[AssassyN]

Just thought I'd post that in my recently received issue of MaximumPC, on page 24-25, they did tests on 3 system using multi-processor-only comparison and sadly the Dual 1.25Ghz machine w/ 2gigs of RAM, OS X 10.2.x, and a GF 4 Ti got demolished in Quake III tests, Jedi Outcast tests, Photoshop 7.0 tests, Premiere 6.5 tests, and LightWave 7.5 tests.

It's competitors were a Dual Athlon 2400+ (2.0Ghz/proc.) machine w/ 2 gigs of RAM, and a GF 4 Ti graphics card, and a Dual Intel Xeon 2.8Ghz/proc. machine w/ 2 gigs of RAM and a GF 4 Ti graphics card.

The Xeon owned both systems because of it's raw speed, the actual Xeon chip, and it's insane 533Mhz front-side-bus (compared to Apple's lowly 167Mhz bus and the Athlon's 266Mhz bus).

On the positive side they pictured the actual Apple rig as no one can deny its beauty and said they included it for fairness to the Apple crowd, but I cringed upon reading this (quoted exactly):
"We came to one conclusion very quickly after reviewing the numbers: Mac people who scream that their Apples are faster than PCs are simply so full of crap, they could double as septic tanks."

Ouch. The numbers don't lie though, and I don't want to start a PC-bashing thread here, so please refrain, and we all like our Apple's for reasons other than the simple benchmarks, just wanted to point out that Apple's machine made it to a review in a primarily only PC-mag and got thoroughly smashed.

[docholiday]

hmm, i hope they actually compare the 1.42Ghz when they are out... although i doubt even those machines can make a difference

What we need is some IBM action... that will bring us closer to the PC competition. The PPC970 might lag behind the latest from Intel or AMD intially, but as both are eventually gonna be switching to 64bit processors for consumers too, IBM will have had a head start.

And I doubt IBM would like to see their processors smoked by the latest from Intel/AMD. They won't be like Motorola, they will actually care - partly because they're using the PPC970 too.

As I haven't been here in the glory G3 days, I would LOVE to see the PowerMacs just fly past the competition, making the Mac the fastest, most realiable, most user-friendly computer out there!

[MindFad]

Tides will change with the 970. It just needs to hurry up and get here. I won't even post the pic.

[Johnnyboysmac]

Hi All,

Just a thought/perspective from a 'noob' PC user, and switcher to be.

Maybe my view is a bit naive, as I figure I'm a relatively inexperienced computer user/operator/geek compared to you guys, and I don't play games n stuff on the PC, rather a playstation, so to me speed is that which gives me a snappy performance for the day to day stuff, (y'know all that 'girly' consumer stuff ) and hopefully as a home user, not dead slow/frustrating, time consuming re more cpu intensive tasks.

I figure as long as things can happen at about the speed I can turn the page in a book, that's about sufficient for me. More is always nicer, but that's about the minimum. As long as I'm not waiting around for things to happen, I don't worry about the extra few percent 'faster' on paper.

Having said that, I'm hanging out to try one of the new Imac 17" 1ghz machines, as the previous iteration in the 800mhz model, was a bit dissapointing in the 'snappiness' dept.

Still, almost anything would be better than this P11 I'm typing this on

So maybe inexperience and computer 'naivety' counts against me, but I figure the best measure of speed of a machine, is the total time it takes one to do a task from go to whoa, including of course any crashes/freezes, or time spent 'finding' ones way around the OS dialogue boxes/intrusions, etc. and the sense of frustration, or lack thereof that engenders.

I have little real experience with the Mac; really only what I've experienced with some playing around at Internet cafes on early Imacs running OS 8.6, and in the stores with OSX. Of course, I've also played around at said cafes with Win ME, and XP, as well as my own box with 98SE.

In the few small areas I can see/have enough experience to be able to compare, I'm blown away by the ease and simplicity of the Mac re it's interface.

I do understand, the concern re hardware speed, and keeping parity with the overall market standards, but I think real world usuage is a more accurate measure overall.

Lastly, I sure as hell hope I'm right, as if I get to handle the new Imac/1gb tower, and I'ts 'snappy' re the opening and closing of apps, loading web pages etc, I'm then going to put my money where my mouth is!

So if it's slow, dead dull and boring, I'll only have myself to blame

Anyway, thanx for listening, but go easy on yourselves re lamenting the lack of Mac speed, coming from the perspective of the windows world, you Mac guys have got an awful lot going for you - the product, but also the camaraderie on these forums. It's a resource you can't put a price on, and something quite special IMHO.

Peace to All,

Johnboi.

[AssassyN]

Originally posted by Johnnyboysmac:
Hi All,

Just a thought/perspective from a 'noob' PC user, and switcher to be.

Maybe my view is a bit naive, as I figure I'm a relatively inexperienced computer user/operator/geek compared to you guys, and I don't play games n stuff on the PC, rather a playstation, so to me speed is that which gives me a snappy performance for the day to day stuff, (y'know all that 'girly' consumer stuff ) and hopefully as a home user, not dead slow/frustrating, time consuming re more cpu intensive tasks.

