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

Please tell me this G5 isn't really this slow...

I use both Macs and PCs on a daily basis...

I have to say that as a personal computer and for certain tasks such as creating DVDs and editing Video, I would only choose a Mac. I love Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio Pro, and I simply love the OS X gui and everything that goes with it.

HOWEVER

I have yet to find a Mac that runs the highend DCC apps I use on a daily basis as quickly as a PC. This includes Maya, After Effects (and now Combustion), and Shake (2.5 is still faster on Windows and Linux). And typically a high-end Mac costs much more than a high-end PC!

At the last studio I worked at we had several 1 ghz dual G4's. In most cases they weren't as fast as a single Athlon 2 ghz and were decidedly slower with all tasks next to the comparitavely-priced dual 3.06 ghz Xeons.

I really hope this will change with the G5, because I really am looking at this from the objective position that I want as much speed as possible. Working on 10- and 16-bit 2K images all day long is not fun when you're always sitting around waiting on things to update for those many tasks where you can't get by using lower resolution proxy images.

On the other hand, Combustion 3 is slated to come out many months after the PC version. The Mac doesn't have the workstation-class video cards (ATI FireGL, Nvidia Quadro) to compete with the PC when running Maya. So for now, we're going to go with Linux workstations for the real high-end stuff and for rendering, as we've observed many memory issues with Windows.

Thanks for the help, guys! We may upgrade to the dual 2 ghz G5 in a few weeks because we're confident that the Apple applications (DVDSP, FCP, Shake) will no-doubt run much faster on the G5 over the G4. Besides, this thing is just so darn cool and is so quiet!
 
As a final note...

I just tested Afer Effects 6 and it will play the frames at full-speed after it renders them to RAM. Weird. I guess Combustion is really just not made to run well on the Mac at this point.
 
Optimized software soon to catch up with G5 speedy capabilities

jrapczak

Options for video cards at the Apple Store for a dual 2GHz G5 go beyond the Standard configuration of 64MB of DDR SDRAM in an ATI Radeon 9600 Pro.
$300 gets you an Advanced ATI Radeon 9800 Pro with a 128 MB DDR SDRAM frame buffer featuring both ADC and DVI ports.

In the software area, did you notice how quickly Adobe came out with a simple plug-in for Photoshop optimization on the new G5, and without having to wait for a whole new version? Some software upgrades may follow Adobe's path, while others will stutter step the update into their next version already scheduled for release - like combustion3.

The hardware pros tell me that there is plenty of un-tapped speed and capability already designed deep within the G5 chip - well beyond clock speed, 64-bit, AltiVec technology currently utilized by Apple engineers. It has to do with the way IBM designed the chip for mass broadband throughput for its servers.

Think of it this way - instead of 2 inch copper tubes these pathways are the size of vehicular tunnels with two lanes of traffic going in and out of the main chip simultaneously without ever having to resort to L1, L2 or L3 cache. Nothing slows these babies down.

Two things have to happen to tap this asset,
(1) redesign of the OS beyond Panther (word is - Apple is already working on it with IBM) and
(2) more complete implementation within each application designed for OS X running on a G5.

With the dramatic boost in G5 architectural design of bus speed, SDRAM DDR400 speed memory chips, fast PCI-X slots (old PCI boards won't work, so we have to wait until our favorite PCI board is "X" rated), and much faster ATI drives, fiber optic PCI board for RAID server connectivity, optical digital audio ports, and FireWire800 (USB 2.0, finally) Apple has removed a large number of self-limiting and previously self-defeating bottlenecks.

Never since the mid-1980's have I been so excited about an Apple platform technological evolution, except for the jump from Motorola 68040 chips into the PPC 601, then the shift from OS 9.2.2 into OS X. But Apple's combination of G5 with Panther OS X are really HUGE compared to any of these other changes.

