I just read an article on cnet that Intel just did a demonstration of a 4.5 ghz P4 that they overclocked to run at 4.7 stable. This thing looks like it could smoke anything in it's path. Hope Apple is whipping up something special soon...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
4.7 ghz Wintel...
- Thread starter tjwett
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Don't we all, we neeeeed that G5 ASAP, or NO ONE will switch, hell, they'll end up loosing current users. 
We just need a new chip - g5, power4, what ever. We need a chip that can go head to head against the Wintel world and not rely on 2 processors to try and keep up (and even now, this isn't working)
Its very frustrating and I hope Apple will all make us happy sometime soon.
D
Its very frustrating and I hope Apple will all make us happy sometime soon.
D
I am confused after reading all the posts over the past month or so...is the 1.25 GHz dual G4 going to be actually that slow? What is it as slow as...a 1.7 Ghz Celeron...or worse...a 66MHz PowerMac 6100?
Isn't this the same chip that protects media content?
ckick me or the RIAA will suspect you of downloading illegal music files
ckick me or the RIAA will suspect you of downloading illegal music files
Well, intel schmintel, its still windoz! Just fyi, the new dual 867 is screamin fast in Jaguar, so the dual thing is now real.
As far as the future, don't count Apple out yet.
Peace daniel
As far as the future, don't count Apple out yet.
Peace daniel
If Intel comes out with a sub 3000 dollar machine with 4.7 Ghz, I'm sorry Apple, but you had better get something better than what you have.
I'm not going to be a customer of a company that charges just as much for 1/4 of their competitors product.
Go ahead and flame me...I know that the Mhz of the G4 and P4 don't match up in performance, but there's too big of a speed gap for there to be any doubt in my mind of which is faster.
I'm not going to be a customer of a company that charges just as much for 1/4 of their competitors product.
Go ahead and flame me...I know that the Mhz of the G4 and P4 don't match up in performance, but there's too big of a speed gap for there to be any doubt in my mind of which is faster.
It's actually a little worse than you think, when the P4s first came out, they were clock for clock significantly slower than a G4, but with the release of the Northwood core and then the 533mhz bus, at least with the stuff I do, my P4 is clock for clock faster than my G4. I've got 6 classes of machines sitting around and when I hit render and then factor out mhz, this is the list fastest to slowest: PIII-mobile, P4-533mhz bus, PIII-coppermine, G4-quicksilver, G3, PII. Of course with the boosted bus on the new G4s, this ranking may well have changed, but the point is, the P4 is no longer the laggard it was at it's introduction. On top of that Intel keeps boosting the clockspeed and is about to introduce another boost in the form of hyperthreads to the consumer P4 line to push it even farther.
I really like my Mac, OSX is nice and I love the iApps. All the kid videos are done using 75% iMovie and iDVD (with a little Premier on the PC when I need something fancy), but frankly that's really not enough and I only keep the Mac to support my customers. When it comes to production, it's just not enough bang for the buck. I have to believe that Steve and Co. have something interesting up their sleeve because to follow Motorola's plodding updates to the G4 seems like a slow suicide and would be a terrible thing to do to the stockholders and fans of the platform.
Before I get flamed about how it's worth the performance hit and cost to avoid the PCs reputation for more downtime. I haven't a problem like that since NT4 with sp3 as long as I use a top tier vender like dell. The handful of homegrown machines I've built since then have been notoriously twitchy, but is probably more an indicator of my skills as a system integrator not of the platform in general.
Some great, true, and sad points. However, you are comparing old Macs with newer PCs. There are other factors besides processor speed that might be affecting your outcome. In addition, I wonder if the software you're using is optimized for AltiVec.
Secondly, I agree that NT4 is notoriously stable. Isn't it a bit sad, though, that M$ofties have to use an old OS to get stability. Nonetheless, it is true that Wintel users can have greater speed and great stability on their machines. It's still not OS X, but if you're comfortable in the environment and get get things done (sometimes more) efficiently, why would you buy a new (more expensive) Mac.
Thirdly, I think Motorola is keeping up with (the bastardaized interpretation of) Mohr's Law over the past year or two. The problem is that somewhere between their speed superiority and today, they lost ground.
