New PowerMac...thoughts?

[Chryx]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Civility isn't just about language.

Originally posted by mischief
The thing is: Apple does the whole shebang. Even issues that trace back to Moto get attributed to Apple when the whiners start keening, so in essence Apple gets a disproportionate amount of criticism.

I blame Motorola for lack of development with the G4, I blame Apple for not bitchslapping Motorola earlier and going to IBM for processors

 

[Chryx]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What the slogan should have been

Originally posted by jefhatfield
about apple's 4 bil war chest....it was 6 bil in 2001 but i know apple bought an armload of companies...i am asking why that is though

Why they've been buying companies?, because it's quicker to buy something and tweak it from a UI standpoint (so it has that legendary 'ease of use' thing going on) than it is to write something from scratch?

perhpas apple will break out of their financial funk

I honestly don't think they'll manage that until they have the raw performance lead again, which I think IBM can make happen.

Which the original G3 they had a chance to, but MacOS was starting to look very old and tired by that point.
With a combination of a lickable OS and hardware that goes to 11, they might just manage it.

now that their gear is not stuck at 500 mhz forever, apple needs to do some creative, yet legal, accounting

"Steve purchased a Mars bar before delivering the keynote.. um.. deduct it, he used the energy it gave him during a company presentation!!!"

 

[jefhatfield]

when moto was stuck at 500 mhz, spikey and i were big ibm fans but a lot of people flamed us then...pcs were headed into the 1.3-1.5 ghz territory and threatening to triple us in clock speed, which i don't think they achieved from what i saw

but now the gap has somewhat narrowed to about fifty percent with pc at 2.53 ghz and mac at half that at 1.25 ghz...still a major gap though but an improvement from the 18 month drought at 500 mhz

and who will care when pcs at at 5.8 ghz and we are at 4.0 ghz?

ibm closed their retail division and is only online now and they have started their downsizing of 15,000 employees which never has proven to be a good move in american business

ibm may not have what it takes to make apple catch up...why would ibm want it any more than motorola?

i say stay with ibm and motorola thru next year and then see where we are at...maybe ibm will get their money matters in order to be able to pay attention to a minor company like apple with 7,000 employees

 

[Chryx]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
and who will care when pcs at at 5.8 ghz and we are at 4.0 ghz?

That's a smaller gap, and if the processor isn't bandwidth starved (which the current G4's are) then the IPC difference will let it hang even (at least)

ibm closed their retail division and is only online now and they have started their downsizing of 15,000 employees which never has proven to be a good move in american business

IBM are a _BIG_ company, the seperate divisions (of which semiconductors is one) act independently of one another...

ibm may not have what it takes to make apple catch up...why would ibm want it any more than motorola?

IBM already have what it takes to make Apple catch up.

IBM have :

1) a working .13 SOI process
2) chip designers that know how to make processors that scream

By the way, the POWER4 isn't a POWER architecture chip, it's a PPC-64 implementation (so in theory, you could just install MacOS X on a current POWER4 machine .. one of those on a .13 process (even in it's dual core incarnation) could well be a 1.7-1.8Ghz chip with _managable_ heat output (especially with a HS the size of the new PowerMac one), the _current_ .18 part @1.3Ghz outruns anything anyone else can bring to the table, Intel included.

Also, IBM need to replace the 604e's that they are _still_ using in some of their own workstations, the presence of Vector hardware on their upcoming POWER4-lite, which they've never shown any interest in, would indicate that the chip is at least Intended to find its way into Apple machines as well.

Unless someone else wants it, or IBM have changed their minds about it's usefulness.. (which is a possibility)

i say stay with ibm and motorola thru next year and then see where we are at...maybe ibm will get their money matters in order to be able to pay attention to a minor company like apple with 7,000 employees

Like I said, IBM is a big multidivision company, one area doing badly doesn't mean they all are.


