Please talk me out of this!!!

[yzedf]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
X86 has some good features but if you're going to be running windows, you're wasting your time.

When did I mention Windows? I haven't run that on my personal machine at home since mid-1999 or so.

http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/

http://www.redhat.com/

That is why I was so attracted to OS X. Started using linux back in the 2.2.x kernel days (not that long ago for some, I know), grew to appreciate command line, modules, system changes not requiring reboots, etc. Then I heard that Apple was going to a UNIX-type OS with much of the underpinnings I had started to grow accustomed to. Wham! I like Macs again? That is strange, I have hated them (more or less) since 1991 (newspaper layout class in highschool on Mac). Huh. Now they are kinda cool. And OS X is nicer to look at than the typical windows app / OS is. Wow. iPod looks cool, but too pricey. Refurbs? Cheap? Okay. Now all I need is the iBook to go on a good refurb deal and I am all set

 

[edesignuk]

Re: Power PC?

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
Well, first of all, I would hardly call 10% faster "whipping". But then, everything is relative... As for twice the price, make that about 50% more.

U think it's only 10% faster? With a 800Mhz FSB & faster RAM?
And FYI, for the nearest match in a PowerMac it would cost approx. £2780...a little bit more than 50%, and besides, even if it was just 50%, that's still a MASSIVE price difference....just for an OS?

Is MR breading Mac zealots?

We complain about how PC users wont open their mind to the Mac, it seems many Mac users have the same problem in admiting that right now, PC does have the edge on speed and value.

 

[mattmack]

Originally posted by edesignuk
That argument is getting weaker and weaker


Now, I, like others, still love my Mac, but you just can't argue with this...unless you are a real Zealot

In reality it is not an arguement as much as it is a personal statement. I personally cannot stand the interface that comes with windows. I also can not stand the fact that if I plug a generic card in to a windows machine I might have some hidden conflict that no one could ever predict. The problem is trying to be too much to too many. I much prefer a machine that is built to high standards and hardware that is integrated with the os not seperate from it. Yes I pay more for it, but I know that if I buy another card for my mac that it will 99.9% of the time work flawlessly.

 

[ZeeOwl]

Re: Re: Power PC?

Originally posted by edesignuk
U think it's only 10% faster? With a 800Mhz FSB & faster RAM?
And FYI, for the nearest match in a PowerMac it would cost approx. £2780...a little bit more than 50%, and besides, even if it was just 50%, that's still a MASSIVE price difference....just for an OS?

Is MR breading Mac zealots?

We complain about how PC users wont open their mind to the Mac, it seems many Mac users have the same problem in admiting that right now, PC does have the edge on speed and value.

Yup, about 10% faster. Try out some real-world apps that really push a processor if you don't believe me. Like CineBench 2003. A 3 GHz Pentium needs an 800 MHz FSB to keep it from starving. G4s only run at 1.42 GHz. And even they could use a faster bus.

OK on the price difference. I was using prices here for comparison. Looks like Macs are more expensive in the UK.

Yup, Macs are more expensive than a (speed) comparable PC. And it's mostly for the superior OS and accompanying (and purchaseable) Apple HIS-compliant apps. I think the added fun-factor, productivity gains and lesser headaches are worth the premium price. But if you don't, I won't argue with you As someone else mentioned here, Macs are luxury computers. Sure, a Ford Mustang with a 5 litre engine will out-accelerate the average Mercedes sedan. And they're much cheaper. But does that mean that Fords are a "better buy" than a Mercedes? I think not.

 

[totally_fly]

Re: Re: Re: Power PC?

Sure, a Ford Mustang with a 5 litre engine will out-accelerate the average Mercedes sedan. And they're much cheaper. But does that mean that Fords are a "better buy" than a Mercedes? I think not.

I am all for macs, but I hate this analogy. In what way is a computer the same a car? List similarities, list explanations, but tell me, when you look at a car do you think of a computer?

They are completely different! I can compare myself to a peanut if you want me too.. doesn't mean we are the same and that I can use the fact that I'm similar to a peanut to prove a point.

 

[Cubeboy]

Re: Re: Re: Power PC?

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
Yup, about 10% faster. Try out some real-world apps that really push a processor if you don't believe me. Like CineBench 2003. A 3 GHz Pentium needs an 800 MHz FSB to keep it from starving. G4s only run at 1.42 GHz. And even they could use a faster bus.

