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

Poll:MWSF

Re: For all the G3 vs G4 talk in here...

Kethoticus>What I think SHOULD be at MWSF2002...

...not what I think will be, since there is NO way to know that. (And expecting wonderful
things at a MWExpo can be hazardous to one's emotional health.)

I know the feeling. It's part annoyance (`so when's it going to come out
then?') and part disappointment.

a) Redesigned iMac. Really should include a larger monitor of at least 17", LCD or CRT. It
is loooooong overdue to bury this 15" crap.

Agreed. 15" monitors are old hat. 17" is the new baseline.

b) More X-compatible apps, like FCP and Photoshop.

Agreed, and there will be a constant stream of these, rather than just being
announced at expos etc.

c) At least 7460s, if not 8500s, in all new "professional" boxes. It is time we broke the
GHz clock speed barrier, whether or not it makes a significant, real-world difference.

Hrmm. I wouldn't want Apple to release 1.0 - 1.13 GHz processors as it gives the
impression that Apple is only just sneaking over the line (particularly if
shipment is delayed for some reason). I'd rather see ~1.3 Ghz G4s at the top end
of the G4 line (assuming Apple doesn't release the G5 in January, which I
doubt).

d) DDR-RAM mobos.
e) 1394b.

Shoe-ins. (Shoes-in? :p)

f) ATA-100 in iMacs, ATA-133 in higher-end models.

I hardly think it makes a difference.

g) Geforce3 standard in all higher-end Macs, Geforce2 or Radeon in iMacs.

Agreed. Apple needs to shore up their video performance. Making sure the
customers have the choice between the latest ATi and nVidia offerings wouldn't
hurt.

h) Audio-in (again).

*scratch* Did apple remove 16-bit audio-in?

i) Minor revisions to the laptop line, including:
1- speed-bumps (yes, again);
2- better graphics acceleration options;
3- fix that keyboard problem in the iBooks;
I believe all of the above are overdue, and none should fail to make their debut this
upcoming January.

Agreed, waiting for well-overdue things is majorly annoying. Personally the G5
is the acid test for me. If the G5 isn't what it's shaping up to be, screw this,
I'll build a PC.



Kethoticus> Joey...

...let me commend you on your patience with Spikey. You didn't lower yourself once to
respond with the same crudeness he used in his posts. I'm not sure I agree (or understand)
with everything you posted, but nothing of yours that I read deserved that kind of a
response.

Thankyou. [ /me looks down and admires the grass on the moral high ground :cool: ]



Kethoticus> For all the G3 vs G4 talk in here... ....let's not forget one
thing: whether or not the consumer "needs" altivec to accelerate their most-used
apps is irrelevant. They need it to accelerate OS X's quartz drawing engine.

*clap* *clap*

I was going to raise precisely the same point w/Spikey, but I didn't as I wasn't
sure as to the extent of Altivec optimizations that could be made; not
everything can be optimized.



And to conclude, points I should clarify:


spikey> you know aswell as i do i meant Graphics appz not graphics,

... these go a whole lot faster thanks to Altivec.


spikey> [some G3 400 mhz bus thing]

Now how much do you think 400 MHz DDR is going to cost, hrmm? Sort of undoes the
cost benefit of the G3 don't you think?
 
DDR thing

400 MHz bus and DDR is not as high as it once was, but if we don't get that flat pnael lcd in the imac, then apple might get that new G3 AND G4 into the imacs if we get something like a short necked CRT, which also would be cool

...i would buy one and it would fit my needs since i am not a high end graphics person or someone who absolutely has to travel on airplanes

i like the idea of a G4 in the imac even though my needs as a mac user are truly modest
 
Ketohticas or some greek cr*p like that.
I dont give a flying f*ck as to what you think of my language, because as thayli pointed out i do occasionally have some good points.
Stop being such a f*cking prude you d*ckhead, its conservative little f*cks like you that hold back society.
 