I love Apple, but if they don't find a way to catch up, they're dead in the water.
Chris
p.s., Dell a "top tier" vendor?
The Mhz myth is true. When Genentech is able to use a dual 1 Ghz Mac to go 5 times faster than their PC counterparts, and Photoshop up to 90 % faster than a Pentium IV 2.53 Ghz on a dual 1.25 Ghz Mac, the myth is true. Even the Athlon 2.6 Ghz is faster than the 2.8 Ghz Pentium IV. In some instances even the 1.6 Ghz Pentium III is faster than the Pentium IV. Mhz has nothing to do with speed. When your stage is 3 times longer, you have to go three times as fast to catch up.
If your Mac is slower than a PC for any reason on the same application it is because the software hasn't been optimized for the Mac. Write the software developer before you complain about the Mac speed. Get them to develop for Altivec. It makes a world of difference.
If your Mac is slower than a PC for any reason on the same application it is because the software hasn't been optimized for the Mac. Write the software developer before you complain about the Mac speed. Get them to develop for Altivec. It makes a world of difference.
At least in my book, in my day job we've used Gateway, IBM, Compaq, Micron, and Dell. Dell by far has been the most reliable. Consumer reports' survey put them on top as most reliable, even beating out Apple, through under support I think apple and dell swapped spots. I don't know how else to define top tier if not "works best". Don't let the awful Dell dude commercials color your perception, they make a good product. I grimace everytime someone walks into my office and says "Dude, you got a dell!"
I wasn't aware that AMD made a 2.6Ghz Athlon, they make a 2600+ XP but that IS NOT 2.6Ghz. I think it's something like 2.133 Ghz. However, I'd still take it over the P4 any day!
Myth
you know what. If Apple would finally give up ther Megaherz Myth and equal up the numbers that PCs have, then dummies out there would understand the need of a mac. So far the service, the own apps and etc is amazing. But what does it matter if my mom would never get it?
Cheers
Dave
you know what. If Apple would finally give up ther Megaherz Myth and equal up the numbers that PCs have, then dummies out there would understand the need of a mac. So far the service, the own apps and etc is amazing. But what does it matter if my mom would never get it?
Cheers
Dave
I think you're mistaking what "Clock for Clock" means. What it means is that if you leveled the playing field so to speak by matching the megahertz of each processor. Which machine would have the inherent advantage due to design. That was and still is the G4. If a G4 in it's current state could run at 3Ghz it would easily beat a P4. The 533mhz bus hasn't really that much to do with it. Anandtech tested and found only a 6% advantage in measurable speed by moving from 400mhz to 533 which is over a %30 percent hike in bus bandwidth. Benchmarking an app rendering is a reflection not only of the Processors and system design but of the app itself and it's optimizations for various platforms.
Agreed. Stability soon will be something the avg user can take for granted. However it does sound like you know how to tweak.
Apple is behind the curve in this battle but the next battle looms.
Who will :
1. Move to and quickly establish 64bit computing on the Desktop. Intel always has the upper hand. Apple may be closer than most people realize. .
2. Integrate new tech. RapiIO, Hypertransport and PCIExpress all factor into the race for a leap in Mainboard performance. While the uninitiated squabble over DDR buses the near future holds much more opportunity.
3. Whether MS or Apple can really evolve their os. Apple being smaller and more nimble should pull out to a commanding lead here. Much work needs to be done but the infrastructure is building and OSX is a good base. Hopefully we'll have a new Filesystem in the next 2 years and Apple maintains it's current course of action by embracing standard muliplatform protocols(like Rendezvous/zeroconf)
4. Expansion into new markets- Is a must for Apple. More iPod like successes. Apple must attempt to stay single platform unless there is much money to be made in Wintel. Driving customers to Apple has always been a priority but it must be done more keenly.
5. Continue to grow Pro apps. Final Cut Pro and the growing family of Pro Apps from Apple should converge as a sort of High End Digital Lifestyle. Support Open Standards when Applicable and augment them with Apple Tech like Applescript to automate the workflow.