I figure as long as things can happen at about the speed I can turn the page in a book, that's about sufficient for me. More is always nicer, but that's about the minimum. As long as I'm not waiting around for things to happen, I don't worry about the extra few percent 'faster' on paper.

Having said that, I'm hanging out to try one of the new Imac 17" 1ghz machines, as the previous iteration in the 800mhz model, was a bit dissapointing in the 'snappiness' dept.

Still, almost anything would be better than this P11 I'm typing this on

So maybe inexperience and computer 'naivety' counts against me, but I figure the best measure of speed of a machine, is the total time it takes one to do a task from go to whoa, including of course any crashes/freezes, or time spent 'finding' ones way around the OS dialogue boxes/intrusions, etc. and the sense of frustration, or lack thereof that engenders.

I have little real experience with the Mac; really only what I've experienced with some playing around at Internet cafes on early Imacs running OS 8.6, and in the stores with OSX. Of course, I've also played around at said cafes with Win ME, and XP, as well as my own box with 98SE.

In the few small areas I can see/have enough experience to be able to compare, I'm blown away by the ease and simplicity of the Mac re it's interface.

I do understand, the concern re hardware speed, and keeping parity with the overall market standards, but I think real world usuage is a more accurate measure overall.

Lastly, I sure as hell hope I'm right, as if I get to handle the new Imac/1gb tower, and I'ts 'snappy' re the opening and closing of apps, loading web pages etc, I'm then going to put my money where my mouth is!

So if it's slow, dead dull and boring, I'll only have myself to blame

Anyway, thanx for listening, but go easy on yourselves re lamenting the lack of Mac speed, coming from the perspective of the windows world, you Mac guys have got an awful lot going for you - the product, but also the camaraderie on these forums. It's a resource you can't put a price on, and something quite special IMHO.

Peace to All,

Johnboi.

You, sir, have one awesome attitude going for you. Glad to have ya on the Forums! And yes, I agree 100% with you...the new IBM chip needs to make itself available quickly, but what I really care about in a computer is how fast it'll open & run apps simultaneously, and just the normal day to day usage being quick.

And as for the iMac you're looking at, best of luck with it! The 17" screen is awesome & the 1Ghz G4 isn't any slouch...I got the luxury of actually getting my hands on a 15" 800Mhz iMac (running OS 9.2, which I actually *greatly* dislike, I only like OS X really) at my school in a teacher's hidden computer room, and I loved it. It just plain out fun to work with. And I can't imagine how cool it'd be with OS X! But anyways, best of luck in your choice, and thanks for your input!

[Cipher13]

Any magazine that compares a Mac to an Athlon go a Xeon loses all credibility instantly in my eyes.

[AssassyN]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Any magazine that compares a Mac to an Athlon go a Xeon loses all credibility instantly in my eyes.

Might I ask, why?

[solitere]

Any magazine that compares a Mac with OS X to an Athlon and a Xeon with Windows loses all credibility instantly in my eyes.

Atleast they could compere Mandrake 9.1 PPC and Mandrake Intel to compere the OS:es

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by AssassyN:
Might I ask, why?

The machines are in totally different classes.

The Xeon is an ultra-high-end workstation. Comparing it to the Athlon alone is ridiculous.

Comparing the PowerMac to either of these is also stupid because the architectures are inherently different. Lest I mention the fact that they didn't even test the top range PowerMac?

I know that the Athlon is faster. I have no doubt. Hell, I'm building one.

The comments are immature, ignorant, and just... ugh. Cringe-worthy.

The whole thing was just idiotic.

I don't doubt their results, never said I did; but the guys that did that review are rather dumb.

[AssassyN]

Understood...I see your points, but in all due respect they most likely went into those tests already knowing the winner, and just wanted to see the margins of differences through compeition. And they tested with what Apple provided them with, which was the Dual 1.25 (the fastest at the time of testing).

But I must say, that *if* the G4 was in fact faster, and could have slaughtered the Xeon in that test, would you *still* say comparing the 3 was rediculous?

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by AssassyN:
Understood...I see your points, but in all due respect they most likely went into those tests already knowing the winner, and just wanted to see the margins of differences through compeition. And they tested with what Apple provided them with, which was the Dual 1.25 (the fastest at the time of testing).

But I must say, that *if* the G4 was in fact faster, and could have slaughtered the Xeon in that test, would you *still* say comparing the 3 was rediculous?

Impossible to say.

Yes, because the machines are in different classes.

No, because the G4 could never have killed it. If it *was* faster, I would have known in the first place, and never made the comment.

Don't get me wrong here, you seem to be mistaking me for an Apple zealot.

That is one thing I am not.

I can't stand Steve Jobs, nor Apple in general, and PC hardware is vastly superior to Mac hardware right now.

[danengel]

... the best measure of speed of a machine, is the total time it takes one to do a task from go to whoa, including of course any crashes/freezes, or time spent 'finding' ones way around the OS dialogue boxes/intrusions, etc. and the sense of frustration, or lack thereof that engenders.