As far as the argument goes joey i agree on some things and not others.

The quartz drawing engine, yeah fine. but i doubt that would constitute as a huge difference in speed for the average consumer.

I think this debate will only be finished when the G3 and 7460 are launched.

Then we will see whether the average consumer appz are more effective with with the G3 or the 7460.

I believe the the G3 will be faster, and cheaper. DDR RAM wouldtn cost a hell of alot more.
 
And as for the ammount of altivec appz compared to the amount of non altivec.
I just dont think there is.

this convo can only be finished when both cpus are released. then we can see the performance difference, price difference, etc.

 
spikey> I think this debate will only be finished when the G3 and 7460 are
launched. Then we will see whether the average consumer appz are more effective
with with the G3 or the 7460. I believe the the G3 will be faster, and cheaper.

No member of the G3 has shown to be faster in floating point operations than the
G4. In integer ops the two are virtually tied. What makes you think the FX will
be different? The 7460 is nearly a 7450 anyway so I believe that a 750CX/CXe vs.
7450 comparison can be extrapolated to an FX vs. 7460 comparison. As i said,
integer performance is similar so no major win either way. The G4 has way
superior float and Altivec. They both have upwardly mobile clockspeeds and low
power consumption. On this basis I recommend the G4 for the future iMacs.


> DDR RAM wouldtn cost a hell of alot

At 400 Mhz? It doesn't exist yet. RAM fabs are hoping to ride out the slump
(like most companies ride out most slumps) on higher margin items. DDR 333 is
only just coming out of the fabs now. Forget the price, i'm wondering if apple's
going to be able to _get_ it.


> And as for the ammount of altivec appz compared to the amount of non
altivec. I just dont think there is.

Marginalizing Altivec's consumer presence isn't going to help it. The fact of
the matter is that there are many consumer uses for altivec and there are
already altivec enhanced apps. Given time there will be even more. So I fail to
see the logic in disposing of altivec so this non-existent G3 performance
advantage can be realised.


> this convo can only be finished when both cpus are released. then we can see
the performance difference, price difference, etc.

The 7460 is just a G4 and the FX is just a G3. Don't expect any major surprises.
[Has apple committed to using IBM's 750FX yet?]
 
But that is just not the point i am making.

Its not the performance gains of the G3.
Its the fact that if the 7460 is closely based on the G4 it will not scale the clock speeds well, or it will encounter a problem in its design which will prevent iot from scaling easily.
IBM puts more moeny into developing chips than motorola, so if they do come across a problem then they should be able to solve it faster.
The value for money factor is most important in an imac seeing as its a consumer machine, I dont believe a 1.3Ghz G4 will be cheap enough compared to a 1Ghz G3.
and when it comes to non altivec appz the G3 does a very decent job of things.
As for DDR, i based my assumption onm the fact that 266Mhz DDR wasnt hellishly more expensive than normal SDRAM.
 
I would recomment the G3 because i dont think a consumer needs altivec, i think a G3 is fast enough for a consumer, i think it would be cheaper, right now the imac is way overpriced so it NEEDS a cheaper chip, i think it would offer great value for money, i think the 400Mhz bus would be a great selling point, and i would rather have IBM behind apple than motorola going by the recent past.

But i do agree that the G4 would be a faster chip.
 
and the fact that while the G4 might be at 1.33 Ghz,
the G3 would have a 400Mhz bus. And the fact that bus speed is one of the biggest bottlenecks in a system would give it quite a big advantage/selling factor.
 
I'd just like to point out that with a product like the iMac the marketing comes into play pretty heavily, probably even more than performance.
Another incarnation of the imac2 as a G3 machine will have the press calling it a reskinned iMac, a G4 iMac2 will be something new all together. What Apple really needs is to breathe new life into the iMac and regain the mass market sales the original iMac saw.

