[mamamia]

I know that we all *want* faster towers, but I am curious who among us actually has a *need* to have something faster than what is currently available. I'm really interested in those of you who have dual 2-gigers already, and find yourself realistically able to utilize more performance than they are able to provide. If you are such a person, what type of work do you do? Where would faster machines make the most difference in your work flow? Etc.

(Note: I am not particularly interested in gamers' perspective; I already know they have an unending thirst for more speed.)

Thanks in advance.

[bimmerphile]

I am in between want and need.

I currently have a Dual 2.0, and, as you might have guessed, do a shizload of DVD authoring and remastering.

As such, I can always put more power to use.

That, molecular modeling, and protein folding.

[Leonis]

Originally posted by bimmerphile:
Dual 2.0GHz G5 | 1.5GB RAM | Flashed Superdrive | 400GB HD | 52x FW CDRW | APX| BT | Retail 9800 Pro | Apple 21" Studio | Micron 17" CRT
iBook G4 800 | 640MB RAM | APX | iCurve | Ogio M-Jack Pack
30GB iPod | iSight | Logitech Z680 | Sennheiser HD590 | Palm m130 | Moto v60i | Olympus C740 | Logitech Cordless MX Duo

What's these? Show off?

[aaanorton]

I currently have 2 2x2s in a Sprinter van doing digi photo work. I could easily use twice or more the processing power. I just finished a job where we processed out well over 100 GB of data. This was a fairly small job. I'd love to be able to finish processing files from a shot before the next shot was completed.
I could definitely saturate 4 of these machines in a regular day's work.

[djohnson]

Well, I dont have a dual 2Ghz beast... But I do have a Beige G3 All I use it for is programming and web design. My wife uses it for Photoshop. Here is what is feels like trying to use it for anything

We are waiting for the dual 3Ghz G5 that are coming out any time now!

[Lateralus]

I need a good bit more power. Especially for video encoding. I currently have a 933MHz G4 Power Mac with 2MBs of L3 cache, it is 'sufficent' for the time being. But I am seriously looking at the Dual 1.33 GigaDesigns processor upgrade. It's about $700 from OWC, and OWC offers a trade-in value of $165 for my processor.

But, I also want a G5 so much more. Don't think I can swing it though. :-(

[bimmerphile]

Originally posted by Leonis:
What's these? Show off?

ummm...for people that question if I should post in the PM/iBook forums?

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

People who do lots of rendering in Video or 3D. Not that anyone really uses Mac's for 3D though.

[Eug Wanker]

I would be much happier if my iDVD renders only took 2 minutes. Bring on the dual 10 GHz G6s!

[starman]

I do.

I do a lot of video and Photoshop work, and I currently run a 1GHz 17" Powerbook. I'd be all over a dual 2.5 G5 like white on rice.

Mike

[Mr. Blur]

i do too. lots of work on large audio files, and as a Reason user too, more power = more synths, samplers and effects.

as soon as something in the dual 2.5 area comes out, my g4 dual 800 is on the way out.

[Cadaver]

Actually, for now, believe it or not I'm very content with the power of my Dual 2.0GHz G5. This is the first time I've been completely satisfied with the overall performance - app, GUI, disk, etc - of a Macintosh (though I still wouldn't use anything else).

While I wouldn't mind having just a bit more RAM, its plenty fast for what I do...

-Medical/Radiologic graphics (diagnostic use, DICOM to jpg/tif/mpeg)
-Heavy PowerPoint; occasional Keynote
-Moderate Photoshop CS work (medical graphics for publication, amature personal photography)
-iPhoto (about 3,000+ images, all between 4 and 6 megapixels)
-Word processing (recently wrote portions of a large medical text book; total of 4GB of text/graphics)

Then there's all the stuff that requires little actual power: mail, web, iCal, Quicken, remote server management).

I think I'll be happy for a while

[Eug Wanker]

-Medical/Radiologic graphics (diagnostic use, DICOM to jpg/tif/mpeg)

What's the best place to get basic info on this, for the non-radiology type person?

[Jerome]

I'm a broadcast designer, using After Effects most of the time. If I could get my hands on a Quad-4Ghz-G6 with 16 Gb of ram, I would. Instant renders are still just a fantasy.

