No G5's until (late) 2003

[alex_ant]

Re: Altivec will keep Apple ahead

Originally posted by gopher
Don't believe those Mhz ratings. It is a myth. Why a Pentium IV is actually slower at RC5 than a Pentium III, and 5 times slower than a G4. Check the ratings at

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/dual_1ghz_performance_test.html
Another place where the G4 is 5 times faster then the Pentium IV:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/feb/07blast.html

Now this just means you need to demand that more of your Macintosh apps became Altivec native, and tell the developers of those programs how to make their applications Altivec native:

OK, so we're supposed to nag the very developers who have just spent months carbonizing their apps to vectorize their fp-intensive code in a manner incompatible with the programming architecture of the CPU comprising >90% of their market. That is, IF the apps do not rely on double-precision fp, which AltiVec cannot handle.

Some of us want our computers to be faster at tasks OTHER than RC5, SETI, and certain Photoshop filters. The Megahertz Myth is a myth that doesn't hide the fact that the G4's floating-point unit sucks BIG-TIME, and that doesn't hide the fact that its integer speed is on par only with an equivalently clocked Pentium III, according to the latest SPEC scores (which were published unofficially because Apple is presumably ashamed of the results).

Alex

 

[alex_ant]

Re: Motorola focuses on the embedded market

Originally posted by ktlx
Now that IBM is scaling down their Power line of chips, that is probably the better long term processor for Apple. It is 64-bit, IBM is pouring tons of money into it and it scales to multiprocessor systems very nicely. Imagine a PowerMac with four 64-bit cores, 3MB of L3 cache per core and AltiVec.

Better than that, imagine running OS X on a pSeries... Zany!

I actually believe POWER will be involved in the Mac's future somehow. It is an architecture unto itself, not just a processor, and I agree that Motorola is pretty much guaranteed to be behind x86 from now on, while POWER technology is being used today in chips much faster than Pentium 4s.

Alex

 

[eunuchs]

Originally posted by numb_brain
Everybody seems to be so upset because the G5 isn't coming. I admit I'm a bit dissappointed too, but that doesn't mean Apple is standing still. In a couple of weeks we'll be seeing the new version of G4. Because of the deeper pipeline-stages, getting higher clockspeeds should be easier, and that's why I'm convinced we'll see clockspeeds of 1.4 GHz. That alone would mean performance boost of at least 50%. And they wil boost up the bus speed to 266 MHz, which should ad another improvement of at least 50 %. Think about it: they are going to be doubling performance at MWNY!!!!

Then at the end of august, Jaguar will come out, which will improve the startup and general OS-speed with about 30 % by making much better use of the graphic card.

And in response of the people who say Apple's speed is way behind PC with Maya and other 3D rendering software: that's not Apple's fault. It's the software that needs to be updated drastically (Maya still has a lot of evolving to undergo on Mac OSX). But believe me, they will...

Just looking on the bright side of things of course...

Wow, I've got to wonder about the 50% + 50% numbers you're coming up with. Those seem pretty arbitrary.... 30% "general-speed" improvement for Jaguar? Doubling performance at MWNY? Doubtful.

Look, the truth is Macs aren't as fast as your neighbourhood-geek-built Athlons or P4s. I'm not even talking about benchmarks (which Athlons win handily). I'm talking about firing up a web browser, FPS in Quake, and hell, even moving files around in Finder/Explorer. Basic user experience. Windows is ... snappier.

I have no doubt that there is definitely room for improvement with OS X and I'm as hopeful for Jaguar as anyone else. But let's not kid ourselves... the G4, with Apple's current mobos, is no speed demon compared to what's out there in PC-land. This isn't going to change overnight. First of all, Apple needs to move out of 1999 and start including some newer technology in their motherboards. DDR RAM, RapidIO or HyperTransport, etc... this is what we need. I'm hopeful we'll see improvements along these lines at MWNY. They are LONG overdue. IMHO, they are also far more important than a 100-200 MHz speed boost for the G4.

 

[Wry Cooter]

Actually the only interesting and promising part of the French rumor to me that there the bit about Moto building a new plant. I always figured the reason other Chip makers do NOT have the same yield problems as they do is, they have more modern facilities and methods. All MOTO really has in their camp is the altivec design... nothing else about the corporation works in concert towards getting out a g5 in usable yields (which most of us feel would probably be out already had the design been farmed out to IBM or AMD or someone to manufacture). And everything else about Motorola is really pure 1970s thinking.