Actually most predict we won't see the true benefits of the 800 mhz bus before Prescott (Pentium 5) arrives at significantly higher speeds than the current Pentium 4. The 800 mhz FSB 3 Ghz Pentium 4 is actually clocked slightly slower than the original 533 mhz FSB 3.066 Ghz Pentium 4 which is what was used for the comparisons done by Barefeats and Digital Video Editing etc. Of course, it's quite a bit faster, about the equivalent of a 3.2 Ghz 533 Mhz FSB Pentium 4.

 

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by edesignuk
That argument is getting weaker and weaker

I am about to build myself a kick arse wintel system:

Intel P4 3Ghz w/ 800Mhz FSB + Hyper-Threading (will be able to O/C to at least 3.5Ghz)
Thermaltake Xaser III case w/ 420W PSU
Thermaltake SubZero4G TEC (Thermo Electric Cooling)
Abit IC7-G Mother board
1GB OCZ DDR3500 434Mhz DDR RAM
Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB
120GB SATA150 hard disk
Gb-Ethernet
Pioneer 16x DVD
Plextor 24x BurnProof CD-RW
6.1 Sound

And all for around £1,500. This WILL (for raw speed) whip the dual 1.42Ghz G4 that costs approx. twice the price.

Now, I, like others, still love my Mac, but you just can't argue with this...unless you are a real Zealot

First off... the THING you just specked out isn't windows. You didn't even mention windows. So try reading what I said. Using linux/FreeBSD, yeah that would be a good machine but I switched because windows is a piece of S--- and linux is too hard to maintain for me. However, try this out... Try to sleep in the same bed as that POS It will be noisy and hot I don't care what kind of freon thermal cooling crap you have.

Point is, until Chip/Chipset makers decide that there needs to be a balance between efficiency, the mac is the best choice.

 

[NavyIntel007]

Actually, I read somewhere that if they make processors in excess of 3.5 Ghz, that the computer cases will have to be shielded like a microwave to protect us from the radiation! So not only will it be hot, loud and run up all your power bills but it will eventually kill you... YAAAY PC where do I buy one?!?!!?

edit: A Ford Excursion gets 9 miles per gallon (that sucks) but a VW Golf can get you 32 MPG. Sure you can tow more in an Excursion... but how often are you going to be towing something?

 

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
A Ford Excursion gets 9 miles per gallon (that sucks) but a VW Golf can get you 32 MPG. Sure you can tow more in an Excursion... but how often are you going to be towing something?

It's 50mpg in a TDI Golf like I have. Plus you have the torque to tow stuff.

 

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
It's 50mpg in a TDI Golf like I have. Plus you have the torque to tow stuff.

Oh go back to Fred's TDI Page, and stop gloating about your fuel economy.

 

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
It's 50mpg in a TDI Golf like I have. Plus you have the torque to tow stuff.

I've always heard that the TDI golfs are lacking in power. What do you think?

That might be my next car.

 

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
I've always heard that the TDI golfs are lacking in power. What do you think?

That might be my next car.

Just check out tdiclub.com

Of course there is the possibility of more TDIs coming into the line-up, see Part 5 at

http://www.vwvortex.com/features/index_tdiweek_03.html

don't know where the link is on Fred's

 

[Cubeboy]

Re: Re: Re: Power PC?

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
Yup, about 10% faster. Try out some real-world apps that really push a processor if you don't believe me. Like CineBench 2003.

"real"-world benchmark results from Barefeats Site:

Cinebench 2003 CPU render:
Dual Xeon 2.4 GHz:51 seconds
Pentium 4 3.06: 75 seconds
Dual G4 1.45: 107 seconds

Dual Xeon is over twice as fast as Dual G4 in this benchmark
Pentium 4 3.06 is 43% faster than Dual G4
Pentium 4 3.00 (800 mhz FSB) is around 8% faster than P4 3.06

UT 2003 Botmatch
Dual Xeon 2.4 GHz:63 fps
Pentium 4 3.06: 74 fps
Dual G4 1.45: 29 fps

Dual Xeon is again over twice as fast as Dual G4 in UT2003
Pentium 4 3.06 is over 2.5 times as fast as Dual G4