Oh, and before you start saying that a 1.3ghz would be smarter marketing than a 1ghz G4 I would like to point out that Apple has always marketed capabilities over numbers. A G4 iMac2 would be capable of running FCP, iDVD, even DVD studio pro. That would sell a hell of a lot more machines than 1ghz v 1.3ghz. Remember it needs to be the center of your digital hub.
 
True yeah.

But there are disadvantages to marketing when it comes to putting a G4 in an imac.
The problem with the imac right now is that it needs to be reduced in price by about £200. I dont see how putting a 1.3Ghz G4 in it will do the job.
Macs need to come down in price, price is a huge selling point of PCs over macs.

 
Come here Spikester!

From your angry little heart you typed:

"Ketohticas or some greek cr*p like that.
I dont give a flying f*ck as to what you think of my language, because as thayli pointed out i do occasionally have some good points.
Stop being such a f*cking prude you d*ckhead, its conservative little f*cks like you that hold back society."

My Lord. I didn't realize that by learning to express myself in a more adult manner I was holding back the whole of society. But I guess that in order to justify your tirade, that was the best you could come up with.

But you know what Spike-aroo? I think you need a hug! Come here! That's right. Eeeeaaasssyyy boy. It's okay. That's right. Let it out. I'm here for you. I understand your pain. There's no shame in a man crying. Now wait... don't get snot on my shirt... here's a kleenex...

Now Spike, I want you to do something for me, okay? Okay?? (Spikey humbly nods.) Good. Do you see that mirror over there? I want you to look at yourself. Yes Spikey, you must look at yourself. I know it's hard, but I'm your friend, so you need to trust me, okay? Good. Now look at that mirror. What do you see? Yes... lol... you see a Spikey... that's true... but I'll tell you what else you see: you see someone who's good enough, who's smart enough... and doggonit, people like you!

Now say that over to yourself over and over again every day so that you can learn to see the beautiful person that lies beneath all that spikiness.
 
wow

do you also give full body massages to the macrumors community, too

[Edited by jefhatfield on 11-20-2001 at 05:28 PM]
 
re: Full-body massages

Jeff wrote:

"do you also give full body massages to the macrumors community, too"

I need to be slapped. Touch my monkey! LOVE HIM!! TOUCH MY MONKEEYY!!!


(Um... I hope you understand that this is not a statement of my truest desires but rather a playing with certain SNL material.)
 
Didn't you just tell him to "Never Assume"? If we are not to make any assumptions then Jef's question is legitimate, and I still believe that you are a reincarnation of a previous or current poster.
__________________
Assume everything unless proven otherwise.
 
spikey> But that is just not the point i am making. Its not the performance
gains of the G3.

Hrmm, well, that's good, considering there _are_ no performance gains to be had
from the G3.


> Its the fact that if the 7460 is closely based on the G4 it will not scale
the clock speeds well, or it will encounter a problem in its design which will
prevent iot from scaling easily.

You're making two points out of one. Anyway the 74xx series only needs to scale
to (max) ~2 GHz, by then Apple can switch the iMacs to the G5 while the G6 hits
the market.


> IBM puts more moeny into developing chips than motorola,

... they put more money into developing POWER. Their PPC commitment is way
behind Moto's.


> so if they do come across a problem then they should be able to solve it
faster.

... so given that the G4 is the problem-ridden architecture, just let IBM fab it
while Apple solves the problems. Moto's G4 design isn't hampered by their
engineers, it's their fabs, the G4 is a horrendously complex processor as it
would appear.


> The value for money factor is most important in an imac seeing as its a consumer machine,
> I dont believe a 1.3Ghz G4 will be cheap enough compared to a 1Ghz G3.

Go to http://www.mot-sps.com and actually CHECK OUT the volume pricing (i remember
seeing it here, it was buried way in the site somewhere). There's hardly
anything to save, unless you want to sacrifice 40%+ of your float performance to
save ~$20-30 max.