I also work with Lightwave 3D once in a while, Final Cut Pro and (not by choice) Premiere. Photoshoping is a must, as is Illustrator. Also do some music with Reason.

[driven]

Honestly, I don't *NEED* the speed that's NOW available. I'm still on my 4 year old 500 Ghz G4 Cube. That said: It *IS* time to upgrade. I'm just figuring if my next Mac lasts me as long as my last Mac then in 4 years I don't want it to feel slow. :-)

(I've gone through 3 high-end PCs in those same 4 years ... kind of makes the Mac seem cheap by comparison!)

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
What's the best place to get basic info on this, for the non-radiology type person?

http://www.rsna.org/practice/dicom/

[Eriamjh]

Anyone who wants to work with HDTV video needs a faster computer. Real time rendering is great, but 2x-10X faster than real time for exporting would rock!

I don't do this, but would like to! Bring on 10GHz G6s!

[eddiecatflap]

..yeah , those 3ghz g5's look sweeet

[rogerkylin]

Number crunching. Even on a 2 Ghz processor (app not threaded) codes run for hours to days.

Apple also needs faster desktops/servers to be the obvious choice over intel. Right now it is a toss-up as to a 2 Ghz g5 or a 3 GHz Xeon is better for us.

[eddiecatflap]

..maybe we'll see the multi multi proc. macs that have been mooted ?

..anyone for a 4 x 2.5ghz g5 ?

[Arkham_c]

You guys are gonna think I'm crazy.

I have a Dual 2GHz with an OEM Radeon 9800 Pro. The CPUs are plenty fast, but I feel like my video card is not fast enough in games. I realize that it's the fastest card available, but I feel like I should be able to handle any game out there with all options on at 1600x1200, and that's not the case. Halo, UT2003, etc all play great on the machine, but not at 1600x1200 with 4xFSAA, pixel shaders, etc turned on. I want more power in the graphics department.

[mamamia]

Is this something that wintel system can handle? Is this even a realistic goal when one programs a game or designs a system? Seems like hardly anyone has displays that even go up to 1600x1200, nevermind wants their game to run at the resolution with 4xFSAA, pixel shaders, etc., without missing a beat. The future is Doom3 type graphics: hyper realistic and incredibly processor and graphics intensive to the point that even the fastest machines won't be able to go past 1280x1024. We'll probably need two generations of pmacs and two generations of graphic processor cards before Doom3-based games can be played at 1600x1280 with anti-aliasing and pixel shaders.

On another note, I find it interesting that after reviewing this thread, only a quarter of the posters claimed that they were doing work which could utilize the additional power RIGHT NOW. Obviously that is not the sum of the justification for more speed - if apple ever wants to gain marketshare, open up new markets, it needs to increase it's machines capabilities which inevitably means more speed. And more speed means migrating that speed down the product line so that more users can enjoy the benefit of teh G5. But the current towers appears fast enough to get most jobs done.

Thanks for the replies.

Originally posted by Arkham_c:
You guys are gonna think I'm crazy.

I have a Dual 2GHz with an OEM Radeon 9800 Pro. The CPUs are plenty fast, but I feel like my video card is not fast enough in games. I realize that it's the fastest card available, but I feel like I should be able to handle any game out there with all options on at 1600x1200, and that's not the case. Halo, UT2003, etc all play great on the machine, but not at 1600x1200 with 4xFSAA, pixel shaders, etc turned on. I want more power in the graphics department.

[Arkham_c]

Originally posted by mamamia:
Is this something that wintel system can handle? Is this even a realistic goal when one programs a game or designs a system? Seems like hardly anyone has displays that even go up to 1600x1200, nevermind wants their game to run at the resolution with 4xFSAA, pixel shaders, etc., without missing a beat. The future is Doom3 type graphics: hyper realistic and incredibly processor and graphics intensive to the point that even the fastest machines won't be able to go past 1280x1024. We'll probably need two generations of pmacs and two generations of graphic processor cards before Doom3-based games can be played at 1600x1280 with anti-aliasing and pixel shaders.