I think Quark will have a carbonized Xpress by MWSF, the problem here is, will all of the myriad plug ins designed for production workflow be ready by then as well?

and No, I don't buy the g5 can't do Classic stuff at all.

 

[alex_ant]

Re: Re: Motorola focuses on the embedded market

Originally posted by Cappy
One problem with that scenario is that IBM doesn't do altivec although they are said to be working on their own unit with some similar functions. Who knows how long that will take? It took Moto seemingly forever to bring altivec to market.

One cool thing about POWER4 for example, though, is that it's so damned fast it doesn't need AltiVec. I don't think Apple would opt for POWER4 itself, but I do think a scaled-down chip utilizing POWER technology and still having a faster FPU than a G4's AltiVec unit would certainly be possible. Add that to the fact that software developers would no longer have to spend weeks vectorizing their code to explicitly take advantage of AltiVec... they'd get mad performance compared to x86 with much less painstaking optimizing.

 

[Ouroboros]

Everything is a muddled, jumbled mess. We are all grasping at straws. I have a feeling that there isn't ANYTHING that really points to what Apple is going to do. Someone sees something in France, Belgium, Germany, and then it turns out to be bunk or silly. Nothing from Motorola, nothing from IBM. We just don't know. If you tool around other Mac rumor sites, the same thing is happening, there isn't any substantial rumor -- ANYTHING. A bunch of crap really. It is surprising because usually by this point we have SOME idea. This might be a good sign, that maybe Apple has learned how to really tighten the whispers, and that something great is going to come our way this July.

But I'm starting to notice on ALL the sites as well that Apple better do something soon, or people or going to not be there when they finally do "DO" something. It is really frustrating going to a computer store these days lemme tell ya...

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by jbouklas
An 800 MHz mac is faster than any 800 MHz PC. That is a fact. The only problem is the price difference between the two.

Two points:

1) That's only if you take AltiVec into account... if you look at basic integer and floating-point performance, an 800MHz G4 is pretty much neck-and-neck with an 800MHz PIII in integer speed, and considerably behind the PIII in floating-point. Consider that AltiVec apps account for only a small fraction of all Mac apps and you'll understand why people are so concerned about the Mac falling behind speed wise.

2) Even if an 800MHz Mac is "faster" than an 800MHz PC, that's irrelevant because nobody sells 800MHz PCs anymore. They're running at well above 2GHz now. And don't compare the dual GHz G4 to the 2GHz P4, because that's unfair - compare it to the dual 2GHz Athlon, which will piss all over it at most anything except RC5 and Photoshop filters.

Alex

 

[Grokgod]

Its the sad truth!

Alex_ant is totally right!

Comparisons tween a 800 mac and a 800 Wintel is foolish ignorance!

There isnt any freakin 800 Wintel that isnt in a landfill or hiding in someones closet or a room that looks like a closet.

There isnt a company that is selling 800 pIII's so why the hell make such a useless comparison.

You have to compare what is available on the market!

Thats the realworld. I would never buy a 800 powermac because of what is available out there in the market.

I did buy a 800 Ti because i saw a lot of laptops that are out around the 1.2 range and thought that maybe its close enough, and worth it, uhh maybe.
But the real reason I buy APPle after giving it plenty of thought, is that I HATE WINTEL. its a crappy operating system!!

If there was another company out there, then I would be buying that and lauging at APPLE with their old hardware and slow os and the megahertz myth and all the weird propaganda that people come up with to justify and make themselves feel better.

But if there was a BEos box with appz for it and good hardware, Hell I would beon it in a second!

Wouldn't you?

As for the pissing, well I ahve never seen a computer piss!

But i had an Athalon once and it had 7 fans in it and when it booted, it created a cyclone in my room that then created a black hole which I am now typing this from. Its kinda like farscape! love that show!

yet, my Ti is totally silent most of the time. I love this thing, ohcrap , I have a fondness for APple , like a slow witted niece with pretty blond hair.

Was this post too long?

 

[King Cobra]

Originally posted by Grokgod
Was this post too long?

Think of it this way...there is no bullsh!t in it.

But I have to agree with the fans. My father has a Yosemite downstairs and it is rather loud, since it has one fan. I can't imagine what 7 fans would be like. You probably have to yell over the phone!

