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.
Do we REALLY need a G5 Processor?
- Thread starter mystixman
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Boy, the original poster sure rattled a hornets nest with that question.
For general computer users the answer is no. For office word processing and spreadsheets, todays computers are more than fast enough. But, for the people in graphics, DV, and biotech the computers won't ever be fast enough. It's just the nature of their work.
I work with 3D and I can't tell you how frustrating it is to do test render after test render to see if it looks right. It so disrupts the workflow. Look at how long it takes do a CG film, at least 4 years. In Hollywood that's an eternity. That's why only huge studios can afford to release titles like Toy Story, Men in Black, and Ice Age.
I think that's where the performance envelope is being pushed. That's why pros demand the absolute fastest. And with Steve Jobs being the head of Pixar, I can't understand why he doesn't let loose his engineers to develop some totally sick hardware for the ultra-high-end users. Even if they are out of the price range of the vast majority of us, it would be nice to know that Apple has something that is held up as a true heavy-hitter. A diadem. The Xserve is a start. Let's hope.
For general computer users the answer is no. For office word processing and spreadsheets, todays computers are more than fast enough. But, for the people in graphics, DV, and biotech the computers won't ever be fast enough. It's just the nature of their work.
I work with 3D and I can't tell you how frustrating it is to do test render after test render to see if it looks right. It so disrupts the workflow. Look at how long it takes do a CG film, at least 4 years. In Hollywood that's an eternity. That's why only huge studios can afford to release titles like Toy Story, Men in Black, and Ice Age.
I think that's where the performance envelope is being pushed. That's why pros demand the absolute fastest. And with Steve Jobs being the head of Pixar, I can't understand why he doesn't let loose his engineers to develop some totally sick hardware for the ultra-high-end users. Even if they are out of the price range of the vast majority of us, it would be nice to know that Apple has something that is held up as a true heavy-hitter. A diadem. The Xserve is a start. Let's hope.
Look folks:
1. To play games in your computer you need video ram. so a G4 would do.
2. To do video, 2D/3D animation you have to choices:
a: A G5
b: To get used G4s and build your render farm under the cost of a new computer. You can actually get 3 dual 500 for the price of the new G4 and being more productive.
3. For get about Apple replacing SGI. The actual G4 doesn't reach half of the funcionality of the 1997 SGI O2, not even a indigo. Macs are way below any SGI machine. For those who are in to video production try to run a Flint on a Mac.
http://www.discreet.com/products/
Forget about comparing a Mac to a SGI that is like going to compete in Nascar 2003 with a 1988 Toyota Corolla.
1. To play games in your computer you need video ram. so a G4 would do.
2. To do video, 2D/3D animation you have to choices:
a: A G5
b: To get used G4s and build your render farm under the cost of a new computer. You can actually get 3 dual 500 for the price of the new G4 and being more productive.
3. For get about Apple replacing SGI. The actual G4 doesn't reach half of the funcionality of the 1997 SGI O2, not even a indigo. Macs are way below any SGI machine. For those who are in to video production try to run a Flint on a Mac.
http://www.discreet.com/products/
Forget about comparing a Mac to a SGI that is like going to compete in Nascar 2003 with a 1988 Toyota Corolla.
You do mean an Indigo2, not an Indigo, right? The Indigo was discontinued in 1993 and topped out at 150MHz, and the Indigo2 was discontinued in 1996. If the Mac can't compete with these SGIs, that's pretty sad, because you can get a used Indigo2 Max Impact (top of the line $40k workstation in its day, 195MHz R10000 CPU) on eBay for $400.
SGI workstations aren't suited to the exotic car analogies everyone gives them - the only reason they're still used is because there is highly specialized add-in hardware (and the accompanying software) available for them that's not available for PCs or Macs. If Jobs could convince the specialized technical media/video/scientific companies to develop products for the Mac, Apple could have a hell of an SGI killer on their hands.
And I'm a big SGI fan... or at least I was before marketing idiots renamed it to "sgi," took away the awesome logo, and decided NT workstations were the future.
Alex
Re: Do we REALLY need a G5 Processor?
is it really mightier than the pentium 4 with 400 mhz bus and ddr ram and processor speed at 2.53 ghz? or the athlon 2200+
wait for the benchmarks!
i think to pull ahead, a 2+ ghz g5 is completely necessary by mwsf or a month or two later at the latest (p4 will be at 3+ ghz by then so we would have to have a dualie to be comfortably ahead of the game...if we do pull WAY ahead, it will take a couple of years or more at best
i hate to say it, but p4 or athlon xp with windows xp is not a bad deal...remember windows 3.1 or windows 95a? the pc world has improved a lot
is it really mightier than the pentium 4 with 400 mhz bus and ddr ram and processor speed at 2.53 ghz? or the athlon 2200+
wait for the benchmarks!
i think to pull ahead, a 2+ ghz g5 is completely necessary by mwsf or a month or two later at the latest (p4 will be at 3+ ghz by then so we would have to have a dualie to be comfortably ahead of the game...if we do pull WAY ahead, it will take a couple of years or more at best
i hate to say it, but p4 or athlon xp with windows xp is not a bad deal...remember windows 3.1 or windows 95a? the pc world has improved a lot
It is time we had the next generation of Mac processor inside systems (starting with the pro/Power line first). I would gladly give my dead, step-grandmother up to get one (she was always a bitch anyway 
).
