The New G4 and the New P4

[rice_web]

Well, let's take a look at potentials (much is rumored):

PowerMac
- The New 7470
- .13m Manufacturing
- Silicon On Insulator
- 166MHz System Bus
- 333MHz DDR Memory
- 512K L2 Cache
- 4MB L3 Cache
- Could Scale To 2GHz

Pentium 4
- .13m Manufacturing
- 133MHz System Bus (533MHz Effective)
- Up To 1066MHz RDRAM
- 512K L2 Cache
- No L3 Cache
- Could Scale To 4GHz

But, let's take a look at an estimated/rumored timeline:

August
- G4: 1.4-1.5GHz
- P4: 2.6 & 2.8GHz

Holiday Season
- G4: 1.6-1.8GHz
- P4: 3GHz

Mid-Winter / Early Spring
- G4: 2GHz
- P4: 3.4GHz

So, when I look at it, it appears as though the G4 could be catching up with the Pentium 4. Keep in mind that Apple would likely be offering a dual processor configuration of their PowerMacs, which would give Apple a marketing edge, and possibly a performance edge as well. If Apple marketed a dual-1.5GHz G4 PowerMac as a PowerMac G4 3000+ (or something to that effect), then Apple could once again be performance king. It's unlikely, but it is possible.

 

[JonD]

I don't like counting chickens before they've hatched. I'm still waiting for Apple to release the new G4s; only then will I be speculating on things further down the road.

 

[Gena]

could someone on this thread please tell me if i can connect a G4 1ghz to 2 displays, and thus double my screen space (rather than mirror the 1) with the graphics or video card that comes installed? or is there something special i need in order to do that. im about to purchase, and i need to iron this out.

thanks --

 

[alex_ant]

1.8GHz G4s by Christmas? Sounds a little farfetched to me. Seriously, we'll be lucky if we have a 1.8GHz chip by NEXT Christmas. Here's a more realistic timeline:

August
- G4: 1-1.2GHz
- P4: 2.6 & 2.8GHz

Holiday Season
- G4: 1.2-1.4GHz
- P4: 3GHz

Mid-Winter / Early Spring
- G4: 1.4-1.6GHz
- P4: 3.4GHz

Spring / Early Summer
- G5+: 1.6GHz-2.4GHz
- P4: 4GHz

A 2.4GHz G5+, according to early SPEC scores, will beat a 4GHz P4 in performance. Optimistically, I think Apple will be back in the ring again before next MWNY.

Alex

 

[theranch]

dual display

Originally posted by Gena
could someone on this thread please tell me if i can connect a G4 1ghz to 2 displays, and thus double my screen space (rather than mirror the 1) with the graphics or video card that comes installed? or is there something special i need in order to do that. im about to purchase, and i need to iron this out.

thanks --

I believe that the card that comes in that model can support two monitors (not mirrored) http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APP...e.woa/101/wo/PSlji0oSvPjJ6ymStZ3/2.7.0.3.34.1
From that page..."Dual Display. Each card offers built-in dual display support in two useful modes. Extended Desktop mode allows users to work on two monitors at once for increased desktop real-estate (and increased productivity)."

 

[rice_web]

1.8GHz this Fall would be optimistic, but given the 7470s 12 pipeline stages, I don't think that it's that far outside the realm of possibility.

 

[alex_ant]

But Apple doesn't like to release new Power Macs more often than every 6 months. That would mean Q1 2003 before there are 1.8GHz G4s, unless the next round of Power Macs that's due doesn't get released until later than this August.

 

[RogueLdr]

What about the Xserve?

Curious,

Since Apple just recently released their rack-mount server, which should by all rights be the highest on the food chain in regards to raw processing power, does an imminent speed bump on the PowerMac line mean that early adopters of the Xserve will be harmed by a simultaneous release of even higher powered pro servers? Doesnt it seem that Apple would want their server line to be MORE than competitive with their pro line (at least AS fast as the PowerMac) ?