Quake 3 Arena (maximum settings, stock configuration)
Pentium 4 3.00 (800 mhz fsb): 403 fps (Tom's Hardware score)
Pentium 4 3.06: 375.7 fps (Tom's Hardware score)
Pentium 4 3.06: 300 fps (barefeats score)
Dual Xeon 2.4: 233 fps
Dual G4 1.45: 210 fps

Pentium 4 3.00 (Toms Hardware) is 191% faster than dual G4
Pentium 4 3.06 (Toms Hardware) is 179% faster than dual G4
Pentium 4 3.06 (Barefeat) is 43% faster than dual G4
Dual Xeon 2.4 (Barefeat) is 11% faster than dual G4

As I've mentioned before, a Pentium 4 3.00 (800 mhz fsb) is on average, 8% faster than a Pentium 4 3.066. Just some "real"-world benchmarks.

 

[solvs]

I don't know why I keep clicking on these. I should have gone to Karaoke tonight.

They're just computers people. Buy what you like, whatever works for you. Personally, I use both. I wish Macs were faster or cheaper or both, but they are what they are. If you want a PC, enjoy (ha! yeah right). If you want a Mac, you have to take the good with the bad.

I think we can all agree - M$/Windows sux, Motorola sux.

Hopefully, soon, IBM/Apple can settle this once and forever.

 

[ZeeOwl]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Power PC?

Originally posted by Cubeboy
"real"-world benchmark results from Barefeats Site:

Cinebench 2003 CPU render:
Dual Xeon 2.4 GHz:51 seconds
Pentium 4 3.06: 75 seconds
Dual G4 1.45: 107 seconds

Interesting how Benchmark results vary so much...

Here's the results I've got:
Cinema 4D-XL R7
G4 1.42 GHz DP 33 seconds
Pentium 4 3 GHz 30 seconds

I have Cinebench 2003 results for several Mac models, but unfortunately no Pentium scores to compare them against. But I can't see why they would be much different from the R7 scores, unless Maxon optimized the x86 code, but not the PPC version.

As for the games, I can't comment on them, because fps depends as much on the graphics card as the processor, and I don't know what those test systems were equipped with. Anyways, to me, the important scores are for things like CineBench, Photoshop, video compression, things like that. Games are nice to have, but I doubt the average PowerMac buyer is using his system mostly to play games. That would be a pretty expensive gaming console.

 

[Cubeboy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Power PC?

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
Interesting how Benchmark results vary so much...

Here's the results I've got:
Cinema 4D-XL R7
G4 1.42 GHz DP 33 seconds
Pentium 4 3 GHz 30 seconds

I have Cinebench 2003 results for several Mac models, but unfortunately no Pentium scores to compare them against. But I can't see why they would be much different from the R7 scores, unless Maxon optimized the x86 code, but not the PPC version.

As for the games, I can't comment on them, because fps depends as much on the graphics card as the processor, and I don't know what those test systems were equipped with. Anyways, to me, the important scores are for things like CineBench, Photoshop, video compression, things like that. Games are nice to have, but I doubt the average PowerMac buyer is using his system mostly to play games. That would be a pretty expensive gaming console.

UT Botmatch and Quake 3 are both widely accepted as being very CPU intensive, Botmatch being the more CPU intensive of the two (thus you see such varied results despite that all systems benched used the same video card) which is the reason I included them in the tests. Most people agree that benchmarking using cpu intensive games is a very accurate method of testing the capabilities of a cpu is since, they require strength in multiple aspects of the cpu and their are very few optimizations (SSE2, Altivec) that can be added to a game, unlike video editing/3D rendering. Looking at unoptimized standard benchmarks (spec, linpack, dhrystone, whetstone, cinebench, Pov-Ray) as well as the architectural limits of the G4 itself (i.e G4 has a floating point issue rate of 1 instruction/clock cycle, Athlon has a floating point issue rate of 3 instructions/clock cycle and is clocked significantly higher than G4), the only way the G4 can keep remotely competitive with a Pentium 4 or Athlon is through Altivec optimizations, otherwise simply comparing the capabilities of each core, theirs not much that the G4 has that can stand up to the current Intel and AMD processors.

 

[pgwalsh]

You're all correct

I agree with just about everything everyone here is saying. On both sides.

The arguments should either stress the benefits of OS X vs Windows vs Linux or hardware to hardware.

OS X is clearly a pretty and IMO a superior OS to Windows. OS X is the bomb!.