Fellas the fun is just beginning.
bout time for apple to release a dual 2.5 ghz powermac
is apple affected by that hardware thing that microsoft signed up amd and intel so that ppl cant download music n such?
is apple affected by that hardware thing that microsoft signed up amd and intel so that ppl cant download music n such?
No, I understand, my p4 2.26ghz finishes the render in less than 1/3 the time of my G4 800mhz. If my P4 were clocked at 753 mhz, keeping bus, etc all the same, it would still beat my G4 800 by a few percentage points.
In altivec enabled applications the G4 certainly shines, but for non optimized code the overwhelming performance just isn't there, in the things I do. Noticed I qualified in my original post and here, for the things I do. The G4 may kick some serious butt in photoshop, but to justify the price difference I'd want to see that kind of performance everywhere and it just doesn't show. I think that Apple and the user community in general does itself a great disservice in touting the mhz myth as if it applied to everything. I was incredibly disappointed when I bought a G4 expecting the amazing performance attributed to the G4. It just wasn't there, a PIII at the same clock, 1 year older (and half the cost new), beat it by 10%! I felt ripped off and completely disenchancted with Apple. Things got a little better when the software I was using released a new version compiled on a newer compiler, but it was still behind by a few percentage points.
The G4 was an amazing chip when it came out and it's competition was a PIII-katmai or a AMD K6-3, it ran circles around them at the same clock speed. When the P4 came out, the P4 was a dog. I think unfortunately most Mac folks perceptions of the intel chips remain back there today without having noticed the big jumps in efficiency that intel picked up with PIII-coppermines, PIII-tualitins, and P4-northwoods.
Hopefully, however, Apple has noticed and plans to do something about it. The technologies that you mention certainly will help that, but right now I don't see anything telling me who will be the first out of the gate with them and which ones might be the must have technology in the next few years. I suspect 64bit computing will be pretty cool, but even with the delay AMD announced today it still looks like they will be the first to a consumer/pro level 64bit chip. Basing OSX on a unix variant is probably the best thing Apple could have done, there is an awful lot of free development and research they can benefit from by having done that. It probably gets them on par or a little ahead of the tons o' cash that MS can throw at Windows. If Apple would just fix the frickin critical sections, but that's another story.
Mhz myth. Mhz don't matter.
What you need to realize is there are very few people out there that are actually complaining about there machine not being fast enough. Most people just use there computer for email these are the people that will replace there PC in 3 or 4 years not because it's to slow but because it's dead. Apples market share is not as dependent on the Mhz as one would think. The people that really desire the speed at least most of them know the difference between Mhz and overall system speed. Trust me on this one I have several friends with PC's well exceeding 2Ghz and when they came over and watched me using my new Dual Ghz/DDR there jaws hit the floor and they said in unison that they had to have one. We need to quit complaining about the could have beens and the maybes and help sell the awesome computers that we have right now. The more we b*tch about how slow these computers are the more newbies and pc people will pick up on this and not knowing what they're talking about believe it.
What you need to realize is there are very few people out there that are actually complaining about there machine not being fast enough. Most people just use there computer for email these are the people that will replace there PC in 3 or 4 years not because it's to slow but because it's dead. Apples market share is not as dependent on the Mhz as one would think. The people that really desire the speed at least most of them know the difference between Mhz and overall system speed. Trust me on this one I have several friends with PC's well exceeding 2Ghz and when they came over and watched me using my new Dual Ghz/DDR there jaws hit the floor and they said in unison that they had to have one. We need to quit complaining about the could have beens and the maybes and help sell the awesome computers that we have right now. The more we b*tch about how slow these computers are the more newbies and pc people will pick up on this and not knowing what they're talking about believe it.
Oh, and another thing cpu manufacturors demonstrate maxed out cpu fairly frequently this is done to show the potential of a cpu not that they're going in to production. I would be that they scoured production for months before they found one cpu that could achieve what they did with some kind of special cooling. They probably had the thing in a freezer with some kind of special gas instead of air to cool it.
Moto and IBM do demonstrations like this also.
Moto and IBM do demonstrations like this also.
Re: Mhz myth. Mhz don't matter.
That is so very true, I was reminded of this yesterday when my mother called asking about adding wireless to her laptop. The mininum spec to use the card was a 200mhz Pentium and she only has a 133mhz! It still works fine for email, word, etc. I guess some folks have a lot more patience than I.