RL

 

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by alex_ant
But Apple doesn't like to release new Power Macs more often than every 6 months. That would mean Q1 2003 before there are 1.8GHz G4s, unless the next round of Power Macs that's due doesn't get released until later than this August.

or perhaps a much needed quantum leap for g4

but do we need to catch up in clock speed after we surpass 1.4 ghz? consumers will most likely be jaded once the pc world hits 3 ghz

1 ghz was a big deal for any computer and the 2 ghz mark was much less celebrated, so by the time wintels hit 3 ghz, they better have some great features to make me buy a pc over a mac

for most people's purposes, this christmas season's macs will be enough whether it's at 1.2 ghz or 1.5 ghz

hopefully, speed won't be the issue in 2003 and people will look at overall value...that is where the mac excels with their clean os and sturdy hardware

i have to admit that dell and compaq have upped their quality in the pc world but still are not as good as toshiba, sony, or a high end machine like an alien

 

[alex_ant]

Re: What about the Xserve?

Originally posted by RogueLdr
Curious,

Since Apple just recently released their rack-mount server, which should by all rights be the highest on the food chain in regards to raw processing power, does an imminent speed bump on the PowerMac line mean that early adopters of the Xserve will be harmed by a simultaneous release of even higher powered pro servers? Doesnt it seem that Apple would want their server line to be MORE than competitive with their pro line (at least AS fast as the PowerMac) ?

RL

Yeah, that's a good question... I don't know, we'll have to see how long of a product cycle Steve is content with for the Xserve. Will he not want to update them more frequently than every 6 months? If not, maybe a price drop will be in order.

 

[Apple][Forever]

Re: What about the Xserve?

Originally posted by RogueLdr
Curious,

Since Apple just recently released their rack-mount server, which should by all rights be the highest on the food chain in regards to raw processing power, does an imminent speed bump on the PowerMac line mean that early adopters of the Xserve will be harmed by a simultaneous release of even higher powered pro servers? Doesnt it seem that Apple would want their server line to be MORE than competitive with their pro line (at least AS fast as the PowerMac) ?

RL

Actually, most servers don't beat desktops in terms of raw processor power. For example, look at Dell's 1U and 2U rack servers- they have 1 to 1.4 GHz PIII processors. Even their monster 7U server only has 700-900 MHz PIII chips inside. OK, so they're Xeons, and there's 8 of them...

Where servers differ from desktop machines is (usually) primarily in failsafe storage and power options, in storage thoroughput and size, and in chipset.

 

[-hh]

Really pathetic

Hate to say it, but I really have to be pessimistic about the G4/G5 hardware prospects.

My old 8600 is really long in the tooth, despite all its upgrades, and its getting more and more overdue for replacement. Overall I'd have to say that the main reason that I haven't bought a new Mac is because their Towers have been downright embarassing in the hardware/TECH department.

As far as I'm concerned, come this August, Apple has to push the entire Power Mac (Tower) product line over 1Gz, or remain an embarassment. And 1.0, 1.2 & 1.4 won't really be enough of a spread to cut the mustard to justify the prices that they'll ask, although it is about as much MHZ as I'd personally expect.

On the whole, I'm beginning to think that I'll just buy the iMac instead. But I also know that I could covert to M$ (like we had to at work) and pick up as little as a 1.2Gz Celeron (that are now going for a mere $600), buy all new software licences and still have money left over. Makes it a hard choice for a home user, regardless of how much one dislikes M$.


-hh

 

[jefhatfield]

Re: Really pathetic

Originally posted by -hh
Makes it a hard choice for a home user, regardless of how much one dislikes M$.


-hh

it was even worse when microsoft owned a chunk of apple and it looked like they were going to move in

but they dumped the apple stock before it tanked

the celeron at $600 is not exactly strong on cache on the processor so it's 1.2 ghz is not as fast as the imac you are thinking about

but apple does need to raise clock speed on their models to sell well and also lower prices

their margins may be good, but that is not good if their sales number and market share are low

perhaps it is apple's strategy for now to stay small and wait for a better economic time in high tech to start a serious effort to grow again like the late-90s and get back beyond five percent of the market

at least apple made a small net profit last quarter and that is better than what most companies did in the valley

 

[-hh]

the celeron at $600 is not exactly strong on cache on the processor so it's 1.2 ghz is not as fast as the imac you are thinking about

Sure. But its still going to be "significantly" faster than my 8600 (now with a 400MHz G4 card). The way I view it, I can probably effectively double my system speed for around $600 by going to Windows.

The alternative for "doubling" my current system's speed is to jump to a $1800 iMac running a G4 @ 800Mhz. But if I'm going to spend that much, a 2GHz DELL (even with a burner) is the price point competitor, and that probably represents a 3x-4x speed increase over my current system instead of just a 2x bump.