I would not want to switch over to a fanned computer. Mostly this is because I can't hear my computer run, which is fanless, at all when I am listening to Disturbed.

 

[dantec]

I've got an idea. Why doesn't Apple brand their processors as being 2ghz? That would make sense to the average consumer.

Although the G5 won't come out this summer, I hope we see 1.5-1.7 ghz Powermacs. If they can't achieve higher than 1.5 then at least they should have dual processors across the line!

Whatever happened to the rumors of Appollo being multi-cored?

 

[King Cobra]

I think Apple doesn't call it 2GHz because it isn't 2GHz. I guess it would make consumers think that there is a 2GHz chip when Apple has not used a 2GHz chip.

But the idea of total processor speeds for listed speeds makes me wonder if Apple puts a Quad GHz chip in their PowerMac they will call it 4GHz. [Yes, I'll keep dreaming ]

 

[Kid Red]

Re: if this is true

Originally posted by beatle888
I understand how some mac users would want
to switch platforms to gain speed. I feel that
way my self. But I do hope that Apple catches
up cause no UI is pretty enough if you can't
push your files around. And that's what's beginning
to happen.

Also, whats with the new Apple ads talking about
a CLUNKY (PC) user experience? Have you used OSX on
a tibook? Sorry but waiting 1 second after you click
on a menu is pretty CLUNKY to me (ok maybe 1/2 second).
There are other examples that escape me right now
but believe me, I use a ti every day and jeeze, OSX is
CLUNKY, powerful, and pretty.

You obviously don't own a dual gig. Either that or you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[TypeR389]

Re: Re: if this is true

Originally posted by Kid Red


You obviously don't own a dual gig. Either that or you have no idea what you are talking about.

I have never really played much ona dual gig machine, but not to offend anyone, you shouldn't need a dual gig machine to make simple menu operations responsive. That is IMHO apple's biggest problem. the AVG consumer isn't using photoshop or other stuff like that, they are surfing, emailing, word processing, mp3ing etc. Now with the exception of the mp3 encoding, the G4 does not significantly speed up any of these operations compared to the G3. Just go to barefeats, the 700 iBook actually beat the 800 TiBook in several consumer app benchmarks, and it is half the price! I just think the ROI for a lot of people isn't there on the hig end stuff right now...

My $.02...

quickly ducks to avoid flames to the head...

 

[mmmdreg]

so this is basically what we've been expecting right? (well at least the next year part of it)...but there's those G4's coming to watch for..can't wait.

 

[ktlx]

Facts depend upon your point of view...

Originally posted by jbouklas
An 800 MHz mac is faster than any 800 MHz PC. That is a fact. The only problem is the price difference between the two.

I don't know about 800Mhz machines, but I had an 867Mhz PowerMac G4 with 1GB of memory. This was the top of the line single processor PowerMac released at least year's MWNY. At the same time I had an 867Mhz Pentium III with 512MB of memory. Both used PC133 SDRAM and I used OS 9.1 and OS X on the PowerMac and Windows 2000 on the PC.

I ran a series of application-oriented benchmarks on the two machines. These were things like bulk editing of large text files, manipulating images, printing photos and so forth. All of the things that I normally do to maintain my Web site, make prints from digital photos and so forth plus day to day personal things like messing with spreadsheets and Quicken. The PowerMac was slower in all comparisons except for one.

When I compared the two machines for running Photoshop filters, the PowerMac smoked the Pentium III. However, there was nothing else that I did where the Mac was faster in either OS 9 or OS X. After I ran the filters and tried to save the files (~70MB TIFF images), the writes were so much faster on the PC that unless I applied a lot of filters, the overall time spent with the image was longer with the PowerMac.

Scanning the image at 4000dpi on a Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 using the latest drives (at the time) from Nikon yielded results that could not even compare. The PC was routinely two to three times faster to scan the image than the PowerMac. Sure, applying the filters on the PowerMac saved me two or three minutes per image. But scanning and saving the images cost me 10 to 15 minutes. So I sold the PowerMac and started saving for an Athlon XP or Pentium 4.

I hope Apple can get their performance to price ratio and OS X performance in better shape. I like OS X much better than Windows XP. But my current Athlon XP 2100+ machine with 768MB of memory cost me under $1000. The software costs alone to return to Apple are far more than my current PC hardware. And I get better support from hardware manufacturers like Nikon, Epson, etc.