It's certainly a realistic goal. At some point in the distant future, there will be photorealistic games played at massive resolutions and good frame rates (never falling below the screen refresh rate). We're not there yet, but I do anticipate it at some point in the future. I had hoped to be there now when I got this machine, and for older games (e.g. Quake 3) my machine can do all I could ask for (1600x1200, all options on high, >200fps at all times). But game performance is a moving target, and games like Halo and Ut2004 will keep moving that target higher.

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by Arkham_c:
You guys are gonna think I'm crazy.

I have a Dual 2GHz with an OEM Radeon 9800 Pro. The CPUs are plenty fast, but I feel like my video card is not fast enough in games. I realize that it's the fastest card available, but I feel like I should be able to handle any game out there with all options on at 1600x1200, and that's not the case. Halo, UT2003, etc all play great on the machine, but not at 1600x1200 with 4xFSAA, pixel shaders, etc turned on. I want more power in the graphics department.

While the request isn't crazy, there isn't a computer system available at present that will do it now.

Even top-end Wintel machines wont produce this level of performance yet.

[starman]

Originally posted by Cadaver:
While the request isn't crazy, there isn't a computer system available at present that will do it now.

Even top-end Wintel machines wont produce this level of performance yet.

Yet.

Damn..no direct links..

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...n_9800-15.html

Mike

[BZ]

Need more than a 2.0 G5? No way.

WANT? Yes.

I am on for the next round of G5s. If it takes till the summer and Dual 3.0. Fine.

If they release Dual 2.4/2.6s next week. Great.

I am upgrading from a 1Ghz PL Sawtooth so everything will be good, but I also keep my two computers (PowerBook/PowerMac) for 4 years (with an update on year 2.5/3) so it always makes sense to get the biggest and baddest boy on the block.

BZ

[djohnson]

Well looks like I have the slowest machine here It will be really cool going from 466Mhz to dual 3Ghz! I could use that power now, and will need it more then. Who else here needs the crunch power to compile applications? Oh and you have to be able to run seti@home and dnetc really fast too

[The Placid Casual]

Originally posted by starman:
Yet.

Damn..no direct links..

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...n_9800-15.html

Mike

The new round of ATI gfx cards are coming out in the spring, so nVidia will probably launch something new as well... rumoured to be called the 6xxx series. They all promise much better than 9800XT performance.

I also heard that we may see gfx going to PCI-X or express in the next few years. I hate to say it, but could AGP be on it's way out? If so, where does that leave Apple?

[Link]

I can say without a doubt, for my more demanding tasks I need all the processing power I can get!!!!

However if my g4 could hold 8gb of ram I'd NOT think about upgrading.

Need and afford are two totally different worlds. Yes normally when you need something that badly you have means for it to pay for itself but... let's just say an awful lot of my work is pro bono

Facts:
1. I need something that has a LOT of ram
2. I need something that doesn't think twice while doing a photoshop of a large picture.
3. In addition can manage 13 other apps running concurrently with 5 taking up more than 50% of the remaining CPU

No I don't use my computer to it's max potential 24/7 but I do know I overuse the ram badly. Unfortunately this well, if I can't afford maxing the ram on my g4.. you get the idea.

I don't really save up. Way things work in this house money comes and goes when you least expect it

Reading that over, you can call me spoiled.. my comments most certainly were, and on the contrary my g4's a wonderful machine and I'm glad I have it.

Besides we all lust after new hardware, right?

IMHO it doesn't matter so much that you *NEED* it at the time, but I think a dual 2ghz owner should be just as excited by a dual 3ghz, 4ghz, etc, as a person who has a g3 350.

Why? That means next time around your computer will be that much faster,not to mention more powerful games, etc to take the load.

[xMetal]

every extra second of render time makes me wish and pray for a dual G5.

Ugh. 10 minutes per frame x hundreds/thousands of frames = pain


I could honestly use a system faster than the fastest available, to be completely productive. Actually, 2 or 3 dual G5's would be nice as I could batch render, and do other work while tying up another machine.

[P]

Faster than 2*2? No. Dual G5s at a lower price? YES! I'm stuck with my iMac DV/400, and I'd like a dual, but in the current lineup that's a 2*1.8, which is a nice setup but a little pricey and with a Geforce 5200 which I don't want (FSAA sucks because the grid is square) - I want a Radeon 9600. Yes, I can get that as a BTO, but then I'd have to buy at the Apple Store and that's not always the cheapest.