PC hardware clearly kicks arse over Apple hardware. Apple hardware looks better and that's how it differentiates itself.

For the hardware the performance isn't the only thing that kicks arse. The price of PC hardware is great. Just get quality hardware and you're off.

I laugh when I hear someone say PC's sucks because they run windows. If the PC ran OS X, would it suck? I don't think so, I think it would kick arse. It's all about the OS. Apple uses the same damn parts as a PC the only difference is the chipset and processor. PC processors have a risc backend and most of us know this.

If you think PC hardware sucks go tell that to 90% of the public. Go tell that to the engineers that design it. You think Intel is where it is because it sucks. Wakeup.... That argument is going to get you nowhere. You want to proved the merits of Apple. Prove is on the OS level. That's what sets itself apart from the PC.

 

[edesignuk]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
However, try this out... Try to sleep in the same bed as that POS It will be noisy and hot I don't care what kind of freon thermal cooling crap you have.

It WILL NOT be noisy. Sure you may hear noisy 3Ghz wintels at the local store, wanna know why? Because big brand manufacturers just slap huge, loud fans on them for cooling, they use a regular PSU, and loud case fans, and all to save money so the PC can look an even better buy!
If you take the time to put together your own box you can get a 3Ghz + system running very quietly. Use a GOOD case, with quiet case fans (mine will cost £130, but it'll be worth it), get a GOOD, quiet PSU, and avoid a huge bloody great HSF, there are 2 other very good, easy options....TEC (Thermo Electric Cooling), or water cooling. And don't start talking crap about how this kind of cooling costs the earth, because it doesn't. A good TEC kit can be had for £94.99, and a water cooling kit for £66. Very good to get a near silent cooling system, and both are a dodle to setup.

edit: and BTW, I'll be running XP Po on that speed deamon, and probaly O/C it anywhere up to 4Ghz, depending on cooling (it can and has been done).

 

[ZeeOwl]

Re: You're all correct

Originally posted by pgwalsh
I agree with just about everything everyone here is saying. On both sides.

The arguments should either stress the benefits of OS X vs Windows vs Linux or hardware to hardware.

OS X is clearly a pretty and IMO a superior OS to Windows. OS X is the bomb!.

PC hardware clearly kicks arse over Apple hardware. Apple hardware looks better and that's how it differentiates itself.

For the hardware the performance isn't the only thing that kicks arse. The price of PC hardware is great. Just get quality hardware and you're off.

Lol. Thanks

Obviously I won't argue that top-of-the line PCs are faster (I'm talking raw number crunching here, not OS related performance & layout efficiency) than top-of-the-line Macs. And I'm quite aware that they're much cheaper. If all I cared about was raw speed and price, I'd be writing this on a PC. But to me, what counts most is look & feel, HSI-standard software, stability & reliability, true plug & play, & yeah, I'll admit it, style & fun-factor. Sure I'd like more speed too (for rendering, that's the only place where that would be of any use to me), and more money in my bank account. But I'm not willing to give up all those other things to get it. Of course, that's my personal preference. To each his own

I still hope that the PPC 970 machines are coming out soon though, because I have this huge rendering job scheduled in a few months. hehe

 

[NavyIntel007]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Power PC?

Originally posted by Cubeboy
"real"-world benchmark results from Barefeats Site:

Cinebench 2003 CPU render:
Dual Xeon 2.4 GHz:51 seconds
Pentium 4 3.06: 75 seconds
Dual G4 1.45: 107 seconds

Dual Xeon is over twice as fast as Dual G4 in this benchmark
Pentium 4 3.06 is 43% faster than Dual G4
Pentium 4 3.00 (800 mhz FSB) is around 8% faster than P4 3.06

UT 2003 Botmatch
Dual Xeon 2.4 GHz:63 fps
Pentium 4 3.06: 74 fps
Dual G4 1.45: 29 fps

Dual Xeon is again over twice as fast as Dual G4 in UT2003
Pentium 4 3.06 is over 2.5 times as fast as Dual G4

Quake 3 Arena (maximum settings, stock configuration)
Pentium 4 3.00 (800 mhz fsb): 403 fps (Tom's Hardware score)
Pentium 4 3.06: 375.7 fps (Tom's Hardware score)
Pentium 4 3.06: 300 fps (barefeats score)
Dual Xeon 2.4: 233 fps
Dual G4 1.45: 210 fps

Pentium 4 3.00 (Toms Hardware) is 191% faster than dual G4
Pentium 4 3.06 (Toms Hardware) is 179% faster than dual G4
Pentium 4 3.06 (Barefeat) is 43% faster than dual G4
Dual Xeon 2.4 (Barefeat) is 11% faster than dual G4

As I've mentioned before, a Pentium 4 3.00 (800 mhz fsb) is on average, 8% faster than a Pentium 4 3.066. Just some "real"-world benchmarks.

