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

New PowerMacs Released

Originally posted by firewire2001


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?
Click to expand...


Correct me if I'm mistaken, but DP only makes a difference if the software is coded to take advantage of the 2nd proc (otherwise that 2nd proc is just sitting there doing nothing). Overall having it all DP is just marketing and grasping at straws IMO. People who need DP know they need it and will spend the extra for it (in the past when there were single and dual options). I'm not sure how many consumers realize that none/little of their software taked advantage of DPs and they aren't getting any speed boost at all from the 2nd prop.

Hopefully this DP mania is to clear out the apple stock of G4s for something better in 03 and not just smoke and mirrors from Apple.


Lethal
 
Originally posted by iGAV


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 :p :p :p

It's totally mind numbing....... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ya, its just like all those liberals who start on Nixon illegally used his office to further his...

It's totally mind numbing...... :rolleyes:

Just because its repeated ad nauseam doesn’t mean its any less true.
 
Originally posted by topicolo


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.
Click to expand...

Nah, I didn't confuse you, I had just switched gears in my heads, but not in my fingers. No hard feelings :)

If you look at apples architecture, each proccessor has its own 167 bus to it, then the DDR cache for each processor. This makes the data transfer to the processors operate at DDR speeds.
Click to expand...

No, if you look at Apple's acrhitecture, you'll see that they share a single FSB running at 166.67 mhz. The BSB (Back side bus) has nothing, NOTHING to do with anything else. It is there for the sole purpose of linking the cache to the cpu that owns it, no more. Any kind of cache coherincy requests between the two cpus, non-cache memory requests, anything OTHER than cache hits occur over a single 166.67 FSB.

Try taking your plumbing to your toilet and running it through a 1/8th inch tubing. Just because you have 1/2 inch tubing at exit does not mean that 1/8th inch section goes any faster. You could make the exit tubing 3" and it still would go no faster than the 1/8th tubing allows. The difference here is that, if the data is in cache, then yes, it is faster. The chance that your data in in cache is a small one.
 
Audio - In Question

It is a good thing that the audio-in is back on this machine, how embarassing when they too it out for them. Anyways, i am wondering if anyone knows what kind of converter is connected with that audio-in?

12
http://www.thecolortvs.com
 
Originally posted by LethalWolfe



Correct me if I'm mistaken, but DP only makes a difference if the software is coded to take advantage of the 2nd proc (otherwise that 2nd proc is just sitting there doing nothing). Overall having it all DP is just marketing and grasping at straws IMO. People who need DP know they need it and will spend the extra for it (in the past when there were single and dual options). I'm not sure how many consumers realize that none/little of their software taked advantage of DPs and they aren't getting any speed boost at all from the 2nd prop.

Hopefully this DP mania is to clear out the apple stock of G4s for something better in 03 and not just smoke and mirrors from Apple.


Lethal
Click to expand...


No, no, no no no no no no no! That is just FUD that people with non DP machines say so that they feel better!

If an app is not written with multithreading in mind, then yes, it will not perform much better than if it was run on a single processor system. However, think of it this way.

A processor does not do work on a program, it does work on a "thread."

At any given time, there could be hunderds of threads running.

Instead of just taking one thread and working on it, a dual processor system takes two threads and do them at the same time.


If an app is optimized for dual systems, then it can take independent tasks within the app and split them into two (or more) threads.

Any Dual system will be faster than a single. You just have to try one to see.
 
Originally posted by kenohki

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.
Click to expand...

Sure. Too bad the E3500 with 1 proc starts at $52K and an E4500 with 2 procs starts at $124K!! If we think Apple has bloated pricing, try buying from Sun!
 
Hey locovaca, I'm just curious... What do you do for a living? Are you an electrical engineer? BTW, no hard feeling taken :)
 
Originally posted by 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.
Click to expand...

You are missing a point here. You think it's significant, but I suppose Apple doesn't.

First off how many other computers use an L3 cache? Apple did this to make up for not having faster clocked G4's. They used DDR in the L3 for the same reason. It was a go between for the CPU and the slower SDR SDRAM. Now the main memory is DDR, so the L3's importance is lessened. Also each CPU has it's own cache.

