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.
New PowerMac...thoughts?
- Thread starter Swinny
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Re: Power Macs
I do agree the iMac is tempting, but I'd like a larger screen then 17".
The iMac screen is too small for me with regards to PhotoShop, Illustrator, GoLive, Premier etc etc etc. I just updated all my apps and they're ready for OS X, however I'm on 9.2.2. I'm running a G3 400 ouch! So, I think this update is needed. Even if I were running a duel G4 533 I would consider upgrading.
I do agree the iMac is tempting, but I'd like a larger screen then 17".
I'll keep the dual 867 Machine in mind. That may be decent upgrade and then I could get an iBook too.
Right now I'm moving so slowly that I'm watching the screen move a graphic after I took my hand off the arrow key. This is in LiveMotion. It's too damn slow. However, I checked out OS X and think it's pretty cool. I heard you can't customized the Apple menu which bothers me.
I think the iBook would make a nice secondary machine. I like the fact that it's small etc. I wish the speed was a bit faster. We know IBM has a 1Ghz G3 and that would be an easy decision for me. I'm not sure how well AI or GL would fair on that machine. I think I'll turn my old PM into a workgroup sever. It's not fast, but it has scsi drives and will be fine for staging and inhouse work.
I ordered my G4/dual gig the day they were released on an edu discount. I then got to thinking about it and unearthed my reciepts for my B/W G3 400 rev. B. Guess what I paid only $100 more for my new machine then I did for my old one. Think about that and how much more you get with this new machine over the old now pathetic G3.
Re: This is where I make with the smackdown:
You misread the PDF. 1.3 GB/sec from the processor(s) to the System Controller means that no matter how fast main memory is, the processor's only going to get it 1.3GB/s at a time. That leaves 1.4GB/s for the rest of the system (AGP+PCI) to chomp on using direct memory access. Since 33MHz PCI offers about 1GB/s of total throughput, most likely two things are true:
1) You'll never use the 2.7 GB/sec throughput to main memory
2) Your PCI devices will never collide with your processors in reading memory, even while transfering a 100MB chunk of data over your gigabit ethernet.
Originally posted by mischief
As to the whole "Is is DDR or isn't it?" Why don't you go find out before whining? The Powermac page says the following:
...
The resulting throughput between main memory and the system controller is up to 2.7GBps, more than double the throughput from the previous dual 1GHz Power Mac G4. DDR-SDRAM also increases systemwide memory bandwidth to the processors and all other elements of the system. At the same time, direct memory access allows system elements, such as a hard drive controller or a graphics processing unit, to send and receive data directly from main memory, without going through the processors. The added bandwidth allows system elements to function independently at high data rates, boosting total system performance."
Additionally, the PDF spec sheet details throughput of the 167 bus at:
1.3 GB/sec. throughput for the main bus.
2.7 GB/Sec. Processor-RAM throughput.
4GB/sec. L3 Cache throughput.
So YES this is a significant increase in power and speed so SHADDAP!!!!
You misread the PDF. 1.3 GB/sec from the processor(s) to the System Controller means that no matter how fast main memory is, the processor's only going to get it 1.3GB/s at a time. That leaves 1.4GB/s for the rest of the system (AGP+PCI) to chomp on using direct memory access. Since 33MHz PCI offers about 1GB/s of total throughput, most likely two things are true:
1) You'll never use the 2.7 GB/sec throughput to main memory
2) Your PCI devices will never collide with your processors in reading memory, even while transfering a 100MB chunk of data over your gigabit ethernet.
Originally posted by 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.
i'm guessing the ATI?? Isn't the GF4MX just an old & cutdown version of the GF2 ?
No the GF4MX is faster then the GF2 it's actually almost as fast as th GF3 but not quite. I'm not sure what is faster the ATI 9000 pro or the GF4MX I do know that there isn't a lot of difference in speed if there is any. I just know that I didn't really want either and I don't want to spen $300+ on a current top of the line graphics card I'm holding out for the 9700 or the GF5. Either way the GF4MX was much cheaper then the ATI 9000 when ordering the new dual so I opted for it saving my money for the next generation of high end Graphics Cards.
actually GF4mx is about the same as a GF2...ATI 9000 will be better and faster
GF4Ti are still PROBABLY the best
GF4Ti are still PROBABLY the best
Re: Thank you for actually backing yourself up.
Just a minor correction. The current G4s are NOT overclocked! "Overclocked" means that they are running at a higher-than-rated speed. Every indication is that the 1GHz+ PPC chips are actually rated as 1GHz+, not rated at, say, 867MHz and overclocked to 1GHz+. As a point of fact, it is by definition impossible for a chip manufacturer (say, IBM), to "overclock" a chip, as it is their quality control definition which determines the rated speed of the chip. A 1.255GHz chip is most likely absolutely no different than a 1.0GHz chip, other than the fact that one passed the 1.255GHz quality test and the other only the 1.0GHz quality test (I say "most likely" because sometimes manufacturing process differences cause the jump in rated speeds, as with the AMD 2200+ to 2400+/2600+ chips).
Now, if one can give definitive evidence that the quality control standards have been seriously relaxed so that more high-rated chips come off the assembly line, please show it here. Otherwise, please stop asserting that Apple, IBM, or Motorolla is "overclocking" the chips that they manufacture and distribute.
Just a minor correction. The current G4s are NOT overclocked! "Overclocked" means that they are running at a higher-than-rated speed. Every indication is that the 1GHz+ PPC chips are actually rated as 1GHz+, not rated at, say, 867MHz and overclocked to 1GHz+. As a point of fact, it is by definition impossible for a chip manufacturer (say, IBM), to "overclock" a chip, as it is their quality control definition which determines the rated speed of the chip. A 1.255GHz chip is most likely absolutely no different than a 1.0GHz chip, other than the fact that one passed the 1.255GHz quality test and the other only the 1.0GHz quality test (I say "most likely" because sometimes manufacturing process differences cause the jump in rated speeds, as with the AMD 2200+ to 2400+/2600+ chips).
Now, if one can give definitive evidence that the quality control standards have been seriously relaxed so that more high-rated chips come off the assembly line, please show it here. Otherwise, please stop asserting that Apple, IBM, or Motorolla is "overclocking" the chips that they manufacture and distribute.
The GF4MX has the same features as the GF2 (no programmable pixel shaders, etc), but it is only a tiny bit slower than the 9000. I think you should just go for the cheapest one with the most memory if it's down to those 2
the Geforce4 Mx that i have has 64 Mb of VRAM, idead of the puny 32 in the new ones.
Its a great card and i was just wondering if the Radeon 9000 is better in any significant amount. Tahnks for ur input. And, if you put the GF4 MX in a GF2 arena, it would probably be called the GF2 Ti [insert # here]. But if you compare the specs of the gf3 (origional) and the gf4 Mx 440 (the one i have), ull see the gf3 only beats it by a little bit and the gf4 beats the gf3 ti 200 by only a little bit. The only reason they're better cards is because of the independent shader functions that the gf4 mx series lacks.
Something I'm curious about is that the GF4MX in the new DDR PowerMacs is only 32 megs where as the new ones were 64megs. What I'm wondering is if we'll see much of a speed difference. Obviously we'll see some but the card can access the DDR ram with Direct Memmory Access with not a whole lot more delay or slow down in speed then the onboard memmory giving it all the memmory the system can give it at as fast as AGP 4x can give it.