Dual Xeon dells cost more than the Powermacs... so you shouldn't even be mentioning them.

 

[Cubeboy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Power PC?

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Dual Xeon dells cost more than the Powermacs... so you shouldn't even be mentioning them.

Theirs a reason I posted a Dual Xeon 2.4 Ghz workstation and not a Dual 2.80 or 3.06 Ghz Xeon system, both of which are alot faster than the Dual Xeon 2.4 Ghz (other than conveniece).

Custom Dell Precision Workstation 450:
Dual Xeon 2.4 Ghz with Hyperthreading
512 MB Dual Channel DDR-226
Nvidia Quadro FX 500
48X/24X/48X IDE CD Read-Write Drive
36GB Ultra 320 SCSI Hard Drive (Expensive but extremely fast)
Harmon Kardon 206 Speakers
56K V.92 Data/Fax Modem
1.44MB Floppy Disc Drive
Standard Keyboard
Standard Mouse
Windows XP Professional
Office software

Total Price: $2235

Powermac Ultimate Configuration: $3800
Powemac Fastest Configuration: $2700
Powermac Faster Configuration: $2000
Powermac Fast Configuration: $1500

Let's see, that's cheaper than two of the four powermacs, both Dual 1.42 G4 Powermac models in fact. Every powermac but the ultimate configuration has a relatively cheap Radeon 9000 video card, the slowest model has a even cheaper Geforce4 MX video card, the last two models both have 256 MB Ram and relatively cheap hard drives. With a standard hard drive like what's in the current Powermacs, and slower video card (ATI FireGL E1 which is still far more expensive than even the most expensive consumer video card) I can drop the price down to around $1800. Of course, if you build it yourself it will be still cheaper than that.

 

[NavyIntel007]

It's $3641. You forgot DVD burner and the equivilant sized hard drive. If you're going to try to spec out two machines, all the items must be the same or you're showing bias.

 

[edesignuk]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
It's $3641. You forgot DVD burner and the equivilant sized hard drive. If you're going to try to spec out two machines, all the items must be the same or you're showing bias.

The 36GB SCSI HDD in the Dell would easily be worth that of a 120/200GB IDE drive that the PM's use.

 

[Cubeboy]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
It's $3641. You forgot DVD burner and the equivilant sized hard drive. If you're going to try to spec out two machines, all the items must be the same or you're showing bias.

Listen NavyIntel007, I suggest you do a little research before you post next time. It's obvious you have no idea what your talking about.

The Ultra 360 SCSI hard drive costs at least $100 dollars more than a 120 GB Hard Drive with Databurst cache, it costs at least $200 dollars more than the standard 80 GB hard drive. Well, we're really racking up the costs now aren't we?

The Quadro FX costs around $450, thats far more than a Radeon 9000 pro (the pc version costs around $80) or a Radeon 9700 pro (the PC version costs around $250).

If you really want a DVD drive thats an extra $60. .

No, if I *really* wanted Powermac specs I'd save $370 dollars on the video card, $200 dollars on the hard drive, and if I really wanted to compare it with the low end powermacs, $119 dollars on the ram, and thats still dual channel DDR. Thats a total of $690 dollars in savings for "powermac specs" add 60$ for the dvd drive. What does that bring our new total to? $1635, woohoo, with "powermac" specs, the 2.4 GHz Dual Xeon workstation now costs $1635. Special thanks goes to mr NavyIntel 007 for that wonderous display of ignorance.

 

[illumin8]

Originally posted by macphoria
Why on earth would you want to waste your money on 32bit machine when 64bit machine is just around the corner?

Because I don't have a use for more than 4GB of RAM for quite some time. 1GB of RAM should do me just fine for the next year or so, and if it starts to get a little slow I can cheaply upgrade to 2GB or 4GB.