Who here would tell Apple "oh no, we don't want to be able to beat the tar out of the fastest chip that intel has out now (and will produce for the next xx months). We also don't need to be able to do that with a single processor, you can put eight into my computer just so that I can stay competative"???
As for people that run games on their computers, who says processor power doesn't matter??? I gather you haven't bothered to play any of the new games (or those produced in the past year or two). They are ALL needing faster and faster processors, more memory and better video cards. You CAN do SOME with more memory and a better video card, but those only go so far. Without a good brain running the computer, you get crappy frame rates (higher frame rates make for smoother game performance, to a point, then the numbers are just for bragging rights).
I, for one, hope that Apple is able to get the next generation processor out (and into systems) by either MWSF or MWNY (2003). I will be thinking about getting a new Mac in 2004, but only if they include the next generation cpu (and decent video card for that year, not the same one that is in the current TiBooks/PowerMacs).
). Who here would tell Apple "oh no, we don't want to be able to beat the tar out of the fastest chip that intel has out now (and will produce for the next xx months). We also don't need to be able to do that with a single processor, you can put eight into my computer just so that I can stay competative"???
As for people that run games on their computers, who says processor power doesn't matter??? I gather you haven't bothered to play any of the new games (or those produced in the past year or two). They are ALL needing faster and faster processors, more memory and better video cards. You CAN do SOME with more memory and a better video card, but those only go so far. Without a good brain running the computer, you get crappy frame rates (higher frame rates make for smoother game performance, to a point, then the numbers are just for bragging rights).
I, for one, hope that Apple is able to get the next generation processor out (and into systems) by either MWSF or MWNY (2003). I will be thinking about getting a new Mac in 2004, but only if they include the next generation cpu (and decent video card for that year, not the same one that is in the current TiBooks/PowerMacs).
Re: Re: Do we REALLY need a G5 Processor?
I have the AMD Athlon XP2100+ inside my game pc right now, and it's fast... Faster then a same rated intel processor (2.1GHz+). I might upgrade my motherboard early next year, to go from PC2100 to PC2700 (or whatever the fastest memory is at the time).
For my uses, it NEVER chokes on anything (which are games, seriously graphic intense games at that).
I just hope that Apple is able to get a processor that kicks intel's ass in the same fashion... That would be sweet... To have a Mac beat a 4GHz+ peeX (single or dual) in head to head, real world tests. Include gaming sessions in that to proove the points too. Oh, and I am talking same processor numbers/counts in both systems (dual intel against dual Mac).
I have the AMD Athlon XP2100+ inside my game pc right now, and it's fast... Faster then a same rated intel processor (2.1GHz+). I might upgrade my motherboard early next year, to go from PC2100 to PC2700 (or whatever the fastest memory is at the time).
For my uses, it NEVER chokes on anything (which are games, seriously graphic intense games at that).
I just hope that Apple is able to get a processor that kicks intel's ass in the same fashion... That would be sweet... To have a Mac beat a 4GHz+ peeX (single or dual) in head to head, real world tests. Include gaming sessions in that to proove the points too. Oh, and I am talking same processor numbers/counts in both systems (dual intel against dual Mac).
Sooner than you think, possibly. We know now that the leaked pictures were right on, the real thing. But they only had a single PPC processor, at a 45 degree angle. That could have been a test box for the IBM G5 processor. When it is in full production, the dual G4s may be replaced by a single, higher clock speed G5. Same case. Apple has to wait, and is using the best they can get out of Motorola in the mean time. I think Apple has everything lined up to switch to the G5. One G5 will not cost more than two G4s in my opinion.
Well snoopy, if that is your real handle, they COULD be negotiating the price of the next generation of processor right now... I do know that corporate legal departments can take forever to negotiate things....
It would make for a big splash if they went from the latest G4 systems (the current ones) to faster ones at MWP (Paris) and then jumped to the G5 (or whatever it will be called) at MWSF.
Imagine SJ taking the stage and with his head held low, apologizing for the wait, "but you know how lawyers are" *wink*... Then have the G5 rise to the stage (from under it, not just some stinkin pedestal). And the crowd goes wild...
they COULD be negotiating the price of the next generation of processor right now... I do know that corporate legal departments can take forever to negotiate things....It would make for a big splash if they went from the latest G4 systems (the current ones) to faster ones at MWP (Paris) and then jumped to the G5 (or whatever it will be called) at MWSF.
Imagine SJ taking the stage and with his head held low, apologizing for the wait, "but you know how lawyers are" *wink*... Then have the G5 rise to the stage (from under it, not just some stinkin pedestal). And the crowd goes wild...
i can see it now, AlphaTech. however, like many have said, you need to look at the home user as well. the g4 is fine for all home users, as is the g3 (many of them don't know the difference, besides the number three and four). right now apple isn't looking for movie/music market share, they're trying to get back into the consumer and education market, where they used to thrive.
They could leave the G4 in the consumer lines, and continue to increase the speed of those until the G6 is six months from release, then transition them to the G5. Give them the numbers that will correllate to what intel has out there (market them a celleron killers, that they are).
I could see a G4 2GHz+ in the iMac in two years, while the G5 is at x.xGHz (kicking the **** out of intel's latest pro chip too
).If they are trying to get back into consumer and education markets why have they acquired Nothing Real, Prismo Graphics, Emagic and Silicon Grail over the past 6 months? To me it seems like they are making a push to the movie/music share. If true, it would seem like they would need a new processor with some balls to handle rendering, editing, graphics, etc.