 

[iH8Quark]

Re: Continued slow sales

Originally posted by thopter
No OS9 on new machines + No Quark for OSX = No new sales to printers until 2003?! Seems for every step forward, Apple takes another towards oblivion.

We view this as a GOOD thing. Finally this should be the end of that total **** piece of software that has been plaguing the design community since its release. InDesign totally rocks. Finally, death to Quark.

Party at my place!! I'm getting a keg!

 

[iH8Quark]

Originally posted by alex_ant
There were a lot of people reckoning that the G5 would be out before the last MWSF, and it didn't happen of course. Then they expected it at the last MWSF, five months ago. When there was no sign of it, they thought MWNY for sure, and now it looks like it won't happen at MWNY, either.

Personally I think we should be very disappointed. Weren't there rumors of 1.2, 1.4, and 1.6GHz sample chips earlier this year? Even if the G5 had hit the scene last January at 1.4GHz, it still would have been behind the x86 competition performance-wise. I hope Motorola manages to triple those speeds by late 2003, because that's what it will take to match x86 by that time. Kethoticus made a very valid point about feeling the urge to switch to a faster platform, and I'm sure he's not the only one out there feeling that way. I want a fast G5, and I want it TODAY. Yes, I am aware that today is a Saturday. I don't care! TODAY!! Take yer RapidIO and HyperTransport and shove it - even a 100% speed boost on the current G4s will not be nearly enough.

Alex

Here here. If this is true, it's almost a coffin nail.

 

[iH8Quark]

RE: AltiVec will keep Apple ahead

Okay, one last time. AltiVec SUCKS!!!! It's a marketing smoke and mirrors job. Everyone can do this test at home. Run ANY flash movie on a Mac, then run the same flash file on a PC. These are PURE VPU and / or FPU calculations. The PC (ANY PC) will be insanely faster. Yes, FCP 3 is amazing, but Apple DID write it. I would hope that it runs amazingly on their hardware.

AltiVec is a huge part of the problem, it is NOT the solution.

(I promise I will NEVER ever triple post again. Please don't pie me)

 

[Cappy]

Re: RE: AltiVec will keep Apple ahead

Originally posted by iH8Quark
Okay, one last time. AltiVec SUCKS!!!! It's a marketing smoke and mirrors job. Everyone can do this test at home. Run ANY flash movie on a Mac, then run the same flash file on a PC. These are PURE VPU and / or FPU calculations. The PC (ANY PC) will be insanely faster. Yes, FCP 3 is amazing, but Apple DID write it. I would hope that it runs amazingly on their hardware.

AltiVec is a huge part of the problem, it is NOT the solution.

(I promise I will NEVER ever triple post again. Please don't pie me)

You need some help.

You fail to point out where Altivec is a part of the problem in your frustration to state any sort of point. Perhaps you have fallen to the smoke and mirrors of the altivec hype in expecting that it would speed up more than it really can do?

 

[theranch]

Re: RE: AltiVec will keep Apple ahead

Originally posted by iH8Quark
Okay, one last time. AltiVec SUCKS!!!! It's a marketing smoke and mirrors job. Everyone can do this test at home. Run ANY flash movie on a Mac, then run the same flash file on a PC. These are PURE VPU and / or FPU calculations. The PC (ANY PC) will be insanely faster. Yes, FCP 3 is amazing, but Apple DID write it. I would hope that it runs amazingly on their hardware.

AltiVec is a huge part of the problem, it is NOT the solution.

(I promise I will NEVER ever triple post again. Please don't pie me)

Chalk that up to the browser being built into the OS on a PeeCee. Testing systems based on Flash performance is no benchmark comparison. Blame that difference on macromedia or the browser companies. Macs have more horsepower than peecees and that has been proven. Anyway...I read this thread when it was one page long and people are still not getting it. The main story is about servers and it's only a rumor.

 

[dantec]

He has a point though. Alvitec is not the solution. It's the reason we are here in the first place.

Apple originally thought, developers would use the alvitec extensions and therefore moving the highspeed barrier even higher. The shamefull thing, is many Apple things that you do 'not' buy (like FCP) aren't Alvitec enabled.

Hell, I don't even thing QT is alvitec enabled.