I believe from what I've already seen and heard that an underlying burst of performance from the G5's existing chip design will be significantly greater than any 50% incremental clock speed increase to 2.8 or 3.0 GHz by the end of 2004. If so, there will be a relation back speedwise to all G5 chips simply through optimization of the G5 chips hardware design in updates and upgrades of the OS. Part of this comes from IBM assuring Apple several years ago that utilization of AltiVec technology in the future PPC chip we now know as the G5 was not really necessary because of the wealth of capability already designed into the chip. IBM reluctantly agreed to re-design their chip to include AltiVec for Apple even though they felt it was unncessary if Apple would only exploit existing capabilities. Apple's point was that AltiVec was already optimized in extant versions of software.

I predict that Apple engineers (soft & hard) will begin to pay increasingly greater attention to IBM over the next 14 months as the next PPC chip is developed. Has anyone ever wondered why IBM has been so seemingly unconcerned about clock speed while focusing more on throughput for their own servers?

Maybe success of the Virginia Tech NODE of 1,100 dual G5 PPC chips forming a cohesive supercomputer cluster will wake Apple up. They are NOT using OS X.

What does their new director, who used to run the U. of San Diego's supercomputer department, know about these IBM server chips - housed within a super quiet and super efficient cooling box - that Apple apparently does not understand? Are they listening to IBM better than Apple has while running their cluster using their own UNIX program?

My bet is that the cat will be out of the bag about the time Apple starts releasing Xserv units with dual G5 chips that are housed in much smaller size boxes than the current towers. Bet they sell like firecrackers just before the 4th of July.

But the real question is - how long will IBM sit on their hands watching the academic and business world put Apple G5 clusters together to make a single supercomputer at a very competitive market price without jumping into the very lucrative server market using their own PPC server chip coming out of their new 3-billion dollar state-of-the-art plant?

I'd give almost anything to be able to read Apple's 3, 5 and 10 year plan, and the same for IBM's.

Planning. Don't forget, IBM dumped their hard drive division because this current technology has nearly peaked out. Fast, large capacity CompactFlash type chips are the memory modules of the future. Fast and cheap is the key. They can already make large, but until 7,200 rpm Hard Drive 100 MBps fast, what's the point?

Keep watching Lexar Media, Inc.
http://www.lexarmedia.com/
4GB 40x Pro USB aware CompactFlash chip (40X=6.0MB/sec.)
cost $1,308 at
http://shop.macconnection.com/web/Shopping/SearchNav.htm?Platform=M

In about 1978, a 10" Winchester hard drive cost $15,000 for 15MB of memory; it was oh so slow, but super fast compared to the then state of the art 8" floppies.

That's $1,000 per 1-MB!

Today, we pay $1.00 per 1,000 MB for an 80GB 7,200 rpm 8.9ms Ultra ATA-100 with 8MB buffer. After mfg. rebate, 80 GB = $80 at Fry's Electronics come holiday sales.

25 years ago, I laughed at an IBM (3-piece) suit who tried to sell me one of their venerable punch card machines. Instead, I bought a SAVIN Wordmaster 900 memory typewriter using computer quality audio style (like music) cassettes and a tethered IBM Selectric for input (typing) and output (printing). One cassette = 20 typewritten (double spaced) pages - $10. You could have as many Memory Cassettes as you needed, or could afford.
It stopped for me to insert variables. I was in "computer" heaven.

Anyone want to guess how long before we can buy a
100GB CompactFlash card rated at 100 MBps transfer 10ns instant access for $100 from MacConnection?

JVC and Panasonic already have plans to put them in their HiDef video cameras instead of DV tape as soon as they are economically feasible. They patiently wait for memory chip techology to catch up.
That's going to be far better random access memory than a DVD-R type disc.
Transfer time - how long does it take you to remove a chip (or group of them) from a video camera and plug them into a Lexar Pro CompactFlash reader? No linear tape download time.
The camera already loaded the video onto memory using MPEG-2, MPEG-4, DV, or QuickTime 6, depending on the button the cameraman selected before "filming". No rendering or conversion necessary. Ready to edit.

Bet on Lexar and IBM already having a pretty good idea. If someone knows, please tell us. :p
 
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