> and when it comes to non altivec appz the G3 does a very decent job of things.

... only in integer. In float it gets thrashed by the G4. And as i've repeatedly
justified, the consumer needs altivec.


> I would recomment the G3 because i dont think a consumer needs altivec,


How many times do I need to justify Altivec's benefit to the consumer?


> i think a G3 is fast enough for a consumer,

It needs altivec and better float --> G4.


> i think it would be cheaper,

Apple would hardly save anything. Apple has a ~30% gross profit margin on Macs
(this is why they're so expensive). Apple needs to fund R&D.

> right now the imac is way overpriced so it NEEDS a cheaper chip,

Once again, Apple would only save a few bucks while reducing performance
drastically.


> i think it would offer great value for money, i

> think the 400Mhz bus would be a great selling point,

Not really. How many of these `average consumers' you speak of know what a FSB
is? Do any whitebox stores you know of or brand-name vendors push the 400 mhz
FSB of the P4s they produce?


> and i would rather have IBM behind apple than motorola going by the recent past.

Apple needs to design the PPC by itself. Optimally they should buy the IP from
Moto and spin it off into a joint venture with IBM (IBM could contribute their
POWER IP and engineers).


> and the fact that while the G4 might be at 1.33 Ghz, the G3 would have a 400Mhz bus.

... if it's such a big deal, then Apple would use a 400 mhz fsb on the G4s. Bus
multipliers don't hamper performance until we get past 6x or so.


> And the fact that bus speed is one of the biggest
bottlenecks in a system would give it quite a big advantage/selling factor.

All you're suggesting is that Apple shuffle the bottleneck somewhere else.


> True yeah.
But there are disadvantages to marketing when it comes to putting a G4 in an imac.
The problem with the imac right now is that it needs to be reduced in price by about £200.
I dont see how putting a 1.3Ghz G4 in it will do the job.

You think that putting a G3 rather than a G4 would save 200 quid? Try 20 max.


> Macs need to come down in price, price is a huge selling point of PCs over macs.

Apple sells their machines on capability. A person who cares more about price
doesn't care about the capabilities of their box, they already know what they
want to run on it. Telling them what they _can_ do on an imac won't change them.
 
i am with you, let's get that G4 imac out

and i am not a child, but what is a monkey...i promise i won't get offended

and i passed spikey up with this post asking about monkeys?
 
unresolved issues

a) I'm not a revirtualization of any previous poster. This is my first foray into these particular fora.

b) "Monkey" is colloquial for penis. It comes from a Saturday Night Live character invented by Michael Myer called "Dieter". He's an ultra-queer, new wave German guy into all sorts of bizarre stuff. Seems to enjoy both the giving and receiving of pain, among other things.

c) I don't really believe you (Jef) are a child. All part of the joke.

d) I love you guys.
 
"spikey> But that is just not the point i am making. Its not the performance
gains of the G3.

Hrmm, well, that's good, considering there _are_ no performance gains to be had
from the G3. "

irrelevant to the point i was making. Irrelevant to the point you were making. thats a bo***cks reply that says nothing.



"> Its the fact that if the 7460 is closely based on the G4 it will not scale
the clock speeds well, or it will encounter a problem in its design which will
prevent iot from scaling easily.

You're making two points out of one. Anyway the 74xx series only needs to scale
to (max) ~2 GHz, by then Apple can switch the iMacs to the G5 while the G6 hits
the market. "

I wasnt making two points out of one, i was making two points using the same subject.
Scale to a max of 2Ghz???
Going by the performance of the 7450 you expect it to scale from 1.33 Ghz to 2Ghz???
I assume you are going by past record because there is nothing else to go by.
You didnt reply with a an argument at all to my comment on scaling clock speeds.



"> IBM puts more moeny into developing chips than motorola,

... they put more money into developing POWER. Their PPC commitment is way
behind Moto's. "

What??? this is madness. They put more money and commitment into developing cpus than any other company, its a fact.
What made you think IBM got apple out of the 500Mhz dead end that motorola got them into?