I'm still working on my iBook 300 MHz running OS 10.2, which makes it perfect for everyday surfing/mailing/word processing. Raw speed is fine for scientists, games and Photoshop people. For "normal" people however, todays hardware is more than overpowered and could be utilized more efficiently to make everybody happy.

Still, I can't wait until my new Dual 1.25 ships

[clarkgoble]

While the dual Xeon is a bit out of the "class" of any Mac I think the Athalon comparison is very fair. First off the Athalons are targeted towards regular consumers and not high end servers. Secondly the dual Athalon setup costs far less than the Mac. (I know - I have one in my office) And yes, it totally and absolutely blows away any Mac in terms of speed. On the downside you have to run Linux or XP on it.

When the 970's are out a dual system will be considerably faster than a dual 2400+ Athalon. (Assuming Apple releases duals - which they really ought if they can get the chip volume) On the downside by then there will be dual Athalon-64's which will be considerably faster than the dual 970. The speed difference will only be about 20% though.

Having said that though, being within 20% of the high end consumer system isn't anything to sneeze at.

The big question will be what Apple will be charging for all this. I'm *hoping* that they lower their margins slightly for better market penetration. Get that market share up. I think they can since OSX is a far better OS. Further by the time the 970's are out (September or October ideally) 10.3 should be out. Hopefully that will improve the few remaining flaws, such as the Finder.

[rm199]

I am confused as to why the dual Xeon is considered in a different class? I have priced one up on the Dell site in a totally quiet case with all the options available and it is cheaper than the same config powermac.

RM

[Mac Zealot]

Originally posted by Cipher13:

I can't stand Steve Jobs, nor Apple in general, and PC hardware is vastly superior to Mac hardware right now.

I'm feeling more and more like that every day.

The OS is cool, however. But this varies by opinion.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
While the dual Xeon is a bit out of the "class" of any Mac I think the Athalon comparison is very fair. First off the Athalons are targeted towards regular consumers and not high end servers. Secondly the dual Athalon setup costs far less than the Mac. (I know - I have one in my office) And yes, it totally and absolutely blows away any Mac in terms of speed. On the downside you have to run Linux or XP on it.

When the 970's are out a dual system will be considerably faster than a dual 2400+ Athalon. (Assuming Apple releases duals - which they really ought if they can get the chip volume) On the downside by then there will be dual Athalon-64's which will be considerably faster than the dual 970. The speed difference will only be about 20% though.

Having said that though, being within 20% of the high end consumer system isn't anything to sneeze at.

The big question will be what Apple will be charging for all this. I'm *hoping* that they lower their margins slightly for better market penetration. Get that market share up. I think they can since OSX is a far better OS. Further by the time the 970's are out (September or October ideally) 10.3 should be out. Hopefully that will improve the few remaining flaws, such as the Finder.

Two That's exactly what I'm hoping and looking forward to. I hope to have money for my next Mac purchase sometime in the middle of '04, probably before, so hopefully thing will be awesome by then.

Sure, 20% is nothing to sneeze at, but the next set of Athlons (64-bit) won't have the AltiVec that the 970 will, right? And is it Athlons or Athalons? (I see people write both ways all the time, and I thought it was Athlon, but I want to clarify.)

[ryju]

it's ATHLON

[MindFad]

Thanks.

[Mac Zealot]

Joe's mac planned for replacement on September 27, 2004-September 27, 2005.

*sigh*

[Un-Inferior]

Cipher-

your posts are confusing me. are we going schizophrenic? i would have to agree with your comment about the xeon. that's not even a desktop processor. perhaps it was put there as a point of reference.

as a pc and mac user, i really take the stuff in maximum pc with a grain of salt. just like i do with all the pc bashing found in that shitty 'mac design' magazine.

as far as 'athalon' i think people just write that as a funny alternative.

[benh57]

Originally posted by MindFad:

Sure, 20% is nothing to sneeze at, but the next set of Athlons (64-bit) won't have the AltiVec that the 970 will, right?

AMD may not even last long enough to release its 64-bit CPU, by some reports.

IBM WILL release the 970, this year. (and they aren't going broke)

[CubeBoy]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
The machines are in totally different classes.

The Xeon is an ultra-high-end workstation. Comparing it to the Athlon alone is ridiculous.

Dual Xeons are used in midrange workstation, the Itanium 2 is the processor in high-end workstations. The Dual Xeon workstation is also priced similarly to a high end G4 system. Your paying the same amount of money, so what if they are supposedly different "classes". If you insist on comparing desktops, the high end Pentium 4 and Athlon desktop systems also outperform the G4s, in many cases by a large margin.

Comparing the PowerMac to either of these is also stupid because the architectures are inherently different. Lest I mention the fact that they didn't even test the top range PowerMac?

Just because the architecture of two CPUs is different doesn't mean they can't be compared. That's what benchmarks are for. Most the benchmarks used in the test were fair cross-platform benchmarks. I mean come on, if the G4 runs Quake III slower than on a Xeon, thats not because your comparing apples and oranges, it's simply because the Xeon runs Quake III faster than a G4. Oh and, the top range PowerMac won't come close to beating these systems. The gap will certainly be a little less than the 1.25 ghz system but it will still be wide.