They are also using a "direct memory access" model for much of the system.
Take a look here: Architecture

All of a sudden everyone is an expert at designing computers! Too many people get hug up reading specs and not really understanding what they mean in the real world. Macs are not PCs. They don't use off the shelf motherboards and chipsets. Apple designs all their own support chips, so they can tweak them to get the performance they want.

And now all the G4s are dual processors. This is a big deal now that Jaguar is out. In the past it didn't mean too much, and in fact some dual 604 Macs, like the 9500's weren't much faster, and for some things slower, than single CPUs. And up until Jaguar, even in OS X it didn't make them faster for everything.

As far as the prices, they are about the same for a lot more computer. Not a bad deal at all. Some of us expect too much and then get disappointed when our wildest dreams don't materialize.

Reality check here. Apple is about to release the best OS available on some of the best hardware available. They have been doing more than any other PC maker. All the others can do is throw in a faster CPU. Where's all the cool innovations from Dell? What's so great about Windows XP compared to OS X? Nothing, zilch, nada.

I'm on a 466Mhz G4, and these system looks REAL nice to me!

Mac users are getting so damn whiney! ;)
 
Originally posted by LethalWolfe



Correct me if I'm mistaken, but DP only makes a difference if the software is coded to take advantage of the 2nd proc (otherwise that 2nd proc is just sitting there doing nothing). Overall having it all DP is just marketing and grasping at straws IMO. People who need DP know they need it and will spend the extra for it (in the past when there were single and dual options). I'm not sure how many consumers realize that none/little of their software taked advantage of DPs and they aren't getting any speed boost at all from the 2nd prop.

Hopefully this DP mania is to clear out the apple stock of G4s for something better in 03 and not just smoke and mirrors from Apple.


Lethal
Click to expand...

Not exactly. While it is true that if a program isn't multi-threaded it can't take advantage of multiple processors, the fact that almost nobody runs just one program at a time really makes up for this! OS X itself is multithreaded, so moving those to a second processor helps a lot. Then if you run iTunes while working, it won't slow down your main apps tasks as it will be on the 2nd proc. So while a given program doesn't execute more tasks in a given time on a given proc, it will still be faster because it won't have to compete for proc time with other programs!

As a test, open a terminal and type ps -a to see a list of processes running on your machine. Or top to see their cpu utilization. Now if you could split all of those 50/50, you'd be happy.
 
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but DP only makes a difference if the software is coded to take advantage of the 2nd proc (otherwise that 2nd proc is just sitting there doing nothing)....
...I'm not sure how many consumers realize that none/little of their software taked advantage of DPs and they aren't getting any speed boost at all from the 2nd prop.



If I am not mistaken, OSX is able to take advantage of both processors so any task you do in OSX will be more efficient and somewhat faster. That sounds like a good thing to me. Especially with how fast Jaguar is supposed to be anyway.
 
Originally posted by locovaca



No, no, no no no no no no no! That is just FUD that people with non DP machines say so that they feel better!

If an app is not written with multithreading in mind, then yes, it will not perform much better than if it was run on a single processor system. However, think of it this way.

A processor does not do work on a program, it does work on a "thread."

At any given time, there could be hunderds of threads running.

Instead of just taking one thread and working on it, a dual processor system takes two threads and do them at the same time.


If an app is optimized for dual systems, then it can take independent tasks within the app and split them into two (or more) threads.

Any Dual system will be faster than a single. You just have to try one to see.
Click to expand...

Okay, so if a DP rig is running, lets say, UT, it won't be much faster than a SP (single proc). But if I'm running a bunch of apps the DP will be faster because the "thread load" is handle by 2 procs, not just one.

Is that the jist of it? And I own a DP 1gig so I'm not having any proc envy thank you very much. ;)


Lethal
 
Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon



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.
Click to expand...

These ARE 7470's !!
 
Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon

First off how many other computers use an L3 cache? Apple did this to make up for not having faster clocked G4's. They used DDR in the L3 for the same reason. It was a go between for the CPU and the slower SDR SDRAM. Now the main memory is DDR, so the L3's importance is lessened. Also each CPU has it's own cache.
Click to expand...

I don't know. DDR can double the effective throughput. So, even if the bus is at 200 MHz, if your L3 cache runs on an independent bus that runs at 500 MHz, then that L3 cache really provides a significant boost (an extra 100 MHz) in performance for small or many small jobs on your PC, making the most out of your CPU's.