"> so if they do come across a problem then they should be able to solve it
faster.

... so given that the G4 is the problem-ridden architecture, just let IBM fab it
while Apple solves the problems. Moto's G4 design isn't hampered by their
engineers, it's their fabs, the G4 is a horrendously complex processor as it
would appear. "

firstly you think that IBM would want to do that?
they are a huge company that puts mega amounts of money into developing CPUs, so you think they will let Motorola design a cpu that IBM are expected to build?
Secondly it is the over complex design of the G4 that hampers its performance, if you look at its design you will see alot of the problems encountered have been due to altivec. Hence why it doesnt matter who fabs it, if the design in the first place is troubled then you will always encounter problems.
and no-one said that the G4 is a problem ridden architecture, you cant just assume that. You can only tell its problem ridden until you try to improve it.




"> I would recomment the G3 because i dont think a consumer needs altivec,


How many times do I need to justify Altivec's benefit to the consumer? "

Well how many to you f***ing think?
this is a debate, in a debate you try to p[rove yor points. you have not proven them, you have only stated your opinion, which conflicts with mine.




"> i think it would offer great value for money, i

> think the 400Mhz bus would be a great selling point, "

Not really. How many of these `average consumers' you speak of know what a FSB
is? Do any whitebox stores you know of or brand-name vendors push the 400 mhz
FSB of the P4s they produce? "

None, the sellers of P4 machines concentrate on Clock speed of the cpu, if they advertised the bus speed it would only confuse the consumer and it would detract from the appeal of high clock speed.
On a mac though it would not detract, it would be a bragging point.




"> and i would rather have IBM behind apple than motorola going by the recent past.

Apple needs to design the PPC by itself. Optimally they should buy the IP from
Moto and spin it off into a joint venture with IBM (IBM could contribute their
POWER IP and engineers). "

But the fact is no-one knows if this is going to happen, so right now its all make believe. The best option would be that, but of the options available rioght now IBM is the way to go as i have stated.



"> and the fact that while the G4 might be at 1.33 Ghz, the G3 would have a 400Mhz bus.

... if it's such a big deal, then Apple would use a 400 mhz fsb on the G4s. Bus
multipliers don't hamper performance until we get past 6x or so. "

you think IBM would let out a technology like that on a motorola product???
Madness, it aint gonna happen.



"> And the fact that bus speed is one of the biggest
bottlenecks in a system would give it quite a big advantage/selling factor.

All you're suggesting is that Apple shuffle the bottleneck somewhere else. "

What the hell???
he bottleneck isnt a constant throughout the system.
There are several of them, getting rid of one of the biggest would increase performance alot.




"> Macs need to come down in price, price is a huge selling point of PCs over macs.

Apple sells their machines on capability. A person who cares more about price
doesn't care about the capabilities of their box, they already know what they
want to run on it. Telling them what they _can_ do on an imac won't change them."

wrong. The biggest and best way to tap into the Pc market is to give valuye for money. That is the while point of capability of a machine, you get more capability for less price. Hence why value for money is the way to tap into the PC market.



One of the most important facts about this debate is not what a cpu can do, but what future it has. about 2 years ago apple went with the G4. And it was a great processor of its time, one of the best if not the best. But it had no future and ultimately has put apple in the s**t.
The mistake they made then is not looking at the long term effects. If they go with a motorola design again which is based on the original G4 then they are asking for the same kind of trouble. If they go with IBM then they are going with a design that could kill many PCs, but more importantly will give apple a future.

IBM put money into developing for the future, motorola have not and do not. infact they havent commited to the powerpc nearly as much as IBM have offered to.

Oh, and this 750FX is meant to have altivec like accelaration. so it ouwldnt be that far off the new G4. Or not nearly as much as the current 750cx is.




 
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