I know that the Athlon is faster. I have no doubt. Hell, I'm building one.

The Xeon system is faster than the Athlon system, nuff said.

The comments are immature, ignorant, and just... ugh. Cringe-worthy.

True enough, I'll agree with you on that.

The whole thing was just idiotic.

I don't doubt their results, never said I did; but the guys that did that review are rather dumb.

They tested similarly priced (except for the Athlon) dual processor machines and came out with the results. I fail to see how this is idiotic.

[Lateralus]

I have been a subscriber to MaximumPC for two years now. Mainly because it has only cost me $12 per year. The magazine is a good read... to an extent.

Anytime I see the words "Mac", "Apple", or "OS X" in an article as I skim through the pages, I know to skip the article entirely for one simple fact;

MaximumPC is one of the most anti-Mac mainstream magazines in existance.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by CubeBoy:
Dual Xeons are used in midrange workstation, the Itanium 2 is the processor in high-end workstations. The Dual Xeon workstation is also priced similarly to a high end G4 system. Your paying the same amount of money, so what if they are supposedly different "classes". If you insist on comparing desktops, the high end Pentium 4 and Athlon desktop systems also outperform the G4s, in many cases by a large margin.

High-end home workstations. I'm not talking corporate level here. I said 'workstation', not server.

Similarly to a high end G4? Geez, not in Australia. If true, how sad for Apple...

Just because the architecture of two CPUs is different doesn't mean they can't be compared. That's what benchmarks are for. Most the benchmarks used in the test were fair cross-platform benchmarks. I mean come on, if the G4 runs Quake III slower than on a Xeon, thats not because your comparing apples and oranges, it's simply because the Xeon runs Quake III faster than a G4. Oh and, the top range PowerMac won't come close to beating these systems. The gap will certainly be a little less than the 1.25 ghz system but it will still be wide.

I never said they were incomparable, but they have completely different target applications; the Xeons, anyway. Who the hell buys a dual Xeon rig to play Quake 3?

You talk as if I'm defending the Mac - I'm freaking NOT. I thought I made that clear.

The Xeon system is faster than the Athlon system, nuff said.

I know that. I said that myself. My comment was pertaining to the Athlon vs. the G4 - I'd already established that the Xeon would kill the other two.

True enough, I'll agree with you on that.

Yeah, nasty huh.

They tested similarly priced (except for the Athlon) dual processor machines and came out with the results. I fail to see how this is idiotic.

Similarly priced or not, it's idiotic. Price does not denote class, I'm sorry.

The results of this comparison were very clear before any machine was even booted.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Un-Inferior:
Cipher-

your posts are confusing me. are we going schizophrenic? i would have to agree with your comment about the xeon. that's not even a desktop processor. perhaps it was put there as a point of reference.

as a pc and mac user, i really take the stuff in maximum pc with a grain of salt. just like i do with all the pc bashing found in that shitty 'mac design' magazine.

as far as 'athalon' i think people just write that as a funny alternative.

Schizophrenic? Not last time we checked...

What's confusing you?

I'm not defending the Mac. I'm saying the comparison was silly.

[skipjack]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:

MaximumPC is one of the most anti-Mac mainstream magazines in existance.

Isn't it true that MaximumPC shares offices with and is published by the same people who give us MacAddict?

[DrBoar]

I think the Macintosh buyers can pay a resonable price addition for the mac advantages in OS and harware-software integration if the hardware have about the same performance as the PCs.

If we try the Intel AMD Motorola with a coctail of different distributed computing efforts like SETI, Fold@home, D2ol, RC-5 and other cross platform stuff like mp3 and video compression a picture will emerge. These are applicatiosn that really does not have any vested interest in making one platform better than an other other than they are more interested in optimizing large platforms like win32 than small like OS/2 and Mac.

A bad start bode for a bad ending. The G4 started with stalling for a year at 500 MHz while first AMD and then later also Intel reached 1 GHz. During the following 2-3 years Motorola has never reduced this gap if anything they seem to be loosing ground with a maximum clock speed of 1/3 of Intels far more likely than reaching 2/3 of Intel.

When the CPU baton was held by the B&W G3/450 made by IBM these towers were competetive with the P3 of the summer of 1999. Not only CPU wise but also bus design, HD and graphical card. The G4 era has been one of failures

1. The CPU, when it came dual CPUs was totaly useless as neither OS nor application supported the second CPU. Even now a midrange dual 1.25 can not kep up with a midrange single 2.6 GHz P4 in applications that has to be non SMP like some games.

2. The failure of implement CDRW instead of video player in a timely way

3. The ADC port, whey the heck a nonstandard port again? Almost as stupid as that video port on the NUBUS PPC that required one adaptor for Apple monitors and two adaptors in a row for PC monitors.

4. The gigabit port, we all pay for something that more than 99% of the users never use

5. Those inbuilt 2x10 W amplifers. I actually will build my own speakers and use them but most computer speakers has imbuilt amplifers.