I'm surprised that the x86 boxes don't use L3 cache (I'm assuming you're correct about that.). They have all the more reason than Apple to do so because of their very highly clocked CPU's, which can deliver some pretty impressive throughput. I imagine their CPU's are data starved as well.
 
Re: Re: Re: Not too expensive, you are just too cheap

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


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.
Click to expand...

Check out the MJ-12 DDR from Alienware:

http://www.alienware.com/main/system_pages/mj12 ddr.asp

Nearly the same price as the "Fastest" Powermac ($50 difference), but there's more memory (albeit technically slower), much better video, 5.1 sound, no Superdrive, no Firewire, slightly more HD space, no Gigabit ethernet.

You can draw your own conclusions, but I don't think the top end Powermac is all that bad for $3300, except on processor speed.
 
Re: Audio - In Question

Originally posted by twelve
It is a good thing that the audio-in is back on this machine, how embarassing when they too it out for them. Anyways, i am wondering if anyone knows what kind of converter is connected with that audio-in?

12
http://www.thecolortvs.com
Click to expand...

It is nice to have audio in jacks, but no one ever used them for anything serious. I think Apple figured it would push everyone to use Firewire or USB for audio, the same way removing ADB and serial ports got the whole USB thing going.

Apple has OK A/D converters, but nothing special. They were always 16-bit, 44.1, but OS X handles 24-bit and up to 96KHz (I think) so who knows?

I'm a musician, and I wanted a Cube, but needed more options for audio, so I got a tower.

In my opinion none of the USB audio interfaces are all that great, so I went with an M-Audio Audiophile 2496 card. It sounds much better than when I used to record with either my 6100 or Powercenter's audio in jack.
 
Originally posted by iGAV


Selective stats.... and how old is that test??? :p :p :p

Maybe try a Dual against a single in 'Jaguar' using After Effects and see what the gap is then...... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

'Jaguar' should not help SMP, that would be the bsd. (I think, not sure!?!)

its an old test yes, but with Apple’s encoders. Apple didn't bother to help the DPs along…
 
Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


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.
Click to expand...

Of course, the similarly spec'ed PC would blow the doors of the PowerMac, but your point is well taken.

PCs are faster (what that means in the real world depends on the user!!!). But they dont run OS X so they dont get my money.
 
Originally posted by Edge100

PCs are faster (what that means in the real world depends on the user!!!). But they dont run OS X so they dont get my money.
Click to expand...

Thank you, an honest mac user! And you didn't use, "pee-cee" Way to go!

Mac needs to sell OSX not their desktop hardware. (I mean figuratively)
 
One of my best friend's dad is a high ranking officer at Motorola. (He runs MOS 13, here in Austin, TX.) He told me that these are in fact 7470 chips
 
Originally posted by cyberfunk


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.
Click to expand...

Look, DDR is NOT always a 2x multiple of FSB speed. DDR RAM and cache do NOT have to be at the same speed as the fsb. The fsb and the memory bus are NOT the same!! Understand that! If the fsb is still only 1.3Mb/s, it's not going to use the full 2.1-2.7Gb/s that 266 and 333Mhz DDR ram provides because the fsb will saturate at 1.3Gb/s. Why don't you go read up on this stuff before making more posts?
 
Originally posted by Ibjr


'Jaguar' should not help SMP, that would be the bsd. (I think, not sure!?!)

its an old test yes, but with Apple’s encoders. Apple didn't bother to help the DPs along…
Click to expand...

You can't go on benchmarks that are like 2 years old, running OS9 :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

If you really want to believe that in terms of true performance, in real world demanding tasks that a single is only 3 seconds slower than a dual........ :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

P.S wasn't OS9 not configured to fully make use of Dual processors? unlike OSX?
the difference would be much more pronounced now......
 
Originally posted by 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
Click to expand...

Using the built in audio?? Macs don't have audio cards, and since there is only the headphone jack, and Apple Pro-Speaker jacks, both of which are stereo, the answer would be no. How would you hook up 5 speakers to a two channel system?

You can add a sound card, however. But I don't think there are too many with 5.1 support. The SBLive has it, but I don't think they ever released OS X drivers, and the specs on the card are not to great anyway.

I think Griffin has an USB audio interface with 5.1, and M-Audio might also.

My M-Audio card just does 2 channel, with S/PDIF and MIDI, which is all I need. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back