New Power Macs Faster than you think.

[bond2]

Everyone has been complaining so much about the current Macs being so far behind the Pentiums and AMD processors in speed. In actuality the new 1.25ghz Dual G4 is the 3rd fastest consumer PC in the market. It almost matches the fastest AMD processor and is just slightly behind Intels PIV 2.8 ghz machine. Check it out for yourself:


http://www.cpuscorecard.com/

 

[Tiauguinho]

HEHEHEHE!!! That is great to see!!! Go PowerMac! Flame everything!

 

[blackpeter]

nice...

 

[alex_ant]

And in other news, Hell has just frozen over. More details as they emerge.

 

[RogueLdr]

It's a shame, however, that Apple will probably never link to this page due to the fact that they are not #1 on the list. The similiarity in performance of the G4 system and the Pentium system speaks highly of the efficiency of the G4 processor.

RL

 

[mischief]

U having personal problems today Alex?

Originally posted by alex_ant
And in other news, Hell has just frozen over. More details as they emerge.

You're being particularly pissy today and rather down on the Mac. Wassup?

 

[iJon]

Re: New Power Macs Faster than you think.

Originally posted by bond2
Everyone has been complaining so much about the current Macs being so far behind the Pentiums and AMD processors in speed. In actuality the new 1.25ghz Dual G4 is the 3rd fastest consumer PC in the market. It almost matches the fastest AMD processor and is just slightly behind Intels PIV 2.8 ghz machine. Check it out for yourself:


http://www.cpuscorecard.com/

I really dont care about speeds anymore, its more like i care what my computer can do. which my mac can do much more than my pc. but one thing about these benchmarks. it takes apple two processors to almost beat amds and intels chips. i think apple would be in better shape if they could come this close with a single chip, lets hope that those ibm chips with apple rumors are true.

iJon

 

[TyleRomeo]

Re: Re: New Power Macs Faster than you think.

Originally posted by iJon

I really dont care about speeds anymore, its more like i care what my computer can do. which my mac can do much more than my pc. but one thing about these benchmarks. it takes apple two processors to almost beat amds and intels chips. i think apple would be in better shape if they could come this close with a single chip, lets hope that those ibm chips with apple rumors are true.

iJon

right on man, forget GHZ, i want something that works and mac seem to work so much smoother then PCs. I'd like to see those IBM chips come true also, even though we might have to wait until next summer or fall for them to arrive especially with how the current computer market is going.

Tyler

 

[dongmin]

Re: Re: New Power Macs Faster than you think.

Originally posted by iJon

I really dont care about speeds anymore, its more like i care what my computer can do. which my mac can do much more than my pc. but one thing about these benchmarks. it takes apple two processors to almost beat amds and intels chips. i think apple would be in better shape if they could come this close with a single chip, lets hope that those ibm chips with apple rumors are true.

iJon

Does it matter if it's one or two or four, as long as it's fast and get's the job done?

Of course, there's probably a huge difference in hardware costs, but hey, We're Number 3, We're Number 3, We're Number 3!

 

[geniusrock2002]

Do y'all know the difference between a "PORTED" app and a true native app. Most applications are written on the PC , then ported on the Mac. They just recompile the app for the Mac. They don't use specific "libraries" or "classes" that takes advantages of the G4. There are certains hardware calls on the X86 platform that do take advantages of the X86 architecture. For example if anyone is running Visual Studio C++, he can download the C++ compiler from Intel that would work with visual studio and programs would run faster. I am not saying that they use "Visual studio" to make all the software, but all I am saying is that most software and games are written on the X86 platform then ported on a Mac.
Like the game "Giants" is about 300 MB on the PC, and it's 900MB on the mac, why ?????SImply because they had ported the game on the Mac.
I would like to really take alook at the code for "Quake III", and see if the benchmarks were totally fair or not.

So please, whoever thinks that Macs are slowers than PC, that is A big fat lie. Ask folks at Nasa who do the real work with computers, or people working in Genetics laboratories, or Physics labs, they kknow the truth about macs.

Windows has 95 % of share, that is simply why apps are always going tp be developped for PC, first, then simply ported on the Mac. Developers would never spend money and time to write apps for something that has less share, because it's all business folks

 

[ddtlm]

Credability?

Ummmm, do you people ever check your sources? Other than the fact that this website said something nice about G4's, why do you choose to believe them?

 

[iJon]

Re: Re: Re: New Power Macs Faster than you think.

Originally posted by dongmin


Does it matter if it's one or two or four, as long as it's fast and get's the job done?

Of course, there's probably a huge difference in hardware costs, but hey, We're Number 3, We're Number 3, We're Number 3!

Yeah your exactly right, it gets the job done, and it gets it done very well, but macs are expensive enough, im sure just one chip would cost less.

