "hack" Apple is doing with the XServe, and I'd imagine these G4's, would be with the memory controller, due to the fact that the current 7455 CPU cannot use DDR directly. This doesn't mean that the RAM isn't faster... The RAM is never as fast as the CPU anyway. Also we have a faster FSB and 7200 RPM ATA-100 drives. These are still faster than any G4 so far.

Also I'd guess these are "stopgap" models, kind of the same way the first G4s were, until Apple gets the rumored MPC 7470 CPU, which does handle DDR properly.

Re: the new case design. I also think it's ugly, but my feeling is Apple is trying to make an aggressive looking case to appeal to PC users that think Macs are too "shiny" and all. It's more like a Jeep than a Ferrari now.

 

[firewire2001]

Originally posted by Edge100
Unreal.

C'mon Apple, how on Earth do you expect to be able to sell ANY of these new machines (except the low end, which seems to be an excellent deal).

they might be faster (significantly so) than the machines they replace, thanks to DDR SDRAM, but the FSB (to my eyes) is still not DDR. They simply dont have the power to justify the $3000 price tag, given the imminent release of Jaguar and it supposed power boosts.

Innovate, Apple! Innovate!

As has been said before, Save Us IBM!

i disagree completely. i think that the dp (dualprocessor) makes up for all that you said.. did you see that ALL the models are dp?

it would be an interesting move on apple's part if they created more systems with dual processors rather than higher mhz... this would allow them to do a lot better than pcs -- ill bet a dual 1ghz mac could beat the fastest pIV... however, definately not better than a dp pIV... but if apple marketed it in the right way, they could sell only dp macs with similar/same prices to their old macs and then compare models with pentiums..

to my surprise theyre "immediatly" available, too...

 

[soilchmst]

Here,here

I have seen processor speeds soar, but my 366 ibook performs about the same as the 1. something pc's. The difference is, that while pressenting a technical paper in Orlando, my computer did just fine with the PowerPoint, and the PC before me crashed, and had to use a slide projector.

 

[Ibjr]

Originally posted by MacArtist


Yes. Just check the itunes compatability for the drive mechanism.

Can you give link?

If i can get my 24x12x40 Aopen RW to work on a Mac then i can switch this weekend!

 

[drastik]

Originally posted by arogge
Many of the things on my upgrade wish list came true - front expansion slot, dual-processor configurations, and lower prices. I hope these new PowerMacs are really quiet. I like the more aggressive looks of the case design too, and the elimination of some old PC-type bottlenecks will be another reason to choose the PowerMac over the "Made in Elbonia" Dell desktop.

Hey now, that's not nice, Dels are made right here in Nashville. Though I could do without Dell, I like my town.

On topic, New Pmacs rock, want one, but I'll probaly wait. Given the DDR, we'll just have to see.

 

[Ibjr]

Originally posted by drastik


Hey now, that's not nice, Dels are made right here in Nashville. Though I could do without Dell, I like my town..

The laptops are not made in the US.

 

[jadam]

errrr.... one thing. The low end powermac is a sweet deal.

Now why have DDR if it doesnt increase bandwith to the FSB? well lets see. If you were using an old Powermac and lets say you were using the video card and 2 PCI cards and FireWire and USB and such, now you have to u se some of your bandwith for those proccess dont you? sure you do, and guess what, the 2 processors dont get 1.1gb/sec of bandwith but instead get much less.

now with DDR you have more memory to go around, you have a dedicated 1.3gb/sec for the processors and another 1.3gb/sec for say the hard drives and the AGP video card and the PCI cards and Gigabit Ethernet and FireWire and USB and such.

there are reasons for things

anyways, the low end is sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetttttttt, just wish i could afford it

 

[Inhale420]

it looks like apple removed the 2MB L3 from the mid-range. that price range is the model i can afford and i'm assuming most will buy. so they give us something significant(2nd proc) and they remove something significant.

nice try apple, but i'll pass for now.

i like the new case.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Originally posted by topicolo
I hope for apple's sake that they get those IBM G5s out soon. If this is the future of the G4, I'm sticking with windoze.

IBM doesn't even make G4's, so why would they make a G5??

Motorola already released a G5 embedded processor a few weeks ago.

You think having to use Windoze makes up for having a faster clock speed? Yeah, OK! Troll!

A lot of people here need to get a clue! These Macs are faster than anything any of you are using right now, and is anyone having problems due to their computer being too slow for what you do on a day to day basis? I seriously doubt it.

 

[PyroTurtle]

anyone know if these have 5.1 suround sound support in the audio card? just want to know....
and what are those things in the front? sorry, i don'pt have time to look through the entire thread

 

[bousozoku]

Why so many complainers?

Apple is a for-profit company--they're not a charity. Don't ask them for new and better and then whine that it's not free. Don't build yourself up to believe that something more is coming, just wait. If you don't see what you want, don't buy it.

 

[tjwett]

Originally posted by ddtlm
tjwett:

What's with all this "overclocked" sillyness? (Making an effort to stay positive.) Don't you realize that a large heatsink with large slow fan is also a very very quiet way to cool processors? The Quicksilvers are louder than most OEM PC's I've seen, for crying out loud. It's great to see Apple's new cooling system. Stop whining, yes we only have a 25% increase, but that doesn't suddenly mean that it's a 25% overclock!