IBM have the knowhow and the means to make real Intel-killing chips for Apple, the question is will/are they make(ing) them

 

[jefhatfield]

IBM have the knowhow and the means to make real Intel-killing chips for Apple, the question is will/are they make(ing) them

a don't know if a 300,000 person company would care right now about a 7,000 person company

the layoffs are still twice+ the number of people that apple has in total

moto has stepped up in a small way, i say give them a chance, and if they fail, then put moto in for ibook and imac/emac, and let ibm do the high end stuff and scale apple into 2+ ghz territory

either combo is fine with me, and i think for purposes of commerce, speeds up to 3 ghz will be watched by buying public but after that, people will smarten up and then look at featues more

right now, speed still is top selling point (maybe?) and 2.53 ghz sounds fantastic

 

[pgwalsh]

As opposed to Megahertz's shouldn't we be more focused on Application providers supporting Alti-vec and Dual Processors. Applications that currently support this seem to run extremely well and therefore negate the need for massive megahertz's. I keep hearing two things. Fist, Intel processors are just bumping up MHz/GHz and not really utilizing the latest technology and therefore they're not as good as PPC at the same frequency. 2) We need to catch them in Megahertz/Gigahertz.

If Inters chips are not as fast at the same frequency then we should stay focused on the technology that gives PPC the edge. We should be harassing application providers to support dual processor and Alti-Vec. I've heard the argument that we're never going to win over the WinTel power users with small frequency range. If we're so focused on frequency rather than what's really important, then we'll never get there. I think we need to educate people whenever possible. We already know that Intel is going to have to do something with their new mobile processors and AMD has been screaming this for a while. Why not push this. I agree we'd all like to see a PPC crush the ***** out Intel and AMD processors, but that's not going to happen for a while. So let's push Application providers and educate consumers.

Just my 2 Cents... I'd like to see the software side optimized.

 

[Chryx]

jefhatfield
a don't know if a 300,000 person company would care right now about a 7,000 person company

Read my post again, IBM need a cheaper high speed chip for their OWN systems to replace the 604e, if they can offset some of the R&D costs of that by selling some to Apple, why wouldn't they?

moto has stepped up in a small way

have they?

either combo is fine with me, and i think for purposes of commerce, speeds up to 3 ghz will be watched by buying public but after that, people will smarten up and then look at featues more

I'm more bothered by actual speed, not clockspeed (I'm using an Athlon rather than a P4 afterall)
the problem is, the G4 can't hang with the Athlon or P4 in overall performance.. (there's even benches up on barefeats that back that up.)

Sure, altivec code operating on data that'll fit in the L2 or L3 cache is fast as hell, but how much code fits those criteria?

Now, OSX is very nice, and It's made me consider getting a Mac, but it won't be a non-laptop (lower speed with EXTREME battery life and a nice featureset is a good thing for a laptop, and nobody on the x86 side makes high spec laptops with relatively slow/cool processors) until the desktops have LOTS of grunt, rather than just "quite a bit of" grunt.

right now, speed still is top selling point (maybe?) and 2.53 ghz sounds fantastic

Not to me it doesn't, the P4 still has a woefully inadequate floating point unit.

 

[Chryx]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
As opposed to Megahertz's shouldn't we be more focused on Application providers supporting Alti-vec and Dual Processors.

megahertz isn't the problem with the G4, the execution core itself is a blazingly quick piece of silicon, the problem is bandwidth, altivec needs more of it... much more.

a dual 1Ghz G4 with a 10GB/s system bus would be sight to behold

 

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Chryx


megahertz isn't the problem with the G4, the execution core itself is a blazingly quick piece of silicon, the problem is bandwidth, altivec needs more of it... much more.

a dual 1Ghz G4 with a 10GB/s system bus would be sight to behold

bandwidth is definitely key

 

[TheCat]

if you're into games, then u may wanna consider the future?? The latest games, like Doom3, will be best on a card with more than 64mb vram. The ATI 9700 wouldn't cut it, the GF4-Ti @ 128mb would be the better option atm.

Just a thought

Steve

Originally posted by pgwalsh
I'm psyched that new Macs are out!
I'm not sure whether to buy the 1 Ghz or 2 Ghz. I'm upgrading from an old b/w G3 400. Think I'll notice a speed increase? Just kidding.

I would like to put the new ATI Radeon 9700 card (when it comes out) in the machine, but I'm under the impression it's 8x AGP and you need the pro slot. However, the 9000 is a pro version. Does that use the pro slot?

Now to decide whether to go with the 22" or 23" screen… hmmm.

With Jaguar and all the great new apps loaded onto this computer, I don't see how anyone can complain. I'm running mainly Adobe products and Reason and they will be sweet on this new machine.

I'm tired of hearing about the ddr discussion. We have what Apple has offered and if you're happy then buy one and if you're not happy then buy one anyway. Ha! Please take the discussion on Ram to it's own forum. Please!