So as long as we have G4s I expect the Mac to be whipped and that is why I amnot buying or upgrading any more.

The 970 die size and transistor count suggest that it could be manufactured at a far lower cost than the 64 bit CPUs from AMD and Intel. I can accept to buy a 1800 dollar Mac even if a 1500 dollar or even 1300 dollar PC has the same performance. But if I can fork out 3000 dollar for Mac and still get a slower computer than a 1300 dollar PC it relly look bad even if I love OS X.

My guess and hope is that one year from now the G4 is in the same position as the G3 is now, on its way out!

[k_munic]

using multi-processor machines for gaming quake, jedi etc. ???

HARHARHARHARHARHAR!!!!!!!!

this is not a "test", this is stupid!

i'm sorry to flame here, but to be serious: i'm definitely NOT interested in frame rates of any kind of egoshooter with such a machine! when we talk about "home user machines" (=imac) - ok, my lil son wants to play, he needs a play-machine (playstation, pentium blablabla); but - in all this "test" the question: how many frames does it get" is soooo boring!

i'm interested in real-world test: what kind of software is this machine concepted for? photoshop, fcp, quark etc - THAT'S interesting!

and speaking of professional usage: how much do you spend in time and money for maintainance for such a machine? and system?

sorry, but this HAD to be said ;-)

[Ken_F2]

High-end home workstations. I'm not talking corporate level here. I said 'workstation', not server. Similarly to a high end G4? Geez, not in Australia. If true, how sad for Apple...

Take a look right here. Xeon processors cost about a $100 more than their P4 desktop versions. For example, a Xeon 2.66GHz costs $367, compared to $260 for the P4 2.66. Search pricewatch.com for "dual E7505" to get a listing of the latest dual Xeon motherboards; you'll find they cost about $400.

So it will run you 2*$367 + $400 = $1133 for a two 2.66GHz Xeon processors and a dual Xeon motherboard with 533MHz system bus and dual channel DDR333 memory. Add the cost of a case, video card, hard drive, and memory, and there you've got your system. Of course, if you buy from the likes of Dell, you'll pay a substantial markup because these systems are workstations marketed towards corporations.

I should add though, that a dual Xeon system would be quite a waste for the average user, even if can be had for the cost of a dual 1.4 Mac. A P4 3.06 will run most games faster than a dual Xeon 2.66, as most current games don't take advantage of multiple processors.

[bradoesch]

Originally posted by skipjack:
Isn't it true that MaximumPC shares offices with and is published by the same people who give us MacAddict?

They do.

[Ken_F2]

Originally posted by skipjack:
Isn't it true that MaximumPC shares offices with and is published by the same people who give us MacAddict?

Originally posted by bradoesch:
They do.

Surprising they haven't killed each other yet...

[Eug]

What do you expect from MaximumPC. It's a gaming oriented mag. However, to those who ask, "Who buys a dual processor machine to run games?" Well, it seems like a lot of people on this board do. So if you're going to spend $$$$$ to buy a Mac with gaming in mind, the dual Xeon is perfectly valid as a comparison, esp. when you consider that the costs will be similar. OTOH, I think buying a Mac for gaming or any dual PC specifically for gaming is utterly stoopid. So I guess it depends on how you look at it. Also, they didn't just run gaming tests, to give them credit.

What they DIDN'T test was a 3 GHz P4, which would be a lot CHEAPER than a dual 1.25 G4. The 3 GHz P4 would blow the dual 1.25 G4 out of the water for most of these tests. In fact, it might even be faster than a dual Xeon clocked lower for many apps.

Anyways, for gaming I run a lowly Celeron 1.4 with Radeon 9100. The surprising part is that it actually runs UT2003 OK. Not great, but OK. I wouldn't be surprised if it ran as fast as a dual 1.25 G4 with Geforce4 Ti. (It certainly blows away a PowerBook G4 1 GHz with Radeon 9000 in QIII, but that's to be expected.)

One can only hope for the 970 to show up soon. It won't blow away the fastest P4s, but at least it will be in the same ballpark for a change.

[Simon]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
On the downside by then there will be dual Athalon-64's which will be considerably faster than the dual 970. The speed difference will only be about 20% though.

And I suppose you will provide us a URL as proof for those 20% percent so that we don't have to think you just pulled the number out of your rear...

[Un-Inferior]

Originally posted by CubeBoy:


The Xeon system is faster than the Athlon system, nuff said.

the Xeon system is much more expensive than the Athlon system, nuff said.

[Un-Inferior]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:

MaximumPC is one of the most anti-Mac mainstream magazines in existance.

no, if it were, they would be bashing macs in every issue, but for the most part they ignore the mac platform. take any typical mac magazine, and you're bound to see random pc bashings for no apparent reason. you think it's anti mac because they're just comparing mac products to pc products and they get their asses kicked. when apple comes out with a good product, max pc actually acknowledges it. i do belive one of the apple flat-screens got a 'kick ass' rating. so did the ipod.

[Un-Inferior]

Originally posted by k_munic:
using multi-processor machines for gaming quake, jedi etc. ???