I mean, what would you have said about the 1.4ghz or 1.6ghz rumored chips? Oh no, no that's not an overclock, only 1.25ghz chips are overclocked!

And what the hell is an overclock anyway? If Moto or Intel or AMD sells a chip at "x" ghz that's it's speed. It is not "over" clocked until it is made to run faster than the seller said it should.

by "overclocked" i just meant - a desperate attempt to squeeze the last possible drop out of a dying processor. i know it's slightly different than the old one and slightly faster but it just looks shady to me. perhaps it's the looks i don't like. but must admit it's a lame increase if it's not an overclock. the looks are a personal taste thing. if it turns out that the new cooling system is indeed for silence, i'd be psyched since i use my Macs in a sound studio. in the meantime i'm still giving it a thumbs down. i'll buy when we get a DDR bus, 2ghz, etc...basically a whole new chip and mobo.

 

[kenohki]

Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon


IBM doesn't even make G4's, so why would they make a G5??

Motorola already released a G5 embedded processor a few weeks ago.

You think having to use Windoze makes up for having a faster clock speed? Yeah, OK! Troll!

A lot of people here need to get a clue! These Macs are faster than anything any of you are using right now, and is anyone having problems due to their computer being too slow for what you do on a day to day basis? I seriously doubt it.

IBM probably will make the "G5" according to what we've been hearing out of both the Motorola and IBM camps. They made the "G3". Those are just Apple's terms for the chips BTW (well and what Mot puts on it's rediculous "roadmap"). The G3 is actually an IBM PPC750 or variant like CXe. IBM also made some 601s and the 604.

And no, these Macs aren't faster than anything out there. They'll get their butts creamed by most other workstations/high-end pee cees. Granted, the low end are decent for the price, but come use the multi-processor Sun E4000 that my X terminal is hooked up to and then you can tell me all about speed. Troll.

 

[Ibjr]

Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon


IBM doesn't even make G4's, so why would they make a G5??

Motorola already released a G5 embedded processor a few weeks ago.

You think having to use Windoze makes up for having a faster clock speed? Yeah, OK! Troll!

A lot of people here need to get a clue!

Between ignorant slashdotters and ignorant Mac rumors posters who call everything a troll, you can not even offer a differing opinion without being accused of trolling.

Slashdot, Macslash, Mac Rumors, OSnews, Cnet, Zdnet, The Register, and The Inquirer, all posted stories on the desktop chip IBM is putting out, and all speculated that it would be ideal for Mac. Silicone and other news sources claim IBM is talks with apple right now.

Who cares if Motorola released a G5 embedded processor a few weeks ago, embedded G5s are not desktop G5s.

And yes using windows is a hellish nightmare, but until we see how these DDR macs perform a mac will not cut it for any professional use.

 

[cyberfunk]

Originally posted by Edge100


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 realize that, DDR is always a 2x multiple of FSB speed.. FSB 1.3 Gbps reffers to stuff from say, the io controller to the CPU, not the Memory to CPU, which I've been assured, hasa DDR pathway.

 

[iGav]

Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon
A lot of people here need to get a clue! These Macs are faster than anything any of you are using right now, and is anyone having problems due to their computer being too slow for what you do on a day to day basis? I seriously doubt it.

Just wait for the winjers using the old 'have you ever manipulated a XXXdpi, XXXMb file in Photoshop on a Dual Ghz Power Mac with only 1.5GB of RAM........ it's sooooo slow i think I'm going to die!!' routine

It's totally mind numbing.......

 

[eirik]

all dualies

When I read the report yesterday of all dualies in the PowerMac line, I was both skeptical and excited. Please look at that block diagram in my last post.

Theoretically, the 1 GHz G4, without AltiVec, can produce a maximum throughput of:

1 billion cycles per second
x 16 bytes (derived from 3 instructions per second one
is 64 bit and two are 32 bits; divide this by
8 bits/byte)
____________________________________________
1.6 GB/s (or about 1.56 GB/s)

Now, dual 1 GHz can theoretically yield without AltiVec:
3.2 GB/s.

Obviously then, the 1.25 GHz can yield:
2.0 GB/s or as a pair, without AltiVec:
4.0 GB/s.

Now the point here is that if your main memory can ultimately feed you only 1.3 GB/s because of the G4's MPX unit, then faster CPU's or dual CPU's only improve performance for small computation jobs or many small computation jobs, giving a snappier feel in response.

But, without increasing the overall throughput from main memory to the CPU's, we'll not see appreciable performance improvements in large jobs (larger than the L2 and L3 cache; the larger the more dependent we are upon the this bottleneck).

With the new PowerMac's, the best info I've seen thus far indicates that we've gone from 1.05 GB/s of main memory to CPU's throughput to 1.30 GB/s. That's almost a 33% improvement. So, we should see significant Photoshop benchmark test improvements.

What kind of main memory throughput to CPU's do the best x86 systems yield?

So anyway, I was skeptical about the move to all dualies because I felt that if Apple didn't significantly improve the main memory to CPU throughput then the extra CPU's would only improve performance for the small stuff, for snappier response. Fortunately, Apple has increased the throughput by 33%. So, Apple will not get severely hammered.

BTW, how much does Motorola charge Apple for the CPU's? This might give us some insight into a relative change in Apple's margin and their current market strategy. Just a little insight.