That is so very true, I was reminded of this yesterday when my mother called asking about adding wireless to her laptop. The mininum spec to use the card was a 200mhz Pentium and she only has a 133mhz! It still works fine for email, word, etc. I guess some folks have a lot more patience than I.
Interesting. My situation was just the opposite. A couple of years ago I built to PIII systems and I was expecting to be blown away because PC users are so tweaky. What I found was that straight line speed was good but unfortunately Win98 was a very poor OS. I'm now on Win2k and things are better stability wise. I've followed the P4 since before it's inception and it's clear that Intels design goals were to develop a Proc that can clock very easily. Hence the 20+ Pipleline stages. They've done a masterful job increasing the speed of the proc with the northwood core but overall I believe the processor is not that impressive. I'm not saying the G4 is for all circumstances but I do like chips that support SMP and run cool enough to be used in a laptop. So I myself am willing so sacrafice top speed for efficiency.
Can't wait until OCT 15. I'm curious about this new Power4 Lite Proc from IBM. Despite rumors to the contrary I believe it plays a part in Apple's future.
Apple's not playing nice guy anymore. They're ready to compete. This is good for us Mac users because they have been setting up an infrastructure for success(Apple Stores, iApps). It's time to shore up the Hardware.
I think peecees are a great value if, you aren't using pci cards and you build your own but I just got the new dual 867 and it rocks! If your doing video you should check out final cut pro on OSX.2 Very solid and very fast!
I adimit I don't have the very newest pc with the newest apps but the reason the Mac is now an even better deal is the very real speed of the new Machines,the new OS, and the Included apps are very good. Final cut does not exist for the Pc, its nearest competitor, from avid is about $700 more and not as good,so if you factor in everything,the New Macs are the best values in a long time. It will be interesting to see what happens on both sides next year
Daniel
I adimit I don't have the very newest pc with the newest apps but the reason the Mac is now an even better deal is the very real speed of the new Machines,the new OS, and the Included apps are very good. Final cut does not exist for the Pc, its nearest competitor, from avid is about $700 more and not as good,so if you factor in everything,the New Macs are the best values in a long time. It will be interesting to see what happens on both sides next year
Daniel
I notice quite a few folks referring to how fast a machine is mhz for mhz and how if software were properly developed that the Mac would be faster than the equivalent pc. There is one flaw in that thought process you can only buy and use what is on the market. I have been designing on Macs since '92. In the end of 2001 after being laid off I needed a pc to test and developed on. I built an Athlon XP 1800+ system with Win2k. Prior to that I was working on a G4 500 agp with OS 9.1. My new testing PC absolutely killed my G4. Now I realize the G4 is old technology and the Athlon new. The speed of the machines is a 3:1 ratio 500mhz(G4) to 1.54ghz(Athlon) but for my tasks in After Effects and Photoshop it is 4 times faster. Not to mention Flash which Macromedia has done a terrible job developing for the Mac. I now see actual frame rates rather than two thirds frame rate. To get that sort of performance on a new Mac (in late 2001) I would have had to shell out $3000 and it still wouldn't have been as fast at the time. I paid $1100 for the pc. I love OS X and I run 10.5 on my G4 but I can't justify spending the cash on a new Mac since I would have to upgrade all my primary aps to run in OS X. Not to mention win2k is solid. I rarely have to restart and have crashed maybe twice in the 10 months I've had the pc.
I'm at the crossroads though. I need to get a laptop soon and I would love to see a reasonably priced Ti Powerbook. But I'll probably end up with a 2ghz pc laptop for $1500. apple needs to get more competitive with bang for the buck. I'm just waiting for a reason to go back to working on a Mac!
I'm at the crossroads though. I need to get a laptop soon and I would love to see a reasonably priced Ti Powerbook. But I'll probably end up with a 2ghz pc laptop for $1500. apple needs to get more competitive with bang for the buck. I'm just waiting for a reason to go back to working on a Mac!
10.5 huh? Lucky you! I hope it's something the rest of us can look forward to!
j/k, of course it's a typo, but I just couldn't resist.