HARHARHARHARHARHAR!!!!!!!!

this is not a "test", this is stupid!

i'm sorry to flame here, but to be serious: i'm definitely NOT interested in frame rates of any kind of egoshooter with such a machine! when we talk about "home user machines" (=imac) - ok, my lil son wants to play, he needs a play-machine (playstation, pentium blablabla); but - in all this "test" the question: how many frames does it get" is soooo boring!

i'm interested in real-world test: what kind of software is this machine concepted for? photoshop, fcp, quark etc - THAT'S interesting!

and speaking of professional usage: how much do you spend in time and money for maintainance for such a machine? and system?

sorry, but this HAD to be said ;-)

first of all, this is the POWERMAC forum. there's nothing wrong with the imac except the inflated price. video game fps is a pretty good indicator of how powerful a machine is. for the most part if i can get 300fps in quake 3, then it's gonna run photoshop, fcp, etc.. pretty darn good. and ESPECIALLY 3d apps, where the macs are falling behind. you're also ignoring the fact that many, if not most of us would like the option of playing a good 3d game on our mac.

[Ken_F2]

And I suppose you will provide us a URL as proof for those 20% percent so that we don't have to think you just pulled the number out of your rear...

At the Microprocessor Forum back in October, you may recall that IBM formerly announced the 970 and it's projected SPEC results. At the same event, AMD also announced more details for Hammer, including performance figures. The SPEC estimates announced by both companies are as follows:

IBM 970 (1.8 GHz): int 937, fp 1051
AMD Hammer(2.0 GHz): int 1202, fp 1170

And some results on current processors for reference:

P4 3.06: int 1085, fp 1092
P4 2.66: int 983, fp 1024
Athlon 2.25 GHz: int 898, fp 782

Thus, based on announced figures, the AMD Hammer @ 2.0Ghz is roughly 28% faster than the IBM 970 @ 1.8GHz in integer tasks, and 11% faster for floating point tasks. If you'd like the source at AMD's web site, see page 9 of this PDF file. After much delay, the first AMD Hammer systems begin shipping in April for servers, and September for desktops.

[MindFad]

Whoa, cool numbers. So that's what we'll get at 1.8GHz? Without AltiVec enhancements here and there? Plus the 970 is set to go up to 2GHz, right? Damn, Apple will really be in the good running with this chip, huh? Zowie.

[Ken_F2]

Mindfad,

That's right. Without Altivec, the 970 @ 1.8Ghz should offer comparable performance to a P4 2.80Ghz and Athlon 2800+ (2.25GHz). Obviously, in Altivec-optimized applications, it will perform better, and perhaps substantially better. And the 970 system architecture is far better for multiprocessing systems than the G4, given its 800-900MHz bus with point-to-point; Apple will almost certainly continue the trend of dual processor systems when the 970 arrives.

The 970 should go beyond 2.0GHz. How far it goes beyond 2.0GHz will probably depend on their timetable for a 970 successor that incorporates new technologies from the POWER5. I expect the 970 will hit somewhere in the range of 2.4GHz before it is replaced. If the 970 successor is delayed past early 2005, they could move to .09 micron production for the 970 and likely hit 3.2GHz or higher.

[Eug]

One thing I haven't been able to figure out...

The 970 is slated to be introduced at 1.4 to 1.8 GHz in its first iteration. So does that mean that come H2 2003 or H1 2004, we will have 1.4-1.6 GHz machines with 1.8 machines coming a few months later, and a new iteration of the chip with even higher speeds later? Or does it mean that the first batch of 970 PowerMacs will be 1.4-1.8 GHz right off the bat, with a new stepping of the chip a few months later to get us past the 2 GHz barrier?

[tgrundke]

Regardless all of our feelings about the beauty and aesthetics of Macs, it boils down to the same simple formula: half the performance, twice the price.

Apple has done a nice job correcting the price issue in the last round of PowerMac updates, but we are still sorely out of joint. Apple's achilles heel still is its price/performance ratio. Sure the computers are cool, but the number of people willing to pay for 'cool' is diminishing - not increasing, as witnessed by Apple's own numbers over the past 12 quarters.

When/if the 970 or the mythical G5 of some form or the other appears, Apple must make certain that it does not shield this processor in the "ludicrous" price range - which I where I think we're going to see it initially.

We all keep dreaming of this fanciful chip as saving Apple. And no doubt I hope it will give a good boost. I fear that Apple will fall back on old habits and develop this new chipset for a high-end workstation/server and then slowly work it down into the consumer/prosumer lineup.

Apple still has not learned the #1 lesson and rule of the technology industry: premium pricing kills.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by Ken_F2:
Mindfad,

That's right. Without Altivec, the 970 @ 1.8Ghz should offer comparable performance to a P4 2.80Ghz and Athlon 2800+ (2.25GHz). Obviously, in Altivec-optimized applications, it will perform better, and perhaps substantially better. And the 970 system architecture is far better for multiprocessing systems than the G4, given its 800-900MHz bus with point-to-point; Apple will almost certainly continue the trend of dual processor systems when the 970 arrives.