Yes, I know about total lifecycle costs and all that, but its pretty hard to ignore the obvious "VALUE" on Day 1 of the purchase. Particularly since I could just buy a $600 Celeron system every 2 years when they break down, instead of coughing up $1800 for an iMac and expecting it to last (and be a viable performer) for 6-7 years.


-hh

 

[iGav]

Originally posted by -hh


Sure. But its still going to be "significantly" faster than my 8600 (now with a 400MHz G4 card). The way I view it, I can probably effectively double my system speed for around $600 by going to Windows.

The alternative for "doubling" my current system's speed is to jump to a $1800 iMac running a G4 @ 800Mhz. But if I'm going to spend that much, a 2GHz DELL (even with a burner) is the price point competitor, and that probably represents a 3x-4x speed increase over my current system instead of just a 2x bump.

Yes, I know about total lifecycle costs and all that, but its pretty hard to ignore the obvious "VALUE" on Day 1 of the purchase. Particularly since I could just buy a $600 Celeron system every 2 years when they break down, instead of coughing up $1800 for an iMac and expecting it to last (and be a viable performer) for 6-7 years.


-hh

Here we go again......

If you feel that you can get a better machine on the darkside then do it...... don't say.... DO!!.........

 

[-hh]

Originally posted by iGAV


Here we go again......

If you feel that you can get a better machine on the darkside then do it...... don't say.... DO!!.........

I have to admit that my shields are buckling.

"Just-need-to-pray-and-hold-out-until-end-of-August"!!!



-hh

 

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by -hh


Sure. But its still going to be "significantly" faster than my 8600 (now with a 400MHz G4 card). The way I view it, I can probably effectively double my system speed for around $600 by going to Windows.



-hh

maybe for microsoft office

but for graphics and sound, i will still take the 400 mhz g4 processor with altivec

but it all depends on what you use the computer for

if you are going to go the consumer pc route, go with the amd duron processor over the intel celeron processor for graphics

for office applications, e-mail, and the internet, either will do the job

 

[Inhale420]

dude, i don't know about the numbers. i guess anyone's guess is valid... i just know there's no way in hell apple is going to update the powermacs TWICE by christmas.

1.8ghz, lol.

if you're into both pc's and macs, i recommend getting a dell or whatever now, then wail till next summer and see how the macs are doing then. that's what i'm doing, except i'll most likely build my new pc.

 

[iGav]

Originally posted by -hh



I have to admit that my shields are buckling.

"Just-need-to-pray-and-hold-out-until-end-of-August"!!!

-hh

Heh heh .......

I think you'll do well to hold out.... especially if what some of the other threads are saying is true about an early August release date for the revised PowerMac.....

Ultimately though...... you need to make the best decision for your needs........ a PowerMac is one hell of an investment........ interms of cost...... it might might not be the most viable option for you though........

 

[-hh]

Originally posted by iGAV


Ultimately though...... you need to make the best decision for your needs........ a PowerMac is one hell of an investment........ interms of cost...... it might might not be the most viable option for you though........

Agreed & understood.

I have to recognize that I'm not really stressing the hardware like I did in the past, so I don't really have to have a cutting edge machine - its become a tool where it had previously been a toy.

From a financial viewpoint, I really have to say that "cost" is not really an issue, but "value" is, which is where I have a dilemma with Apple's current offerings.

And regardless of how much I loathe M$, my experiences at work with Wintel haven't been bad enough to really say that the stability of OS X is a "must have" that's worth a huge premium. I'm only getting 1-2 BSOD's per month, and I'll generally will get through the day without needing a reboot for anything else.

Finally, because I haven't yet migrated to X, all of the software upgrade licencing costs, as well as some hardware peripherals, are in the mix as factors. I've slowly moved most of my main stuff over to USB (and found it much slower than SCSI-2), but I still will need to drop $800-$1500 for a new 35mm slide scanner, because Nikon's drivers for an LS-1000 film scanner don't work on any OS later than 8.6


-hh

 

[nuckinfutz]

Why would you bypass the eMac?

At $1099 with a G4 700mhz proc and a 32mb MX graphics chipset included, I think the computer has alot to offer.

I have a couple of PC's and i'll probably build a couple more eventually but damn if I'm going to X86 permanently. Microsoft is becoming TOO intrusive for my liking.