I'm hoping that an upgrade will put a single 2GHz as the low-end and leave old 2*2s around at a lower price (it has the 9600 as standard).

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by P:
I'm hoping that an upgrade will put a single 2GHz as the low-end and leave old 2*2s around at a lower price (it has the 9600 as standard).

But Apple can (and has been know to) drop the graphics card down a notch when/if the dual 2.0's become lower-end machines.... We could see a dual 2.0 with an nvidia 5200FX card as standard.

[djohnson]

I dont think they will go with a 5200fx card. Maybe leave it at the 9600.

[starman]

Just got my Dual 2.0GHz G5.

Compile time for the MSL Libraries in Code Warrior 8.3

Dual 450MHz G4 - 1hour, 5 minutes.
Dual 2.0GHz G5 - 22 minutes.

Wow.

Mike

[[APi]TheMan]

Originally posted by starman:
Just got my Dual 2.0GHz G5.

Compile time for the MSL Libraries in Code Warrior 8.3

Dual 450MHz G4 - 1hour, 5 minutes.
Dual 2.0GHz G5 - 22 minutes.

Wow.

I've been "testing" one here at work for about a month and wow is right. This thing flies through folding@home... Even with two copies of folding@home up and running, applications still launch in .5 - 1 bounce.

The G5s are nice, but so is my Pismo 900mhz G3. I don't game, I don't do graphics... I don't need a machine that's ALL that powerful. I'm thinking that I may just have to wait awhile to get a new machine, this puppy's really doin' it all for me.

Regarding faster towers... I would love to see the Mac market be there. I know there are people out there that could use more.

[mum]

I only *need* something in the dual 2GHz G5 category, but as their price is not in the ballpark I want to fork out right now (I'd rather travel etc., you know?), I'll need the top of the line Macs to be a lot faster so I can get a dual for cheaper.

I need the speed for audio stuff, and Emagic/Apple have just released a reverb plug-in called Space Designer that I want to be able to use along with loads of other plugs in very complex audio mixes in Logic Audio. Space Designer is one power-hungry plug-in.

[P]

Originally posted by Cadaver:
But Apple can (and has been know to) drop the graphics card down a notch when/if the dual 2.0's become lower-end machines.... We could see a dual 2.0 with an nvidia 5200FX card as standard.

No, I mean getting one that a retailer has left after the launch. I doubt that the low-end will be dual in any case.

IMHO, The Geforce 5200 is not a good buy, and at least the midrange should have a 9600 as the default. The difference in the BTO screen is trivial, so why not make it default? It's a much better board. Might even put the 9600 in the high-end iMacs.

[Todd Madson]

I'm a musician and work with huge files and many software synthesizers at the same time.

I also do video editing with the music I've done and it's a trying time sometimes.

My G4/400 with 1.5 gigs of ram and 160 gigs of
drive space is at the absolute limit. I must have
a new machine by fall or I'll go insane. I love my
machine for most purposes but at work they got
a bunch of G5 units with 20 inch flat panels I have
to support periodically and I'm spoiled rotten if I
ever have to touch them. Sigh.

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by Todd Madson:
I'm a musician and work with huge files and many software synthesizers at the same time.

I also do video editing with the music I've done and it's a trying time sometimes.

My G4/400 with 1.5 gigs of ram and 160 gigs of
drive space is at the absolute limit. I must have
a new machine by fall or I'll go insane. I love my
machine for most purposes but at work they got
a bunch of G5 units with 20 inch flat panels I have
to support periodically and I'm spoiled rotten if I
ever have to touch them. Sigh.

You could always snatch up a nice processor upgrade card. OWC has 1.5GHz G4 upgrades for $550, IIRC. And cards that overclock to speeds near that for as little as $400.

[MindFad]

Dual 3GHz, FireGL.

Please. Please. Please. Rendering/3-D development/Gaming BEASTMONSTEROMGSOPOWERFUL machine.

[starman]

Originally posted by MindFad:
Dual 3GHz, FireGL.

Please. Please. Please. Rendering/3-D development/Gaming BEASTMONSTEROMGSOPOWERFUL machine.

OMGWTFSTFU .

Mike