The 970 should go beyond 2.0GHz. How far it goes beyond 2.0GHz will probably depend on their timetable for a 970 successor that incorporates new technologies from the POWER5. I expect the 970 will hit somewhere in the range of 2.4GHz before it is replaced. If the 970 successor is delayed past early 2005, they could move to .09 micron production for the 970 and likely hit 3.2GHz or higher.

Very cool, dude. I'll have saved up enough money for a 970 system by next year, and they'll certainly be out by then if not this year (as some are predicting/hoping). Man, I can't wait for this chip.

And about the pricing, I agree partly. But I would certainly be willing to pay the current prices if they had 970s in them. This thing really needs to get here fast. Can't wait for Apple's turn around with this damn piece of silicon.

[dandbj]

For some Mac users, there is NO fair Mac/PC test. The whole point of Maximum PC is performance, pure and simple. They do not care about coolness and they don't care about price. Although, in this case, price points might be appropriate. They only care about what equipment is most powerful. They take the best of the best of what's available. The point is that Apple's best can't keep up with the best of what the PC has to offer. And on the PC side, AMD can't keep up with what Intel has to offer. If you want a fair performance test against the top of the line Mac, you need a mid to low end PC.

Mac users are happy to compare products like the 12" PB to subnotes on the PC side. They totally ignore the fact that the 12" PB, or any other Apple product, does not qualify as a subnote. Apple does not make one. If they did, it would be saddled with all the limitations of any other subnote. No, Mac users are not interested in a fair test, they are interest in a test where Apple equipment comes out ahead. Unfortunately, that may never happen in a "fair" test.

For those who need my creds, I supscribe to two Mac mags and I own a 12" i. I enjoy it but it has nothing to do with raw, nuber crunching performance.

[raferx]

I love my DP 1GHz, but I take delivery tomorrow of an Athlon XP2400 and if it is as snappy or snappier than my Dual in my everyday applications, then I might seriously consider selling my Mac and grabbing a dual XP2600 or better, and then still have enough leftover for a new Sony 21" CRT, AND an iPod. I love Apple, but the OS doesn't justify my sticking with them after 5 years of overpriced hardware... if the 970 is all it's cracked up to be, they can have some more of my hard earned $$$ back. OS X.2 WILL NOT prevent me from seeking a way to do my job faster. An application is an application, I am focused on nothing but applications, not OS'es.
Just my 2 cents.

[tgrundke]

Raferx hits upon a very salient and growing point: It's all about the applications and speed of execution.

Example: for offices - it doesn't matter if the computer runs MacOS, Windows 98, 2000, or XP - if MS Office runs acceptably the rest is superfluous. Most of these people turn on the PCs in the morning, fire up Word, Excel, and Outlook and never turn back.

In our IT consulting practice, *** none *** of our clients care one bit about the beauty and elegance of the computer. Sure, the iMac looks great and is made of quality components, but when I can pick up a Dell 4300S with a 17" screen, including Office XP for $997 - the iMac looks suddenly like an expensive vanity piece.

This is precisely the problem I've been running into. I've pressed very hard for offices to either switch to Macs or to keep the Macs they have, and the steamroller known as Dell keeps running us down left and right in about 80% of the cases.

In the home market, it's all about the games. As much as Apple puts on the face that they're pushing games - the best and greatest are still Wintel first (and usually only). Again, it's all about the software and the balls out hardware to drive it.

Originally posted by raferx:
I love my DP 1GHz, but I take delivery tomorrow of an Athlon XP2400 and if it is as snappy or snappier than my Dual in my everyday applications, then I might seriously consider selling my Mac and grabbing a dual XP2600 or better, and then still have enough leftover for a new Sony 21" CRT, AND an iPod. I love Apple, but the OS doesn't justify my sticking with them after 5 years of overpriced hardware... if the 970 is all it's cracked up to be, they can have some more of my hard earned $$$ back. OS X.2 WILL NOT prevent me from seeking a way to do my job faster. An application is an application, I am focused on nothing but applications, not OS'es.
Just my 2 cents.

[iChristopher]

In many small offices the Mac makes up for what it lacks in speed, with reliability and lower support costs. Moreover, most of these smaller offices/businesses don't come close to pushing their apps hard enough to benefit from a speed boost.

Originally posted by tgrundke:
Raferx hits upon a very salient and growing point: It's all about the applications and speed of execution.

Example: for offices - it doesn't matter if the computer runs MacOS, Windows 98, 2000, or XP - if MS Office runs acceptably the rest is superfluous. Most of these people turn on the PCs in the morning, fire up Word, Excel, and Outlook and never turn back.

In our IT consulting practice, *** none *** of our clients care one bit about the beauty and elegance of the computer. Sure, the iMac looks great and is made of quality components, but when I can pick up a Dell 4300S with a 17" screen, including Office XP for $997 - the iMac looks suddenly like an expensive vanity piece.

This is precisely the problem I've been running into. I've pressed very hard for offices to either switch to Macs or to keep the Macs they have, and the steamroller known as Dell keeps running us down left and right in about 80% of the cases.