 

[UncleDrIan]

-hh

Not trying to be contrary here, but VueScan and SilverFast offer OSX compatible scanner drivers for your Nikon LS1000. They are priced $40 and $45 respectively. Either should allow you to save your $800-$1600 and utilize it on faster machinery or more peripherals, etc.

Not certain, but I think that the SilverFast software will require a copy of Photoshop 7 to use in OSX. VueScan operates independantly, I believe.

Also bear in mind that there is more than processor speed on the line when comparing your G4 8600 and one of the newer Pro macs or even the G4 iMac. Bus speed, memory throughput, disk i/o speed, and available AGP graphic card options (for G4 towers)make the newer G4's substantially faster than the 2x Mhz speed seems to offer.

Not trying to convince you to stay Mac. I'm a mac user since original 128K Macintosh, but I built my first PC (AthlonXP 1800+, NForce MB, Win2K Pro) to run alongside my B&W G3, and to be honest, while it is SUBSTANTIALLY faster at most tasks, I find that I get work done no faster than I do on the lowly G3 B&W, even in OSX.

 

[jefhatfield]

Re: Why would you bypass the eMac?

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
At $1099 with a G4 700mhz proc and a 32mb MX graphics chipset included, I think the computer has alot to offer.

I have a couple of PC's and i'll probably build a couple more eventually but damn if I'm going to X86 permanently. Microsoft is becoming TOO intrusive for my liking.

let's suppose you spend $599 USD for a 1 ghz+ pc and $299 for a 17" flat panel crt...that is nearly $900 for your pc setup

the emac is only $1099, $999 if you are a student, so in that case, go for the emac for value and cost

if you already have a monitor that you like, then get the $600 dollar 1 ghz+ celeron or duron pc which is hard to beat

in the best scenario, get the ghz pc now and late next year, get the g5 powermac or 1.6/1.8 ghz g4 apollo powermac, and then you will be set for the next three years after that

i say three years because as fast as the computer world is changing, it will move even faster in the future so don't count on more than three years

i am, however, typing this post out on a three+ year old pc laptop which is ok for me except that some web pages tweak out my poor pc which has only 2 MB of video memory, which was rocking during the summer of 1999, and good enough for the state of the art games

i will replace this and my 4 MB video memory blueberry ibook with something that has 32 MB video memory (hopefully an ibook) by next year

apple better have 32 MB video memory for it's ibook by next year since there is a comparable pc laptop i have seen reviewed which has 64 MB DDR video memory for the same price ($1799)...i think it's one of ATI's new rage mobility chips...drool

anyway, good luck

 

[-hh]

Originally posted by UncleDrIan
-hh

Not trying to be contrary here, but VueScan and SilverFast offer OSX compatible scanner drivers for your Nikon LS1000. They are priced $40 and $45 respectively.

Thanks for the tip. I've already found both of their websites & forwarded the link to my home account.

Also bear in mind that there is more than processor speed on the line when comparing your G4 8600 and one of the newer Pro macs or even the G4 iMac. Bus speed, memory throughput, disk i/o speed, and available AGP graphic card options (for G4 towers)make the newer G4's substantially faster than the 2x Mhz speed seems to offer.

Agreed. I just KISS'ed it to try to prevent getting mired down in the entire performance metric's debate (IIRC, my 8600's Bus speed is 40 Mhz).

Not trying to convince you to stay Mac. I'm a mac user since original 128K Macintosh, but I built my first PC (AthlonXP 1800+, NForce MB, Win2K Pro) to run alongside my B&W G3, and to be honest, while it is SUBSTANTIALLY faster at most tasks, I find that I get work done no faster than I do on the lowly G3 B&W, even in OSX.

I go back a ways too: my first Apple was pre-Mac: a ][+

And insofar as side-by-side comparisons, at work, they "upgraded" my 180MHz 8600 to a PC as part of a "Get rid of all the Macs" campaign. The PC was a ~250MHz Pentium, so it was a real dog, so I refused to convert (256M vs 32M of RAM made for a slight difference too). After 2 years, they replaced the PC again and issued a stronger "No Macs" edict. That PC ran at 800MHz, which honestly was enough horsepower to convince me to change. But I still have the 8600 at work, and turn it on ~1x/month to update its antivirus software and keep its Ethernet snap from showing up on the Sysadmin's inactive address list.


-hh