Think of it this way: If Apple hadn't switched to G4's with Moto's 'alvitec promise', IBM could have scaled G3's farther, and would have scaled a proper G4, without cache issues which kept it at 500mhz so long.

At this point, since moto is sooo interested in the 'embedded' market, why doesn't Apple contract out AMD to build PPC processors? From what I can put together, they both use the same raw materials, and AMD has more plants that Moto and would have more dedication to Apple. Would AMD have to build new wafers for PPC chips?

 

[Kethoticus]

Servers only?

"Anyway...I read this thread when it was one page long and people are still not getting it. The main story is about servers and it's only a rumor."

Yes, but do you not think that the servers will be an indication of what to expect in the highest end? If these rumors come true for the servers, imagine how much more pathetic the desktops will be. Altho I imagine that the OS 9 part of the rumor is the part that applies to servers specifically. I can not believe that Apple would discontinue installing this mainstay just yet.

But here's to hoping that we have much better things to get from Apple in the coming months.

 

[alex_ant]

Re: Re: RE: AltiVec will keep Apple ahead

Originally posted by Cappy


You need some help.

You fail to point out where Altivec is a part of the problem in your frustration to state any sort of point. Perhaps you have fallen to the smoke and mirrors of the altivec hype in expecting that it would speed up more than it really can do?

I'll help him point it out - I wouldn't say AltiVec sucks, but it is not ideal. It:

1) Requires software developers to re-write the parts of their code suitable for vectorization specifically for AltiVec, a laborious process.

2) Is not compatible with any other common CPU technology. If you want to run AltiVec-optimized code on x86, forget about a simple recompile, unless you don't care that it will run incredibly slowly. This is a problem, because approximately 95% of the desktop computer market uses x86 machines. Of course Apple owns niches outside the desktop computer market, but they are just that: niches. What happens to Apple when it becomes a mere niche player is that it becomes another Amiga.

3) Is only of any use on single-precision floating-point operations. If you want good integer or double-precision float performance with your G4, forget it.

What Apple needs is either 1) an auto-vectorizing compiler (good luck w/ that), or 2) a robust, general-purpose floating point unit to take the place of AltiVec in its machines. AltiVec is a hack only suitable for a limited set of tasks, and the G4's FP performance as it stands is atrocious.

Alex

 

[alex_ant]

Re: Re: RE: AltiVec will keep Apple ahead

Originally posted by theranch

Chalk that up to the browser being built into the OS on a PeeCee. Testing systems based on Flash performance is no benchmark comparison. Blame that difference on macromedia or the browser companies.

First of all, it has nothing to do with the browser being built into the OS, because Flash is a third-party plugin that has nothing to do with how the browser is implemented. I agree that it's not a good benchmark, but it is a good real-world example of what happens when a company writes cross-platform code and implements it on multiple platforms. I'm guessing this is what Macromedia did:

- They wrote a cross-platform browser plugin
- They compiled it once for x86, and once again for PPC

It's not like they would sit there and tweak the hell out of the x86 version while allowing the PPC version to languish, because they need the plugins they deploy to be as compatible and standard among different platforms as possible. The fact that Flash sucks on the Mac is no great conspiracy, it's simply evidence that 1) the G4 is far behind x86 in performance, AltiVec notwithstanding, and/or 2) GCC, the compiler Apple ships with its developers kit (or whatever it's called), sucks. Probably some combination of the two. But don't fool yourself into believing that even the fastest G4 is not currently choking on x86's dust at the moment.

Macs have more horsepower than peecees and that has been proven.

By who, Apple? Pretty much nobody besides the Mac zealots and the brain-damaged believes that Macs generally have more "horsepower" than PCs these days. If you're cracking RC5 or running select Photoshop filters, sure. Under the great majority of other circumstances, there is no comparison.

Alex

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by dantec

At this point, since moto is sooo interested in the 'embedded' market, why doesn't Apple contract out AMD to build PPC processors? From what I can put together, they both use the same raw materials, and AMD has more plants that Moto and would have more dedication to Apple. Would AMD have to build new wafers for PPC chips?

From what I understand, AMD has barely enough manufacturing resources to produce its own chips as it stands. I don't know how keen it would be to manufacture chips for a competitor, considering it would then either have to raise the prices of its Athlons etc. or take a bigger financial hit than it already is.