In the home market, it's all about the games. As much as Apple puts on the face that they're pushing games - the best and greatest are still Wintel first (and usually only). Again, it's all about the software and the balls out hardware to drive it.

[Superchicken]

Anyone else think that author showed a bit of BIAS?
Not the program... I'm not saying it's inherintly wrong, but generally as a colum writer unless you're obviously taking a stand point there's no reason to show bias in writing that just shows you're not a good author.

I find it funny that someone would use the term so full of crap in a formal article no matter what the mag. Oh well it's today's culture, they probably get more subscribers this way.

Either way I'd say the comparision is fair, the Xeons cost huge amounts of cash... so do the power macs

Right now Apple should stop offering test units and just tell people, we're catering to the people who want the fastest macs not the fastest machines. Once we get our next processor then we'll give you a system to test, otherwise you know which is faster.

I just can't wait for the PPC 970... that'll be freakin sweet!

[pdot]

I didn't bother reading the previous posts, but from my experience with Maximum PC magazine, the magazine is absolute rubbish. I remember when I used to read them a few years ago, they had "how to build your own computer" every other issue. The rest of the articles seem to be written for a bunch of teenagers both in terms of content and quality.

[Ruthless]

I sent this e-mail off to Bare Feats some time ago and I think it might be a good post for this thread. I wonder how the benchmarks would look if things were tested like this:

----------
I was wondering if you had seen this link:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/diginews..._07_macpc.html

It seems to be causing some serious buzz on several forums. I�ve followed and used your site several times when comparing Mac hardware and have seen your Mac vs. PC benchmarks as well.

What I�m wondering is if you�ve ever tested a Mac vs. PC using some of the same testing methods you�ve used for the SDR vs. DDR Power Mac�s. In this I mean, I�m wondering how the Mac and PC would stack up if you factor in HEAVY multitasking by the system and OS. When you tested the Power Mac�s you ran tests like �Run filters in Photoshop, while rendering something in 4D, while doing a 1GB file copy to a file server (or second hard drive) -- all at the same time�.

The other complaint I hear about benchmarking the Mac vs. PC is that people say, �There really is NO NEED to benchmark a Mac and PC using the SAME software, as long as the end results are the same � you should use the software package that works the BEST for each platform�. I�m wondering how you feel about that. I think there�s some truth in that statement. Like a benchmark that would do a render to MPEG-2 using Adobe Premiere on the PC, but use Final Cut Pro on the Mac? No, it�s not the same software package, but the end result is the same � getting MPEG-2 video right (or use Cleaner 6, or whatever)?

The last point to this, is that I never really hear anyone (at least in benchmarking) talk about things like Applescript or Colorsync on the Mac. These are things are can really improve workflow on the Mac that IMO have no (at least built in) equal on the PC. Applescript alone can almost automate an entire workflow as seen right here: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/article...ime/index.html

Well, while I was thinking of it, I wanted to send this off, as I don�t e-mail web sites very often. I just figured if anyone could do this type of testing, it might be you. I would also like to clear up, that in the end the PC may still be the faster platform. I don�t think many people (in their right mind) would argue that (for the most part). I just wanted to send this out to someone who does this type of testing. Are the items listed above valid when benchmarking between platforms?
----------

[Ruthless]

Something else I wanted to mention. A couple of weeks ago I did some standard file copy tests using my Windows 2000 and XP workstations and my OS X based Macs.

I took 10 copies of the Windows XP Service Pack and placed them in a folder (each file is 133MB, total of 1.33GB). I then took that folder and made a copy of it to another location on the SAME hard drive and timed the results.

-PowerBook 800MHz (512MB RAM, 4200RPM Drive): 3 minutes 15 seconds.
-Dell Latitued Pentium III 1GHz (512MB RAM, 4200RPM Drive - Win 2000): 9 minutes 40 seconds.

- Power Mac Dual 1GHz (1GB RAM, 7200 RPM Drive): 1 minute 18 seconds.
- Dell Pentium 4 2.5GHz (512MB RAM, 7200 RPM Drive - WinXP): 3 minutes 10 seconds.

Funny huh? The Mac (both desktop and laptop based) were just about 3 times faster copying 1.33GB of data on it's own hard drive when compared to Wintel hardware of equal specs. Some of you will say "Well, the Wintel boxes must have been fragmented, so it ran slower". Maybe that's true - which just goes to show you how good NTFS is. HFS+ fragments too, why didn't that have a major impact on the Mac times? Or is it more than that? Is the 2000/XP kernel really just that bad with file I/O operations?

So again, let's compare things here. If I'm doing Photoshop work half day, and in between Photoshop work, I'm having to copy and move data and images around on my hard drive, which machine is now faster?

It also makes you ponder the question, in a COMPLETE workflow, which machine will be faster, given AppleScript, data transfer speeds, standard speed of apps, multitasking, etc...?

Maybe it's the PC, maybe it's the Mac..?

I know several people out there have both PC's and Mac's. If the hardware is close in terms of RAM and hard drives do your own tests and see if these numbers hold true for you...