 

[szark]

Can anyone actually find details about the benchmarks on that site?

All the links I find take me to old articles about DP 800 machines or earlier...

 

[robodweeb]

Ask folks at Nasa who do the real work with computers
...
Windows has 95 % of share

Until a year ago, I was the lead Mac systems engineer for one of the largest outsourcing vendors supporting five NASA field centers. These centers were the research centers, not the operational centers (a different vendor suppoorted them). Just as a tidbit, when I left, the share of Macs at these centers was about 28% (Windows ~63%, the rest Linux/Unix, DEC, etc.). Admittedly, this was down about 3-4% over the previous 3 years. One center, NASA Ames, was around 80% Mac. Sadly, this information doesn't get propagated as widely as, say, the improper removal of Macs from NASA Johnson a few years back.

g-rock2K is correct that OS X is being embraced by the scientific and engineering community within NASA, largely because there are ports of computationally-intensive visualization and analysis applications available for OS X and the results can be easily moved into presentation applications. This last par tis significant, I believe, because they have access to faster computers (parallel systems, clusters, etc.) but such computers don't have much support for the presentation and sharing of the results. Clearly, the power of the G4 contributes to its lure, but it's the combination of OS X and the G4 that is selling Macs at NASA. It's not so much how fast they can do individual, specific tasks (which, sadly, are about all that's tested by benchmarks) but how OS X on G4s enables them to do their entire job more quickly, not just the bits and pieces ...

cheerz!

 

[wilburpan]

Re: Re: Re: New Power Macs Faster than you think.

Originally posted by dongmin
Does it matter if it's one or two or four, as long as it's fast and get's the job done?

Of course, there's probably a huge difference in hardware costs, but hey, We're Number 3, We're Number 3, We're Number 3!

Well, the price differential is not inconsiderable. Based on the http://www.cpuscorecard.com website, I just spec'ed out a Dell computer with a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 (closest processor to the dual 1.25 Ghz Powermac) and compared it to a similarly outfitted Powermac from the Applestore:

Powermac:
• Power Mac G4 Dual 1.25GHz w/167MHz system bus
• 1GB PC2700 DDR SDRAM - 2 DIMMs
• 120GB Ultra ATA drive
• Optical 1 - Apple SuperDrive
• Optical 2 - None
• NVIDIA GeForce4 Titanium dual-display w/128MB DDR
• 56K internal modem
• Apple Pro Speakers
• Apple Pro Keyboard - U.S. English
• Mac OS - U.S. English
$4,008.00

Dell:
Pentium® 4 Processor at 2.40GHz with 533MHz system bus/ 512K L2 Cache D8224B
Memory: 1GB PC800 RDRAM(4x256M modules)
Keyboard: Dell® Quietkey® Keyboard
Video Card: New 64MB DDR NVIDIA GeForce4™ Ti 4200 Graphics Card with TV Out and DVI
Hard Drive: 120GB 7200RPM Hard Drive with DataBurst Cache™
Floppy Drive: 3.5 in Floppy Drive
Operating System: Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional
Mouse: Dell® 2-button scroll mouse
Broadband Ready/ Ethernet Network Card: Intel® Pro 100 M PCI Ethernet Network Card
Modem: 56K PCI Telephony Modem
CD or DVD Drive: New DVD+RW/+R Drive with CD-RW
Sound Card: Sound Blaster Live! Digital Sound Card
Speakers: New Harman Kardon® HK-206 Speakers
Productivity Software: Microsoft® Office XP Small Business
Virus Protection: Norton AntiVirus™ 2002, 90-day introductory offer
Digital Photography: Dell Picture Studio, Image Expert Standard
Limited Warranty, Services and Support Options: 3 Year Limited Warranty plus 3 Year On-site Service
Internet Access Service: 6 Months AOL,Featuring the Netbusiness Service for Small Business
Video Editing: Premium Dell Movie Studio Bundle
Dual Monitor Support: DVI-VGA Adapter to connect 2 CRT Monitors to Ti4600 or Ti4200 Video Card
$2,616.00

I tried to spec these two machines as close to each other as possible, even adding on some Dell software to account for the iApps in Jaguar, and the price differential is still over $1300. Granted, currently you can get Indesign for free, but that's a $800 value at best, and I didn't factor in the cost of an office suite for the Powermac.

Please let me know if I've missed anything in matching specs. I still am planning on making the switch from Windows to Mac, but I also am aware of the price differential. It's not enough of a difference to deter me, but it is probably asking a bit much to expect everyone considering the purchase of a Mac to ignore the price factor, especially considering the fuss raised when Apple decided to charge $8 a month for .Mac services.