 

[Chryx]

Originally posted by TheCat
if you're into games, then u may wanna consider the future?? The latest games, like Doom3, will be best on a card with more than 64mb vram. The ATI 9700 wouldn't cut it, the GF4-Ti @ 128mb would be the better option atm.


um, the Radeon 9700 smacks the Geforce 4 Ti4600 silly...

If you mean Radeon 9000 however, you'd be right, since that's the value part

-JB

 

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Chryx
Originally posted by TheCat
if you're into games, then u may wanna consider the future?? The latest games, like Doom3, will be best on a card with more than 64mb vram. The ATI 9700 wouldn't cut it, the GF4-Ti @ 128mb would be the better option atm.


um, the Radeon 9700 smacks the Geforce 4 Ti4600 silly...

If you mean Radeon 9000 however, you'd be right, since that's the value part

-JB

that's what i love about ati and nvidia...they are always besting each other back and forth, and we, the consumers, are the winners

 

[pgwalsh]

The ATI 9700 isn't listed as available for the mac and I'm not sure if it will. It requires a seperate power connection similar to a cd rom drive etc. Does anyone have a clue if ATI will release a mac version? If they do then I'd get the current pm with a 9000 and then upgrade in a couple months. Maybe you can sell or stick the 9000 in an older mac.

 

[TheCat]

ohh i've lost track of all the different ATI cards out/coming out atm.. which is best again?? :-/
Anyway, all i meant was that you'd need a kickass gfx card with *more* than 64mb ram on it. GF4/ATI/whatever - i just wanna play Doom 3

 

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by TheCat
ohh i've lost track of all the different ATI cards out/coming out atm.. which is best again?? :-/

Best ATI card is the Radeon 9700. (coming soon)
Best nVidia card is a GeForce4 Ti 4600
Best Matrox card is the Parhelia 512

 

[topicolo]

To shorten all of that, you could've just said that the Radeon 9700 was the best card.

 

[G5orbust]

Originally posted by pgwalsh


Best ATI card is the Radeon 9700. (coming soon)
Best nVidia card is a GeForce4 Ti 4600
Best Matrox card is the Parhelia 512

And the all powerful 3dLabs (which, btw, was gobbled up by Creative) Wildcat Series. The best card, i believe, was the WildcatIII-6110; maxing out at 512 MB of RAM.

 

[topicolo]

Originally posted by TheCat
if you're into games, then u may wanna consider the future?? The latest games, like Doom3, will be best on a card with more than 64mb vram. The ATI 9700 wouldn't cut it, the GF4-Ti @ 128mb would be the better option atm.

Just a thought

Steve

According to Carmack, anything better than a GF3 with more than 80mb of ram (that's how much textures Doom 3 uses) will do.
Besides, the Ati DEFINATELY cuts it, since id was running their DOOM 3 demos on a Radeon 9700 and Carmack specifically said that the 9700 was better than the GF4Ti

 

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by topicolo
To shorten all of that, you could've just said that the Radeon 9700 was the best card.

Yes, Sir Donkey Butt.

 

[G5orbust]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
Yes, Sir Donkey Butt.

lol

 

[TheCat]

nice1, an ATI 9700 it is then.. so when is it out on the Mac? I've gotta play Doom3 in all it's gory err glory

 

[wildcat4100]

Doom 3

Originally posted by TheCat
nice1, an ATI 9700 it is then.. so when is it out on the Mac? I've gotta play Doom3 in all it's gory err glory

When is Doom3 gonna release anyway?

 

[TheCat]

good point, this is why i can wait for the newest gfx card.. whatever is the best.
But when Doom3 is released i'll be ordering the 'then best' gfx card a week b4.. hopfully the 9700, but a GF4Ti will do

 

[G5orbust]

Yes, i guess the Geforce4 TI is just OK.
If tehy used the 9700 on the Doom demo, im hooked. Im saving up my money already.

But i have a question.

Which is better:
the old geforce 4MX (w/ 64 MB)
or
the new radeon 9000 in the new powermacs?

ATI's site is tricky and chock full of flash scenes, so its hard to get the actual, plain text data sheet on the graphic card.

 

[me hate windows]

which would you rather have

If the new G4 and the SpongeBob computer both had the exact same specs: processor, ram, TWO optical bays, all the ports, graphics card, yadayadayada. Which one would you purchase based on design, the SpongeBob or the chrome drive bay G4?