 

[P-Worm]

Please, enough with the spec matching. I'll tell you where the missing $1500 went: research and development, OS X (That's a big one...), and the fact that you know that your computer is an all around better machine.

Don't make me use the Geo and Viper car anology again.

P-Worm

 

[ColdZero]

Oh yea, nice and fast . A Dual 1.25Ghz G4 vs a single 2.8ghz P4, uhhh isn't that a little unfair. Where is the dual 2.4ghz P4 vs dual 1.25ghz G4 comparison?

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by P-Worm
Please, enough with the spec matching. I'll tell you where the missing $1500 went: research and development, OS X (That's a big one...), and the fact that you know that your computer is an all around better machine.

Don't make me use the Geo and Viper car anology again.

P-Worm

I think I'm gonna kill the next person who uses a stupid car anology...


Lethal

 

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by ColdZero
Oh yea, nice and fast . A Dual 1.25Ghz G4 vs a single 2.8ghz P4, uhhh isn't that a little unfair. Where is the dual 2.4ghz P4 vs dual 1.25ghz G4 comparison?

You are absolutely correct. We should only compare dual-processor Apple computers to other dual-processor computers. Please list your benchmarks for a dual-processor Dell, HP/Compaq, or Gateway personal computer.

 

[onemoof]

Re: Re: Re: Re: New Power Macs Faster than you think.

Originally posted by wilburpan

Well, the price differential is not inconsiderable. Based on the http://www.cpuscorecard.com website, I just spec'ed out a Dell computer with a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 (closest processor to the dual 1.25 Ghz Powermac) and compared it to a similarly outfitted Powermac from the Applestore:

Although you are correct that there is a HUGE premium on the top of the line Power Mac. The simple fact is that only corporations buy those machines. The lower end Power Mac is targeted more for actual people so the pricing is much more reasonable.

(Also the laws of economics dictate that the price of any product is exactly the price that people are willing to pay, and has no relation to how "fair" the price is.)

 

[bond2]

Apple Quote

As the saying goes at Apple: "If you can't beat'em, dual'em"


I say whatever it takes to keep up. Doesn't bother me that there are two CPU's under the hood. Anyways I am sure that OS X is way more optimized for dual Processors than Windows 2000 or XP. Having OS X far outways the slight difference in hardware performance. OS X is specifically designed for Macs, and optimized to take full advantage of the hardware. No one that has a Dell, Compaq, Gateway...etc... can say the same thing about Windows. The only way that would happen is if Microsoft came out with a special Intel version of Windows or AMD version. Never gonna happen. I know most of you already know this but I just thought I'd throw it out there again.

 

[gopher]

Have you noticed how the dual 1 Ghz isn't even on the radar of that page? They've constantly underrated Apple's speed, and now while they rate one that probably is close to correct, they ignore the others. That page has always been one for inconsistancies.

 

[MisterMe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Power Macs Faster than you think.

Originally posted by onemoof

Although you are correct that there is a HUGE premium on the top of the line Power Mac. The simple fact is that only corporations buy those machines. The lower end Power Mac is targeted more for actual people so the pricing is much more reasonable.

Does your "simple fact" mean that I am a corporation and not an actual person? Please don't break the news to my mom.

Originally posted by onemoof
(Also the laws of economics dictate that the price of any product is exactly the price that people are willing to pay, and has no relation to how "fair" the price is.)

Agreed.

 

[MacCoaster]

Re: Apple Quote

Originally posted by bond2
As the saying goes at Apple: "If you can't beat'em, dual'em"


I say whatever it takes to keep up. Doesn't bother me that there are two CPU's under the hood. Anyways I am sure that OS X is way more optimized for dual Processors than Windows 2000 or XP. Having OS X far outways the slight difference in hardware performance. OS X is specifically designed for Macs, and optimized to take full advantage of the hardware. No one that has a Dell, Compaq, Gateway...etc... can say the same thing about Windows. The only way that would happen is if Microsoft came out with a special Intel version of Windows or AMD version. Never gonna happen. I know most of you already know this but I just thought I'd throw it out there again.

Windows XP is optimized for both Intel Pentiums and AMD Athlons. You can include optimizations for both and they will be used as needed. Windows XP-64 is also compiled for IA-64 workstations. Apple might have beat Microsoft with the first consumer 32 bit OS, but Microsoft beat Apple with the first consumer 64 bit OS. You're speaking facts and not justifying them; please, next time at least justify yourself.

 

[dricci]

Originally posted by ColdZero
Oh yea, nice and fast . A Dual 1.25Ghz G4 vs a single 2.8ghz P4, uhhh isn't that a little unfair. Where is the dual 2.4ghz P4 vs dual 1.25ghz G4 comparison?

P4s can't go Dual. It's sorta like the G3, it's just not designed to do that. It wouldn't work.